A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Well, we should be grateful we’re in the midst of such a great linguist.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
The passage says that the idolatry caused them to exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. You are left with the problem of why Paul would call gay sex unnatural.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
No your misunderstanding me. I said that by committing the sin of idolatry God withdrawed his grace and allowed them to commit this vile sin known as gay sex in our time:
1:25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature…
Last edited:
A
Andy_82
Guest
I did. You inserted an adverb that wasn’t necessary and threw the intended meaning off as a result. Thereby wasn’t needed and the rest of suffix wasn’t constructed properly and failed as a result. Seriously. It doesn’t make any sense.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I crafted a sentence that made perfect sense. I leave the reader to draw his own conclusion from your lack of comprehension of it.
A
Andy_82
Guest
Because, it was used as a matter of pagan goddess worship. The usual method in Ishtar rites is to ejaculate into a male vessel (prostitute) and have that vessel take it back to the temple where they undergo more rites to have the goddess obtain the essence or being that the ejaculate represents. That is the gay sex that the idolatry involved.
A
Andy_82
Guest
No, it was at that time for that purpose. It doesn’t translate into gay sex borne out of gay love today.
A
Andy_82
Guest
I just addressed this in a reply to Prodigal Son. Please, read that. lol
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
If you think there wasn’t tons of gay love in the Roman world, you’re not very educated on the ancient world.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
This Thread is getting locked before morning. What a trollish catastrophe 
A
Andy_82
Guest
Where on Earth did I say that? I didn’t. My indication is that Paul in this context is addressing the topic of gay sex as rites. Not gay sex as gay love. The greater context of the text in all the passages within the bible indicates exactly that.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
in 1:25 it says they committed idolatry. In 1:26 the first words that appear are “for this cause, God gave them up to shameful affections.” Right here, God says that Homosexuality is a shameful affections. That doesn’t mean he accepts gay sex, it means he sees this attraction as shameful
A
Andy_82
Guest
In that particular context, yes. Not as a whole. It doesn’t address all gay sex. It addresses it from the standpoint of idolatry. Not love.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Amen, preach it!
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Oh but it does address gay sex, and idolatry is set aside. Read:
This is where the gay sex comes in. Your argument that God solely cares about the idolatry part and not the gay sex part. Clearly, when Paul says that a man leaves the natural use of women and burns in lust for another man, working that which is filthy, and recieving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error, he means that it is unnatural and flithy for them to commit gay sex because the act is wrong. Let’s highlight LEAVING NATURAL USE OF WOMEN, MEN WITH MEN, AND WORKING WHICH IS FILTHY.
Love does not change the morality of the situation or says that they can have gay sex for love
Last edited:
A
Andy_82
Guest
He is speaking in terms of the idolatry having corrupted their souls towards it. It’s not the same as a natural state of affection. In other words they’ve taken up worshiping this other god and lust for other men is the symptom.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Yes, idolatry corrupted their souls and made them commit sin which happened to be gay sex. Because gay sex is a result of this corruption, God allowed them to fall into this sin as punishment for their Idolatry. Rightly so, considering its a sin to commit Homosexual acts. But you don’t believe that, do you?
I would have to ask you then, why would God punish them and allow them to fall into sin, which is gay sex, if he, in your logic, accepts gay sex as a form of love?
Last edited:
A
Andy_82
Guest
That’s illogical in the extreme sense. Gay lovers existed long before this sort of persecution began and were so out of love. Not idolatry. Gay sex does not begat more gays as, well, biology. Those who use their bodies in any way to worship another deity defile them. Whether it be by way of gay sex or ritual cannibalism. It doesn’t matter. Gay sex out of gay love, is not idolatry and to consider it so is to go a bridge too far.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I understand that but its clear that Paul is saying that these acts are unnatural. If it weren’t then he should be saying that they turned what God allowed into something used for idolatry. However that is not the case. Paul is saying that they are committing unnatural acts for idolatry which God finds as an abomination. I’ll concede that not all Homosexual acts are created out of idolatry. But I will not concede to the fact that Paul called Homosexual acts unnatural, filthy, sinful, and shameful
Last edited:
A
Andy_82
Guest
Joe, he did. It’s clear in Romans 1:25 that such is the exact reason for his discussing all that he did in that passage. Homosexuality is not inherently idolatrous and the fact he goes into a litany of other causes that are immoral: greed, wickedness and other malaise means he’s using a broad brush here to address the Romans. Among whom such a rite was common. Pederasty, for example, was a common practice among teachers as they believed that having sex with their boy students gave them a kind of spiritual control over them.
Last edited:
- Status