(November 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm)solarwave Wrote:(November 2, 2009 at 6:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ solarwave: Maybe that's speaking of heterosexuals being promiscuous by doing what goes against their nature. To a homosexual, males lusting after males isn't unnatural, so the point is lost.
Im sorry but I dont think that makes sense of the verse. The verse made a point that they left women and went to men.
I would like to point out I don't hate gays, I just have to follow what the bible is saying unless a better interpretation is given (thats why I was interested in if you could explain that verse).
They left women - their nature is established. If the men had left men to go with women what would that say? No, the verse says heterosexuals suddenly practiced homosexual acts.
I'm with you. I don't mind if the bible were to be unfashionable. It's moral stance isn't swayed by sociocultural influence.
(November 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm)Saerules Wrote: The very best interpretation of this particular instance... is that it is anfr0d0 Wrote:Outdated law.
If you want to challenge that... I suppose you follow every other outdated law in Leviticus?What's to distinguish it as different from the other laws throughout the entire chapter?
The laws of Leviticus simply aren't considered out of context.