Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well Romans 1:26,27 tells us the woman were just like the men. And the men gave up the natural use of woman and were burning with lust for other men. Thus, if the woman were just like the men. They would of given up the natural use of men, and would be burning with lust for other woman. Of course that requires commen sense to see this.
Uh nope. It doesn't say that at all. The "natural" or conventional "use" of women by men was vaginal procreative submissive sex. Anything outside that was unconventional. People in the first century also had a very different idea of what "natural" meant - the word is not the same as we use it in the 21st century.
But you are missing the whole point of Paul's letter by attempting to make it all about a condemnation of homosexuals. Your prejudice is blinding you.
He was writing about people who had converted to his God but had gone back to their old idolatrous worshipping practices. Not about homosexuals. Read the WHOLE letter.
OK fair enought, you say the words vile and unnatural are not found in Romans 1:26,27. Ok, why don't you print out the Bible version you believe to be correct. I showed my hand, why don't you show us yours now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Jesus is pictured with long hair. So what does an artist belief have to do with the Bible?
And you did not answer my question Jaymax. Can you show us the correct Biblical translation for Romans 1:26-27? Or is that going to be a problem for you?
The point was that Paul used the same word about long hair on men that he did about what the people worshipping pagan gods using ritual sex.
Here you go, although you should still read the whole letter for context. Especially the opening lines of Chapter 2. Try looking up the Greek words. It will be good practice for you.
Uh nope. It doesn't say that at all. The "natural" or conventional "use" of women by men was vaginal procreative submissive sex. Anything outside that was unconventional. People in the first century also had a very different idea of what "natural" meant - the word is not the same as we use it in the 21st century.
But you are missing the whole point of Paul's letter by attempting to make it all about a condemnation of homosexuals. Your prejudice is blinding you.
He was writing about people who had converted to his God but had gone back to their old idolatrous worshipping practices. Not about homosexuals. Read the WHOLE letter.
Again Jaymax. Can you give us the correct translation of the Bible for Romans 1:26,27? I believe this is the third time I have asked you to do this. I am interested in the translation you are reading from. And I have read the whole letter. And the punishment for their idolatrous worship was for men to start having sex with other men. If gay sex was ok. Why would the Bible consider this a punishment?
And it appears to me, your avoiding my request to show us the translation you are reading from. Why is that?
Again Jaymax. Can you give us the correct translation of the Bible for Romans 1:26,27? I believe this is the third time I have asked you to do this. I am interested in the translation you are reading from. And I have read the whole letter. And the punishment for their idolatrous worship was for men to start having sex with other men. If gay sex was ok. Why would the Bible consider this a punishment?
And it appears to me, your avoiding my request to show us the translation you are reading from. Why is that?
You haven't read the whole letter at all if that's what you think the letter was about.
I read many versions and use lexicons and concordances as well as the works of biblical scholars and historians and compare words and phrases with secular works of the time. The version I just gave you is from:
I even left the links to Strong's for you to click on each word, but I guess that is too much trouble for you?
I have learnt to be wary of interpretations commissioned by conservative churches as they are often flawed.
Edited to add:
The fact that you think that modern, loving, committed gay and lesbians relationships have anything at all to do with 1st century Roman worshipping practices using ritual sex orgies in temples to fertility gods, says a lot about your very un-spritual, un-Christlike, prejudiced mind. You do realise that it was far more likely that these people would have been heterosexual by nature, not homosexual?
Try reading Matthew 23 and Romans 2 to have a good look at yourself and what you are doing.
You haven't read the whole letter at all if that's what you think the letter was about.
I read many versions and use lexicons and concordances as well as the works of biblical scholars and historians and compare words and phrases with secular works of the time. The version I just gave you is from:
I even left the links to Strong's for you to click on each word, but I guess that is too much trouble for you?
I have learnt to be wary of interpretations commissioned by conservative churches as they are often flawed.
Even your translation tells you that sex with other men is inappropriate. So why do you defend it? You can't blame conservative churches for inserting the word unseemly. Nor can you blame churches for point out the penalty for such an action. The letter covers at least five topics. Yet that is not a reason to ignore the one.
Even your translation tells you that sex with other men is inappropriate. So why do you defend it? You can't blame conservative churches for inserting the word unseemly. Nor can you blame churches for point out the penalty for such an action. The letter covers at least five topics. Yet that is not a reason to ignore the one.
You just keep zooming in to focus on males having sex with each other and keep disregarding the whole religious, historical and cultural context as well as the point of Paul's letter -Which had nothing to do with homosexuals, (especially 21st century gays and lesbians) and everything to do with 1st century, gentile, Roman converts turning away from Paul's God and reverting to idolatrous worship of other gods.
Is male/male sex something you think about a lot? You sound kind of obsessed with sex.
Well Rafius, I guess you were not aware that God made a New Covenant with His people. The sin of homosexuality and adultery was just as evil and worthy of death. Yet in the New Covenant Jesus tells us that he who is without sin should throw the first stone. So yes, homosexual sin is still wrong, as is adultry.
Hmm seems to me perfect unchanging Gods don't need to make new covenants. They get them right the first time around.
They also don't create things they find abominable. I absolutely HATE split pea soup. I think I'll go make a pot of it right now.
Quote:
Yet they are not to be put to death for their sin as they would be in the past.
I see. More of that "absolute" morality at work, eh?
I'm not saying that all religious people do not like homosexuals but some people say that it says it in the bible or something so can someone tell me where it says this please.
I don't really care what any nauseating god-thing has to say. The function of every living on Earth is to procreate. It has no other function. Species even evolved to procreate more efficiently. Homosexuality is anathema to life itself and so wholly contradictory. There's no prohibition in the bible against rednecks, but I dislike them all the same. I don't like NASCAR either. Or baseball, or people who like NASCAR or baseball.
I don't really care what any nauseating god-thing has to say. The function of every living on Earth is to procreate. It has no other function. Species even evolved to procreate more efficiently. Homosexuality is anathema to life itself and so wholly contradictory. There's no prohibition in the bible against rednecks, but I dislike them all the same. I don't like NASCAR either. Or baseball, or people who like NASCAR or baseball.
Ok. Then I assume the only reason you ever have sex is to procreate.
And if you aren't procreating right now (and having as many children as possible so as to ensure the continuation of our species), then you are negligent in your duties and anathema to life itself.
Hmm seems to me perfect unchanging Gods don't need to make new covenants. They get them right the first time around.
...and they also put in their 'Word' that their laws are "unchanging" and "everlasting".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
