Response to response to response

Are you saying that since the destruction of Jerusalem/Rome, the church has never been persecuted or oppressed?

No, of course not. But if you look at it from the perspective of a small, insignificant Jewish sect struggling to get a toe-hold and keep its footing in the all-encompassing Roman world, there was something pretty decisive about the vindication which they believed would come to them in fulfilment of Jesus’ restatement of Daniel’s vision of the son of man figure. The crisis has been played out again many times since the fall of Rome on a local - and there is some justification for re-using the same language. But Rome was the enemy right from the start, an instrument of the satanic force that opposed Jesus.

Is this really another way of saying that we can do what we like, provided it doesn’t harm others? Download internet pornography? What are you saying?

No. I am struck by the fact that homosexuality is potentially an expression, within a fallen world, of the fundamental human need for intimate companionship. I personally think (at the moment) that the church should not obscure the fact that we were created for heterosexual union - but the companionship thing is basically as fundamental as the male-female thing, so there are deep human issues here quite apart from the question of whether others are harmed or not. At the same time, it’s not a bad rule of thumb to ask whether what we do is an expression of love for our neighbour or whether it harms our neighbour. I certainly don’t think that pornography is harmless. I see it much more as an exploitation of men than of women, but it also affects relationships.

Yes - but the underlying attitude was judgementalism.

Sorry, I still disagree on this one. Judgmentalism was an issue, but as I read it, there is an unequivocal message of God’s judgment, wrath, on those who do these things, whether Jews or Greeks. It’s just that Paul had trouble getting the Jews to understand this.