call me a plagiarist...
Submitted by scott on April 09 1999 at 23:58:06
In reply to Conversations Submitted by F.O.D. on April 09 1999 at 15:32:08
|
i saw this last verse discussed somewhere else, but i am not sure where. i happened toprint it out, so i will restate the authors opinions, which i happen to agree with. >The last issue, based on "the nature of things". Rom 1:27. Homosexual >relations are condemned by Paul, being seen as a rejection of natural >relations. rom 1:24-28 therefore god gave them over in the sinful desires of their heartts to sexual impurity for the degarding of their bodies with one another...[speaks about worshipping idols, instead of god]...god gave them over to shameful lusts. even their women exahcnged natural relations for unnatural ones....men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust...men committed indecent acts with other men...since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of god, he gave them over to a depraved mind. Paul does not (i believe, and the original author...) comdemn homosexual sex. rather, he condemns sexual impurity, lust, and forgetting god. the first part of this passage and the immediately preceding passages talk about how they knew god, but chose to worship idols. since we do not do that, one could argue that the rest of this passage applies not to us. he speaks of sexual impurity and degrading of bodies. i think this refers to merely satisfying our physical needs, i.e. lust instead of love. it does not condemn homosexual sex, but rather the inflaming of men with lust...which it condemns in equally strong language elsewhere for heterosexuals. Paul also speaks of how the romans "worshipped and served created things, rather than the creator." another point i will steal, is the possible mistranslation of greek words. apparently, the word we translate as homosexual more accurately means "cult prostitute." who would argue that we should avoid them? also, as ointed out elsewhere recently, the story of sodom and lot, refers not specifically to the homosexual sex, but to the violence and rape in those cities. lastly: leviticus 18:22 do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. taken in context, it appears to refer not to sexual relations, as that term is conspicuously absent, though the surrounding passages use that term. istead, it says "do not lie with." back then, women were considered property (children too, interestingly enough, so this might apply there...but i am weakening my own argument) and sex with a woman might be used to show dominance. sex with a man, might be okay, as long as it is loving and caring, and does not purpose to show dominance over him, as that would be dishonoring to him, another term used widely around this verse, but not in it. btw, did jesus not say to follow the spirit of the law, and not the letter? he should have stoned the adultress brought to him to judge, but instead he uttered those immortal words: let he who is without sin throw the first stone. this is my 62 cents worth... scott |