The Absence Of Evidence...

...Is not the evidence of absence!

In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).

At first I glanced at this, later I really read through and pondered it. Looking at this passage critically, as a student of history, I can't accept this at face value.

I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian,  and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.

But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?

It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).

The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.

This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.

The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.

Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.