tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post6657148927871318080..comments2024-03-08T18:04:37.943-08:00Comments on Paul and co-workers: Paul opposed Roman (bisexual) norms, not gay marriageRichard Fellowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-19925377378267211742017-06-26T06:14:42.724-07:002017-06-26T06:14:42.724-07:00Bob, I was with you up until your last sentence, w...Bob, I was with you up until your last sentence, which does not seem to follow from the rest. You assume that a same sex marriage involves "sex outside of marriage".Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-63639010730634346062017-06-26T00:04:25.290-07:002017-06-26T00:04:25.290-07:00Marriage in the minds of the ancients (Jew and Gen...Marriage in the minds of the ancients (Jew and Gentile) is preserved for husbands (men) and wives (women). Homosexual acts in any context (religious or romantic) are regarded as having nothing positive to do with family and home life. To Gentile thinkers, homosexual acts are considered morally acceptable for the elite freeman, although his submissive partners (whether willing or unwilling) are considered despicable creatures. To them, the marriage is still intact even if the husband has male sexual partners. But to Jewish thinkers such as Paul, all extramarital sexual acts (including male-to-male and female-to-female relationships) are sinful. Sex outside of marriage violates the very nature of men and women in God's creative purpose and adulterates marriage itself. God's judgment will come upon those involved. To suggest that a lifelong commitment between same-sex partners could, under any circumstances, be exempt from Paul's condemnations of sinful sexual activity outside of marriage is historically implausible.Bob Garringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03676809059736441318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-3004288488836895212016-12-26T17:14:05.997-08:002016-12-26T17:14:05.997-08:00Thanks for your thoughts/insights, Matt.Thanks for your thoughts/insights, Matt.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-56696118984806499362016-12-26T13:06:54.963-08:002016-12-26T13:06:54.963-08:00I am bisexual and learned about Rome, Greece and J...I am bisexual and learned about Rome, Greece and Japan and the brutal reality that our behavior seemed to culturally connect with brutality and evil is something I am glad to see someone note. Japan's society had weird views on women. They were seen as undesirable and dirty.<br /><br /> and India was harder to understand as the caste system and what that is all about was hard for me to fully click with. Egypt and Persia were neutral though. I think culturally there is something about my group in particular that makes us problematic. I know at age 36, when I was 15-16, I was raised Catholic and we were more or less associated with satanic rituals. I just know that for the most part, our system was cruel to people and I think they are too focused on using the homosexual behavior aspect to attach our historic realities. Bisexual rome murdered and tortured and castrated feminine men for fun. <br /><br />I don't personalize that now because it doesn't apply to modern times but there's something we often do when we get involved with issues that has nothing to do with us at all. They talk about "visibility" but they'd flip out and pull the modern tumblr insult "bisexuals like you are hetero by proxy" but Rome also treated heterosexuality as a mundane, and lower class because of it. It was very elitist. So we were historically oppressors and systemically and statistically, often have uneven demographics socially to match it. We don't really want to face ourselves and our issues. <br /><br />We have those fanatical LGBT bisexuals who are all LGBT all the time but we also have the cluster of us that think bisexuality should be approached as a 3rd and separate from the hetero/homosexual model as we really have little empathy for the way we play both sides. Heterosexual bisexuality is practiced as a kink like sadomasochism and stays in the bedroom for the most part and is pretty common. <br /><br />I was active in that community and I wrote a blog about bisexual denial and bisexual male homophobia as an entity and it's relation to heterosexual make homophobia and gay male internalized and overt homophobia. It was very valid. Especially considering right after Pulse shooting, the people planning to blow up pride parades that were arrested were all openly bisexual. And there were numerous hate crimes. And I was kicked off their site. Called delusional and self hating and I said, people are NOT going to forget this and at some point it will backfire.<br /><br />Thank you for this. Part of it is the arrogance of us putting our bully pulpit in the middle of a dispute with two groups that we by definition qualify as both gay and straight.<br /><br />Here's an article written in 1999 about radical bisexuality and it being a dangerous trait to politically allow to go off the charts. She notes a lot of things I see in our group festering and it's scary because I remember back then we didn't really care about gay or straight people at all. Not all of us are blind to reality. The separate but productive 3rd group approach is shouted down by the uppity activist types: http://www.angelfire.com/sd/eatrich/bi99.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-86153576131334583752016-08-27T19:25:06.396-07:002016-08-27T19:25:06.396-07:00James Neill writes, "I was not prepared to fi...James Neill writes, "I was not prepared to find that exclusive homosexuality accounted for a only small proportion of the varieties of homosexual customs and traditions reported by anthropologists and historians, and that in a great number of societies homosexuality was practiced by nearly all the males and females most of whom would move on to heterosexual marriage or were already married."Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-71235199206878927692016-08-25T22:49:29.252-07:002016-08-25T22:49:29.252-07:00I think readers will also be interested in Helen K...I think readers will also be interested in <a href="https://sharedconversations.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/pausanias-and-agathon-a-same-sex-relationship/" rel="nofollow">Helen King's piece on Pausanias and Agathon</a>. It is thoughtful and well researched.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-91941672763970021082015-05-15T09:26:52.843-07:002015-05-15T09:26:52.843-07:00I disagree with your discrediting those relationsh...I disagree with your discrediting those relationships simply for not being strictly Monogamous.<br />http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-is-sex-defined-in-bible.htmlKuudere-Kunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06537085979461349854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-6706649597362410522015-05-14T17:42:21.350-07:002015-05-14T17:42:21.350-07:00There is some truth to this way of looking at the ...There is some truth to this way of looking at the passage. But it's ultimately about Idolatry and Paganism.<br />http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.htmlKuudere-Kunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06537085979461349854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-67323598156220562702013-09-02T09:35:11.835-07:002013-09-02T09:35:11.835-07:00With all respect, Richard, I think you're maki...With all respect, Richard, I think you're making the same mistake you accuse your opponents with, " assum[ing] that [the Bible] must contain statements that directly address the burning issues of their own day." The idea that one's sexuality is a fixed point of one's genetics is a 20th-21st Century contention (which, I will point out, remains unproved) and had nothing to do with Paul's worldview. <br /><br />Paul's view on the subject is very succinctly given in Romans 1--homosexual sexual attraction is a symptom of a culture which rejects the truth of God. Paul views it as a spiritual condition rather than a physical one, and therefore one which requires a spiritual remedy.<br /><br />I agree that Paul was horrified by the abuse of slaves in the Roman world, sexually or otherwise, but to take that fact, project upon it a Leftist view of "egalitarianism," and strip out the fact that Paul was also still a Torah-observant "Pharisee of the Pharisees" in order to try to sidestep his very traditional, "Abrahamic" view of what constituted sexual immorality is also reading your preferred view back into the text.<br /><br />Criticisms of your conclusion aside, I appreciate your excellent work giving a clear window into the sexual issues of the 1st Century Roman world. I'll be adding extensively to my own notes from your work.<br /><br />Thank you, and shalom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-42759321330844381612012-01-03T20:27:08.985-08:002012-01-03T20:27:08.985-08:00Thanks, Xabier, Loren and Brian. Your point, Brian...Thanks, Xabier, Loren and Brian. Your point, Brian, is a fair one. My contention that "Paul would have been shocked" (at the denial of equal rights to gays) is admittedly an extrapolation and is based on my reading of his attitude to other disadvantaged groups (he gave equal rights to Gentiles in the church, and I have argued elsewhere on this blog that he was egalitarian on gender roles, and that he organized no less than three collections for the poor).Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-58353381488409683972012-01-03T11:45:01.355-08:002012-01-03T11:45:01.355-08:00I enjoyed it too, Richard! Thank you for begining ...I enjoyed it too, Richard! Thank you for begining my year with such a wonderfully written piece. Though I would have been a little bit more cautious toward the end of your essay. While I would agree that Paul probably wasn't anticipating future generations using his writings to deny a minority group it's rights, I don't think we can boldly proclaim that "he would have been shocked" as if we knew what Paul thought on the subject. The best conclusion would be that Paul was simpily critisizing a social norm and not homosexuality.Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-573280275184316882012-01-01T10:19:30.271-08:002012-01-01T10:19:30.271-08:00A very thorough case you've presented, Richard...A very thorough case you've presented, Richard; I'm impressed.<br /><br />Happy New Year to you.Loren Rosson IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-2558560490717334632011-12-25T02:13:04.537-08:002011-12-25T02:13:04.537-08:00Thank you for this excellent paper, Richard.
I wi...Thank you for this excellent paper, Richard.<br /><br />I wish you and all the followers of this blog a Merry Christmas and very soon I'll give you by mail a little present.<br /><br />Greetings from the European Green Capital 2012,<br /><br />XabierAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com