- This topic has 1 reply, 8 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following a suggestion made on a Catholic radio program, I looked up Romans 1 and found this passage Romans 1:24-32
[quote:1yuaj3f3] Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [/quote:1yuaj3f3]
What I was wondering is how people could dismiss this passage when deciding if God commended homosexual practices or not? Doesn’t this passage make it pretty clear that homosexual activity is not acceptable in God’s eyes?
Well, I’m not sure I see any objections to that. This part is especially powerful:
[quote:3duuwh1e]They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.[/quote:3duuwh1e]Just for clarification purposes the “they” and “them” that these passages are talking about are “those who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Cf. Romans 1:18).
And this is important to point out too:
[quote:3duuwh1e]Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.[/quote:3duuwh1e]To me, these words are plain as day what they mean and they seem to be speaking to present times.
I want to point out though that [color=darkred:3duuwh1e]these passages are [b:3duuwh1e]not[/b:3duuwh1e] condeming people for [b:3duuwh1e]being gay[/b:3duuwh1e][/color:3duuwh1e], but for homosexual relations.
The Catholic Church does [b:3duuwh1e]not[/b:3duuwh1e] teach that someone will go to hell just because he or she is gay.
A question I have is what is “homosexuality”? Is it being gay or is it having gay sexual relations? I’ve seen the term used both ways I’d like to know what you mean by “Homosexuality in the Bible”.
Actually, I used the term “homosexuality” for the precise reason that I have heard it used for both being homosexual and for homosexual relations and I am not sure which it means either. When I named the topic, I was thinking more about it being applied to homosexual relations.
However, I am also unclear about how society commonly defines “homosexuality.”
The Greek is, I believe, porneia. It references the act.
[quote:2ihk6shb]The Greek is, I believe, porneia. It references the act.[/quote:2ihk6shb]
In Romans? I’m looking it up and I can’t find it in these passages.
Sorry, I was thinking of something else entirely. However, porneia appears in verse 29. The KJV translates it as fornication. The NAB includes it as part of wickedness (poneria).
Romans uses the word chresis, which means to use (especially the sexual use of a woman).
Ok, here is verse 27 in the Greek:
[quote:21758xi0]ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.[/quote:21758xi0]
The word you are talking about in that sentence is [b:21758xi0]χρῆσιν[/b:21758xi0] which is 3rd person, plural, present, active, indicative of χρἀομαι (1st person, singular, present, active, indicative is always how a verb is referenced in Greek lexica)
What I have found is that it means use or employ (especially for sexual purposes). In that sentence it literally says that the men gave up “natural use of the female” (τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν ἐν τῇ).
So, just to support what you said and what Berrycat originally wrote, this passage does sound like it is referencing homosexuality or homosexual acts even though it does not flat out say “homosexuality” it might as well.
That all makes sense. Thank you.
” title=”Very Happy” />but,…
I am still really curious if the people that support gay “marriage” do not understand this or have never studied this part, or maybe ignore it?
The meaning of this scripture is very difficult to deny.
Food for thought…
I was reading one of the other forum discussions on political candidates and abortion and the death penalty and then I read this one. The quote below got me thinking.
[quote:1h1hze4f]Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.[/quote:1h1hze4f]
Unless I am totally misreading this it says here in this passage that not only the act of being homosexual is wrong but those who “practice such things deserve death”
Now I am not an advocate for the death penalty but doesn’t that imply that the bible supports the death penalty?. And as stated in the other forum, apparently the Pope has said that the death penalty is only acceptable in extreme cases. I have not been made aware of the Pope ever stating that homosexual acts are death penalty worthy, especially if murder is not even death penalty worthy.
I find it interesting that in just a single passage, one topic can be so securely justified and explained but yet bring rise to questions of another topic.
I would venture that the ‘death’ of verse 32 is of the “the wages of sin are death” variety. However, did not the Law proscribe death for men who lied with men as though with women?
[quote:1mykgcwe]I would venture that the ‘death’ of verse 32 is of the “the wages of sin are death” variety.[/quote:1mykgcwe]
Yes, this is what I was thinking.
It could be one of 2 things: either in that time period an actual, physical death was punishment for this crime (which I don’t think it was – look at the Greeks)
[b:1mykgcwe]–OR–[/b:1mykgcwe]
That passage refers to a spiritual death, meaning that the person who does those things will go to hell. So saying “‘the wages of sin are death’ variety” means that sin leads you to hell as opposed to eternal life (heaven).
I don’t think it’s referencing the death penalty.
Ok, I looked this up in my new copy of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary[/url:3bljvjoi] and it confirms that the passage to which we are referring [b:3bljvjoi]is[/b:3bljvjoi] dealing with homosexuality.
It also said the alternative interpretation to this verse by some other people is that it is dealing with birth control (where it talks about the women having unnatural relations), but the NJBC said that interpretation isn’t very valid nor solid enough based on the manuscripts.
I hope this helps!
” title=”Smile” />
Paul’s letter to the Roman Churches. It is considered to be the best and most concise compendium of Christian theology ever done by one man and published in one work. And as such, Paul goes to great lengths to lay out the ground work for his system of theology. Naturally, just as John does when he describes Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate, Paul begins by describing the state of humankind, from the creation to the incarnation. Paul’s Bible was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha. He, being a trained Pharisee in the law and Scriptures, would have been very familiar with the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, especially the 13th and 14th chapters which have close parallels to the 1st chapter of Romans. Keeping in mind that Paul is not far away from the consciousness of the real world he resides in, his basic understanding of the human condition is one of idolatry, and all human moral activity revolves around the worship of the gods. Paul is not writing about human beings, in their rebellion and wickedness, willfully and voluntarily converting themselves from heterosexuals into homosexuals; rather, he is talking about idolatrous ritual worship practices in the temples of the civilized world he knows only too well. He is most certainly not condemning an innate homosexual orientation that he could not have conceived. He probably would not have approved of “paiderastes,” but we do not have his thoughts on the subject. We don’t know what he would have thought about homosexuality as it is understood by most of the medical and psychological practitioners of today, other than those who are also evangelicals and wear permanent blinders.
[quote:vljo6nth]He is most certainly not condemning an innate homosexual orientation that he could not have conceived.[/quote:vljo6nth]
I think we’ve already discussed in this topic that we are defining homosexuality as gay sex, not just being gay.
” title=”Wink” />I will acknowledge that not the Bible nor the Catholic Church say having an innate homosexual orientation is bad, but they do explicitly say that homosexual sex is bad. In fact any sex outside of a procreative, loving marriage is not allowed.
So, in essence, there is nothing wrong with being gay. But being gay is not all about having sex, nor is being a heterosexual all about having sex. There is more to life than sex acts.
[quote:vljo6nth]He probably would not have approved of “paiderastes,” but we do not have his thoughts on the subject.[/quote:vljo6nth]
I’m assuming the word “paiderastes” has something to do with child molestation and no, I doubt Paul would have approved – neither does the Church. What’s your point?
NAMBLA is an association of pederasts. It means sodomite, especially a man who engages in anal sex with boys. So, if you know Chloe from Catholic Discussion, this is pretty much a remark about the sex scandal.
There are some bishops who are saying that the homosexual tendency itself is disordered and acquired. It is not necessarily sinful, but it is not given to them by God either. (Personally, I am not so sure that is correct.)
[quote:3btda9ms]NAMBLA is an association of pederasts. It means sodomite, especially a man who engages in anal sex with boys. So, if you know Chloe from Catholic Discussion, this is pretty much a remark about the sex scandal.[/quote:3btda9ms]
Not sure where this NAMBLA thing is coming from, but whatever.
” title=”Confused” />Anyway, yeah, I invited Chloe to come to this board and discuss the topic, but not post insensical drivel like what was happening on Catholic Discussion. So far, so good.
” title=”Smile” />[quote:3btda9ms]There are some bishops who are saying that the homosexual tendency itself is disordered and acquired. It is not necessarily sinful, but it is not given to them by God either. (Personally, I am not so sure that is correct.)[/quote:3btda9ms]
I’m not sure what I feel on the issue either. It’s possible people are born gay. I just don’t know enough about it to say anything.
But, like I said before. God still loves gay people, just not sex outside of a procreative, loving marriage.
I do a lot of research papers on NAMBLA. After this semester, I will have written four papers on the infamous Rind Study.
Ok, I just looked up what NAMBLA is and I can’t believe that is an actual group.
I thought this practice went away with the ancient Greeks.
[quote:1cmdubzm]”God still loves gay people, just not sex outside of a procreative, loving marriage.”[/quote:1cmdubzm]
Procreative? As in reproducing children?
Loving? Oh yes, forgive me, I forgot. Gays are incapable of a ‘loving’ relationship.
Please clear up ‘procreative’[/quote]
[quote:33kxxhn3][quote:33kxxhn3]”God still loves gay people, just not sex outside of a procreative, loving marriage.”[/quote:33kxxhn3]
Procreative? As in reproducing children?
Loving? Oh yes, forgive me, I forgot. Gays are incapable of a ‘loving’ relationship.
Please clear up ‘procreative'[/quote:33kxxhn3]I never said they were not capable of loving. I’m sure they are just like anyone else.
” title=”Smile” />And yes, procreative does mean reproducing children. Since that is one of the natural functions of sex. They are called the reproductive organs for a reason. A man cannot reproduce with a man and a woman cannot reproduce with a woman so there can be no such thing as same-sex marriages since marriage is the institution that brings forth new life.
” title=”Very Happy” />
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Wink” />
” title=”Confused” />
I thought this practice went away with the ancient Greeks.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.