E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I appreciate all the posts following mine, but particularly Benadam’s, and of his, these three points:
Skeptics like to bring up the concept of alternative biblical lifestyles (polygamy, etc.) to support the notion that somehow the ancients lived in something of an open, free-love society. But while formal partnership structures developed over time, the natural order of things was considered an absolute, not something evolving. When it came to personal moral behavior, they considered themselves having few choices, those choices reflecting what was most obviously primal and elemental to them. What we call ‘nature’ (the physical world) was the avenue by which they knew God and through which God ‘spoke’ to them. So while the formal concept of natural law is a modern intellectual construct, it was an intuitive construct to the ancient Israelites, informing both their developing religious law and their language about God.
Later Jews of pre- and early Christiainity would distinguish themselves from Roman and Greek culture partly by their rejection of homosexuality. And as to the latter, both Roman and Greek cultures would have laughed at the concept of SSA being the causation for homosexuality. Rather, homosexuality was a chosen additional sexual behavior, accepted openly by those dominant cultures as rites of passage concurrent with heterosexual behavior and heterosexual ‘preference.’ IOW, they chose bisexual behavior and understood it as a choice and a ‘privilege.’
In academic scriptural discussions of which I’ve been a part, it’s always the apologists for modern homosexuality that like to reduce the significance of Sodom in a political attempt at modern ‘inclusion.’
The concept of hospitality, when discussing this passage, is introduced a lot in modern scriptural discussions. Yes, hospitality was a serious and even hallowed requirement in that culture. The best parallel I can think of is possibly patriotism in the modern world, which is also an assumed & essential trait of someone identifying with a particular nation- culture. But in both cases one has to do something that rises to the level of scandal and shock to earn significant punishment, rejection, exile, etc. Acts of omission, even in ancient culture, would not have by themselves been enough. As in other places in the OT, it is always acts of commission – direct repudiation, deliberate activity – that results in destruction or self-destruction. (Self-destruction is often described as destruction by God.)
Skeptics like to bring up the concept of alternative biblical lifestyles (polygamy, etc.) to support the notion that somehow the ancients lived in something of an open, free-love society. But while formal partnership structures developed over time, the natural order of things was considered an absolute, not something evolving. When it came to personal moral behavior, they considered themselves having few choices, those choices reflecting what was most obviously primal and elemental to them. What we call ‘nature’ (the physical world) was the avenue by which they knew God and through which God ‘spoke’ to them. So while the formal concept of natural law is a modern intellectual construct, it was an intuitive construct to the ancient Israelites, informing both their developing religious law and their language about God.
Later Jews of pre- and early Christiainity would distinguish themselves from Roman and Greek culture partly by their rejection of homosexuality. And as to the latter, both Roman and Greek cultures would have laughed at the concept of SSA being the causation for homosexuality. Rather, homosexuality was a chosen additional sexual behavior, accepted openly by those dominant cultures as rites of passage concurrent with heterosexual behavior and heterosexual ‘preference.’ IOW, they chose bisexual behavior and understood it as a choice and a ‘privilege.’
In academic scriptural discussions of which I’ve been a part, it’s always the apologists for modern homosexuality that like to reduce the significance of Sodom in a political attempt at modern ‘inclusion.’
This is apparent in the scientific studies. Homosexuality in nature is aberrant, and occurs by default and within certain circumstances. It is a reaction behavior and not “SSA.” (If only animals could laugh.)
Even temporary celibacy is quite freeing. If one arrives there by chance, whether in the interim or permanently (as a lay rather than as a religious), one should use it as an opportunity to experience the grace of universal Christian love. It really is a grace: you are given the gift of ‘seeing’ the universal, mystical Body of Christ in others, of extending your attachments and commitments widely. Ask for this grace if you have not experienced it and find yourself single.
