Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

You missed my addendum pointing out that it is not the views of the culture that matter, but God's views, of which these codes are an expression.

Regardless, it's a moot point as your initial comment, quoted below, clearly identifies "homosexual desires," which are commonly defined as sexual desires for persons of the same sex.  If I want to have sex because I'm afraid of what my peers will think of me if I don't, or because someone is holding a gun to my head -- any other kind of desire besides a sexual desire is not going to count.


Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other as my primary point was that Sheldon was misrepresenting what the bible says about same-sex sexual acts.

First- I said nothing about gods' views, I spoke of the view as expressed in the bible which said culture follows (with the belief they are god's views)

The bible is a document of divine revelation; you can't separate the two.

Second-My comment on sex homosexual desires which I don't think was refuted nor was general notion of desires or willingness to engage in an act would likely still be condemned, so no I disagree non-sexual acts don't count. 

Your claim was that performance of the act implied condemnation of the homosexual attribute of the person. While as a sociological matter it may be likely that the culture of those who embraced God condemned the sexual orientation, it also may be likely that those people condemned the act because the act was a part of a social role prescribed for men and women, regardless of the motivating factor. One can examine the writings of the time and find that they had no words to describe sexual orientations but it's clear that they had words to describe the appropriate behavioral roles of men and women (e.g. Roman writings about women of power). So while there is evidence from the writing for the latter, I'm unclear on what your evidence for the former is. Beyond that, because implication is a matter of authorial intent, and the bible and God's revelations are expressions of his intentions, whether God intended people to conclude that condemnation of the act was condemnation of the orientation, a subject for which they have no words, is ultimately a question about the author and His intent. Unless of course you want to go post-modern, and that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Third- I still agree that he did, as I still think homosexual desires would be condemned, as would a willingness to engage in said act. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but neither do I think you have satisfied the burden of proof in the matter at hand.