Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 571:
Line 571: − + − + + + + + + +
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 00:56, April 8, 2009
, 00:56, April 8, 2009→Pederasty
Malick comments, it is hardly also evident that Paul had other forms of homosexuality in mind when he refers in Rom. 1:26 to women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." Scroggs himself admits to being amazed that Paul refers to female homosexuality here, since it is never referred to in any Jewish and Greco-Roman discussions.[67] <ref>http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php</ref>
Malick comments, it is hardly also evident that Paul had other forms of homosexuality in mind when he refers in Rom. 1:26 to women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." Scroggs himself admits to being amazed that Paul refers to female homosexuality here, since it is never referred to in any Jewish and Greco-Roman discussions.[67] <ref>http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php</ref>
The intent of the attempt by Scroggs and others to restrict Romans 1 to a certain category is to allow for “loving monogamous” homosexual relationships, but it is incongruous that Paul would not make such a distinction here. Moreover, laws regarding forbidden sexual partners throughout the Bible are never based upon motive (only divorce once was). In the light of the abundant moral and covenantal material in the N.T, it is untenable is any supposition that a form of homosex could be sanctioned without the Bible making that evident, being clearly sanctioned by marriage and doctrinally stated, especially as such is all the more necessary due to homosex being condemned without any apparent conditions, and being intrinsically contrary to the heterosexual union instituted by God, and which is clearly and consistently but uniquely sanctioned by marriage between the male and female.
The intent of the attempt by Scroggs and others to restrict Romans 1 to a certain category is to allow for “loving monogamous” homosexual relationships, but it is incongruous that Paul would not make such a distinction here. Moreover, laws regarding forbidden sexual partners throughout the Bible are never based upon motive (only divorce once was). In the light of the abundant moral and covenantal material in the N.T, it is untenable is any supposition that a form of homosex could be sanctioned without the Bible making that evident, being clearly sanctioned by marriage and doctrinally stated, especially as such is all the more necessary due to homosex being condemned without any apparent conditions, and being intrinsically contrary to the heterosexual union instituted by God, and which is clearly and consistently but uniquely sanctioned by marriage between the male and female.
===Temple Prostitution Polemic===
Relative few hold to the idea that Paul was only referring to pagan temple sex in Romans 1, so that the condemnation of homosex therein could not be held as universal. In response, and in addition to other aspects, traditional writers point out that the rest of the iniquities vices listed (Romans 1:29-310 are not dependent on idolatry. And that consistent with the pro-homosex hermeneutic used in seeking to disallow the universality of Lv. 18:22; 20:13, all the iniquity Paul refers to in Romans 1 could also be disallowed, as well as any moral laws in which the example of idolatrous pagans is used as manifesting what not to do, and or are instituted within such a cultural context. (Ex. 20:1-17; 1Cor. 6:9-20; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:3; 1Thes. 4:3-5) And which position is manifestly untenable.
Jack Rogers,<ref>"Rogers, How I Changed My Mind on Homosexuality”</ref> provides a typical example of the pro-homosex contention here, to which Gagnon responds with 15 reasons for the traditional position.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoRogersResp2.pdf Bad Reasons for Changing One’s Mind]</ref>
==1Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10==
==1Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10==