What are your opinions regarding Pauls claims to the acts of homosexuality? Do you agree/disagree?

Question

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (TNIV), Paul writes

"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p.5). It is also the only explicit reference in the Bible to female homosexuality.

However, a minority of more recent interpreters (eg., Boswell 1980, p.109f; Vasey 1995, p.131f) argue that Paul does not have in mind a system of natural laws (as this is an Enlightenment concept) [2] and that "Paul did not discuss gay persons, but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p.109).

What are your opinions?

Answer 1

Paul wrote according to the time he was born into. When Christianity was still a fledgling religion, it made sense to produce as many children as possible. It was also thought that sex for pleasure instead of producing children was a sin against God. In that sense, gay people were agianst God. But this theory did not take into account that sex contributes to a loving relationship, and that being gay is more than just having gay sex.

Answer 2

For starters, I think Paul was an ***. I'm not to keen on some of the things he says about women, either, so I don't personally see any reason to give him any kind of authority on such things. Also, I always had an issue with Paul as a "Jonny-come-lately". I could write a bunch of stuff, and it wouldn't be any different from Paul; he never saw the living Jesus.

Answer 3

The bible is a series of historical documents that have acquired a rather frightening hold over people's values of right or wrong. 'Mein kampf' is a historical document based on alot of historical sources, but that doesn't make it right! The point is put the document into context and you'll probably find it is an example of someone's belief in a society and culture from quite a long time ago. I would hope to find that mankind has moved on!

Answer 4

Come on, it's not like Paul ever actually knew any committed loving gay couples. His entire knowledge of gays was based on Old Testiment writings about temple prostitutes.
Paul never even met Jesus, except in a dream. If someone today claimed to have met Jesus in a dream we'd all call them crazy!

So many "so-called-Christians" aren't Christian at all, they're all "Paulists."

I really resent those kinds taking the "Christian" lable and twisting it into something that doesn't resemble anything that Jesus taught us.

Answer 5

I think we have a bunch of queer, clever professors trying to redefine a clear and very damning piece of scripture, purely for their own benefit. There was lots of homosexual activity of all types going on in Paul's time, particularly among the more "landed" Greek and Roman types, and he knew it when he saw it. That's what he's referring to, without doubt, so don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

Answer 6

Paul says that they "abandoned natural relations" for this, which is different.

For people who are attracted to the same sex, however, being in homosexual relationships isn't going against nature, it is natural--forcing themselves to be in heterosexual relationships (which some "Christian" groups attempt to force people to do), however...

Answer 7

Paul was an idiot back then and he still is. Using the bible as a framework for today's living is like trying to use a Commodore 64 and use the Internet.

Answer 8

Paul wrote according to his understanding at the time.

Answer 9

this is a piece of paper 2000 years old.

Answer 10

Could be both. Paul isn't my favorite apostle, he was anti female.
But just because he wrote it doesn't make it true.