View Single Post
Old 09-26-2005, 06:24 AM   #87 (permalink)
Gilda
32 flavors and then some
 
Gilda's Avatar
 
Location: Out on a wire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
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?
Context. You can't pick one phrase out of a series of them and use it out of context. This occurs after God has arrived on the scene and changed their lust into that for the same sex. V. 29 repeats God's intervention.

Quote:
Everyone loves twisting Paul around to their liking,
That's true. Many Christians like to use this as a condemnation of all homosexuality, when at most it condemns homosexual acts committed in a pagan temple. It also condemns heterosexual acts back there in verse 24, before they started the homosexual stuff, so it appears it isn't the homosexuality that is the major problem here, but the pagan idol worshiping orgy.

Quote:
but my reading would be that Paul doesn't consider homosexuality to be a natural state.
My reading is that Paul doesn't like pagan idol worshipping orgies, and that homosexual acts are unnatural for heterosexuals.

Quote:
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,
Neither do I. Nor do I see a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality.

Quote:
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).
v. 24 happens before the homosexual sex begins. Since "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" in v. 26, the lust and impurity in v. 24 must refer to heterosexual sex. Verses 28 and 29 don't specify heterosexual or homosexual sex, but are a listing of other related sins committed. Oops, I was wrong there. v. 29 does specify "fornication" which is heterosexual sex. Not all heterosexual sex, but one specific kind. I think the passage as a whole does the same for homosexual sex.

Quote:
To me, that doesn't seem like anything BUT condemnation.
Sure, but what is he condemning? Even if I accept your interpretation here, it seems to be a condemnation of a very specific set of circumstances, that of an idol worshiping orgy in pagan temple, not all homosexual acts anywhere.

Quote:
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.
Not all Christian groups, nor all Christians agree with this. There isn't any one Christian interpretaion of the Bible, or even an agreement on any one translation of the bible.

Quote:
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.
Can't disagree with that.

Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert
Gilda is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76