@vistgaidziuskerdikas: Kumzius duoda vaizdų

Rajono mafijozas
Rajono mafijozas
Open In TikTok:
Region: LT
Wednesday 04 September 2024 13:28:29 GMT
138203
10325
167
11323

Music

Download

Comments

reportedasltu
Reportedas :
o Bowlingalvis
2024-11-09 23:56:29
5
matevycius
kajiz :
pl jus cia su golf 4?
2025-01-16 18:36:52
1
vistgaidziuskerdikas
Rajono mafijozas :
Visi like ir bus dar contento
2024-09-05 06:49:43
183
ericsfh
Erics :
duchas
2024-09-29 13:42:24
13
stalo.tenisininks
STALO TENISININKS :
xdd
2025-01-16 19:06:55
1
vazonas.jeeebaatj
PANDA_GRIUELIS :
kode drėbės tas čmičkis jibanas
2024-10-26 21:32:41
1
To see more videos from user @vistgaidziuskerdikas, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Romans 1 is a complex chapter and admittedly poses the biggest challenge to the affirming position. For the purpose of this short video, the simple point is that just because same sex relations are said to be “contrary to nature” doesn’t rule them out of God’s plan, or else the salvation of the Gentiles would be ruled out as well!  This argument comes from the theologian Eugene Rogers, in his book “Sexuality and the Christian Body.” His argument is based on “God’s acting ‘contrary to’ or ‘beyond’ nature in incorporating the Gentiles into the Jewish olive tree (Rom. 11:24) [and] God’s predilection for irregular sexuality in salvation history, as in the cases of the women named in the genealogy of Jesus.” A lot more can be said about Romans 1, but what is clear from Romans 2 and the argument of the rest of the book is that Romans 1 is *not* primarily a diatribe against homosexuality, it’s a “rhetorical sting operation” where Paul “let his readers regard same-sex sexual activity as a characteristically Gentile sin of excess, one that [Jewish Christians] could temporarily pride themselves on avoiding, until chapter 2 comes in… [and] Jews turn out also to be without excuse.”  Finally, we should also read this chapter keeping in mind that Paul had no understanding of homosexual orientation, so the relationships he would have had in mind were seen as excessive because he would have been picturing what we know as heterosexual people engaging in homosexual sex. . . . . . . . . . . . #f#faithb#beliefc#christianityc#churchB#Bible#christianity#evangelicalismd#deconstructiont#theology#s#sexualitys#sexe#ethics#p#purityculturequeertheology #gaychristian
Romans 1 is a complex chapter and admittedly poses the biggest challenge to the affirming position. For the purpose of this short video, the simple point is that just because same sex relations are said to be “contrary to nature” doesn’t rule them out of God’s plan, or else the salvation of the Gentiles would be ruled out as well! This argument comes from the theologian Eugene Rogers, in his book “Sexuality and the Christian Body.” His argument is based on “God’s acting ‘contrary to’ or ‘beyond’ nature in incorporating the Gentiles into the Jewish olive tree (Rom. 11:24) [and] God’s predilection for irregular sexuality in salvation history, as in the cases of the women named in the genealogy of Jesus.” A lot more can be said about Romans 1, but what is clear from Romans 2 and the argument of the rest of the book is that Romans 1 is *not* primarily a diatribe against homosexuality, it’s a “rhetorical sting operation” where Paul “let his readers regard same-sex sexual activity as a characteristically Gentile sin of excess, one that [Jewish Christians] could temporarily pride themselves on avoiding, until chapter 2 comes in… [and] Jews turn out also to be without excuse.” Finally, we should also read this chapter keeping in mind that Paul had no understanding of homosexual orientation, so the relationships he would have had in mind were seen as excessive because he would have been picturing what we know as heterosexual people engaging in homosexual sex. . . . . . . . . . . . #f#faithb#beliefc#christianityc#churchB#Bible#christianity#evangelicalismd#deconstructiont#theology#s#sexualitys#sexe#ethics#p#purityculturequeertheology #gaychristian

About