SecretMethod70

Heh, fair enough. Nonetheless, the general point still stands...abomination is hardly as harsh a word as it comes across in English. Lying is an abomination (Proverbs 12:22), but I hardly see people voting to deny liars their rights and self-respect.There is a fine line between having conviction in your own beliefs and recognizing it's impossible to be sure you are right. As a personal rule, I think it's important to err on the side of respect and tolerance. That doesn't mean agreeing with everything, just recognizing that I'm not in the position to tell someone else what is moral or immoral when it comes to things like homosexuality, etc.On this point, you won't get much disagreement from me. I can't say I know of any Christian sects which claim the OT is no longer valid. Indeed, if they did, there would be little point in including it. However, sects is the operative term here. I can say I know of Christian belief systems which do not view things in the way you do, in terms of homosexuality in general, and in terms of whether the bible is a "rulebook" or something more like a "guide." So, I do think it's important to avoid painting broad strokes with the term "Christian." I think discussion would be far easier if people said things like "according to my Evangelical belief, homosexuality is a sin," as opposed to "in Christianity, homosexuality is a sin."Oh, I believe you. That doesn't address the fact there is lack of clarity regarding whether it is speaking of homosexuality in general, only male homosexuality, only specific acts of male homosexuality, etc. I return to my previous statement about erring on the side of respect and tolerance.It's funny you mention that. The commandment, "thou shalt not kill" is turning up more and more in its more correct form, "thou shalt not murder" these days. It would seem, when dealing with translating a centuries-old, dead language, most anything is up for debate I should clarify. I am hard-pressed to find secular religious scholars who have such conservative views on the bible. No doubt, the large majority of religious scholars are not secular, and likewise are more likely to take the conservative view.

As for the religious groups...well, so what? Scriptures are living documents, holding not only the spiritual history of a people, but evolving with the people in the here and now. Nothing shows this more than the fact it took the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to clearly define biblical canon. And of course that's not to mention that they did so in response to the fact other Christians had different views of biblical canon. So, maybe they're rejecting doctrine, or maybe they're choosing a new interpretation, that may or may not be historically based, of an old text. Either way, what they are doing is being active participants in their spiritual history. To steal a phrase from a Catholic studies professor I once had, they are "changing to preserve the changeless." Namely, they are changing an archaic view of homosexuality (if we assume, for the moment, that your interpretation is historically correct), to preserve the changeless message of Jesus' mission: acceptance and love. Add into the mix the mounting evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis, and you've got a recipe for reform.No argument there. I seem to have come across differently than I intended: I only mean to point out that I'm not making this stuff up simply because I want it to be true. Nor am I saying you are. However, on a discussion board, there are often participants in a discussion which have no background for their opinions other than the fact it just sounds right to them.Again, I must emphasize the distinction between secular and non-secular religious scholars. Genearlly speaking, I don't give as much credence to the viewpoint of non-secular scholars, although being secular does not necessarily preclude one from bias.I could have sworn Gilda elaborated on this point. Furthermore, regardless of whether she's correct or not, the issue is not as clear-cut as you'd have us believe. Once again, I believe in erring on the side of respect and tolerance.I won't argue that abomination is a negative word...but I don't think it's as loaded as you think it is. LOTS of things are abominations in the bible (and many of them don't have convenient little counterpoints in the NT like the ones you pointed out in the beginning of your post ), but I don't see lying be treated as an equal "abomination" to homosexuality, for example. When we talk about lying, it's just "bad." It's when we talk about homosexuality that people like to bring out the "abomination" comments.The OT (and the NT for that matter) also says a whole bunch of other stuff regarding the relationship between a man and a woman that no reasonable person would accept today. That's not a condemnation of the bible, but an emphasis on the fact it must be read in cultural context.I read it...but I think I addressed what I think of it with my previous paragraph. However, in the interest of clarity - and because it further demonstrates the futility in continuing this exchange - supporting the information on a page like that just about makes it certain I'll ignore anything you might say to me with regards to spirituality.I admit that whether or not the bible is explicitly clear on the subject is secondary to the relevance of the teaching. In this case, I do not think it is relevant any longer.Hating the sin doesn't include drafting laws to prevent two people who love one another from committing themselves through marriage. If you think it's a sin, let god handle that part.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling