First and foremost I want to say. I want to learn something from this experience and hopefully offer some insight up. I'm not looking for a fight but rather a good debate.
Second I have nothing against homosexual people, but rather just as it is with any sin hate the sin not the sinner.
Last I'm going to say in advance I'll be discussing Romans and only Romans I don't want this to get overwhelmingly confusing and we end up hanging ourselves in the details.
Elf Lord Chiewn
This needs to be posted for reference.
Ananel
One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.
Really not much of an argument here. I do disagree with the first sentence, however thats not much of an issue. The Romans fear of loss of control Is fine as well however Romans thought that sins of passion were somehow lesser sins or even not a sin at all compared to sins of desire. So while the fear of loss of control is indeed understandable It's hardly as key a factor as it's made out to be as the Roman logic would simply dictate they they are not at fault for sins of passion. So more to the point If the loss of control isn't the key factor, something else is. aka what it's originally believed to refer to ,homosexuality.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Ananel
Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one’s innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was ‘on bottom.’ Such a position degrades the citizen’s status and was considered to be a horrible thing.
Romans 1:26 27
26 :Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 :In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
While the previous paragraph does address verse 26 it doesn't change the basic meaning of verse 27. Also I bring into question the actual translation of the word pushin or fusin offered up by Ananel.
fusiV,n {foo'-sis}
1) nature 1a) the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature 1a) as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse 1b) as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature 1b) birth, physical origin 1c) a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature 1d) the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of beasts
fusikoV,a {foo-see-kos'}
1) produced by nature, inborn 2) agreeable to nature 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature
fusikoV,a {foo-see-koce'}
1) produced by nature, inborn 2) agreeable to nature 3) governed by (the instincts of) nature 1) in a natural manner, by nature, under the guidance of nature: by the aid of the bodily senses
These are the most acurate and literal translations of the exact words used in the Bible that I could find. I think they offer up a slightly different translation that could refer to homosexuality even in a society that widly accepts it. While this is only my opinion and it's impossible to find out exactly how the word fusin or pushin was used, I urge you to look at the context in which the word is used to find the true meaning.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Ananel
Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that “shameful lusts” meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman’s understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.
Yes men had the shameful lust to ... play board games with each other!! oh the horror! how unclean! Seriously though, while the shameful lusts are not described when taken into context with the rest of the verses It's difficult to interpret it any other way. Also when using Ananel's definition of the word fusin then the verse becomes confusing and muddled saying that men gave up normal sexual relationships with men and women to have socially degrading sexual relationships with men only and vice versa for women. Also take into consideration that these are the desires of the people that God is giving them up to. Why would someone desire to give up, at least in their perspective, a natural relationship for the sake of a socially degrading one? I bring up a quote from the previous paragraph.
Ananel
Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood.
The point is while these verses can be interpreted a different way It makes more since for the verses to be referring to homosexual relationships.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Ananel
Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.
I once again say to look at things in context.
In conclusion we can't ever truly find a perfect answer through this debate. There are to many opinions, to many different translations, and too many shortcomings in our knowledge of the classics to find a perfect answer. If you want to pursue this then I suggest you drop the religion, drop what society has told you, drop the secular ideals, and pray. If you truly want an answer then simply go into your prayer closet and pray. If you believe the Bible then you believe that God is not one to apathetically sit on his throne in heaven but that God is waiting on you to come to Him to have a 1 on 1 relationship. I'll gladly answer any questions however right now I have a job to go to and some friends to meet afterward so It may be a day or two before I can respond. If you have a serious question and not a groundless claim then please feel free to PM me.
