Welcome to Gaia! ::

In danger of being beheaded at my second post in this guild: I am a christian, I have read the bible, and I don't feel homosexuality is a sin, and I don't belive God feels this way either. How could love possibly be taken as a sin?

Queen of Hearts: OFF WITH HER HEAD!

Okay, I'm just kidding but could you give me some proof to back up what you are saying? Homosexuality is a sin, here let me show you:

"22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Leviticus 18:22

"26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

Romans 1

Definition of "Homosexual" (Webster)
1) of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2) of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile (pathos) passions: for their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature
Note: (pathos) - lust

27) and likewise also 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.

That's clearly explicit, especially in Greek.

Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The rest of your post was dealt with before, seeing as how I already covered the varied meanings of pushin and Sinner has posted the portion of the thesis relevant to you point. Nonetheless...


I hate to sidetrack myself with a lesson on the proper use of the English language, but it seems that I have no other option.

explicit -adj- Fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent.

implicit -adj- Capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed.

Had Romans 1 said 'Homosexuality is a sin' then there would have been an explicit condemnation of same-sex relationships. As it stands, you are extrapolating that homosexuality is bad based on negative connotations attached to the word pathos and a very narrow translation of the term pushin, all while reading a passage who's primary focus is on loss of control and God's wrath and not on homosexuality. You are inferring from the passage that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that that is never explicitly stated therein. If Romans 1 does condemn homosexual relations then that condemnation is merely implied rather than stated outright, hence said condemnation would be implicit.

Look, Romans Chapter 1 is about speaking against paganism, homosexuality was known to the pagans in that time.

Thats why you take the text and put it together. Men with Men and women with women, committing lustful sins = unnatural.

Paul does say what is being done. (27) "burned in their lust one toward another men with men"

Done.

No, "burned in their lust one toward another men with men," not together. Any sexual desire (lust) is sinful except within the marriage union.

Why you say? Their actions are unnatural according to verse 26.