jesusrocsmysoks
Quote:
Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described.
not in the first sentence, but the rest of the passage is an explanation of what's going on. Only using one sentence isn't going to explain anything.
To say that Ananel is using only one sentence is an insulting lie. Ananels entire thesis is based on taking that sentence *in context*, with both the rest of the passage and with the cultural context of the time and audience to whom Paul was speaking.
Quote:
Quote:
Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done.
it doesn't just say "doing things". it says "even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other." This means that the "things" women were doing with each other were "sex". I don't se how that's unclear. the men side isn't as obvious, because it says they burned with lust for each other, and did "shameful things" with each other...but I think we can conclude that these shameful things are the same as the women...
Again, you lie. And this time, I shall let scripture speak against you.
Romans 1, 26-27, NIV
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Scripture says nothing of sex. It says lust. It says indencency. It says perversion. And would not the adultery so described fit all these things, with or without homosexuality being sinful?
