Changes

===Temple Prostitution Polemic===

===Temple Prostitution Polemic===

Less common is the position that Paul was only referring to pagan temple sex in Romans 1, so that the condemnation of homosex therein would not be unconditional. In response, a traditional response is to point out that temple ceremonies themselves are not the issue in Romans 1, but idolatry, which is the mother of all sins, and which takes many forms. In addition, homosex is listed as one of many fruits of idolatry, (Romans 1:28-32) while other passages dealing with forbidden vices are similarly given against the backdrop of idolatry. (Ex. 20:1-17; 1Cor. 6:9-20; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:3; 1Thes. 4:3-5) Thus, consistent with the pro-homosex hermeneutic used in seeking to disallow the unconditional nature of the condemnation of homosex 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. But which position is understood as being untenable.

Less common is the position that Paul was only referring to pagan temple sex in Romans 1, so that the condemnation of homosex therein would not be unconditional. 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> In refuting the prohomosex polemic, it is pointed out that temple ceremonies themselves are not the issue in Romans 1, but idolatry, which is the mother of all sins, and which takes many forms. In addition, homosex is listed as one of many fruits of idolatry, (Romans 1:28-32) while other passages dealing with forbidden vices are similarly given against the backdrop of idolatry. (Ex. 20:1-17; 1Cor. 6:9-20; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:3; 1Thes. 4:3-5) Thus, consistent with the pro-homosex hermeneutic used in seeking to disallow the unconditional nature of the condemnation of homosex 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. But which position is understood as being 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>

 

While revisionists make various and contradictory attempts to disallow Romans 1 from being a general condemnation of male and female homosexual relations, traditionalists provide evidence that such prohomosex arguments are invalid. As Gagnon, concludes,  

 

"Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment."<ref>Gagnon, What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues</ref>

== See also ==

== See also ==