homosexuality<\/a>, and which passages in the Bible to read on the subject. The speaker recommended Romans 1, with the assumption that the meaning and application will be clear as long as one prays before reading \u2013 no need for a commentary, articles, a comparison of translations to make onself aware of ways in which any given English translation may render the underlying Greek in a way that is not the only possible way, or anything else that recognizes that this is translated<\/i> literature which reflects a different historical, cultural, and linguistic context and assumptions.<\/p>\nThe most offensive part, however, was that deceitfully innocent sounding phrase, \u201cRomans 1\u201d. \u201cRead Romans 1\u201d is far from a good recommendation. There was no \u201cRomans 1\u201d in the letter Paul wrote \u2013 no chapter division, no versification. By recommending that one stop at the end of chapter 1, it is pretty much guaranteed that the reader will miss the point of Paul\u2019s stereotypical denunciation of Gentile sins in that part of his letter. It wasn\u2019t to condemn the Gentiles, but to get Jewish readers to join in the condemnation and then find themselves condemned in \u201cchapter 2\u201d. But that is how fundamentalist de(con)struction of Romans and other parts of the Bible works. What was a tool Paul used to bring about self-criticism and repentance becomes a weapon to be wielded against others.<\/p>\n
As I think about it, fundamentalists tend to focus on the marginal voices in the Bible rather than the mainstream of early Christianity. Of the epistles, it is Hebrews, which made it into the canon on false pretenses, that provides the most support for their particular doctrine of the atonement (even though their most popular one, penal substitution, isn\u2019t found even there). Of the Gospels, it is John, which again did not get into the canon without dispute, which gives the realized eschatology and thus the focus on faith determining one\u2019s eternal status in the here and now.<\/p>\n
But that\u2019s another issue. The main point that needs to be made in this post is this: If you think \u201cRomans 1\u201d can be used as a weapon against homosexuals, you\u2019ve fallen into Paul\u2019s trap. If you use \u201cRomans 1\u201d in this way, you aren\u2019t condemning homosexuals. You are condemning yourself<\/u>. I can only hope that the power of Paul\u2019s message (which your way of chopping it up in pieces undermines) may one day challenge you in the way its author seems to have intended. But for that to happen, you\u2019ll probably have to keep reading past the end of \u201cRomans 1\u2033\u2026<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B00003CXZ4\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3295665328637091965?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"