about homosexuality. You can argue that Paul challenges gender-role categories integral to the Priestley theological anthropology in Romans 1. Using both letters he sent to the Romans, Paul sends these letters trying to convince them that neither Jew nor Gentile has any claim to righteousness before God. Paul’s theological anthropology is that like Leviticus, in that Paul condemns the gentiles as idolatrous. Both in Paul’s letters and in Leviticus, the same language is being utilized like, the language of holiness, impurity, defilement, shame, and abomination to argue his theological argument. Paul continues to write, “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the
…show more content…
Sayler’s article is the one I decided to stick with and back up because it made the most sense to me and represents where I stand on the matter. The focus of theological anthropology is in my opinion the right angle to attack this issue with. History by itself shows the popular pattern societies have had in the past and all over the world. The people in Paul’s time had different guidelines to oblige by at the time. The text I interpreted provides evidence of the atmosphere of the culture at the time, you could tell from the readings the what was different in that times civilization versus the one we live in now. What was deemed right and what was deemed wrong has drastically changed over time, therefore we cannot scrutinize Paul’s era for the things they wrote and did. Instead we need to tackle this matter from their perspective just as they tried to consider the future and consider our perspective when writing the scripture. I’m glad I had the chance to read Slayer’s article and open my mind up to new opinions. Before reading about this article I did not know much about theological anthropology but after learning more about it I come to understand more where people like Slayer stand on this issue. The Bible has played a huge part throughout history and thoughtful many cultures. The issue of homosexuality may not have been represented popularly in modern day society, however,
Sayler’s article is the one I decided to stick with and back up because it made the most sense to me and represents where I stand on the matter. The focus of theological anthropology is in my opinion the right angle to attack this issue with. History by itself shows the popular pattern societies have had in the past and all over the world. The people in Paul’s time had different guidelines to oblige by at the time. The text I interpreted provides evidence of the atmosphere of the culture at the time, you could tell from the readings the what was different in that times civilization versus the one we live in now. What was deemed right and what was deemed wrong has drastically changed over time, therefore we cannot scrutinize Paul’s era for the things they wrote and did. Instead we need to tackle this matter from their perspective just as they tried to consider the future and consider our perspective when writing the scripture. I’m glad I had the chance to read Slayer’s article and open my mind up to new opinions. Before reading about this article I did not know much about theological anthropology but after learning more about it I come to understand more where people like Slayer stand on this issue. The Bible has played a huge part throughout history and thoughtful many cultures. The issue of homosexuality may not have been represented popularly in modern day society, however,