Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, not really. The text quoted is all too clear. If you don't think so, I invite you to share your analysis of the text that will show us that it is not speaking against homosexuality.
Besides, the question is not whether people have twisted texts. We all know that happens, but that is not the issue. The real question is: What does the text itself say?
@bigthirsty: Thanks for the response. Here's the quote you referred to:
Quote:
Romans 1:26-27 What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian - broken link)
this guy says it better than I..
Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.
The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble.
When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God's children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul's time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.
Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.
For one thing, you didn't actually grapple with the text of Romans 1 itself. That was actually what I asked earlier. But let's look at your quote anyway. You point to the pagan culture of the time and its sexual immorality. But was Paul speaking only of these people when he wrote the text in Romans 1? I have my doubts about that for the following reasons:
The context of his discourse, which he is beginning here in Romans 1 and continues in chapter 2 and beyond, focuses on the sinfulness of all of humanity. The apostle is laying the groundwork for his explanation of God's plan of salvation by addressing universal guilt and sinfulness.
The idolatry that led to the sin of homosexuality is not limited to the first century but goes back to the time of creation: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."
Paul makes no mention at all of these pagan rites that he allegedly observed during his Mediterranean travels.
If this cultural/temporal interpretation were true, then it must apply also to all the sins listed at the end of the chapter, in vv. 29-31: "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." If Paul intended to teach that homosexuality was a sin only for the practitioners of pagan rituals of his day, for the reasons you've put forward, then to be consistent we would have to conclude that the apostle was actually teaching here that "envy, murder, strife, deceit" and so on were sins only for them, too. When we envy today, it is not sin; but when they did it, it was sin. How can that be?
Even if Paul were, in fact, saying that homosexuality was wrong just for those ancient pagans, this doesn't change the fact that the text frowns upon homosexuality and describes it as contrary both to nature and to God.
You point to the pagan culture of the time and its sexual immorality. But was Paul speaking only of these people when he wrote the text in Romans 1?
No.. you misread. Read it again. It speaks clearly to those Christians who had picked up their old Pagan habits (while being Christian) and had indulged themselves in sex thinking it honored God.
No.. you misread. Read it again. It speaks clearly to those Christians who had picked up their old Pagan habits (while being Christian) and had indulged themselves in sex thinking it honored God.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't really answer the points I brought up in my last post. The idolatry that Paul says led to homosexuality goes back to the time of creation, predating the time of the Roman Christians. Also, how do you reconcile your view with the broad context of Romans, in which Paul is definitely addressing the universal guilt of humanity? What about the other points I mentioned? I'm wondering why you haven't grappled with those.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't really answer the points I brought up in my last post. The idolatry that Paul says led to homosexuality goes back to the time of creation, predating the time of the Roman Christians. Also, how do you reconcile your view with the broad context of Romans, in which Paul is definitely addressing the universal guilt of humanity? What about the other points I mentioned? I'm wondering why you haven't grappled with those.
It doesn't answer the points because I was correcting your incorrect assumption you made concerning my post.
You incorrectly made a statement then followed it up with a discourse that I didn't read because of your incorrect assumption in the first place.
Now if you have another question you'd like me to answer I'll do my best but lets not inter-mix posts and and then wonder why I haven't "grappled" what you mentioned. Agreed?
It doesn't answer the points because I was correcting your incorrect assumption you made concerning my post.
You incorrectly made a statement then followed it up with a discourse that I didn't read because of your incorrect assumption in the first place.
Now if you have another question you'd like me to answer I'll do my best but lets not inter-mix posts and and then wonder why I haven't "grappled" what you mentioned. Agreed?
Let's rewind a bit: Your response was that Paul was describing only Christians in Rome who had taken part in pagan rituals involving sexual immorality and were now continuing in this debauchery. Correct? If so, by bringing up this historical information, it seems you were concluding that these people were not "lesbian or gay," to quote the words from the other thread. Is this a correct view of what you were saying?
Your response was that Paul was describing only Christians in Rome who had taken part in pagan rituals involving sexual immorality and were now continuing in this debauchery. Correct?
I believe so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
If so, by bringing up this historical information, it seems you were concluding that these people were not "lesbian or gay," to quote the words from the other thread. Is this a correct view of what you were saying?
I'm not sure I can say from the text whether or not they were homosexuals. I can say it sounds as if both heterosexual and homosexual debauchery was taking place. Does that mean they were homosexuals? No. It means they were doing what I assume they had always done. As such I can't say whether or not they were homosexuals.
My husbands family are Pagans. I have learned a lot from them. Seems the history (if you can call it that" from the Bible and their historical accounts passed down differ quite a bit. They get blamed for a lot of these "immoral" acts, but it makes me wonder if the ones commmitting the acts were just looking for a scapegoat and found an easy target to pass the blame too.
Let me just say.. for the record.. i have nothing against pagans.. in fact Saturlina is one of my favorite holidays.
Let me just say.. for the record.. i have nothing against pagans.. in fact Saturlina is one of my favorite holidays.
Cool. My husbands family is used to the references and names. Most of the "sins and immorality" were put on them and have little truth to it, just another case of lack of knowledge about them. Funny though how Christianity incorported many of the traditions of the Pagans into their own religion, must not have been all bad!
Your response was that Paul was describing only Christians in Rome who had taken part in pagan rituals involving sexual immorality and were now continuing in this debauchery. Correct?
I believe so.
Okay, so just to keep track of this: You believe that Paul was describing only Christians in Rome who had taken part in pagan rituals involving sexual immorality and were now continuing in this debauchery.
Quote:
I'm not sure I can say from the text whether or not they were homosexuals. I can say it sounds as if both heterosexual and homosexual debauchery was taking place.
Well, I can see nothing in the text that mentions heterosexual sin, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
Quote:
Does that mean they were homosexuals? No. It means they were doing what I assume they had always done. As such I can't say whether or not they were homosexuals.
make sense?
Continuing to keep track, you also claim that the passage is not referring to homosexuals.
So, to make sure I am not assuming anything about what you wrote and to bring it together, you believe:
In Romans 1, Paul was describing only Christians in Rome who had taken part in pagan rituals involving sexual immorality and were now continuing in this debauchery.
Paul is not referring to homosexuals in this passage.
Based on this, it turns out that my earlier bulleted points were not assuming something about what you wrote because some of them addressed this very thing. You believe that Paul is referring only to the Roman Christians, a small subset of humanity, but this is plainly contradicted by (to reiterate): Paul's mention of the sin of idolatry extending back to the time of creation, thus predating the time of the first century, and the broad context of his discourse, in which he addresses the universal guilt of all humanity.
#2 is just too much of a stretch to believe. Paul's description of the sin can't be seen as anything other than homosexual behavior: "[T]heir women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." If that is not describing homosexual conduct, what is it talking about?
If you want to make some distinction between "homosexuals" and "homosexual conduct" (which you seem to be doing, though I could be wrong), it makes no difference because Paul does not concern himself with these questions. The passage describes the behavior as wrong, opposed to God and contrary to nature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
