by jimwalton » Wed May 10, 2023 2:21 am
Paul indicates in Romans 1.26 that it's "against nature," or "unnatural." The idea behind it seems to be that advancing other realities than the God-created ones as an act of deliberate rebellion against God. But he has already talked about sexual impurities and depraved desires, both grand catch-all categories of all sorts of attitudes and behavior. What is his point in bringing this in here and now? Paul seems to key in on the words "natural" and "against nature"—the cultural systemic oppression of homosexual slavery and the moral degradation of society at large. This must have been what Paul would consider "rebellion against God". It's not so much that sexual distinctions were important to Paul (they were: 1 Cor. 7, 11, and others), nor that homoerotic behavior was perceived as particularly depraved (It was, according to Paul). Homosexual practice in the Greco-Roman world bore little resemblance to its practice in modern culture. There were no gay households, gay institutions, or gay culture at all. In the ancient world it was mostly an accepted and encouraged practice of child sexual abuse, and Paul considered it depravity, but that's not as much his point here.); it's that "they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" (v. 28), which ties in with these thoughts. Paul's point is that in trading "natural" for "unnatural", they were trading the knowledge of God, if Paul is consistent, for a lie. What would this "knowledge of God" be? "What is natural." What would it be replaced with? "That which is against nature."
Last bumped by Anonymous on Wed May 10, 2023 2:21 am.