¯¯ ◒ ◒ ¯¯ MIS BREZOS DE COLORES¯¯ ◒ ◒ ¯¯
¿Does Romans 1:26,27 Really Condemn Homosexuality?
In the last post, this blog discussed Leviticus 18:22 and 20:17, and if those scriptures really condemned homosexuality.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech,
neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:
it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things:
for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it,
and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Actos de inmoralidad prohibidos
No te echarás-acuestes con varón como si te acostara con una mujer;
es abominación es un acto infame.
No te entregues a actos sexuales con ningún animal,
para que no te hags impuro por esa causa -
(tendrás ayuntamiento amancillándote con él),
ni la mujer debe entregarse a actos sexuales con un animals.
(alguna se pondrá delante de animal para ayuntarse con él) es perversión,
infamia. No se hagan impuros
(Asi.se han corrompido las naciones que yo echo de delante de vosotros,)
Levítico 18:22-27 Romans 1:26,27 is often used to condemn homosexuality,
along with the Leviticus passages, and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.
This is for two reasons:
It purportedly contains the most elaborately worded
condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible.
It is the only homosexuality-related scripture that mentions women;
this is currently understood as a condemnation of lesbianism.
As with Leviticus, this blog is not the first to reach this conclusion.
Writer Tom Hanks makes the same conclusion in the book
“The Subversive Gospel”. Episcopal vicar T.S. Haller does likewise in his book
“Reasonable and Holy”. Theology professor Adrian Thatcher thinks so in his book
“God, Sex, and Gender”. According to Thatcher, Haller and other writers,
early Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Augustine felt the same.
The gOy movement (a group advocating male-male intimacy,
and staunch critic of the LGBT movement)
also has the same opinion about these verses.
The context of Romans 1:26,27 brings new revelations.
For one, it becomes clear that the Apostle Paul was not homophobic,
and neither was the Scriptural canon.
In fact, the genders of people involved in sex doesn’t seem to matter.
Instead, the Scriptures care much more about what they do,
whatever gender they might be. In this way,
Romans establishes a sort of fairness and equality:
as much as it condemns male-male anal sex,
it comes down upon male-female anal sex with equal force and judgment.
Thus, with all evidence considered,
contemporary context shows Romans 1:26,27
condemns anal sex in connection with temple prostitution,
whether homosexual or heterosexual.
When other forms of same-sex contact were being practiced
publicly in Mediterranean society,
their lack of mention confirms this view.
HAPPY NIGHT AND I LOVE YOU!! X0X0...
Disfruten su nueva semana siempre...