Romans 1 do you? "25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."
I'm not sure I follow Naath's arguement actually: even if it didn't specifically mention women would it make any sense to think it somehow didn't apply to them?
Isn't that just pedantry?
The bible isn't a scientific paper, it's not carefully derived from axioms so that pedantry is the appropriate way to approach it.
This isn't a docuement written to be read by computers, but by humans, so read it like a human.
If the text doesn't say something but it's blindly obvious it means it, then go with that meaning.
The bible never once mentions Jesus using the toilet. I think we can be entirely confident that Jesus had a digestive system that threw ought waste just the same as yours does.
Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-19 02:02 pm (UTC)From:"25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."
I'm not sure I follow Naath's arguement actually: even if it didn't specifically mention women would it make any sense to think it somehow didn't apply to them?
Isn't that just pedantry?
The bible isn't a scientific paper, it's not carefully derived from axioms so that pedantry is the appropriate way to approach it.
This isn't a docuement written to be read by computers, but by humans, so read it like a human.
If the text doesn't say something but it's blindly obvious it means it, then go with that meaning.
The bible never once mentions Jesus using the toilet. I think we can be entirely confident that Jesus had a digestive system that threw ought waste just the same as yours does.
Neil