fragmentsofdreams

It is Calebnostro's burden to prove. I am just saying that he will do better once he knows where the weaknesses in his arguments are. Right now, he seems to be stabbing in the dark.

CJD

It is both/and, not either/or. Romans 1:18–3:20 is clearly about God's righteousness (i.e., faithfulness to his covenant), both in the sense that YHWH is judge over all mankind and in the covenantal sense with Israel. The gospel is the power of God for all who believe (1:16); this is so because God's wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness (v. 18; infidelity to the particular covenant with Israel, as well as the infidelity of the Gentiles with respect to honoring and thanking their creator). Not surprisingly, then, all sinned, and came short of the glory God intended for his creation (3:23).

The pericope is not merely about showing mankind's sinfulness [the "human plight"] (and certainly not by holding Gentiles to the standard of the Mosaic code — Paul no where implies Gentiles are judged by Moses) and their need for atonement; the pericope is about God's problem: the fact that he created humans to bear his divine image and the fact that he called the nation of Israel out to bear this image and lighten a dark world. Given the predicament of both Gentile rebellion and Israelite faithlessness, will God abandon the project? Indeed, has he failed the covenant? No, according to this section of Paul's writing, God will do what he always promised he would do.

All this to say, that Paul is indeed dealing with general, human rebelliousness in Romans 1:18ff. He, of course, moves on to Israelite faithlessness in chap. 2ff. But the point here is that Paul assumes — quite naturally — the Jewish view of sin in Romans 1: "sin" is "living-less-than-fully human," falling short of the glory God intended for humanity. Homosexuals, to be sure along with (ironically) gossips and like, are simply included in this list (1:29ff.). Note, too, that the list isn't intended to be exhaustive; it's just sweeping strokes at the kind of behaviors that crop up when people do not see fit to have true knowledge of God. To belabor the point, Paul isn't speaking about behaviors that are sin because they are the breaking of arbitrary divine rules; they are sin because they are sub-human or even non-human; they are deeds unfitting for humans to act out.

I really do wish reading and interpreting this old book was as easy as your post assumes. But if it was, then I'd be a skeptic like the rest of these folks around here (because of how ridiculous all this stuff is when read that way).

CJD

Evilicious

Where are lesbians mentioned in the Bible? That's homosexual activity.

Stumpjumper

Well it is. You just have to hang around with me more often

Actually, I misunderstood your first post and in fact I thought you were an atheist. If you go back and look at the post that I quoted I think you will see a difference between it and your next reply but whatever.

How do you come to the conclusion that Paul believes that people are "living less than human lives" while they are sinning? I ask because I understand Paul's intent in Romans 1 but by stating that certain sins mean that we are living less than human lives means that by living human lives we will somehow rise above our nature to commit certain actions. Yet, Paul would say that we all fall short of the glory of God and yet are all sinners and that, despite our sin, God intervened to rescue humanity. Paul, of course, was a Stoic and I do interpret his writings from that philosphical POV and do not expect him to accept any indulgence be it sexual or otherwise but that is because of my exegesis.

I ask this very seriously because my theology does not agree. Are you an Arminian or a Calvinist?

Diogenes the Cynic

The Mata Leao homosexuality-pedophilia digression has been split here

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Crazy Liz

I hope so.

Yes, a glaring omission. Without such evidence, seebs will have no trouble at all falsifying the statement.

Crazy Liz

Calebnostro doesn't understand his authorities very well. First, he has not chosen the best of any genre. The sources he has chosen are older and either in the public domain or available fairly cheaply. Perhaps he has little money and does not have access to a theological library. If so, it's hard to fault him for using the sources available, but when seebs uses Danker, Koehler-Baumgartner, TWOT, TDNT and other more recent sources, Calebnostro will be in trouble if he does not have access to them.

This, as well as the "sodomite" argument, shows a lack of sophistication in linguistics. Defining words in a dead language is a matter of opinion. In some cases, the writer of a commentary may have more knowledge about the usages of a particular word than the authors of a lexicon. The contents of a lexicon are matters of opinion. If the lexicon was composed by a committee of recognized scholars, their opinions have a lot of credibility, but they are nevertheless opinions of what people think.

Calebnostro also seems to miss the fact that the words in the original languages translated as "sodomite" have no etymological connection to the city of Sodom or its inhabitants, so this is a red herring. "Sodomite" is an English word. It shows that English speakers connected homosexual acts with the residents of Sodom, not that the biblical authors made any such connection.

We shall hope that in future rounds Calebnostro will improve his focus and will gain access to some better sources.

CJD

I've been accused of that before. That's why I chose the label "Trinitarian theist" in the bio.

The two are one and the same. To "fall short of the glory God intended for humanity" means just that. The concept can be found elsewhere, of course, but it's fairly explicit in this epistle.

I did not say that "certain sins mean that we are living less than human lives. It's not about "certain" sins (that's my point about the "list" in Romans 1 not being exhaustive); it's about sin qua sin. Sin is an act of not living as God intended, that is, as his image bearer. It is less-than, not fully, etc.

Yes, but not "despite" our sin; rather, it is "because of" our sin God intervened. I did not mean to imply that we are morally able to "somehow rise above our nature to commit certain actions"; that's Paul's fundamental premise in chap. 1–3! We are naturally (physically) able of course, but not morally so. Yet, in living fully human lives we are living as image bearers. This, of course, does not happen apart from grace.

That's ashame, really. You miss so much of the echoes of the TNK and his Jewish zealotry in his letters if you start with him being more hellenized than Jewish (not either/or here; it's both/and, just tilting in favor of traditional Judaism of the first century).

What do I sound like to you? With what does "your" theology disagree?

CJD

Johnny Skeptic

Message to CJD: Do you believe that God condemns homosexuality? Do you believe that the Bible writers always spoke for God and not for themselves? Do you believe that there are any practical arguments against homosexuality?

CJD

1. I gather what God condemns is any act that is less-than what he fully intends for humanity. Homosexuality probably falls into this category.

2. For clarity's sake, I suppose you meant "the Bible writer's specific writings that have been canonized." Scriptural authority is far more nuanced than what most Christians — and skeptics — think. You're question doesn't really make sense to me. Suffice to say, there is no necessary contradiction between "speaking for oneself" and "speaking for God."

3. Yes.