Thank you for the great comments, Owl. I am just looking at bits and pieces right now. Last point first, since Eric B also responded to it.
I don't think Paul means that all sinners actually commit murder, etc.
I don't think that Paul meant that either literally, either -- it seems an absurd claim if made literally.
There are a few things in play here at once, though, and I will mention some of the questions that come to mind:
- Does Paul mean to associate a wide range of sin with the same core depravity that leaves men separated from God in Hell? (yes)
- Does Paul inadvertently describe a progression that explicitly lumps certain sins (such as homosexuality) with being hell-bound? (yes)
- Are Paul's intentions for his writing and/or his particular understanding properly conveyed to the audience? (Probably not, especially considering some of his readership was not born until 1900+ years after Paul's death! -- I doubt Paul was even THINKING that his words would remain for that length of time, let alone be scrutinzed and clung to so tenaciously by some sects of the Christian church).
I think also I have to point out that a lot of my arguments in this thread (earlier) involve life experience. While I can argue what the theology is SUPPOSED to mean if interpreted in the best and most mature light, to me it is just as important as the communication that is actually prone to being conveyed. We can't really deny or water down the stuff that Paul said, and here is where it gets muddy.
We see in philosophical thought that people like Schopenhauer (for example) had some of their core ideas built upon and fleshed out by unsavory political cronies decades later -- were these philosophers responsible in any way for how their words were taken? I don't know. The seeds of the ideas came from their writing, but they probably would not have supported the degree to which their words were taken.... The problem is that the particular words and ideas existed in a form that suggested a particular meaning to the later audience. They were an apt tool. I guess it's similar with the gun lobby situation nowadays, and other things.
Here, rather than getting into more detached theological discussion, I will be more transparent so you can better understand the experiences I've had that have led me to where I am. (At least that way you will have a context for my comments.)
You probably have never been to a gay pride parade where protesters literally stand around with their signs and bullhorns calling gay people "murderers, thieves, adulterers, fornicators, animal screwers," call the children of gay people and supportive family attending the event "lepers," and otherwise quote the Romans 1 passage in a way that equates homosexual orientation and/or behavior to the most vile sins our culture can imagine. (And it's rather surreal, to the angry bitter resentful folks being the religious ones, and the supposed vile scum of society being the happy, cheerful, "normal looking" demographic at such as event.) I happened to walk down to the local one in my city this weekend, and I am describing literally what I saw and heard there... and have seen at various times in the past. (These guys might be the true fundies in terms of their behavior... but they're still quoting the same Bible and holding similar interpretations that underlie evangelical theology and practice nowadays.) Meanwhile, they talk about how great their lives are, how much they love God, and how people who attend these events need to give up their depravity and rebellions against God so that they can become more like them. Yeah. Not exactly a selling point...
You have also probably never had a religious parent who has experienced (and often referred to) your selfless character and lifelong pattern of loving behavior bombard you with Romans 1 and similar literature, equating you to the same vile things (I'm het by the way, it's something else that doesn't even appear in that passage), because they can't understand a life choice you feel you had to make and struggled with God over for years and years and finally came to peace over... and they continue to openly pray for your soul and whack you with Bible passages and basically in the process dismiss your entire spiritual walk with the divine since it doesn't match the interpretation of the one they found in The Book.
While you can say that Paul didn't mean to equate gay people (or whomever else happens to get lumped in here) with murderers and the dregs of society, the text itself is not so clear-cut... and in many cases it's not how it gets read and applied in typical Bible inerrantist culture. The sad part is that I think many of these Christians are *good* people at core and mean well, it's the ideas and the way they read the passages that I think leads to the negative behavior and attitudes being expressed.
In Romans, he first writes that men suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, and therefore they become futile in their thinking: their foolish hearts are darkened; and God gives them over to their foolishness to do what ought not to be done. I think Paul is pointing out the natural progression in sin. Remember, the original sin was expressed in eating a piece of fruit, but the root of this sin was not seeking to know God. It was not long after this sin that the first murder was committed. The outward expression was different, but the root was the same: neither Adam nor Cain sought to know God, and God gave them each over to do what ought not to be done. And so just after Paul writes, "They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness..." (Rom 1:29, ESV), and the whole list of sins that would have us holed up in bunkers, he writes: "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, everyone of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Rom 2:1, ESV). Does Paul believe the Romans all had committed murder and every other sin on his list? Clearly not. But they all share the same root, and they all hang under the same sentence of being given over to futile thinking and a darkened heart.
Again, he didn't say they DID.
But he in essence said they were morally equivalent to those who did.
Is there a real distinction there?
And then even in this thread we get some people who insist that
(1) they're part of the Elect "just because," so they're spared from that horrid cycle, while I guess the rest of us are damned regardless of our authenticity, our search for God, our integrity, or our behavior, and
(2) people who typicall quote or refer to these passages tend to exhibit much more spiritual darkness (in terms of actual attitude, behavior, and treatment of others) than the people they're claiming to judge by using a passage like this.
I gotta say, I think God -- in whatever form he, she, or it exists as, I can't prove anything -- is far bigger than that form of hypocrisy and pettiness. For years I did subject myself to it and tried to make allowance for it -- I wanted so BADLY to believe and agonized for years and years over questions like these, they were important to me -- but in the end I just couldn't do it anymore and finally maintained my integrity and feel much better about it.
I consider that a positive spiritual awakening that the God I would believe in would respect, but instead it just seems to earn more judgment because I've apparently "fallen away" and must have people from the old pattern I found to be deficient to pray for my salvation all over again. It gets old... and honestly, it just really hurts and makes me even less likely to ever go back into that old subculture. It hurts to feel misjudged by people who you think are acting even less in accordance with their faith concepts than they're accusing you of... especially if they don't know you at all, or do know you and should know better.
(Note: Just to be clear, you have always been someone of high character and consideration in any discussion we have had here on this forum; I always appreciate your tone and demeanor and attitude and how you work through things.)