No. I have never said that, nor have I alluded to that. My position is that, if something is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, then one cannot use the Bible to condemn it. It's also worth pointing out the dubious translation of quite a number of key verses; depending on which source you read, there are a number of incompatible translations (in this case, there are pro-gay, anti-gay, and neutral translations).
I have given you the verses on this (unless I wrote it to someone else), please check earlier in this thread. I still would like to know where you get your versions of those verses from, and what they actually state.
Nevertheless, my logic stands: the vast majority of relationships are heterosexual, so it makes sense to use that as the default for his literary rhetoric.
Sorry, your logic does not stand. The majority of ancient Greeks where bi-sexual. He wrote this to the church in Corinth which is in Greece.
On the contrary, the lawyer seeks to have his presupposed opinion proven: that is his goal. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the specifics of Biblical morality, just so long as we agree. It could explicitly condone paedophilic bestiality with a dash of watersports for all the impact it would have on me.
The lawyer twists the truth to fit his goal. My only goal is to see the truth in its purest form, unadulterated by people with agenda and bias.
If this is how you feel, then why are you here debating this? It seems like you just want to cause problems. Your "truth" is your "truth". You came to a Christian forum to debate your version of "truth" versus our version. What kind of answers are you expecting to get? We have God and the Bible, and you have yourself. You are free to do what you want, so why do you care what we (Christians) think?
Upvote
0