The following was posted on another message board I'm on. Now I don't know Greek, but the author of this seems to be going against what I clearly read in the english (From what I understand, it's kinda rambled how it was written). I'm wondering if anyone on here can offer me any help to understand if what this guy is saying about the greek holds any weight or not. He's commenting on Romans 1:18-32:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 18 and 21 list for us the proper subject of the entire conversation and dicusses it in terms of the genetive of adikai. It comes to those whose worldliness clouds or stifles the truth as being the subjects of god's wrath. Ungodliness also works as injustice, and no clear indication necessitates either translation. The individuals without excuse in verse 21 are not homosexuals, but worldly individuals who god has left to their passions.
24-25: epithumiais refers to desires and cravings in general, strong ones but not necessarily sexual ones. It's also highly general, making no clear distinction as to what is being done, save a loss of control of one's passions.
Consider this from grecian and roman perspective in light of aristotelian and epicurian ethics. This loss of passion is inexcusable and Paul is speaking to a roman audience.
26-27: Pathos-strong desire or passion. Atimias-dishonorable. The phrasing of relations between men here is something closer to rape than it is to just homosexual relations. In many ways, the situation is similar to sodom and gomorrah. The punishment is the "due for their actions," and is without otherwordly connotations. They destroy themselves in the midst of their own inflamed passions, their fates similar to the completely lost causes of the two ancient cities.
This standpoint seems even stronger considering the continued theme through verses 28-32. It doesn't present this as being against a particular sin, but about a degradation of society.
Other comments: This is not like god made these populations gay in response to their godlessness. We're not talking about strictly heterosexual societies that Paul is writing to. There were long-standing bisexual tendencies in the societies.
While the presentation I give is hardly the clear answer, it brings to light the fact that Romans 1:18 on is not so clear-cut as we like to think. The passage cannot be taken out of context, and some of the translation is occassionally quite suspect. It feels as if Paul is speaking of more than homosexuality here, and is commenting on something else entirely.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Bryan
SDG
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 18 and 21 list for us the proper subject of the entire conversation and dicusses it in terms of the genetive of adikai. It comes to those whose worldliness clouds or stifles the truth as being the subjects of god's wrath. Ungodliness also works as injustice, and no clear indication necessitates either translation. The individuals without excuse in verse 21 are not homosexuals, but worldly individuals who god has left to their passions.
24-25: epithumiais refers to desires and cravings in general, strong ones but not necessarily sexual ones. It's also highly general, making no clear distinction as to what is being done, save a loss of control of one's passions.
Consider this from grecian and roman perspective in light of aristotelian and epicurian ethics. This loss of passion is inexcusable and Paul is speaking to a roman audience.
26-27: Pathos-strong desire or passion. Atimias-dishonorable. The phrasing of relations between men here is something closer to rape than it is to just homosexual relations. In many ways, the situation is similar to sodom and gomorrah. The punishment is the "due for their actions," and is without otherwordly connotations. They destroy themselves in the midst of their own inflamed passions, their fates similar to the completely lost causes of the two ancient cities.
This standpoint seems even stronger considering the continued theme through verses 28-32. It doesn't present this as being against a particular sin, but about a degradation of society.
Other comments: This is not like god made these populations gay in response to their godlessness. We're not talking about strictly heterosexual societies that Paul is writing to. There were long-standing bisexual tendencies in the societies.
While the presentation I give is hardly the clear answer, it brings to light the fact that Romans 1:18 on is not so clear-cut as we like to think. The passage cannot be taken out of context, and some of the translation is occassionally quite suspect. It feels as if Paul is speaking of more than homosexuality here, and is commenting on something else entirely.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Bryan
SDG