First of all , I don't believe in the teachings of the bible , I have my own book , Second , My book condems the gays , when i say i don't support their cause it means that I am against what they stand for
That interests me. What book is this and by what authority does it claim?
Speaking of the Bible, I have another suggested reading.
Disclaimer: Take this as you will, but I do not hold Christian beliefs. Anyway, try 1 Corinthians 6. The relatively liberal NIV translation does indeed state thus:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)Like zomg, what's this about homosexual offenders? Let's go on:
"Everything is permissible for me"â"but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"â"but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"â"but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1 Corinthians 6:12-13 (NIV)What does this mean? "Everything is permissible for me" is referring to a Corinthian saying that was popular at the time. However Paul (the apostle whose letters were transcribed in this book and most of the rest of the New Testament) is making a point that even if you can find some behavior permissible in concept, it will nonetheless have real ramifications to your physical self. It's not as if one can say something is so and it will be so- on this world there are still trends and consequences. I'm of the opinion that the laws as set out all the way back from the covenants of Abraham and Moses etc. were deliberately prescriptive because to reflect the lack of reason and philosophy of the time. It was only closer to the supposed time of Jesus etc. that concepts and rules of behavior started gaining a rational framework, which is the background by which Paul could set up his arguments. In fact this is especially so seeing as much of his work was directed against those who lived divisively by legalistic reason (as described in Galatians).
Anyway, there has been much argument about whether there was
reason for the various rules and interpretations and the way they changed. I've already provided a broad overview, but I don't think it's a stretch to think that certain rules were imposed because there was a very real health concern whilst others reflect a general (and irrational) fear of the unknown (by which I refer to the laws regarding womens' menstrual cycles).
To get to the specifics of the topic, homosexual conduct back in the day was actually a) openly commonplace b) almost exclusively associated with a sordid mix of powergames and political intrigue, plus c) an unhealthy focus on hedonism, which in turn was associated with the social institutions that exercised all kinds of immoralities both directly and indirectly. While it could be argued that there are certain elements of homosexual behavior/culture these days that follow the same patterns, the discussion has broadened significantly such that the significance of said social institutions from back in the day no longer really have any bearing.
My secular interpretation: moderation, a little caution and for the love of God use protection. On one level, come as you are, but on another, that doesn't change the fact that certain things are more likely to harm you than others, for example intravenous drug use, unprotected sex and smoking.
