Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:I was taught that you better be a good little Christian (of [insert preacher's chosen sect of the month here]), or you'll burn in hell.

Most of my actual knowledge has come from research rather than teachings. Preachers are notorious demagogues and rhetoricians.

I used to wonder how it was an all loving, all wise God could create a race of intellegent beings with deep emotions and desires, then chuck the ones the didn't measure up into eternal flames. Why create such a thing in the first place unless he was a sadist. This is what my original religion had me wondering.

I then was taught that we are literal sons and daughters of God and are put here to have the individual experiences that we need here
In order to be able to learn the things we need to know in order to inherit the things he has for us, if we prove worthy, when we pass to the other side. No one gets tossed into flames by him any more than a father who truly loves his child would toss him into flames if the child made a mistake.

Melissia wrote:Actually, they are.

Quite frequently.

Sure. In the same way that people debate the existence of the Holocaust.

In fact, the meanings behind Paul in Romans is still disputed today.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Yes. Sexuality isn't mentioned at all in Romans. Unless you can of course just say "its not in the original text" then I guess you can just ignore it for convenience. There's no evidence that Romans has ever undergone alteration. That's NIT btw. But KJV says basically the same thing (though as typical of KJV the wording is prettier). ESV says pretty much the same thing, and that's a Textus Revisitus based translation too.

The interesting part of that verse, isn't even that it calls homosexuality shameful/unnatural, its that it calls exclusive homosexuality shameful which of course then raises the question "is bisexuality okay then?" The meaning for a lot of things can be debated but some things are just straightforward, and no one has ever challenged the validity of Romans' text because we have copies from the late 1st century, and they say the same thing.

I'm aware.

Well you're in a sour mood.

LordofHats wrote:Sure. In the same way that people debate the existence of the Holocaust.

No.

Just....

No.

There is no way I can respect your arguments if you're going to be a fething dick like that.

Melissia wrote:There is no way I can respect your arguments if you're going to be a fething dick like that.

If that's how you want to look at it. Frankly, you should look at your own argument, because just like holocaust deniers its an absurd position.

There is absolutely no evidence at any point in history that Romans was altered. EDIT: Hell, unlike most NT books we're actually fairly certain of when Romans was written down to fall of 55 CE. No evidence that verses were added or taken away. I say what I say because the very idea that it was flies in the face of known fact. We have copies of most of the Pauline epistles from the 1st Century CE. Once translated the only issue is word choice, not content and frankly debating the use of 'dishonorable' or 'vulgar' in place of shameful or sinful is stupid in first place. EDIT: That's even true of most of the NT. The only radical alteration in any of them is the last two chapters of Mark.

There is overwhelming evidence to account for the validity of NT texts over time. If you then want to deny that evidence, I hope your fluent in Koine Greek and carbon dating or you're going to be called out on the absurdity of your position.

@all: Please keep Rule Number One in mind. Attack arguments and not other posters.