We do not interpret the Bible; we simply read it.
Which part of "abomination" needs interpretation?
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[/B]
Which part of "vile" needs interpretation? Which part of "unseemly" needs interpretation?
Which part of "vile" needs interpretation? Which part of "unseemly" needs interpretation?
If homosexuality is not 'natural' then why do animals commonly show homosexual acts?
Yes, and as we all know, Wikipedia is never wrong.

So there are liberals false Christians who "interpret" their way out of any Bible teaching that they don't like? That's hardly news.
Leave a comment: