Where does the bible explicitly condemn homosexuality?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

I like how you act like there's a single "Christian Church" that governs all Christians or something.

Oh wow, that site looks loony. They draw so many unfound conclusions. David and Ashpenaz had a homosexual relationship. Right.....

I can't help but laugh at halogamer's sig. Have you ever heard of the jefferson bible? You know the book he made where he took the philosophies of jesus but removed all the wacky supernatural stuff, and errors that he believed the gospel writers made? Jefferson was a deist who respected the humanist philosophies of Jesus. Even as an atheist I respect some of the philosophies of Jesus, as I do of various religious figures. That doesn't mean that Jefferson was a christian that wanted to make a religious christian state.

He once was quoted as saying about jesus
"To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines had to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, and presented in every paradoxical shape. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers."

He wrote in a letter to John Adams

"In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves."

He thought the doctrines were a bunch of nonsense and the bible a flawed book written by unlearned men who had no idea what they were talking about. But he believed in a deity and he believed that Jesus was a great philosopher. Thusly the reason he stripped out all of the super natural, and left in the philosophy.

If the government supports any one religion then every other religion is under attack by that government. The only way to truly protect religion is to keep it out of the hands of the government all together. But the christian right extremists don't care about protecting religion, they care only about protecting christianity's place in the US culture and US government.

And halogamer, would you say that their is something wrong with the billions of muslims? Would you say their devotion to allah is misguided? I mean you're just 20, and all. How could you make an assessment of billions of people's beliefs? An appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy. If a billion people believe something erroneous that doesn't somehow make it right. Even you as a 20 something I'm sure can find plenty of points to contradict large majorities on.

Your post is full of laughable material, I expect no less. I don't know why I reply, hey BTW are you communist hater? You two talk exactly the same. Either you're the same person, or you read from the same script that somebody is handing out, but damn it's like somebody cloned you.

They're different.

Halogamer seems to be Christian while communist hater is an atheist I believe.

I don't think he's saying "prove the events wrong" I think he's trying to say "prove the notion that Christianity is a positive moral force wrong" to which he refers to Christian charity.

There are many responses I could offer to this.

I could point out that true or not, general good does not excuse committing heinous acts on others.

I could suggest(rightly or wrongly, though it would make for a great discussion) that Christianity has generally been moral negative force by writing a long list of attrocities committed against non-christian groups in the name of Christianity (I didn't say because of, I said in the name of, it's a subtle but large difference)

I could suggest that much of the moral progression in the last century has been not by the hands of religion, but in opposition to it, as illustrated most recently by our generations' current great moral battle of acceptance of differing sexuality

And in the most complicated response, I could question his base statement that Christians do far more to help the poor than anyone else. This one the hardest one to talk about because it requires the dissection of not only the breadth of world charity and poverty relief, but also a complete dissection of beliefs and motivations of individuals.  I imagine this one would make for a very interesting discussion on it's own, but this thread might not be the place for that.

I find your link hilarious in it's arguments. It offers no valid argument to explain away how the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, other than pervert the context. The site offered no direct quotes from scripture in any language or translation. How can it argue with the validity of the statement without even quoting it?

As for Biblical statements concerning homoseuxality, among other things:

In this chapter, the Bible is discussing the laws concerning sexual morality, and what not to do. Homosexuality is mentioned among a littany of other immoral behaviors incuding incest, bestiality, adultery. No where does it (as the website you mention) attempt to discuss the passage, other than mis-direct the intention of the chapter into something else. Again, how is this not clear cut?

As for the meaning behind the words:

שׁכב
shâkab
shaw-kab'
A primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose): -  X at all, cast down, ([over-]) lay (self) (down), (make to) lie (down, down to sleep, still, with), lodge, ravish, take rest, sleep, stay.

את
'êth
ayth
Probably from H579; properly nearness (used only as a preposition or adverb), near; hence generally with, by, at, among, etc.: - against, among, before, by, for, from, in (-to), (out) of, with. Often with another preposition prefixed.

זכר
zâkâr
zaw-kawr'
From H2142; properly remembered, that is, a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex): -  X him, male, man (child, -kind).

משׁכּב
mishkâb
mish-kawb'
From H7901; a bed (figuratively a bier); abstractly sleep; by euphemism carnal intercourse: - bed ([-chamber]), couch, lieth (lying) with.

From those root words, which were translated as 'lie with a man' - How is one to argue the meaning when it's an absolute certanty that it specificly states the prohibition of going to bed (sexual intercourse) with that of the same gender? You really have to stretch, distort, and destroy the original translation (Hebrew in this case) to appease the idea that the Bible is saying something other than that it's OK to have sex with another man. Furthermore, if this idea is true, then the prohibition against incest and beastiality must be lifted, should it not? What's also interesting is that Leviticus 20:13 uses the exact same wording concerning sex. How could two sections of Biblical law use the exact same wording, and mean something totally different? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'd gladly continue to discuss the contexts of all other major passages concerning homosexuality. If you want to discuss this further, then we should probably move it to a PM or something, as this is mostly OT. Nevertheless, I will gladly debate and discuss the merits of what the Bible states concerning homosexuality.

See. There it is Mr. Stick. If your referring to Leviticus to justify a moral code. It's a cruddy moral code

I've read leviticus. And unless you've sacrificed some goats, sworn off shelfish and boycotted clothes with more than one fabric, then you're not really following it consistently are you?

Why people refer to that ancient text in the context of homosexuality while ignoring all the crazy parts that we've long since figured out were misguided/wrong/immoral and or cruel is pretty good evidence that religion is not moralities guide. In fact, given all the long since ignored practices in the bible and the continuing progression away from it's more harmful themes (such getting away from hating gays) it suggests quite strongly that when religious people do good, it is in spite of, and not because of ancient texts.

stof -

The problem was that the site that Rath used to justify homosexuality through the Bible used those 2 verses immediately. I just picked them apart using original intent to show that the website is a crock of crap.

I'll leave my argument at that. It's obvious you dislike religion, along with others. I don't think I can ever provide a reasonable statement for the life I, or many Christians live, so I will choose to spend my time elsewhere.

I've never read Leviticus, but it sounds like an illuminating read.