An oversimplification, according to many. But yes, this is the typical argument.Quote:
Originally posted by Graeblyn
Christians do not observe Levitical law, so the first one is irrelevent.
One possible way of looking at this verse, yes, and again very typical of the liberal Christian interpretation.Quote:
Originally posted by Graeblyn
The Roman reference was a letter Paul wrote to a church wherein the men of the church (who were otherwise straight by the way), were engaging in sex with young temple prostitutes, both male and female, as part of that particular church's attempts to integrate traditional Roman worship into the new Christian church. Paul was condemning that practice, as would most any christian, no matter how "liberal" - and the passage has nothing to do with "homosexuality" as a modern western reader would understand the term.
I merely included that comment for informational purposes, not to indicate that I myself agree with the idea that it has any difficulties.Quote:
Originally posted by Graeblyn
Finally, even you acknowledge the King's reference is pushing it.
:-)
This is the very subject that got me banned years back. It is easy for me to deal with being jammed up in conversations about which I do not have any real emotional baggage. This is not one of those subjects. I am not saying anyone has jammed me up yet at all. Specially you Graeblyn. Your post was an excellent recap of the liberal Christian philosophy.
What I am saying is there is a good chance I will pull out of this thread abruptly if it begins to get to me very much.
Having said that, here's a nice online Bible site.
Bibles
It turns out to be the first one that pops up on Google. :) Anyhow, take care all.
