Pompeii's Murals and "Rethinking Romans"

Cinemachinery
Elite Member

@cinemachinery
Posts: 16,895
Likes: 17,062

Pompeii's Murals and "Rethinking Romans" Jul 17, 2017 19:20:45 GMT

Quote

Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 17, 2017 19:20:45 GMT

www.christiantoday.com/article/should.ancient.pornography.mean.we.re.interpret.st.pauls.teachings.on.gay.sex/110703.htm

'So engrained was this way of thinking and behaving that it became incorporated into religion. Drug and alcohol fuelled orgies featuring men sleeping with women, men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women and men were even classed as acts of worship.'

Chalke argues that against this backdrop, verses such as the often quoted Romans 1, verse 27 – 'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error' – should be 'understood to condemn the power-driven sexual hierarchy and abuse so common to Roman life, with the rest of the chapter condemning their sex-driven approach to worship and idolatry'.

He says: 'Every Christian believes God to be a God of love. It is no wonder that these abusive practices are condemned by inspired scripture. But, it is a disingenuous misreading of the text to conclude that what Paul describes in Romans 1 can be used to prevent people forming loving, faithful and nurturing relationships with people of the same sex.'

It's an interesting case to make... but it seems like a reach to me.

gadreel
Junior Member

@gadreel
Posts: 4,577
Likes: 1,088

Pompeii's Murals and "Rethinking Romans" Jul 17, 2017 19:33:22 GMT

Quote

Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 19:33:22 GMT

Jul 17, 2017 19:20:45 GMT Cinemachinery said:

www.christiantoday.com/article/should.ancient.pornography.mean.we.re.interpret.st.pauls.teachings.on.gay.sex/110703.htm

'So engrained was this way of thinking and behaving that it became incorporated into religion. Drug and alcohol fuelled orgies featuring men sleeping with women, men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women and men were even classed as acts of worship.'

Chalke argues that against this backdrop, verses such as the often quoted Romans 1, verse 27 – 'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error' – should be 'understood to condemn the power-driven sexual hierarchy and abuse so common to Roman life, with the rest of the chapter condemning their sex-driven approach to worship and idolatry'.

He says: 'Every Christian believes God to be a God of love. It is no wonder that these abusive practices are condemned by inspired scripture. But, it is a disingenuous misreading of the text to conclude that what Paul describes in Romans 1 can be used to prevent people forming loving, faithful and nurturing relationships with people of the same sex.'

It's an interesting case to make... but it seems like a reach to me.

It's not a reach at all, the passage he quotes is absolutely about religious practice.

I cannot reconcile a loving God with a God that would create a portion of humanity destined for Hell, for any reason.

I am writing this under appreciable mental strain.

Cinemachinery
Elite Member

@cinemachinery
Posts: 16,895
Likes: 17,062

Pompeii's Murals and "Rethinking Romans" Jul 17, 2017 19:45:05 GMT

Quote

Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 17, 2017 19:45:05 GMT

Jul 17, 2017 19:33:22 GMT gadreel said:

Jul 17, 2017 19:20:45 GMT Cinemachinery said:

www.christiantoday.com/article/should.ancient.pornography.mean.we.re.interpret.st.pauls.teachings.on.gay.sex/110703.htm

It's an interesting case to make... but it seems like a reach to me.

It's not a reach at all, the passage he quotes is absolutely about religious practice.

I cannot reconcile a loving God with a God that would create a portion of humanity destined for Hell, for any reason.

That gives you cause for consideration, but I just see it as another indicator that the "loving god" in question is more an update amalgam of moral druthers than what's actually depicted in the whole of the Bible. I'd love for it to be a "loving god" and it certainly seems to love certain groups, but then demands the obliteration of others. It seems like stretching to insist all those dark passages are simply the flaws in the authors. (Whereas I find the whole thing a reflection of the authors, given my non-believer outlook.)

Other cultures which lack "holy texts" featuring the empowered buggering the lower classes at will seem to feature the same general aversion codified into their cultures, some dealing with it better than others. The passages also lack of sort of context for this, no mention of "it's wrong because" or "it's OK when".

gadreel
Junior Member

@gadreel
Posts: 4,577
Likes: 1,088

Pompeii's Murals and "Rethinking Romans" Jul 17, 2017 20:32:22 GMT Cinemachinery likes this

Quote

Post by gadreel on Jul 17, 2017 20:32:22 GMT

Jul 17, 2017 19:45:05 GMT Cinemachinery said:

Jul 17, 2017 19:33:22 GMT gadreel said:

It's not a reach at all, the passage he quotes is absolutely about religious practice.

I cannot reconcile a loving God with a God that would create a portion of humanity destined for Hell, for any reason.

That gives you cause for consideration, but I just see it as another indicator that the "loving god" in question is more an update amalgam of moral druthers than what's actually depicted in the whole of the Bible. I'd love for it to be a "loving god" and it certainly seems to love certain groups, but then demands the obliteration of others. It seems like stretching to insist all those dark passages are simply the flaws in the authors. (Whereas I find the whole thing a reflection of the authors, given my non-believer outlook.)

Other cultures which lack "holy texts" featuring the empowered buggering the lower classes at will seem to feature the same general aversion codified into their cultures, some dealing with it better than others. The passages also lack of sort of context for this, no mention of "it's wrong because" or "it's OK when".

Well as witness the Roman situation, outside of a relationship, homosexuality is frequently a power play (when I say outside of a relationship, I mean really when one person is allegedly heterosexual).

As I have previously said, I think the Bible is a collection of books by various authors, some had altruistic motives others did not, often I find these moral laws are more about controlling the population rather than a command from God. One has to examine what is really being meant or attempted to provide to the reader when looking at a book from the bible, not to mention the corpus of texts that did not make it into the bible, and the texts written afterwards. Too many people treat Christianity as a religion that was founded and completed 2000 years ago, but the reality is that most Christians have progressed and even unknowingly accept ideas that doctrines that have been formulated at a later date.

Funnily there is a good argument for opposition to homosexuality in Christianity, but no one uses it.

One of the core basic spiritual teachings in the Christian stream is that the tension of opposites creates energy for growth (I am at work so I may have to evidence this later if required) , which can be interpreted as a relationship can only grow properly if the members of it are of opposite genders.

it is an idea I have been toying with, I am not sure it has real merit though.

I am writing this under appreciable mental strain.