Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Shyangel, you offer your two Bible quotes as evidence of what God thinks of homosexuality. Surely they are what PAUL thinks of homosexuality? He was writing to the churches in Corinth and Rome on these matters and so expressed HIS opinion.I have to admit to having a few problems with some of Paul's writings. For example, the orthodox Christian church decided that Jesus was resurrected physically, ie bodily, for example Tertullian, in describing the resurrection, writes in AD 190 that what was raised from the dead was... Paul's argument for bodily ressurection actually concludes with the following suggesting that, although his argument is usually considered to be in favour of bodily resurrection, he is actually meaning the resurrection of the spirit from the body after the death of the body.To this day, Christian faith appears to rest on the fact of the bodily ressurection which Paul doesn't seem to support. Why should we consider that he was right about homosexuality, but wrong about the bodily resurrection? Until recently, the Roman Catholic and many other churches were against cremation on the basis that bodily resurrection couldn't happen if you'd been cremated. Yet Paul is seen as the founder of modern Christianity and his quotes are used all the time to condemn homosexuality. I prefer to think of him as an extraordinary man living an extraordinary life in extraordinary times with extraordinary courage. Doesn't mean that he was always right, though.Edited to reference the quote from Paul[This message has been edited by Trixie, 03-27-2004]

So you are saying that the resurrection isn't a bodily resurrection, but a spiritual one? That's what Paul seemed to be saying, yet the early Christian church tore itself apart over this one, with orthodoxy stating that it had to be a physical, bodily resurrection and various gnostic groups saying that it was a spiritual resurrection. Orthodoxy won the day and gnostics were denounced as heretics. Now, that puts orthodoxy at odds with what you are saying that Paul was saying. Who is right, Paul or othodoxy?

How can it be a resurrection if you're bunged into another body? surely the resurrection of Jesus was the resurrection of the very body that was crucified? How else could Thomas put his hand into the spear hole or see the holes in his hands? It was in this form that Jesus ascended into heaven. You seem to be accepting both forms here. You're saying that the actual body isn't resurrected, but the spirit is and is given ANOTHER body. Why didn't Jesus qualify for another body?To keep this on topic I reiterate that Paul seems to talk about bodily resurrection, then claim that the body isn't resurrected, only the spirit. How do we know which version is correct and how can we then know if he was right in his opinions about homosexuality?