03:58 am - Friday 22 August 2014
Advertisement

Why do some claim that the New Testament says nothing negative about homosexual acts? What about Romans 1:26ff?

By admin - Thu May 03, 5:57 am

Question by Aonghas Shrugged: Why do some claim that the New Testament says nothing negative about homosexual acts? What about Romans 1:26ff?
Indeed, again today I’ve read posts here on R&S in which it is claimed that lesbian sex is NEVER referenced in any way in the Bible. Are such pontifications simply ignorant of the Biblical texts OR are unusual hermeneutical procedures at work? One passage that comes to mind is:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Is there truly any doubt that this passage is about sexual topics? Any doubt that the passage is about same-gender desires? Any doubt that the outlook of the author towards such things is seriously NEGATIVE?

Apparently, based on posts I read again today on R&S, many would answer with “no”. Why? How?

There is obviously no surprise that many simply choose to ignore such a passage as having any kind of moral dictate relevant to their lives. Everybody has free will. But I’m baffled how such a passage can be understood in any way but the the epistle writer’s negative view of homosexual behaviors. Any explanations??

OPTIONAL POSTSCRIPT:

I realize that some are prone to resort to the old “It’s all about errors in all of the Bible translations” every time they wish to reject something stated in the Bible. But as naive as that can be for the more famous hapax legomenon [yes, humor intended], nobody can be gullible enough to assume that EVERY passage has been botched in translation. (Or can they?)

[I've spent my life and career in the field of Biblical linguistics, translation, and language reference tools so amateur cut-and-paste exegesis lessons from those with no fluency in Koine Greek are not going to impress me. I'm asking about the thought processes and interpretive viewpoint of those who claim that the NT has nothing to say about homosexual/lesbian acts (whether in reinforcing OT themes or specifically addressing the topics anew.) So I'm not looking for the 10 millionth R&S debate on gay rights, Prop 8, or who is most hateful. I'm asking specifically about the Bible hermeneutics of those who have expressed the aforementioned beliefs in relation to passages such as in Romans 1.]
——————————————————–

What is it about the word “homosexual” that leads to poor reading comprehension??

(Does anybody even TRY to address the actual question?)

Best answer:

Answer by Ziegfeld’s Solly NOR★CAL R&S
The whole point of that section of Romans is to equate passing judgement on homosexuals (et al) with homosexual behavior itself.

Judge not, lest yet be judged.

What do you think? Answer below!

7 Comments

Comments 1 - 7 of 7First« PrevNext »Last
  1. 0

    Gay was wrong in OT only.

  2. 0

    There can’t be any rules to grace. Otherwise, Grace is not grace. Romans may not mean what you think it means. Love your neighbor will override any rule you can come up with.

  3. 0

    Is it more natural to wash clothes by hand or with a washing machine? Is it more natural to walk or to drive a car? If it is not as natural to use a washing machine or to drive a car then why do Christians do it?

    The New Testament condemns promiscuity in my opinion, not homosexuality. Look at the verse where it says “…men filled with lust for one another.” What if is said, “…men filled with lust for women?” Then I guess you might say it was condemning heterosexuality? No. It is condemning the practice of having sex with many partners and indiscriminately. Just my opinion. I am a liberal Christian.

  4. 0

    Romans 1:21-23 “21 For 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. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” These are the verses that come just before where Paul says God gave up on them and they started to do “unnatural” things. Look at the people Paul is talking about. Paul says that these people KNEW God, but worshiped idols anyways. It is these people that God gave up on, not people who know and worship Him (even those who happen to be gay). This is not a two way street. First they reject God, then He gave up on them and allowed them to do things unnatural for them. NOT the other way around: ie. because someone is doing something that is unnatural to me does not mean they worship idols.

  5. 0

    I was recommended this website by means of my cousin. I’m no longer sure whether this put up is written via him as no one else recognise such targeted about my difficulty. You are wonderful! Thanks!

  6. 0

    Great Ideas… Number 3 is a great force

  7. 0

    Kim Roach is money

Comments 1 - 7 of 7First« PrevNext »Last

Leave a Reply

Turn on pictures to see the captcha *

Powered by Yahoo! Answers