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.
Correct. This "additional information" goes into detail about the homosexual lust and the behavior that resulted from it. So even if Paul had in mind heterosexual lust earlier in the passage, that is a separate matter, since in your own words you call this "additional information." Clearly here he is describing homosexual acts. Those acts, and the lust that drives them, are described as wrong.
The ad hominem tactic simply does not work--trying to make me look like the cruel, merciless person who goes around condemning innocent people. I'm not damning anyone. That's God's prerogative. I'm simply discussing what the text says about a particular topic, so stop judging. And I'm not misunderstanding scripture. It's as plain as day, unless the activity described in vv. 26-27 is not homosexual conduct. Then, and only then, could we say that this passage does not condemn homosexuality.
Correct. And these homosexual acts are declared to be wrong. If they are wrong for heterosexuals who turn to homosexuality, they are wrong. Sin is sin, regardless of the reason it is committed. Homosexual behavior is not okay for some but sinful for others. This leads to my next point:
Here you seem to be alluding to the modern idea that homosexuality is inborn and, therefore, perfectly natural to those who are born that way. Has this been actually, scientifically proven? Has some kind of special gene or DNA code been found that makes homosexuality just as natural and inevitable for some people as having two legs, two eyes, ten fingers, etc.?
Also, if this is influencing your interpretation of this text, let me say that it violates an important hermeneutical principle, namely, that the text cannot mean something for us today that it could not have meant to the original audience. Since the theory that some are born homosexuals and cannot help it is a modern idea, it's impossible that Paul could have had this in mind when he wrote this epistle. He wouldn't have thought of it, and the Romans he wrote to would not have interpreted the text that way.
Therefore, your first view above must be the correct one.
And the homosexual lust, and the conduct that arises from it, are clearly condemned.
Really? I don't remember seeing any internal evidence that makes it clear that the Roman Christians themselves had at one time been involved in pagan sexual rituals. Where does Paul even hint that the people he is writing to had ever done this? Yes, you quoted the text having to do with idolatry, but this does not say anything definitive about the Roman Christians themselves since he is referring to idolatrous practices that predated the Romans. He never says "You Romans did this" or anything similar. Furthermore, he makes no mention that there is any problem at all in the Roman church to which he is writing, as is his practice in other epistles in which he addressed a problem. There simply is no internal evidence to support your supposition. You are starting with a general historical fact--that pagan sex rituals took place in the Mediterranean--and then imposing that on the biblical text, jumping to the conclusion that the Roman Christians had done this as well. Your reasoning goes like this:
1. There were various pagan sex rituals going on in the Mediterranean.
2. Paul encountered these during his missionary journeys.
3. Rome was a part of this geographical area.
4. The Christians Paul wrote to were Romans.
5. Therefore, the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote had taken part in these pagan rituals and were lapsing back into that behavior.
The conclusion, 5, does not and cannot follow from the previous premises.
You are not letting the text speak for itself.
How many gay people have you asked this? I have many times, they have all known since a very young age that they were this way, some as young as 5. So you think a 5 year old woke up one day and decided to like boys instead of girls? Did you yourself wake up one day and decided which sex you were going to be with? I didnt. it was predermined, I have never had any remote thought of going the other way, no interest. Do you? Do you think they choose to be protested against and discriminated against? To be threatened, killed and beaten? Who in there right mind would choose that?
Correct. This "additional information" goes into detail about the homosexual lust and the behavior that resulted from it. So even if Paul had in mind heterosexual lust earlier in the passage, that is a separate matter
So both heterosexual and homosexual acts out of shameful lust are bad right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
The ad hominem tactic simply does not work--trying to make me look like the cruel, merciless person who goes around condemning innocent people.
Well it works for me. If you don't like to look like the cruel, merciless person who goes around condemning innocent people.. then don't. I could care less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
I'm not damning anyone.
Sure you are.. don't shy away from it now.. embrace it! I mean that is what you interpret the text to mean right? You should get your Reverend Phelps hat on and start your street preaching right? Why don't you? I mean wouldn't that help those people that YOU believe are wrong? I'm so confused..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
That's God's prerogative
If its God's prerogative then why do fundie Christians get their panties in a wad about Gay Marriage.. you know the mantra.. let God sort em' out in the end right? Why even have this discussion right now on this board??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
I'm simply discussing what the text says about a particular topic, so stop judging.
Oh.. so you don't like to be judged huh? Pot.. kettle is calling. Irony alert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
And I'm not misunderstanding scripture
We agree to disagree. I believe that two people who love each other are not in violation of God's law. You see it differently. People disagree.. big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
It's as plain as day, unless the activity described in vv. 26-27 is not homosexual conduct.
Asked and answered.. you just don't like my answer.. it happens..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Then, and only then, could we say that this passage does not condemn homosexuality.
No.. simply incorrect.. but carry on..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Correct. And these homosexual acts are declared to be wrong.
No the acts are wrong because of the shameful lust associated with it.. same as with the heterosexual acts..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
If they are wrong for heterosexuals who turn to homosexuality, they are wrong. Sin is sin, regardless of the reason it is committed. Homosexual behavior is not okay for some but sinful for others. This leads to my next point:
I assume you are speaking to my bullet 2. In that case I'm referring to going against nature as going against ones predetermined sexuality. Re-read what I said earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Here you seem to be alluding to the modern idea that homosexuality is inborn and, therefore, perfectly natural to those who are born that way.
I think it is probably nature and nurture honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Has this been actually, scientifically proven?
Not that I know of..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Has some kind of special gene or DNA code been found that makes homosexuality just as natural and inevitable for some people as having two legs, two eyes, ten fingers, etc.?
Nope. Is there a question in here somewhere?
When did you choose to be a heterosexual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Also, if this is influencing your interpretation of this text, let me say that it violates an important hermeneutical principle, namely, that the text cannot mean something for us today that it could not have meant to the original audience.
Whew.. glad I'm not violating an important hermeneutical principle then!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Since the theory that some are born homosexuals and cannot help it is a modern idea, it's impossible that Paul could have had this in mind when he wrote this epistle.
How do you know.. I thought what Paul wrote was from God.. surely God would know what he made.. not really a modern idea if God created it huh?
Oh wait.. unless you are saying that what Paul wrote wasn't from God. Lemme know.. I'm eagerly anticipating your response to that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
He wouldn't have thought of it, and the Romans he wrote to would not have interpreted the text that way.
Oh so you do think that what Paul wrote was of his own mind and not that of Gods. Hmmm.. interesting theory. So if it was from Paul then couldn't what he wrote be fallible.. gosh Jremy we've done gone down a slippery slope haven't we?? Oh goodness whatever shall we do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Therefore, your first view above must be the correct one..
Or not based on the hole you've dug for yourself..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
And the homosexual lust, and the conduct that arises from it, are clearly condemned.
Or not..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Really? I don't remember seeing any internal evidence that makes it clear that the Roman Christians themselves had at one time been involved in pagan sexual rituals. Where does Paul even hint that the people he is writing to had ever done this? Yes, you quoted the text having to do with idolatry, but this does not say anything definitive about the Roman Christians themselves since he is referring to idolatrous practices that predated the Romans. He never says "You Romans did this" or anything similar. Furthermore, he makes no mention that there is any problem at all in the Roman church to which he is writing, as is his practice in other epistles in which he addressed a problem. There simply is no internal evidence to support your supposition. You are starting with a general historical fact--that pagan sex rituals took place in the Mediterranean--and then imposing that on the biblical text, jumping to the conclusion that the Roman Christians had done this as well. Your reasoning goes like this:
1. There were various pagan sex rituals going on in the Mediterranean.
2. Paul encountered these during his missionary journeys.
3. Rome was a part of this geographical area.
4. The Christians Paul wrote to were Romans.
5. Therefore, the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote had taken part in these pagan rituals and were lapsing back into that behavior.
The conclusion, 5, does not and cannot follow from the previous premises.
You are not letting the text speak for itself.
Gosh you are right. We should totally throw out all historical accounts outside of the bible that we know from that time and focus only on the biblical text when drawing any conclusions about what Paul might be referencing. That makes total sense. I mean why take into account all that we know from historical facts concerning Shrine prostitution at that time.. that gets all messy and injects facts into your argument that you don't want. I can totally see from your point of view why you wouldn't want to expand the historical context to include what historical scholars know about that time. Job well done.
The Romans 1:26-27 reference, which has traditionally been interpreted to condemn general male and female homosexual behavior, therefore has no bearing on that issue. Rather, the point of Paul's reference is to evoke vivid and commonly held images of cultic practices and subsequently to condemn those practices which lead one to the worship of false gods.
So both heterosexual and homosexual acts out of shameful lust are bad right?
If by "lust" you mean excessive, sinful desire, then yes, absolutely.
Quote:
Well it works for me. If you don't like to look like the cruel, merciless person who goes around condemning innocent people.. then don't. I could care less.
I'm sorry to hear that you have no problem resorting to such tactics that don't aid the discussion at all.
And no, your reasoning about my damning people doesn't work. Discussing what a text says about a topic does not constitute actively damning people. Once again, your conclusion doesn't follow.
Quote:
Asked and answered.. you just don't like my answer.. it happens..
Based on eisegesis, starting with a general historical reference that you have not shown to have any direct connection to the Roman Christians themselves, then asserting that this historical data definitely applied to Paul's Roman audience. Your conclusion doesn't follow. But since you persist in this poor hermeneutical principle, there isn't much hope of convincing you. It seems your mind was made up before you even encountered the text, and then you sought to use a vague historical fact to impose an interpretation on it based on that, without coming up with internal evidence to go along with the external evidence, as vague and disconnected as it is.
Quote:
No the acts are wrong because of the shameful lust associated with it.. same as with the heterosexual acts..
That's contrary to what Paul wrote. He said that "God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." He's not talking about inner lust there but external behavior. He calls that behavior "what ought not to be done."
Quote:
Whew.. glad I'm not violating an important hermeneutical principle then!
I can see that this discussion is starting to get to you. Your comments once were civil but now are degenerating into sarcasm.
Quote:
How do you know.. I thought what Paul wrote was from God.. surely God would know what he made.. not really a modern idea if God created it huh?
Oh wait.. unless you are saying that what Paul wrote wasn't from God. Lemme know.. I'm eagerly anticipating your response to that!
No, it was from God, but God did not put Paul into a trance, distance him from all that he knew and wipe out his mind when he inspired him. Furthermore, it would make no sense for God to inspire Paul to write something to his audience that would require a future idea to understand correctly.
Quote:
Gosh you are right. We should totally throw out all historical accounts outside of the bible that we know from that time and focus only on the biblical text when drawing any conclusions about what Paul might be referencing.
No, I never said that. Once again, you're jumping the gun. I'm all for consulting historical information, but only when it is directly relevant to the text. You leap from a general historical fact to a specific conclusion about the Romans without establishing that the former leads to the latter, thus:
Historical Fact: Pagan sex orgies took place in the Mediterranean.
Conclusion: The Roman Christians once took part in them.
Historical Fact: Pagan sex orgies took place in the Mediterranean.
Conclusion: The Roman Christians were lapsing back into these practices.
Neither conclusion above can be reached by that general historical fact. You can say it all you want, but go ahead and run it by a college professor or anyone trained in logical argumentation, and they'll tell you it doesn't work out.
Now if there were some specific historical data to show that the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote had engaged in pagan rituals themselves in the past, and there were internal evidence to support this, then you'd have a valid point. But until you do, you're just doing eisegesis. You've made it painfully obvious.
I'm sorry to hear that you have no problem resorting to such tactics that don't aid the discussion at all.
Don't be. I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
And no, your reasoning about my damning people doesn't work. Discussing what a text says about a topic does not constitute actively damning people. Once again, your conclusion doesn't follow
Ok. Keep telling yourself that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
Based on eisegesis, starting with a general historical reference that you have not shown to have any direct connection to the Roman Christians themselves, then asserting that this historical data definitely applied to Paul's Roman audience
Your conclusion doesn't follow. But since you persist in this poor hermeneutical principle, there isn't much hope of convincing you.
Aghast.. all hope is lost. We are at a stalemate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
It seems your mind was made up before you even encountered the text, and then you sought to use a vague historical fact to impose an interpretation on it based on that, without coming up with internal evidence to go along with the external evidence, as vague and disconnected as it is.
What is the definition of "vague historical fact". That sounds deliciously deceiving no?
Your statement makes zero sense.
As to the rest..I'm leaving work early today to spend time with the fam and we seem to be going around in circles..
You = the scripture in question is about homosexuality
Me = the scripture in question is clearly about pagan rituals and false idols
Check out the link I posted. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't think the author had done a pretty good job.
Or don't check it out.. either way. I could care less. I do warn you.. the link has some "vague historical facts" presented..
Pain caused by judgemental you know whats
Mental illness due to depression caused by judgemental you know whats
If that were true the suffering should be dropping, and to the contrary the more it is accepted, the worse it gets. All of the rates are increasing, and this is the most accepted homo-sex has been in millenium.
Quote:
disease, AIDS? Well that is not a gay disease if you didnt know it, neither are STD's
Moral corruption, set by Judgemental you know whats
TB is the largest killer of Gays. Next to suicide.
If that were true the suffering should be dropping, and to the contrary the more it is accepted, the worse it gets. All of the rates are increasing, and this is the most accepted homo-sex has been in millenium.
TB is the largest killer of Gays. Next to suicide.
godspeed,
freedom
Gee I wonder why, all the hate you guys spread. if people would stop being hateful, we might not have these issues.
Suicide and the GLBT Community (http://www.soulforce.org/article/653 - broken link) I really like this comment:
"It is about engaging kids and making them feel that they really matter and their thoughts really matter," Dr. Kaplan said. "There is lots of homophobia these days, but those kids in a more accepting environment do a lot better than those kids seen as freaks."
How many gay people have you asked this? I have many times, they have all known since a very young age that they were this way, some as young as 5.
That's what they claim. Are you sure they're telling you the truth? Do they think they're telling you the truth but are mistaken? You and I cannot answer that because we cannot get inside their minds, which is why subjective claims don't mean a thing.
Quote:
So you think a 5 year old woke up one day and decided to like boys instead of girls?
I can't say it happens that fast, but I'm convinced from scripture that it is a personal choice.
Quote:
Did you yourself wake up one day and decided which sex you were going to be with? I didnt. it was predermined, I have never had any remote thought of going the other way, no interest. Do you?
It isn't predetermined. It is a choice. Besides, neither your past experience nor mine prove anything one way or the other. What matters is what the objective text--Scripture--has to say. It is too clear that God views it as a sin, which means it comes from a choice.
Quote:
Do you think they choose to be protested against and discriminated against? To be threatened, killed and beaten? Who in there right mind would choose that?
Nobody, I suppose. But that is getting off-topic. I know I don't choose to discriminate against them, threaten them, kill or beat them. But that doesn't prove that they're born that way.
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.
Your comments once were civil but now are degenerating into sarcasm.
