Question for Christians about homosexuality

Generations of biblical scholars, theologians etc have been interpreting this stuff for centuries.

I agree, you have to take it all in the context of the culture in which it was written.
I think the OP had failed to do that. Just trying to distort the meaning to raise the issue of homosexuality. I was pointing out the logical consequences of taking it in that way.

Anyway, the fact that these writings come out of an age when people's sensibilities were so much different from ours today seems to me to raise a huge question mark about the validity they have for us nowadays.

 

I think NG said it well. Galatians is speaking metaphorically about the essential equality among Jews, Greeks, slaves, freemen, males and females in the sight of Christ. Yet he doesn't mean this to be taken literally. For example, it's clear in his letter to Philemon that there are slaves and masters, but he urges the Christian master to show charity to a runaway Christian slave. Likewise, anatomically, males are still males and females are still females. When males have intercourse with females they can make babies. When males have intercourse with males, or females have intercourse with females, they can't. Galatians doesn't really address issues of sexuality. In 1st Corinthians and Romans, Paul indicates that he thinks gay is not okay, although it's arguable that he's talking about relationships involving lust, pederasty, or prostitution.

You ask "Does this mean homosexuality is okay in Christianity?" Your question implies that Christians must base their beliefs about sexuality on what Paul had to say in his letters. It's not clear to me what Paul would have said about it in the context of contemporary society if he were alive today. Jesus didn't say a word about it, although He had plenty to say about other subjects like divorce. Different churches have come to different conclusions about it, so there is no uniform "Christian" opinion on the subject.

 

In the original language 2000 years ago maybe that Is what it interpreted to be. I think more so that NG is right though.

 

Because rhetorically it's more dramatic and compelling to say it Paul's way. Why didn't "Lincoln just say: "Read my lips. No more slaves?"

As I've said before, Paul wasn't aware he was writing scripture that people over 2000 years later would be picking at on Hip Forums. I think his audience got the point, as do most of us.

The full quote is: "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify". 1 Corinthians 10:23 Context makes a difference!