Romans 1: 18-32

[KriLankaLadyLoo]

Does anyone understand the above passage? Know where I can find more information and an explanation that makes sense? My aunt mentioned it to me, and ever since then, I've been pondering it in an effort to figure it out. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. ;o]

Kri :D

[Daniel]

Does anyone understand the above passage? Know where I can find more information and an explanation that makes sense? My aunt mentioned it to me, and ever since then, I've been pondering it in an effort to figure it out. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. ;o]

Kri :D

You will find information about the clobber passages on the Resource page on this site. :)

Here is the link: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

I also encourage you to read John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)

[KriLankaLadyLoo]

:weee: Thank you!

[Gregory_de_Bois]

GCN (Gay Christian Network) has a great, free downloadable discussion between Tony Campolo and his wife Peggy, who take opposite sides on the issue (Peggy is pro-gay). It deals with this passage. There are many, many books that deal with it.

I think the best understanding/narrative that I have heard is that Paul is speaking about Christians (primarily straight ones at that) who have lapsed back into pagan worship, it details an assortment of practices, ending with what can best be described as a fertility cult orgy. Paul is condemning this as hedonistic and anti-Christian. However, he is in NO way condemning homosexuality as a broad category, nor loving, monogamous relationships between two people of the same gender. Moreover, this is not some revisionist interpretation, but fits in the time period very well (historical context).

[andrewlittle]

He's the resident theologian, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to Romans - he's made the most comprehensive and cogent arguments about it.

You could begin with this post: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=36794&postcount=12

and then do a search or even ask him directly to dialogue with you. He's patient, kind and a good teacher.

He's also older than the primordial soup, but you'll have to overlook that.

[u-dog]

He's the resident theologian, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to Romans - he's made the most comprehensive and cogent arguments about it.

You could begin with this post: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=36794&postcount=12

and then do a search or even ask him directly to dialogue with you. He's patient, kind and a good teacher.

He's also older than the primordial soup, but you'll have to overlook that.


Unlike Andy... who is older than DIRT !! Go ahead. Fire away. I'd be happy to discuss Romans with you.

[BruceChris]

Paul starts out by writing a polite greeting and introduction.

In verse 18 he seems to make it clear that what upsets him the most are those who suppress the truth, especially the truth about God, from others, and who refuse to honor and worship God themselves. Paul seems to be saying that they are guilty of idolatry.

In verse 24 & 25, he seems to be saying that "they", Gentiles, evidently , are so sinful, and so desirous of sin, that He, God, can't deal with it, and He won't deal with it.

He gave them over to their lusts, their dishonor, their impurities. In other words, God gave up on them.

He then ties the above rant in with every sin I've ever heard of. Obviously, this is NOT just about their sex lives.

He, Paul, then goes on to give all of us a lecture against judging others.

1. I don't worship a god who gives up on me, or on anybody.

2. Just what was Paul smoking? Obviously, he was on a VERY bad trip.

3. Yes, it's in the Bible, but it's NOT good theology.

Thoughts, U-dog?

Bruce Chris

[u-dog]

Bruce,

Remember the theological environment that Paul is operating in. Throughout his ministry he is involved in a controversy about how one can come to Christ. There is a party of Christians who maintain that Gentiles must become Jews before they can become Christians and that means circumcision and obedience to the fullness of Mosaic law. Paul opposes this belief vehemently and argues that people can come to Christ directly and that human salvation comes through trusting the Grace of God and not by works of the law.

When Paul writes to the Church in Rome this relationship between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians is the context to which he is writing. At the beginning of his letter he begins to lay a rhetorical trap for the Jewish Christians that will force them to see what they are doing.

He begins by mis-directing his readers attention to those horrible non-christian gentiles and all of the horrible things they do. He does this by repeating a well known list of vices. this list would have been familiar to his readers and would have been in use by other religions and philosophies as well (such as the Stoics). Once he has established how awful they are he takes another step. He argues that these sins/vices are not the real problem. They are a consequence of a deeper problem which is that these pagan gentiles are idolators (the worst of all possible sins from a Jewish standpoint) and that God has merely "given them over" to their vices because they are idolators (worshippers of other gods).

At this point Paul expects his Jewish Christian readers to calling for blood. then in the first verses of what we now call "chapter two" Paul turns the tables on them by saying in essence "You think they are bad? You are doing the same thing!" not the petty vices ... the idolatry. However, THEIR idolatry is an idolotry of the Law which leads people away from Christ

[BruceChris]

But somehow highlighting sex, and God giving up on us, or anyone, really seems to totally distract me from the eventual point of the argument.

Jesus' parables were vastly more transparent, and far simpler.

BC

[u-dog]

But somehow highlighting sex, and God giving up on us, or anyone, really seems to totally distract me from the eventual point of the argument.

Jesus' parables were vastly more transparent, and far simpler.

BC

Well "AMEN" to that. Jesus is way cooler than Paul. Paul would agree with that too.


We ALL allow ourselves to be distracted by sex. Paul is almost certainly pointing to certain PARTICULAR contemporary sexual practices (contemporary to the first century that is) that every one then would be familiar with and that all Christians of the time whether Gentile or Jew would agree were abhorrent. The problem is that WE don't know what those practices were. This means that the inclusion of this part of the argument probably STRENGTHENED the argument to his first century readers while they WEAKEN the argument for his 21st century readers.

For example the cult of Bacchus was popular in some circles in the first century. Initiation into the cult of Bacchus included the anal penetration of male AND female initiates by the high priest. This was an illegal religion at the time and disapproved of by lots of Romans. Is this what Paul is talking about? who knows. maybe. And that wasn't the only possibility.

[Daniel]

We ALL allow ourselves to be distracted by sex. Paul is almost certainly pointing to certain PARTICULAR contemporary sexual practices (contemporary to the first century that is) that every one then would be familiar with and that all Christians of the time whether Gentile or Jew would agree were abhorrent. The problem is that WE don't know what those practices were. This means that the inclusion of this part of the argument probably STRENGTHENED the argument to his first century readers while they WEAKEN the argument for his 21st century readers.

Weaken or strengthen, the thought that came to mind our our culture's fixation on unusual sexual practice like S & M - which can be viewed as being quite ritualistic- may have been on the order of what Paul may be been talking about.

In other words: kink.

Of course, we see sexuality very differently now. And understand that even 'kink' isn't necessarily a negative or destructive thing.

Our culture expression of sexuality owes a great deal to the enlightenment, and is often expressed in term of the words 'consenting adults'.

Paul's view? A very different one certainly. One might say a very moralistic view. Or in other words: sex negative. It's no wonder that some consider the man to be a self-loathing gay guy.