yes and no
Submitted by F.O.D. on April 14 1999 at 18:18:14
In reply to ourtstanding visual acuity, f.o.d. Submitted by scott on April 11 1999 at 22:17:38
|
Yes, I remember Ken's post. The point that the verse is addressed to idolators is fair enough, but it only brings us back to the same question that I asked: Is only some kind of idolatry-based homosexuality condemned? Or is any homosexual sex in general idolatrous of itself? If it is the latter, then homosexuality is seen to be one of the consequences of rejecting God that is found amongst humanity in general. I wrote to Jim up above some thoughts about the difference between sinful action as the symptom of the disease of Sin. Thinking of it this way you can see that a Christian could engage in homosexual sex, thereby exhibiting the symptoms of sin, while at the same time not being an idolator himself, ie saved from Sin. With regards to your idea that Paul only mentions homosexual lust because that was a problem particularly relevent to the Roman church, yes that would explain his omission of heterosexual lust. But I'm not sure how true it is, though. The rest of the letter doesn't seem to give enough details about them for us to be real conclusive. Maybe we could ask Heather, she seems to know more about the general background of the Roman world. But she's said previously that homosexuality, especially adult homosexuality, was held in ridicule by Romans. But then again, maybe Paul is in this way simply showing how affected he was by his cultural context, by reviling homosexuals along with all the other Roman citizens? But I hesitate to say that's the case, I don't like giving people the idea that I think you can do what you feel like. Well, it's a thought which is worth keeping in mind for further studies and contemplating. Fod |