The Romans 1 thread has nothing to do with homosexuals. It has to do with heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts. There is quite a difference but feel free to go further than Romans 1 and tell me what Paul says to everyone in Romans 2:1
Bisexual practice was common in Rome. You are not aware of this? Soldiers had songs about Julius Caesar's earlier days that spoke of such practices.
Pagan temples in Corinth and Ephesis had sexual forms of worship. It could be with a male prostitute,,, female,,, child.... and even animals were employed in the back of the temple for such purposes. It was all about worship.
Sexual amorality was the norm in much of Rome. That is one reason the Jews looked down upon Gentiles. And, until the transforming power was entered into the culture, Jews were forbidden to associate with Gentiles with God's justification. But, God put an end to that. For the Holy Spirit was now transforming souls everywhere as the Gospel spread.
Romans 1 speaks of the origin of homosexuality in mankind. It all began with a spiritual issue. Men were created heterosexual by God. Later on down the road the first homosexuals began with a Romans 1 experience. These were the inflammed uncontrollable types. These sought out and evangelized others actively. Later on, after this was introduced to mankind, it took on other forms. The origin was with the Romans 1, types.
Many in Rome experienced all kinds of sexual experience as an accepted part of their culture. They more or less viewed it as trying different types of food. They saw it on the same level. Sex was seen as eating and drinking to them. They did not give it much thought.
1 Corinthians 6:13 niv
"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
They did not have God's Law to guide them like the Jews did. They were essentially, culturally, sexually amoral. They saw the same comparison between casual sex, as one would see no wrong in eating a hamburger.
Roman soldiers of rank had a common practice of having young boys along in the field to care for, and to bear their armor. These boys also were to service the soldier's sexual needs. One scene in the famous movie Ben Hur was originally edited out when Roman sexuality was included. Those who studied ancient Roman culture understand what I am talking about.
There was no such thing as homosexuality as we know it today. The Romans were too promiscuious at that time in history to have such a thing come about. Homosexuality as we know it today (civil unions, etc), became that way because it had to evolve as the world was being transformed by the Church.
Monogamy as we know it today was not as well accepted back then by heterosexuals. Roman men married and it was expected for them to have sex outside of marriage. After all, their pagan worship involved sex with temple prostitutes. Love as we now know it was a revolutionary idea to them. For some, it was hard to except.
And? If homosexual marriage was to become blessed by God? The Bible would contain passages on how such a marriage should be conducted. For two reasons. The Jews who had the law, knew homosexual expression was forbidden by God with the penalty of death. So? If God were to have a turn around? It would have to begin with instructing the Jews who received God's Word on its newly formed acceptance.
It would also require several pages of Scripture for special guidance in how to conduct oneself in such a marriage. After all? The Bible had to instruct the much more stable heterosexuals in marriage. How much more the homosexual marriage would be in need of special instruction in God's Word? That is... If there were a change in Gods thinking in regards to such sexual expression.
You find any instructions?
Grace and
truth, GeneZ
