Can someone address this PLEASE?

Craven I write curriculum and TEACH this stuff.

Now I could post the many many hundreds of pages of research I've done on it, but you really don't wish for me to do that.

I am getting some manuscripts ready for publication, however, and will let you know when they are ready.

The Bible condemns simple homosexuality more times than "social perversions that would be perversions whether done by straight or gay",

At 'face value' your observation is correct, but your interpretation is flawed.

And you posted nothing to support your interpretation.

The fact is, neither of us can 'prove' our opinion on this subject.

Someday I hope to be viewed as an authority on it by virtue of a published work, but even then it will be my informed opinion of the intent of people who wrote thousands of years ago.

I will concede that the ancient Jew probably did consider homosexuality as a perversion mostly because it was unthinkable that a Jew would be homosexual. That mindset for most people has prevailed through most of human history until gays started coming out of the closet in the last half of the 20th Century and society began rethinking the whole issue.

My opinion, however, is that only fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is literally true as understood in 21st century language will use the Bible passages (and others) you posted to make a case against homosexuality. Most serious Bible historians know better.

Stoning was a popular form of capital punishment for many offenses as recounted in the Old and New Testament.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I do not accept your proof texting as substantiation of your view, and you won't accept my assertion of my personal expertise on the subject. So we're pretty well stymied on this one.

Again, Foxfyre, speak for yourself. I can substantiate my claims, while you in turn merely make excuses for being unable to do so.

She is not the least bit homophobic or anti-gay. There

But I don't think you have substantiated your claims.

You have pulled passages from the Bible with assertion that they mean what they say to us reading with 21st Century experience. I tell you that you can't read them that way and obtain an accurate interpretation.

That's what the disagreement is and I again say we are stymied on that pont.

Maybe get one of those bibles where everything Jesus says is written in red and just read those parts. Throw the rest away.
It would be pretty much near heaven on earth.

I figured nailing down that definition would come up. lol

I took it to mean some notorious prevarication among Christians who do not wish to kill gays but instead of disavowing the passages seek to find alternative interpretations.

See, killing gays is too obviously extreme even for most Christians, but instead of acknowledging the error of these scriptures they seek to redefine them through linguistic gymnastics.

For example, when the Bible condemns homosexual sex, they look for ways it can be interpreted as not being general homosexual sex but specific taboos.

So when it forbids lying with a man as with a woman they rationalize it as forbidding homosexual sex in a woman's bed for example, which is clearly just a matter of good manners (failure to exhibit said manners means death of course).

Sometimes when the Bible condemns homosexual sex they rationalize it as, say, condemning "pagan" sex.

Thing is, there are a bunch of passages where such ambiguity is possible.

For example, the frequent claim that Jesus never condemned homosexuality can be challenged because he did in fact condemn certain multiple-meaning words.

I don't include them because it's possible that he meant one of the other non-homosexual meanings.

But Foxfyre bought into the rationalization too far, and not all the homophobia in the Bible can be explained away with her defense.

I've read the texts and the context and all that she stipulates to avoid being "invariably lead to wrong conclusions about the intention of the content" and I don't think she has, because she's making demonstratably false claims.

Some of the passages are infamously rationalized as not being against homosexuality per se but rather social taboos of the time that happened to include homosexuality.

So for example, taking the "pagan" explanation, the proscription was of the "pagan" practice and not of homosexuality.

Riiiight, but that doesn't explain the other passages.

Oh, but those will have explanations too. Instead of condemning homosexuality the Bible is condemning homosexuality in a woman's bed.

Riiiiight.

The prevarication is supported with intellectually vacuous attempts to find linguistic loopholes.

You would not believe the linguistic gymnastics that some go to to try to explain away the Bible's intolerance, and ultimately even if we accept their revisionism, they are still left with very clear Biblical gay bashing that they can't explain.

But hey, at least they get props for not wanting to kill gay people, and I prefer that they try to rationalize their acknowledgement that it would be wrong with the scriptures they cling to instead of goin' out and killing gays or somesuch.

I have to give them credit there, even if the Bible says gays should be killed most Christians are civilized enough to not actually go out and attempt to kill gays, this is very considerate of them.

It's still lamentable that they seek to rationalize the primitive scriptures, when the primitive nature of such exhortations should serve as an indication of the mentality whose product they subscribe to.

Heck, you'd think they'd just be better of saying that they disagree with the call to kill gays and such.

Makes more sense and is so 20th century.