(May 13, 2012 at 8:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: You're reading it with your conclusion already in mind, which is what leads you to bold the portion you did (and de-emphasize the portion you did not). Nevertheless, "that which is filthy" would be prostitution. There are a few mentions of homosexuality in scripture, all indirect (as this one is) and at the very worst it seems to be seen as a sort of bundled effect of where the path of sinfulness leads. It is never directly stated to be sinful in and of itself, and is in fact never directly addressed.
Look, I think the whole book is bullshit cover to cover, so it wouldn't change my opnion on the matter either way. On the other hand (and I've mentioned this before) I'd really love for scripture to just come out and say "God hates fags" because that would be the icing on the cake for me. Sadly, it just isn't there.
Scripture.....is....silent. Clearly, the faithful are not.
I think its blatantly obvious to anyone what is being said in that verse. My understanding of English is that "filthy" and "prostitute" are two entirely distinct words, how do you get to simply replace one word with another and claim that is the meaning? for example this is what you are doing,
"The girl ate an ice cream" would become "The girl ate a cake" then you could claim the original sentence was really about a girl eating a cake. Nice way of interpreting....
