Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
These were heterosexuals forced to engage in homosexual acts, behavior that was against their nature. Homosexual acts wouldn't be unnatural for homosexuals.
|
burned in their lust one toward another;
This doesn't sound like anyone was 'forced'. If the homosexual nature wasn't an issue, then why even bring it up?
Everyone loves twisting Paul around to their liking, but my reading would be that Paul doesn't consider homosexuality to be a natural state.
Mind you, I'm not agreeing with Paul, but we are talking Christian thought, and while I see nothing in Paul's writing which shows any sort of acceptance of 'natural' homosexuality, he does refer to is as
Quote:
a lust of the heart, an impurity that is dishonoring to the body (v. 24);
an indecent act and an error (v. 27);
a degrading passion that’s unnatural (v. 29);
not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).
|
To me, that doesn't seem like anything BUT condemnation.
If someone wants to argue that Christians not accepting gays is wrong, thats fine, but I would argue that by Christian standards, homosexuality is 'offensive' to god, a sin.
The more amusing thing to me in all this is how many slightly different translations of Paul I found in looking this up. All were basicly the same but none agreed and the language used can make a difference in the meaning.