-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Romans 1 and Homosexuality
- Thread starter JesusFreak4545
- Start date
- Status
leecappella
<font size="3&quot ;>DO
This is the sin of those in Romans one:
1-Refused to acknowledge God
2-Refused to glorify God
3-Were not thankful towards God
4-Exchanged God for false gods (idols)
5-Were not accepting of God and His love
6-Did not like to be God conscious
Because of these things, it would seem that, according to some, God caused these people to do what they were doing. On the contrary, these people had made up in their minds that they were going to be this way towards God the Creator. Having already established this mindset, these people conjured up imaginations as to what God was really like. Denying the true God, they created images or idols to benefit them. That God 'gave them up' is not implying that He was the cause of their doings because they refused Him. 'Gave them up' is a phrase that means God yielded to them to do what their hearts had already decided to do after and during God's attempts to reconcile them to Him. The scriptures are clear on all of the pagan idol worship that went on and Paul was privy to it. If you have a friend who was doing something harmful to themselves and you tried to help them out and they seemed to ignore you, you would 'give them up' at some point. That is, you would yield to them and allow them to do what they willed and suffer the consequences later. Or better yet, if a parent had an 18+ old child and they no longer listened to them in regards to their own life, the parent would likely 'yield' to them to live their life as they wanted to. God loved them, but since He gave us free will, He is not going to force Himself on them or us. Love is not love when it is forced and those in romans one clearly had no intentions of developing a personal relationship with God.
If Paul had meant commited homosexual relationships, he would have said so specifically in context as well. There is nothing in the text that 100% implies commited relationships. In fact, the opposite seems true. There is no way Paul would be talking about homosexuals along with those who worshipped idols and be talking about two seperate groups of people. If he did, that would make homosexual who worship Christ and confess Christ a contradiction to Paul's theory. Paul was reminiscing in his mind of all he knew about pagan worship practices, which involved same sex practices, and he very well may have thought that anyone who engaged in such acts were idol worshippers, thus the association of the two in his letter. He obviously was not describing love in this letter. I'm sure you wouldn't describe your commited, loving relationship, if applicable, with the words used in Romans one: lustful and unclean. No mention of love is in the text. Note also that 'unclean' does not necessarily mean sin. After all, God is love and if you are of a people who deny God, then you deny love. Therefore, love is of no concern in the text. Paul speaks of those who have denied God and then he thereafter speaks of uncleaness of the bodies and then it's references to idols again. One has something to do with the other and pagan god/goddess sources seem to confirm Paul's mental flashback of such practices. The biblical references to temple prostitutes (harlots -female;sodomite -male) is scripture interpreting scripture. Look into biblical god/goddesses and see what went on in honor of idols. Ashtoreth, Molech, etc. It's there! The only thing I can say is that Paul had no clue that someone who loved God would be naturally instinctive towards the same sex. We know today because we are more advanced in information, unlike Paul's day and time. He likely thought of same sex practices one minute and immediately thought of idolatrous practices the next, associating the two.
Paul is but a man, like you and me. Surely today we know more about science, humanity, dna, genetics, etc. than he did back then. Men sleep with their wifes when the menstrual cycle is in affect, etc. (Prohibited in Leviticus). Paul likely thought all humans were heterosexual and any homosexual activity was a sign of an idolator since those who worshipped idols engaged in same sex acts (not love) for worship/gain purposes. It should also be noted that idol worshippers who conquered their enemies 'sodomized' them after battle to show their domination and to show that their god was greater than the enemy's god or God Himself. It is funny how some chrisitians take what Paul says as equal to what God thinks. Women would have to be silent in church and ask questions only of their husbands at home if that were the case! That is, if one does not consider the context Pauls says, "does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair" (paraphrase). What is that? Is it against nature or what? What does 'nature' mean there? Study Paul's other 'nature' references in the bible and define them according to Paul's language, not our (english).
It does seem to suggest that those who partake in same sex acts are such who deny God, but I attend a church with a lot of homosexual persons who worship God, praise God, and in whom God's spirit is felt. Attend one such church and decide for yourself which is true: The assumption that a homosexual is such due to his/her denial of God or God is punishing them for their denial and the punishment is the state they are in OR that Paul, though a man of God, is limited in his humanity as we all are. "Nature" and "natural" are terms used to describe that which is naturally instinctive, in the context. Either Paul thinks all humans are naturally instinctive towards opposite sex relationships or he is unaware that what is natural for one is not necessarily a shared instinct by others. This is one example of what we know today and what he may not have known then. Also, consider Paul's usage of 'nature' in other bible texts. He says God acted contrary to nature when He grafted the Gentiles in with the Jews (Romans 11:24). Did God act in an immoral way if 'against nature' is a moral phrase?
In Christ,
leecappella
1-Refused to acknowledge God
2-Refused to glorify God
3-Were not thankful towards God
4-Exchanged God for false gods (idols)
5-Were not accepting of God and His love
6-Did not like to be God conscious
Because of these things, it would seem that, according to some, God caused these people to do what they were doing. On the contrary, these people had made up in their minds that they were going to be this way towards God the Creator. Having already established this mindset, these people conjured up imaginations as to what God was really like. Denying the true God, they created images or idols to benefit them. That God 'gave them up' is not implying that He was the cause of their doings because they refused Him. 'Gave them up' is a phrase that means God yielded to them to do what their hearts had already decided to do after and during God's attempts to reconcile them to Him. The scriptures are clear on all of the pagan idol worship that went on and Paul was privy to it. If you have a friend who was doing something harmful to themselves and you tried to help them out and they seemed to ignore you, you would 'give them up' at some point. That is, you would yield to them and allow them to do what they willed and suffer the consequences later. Or better yet, if a parent had an 18+ old child and they no longer listened to them in regards to their own life, the parent would likely 'yield' to them to live their life as they wanted to. God loved them, but since He gave us free will, He is not going to force Himself on them or us. Love is not love when it is forced and those in romans one clearly had no intentions of developing a personal relationship with God.
If Paul had meant commited homosexual relationships, he would have said so specifically in context as well. There is nothing in the text that 100% implies commited relationships. In fact, the opposite seems true. There is no way Paul would be talking about homosexuals along with those who worshipped idols and be talking about two seperate groups of people. If he did, that would make homosexual who worship Christ and confess Christ a contradiction to Paul's theory. Paul was reminiscing in his mind of all he knew about pagan worship practices, which involved same sex practices, and he very well may have thought that anyone who engaged in such acts were idol worshippers, thus the association of the two in his letter. He obviously was not describing love in this letter. I'm sure you wouldn't describe your commited, loving relationship, if applicable, with the words used in Romans one: lustful and unclean. No mention of love is in the text. Note also that 'unclean' does not necessarily mean sin. After all, God is love and if you are of a people who deny God, then you deny love. Therefore, love is of no concern in the text. Paul speaks of those who have denied God and then he thereafter speaks of uncleaness of the bodies and then it's references to idols again. One has something to do with the other and pagan god/goddess sources seem to confirm Paul's mental flashback of such practices. The biblical references to temple prostitutes (harlots -female;sodomite -male) is scripture interpreting scripture. Look into biblical god/goddesses and see what went on in honor of idols. Ashtoreth, Molech, etc. It's there! The only thing I can say is that Paul had no clue that someone who loved God would be naturally instinctive towards the same sex. We know today because we are more advanced in information, unlike Paul's day and time. He likely thought of same sex practices one minute and immediately thought of idolatrous practices the next, associating the two.
Paul is but a man, like you and me. Surely today we know more about science, humanity, dna, genetics, etc. than he did back then. Men sleep with their wifes when the menstrual cycle is in affect, etc. (Prohibited in Leviticus). Paul likely thought all humans were heterosexual and any homosexual activity was a sign of an idolator since those who worshipped idols engaged in same sex acts (not love) for worship/gain purposes. It should also be noted that idol worshippers who conquered their enemies 'sodomized' them after battle to show their domination and to show that their god was greater than the enemy's god or God Himself. It is funny how some chrisitians take what Paul says as equal to what God thinks. Women would have to be silent in church and ask questions only of their husbands at home if that were the case! That is, if one does not consider the context Pauls says, "does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair" (paraphrase). What is that? Is it against nature or what? What does 'nature' mean there? Study Paul's other 'nature' references in the bible and define them according to Paul's language, not our (english).
It does seem to suggest that those who partake in same sex acts are such who deny God, but I attend a church with a lot of homosexual persons who worship God, praise God, and in whom God's spirit is felt. Attend one such church and decide for yourself which is true: The assumption that a homosexual is such due to his/her denial of God or God is punishing them for their denial and the punishment is the state they are in OR that Paul, though a man of God, is limited in his humanity as we all are. "Nature" and "natural" are terms used to describe that which is naturally instinctive, in the context. Either Paul thinks all humans are naturally instinctive towards opposite sex relationships or he is unaware that what is natural for one is not necessarily a shared instinct by others. This is one example of what we know today and what he may not have known then. Also, consider Paul's usage of 'nature' in other bible texts. He says God acted contrary to nature when He grafted the Gentiles in with the Jews (Romans 11:24). Did God act in an immoral way if 'against nature' is a moral phrase?
In Christ,
leecappella
Upvote
0
Erm... Just like to point out that in Christain monestries of times pasted, homosexual behaviour has been noted and accepted by the church. Don't just blame the romans.
Also I would like to point out that if you take the bible to literaly at times then you will also find it allows peadophilla, which I don't think god would allow.
Also I would like to point out that if you take the bible to literaly at times then you will also find it allows peadophilla, which I don't think god would allow.
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I do not intend to offend here. I was taught that sin is sin, one just like the other. I was taught that while we are not perfect we will sin but I was also taught that we are not to do so willingly. So with that said, some of the conversation dealing with sexual sin confuses me. Have we sorted this sin from the rest so as not to offend anyone?
Help me understand something. Murder is a sin, forgiven ofcourse if one repents. Could we agree on that? Or could they not repent and turn from murder and still be spirit filled Christians? Is there some difference (murder or any other sin) what am I am missing?
Help me understand something. Murder is a sin, forgiven ofcourse if one repents. Could we agree on that? Or could they not repent and turn from murder and still be spirit filled Christians? Is there some difference (murder or any other sin) what am I am missing?
Upvote
0
Extirpated Wildlife
Wanted: Room to Roam
As a non-Christian sports radio station host says from time to time on the air with his other hosts, "The privates ruin this world". The love to here wacky stories about people and their privates. They laugh and giggle at these stories and typically end up say that phrase. These being some people who love looking at women on the air.
So, this isn't just a Christian thought.
So, this isn't just a Christian thought.
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well, if the discussion was going to be about Romans1 from a reformed prespective then I assume it's ok. If it goes to GA it's just another one like all the others. The comments made so far coming from the worlds prespective do not fit the discussion, I agree with that. If that's the trend then it should be closed, we have enough threads on this subject.
Perhaps other mods might disagree, if it's moved it's ok with me, I will most likely have it no matter where it goes.
Perhaps other mods might disagree, if it's moved it's ok with me, I will most likely have it no matter where it goes.
Upvote
0
sad astronaut
Robot in Disguise
eldermike said:
Yeah, homosexuality discussions in the mixed forums are so boring.
Christian: Homosexuality is wrong.
non-Christian: No it's not.
I'm interested in hearing biblical perspectives about homosexuality. I already know the world's opinion. Forgive me if this sounds snobby.
BTW, it's my 100th post extravaganza! Celebrate with me!
Upvote
0
Congratulations! 
eldermike said:
"If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death . There is a sin that leads to death . I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death ." (1 John 5:16-17)
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come ." (Matthew 12:31-32)
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Bastoune,
We can't debate this in this forum, but to make myself clear:
We would totally disagree on the interpertation of that scripture, so I will leave that alone. I didn't make myself clear.
I was speaking about fellowship, not death. The comment was made that a person living in continual sin was a spirit filled Christian (in fellowship).
To keep this away from an issue of salvation, is that possible? NO!
1JN 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
We can't debate this in this forum, but to make myself clear:
We would totally disagree on the interpertation of that scripture, so I will leave that alone. I didn't make myself clear.
I was speaking about fellowship, not death. The comment was made that a person living in continual sin was a spirit filled Christian (in fellowship).
To keep this away from an issue of salvation, is that possible? NO!
1JN 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Upvote
0
eldermike said:
I agree 100%. And as you also stated, there is always forgiveness after repenting, no matter what.
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I agree 100%. And as you also stated, there is always forgiveness after repenting, no matter what.
Yep, and that forgivness brings us back into fellowship.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
