I begin with hotererotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
Waco1947
