Posted on 12/04/2004 10:02:16 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Problem here my friend. You state pedophilia is wrong. On what basis? You see "humanistic social values" are not universal. They are fluid, they change. Fifty years ago, no one accepted homosexuals as the norm.
"Humanistic social value" is just another way of saying,"I want what I want no matter how perverse it is, so just accept it."
If you want to leave religious morals totally out of it, let's just ask Mother Nature, shall we?
Well, for starters we read the Bible.
You really don't know about love. The agape type. No strings attached, unconditional.
Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it's not true. If you stopped shaking your fist at God long enough, he'd maybe want to hold that hand.
Do a little research on Kinsey, you will find that he himself was a deviant, pervert. His study was horribly flawed, and influenced by his own behavior. He castrated himself, if that offers any clue to his objectivity.
"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. "
Not true, there is no "humanist group."
"Why? You said there are no absolutes. "
Let me explain what an absolute truth is. An absolute truth is something that can never be changed. Religion espouses 'absolute truths.' Something that is acceptable today, may not be acceptable tomorrw, hence, NOT an absolute truth. Absolute truths ignore time and change.
Abortion is a very contentious issue on which I have no definite opinion. Unlike christians, I am able to have my own opinion, and I have yet to be persuaded one way or another. Saying that all 'humanists' support abortion is just plain stupid, and it assumes that humanists conform to the same standard of 'absolutes' that christians do. We don't.
"Kinsey, a secular humanist scientist said that children are sexual beings before puberty. Was he a "mutation"? Is the humanist Singer a "mutation"?"
Point in case. That's Kinsey's opinion. He is a secular humanist, that means he is allowed his own decision. You need to understand that humanists are encouraged to think for themselves, hence, no absolute truths...
I believe God gave us the "rule" about sex inside of marriage with one woman one man for good healthy reasons. Several of my friends are doctors and the homosexual lifestyle is not only destructive physically, but emotionally and dare I say it, spiritually.
LOL
But Uncle Milty was not trying to fool anybody. :)
Yeah...ok...it depends on the meaning of "is" I guess. I think I'm fairly focused. How'bout'you?
What do you want me to focus on?
FMCDH(BITS)
Uh oh, now you're speaking of values? Whose? Is self-worship considered a religion, oh Goddess Live Forever?
"Problem here my friend. You state pedophilia is wrong. On what basis? You see "humanistic social values" are not universal. They are fluid, they change. Fifty years ago, no one accepted homosexuals as the norm."
Humanistic values dictate that since children are not old enough to responisbly engage in a sexual act, they cannot until a certain age. If, in the furute, for some reason children are emotionally responsible enough to engage in sex, then the rules will change. People change, so should the rules.
"Humanistic social value" is just another way of saying,"I want what I want no matter how perverse it is, so just accept it."
The word perverse is the key here. If the peopel involved are two consenting adults, then yes, they can enagage in whatever 'perverse' act they desire. Porn sales in the US can attest to that.
"If you want to leave religious morals totally out of it, let's just ask Mother Nature, shall we?"
Not mother nature at all, social values. See my example above with the simians.
Code of Hammurabi was way before the ten commandments... hmmm.
"To me it is more appropriate to focus on the fact that the consensus of scripture is that sexual urges are to be addressed only within the bond of marriage. To me that covers all the bases."
So is gay marriage okay with you?
"I believe God gave us the "rule" about sex inside of marriage with one woman one man for good healthy reasons. Several of my friends are doctors and the homosexual lifestyle is not only destructive physically, but emotionally and dare I say it, spiritually."
Honmosexuality is destructive physically? Emotionally? How so? Gays are not gay by choice you know. They can't just sell their pink cars and be straight. What do you propose they do to remedy this unhealthy lifestyle?
And what does this have to do with marriage? Nothing is more destructive to marriage than adultery. Marriage was in a terrible state long before gays came along. Close to a 50% divorce rate? Sheesh, it's not like it can get much worse.
"Uh oh, now you're speaking of values? Whose? Is self-worship considered a religion, oh Goddess Live Forever?"
June, please include the point you are responding to. Half the time I have no idea what you are talking about. PIC above, what is this a response to of mine?
And if a few things had been different the Nazis would have had nuclear bombs first and would therefore have won. What grounds would you have had for objecting?
Other times, like when the west adopted the roman catholic church was a bad evolution. It created a powerful empire, but it also allowed the church to dictate morality, which caused the dark ages for 1000 years.
Surely you would have objected to Julian's attempt to resist the evolution of society, wouldn't you?
""Subservient" how? To whom? In which contexts and in what manner?"
Subservient to men.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?
The bible is one of the most chauvanistic books ever written. Is this really a point of contention?
Yes, actually, it is.
And no, you don't prove anything by cutting and pasting something from a person who thinks Oholibah was an actual person.
Argh, the bible is very specific that women do what they are told.
Told by whom? In what respects? In which context?
This is not compatible with democracy.
So what do you plan to do about it?
I define them by humanistsic standards (real humanism, not your version).
That doesn't really clarify anything.
What? Why would we need to take away women's suffrage? Suffrage means the rigth to vote. Whast does this have to do with anything?
I dunno. You're the one who brought it up. You were expounding on the need to conform to changes in social values, so I brought up some possibilities I thought you'd dislike, namely cannibalism and a return to male-only suffrage. You replied, "I can't see how we would ever need male suffrage, but if we did, I'd fight for it." Perhaps you were confused (more so than usual, that is).
Things like gender/racial equality are irreversible.
This is truly a remarkable sentence.
Now, as Jews, homosexual acts are sinful and relevant -- but as only one of 613 commandments. On the whole, a far less pressing problem than Sabbath desecration or intermarriage.
Either the law is binding or it isn't. If you think it is, you shouldn't be a Christian. If you think it isn't, why care about homosexuality?
No, of course not. Given my reference to the consensus of scripture, I'd think you'd have already known that. Why would I use Scripture to defend my rather strict belief on sexual immorality, and not use it to define what marriage is?
Absolutely Not, didn't mean to imply that it was anything more than a perverted study to show a desired outcome.<(•¿•)>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.