Scholar to address biblical references to homosexuality

Houston Chronicle ^ | 12-4-04 | Tara Dooley

[Houmatt]

Documentary fans may know L. Michael White as co-writer of the 1998 Frontlineprogram From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians. As a scholar of the Bible and early Christianity, White has been asked to decipher what the Bible says about homosexuality, a divisive issue in some churches today. White, who will lecture in Houston next week on the topic, spoke with religion writer Tara Dooley about the "H-word," as he calls it, and the Bible. Here are excerpts from that interview:

Q: Well, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

A: The modern category of homosexuality is not something that maps so neatly onto the ancient world. Although there are various concerns or discussions within the Bible — both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament — about all kinds of sexuality issues, what we think of as homosexuality isn't really something they talk about directly. Now there are certainly sex practices that are condoned or condemned in the Bible. So, in a sense, what I'm going to try to talk about is, in a more precise way, from a historical perspective, what those few passages in the Bible are really talking about in each case.

[truth_seeker]

"I am not talking about religion."

Ever read Emmet Fox? (or hear of him, for that matter)

Best know from him is:

"The Sermon on the Mount," circa 1920s I believe.

[jwalsh07]

Fetus Rights Bill Decried by Humanists: Stealth Move Against Women's Right to Abortion

This is a perfect illustration. You had your panties in a bunch vis a vis Old Testament justice but you and your pals have no problem killing innocent unborn babies from conception until they are half way out the birth canal.

In other words you and your pals do not recognise that it is absolutley wrong to take innocent life intentionally yet you not only countenance it, you embrace it with open arms.

Now perhaps you'll have a better understanding of why I asked if it was absolutley wrong to rape a child, but I doubt it.

[Alacarte]

"But in the New Testament Jesus said to let "he who is without sin cast the first stone".

So please don't pretend that in order to believe the Bible we must agree that gays should be killed."

Funny how 300 years ago there didn't seem to be any problem with interpreting the old testament as the absolute word of god. So now the old testament is the OLD word of god. Coincidentally, the parts that don't work with secularism.

[jwalsh07]

Acts between consenting adults are ok, pedophilia involves a minor, which makes it wrong.

Why?

[Jorge]

"One of the problems is the actual translation of the Scriptures themselves, the actual words on the paper. One of the things I will be doing in my lectures in Houston is talking about the different way these terms in the New Testament are translated. They run the gamut including the term "homosexual." But that term isn't exactly there in the Greek."

Right. Far be it from us to believe that men having sex with men could possible be refering to "homosexuals".

Romans 1:26,27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[Alacarte]

"You have said that there are no absolute truths. If there are no absolutes why then could the humanists not suffer a "mutation", read a little Kinsey vis a vis the sexual being in children and conclude that far be it from them to deny children their sexual selves."

You don't understand humanistic values, you are looking for some external standard, because that's the christian way. Children are not emotionally ready (and babies physically not ready) for sexual intercourse, therefore they are protected under humanistic values from engaging in it. Children do not feel sexual urges until they are BIOLOGICALLY ready. Regardless, they need to wait until they are emotionally ready.

[little jeremiah]

Yuck fou.

I tried to discuss with you in a rational and open minded manner.

Get lost.

[Alacarte]

Really? haha! Women don't feel the same?

[Jorge]

Who cares what the bible says?

Uh, the article is about what the Bible says about homosexuality, the debate is about the article, you post what the Bible says when you think it supports your arguments and the post you were responding to was about what Jesus said in the Bible.

NOW, when your argument is shown to be faulty, you resort to "Who cares what the bible says?"

Too funny!

[patriot_wes]

Here's an interesting thought...Jesus was "the Word".....He wrote the law.

[jwalsh07]

You don't understand humanistic values, you are looking for some external standard, because that's the christian way.

I understand them quite well thank you. For the record what kind of humanist do you claim to be?

Humanists, as a group, hold that unborn babies are not entilted to any rights from conception until the baby is out of the birth canal. Some humanists even belive that they still are not entitled to rights. Other humanists think the age of consent should be lowered. So don't give me this crap that I don't understand humanistic values, I understand secular humanism especially oh so well.

Children are not emotionally ready (and babies physically not ready) for sexual intercourse, therefore they are protected under humanistic values from engaging in it.

Why? You said there are no absolutes.

Children do not feel sexual urges until they are BIOLOGICALLY ready. Regardless, they need to wait until they are emotionally ready.

Kinsey, a secular humanist scientist said that children are sexual beings before puberty. Was he a "mutation"? Is the humanist Singer a "mutation"?

[June Cleaver]

What you have listed there is Old Testament Law, which man obviously was not capable of keeping. Many of those sins were punishable by death.

So God sent Jesus, not to CHANGE the Old Law, but to fulfill it, that is, he suffered the Death that is due for all of us.

Pretty simple, yet awesome. I'm perfectly willing to let Jesus do my suffering for me. I love Him for it.

Now I will go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

How about you. (That's what I thought.)

[jwalsh07]

Funny how 300 years ago there didn't seem to be any problem with interpreting the old testament as the absolute word of god. So now the old testament is the OLD word of god. Coincidentally, the parts that don't work with secularism.

Pitiful.

[Jorge]

Jorge;"But in the New Testament Jesus said to let "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Funny how 300 years ago there didn't seem to be any problem with interpreting the old testament as the absolute word of god. So now the old testament is the OLD word of god. Coincidentally, the parts that don't work with secularism.

Jesus' words are now "secular" according to you?

What are you talking about?

No one is saying that the OT is no longer the absolute Word of God.
It helps to understand the context of scripture and exactly who the Lord is speaking to.

The OT statutes were given to the theocratic state of Israel. NT grace and forgiveness doesn't undo the fact that sin is sin and is deserving of death. Quite the opposite. Christ died in our place.

[Elsie]

 

 

 

Where does the Bible state that God hates homosexuals?

---

---

Genesis 13:13
  Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
 

Genesis 18:20-21
 20.  Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
 21.  that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
 4.  Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 
 5.  They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
 6.  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
 7.  and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Isaiah 3:9
 9.  The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

 More?

Ezekiel 16:49-50
 49.  "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
 50.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

---

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
 9.  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 10.  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 11.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

---

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....

[Alacarte]

What do rape and abortion have to do with one another?

[itsahoot]

Just out of curiosity, how do you people decide which biblical values are ok to enforce, and which ones no longer apply?

Go check your Gerbil cage, looks like one is running around on your keyboard.

[MissAmericanPie]

Some scholar, he left out Jude 1, Psalms 22, and other's I'm too tired to bring to mind at the moment. Alarms should go off every time the word "scholar" is used.