Re: the Bible, translation and gays

You make the point that the bible was written to different cultures
with the obvious intent to cast some doubt on simply reading the bible
straight up... presumably we need to understand the culture it was
written to so that we avoid the error of just accepting what it says.
Then you wrote about the recopying to imply that the bible is not
trustworthy in certain areas.
But you mention Gods promises and the word whosoever.... I assume you
are reading those straight up and not trying to understand them in a
cultural context.....

So where do you decide what is to be ignored as culturally irrelevant
and what is not?
For all the insinuations, there are no specific ways given that the
bible is misinterpreted here, nor any proof of specific copyists
errors... just generalizations meant to cast doubt on the
trustworthiness of the bible. From there you can reinterpret whatever
you want. This is a text book case of what you call a problem in your
first paragraphs. Do you know the main reason for all those different
interpretations? People didn't like what they were reading so they
ignored what they wanted and read what they wanted.

The Bible clearly condemns homo***uality.
That does not make it correct to "bash" gays... unless gays interpret
having homo***uality labeled as sin being bashed. Certainly there is
no justification for trying to harm them. Gays are not really being
singled out in the bible; homo***uality is just one of many different
deviant sinful behaviors that we as humans reflect all the time.
However, it is foolish to claim the bible doesn't condemn it.

Culturally [and I'm speaking from an evangelical Christian cultural
viewpoint...] I think that perhaps this sin gets singled out over
others. It is easy to pick on because it isn't shared by a majority of
people. We ALL sin with pride, so we can forgive that one a bit easier
because we understand it personally. But homo***uality is something
most of us don't personally deal with, so it becomes a pariah sin.
I also personally think that we in the evangelical church are way
behind in dealing with the issue. Often we will simply move away from
the person rather than reaching out. So I do think there is a lot of
work to do in addressing the issue.

That said, one of the reasons the modern church sets homo***uals apart
is their insistence it is not a sin. That is what is perhaps most
galling and why it gets so much attention. The bible is clear that all
sin and fall short of the glory of God. Romans makes a clear case for
this. So no human being is perfect, and that means the bible will
confront every one of us with our sin. Our salvation is found in
acknowledging our sin, repenting and accepting the free gift of Jesus
atonement on the cross.
The bible confronts me and everyone else with sin. If I am wrong, then
I am wrong. I can try and ignore it, or change the meaning, but it
nonetheless confronts me with my sin. If I am prideful, then I am
wrong. If I am hypocritical, then I am wrong. If I am having evil
thoughts towards my brother or am unforgiving, then I am wrong. And if
I am homo***ual, then I am wrong.

Make no mistake, it doesn't matter if you were born this way or have
these feelings naturally. The bible is also clear that we are born
into sin. We are sinners by nature. That however doesn't make it ok in
Gods eyes. That's why we are in need of a savior, because we are lost
in sin. Homo***uality is simply another sin that is evil in Gods eyes.
But trying to use the bible to say it is not is to simply ignore what
it says.

A refusal to admit homo***uality is sin and repent is not so much a
condemnation of homo***uality, but a condemnation of being stiff-
necked, obstinate, prideful and rebellious. You've effectively ignored
the bible as the word of God and called him a liar. The same would be
true of a murderer who refused to see his murdering as sin.