--How stupid... Paul had access to words that describe homosexuality ( http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-cou... ). Christ could have used any of these words. He did not.<quoted text>
1. No, the word homosexual did not exist at that time. Moreover, ss orientation was described differently then.
Matt 19 is a perfect example of the exact same incident where Jesus describes three types of eunuchs. One being 'born that way.'
2. The subject of the discussion is marriage. In that context Jesus describes the couple as male and female, and only male and female.
He does not address ss couples, because they don't qualify for marriage. Moreover, the cultural context deems ss sexual relationships as an extreme abomination.
3. The Bible IS a moral rule book. What an idiotic denial.
Moreover, you use the Bible to know about a personal relationship, but then turn around and deny everything else it says. Simply selective stupidity.
--Christ says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife..."
Again, there were words for "marriage". Why doesn't Christ use these words? Being "united" does not necessarily mean "married".
As I have pointed out before, a couple can join themselves together in the eyes of God, in the eyes of the church, but not in the eyes of the government.
These are very clear distinctions.
--The Books of the Bible are a beginning, not an end. They are a starting point, not an all encompassing go-to rule book. Regarding my notion of a personal relationship with God, I think I knew about that long before I read or heard about it. Namely, I was taught to pray long before I was able to read. Joining with God in prayer is not the same as reading the Books of the Bible in order to understand the "rules" for living a Christian life.
There have been (and still are) people who are unable to read. They cannot go to the Books in order to see exactly what is written and the context in which the words were written. I submit that they rely more on their relationship with God and not so much on the Books of the Bible.
If you personally want to be a literalist, that's up to you. That's not my perspective.