Well, obviously you do not have the New International Version of the Bible in your Bible library...
Here is a bibliography of the Bibles and books in my home library that I use in discussions of this sort:
St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible; Catholic book Publishing, NY; 1968 (Catholic)
The New American Bible; Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville; 1971 (Catholic)
The Holy Bible King James Version; Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 1984 (Protestant)
The Holy Bible New International Version; Zondervan Bible Pub. Grand Rapids; 1978 (Non-demoninational)
The Scofield Reference Holy Bible (King James Version); Oxford Univ. Press; NY; 1909 (Protestant)
The Holy Scriptures Masoretic Text; Jewish Publ Society; Philadelphia: 1955 (Jewish)
The Holy Bible, St.Joseph Textbook Edition, Confraternity Version; Catholic book Publ: NY; 1963; (Catholic)
The Holy Bible Revised Berkeley Version; The Gideons Intrl; 1984; (Non-denominational Protestant)
The New American Catholic Edition of The Holy Bible; Benziger Bros, Boston; 1950 (Catholic)
The Old Testament; Guild Press NY; 1965 (Catholic)
The Living Bible; Holman Illustrated Edition: A.J. Holman Co; Philadelphia; 1973 (Protestant)
The Holy Bible; King James Version; The World Publ Co: Cleveland; (no date); (Protestant)
The Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Co: NY; 1916 (English & Hebrew) (Jewish)
**** Also I use
The Common Catechism of the Christian Faith: Seabury Press;NY 1975 (Protestant)
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Urbi et Orbi Comm; 1994 (Catholic)
The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism: Catholic Book Publish; NY; 1962 (Catholic)
*****Plus, I have (estimated) 40 - 50 other books dealing with the Bible, religion, and philosophy that I use when posting.
Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) -- “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV) -- "(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 1:25-27 (NIV) -- "(25) They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Now, the first example is from the Old Testament, but the other two are from the New Testament. I could continue well beyond these three examples, but these three examples more than make my point re: what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible does NOT condone homosexuality. Period. Plain as day. Cut and dry.
The comment I made...and which you quoted was, "I have a very extensive library of Bibles...and in none of them does Jesus address the issue of homosexuality...except that he says that the old laws do not change."
Are you supposing that the citations you gave shows Jesus addressing the issue of homosexuality?
I see not one word in any of my Bibles from Jesus doing so...and none of the passages you posted shows him doing so either.
So...what is the disagreement?
Any Christian who claims this is disregarding Jesus' words in Matthew 5 during his sermon on the mount. Jesus, as he said, did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it.
What are you talking about?
Jesus DID SAY that he was not here to change the laws. Not until Heaven and Earth pass away. Earth certainly has not passed away.
It's also important to understand context. For instance, some OT law was given specifically to Israel (wasn't given to gentiles). Other law was ceremonial, performed for the purpose of anticipating the coming of Christ, and since he has now come, there's no logical reason to keep performing it. The context/reasoning for the law matters.
That is not correct. (This next part is from an essay I wrote on the question of whether or not the laws of the Old Testament still apply to Christians.)
Here are some pertinent facts: At Acts 15, the author deals with a meeting that took place in Jerusalem between the presbyters of the community church, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, possibly other unnamed apostles, and possibly lay members of the community. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a controversy that had arisen among the converted Pharisees of Antioch"who were of the opinion that Christianity was a religion that should be open only to Jews. They were openly distrustful of Paul, who was intent on converting gentiles as well.
In any case, the subject controversy was that the Pharisees were especially troubled by the fact that Paul allowed gentile converts to come into the new religion without being circumcised"a compromise they thought would lead to greater and more troubling (for them) concessions to the law. In fact, the specific item on the agenda appears to have been the non-circumcision of Titus (later, St. Titus)"a Greek gentile convert who was a frequently companion to Paul on his travels among the gentiles.
The meeting, an important early Christian meeting, is not only mentioned by Luke in Acts 15, but also by Paul in his letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 (particularly verses 1-10.)
Both Acts and Galatians indicate that the main instigation for the meeting was the question of whether or not the act of circumcision was a necessary requirement for gentile converts to the newly formed religion. The question of whether dietary restrictions should be imposed was quickly included…and while there are some differences of opinions as to how that last part was resolved, the “minutes” of the meeting (actually a letter to the Christian community in Antioch) indicate that some dietary obligations remained in effect.
The group, in the letter, invokes the agreement of The Holy Spirit in the decision. Circumcision, it was decided, was definitely NOT a requirement for gentile converts. The dietary resolution has some minor ambivalence. Galatians seems to indicate that no dietary restrictions were required of the new gentile converts, or at least, none are specifically mentioned. Acts 15: 23-29 specifically states that the letter which outlined the results of the deliberations included the following, “…it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, that we will not lay upon you (gentile converts) any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union. You will be well advised to avoid these things.”
In any case, anyone who reads the material in Galatians or Acts as justification for divorcing Christianity from the Old Testament law really is stretching things a great deal. The deliberations seem to have been almost exclusively confined to considerations of circumcision and dietary laws.
But even if that stretch is deemed proper and reasonable (which intelligent, well-intentioned people can do), there is absolutely no logical way to suppose any perceived divorce from Old Testament law includes the right to suppose that the things that pleased or offended the god of the Bible as indicated in the Old Testament…no longer applied. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that murder and stealing and fornicating and lusting offended the god of the Bible"Christians were also. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that homosexuality offended the god"Christians were also.
