[SoJoCo]

Not exactly. It’s important that you look at the time, and the kinds of things Jesus was denouncing. Unless someone was being an unrepentant in adultery, this was understood, but some religious leaders at the time were getting divorced and remarried to younger women, for pretty frivolous reasons. Sorry, but if one isn’t doing divorce for the fact that someone is being stubbornly unrepentant about adultery, or there is a serious need to leave the spouse for abusing you and/or the children, divorce is wrong. Divorce, should be a last resort to marital problems, not a casual solution for a general fact that you don’t spontaneously live happily ever after.

See? So if you can interpret the work of Jesus as quoted in Mark in a way that makes sense to you in the modern era, then how can we be surprised when other people try to do the same with the teachings on homosexuality?

[Morpheus2009]

See? So if you can interpret the work of Jesus as quoted in Mark in a way that makes sense to you in the modern era, then how can we be surprised when other people try to do the same with the teachings on homosexuality?

I interpreted it in the context of Judaism in the 1st century, so the whole thing makes little sense.

There is a difference between how homosexuality is interpreted in the Bible versus it’s interpretation in culture.

Biblically, the Bible only is condemning of specific acts. If men were caught jamming their genitals or fists into the anus of another man or woman, that would be a condemning behavior. The behavior was separable from the person in the Biblical context.

I appreciate your efforts at making an analogy, but the real point is understanding things as they historically, and not modernly, were.

[Morpheus2009]

See? So if you can interpret the work of Jesus as quoted in Mark in a way that makes sense to you in the modern era, then how can we be surprised when other people try to do the same with the teachings on homosexuality?

I interpreted it in the context of Judaism in the 1st century, so the whole thing makes little sense.

There is a difference between how homosexuality is interpreted in the Bible versus it’s interpretation in culture.

Biblically, the Bible only is condemning of specific acts. If men were caught jamming their genitals or fists into the anus of another man or woman, that would be a condemning behavior. The behavior was separable from the person in the Biblical context.

I appreciate your efforts at making an analogy, but the real point is understanding things as they historically, and not modernly, were.