Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
in that case perhaps it's using a different definition of the word "lie" and therefore to "lie with another man as with one's wife" might not mean sex at all, meaning the bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality.
|
Sure, that's possible as far as I know. I think I remember a GLBT website arguing something like that. (But I'm not the one to ask, I've limited knowledge on the subject.)
Quote:
|
While we're at it, let's just redefine "god" to be whatever we want as well. For the last 2 millenia people have been redefining and changing the bible to fit whatever they want to do, why not continue the trend?
|
It's not a matter of redefining to one's liking, it's a matter of redefining to fit how the word was used in those times. Maybe there's more than one valid interpretation. As far as I know, slavery back then could've possibly included indentured servitude. And obviously it wasn't in english, so slavery/slaves weren't even the exact words used. Burden of proof's certainly on the one making the claim - assuming that I haven't misinterpreted IL's arguments - but I think there's some misunderstanding due to differing definitions. A little effort can easily demolish such a roadblock.