Because the mythical account does not describe the full spectrum of human sexuality, all behavior that does not conform to the archetypal and necessarily sketchy description given is not permitted or condoned?KiMare wrote:
You live in the garden?
This is why I'm banking on middlemind.
I am laying the foundation to answer your question. The premise for sexual activity gives us a key part of the context for answering the question.
I simply am pointing out that in the original design, according to the Bible, it was simply male and female. That is an undeniable fact.
Now, since you are adamant about what the Bible 'really' says, do you have an example of homosexuality at the beginning?
So you concede the above?
I simply want to be clear when I answer.
I certainly do not concede that, because an account given in the bible does not elaborate, there is no righteous cause for behavior not described.
The premise for sexual activity - any premise, scriptural or not - does not necessarily describe the personal motivation for the behavior.
However, as Jesus noted, the personal motivation for the behavior is the foundation for the nature of the sin. That distinction was not a part of the Law, because it was personal and subjective and could not be definitively witnessed, except by one who knows the mind and heart of another.
So, no. Your attempt to estabish a premise with which to define the sin based solely upon a description of behavior, for which motivation is not given, is fundamentally insufficient.