SonOfFred

Whoa, son, that's quite a bit of presumption, and it's entirely beside the point.

You made a commitment, and you failed to keep it, deciding that your entertainment was more important than your word. Whether or not I have family (I do), friends (I do) or "socialization" (I do) has no bearing on that.

Some, yes, but it does serve a purpose, and by it, I keep a promise, and that's forgetting for the moment that I don't "pick on" Gastrich. I am only one of several who expose him, and that I am the most prominent to do so is simply a matter of what is going on currently.

Who says that I don't?

At least I don't send him emails and, when told to stop, respond with:

Most service providers have specific rules about the use of their email services. What did Yahoo have to say to you about "cause and effect?"

Illandur

At this point, I can say with some certainty that even those who agree with your beliefs would have a hard time finding your rebuttal anything but a failure thus far.

This has nothing to do with the debate. A debate is won with logic and reason, not preaching. You are going to have to learn that there are many people who know the bible well and are not christian.

Once again, there is no need to copy and paste bible passages. The majority of us here know the book quite well, thank you. Many of us have studied the bible at some point in life. If you believe that copying and pasting makes you look intelligent, you have much to learn.

I think we can take this as a formal cession. Or at least, as close to one as we will receive from John.

seebs

I'd be up for it after I'm done with Calebnostro, but Jobar's in line ahead of you.

I warn you, though: I have real lexicons, and will cite to them in preference to Strong's, which is sorta the bargain basement end of scholarly work on the Bible.

bobhope2112

It's a fair allowance to make. God does have a tendancy to suddenly pop in and try to kill you. You might want to keep some uncircumcised babies, and a swiss army knife, near at hand.

Thief of Time

*looks at clothes*
*looks at pizza in hand*
Uh...

CJD

While we await Pervy to emerge from the dank streets of Stockholm, I will follow up my two previous posts with a (what was intended to be brief) critique of his treatment of Romans 1.

First, we have seen 1) that the Leviticus passage does not support Pervy's willful dichotomy; that is, we cannot straight-jacket to'ebah into meaning "ceremonial uncleanliness" at the expense of "moral rebellion"; 2) the literal rendering of the text is ambiguous. Yet, I see no strong reason to suggest that it cannot be speaking of homosexuality. If it is, then these acts are condemned along with the others mentioned; 3) the Genesis 19 context is more ambiguous than the Leviticus passage, and thus cannot be used to support a condemnation of homosexuality. Yet, Pervy's exegesis does not preclude the notion that gang rape was not part of the action in this pericope. Still, the point would be the Sodomite's inhospitable ways (surely homosexual gang rape is inhospitable). If gang rape is in view, then homosexuality is implicitly condemned.

Okay, on to Romans 1.

Paul is not making a distinction between those who believe in God and those who don't. And I think it is safe to say that general idolatry is in view here (the worshiping of carved images, images that often took the shape of animals). All people, Paul is saying, know God exists, and the ones described in this passage, i.e., the 'nations' (Gentiles, pagans) by choice choose to not thank God (they choose instead to worship the created and not the Creator). As Romans 1:18 makes clear, this whole pericope (Rom. 1:18–3:20) is clearly about God's righteousness (i.e., faithfulness to his covenant), both in the sense that YHWH is judge over all mankind and in the covenantal sense with Israel. The gospel is the power of God for all who believe (1:16); this is so because God's wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness (v. 18; infidelity to the particular covenant with Israel, as well as the infidelity of the Gentiles with respect to honoring and thanking their creator). Not surprisingly, then, all sinned, and came short of the glory God intended for his creation (3:23).

The pericope is not merely about showing mankind's sinfulness [the "human plight"] (and certainly not by holding Gentiles to the standard of the Mosaic code — Paul no where implies Gentiles are judged by Moses) and their need for atonement; the pericope is about God's problem: the fact that he created humans to bear his divine image and the fact that he called the nation of Israel out to bear this image and lighten a dark world. Given the predicament of both Gentile rebellion and Israelite faithlessness, will God abandon the project? Indeed, has he failed the covenant? No, according to this section of Paul's writing, God will do what he always promised he would do.

All this to say, that Paul is indeed dealing with general, human rebelliousness in Romans 1:18ff. He, of course, moves on to Israelite faithlessness in chap. 2ff. But the point here is that Paul assumes — quite naturally — the Jewish view of sin in Romans 1: "sin" is "living-less-than-fully human," falling short of the glory God intended for humanity. Homosexuals, to be sure along with (ironically) gossips and like, are simply included in this list (1:29ff.). Note, too, that the list isn't intended to be exhaustive; it's just sweeping strokes at the kind of behaviors that crop up when people do not see fit to have true knowledge of God. To belabor the point, Paul isn't speaking about behaviors that are sin because they are the breaking of arbitrary divine rules; they are sin because they are sub-human or even non-human; they are deeds unfitting for humans to act out.

This doesn't fit the context. The "therefore" of 1:24 (διὸ) means that Paul is saying that since these people have chosen not give the Creator-God honor and thanks (that has been made generally available, vv. 21–23), God has in response given them over (παÏ?έδωκεν) to their most base passions. God is not seen 'forcing' anything upon anyone at this point; he is responding to their culpable rejection of the knowledge of himself.

Interestingly, παÏ?έδωκεν is used in the LXX as a stereotyped formula for YHWH's handing over the enemies of the Israelites in battle so that they may be defeated (e.g., Exod. 23:31; Deut. 7:23). The same is used when the role reversal occurs too (see Lev. 26:25; Josh. 7:7; Judg. 2:14; 6:1, etc.). Here in this letter, Paul alleges that these people are παÏ?έδωκεν to "uncleannes" (ἀκαθαÏ?σίαν). This is why I say above that they are given over to their most base passions; it includes, but is certainly not limited to, sexual immorality. The people are already neck-deep in sin (as it were), and thus Paul is not saying that "God has chosen to make" anyone anything; he is attempting to highlight what happens from God's purview. It is a tension to be held in balance (see Eph. 4:19, where the Gentiles "gave themselves up" [παÏ?έδωκαν]). It is, in short, an active handing over in response to an active rejection of him.

Now, these folks aren't handed over to be homosexual (as Pervy suggests); the homosexuality is the result of their being handed over. Once again, we see Paul the Jewish rabbi (not the Greek priest) presupposing a particular view of sin. Consider the Wisdom of Solomon: "The idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life" (4:12). Maybe insert "and God's retributive act" instead "and the invention of them" and we will get closer to Paul's intent here. Add to this Paul's use of "nature," which is to be understood in its Jewish context, and you simply have Paul writing that sexual immorality (in this case, homosexuality and lesbianism) is a violation of the creation mandate (aka "natural law") and thus contrary to God's will. There is no stronger condemnation than this.

This seems to be the weakest part of Pervy's argument to date, and I think if he's going to overturn what I've offered above, he's got his work cut out for him. It won't do to duck and cover under the notion that this pericope is not dealing with the 'nations' in general, for it clearly is, as Romans 1:18 shows: "For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of human beings …." In order for Paul to make his case in the following chapters (that the Messiah Jesus will do the judging — 2:16), he starts with the situation of a fallen world, so as to pave the way for 2:1 and the indictment against his fellow Israelites who would stand in judgment over Gentiles when they themselves are guilty of the similar offenses, which, again, leads us to see, not surprisingly, that all sinned, and came short of the glory God intended for his creation (3:23).

Best,

CJD

Angrillori

Well, he's right at least on the bit that your posts had all the earmarks of a last minute effort. I would add a "late night last minute effort" to the mix.

And he's also right that the last minute is the same length no matter how long the duration before it was.

So you must be claiming that those posts were not actually last minute works, they just had the quality and look of last minute works, but really represented the best you were capable of after much thought preparation and research.

If that's the case, then the other poster is right: I don't hate you, I pity you.

You do know that there's no sound on iidb? That, uhm, the "sound of your proclamation" here carries exactly 0 feet?

I dunno, it just seems really odd to talk about sound in a text-only format....

Illandur

CJD:

Thank you for picking up the slack. This is more along the lines of the debate I had hoped for in the first place. Bible John could stand to learn a thing or two about how we handle debates on these forums.

Philos Epikoureios

Suggestion: Get back to subject. Ignore ad hominems. I'd like to see the result of the debate on what I think is a serious issue.

Anyway, I think the debate probably cannot be won. Surely no one will agree to what "strongly" means. I think I'll just concentrate on whether it condemns it or not and forget the "strongly" part.

I'd like to see Bible John and Pervy to sum up their points and why they think their opponent's reasons are not valid.

Chris Weimer

Do you think we'll see a Pervy v. CJD (formal) debate?