You kind of are, but that wasn't really the intention of my post...it was only to speak against Hermeneutics. Also, very little of that is directed at you, it's just that I've seen some use that to the hilt, as an excuse to take the Bible completely out of context.
I don't recall making any explicit doctrinal claims in this thread. I suppose I just inferred you may have been talking to me, I realize not everything is about me, and apologize.
It's a first for me as well, but I don't see the problem with it. I think these "firsts" come up because it's the first time some of this stuff is considered...meaning just because thar particular meaning to the verse has never been brought up, doesn't necessarily mean it can't mean that.
I agree, no issue with it simply being a "first". I suppose I took issue with the authority in which it was claimed... especially because I think we can break this down logically.
It's Paul speaking to us in Romans 1, not Jesus as she claimed.
Even if we allow for the example in Romans 1 to be viewed as a "choice", Paul's describing actions:
"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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."
(woman
exchanged, men
lusted, men
committed)
She leveraged this scripture to suggest
being a homosexual is a choice. However, being a homosexual requires no action. In the verse above, it's depicting action.
Consider as well, even if I concede it was a choice in Romans 1, it doesn't mean just because the Romans in this description chose, that now everyone for all time is "choosing". It could simply be the description of the events as they took place then.
I honestly believe it was an intentional misinterpretation to make one's worldview coherent. I don't know if it's the case, but it seems that way for sure.