RE: How to put this gently...redux

"Where, in his direct teachings, does Jesus -and not Paul- condemn homosexuals?"

Well there it is. First, you should really stay on-topic, but since Strother's thread on African Aid got hijacked and I was at least partly to blame, I'll give you this one for free.

Assuming, for the moment, I'm going to accept your predicate excluding Paul (which I don't, but we'll get to that), the first part of my answer is that in the Gospels and the Apocalypse, Jesus didn't specifically mention anything proscribing necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, sado-masochism, or any other of a number of disgusting sexual deviances I don't care to contemplate. I guess by your logic those are okey-dokey as well. Please if so, keep it to yourself, I don't want to know. So without specific instruction on every single waking moment of our lives (Christ actually was hoping we would choose to live righteous lives without someone holding our hands), we have to look into what he taught generally. And in the case of homosexuality, he gave us some very direct clues, so we're in luck.

In Luke, when describing the day of judgment, Jesus makes a very specific reference to Sodom and Gomorrah:

"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Now there are any number of cases in the Old Testament where God directly handed down judgment, why would Jesus choose Sodom and Gomorrah? In the previous verses he references the flood, another story of the direct result of the wickedness and carnality of men. He makes other references to Sodom and Gomorrah as object lessons on the pain of God's judgment when he finds us wanting. Obviously, the sin of Sodom, that is, homosexuality, is high on Jesus' list of teaching references. Couple this with the fact that Jesus teaches against carnality and overindulgence in the flesh in numerous other places and we have a pretty convincing argument from the Gospels against homosexuality. Certainly more convincing than condoning homosexuality based on the absence of an explicit condemnation.

But let's return to your exclusion of Paul. The teachings of Christianity are found in the New Testament, all of it. The teachings of the Apostles through the epistles is rightly subject to much discussion, debate, and even skepticism. After all, these are the human interpretations of Jesus' message. We can certainly treat some parts of what Paul wrote, his misogyny for instance, with a grain of salt because they have little or no basis in what we learned from the Gospels. However, there is not a single verse of the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans that stands outside what Christ taught directly. Even the first century Gnostics, certainly no fans of the scriptures assembled by the early church, did not exclude Paul from their version of the Testament.

And finally, of course, the exclusion of Paul by homosexual apologists, simply because he happens to say some inconvenient things, would almost constitute evidence enough in itself for his inclusion. I mention it in passing because the argument contains a logical error, but the concept stands.

"And... If you listen to some fundamentalists, in even the B. Mtn community, you can here their speech laced with bigotry...So much for your argument about the APPLICATION of fundamentalism."

Well now, I hardly expected you to illustrate my point so well. I don't think that is what you intended. You said "some fundamentalists." That implies not all fundamentalists. So obviously the problem is not with fundamentalism itself, but how some practice it(or apply it, if you will), hence my argument on the application of fundamentalism. Your one-size-fits-all prejudice against fundamentalism is without merit.

"Try searching the term "Ghost Dance" for some info on the relationship between the decline of Native American cultures and a resurgence in Fundamentalism in their respective religious practices."

Gee, I thought we were talking about Christianity. Sorry, I'm not wandering off into the weeds with you on that one. You cannot prove any empirical connection between the largely disorganized and highly divergent cultures of the American Indian and the organized Christian Church. But go ahead and give it a shot. It ought to be entertaining.

"With respect to Christianity, the more educated and reasonable people that leave the church, the more fundamentalists that are left behind with no voice of reason there to balance them out."

Where have you shown that educated and reasonable people are leaving the church? I know of no such evidence. And why do you assume fundamentalists cannot be reasonable and educated? And who gets to define "reasonable?" You? Hardly. Your argument is again without merit. It has no logical or rational basis in fact and is derived solely from assumption.

"Your BS about Islam and Christian fundamentalism (or lack there-of)might work on some people..But not a philosophy & religion major such as myself."

I see, so my arguments, based on reason and given with supporting evidence are BS, whereas yours, which are based on what...your own high opinion of yourself...your fantasies about the nature of things...are not.

Yeah. Sure. Right. Whatever.