[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: Rom 1:26-27

Sorry for the cutoff message.  


   on Sept. 28, 1994, Greg Jordan wrote:

>I don't think you realize the extent to which you are positing an unusual 
>theological twist on this passage yourself.  You seem to be saying that 
>God causes homosexuality at the same time as he condemns it, and that 
>homosexuality is a product of and development from disbelief in God, 

    That's not what I am arguing.  I am arguing that:
1.  Neither Paul, onor any place in the OT or NT is there any place that
distingushes between different kinds of homosexuals (that;'s modern hair-splitting).  For Paul, all such activity is "ordinary homosexual" activity.  
2.  Paul in Rom 1 argues that because Gentiles as a whole have rejected God,
God has delivered them over to a God-alienated state in which they
consciences are dead and they pursue actions and lifestyles that deserve God's
wrath, the epitomy of this rebellion being displayed by homosexual activity 
which is contrary to the phusis God gave humans in the first place.  However
the individual came to practice this sin, Paul views it as evidence of just 
how low humans have sunk in their rebellion against God, because for all
humans, it is contrary to how we were created/  

3.  phusis can have the meaning usually given in translations of this passage.
It is within the word's possible meanings and not contrary, in my opinion ,
to other NT examples.  

4.  Paul has not muddled any wates by his views, if his view is what I assert itis, i.e., homosexuals practice deeds that show the extent of the perversions
humans sink to living apart from God.  Af for alleged Christians who practice
it, like any other sin which is contrary to God's intent for us, true
Christians may not be living as sanctified as appropriate.  That does not mean
that we should make them feel better by saying that Paul only meant 
a certain kind of homosexual activity any more than we should say that
Paul conceived of different categories of adulterers or murderers, and in fact
there is better evidence that being a psychopathic murderer is an in-born trait
than being a homosexual, but Paul didn't for that reason distingush between
non-murderers who became murderers and ordinary murderers.  The issue
is identical.  Unless we can be certain that Paul conceived of
both "born" and "by choice" homosexuals, and unless we can be certain
that Paul thought the difference was of consequence (those are two separate
questions), there is no reason to distingush what he says about homosexuality
from any other sin mentioned in Rom 1.  

Ken Litwak
Richmond, CA
Follow-Ups: