Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Roman 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Was Paul unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does? Did he assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them?
2007-01-27 08:36:48 · 19 answers · asked by Scarlet Crusader 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
GOD IS
It is saying that this is the results in the behavior of people who do not want to retain God in their knowledge. If they do not have God to respect, they have no respect, just lust. 2Tim.3:1-7; They can not learn the truth.
2007-01-27 08:52:12 · answer #1 · answered by jeni 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Harper Collins Study Bible (NRSV) has this to say about Romans 1:26-27 "Some think that Paul here condemns homosexual acts by heterosexual people (i.e. unnatural means "unnatural for them"); others that he condemns pederasty (sexual activity between adult men and boys). It is questionable whether Paul thought of homosexuality as a condition or a disposition (see also 1 Cor 6:9) The repetition of the word exchanged (see v. 25) is deliberate: moral confusion follows idolarty, as Jewish thought had long maintained (see Wis 14.12)"
I believe that Paul's true concern was idolarty. See, during this time such behavior would have only taken place outside of a relationship. Paul was a Jew and as a Jew followed Jewish law. He would have known the verse from Wisdom and there is a strong possibilty that it would have moved his thoughts and actions.
2007-01-27 08:49:15 · answer #2 · answered by Rev Mel 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He assumed that he was condemning homosexual prostitution as an act of worship in the temples of Diana in Syria. In context, this passage praises ancient paganism, but criticizes how it had degenerated into nothing more than a glorified prostitution ring. Worshipers were not typically homosexual, but they paid to engage in homosexual sex with the temple priests.
Considering the prominence of homosexuality in first century Roman culture, it is odd that Paul only mentions it in the context of pagan religious practices. Homosexuality is not addressed in any other context, which either means that it was not a controversy in the early church, or it was accepted. It is significant that the first homosexual marriage ritual is found in Byzantine liturgical texts.
2007-01-27 08:49:42 · answer #3 · answered by NONAME 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do like your concept, extraordinarily because the popular concept of sexual orientation is an noticeably new component, and must be so fully overseas to Paul. different arguments contain the question of what authority Paul has. As I comprehend it, he wasn't too keen on females's rights both and ought to in all likelihood have a heart attack if he knew that females are allowed to divorce, and artwork, and choose now to not be raped and all that. besides; he under no circumstances heard Jesus communicate even as he became alive, he only had an "journey" after Jesus' lack of life. Any random human being immediately ought to declare the same, and performance precisely as a lot authority as Paul IMO. having reported that, that is all coming from a Catholic-raised agnostic. the biggest concept I have on Romans is that because i'm no longer Christian, it shouldn't save on with to me. And it genuinely should not be compelled on me by ability of my secular authorities.
2016-10-16 04:43:43 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
back up to Romans 1:18-25 and see it is the consequence of denying the Creator even with abundant observable evidence.
Many today in the accomplishment of better understanding the mechanisms of life immediately equate such understanding with a license to annul the Creator's role.
They understand DNA so now they are also wise enough to conclude it could not have been designed. Simple pride and the blindness which results is punished by unnatural lusts.
2007-01-27 08:50:01 · answer #5 · answered by David P 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Peace!
What it means is this: homosexuality is the punishment for the sin of idolatry. There is no other way of interpreting that verse. One may contest it in the light of current research on homosexuality but that is how it should be interpreted. The Catholic Church does not explain the reason for homosexuality. It simply says that homosexuality is an abnormality.
2007-01-27 09:05:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I think the misunderstanding...Is yours if we do not follow God we are given over to our lust and sins...The choice to act on sin may well be yours but our nature is of sin and without God we act on this nature. Whether or not you are born with a particular nature to sin is irrelevant sin is sin and it does not become righteous simply because we have sinful natures. It is by faith n the atonement and the resurrection we can say we are new creatures...It is by his power we are changed. Perhaps you could help ne understand how the sin of homosexuality is the only sin of human nature and all other sin is somehow chosen? We are all sinners and it is very much our natures the nature of our flesh it is by the power of the atonement and resurrection that we can be made new and not on our own accord but only changed by the power of God.
2007-01-27 08:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by djmantx 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no doubt that God considers homosexuality a sin. However, it is no greater sin than any other. In the book of Revelations, God classifies lying as one of the more wicked sins, all liars being thrown into the lake of fire. I think Christians should stop throwing stones at other people's sins and worry about our own, which is all we are responsible for.
2007-01-27 08:48:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I guess you missed 1 Cor 10:23-24.
Furthermore, the Old Testament 613 commandments are part of the first covenant between God and Israel (and his descendents). Unless you have a Jewish mother or have converted to Judaism, these commandments are not binding to you.
Now to New Testament. If you are going to quote, make sure you quote all the verses: Roman 1:18-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:8-11 (all come from Gen 19:1-29).
Roman 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Paul in this verse presents the Judaic view of God and of man. It is not a prohibition, but an observation. It talks about man's lust, all of his lusts. These verses do not address sexual orientation but behavior, sinful behavior. Read in context, you really do not get what you claim.
1 Cor 6:9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Again behavior is presented which will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It tells you of a state before you were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is baptism of Holy Spirit.
1 Tim 1:8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
This address to Timothy about his behavior. Paul suggest to Timothy what he must do to present the gospel of God.
In all three quoted passages, man’s behavior is cited, behavior that is "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of God."
Answer: Paul was describing man's behavior. He wasn't making a restriction. If you want his restriction, see 1 Cor 10:23-24.
2007-01-27 12:30:35 · answer #9 · answered by J. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Ten Commandments requires death for being an unruly teenager, so I offer you these words: "Consider the source". Current MEDICAL evidence strongly supports being born with your sexual orientation, but there was no way of knowing that 2,000 years ago. Besides, who is going to run their life made by "wisdom" from the Bronze Age? Not me!
2007-01-27 08:46:00 · answer #10 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋