> General Discussions
Romans 1
lareli:
Pamela yes that absolutely helps and I can assure you that this is not the first time you've written words on BT that have helped to inspire thought and/or understanding. I'm going to revisit that paper on Tophet of old.
thank you guys and gals.
cjwood:
--- Quote from: Dave in Tenn on April 26, 2017, 10:07:57 PM ---Ray wrote or spoke about this, but for the life of me I can't remember where.
this is probably not what you were thinking about dave, but ray does discuss the versus referred to in romans 1. he doesn't specify who paul was referring to. but, it's a good starting place.
--- End quote ---
Outside of Leviticus, and these are levitical codes, it is indeed not clear from exegesis that homosexuality in the strictest sense constitutes a sin.
COMMENT: Oh really? And I suppose you don't see a connection between homosexuality and:
Rom 1:24-28, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And 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. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." Seriously, NH, what part of those verses don't you understand?
What if God had said this in Rom. 1:24-29: "God gave them up to CLEANESS through the LOVE of their own hearts, to HONOR their own bodies between themselves. For this cause God gave them up to LOVING affections: for even their women did what was perfectly NATURAL doing that which is NOT against nature. And likewise also the men, choosing a relationship with men rather than a woman, longed in their LOVE one toward another: MEN WITH MEN working that which is LOVELY...."
Now then, had these verses stated what I suggested above, would you not use these very verses to justify a homosexual life style? YES OF COURSE YOU WOULD; YOU KNOW THAT YOU WOULD, and no one could convince you that this was NOT speaking of homosexuality!! Cannot you see your own hypocracy in this matter?
In your text you appear selective with the interpretations of the greek as indeed other writers state that New Testament passages do not explicitly mention homosexuality as opposed to prostitution and pederasty.
COMMENT: You mean that the Scriptures do not use the WORD "homosexuality?" Reread Rom. 1:24-28 again, and this time pay close attention to the words. This sextion of Scripture is speaking of homosexuality. Give me a break!
Homosexuality does not harm the consensual partners unlike bestiality which is obviously not consensual, nor paedophilia which is very harmful to the child. On that basis you could say that circumcision should be banned because it is counter to nature, no longer required of christians, and harmful to the child. Or that heterosexual sex is wrong because women are more likely to develop cervical cancer from it, have unwanted pregnancies, and contract STDs. I am sure you don't believe that but pundits like yourself seem to simply dig their toes in and deny any biological basis for homosexuality. Yes the studies thus far are frought but the fact is that human reproductive systems and neurology especially are complex and influenced by a number of different genes, hormonal exposures, and psychosocial factors as well. It simply flys in the face of our collective life experience to say that it is a choice. It is not! If I could take a pill or say a prayer then God knows I would be heterosexual by now.
claudia
p.s. ray's comments are in blue. one of his many fans' ;) words, in an email to ray are bolded.
Dave in Tenn:
Claudia, I was thinking of the place where Ray said the word "holding" in v 18 (KJV) was better translated "with-holding" or "holding back" or something like that. My little word-study mostly agrees with that.
cheekie3:
Dave -
Regarding this:
--- Quote from: Dave in Tenn on April 28, 2017, 10:47:26 PM ---Claudia, I was thinking of the place where Ray said the word "holding" in v 18 (KJV) was better translated "with-holding" or "holding back" or something like that. My little word-study mostly agrees with that.
--- End quote ---
Is Kat's Post on this thread what you are referring to:
https://bible-truths.com/forums/index.php/topic,10960.msg94701.html#msg94701
This is the full transcript of Ray's audio on repentance:
https://bible-truths.com/forums/index.php/topic,3709.0.html
Warmest Regards.
George
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version