A Chat With A Revoice Teacher

Status
Not open for further replies.
You misunderstand me. I'm fine with the term "homosexuality" used to describe certain behaviors and desires. I am not okay with "homosexual" and "heterosexual" used to describe someone's identity.

You insist that "homosexual" must refer to identity. It need not. It can and does refer to a pattern of behaviour (as your own defnition of "homosexuality" would appear to grant). I daresay you are permitting modern notions to reshape definitions of words. That, in my view, is "giving ground".
 
I have just started reading David Dickson's brief explication of the epistles, and came across this reference to homosexuality in his comments on Romans 1:26, 27:

In the Example of the Gentiles is propounded a further demonstration of man’s unrighteousness, and Gods wrath against the wicked: To wit, that God gave them up judicially to the hands of their own lusts, and defiled spirits (who served their own corrupt affections in matter of Religion) that (against Nature) the men and women in their abominable Sodomitical filthiness (below beasts, in their unnatural lusts) by way of requital should debase themselves, who by their Idolatry had abased the glory of God, in resembling him to Creatures and fictions of their own.

David Dickson, An exposition of all St. Paul’s epistles together with an explanation of those other epistles of the apostles St. James, Peter, John & Jude: wherein the sense of every chapter and verse is analytically unfolded and the text enlightened (London: Francis Eglesfield, 1659), p. 4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top