Gilda

Nah, and here's the problem. "The Bible" is quite vague. What translation, and what interpretation? Some interpretations of some translations see homosexuality as a sin, other interpretations don't, some bibles use one translation, others use another. Homosexuality, that is, the state of being attracted to others of the same sex, is not addressed at all in the bible. All references are to specific instances of male-male sex acts. The act, not the state. Homosexuality as a relatively stable state of being was not a concept that in any probability existed at the time the bible was written. Temple prostitution and pederasty (an older man having sex with a younger boy) were, and the admonitions against male-male homsexual acts were likely a reaction to those elements of Roman society.

In biblical terms, Sodomite means a resident of Sodom. The whole city was condemned for it's sins. The modern meaning of sexual contact other than vaginal intercourse is derived from the biblical usage. It makes little sense to project modern usage back on previous uses of the word. It's just unsound etymologically. Also, even in modern usage, sodomy does not mean homosexual sex, it in general means oral or anal sex, which is something engaged in far more often by heterosexuals than homosexuals. It was consensual sodomy laws that were struck down, not forcible sodomy which remain on the books, as they should.

Eh. I think the NRSV tranlastion I provided is just as straightforward, but it does point out the big problem with this passage. The first word there, tranlated in both versions as "male prostitutes" is actually in the original texts malakoi, which literally means "soft". It's sometimes interpreted as "effeminiate", but I think that's a stretch. In Matthew the same word is used to describe weak or sick people. Most male homosexuals aren't prostitutes, and given that the bible condems prostitution in other places, we can safely read this as a condemnation of prostitution with males being specified as not exempt. But since your translation agrees with mine that it refers to prostitutes, I think we can agree that it's not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.

Arsenokoitai, translated in your version as "homosexual offenders" and in mine as "sodomites" is likewise unclear. It literally means "man lying in bed". The homosexual reference is, dare I say it, projected onto the original text by translators. The precise meaning is unclear, though it may be a holdover from leviticus where two smaller words arseno and koitai, are What this means in this context is unclear. It might mean a male prostitute, differentiated from a female, but who might service either sex, but it seems most likely to be a reference to the Greek practice of pederasty, a specific context no longer relevant and which does not translate easily into a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, just one specific sex act as practiced between a grown man and a young boy in a specific culture.

Nope. The original language is male specific, and adresses specific sex acts, not homosexuality in general.

Homosexuality, that is the state of being homosexual, is not addressed anywhere in any way in the Bible. It would be surprising if it did, as exclusive male homosexuality wasn't really a cultural concept of the time, and the idea that there were female homosexuals would probably have been an entirely foreign concept.

Certain male-male homosexual acts are addressed, but homosexuality itself is not, and discussiono female homosexual acts is absent.

Interesting how you jump from what the bible says to what God believes. Do you have a hotline or something like that? I've got some questions I'd like to ask.

Ah, well, it's good to see you admit that you're guessing. My guess would be that the "Don't do it" refers to the specific acts and doesn't qualify as a blanket condemnation. Just as with the many heterosexual acts condemned.

The ten commandments were reaffirmed in the New Testament, but still, there's no blanket condemnation of homosexuality (as opposed to specific homosexual acts in a specific context) in the Old Testament as well. You'd think that if Jesus was really all that concerned with homosexuality, he'd have said a little more than what he did about it, which was, by the way, nothing.

Unnecessary. A lack of support does not equal condemnation.

Show me a passage where driving a car is condoned, or eating barbequed potato chips or running the high hurdles. Are we to assume those things are sinful because the aren't condoned? Of course not. Endorsement in the bible is not a requirement for an act to be permitted.

However:

Galatians 5:14

For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

Also, Matthew 8: 5-13

No, truly I'm in agreement with you on the main point, that projecting an agenda onto the texts of The Bible is counterproductive.

The disagreement here is in who is doing this.

I agree. That's been the cause of any number of atrocities over the last couple of mellenia.

No, you're not being objective. You have an agenda, a pretty clear one, and you're promoting it pretty heavily.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert