13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerBut you can't be satisfied either way, since only the first interpretation supports your argument. The second interpretation entails that homosexual conduct is a depravity that comes from our base nature.
I have no solid evidence that one is better than the other, it just seems to make more sense when contrasted with the first 8 books of Romans. Either way I am satisfied.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrOf course I can. I am not so simplistic a soul that I can't envision ever being wrong. hence I am satisfied either way
But you can't be satisfied either way, since only the first interpretation supports your argument. The second interpretation entails that homosexual conduct is a depravity that comes from our base nature.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999And you'll say...
Can you seriously say to Christ on the day of judgment at which we will all stand .. " Well Christ .. I really thought that two guys getting married was fine "
"Well Jesus, I guess I was so convinced by various interpretations of the Bible that I overlooked clear moral truths about love and equality and justice. Sorry for being a bigot."
I'll take my chances with the Deity.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerOf course. I meant 'satisfied' in the context of debate. It's not as though proper interpretations of the Bible ever settle moral issues. They only settle doctrinal issues.
Of course I can. I am not so simplistic a soul that I can't envision ever being wrong. hence I am satisfied either way
13 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecer"I have no solid evidence that one is better than the other"-duecer
I have no solid evidence that one is better than the other, it just seems to make more sense when contrasted with the first 8 books of Romans. Either way I am satisfied.
that pretty much sums it all up!
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrI have to say that if you claim to believe in the teachings of Christ /Bible, like most Christians, then you should have the balls to stand by what it says. If you need to twist it then move away from it and become an atheist or agnostic or whatever suits you.
And you'll say...
"Well Jesus, I guess I was so convinced by various interpretations of the Bible that I overlooked clear moral truths about love and equality and justice. Sorry for being a bigot."
I'll take my chances with the Deity.
I cant stand these two-faced people. The Bible clearly is against homosexuality. End of F***ing story.
I will add that there are many whom the rest of Christendom will call unbelievers but will be accepted by Christ on judgment day .. gays included. The process of judgment is very complicated and we with our feeble minds cannot understand the intricacies involved. Thats why the Bible admonishes .." ... vengance is mine, saith the Lord".
DONT JUDGE !
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkThat sounds very foolish. I have a Strongs concordance sitting right in front of me and a KJV bible. All you have to do is read the passage in full and in context to realize what the message is.
Originally posted by duecer
[b]*sighs*
No need for that, it isn't my fault that you find it burdensome to attempt a decent argument.
the 1 Corinthian 6 passage uses the term "masculorum concubitores'" in the Latin Vulgate wich translates as male prostitue
Which is why prohibitionists generally cite Romans.
the Romans passage ...[text shortened]... ssible that it is a reasonable assumption nonetheless, but hardly clear cut as you claimed.
It is most certainly not that God turned them on to being gay!
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeYou must be talking about this - I forgot about it so sue me
You must be talking about this - I forgot about it so sue me😴
[b]"Is it your belief that the act of homosexuality is a sin even if they are married?"
Yes I believe it is a sin even if they are married.
"If you answer is "yes", can you support that belief via the teachings of Jesus?"
Paul did teach against homosexuality in the ...[text shortened]... n LDS teachings that says I can't welcome a homosexual. That shouldn't be a problem.[/b]
No sense getting all defensive about it. I asked those questions a couple of posts back and you ignored them even after being prompted again - just as you've ignored the following:
I wish more would embrace the teachings of Jesus. The world would be a much better place. Does it bother you that the LDS does not do likewise? Have you spoken out against the LDS position?
Paul did teach against homosexuality in the NT - I believe it was Romans. I can try and find it if you wish. I can do more searching if Jesus specifically taught this but I still believe Paul though.
As a response to the following question, I hope that you can understand how unsatisfactory it is:
"Is it your belief that the act of homosexuality is a sin even if they are married? If you answer is "yes", can you support that belief via the teachings of Jesus?"
13 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerWhatever man.
no including my entire remarks sums it up, based on my understanding of the book
You are obviously living some fantasy. From your interpretations, you obviously understand nothing of The Bible.
You just go on preaching that God introduced homosexuality as an alternative to man.
how you get that twisted interpretation out of this text is ming boggling
Romans 1:24-27 (King James Version)
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
You dont have to answer to me in the end
13 Aug 10
And I'm not going to post them all as all here have a bible or understand what the bible describes as family units in all cultures when it mentions such issues as divorce and headship, etc, etc. A female or wife is always involved with a male or husband. Never a husband with a husband or a wife with a wife.... History proves this is the norm and I bet duecer is glad for that or he would not exist.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75rec 🙂
And I'm not going to post them all as all here have a bible or understand what the bible describes as family units in all cultures when it mentions such issues as divorce and headship, etc, etc. A female or wife is always involved with a male or husband. Never a husband with a husband or a wife with a wife.... History proves this is the norm and I bet duecer is glad for that or he would not exist.
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrWhat about Romans 1:26?:
On your interpretation, the phrase "gave them up [or over] to..." is read as "caused them to, or instilled in them...". But the analyses I've read interpret the phrase as "allowed them to, or ceased to restrain them from...". On your interpretation, then, it is God causing folks to act contrary to their nature. On the other analyses, however, God is refrain ...[text shortened]... ve me, I would prefer it if your interpretation were correct, but I need some convincing.
From Young's Literal Translation
Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;[
It speaks of a change from "the natural use into that against nature".
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrI think there is wiggle room here for those who want to retain a gay friendly interpretation, which is that Paul draws an analogy between the Romans rejecting what is natural, which is realising that there is one true god, and instead retaining polytheism on the one hand, and on the other people rejecting what is natural sexually by engaging in same sex relations. it can then be argued that Paul would have had no idea at the time that same sex relations are natural for some. Here, by 'natural' I mean according to the nature of the individual.
But you can't be satisfied either way, since only the first interpretation supports your argument. The second interpretation entails that homosexual conduct is a depravity that comes from our base nature.
There are many teleological counters of course.