Religion in an expanding society

[Nimzo]

I believe that all of the prohibitions of homosexuality in the bible are quotes of Jewish law.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no such concept as "sexuality" in the Bible, be it heterosexuality or homosexuality (as in, sexual "orientation"). There are (and I suspect this is what you are actually referring to) of course, teachings about sexual practice and desire with respect to people of the same gender, but these can be found in both the Old and the New Testament. It is debated as to what exactly the various prohibitions refer to - some argue same-sex intercourse full stop, others same-sex prostitution and cult worship, and so on.

Since Jesus opposed other aspects of Jewish law I don't think it will be a terribly tricky revision when the time comes.

Don't confuse "fulfilling" the Law (which is what Jesus says he is doing in Matt 5) and "opposing".

[corndog36]

I believe that all of the prohibitions of homosexuality in the bible are quotes of Jewish law.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no such concept as "sexuality" in the Bible, be it heterosexuality or homosexuality (as in, sexual "orientation"). There are (and I suspect this is what you are actually referring to) of course, teachings about sexual practice and desire with respect to people of the same gender, but these can be found in both the Old and the New Testament. It is debated as to what exactly the various prohibitions refer to - some argue same-sex intercourse full stop, others same-sex prostitution and cult worship, and so on.

Since Jesus opposed other aspects of Jewish law I don't think it will be a terribly tricky revision when the time comes.

Don't confuse "fulfilling" the Law (which is what Jesus says he is doing in Matt 5) and "opposing".

'Fulfilling' and 'opposing' would be difficult things to confuse. Perhaps reforming would be a better word. Working on the Sabbath comes to mind, wasn't he accused of breaking some other Temple laws?

[Nimzo]

'Fulfilling' and 'opposing' would be difficult things to confuse. Perhaps reforming would be a better word. Working on the Sabbath comes to mind, wasn't he accused of breaking some other Temple laws?

You won't find those laws in the Torah itself - they are oral laws, interpretations of the written laws in Scripture, such as not being allowed to pluck corn on the Sabbath. A helpful (but slightly simplistic) way to understand the oral laws is that they are like a protective "ring" around the written laws, so that if you don't break the oral laws you will not break the written laws.

[Johnny Hoax]

Religion has no choice but to adapt and spin. This is a better option than to completely rebel against ideas that have become 100% clear through overwhelming evidence. If you can use those now proven concepts in your favor, and spin them as a tool of God, you're likely to keep your audience and sustain the ability to keep recruiting.

As far as Christianity goes, a lot of the details don't even matter to them anyways. As long as the little Jesus story is still intact, the rest is just minor details.

[Cinjin]

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no such concept as "sexuality" in the Bible, be it heterosexuality or homosexuality (as in, sexual "orientation"). There are (and I suspect this is what you are actually referring to) of course, teachings about sexual practice and desire with respect to people of the same gender, but these can be found in both the Old and the New Testament. It is debated as to what exactly the various prohibitions refer to - some argue same-sex intercourse full stop, others same-sex prostitution and cult worship, and so on.
Don't confuse "fulfilling" the Law (which is what Jesus says he is doing in Matt 5) and "opposing".

It would seem to me that the Bible is very clear on it's stance on homosexuality and that the OP is a valid conjecture.
I offer up the following overview of biblical text....

Overview of Leviticus 20:13:This is almost identical to Leviticus 18:22. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam." However, it adds a compulsory death penalty to the participants. In various translation the passage has been translated:

ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."
ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."
NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. "
Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."

I know how fond you are of translation errors.

[corndog36]

It would seem to me that the Bible is very clear on it's stance on homosexuality and that the OP is a valid conjecture.
I offer up the following overview of biblical text....

Again, this is a quote of Jewish law. Jesus never re-affirmed the prohibition of homosexuality, and, at least tacitly rejected some aspects of Jewish law. Some Christian churches no longer teach that it is a sin to divorce and remarry, even though Jewish law is pretty clear on that also. That is why I believe that when the time comes Christianity will be able to reverse it's position on homosexuality without too much difficulty.

[Cinjin]

Again, this is a quote of Jewish law. Jesus never re-affirmed the prohibition of homosexuality, and, at least tacitly rejected some aspects of Jewish law. Some Christian churches no longer teach that it is a sin to divorce and remarry, even though Jewish law is pretty clear on that also. That is why I believe that when the time comes Christianity will be able to reverse it's position on homosexuality without too much difficulty.

My post is merely a rebuttal to Nimzo's statement, "there is no such concept as "sexuality" in the Bible, be it heterosexuality or homosexuality (as in, sexual "orientation").
I think (and I know MANY christians who would agree with me) that the Bible is VERY clear about sexuality.

Regarding your follow-up: I could care less if christians want to throw out half of their own Bible to contemporize their religion. Hell, I applaud doing away with as much of the Bible as you possibly can.