| Clark Morris 2006-03-26, 3:55 am |
| On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:33:27 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b7e44$44222a08$45491d7a$12848@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
>Citations below are KJV unless otherwise stated.
>
>I have studied Romans 1:18ff in some significant depth, and I disagree with
>your conclusion that the tenor of this entire passage is an
>anti-homosexuality treatise.
>
>It is my opinion that Romans 1:18-22 describes the *cause* -- idolatry,
>after having heard the truth -- and the remainder of the chapter describes
>the consequences. While I have no question at all that Paul found
>homosexual activity abominable -- as would be expected of an observant Jew,
>based in particular on Leviticus 18 and 20 -- I do not hold that this is the
>focus of this part of the letter. *Paganism* is, particularly the engaging
>in *pagan* practices *after having heard and absorbed the Message.
I agree for this passage that you have the correct emphasis and that
homosexuality in this passage is the result of sin rather than the
sin. Whether Paul was correct in this view is another discussion.
>
>Moreover, it is not my experience that every homosexual person is "being
>filled with all unrighteousness, fornication [=TR "porneia", only in late
>manuscripts, not in any early ones], wickedness, covetousness, malice; full
>of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters
>of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
>to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural
>affection, implacable, unmerciful ..." (Romans 1:29-31). In all honesty,
>I've seen more than one of these characteristics in people who would claim
>on a stack of Bibles and on their grandmother's grave that they were devout
>and dutiful Christians and for whom neither homosexual thoughts nor actions
>are any part of their frame of reference.
I interpret this passage in Romans and the other two as giving a list
of sins of which homosexual practices were among them. This would
mean that gossips (NRSV translation if I recall correctly) are every
bit as sinful as those who engage in homosexual practices. My
contention is the latter have done far more harm to the church body
than those who engage in homosexual practices.
>
>Some scholars contend that the activities and the results described in this
>passage actually relate to pagan ritual temple homosexual prostitution. I
>think that's likely, given the focus on *pagan practices* at the beginning
>of this section, but I wouldn't state that as fact, or even entirely clear.
What is Paul's view on sex outside of marriage? If my understanding
of him believing it to be sinful is correct, and if my understanding
of Christ defining marriage as being between a man and a woman
(polygamy not allowed?) then Paul would believe the activity to be
sinful.
I am finally waking up and saving these threads because they are good
serious theological lay discussion from a number of points of view
(Christian of varying heritages as was as agnostic/atheist).
>
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
|