If Romans 1 is accepted as having a clear echo of the creation story, then on a very foundational level we need to recognise that God is imaged by both male and female…
via Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality.
The book looks great, but I wanted to comment on this one little bit.
Romans 1.26-27 MUST BE LEFT OUT of the debate on homosexuality from the perspective that it is Paul’s own words.
Paul actually condemns the statements made in this section of Romans.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
It is very easy to use them that way because “scripture is plain”. But as you have pointed out before, this is a rhetorical device. Romans was never divided into chapters by Paul. This is from where a large part of the issues comes.
How does the blending of chapter one and two together make this a non-issue?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Do you mean chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis or chapters 1 and 2 of Romans?