Does Romans 1:26 Condemn Lesbians?
We believe Romans 1:26 does not condemn lesbians based on the context and words used by Paul. Its important to remember that Romans 1:26 was written to Christians in Rome around AD 58. To understand what God and Paul meant, we need to understand how Roman Christians would have understood this verse in the first century.
1. Lesbians are not condemned anywhere in the Old Testament. Therefore Paul could not possibly have based his alleged condemnation of lesbians on anything the Tanakh (our Old Testament) says about lesbians.
2. Ancient Jewish teaching in the Talmudic tradition understood that the Tanakh did not condemn lesbians. Therefore it is unlikely that Paul would have based his alleged condemnation
of lesbians on ancient Jewish oral tradition which was pretty much silent about lesbians.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_12173.html
3. The Old Testament (the Tanakh) DOES condemn one form of idolatry in which both women and men committed the same kind of sin (anal sex in worship of the fertility goddess - viewed as being "against nature" because it was not procreative).
Therefore since the context of Romans 1 is idolatry, not lesbianism and not homosexuality, Paul was condemning shrine prostitution, not lesbianism and not homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
4. The way early Christians understood Romans 1:26-27 informs our understanding. Prominent Christian preachers, Aristides in AD 126 and Justin Martyr around AD 150, understood Paul to be writing about shrine prostitution. They were right and modern Christians who use Romans 1:26 to attack lesbians are absolutely wrong.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Lesbians condemn themselves.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inheret the kindom of God? Be not decieved, Neither fornicators, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkars, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Would God consider it a sin for a man to engage in homosexual behavior and not a woman? I don't see where any of these others are sins for one sex and not the other.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inheret the kindom of God?" (spelling not corrected)
And just what are us unbelievers missing out on by not inheriting this so called kingdom ? The value of this kingdom is ...Zero...nada....zilch...nothing...why ?
Cause it's all in your mind shawinMo....give your head a shake.
On threads like these, where believers are discussing what the writings actually mean, is pretend it's a bunch of Harry Potter fans discussing which spell would be best to take out a particular foe.
I don't know about you, but I pay them no attention.
You and I are in much the same boat, neither one of us is worried about going to hell. Sleep tight.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Why should anyone care what Paul allegedly said back over thousands of years ago? I'd like to think humanity has made some progress from those times and then again, maybe not.
I for one don't care what Paul may or may not have said, or what he meant when he said it, or even why he said it. His testimony is flawed because he cannot be asked and it would then just be hearsay, considering how many years those books have been around. Not to mention human's tendency to revise history as they see fit for the sake of their own benefit. Yeah, I would tend to believe in the bible, NOT.
Paul's comments in Romans, Corinthians and other epistles (which by the way are not considered canon scripture by some authorities) refer to sexual practices in pagen temple worship. They have NOTHING to do with the modern gay lifestyle as we know it. The modern gay lifestyle did not exist in Paul's time, so how can his commentary (and it is commentary) reflect a view on modern homosexual behaviour that simply didn't exist in his time? Finally, the term "unnatural desires" and "unnatural affection" had more to do with sexual behaviour that is considered unnatural by the individual. Keeping with this argument, a gay person having heterosexual sex is indugling in unnatural relations, because sex with the opposite sex is unnatural to him or her.
In closing, when are people going to stop using the Bible to preach discord, and learn to follow its true message, which is love acceptance and mercy?
I believe it does. It specifically says "God gave them over to their UNNATURAL DESIRES", referring to women. I dont believe God would approve of homosexual sex in any way, because it does not provide any benefit to we humans, other than appeasing lust.
And the problem with appeasing human lust is ....what?
Is lust a bad thing ? You would not be here to comment on this post if not for lust.
God is a belief since there is no shred of verifiable and falsifiable evidence that supports any of the thousands of gods mankind ever invented in its image.
Luckily, you correctly use the word "believe" in "I dont believe God would approve of homosexual sex in any way".
This is the 21st century. Why do we keep referring to myth and superstition when the reality is that we live in a secular society that values equal rights with freedom OF religion (if I want to believe in any superstition) and freedom FROM religion (if I want to be an A-Superstitionist).
of which, I am one.