Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Jato, that is true that you need to understand the context of the scripture but it is very clear in saying that men and women gave up natural relations for each other (male/female) for unatural ones with the same sex. ('In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another'). No matter what the reason, that very point is clear.





Okay. Try this rather well-known passage and apply it across the board in the same fashion that you are doing here, without taking Latin and Hebrew translation differences into consideration:

"Though shalt not kill"

The original Hebrew meaning behind this would equivocate today as "Though shalt not murder". Even the simplest of passages in the Bible due to differences in translation, differences in audience and differences in purpose can be torqued to mean something entirely different.

The same goes for the passage in Romans, though it's not as simple as this. Paul is a difficult apostle to read, period. Research him a bit, and NOT just through strict biblical references.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:
In other words, very cut and dry. We already know God disapproves of orgies, etc because of the kind of love he expects to take place between a man and woman. Hence, all of the scriptures that discuss this relationship.



Not wholesale, as many of the past Hebrew leaders kept harems of a sizeable nature.

Your aboslutely crazy if your going to try and tell me no orgies took place as that's pretty much one of the whole ideas behind a harem...

Try again.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:
I can't speak on hermaphrodites because I know nothing about them or the subject. I never said they were damned either and they have a choice as to whether they want to partake in any sexually activity or not.



Bullsh!t. That's not a choice. That's an utter lack of options and it's a downright DODGE of the moral question here. Don't confuse the two.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:
If they chose not to, how are they damned? If they chose not to have relations with a female or a male (physically or emotionally) again, why would they be condemed?

So, they are utterly condemned to deny any semblance of feeling either way? Again, this is NO choice and don't even try to convince yourself otherwise, as they aren't bound by vows of chastity due to their "unique" nature. Any other treatment of them is unfair, not just and is to treat them less than human...

Given this, I'll adjust the question somewhat. What interpretation should be gleaned from the Bible about hermaphrodites?

Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Also, we have to remember that God is consistent through out time.



True. Human languages and the imperfect translation of divine ideology filtered through fallable beings isn't consistent and which much of this discourse is based off of.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:
He doesn't change as the times change. What wasn't acceptable in Rome, Corinth, Ehesas, etc. is still unacceptable today.

Then slavery needs to be reinstated, as it was an acceptable practice in numerous Christian societies throughout the centuries. The Bible nowhere condemns the practice, either. In short, it doesn't talk about the MORALITY of the practice at all. I can't think of a single lecture in the Bible that discusses this...

This is a pretty good parallel to the homosexuality argument. Your thoughts on this BLATANT biblical omission of a practice that today is considered morally repugnent and evil?

Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Now this is just me talking w/out using scriptures but I don't believe God would create woman for man and openly accept same sex relationships.



You are a much wiser man than I am, then.


JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe