You go to no great lengths to post irrelevant commentaries of a personal nature.
“So, it would appear that St Paul wasn't 'lecturing us' about homosexuality as we understand it today, but about those (who probably didn't identify as homosexual in the way we understand it today) expoiting prostitutes.” Oh, no, things were different back then. They used prostitutes ! That’s different!
You rebut an assertion I didn't make.
And using the Canadian minister’s logic, you can dismiss any part of the Bible you find inconvenient to your argument or your way of life.
Again, that's not what he said or implied.
Are you 'dismissing' the part of the Bible that encourages you to accept that stoning a rebellious son is OK? Is that because it is not 'convenient to your way of life'?
Responses « Back to index | View thread »