Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crazy Liz · 12-16-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

Christ is alive and active in the world today and to constrain the message of Jesus Christ to the Bible is inexcusable.

This is true, but it's off the topic of the debate, which is "Does the Bible condemn homosexual activity?"

Or, to be more precise:

Resolved: The bible clearly condemns all homosexual activity.

Aegeri · 12-27-2005, 03:00 AM

This is an interesting debate but it seems that the position is stacked in the negatives direction. As has been pointed out, I can't find where the bible makes reference to female homosexuality and that would seem to make the way the debate proposition is worded automatically favour seebs.

countjulian · 01-07-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

This is an interesting debate but it seems that the position is stacked in the negatives direction. As has been pointed out, I can't find where the bible makes reference to female homosexuality and that would seem to make the way the debate proposition is worded automatically favour seebs.

Uhh, no, it's right here in Romans (the NT! Can't beat that!). Romans 1:26-28

Quote:

. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

Notice how Paul compares male and female homosexuality to one and other, using male homosexuality to likewise condemn lesbianism.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 01-09-2006, 02:31 PM

The formal debate is now complete.

calebnostro and seebs are now welcome to post in this thread if they wish to.

- NS, FD Moderator

seebs · 01-09-2006, 04:47 PM

Actually, countjulian, I'd argue that it makes a lot more sense to see that as a condemnation of male/female anal sex, which is a "use contary to nature" from Paul's point of view.

Now, the interesting question: Would you say that, if Paul describes something as contrary to nature (para physin) that it is necessarily then condemned?

Crazy Liz · 01-11-2006, 04:45 PM

Is Calebnostro going to show up here?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2005, 03:00 AM	#42
Aegeri Regular Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: New Zealand Posts: 404	This is an interesting debate but it seems that the position is stacked in the negatives direction. As has been pointed out, I can't find where the bible makes reference to female homosexuality and that would seem to make the way the debate proposition is worded automatically favour seebs.

01-09-2006, 02:31 PM	#44
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	The formal debate is now complete. calebnostro and seebs are now welcome to post in this thread if they wish to. - NS, FD Moderator

01-09-2006, 04:47 PM	#45
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	Actually, countjulian, I'd argue that it makes a lot more sense to see that as a condemnation of male/female anal sex, which is a "use contary to nature" from Paul's point of view. Now, the interesting question: Would you say that, if Paul describes something as contrary to nature (para physin) that it is necessarily then condemned?

01-11-2006, 04:45 PM	#46
Crazy Liz Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: California Posts: 9,313	Is Calebnostro going to show up here?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.