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 ...
Yes, but Hammurabi never claimed to be God. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," is not bad, but it wasn't written in stone!
My point is God's law is static, it never changes, we can count on it.
Your statement, "if in the future, for some reason children are emotionally responsible . . ." AACK! I can't believe it. Surely you don't believe that!!!
I will stand by my statement that homosexual activity is perverse. Calling it "sweetness and light" won't change facts.
Some of us really do consider porn perverse. Big surprise!
Your patience excels 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?"
True, until only recently the most brutal ruled. Hunmanism is a very recent ideal ancient greece excepted), and it does not go well with the 'might makes right' attitude.
"Surely you would have objected to Julian's attempt to resist the evolution of society, wouldn't you?"
I don't know who you mean by Julian.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?"
By their husbands.
"Told by whom? In what respects? In which context?"
Are you saying the church has not resisted vehemently against women's rights? Still there is debate about letting women into the clergy!
"So what do you plan to do about it?"
Secular and civil rights trump religious, it's taken care of.
"Perhaps you were confused (more so than usual, that is)."
Easy!
"This is truly a remarkable sentence."
Why is that remarkable? Granted, just because currently I can think of no reason why we would ever consider one race/gender better than another in the future, does not mean that some new information cannot change that. But according to gentics, there is no race. Given what we know now, everyone should be treated equally regardless of race/gender.
Sure they are, out of physical necessity we involuntarily (no choice) breath our planets atmosphere. By choice we breath it brown and polluted or clean and fresh (lifestyle).
They can't just sell their pink cars and be straight. What do you propose they do to remedy this unhealthy lifestyle?"
They could accept the fact that they are already bought for a price and get in that shiny white car and go straight up the thruway...:^)
The statutes you mention about eating pork, wearing specific fibers etc are examples of those pertaining to sacrements of national distinction, separation and consecration from the Gentiles..these came to an end after Christ's death on the cross..through which those disbarred from access to God are now on a perfect equity with the Jews.
This is why in the NT we see the Lord Himself telling Peter to take and eat foods which were formerly prohibited in the Old Testament. (Acts 10:10-16)
This doesn't apply to the prohibitions against homosexuality which are repeated in the New Testament.
"My point is God's law is static, it never changes, we can count on it."
That's exactly the reason I think we cannot follow it. Social values change, static rules do not. Religion has, and always will either evolve with social values, or become deprecated to the annals of antiquity.
"Your statement, "if in the future, for some reason children are emotionally responsible . . ." AACK! I can't believe it. Surely you don't believe that!!! "
Why not? Let's say that for whatever reason, in 50 years 12 year olds are the emotional equivalent of 18 year olds today. It is possible we would change the rules so that any 12+ person who has hit puberty can have sex.
"Some of us really do consider porn perverse. Big surprise!"
haha, by 'us' you mean women, right?
There are two kinds of men in this world:
1 - Men who like porn.
2 - Liars.
Having read your posts, I disagree - and think we'll have to 'agree to disagree'. Given your starting assumptions, you are correct.
However, the guy in the article is suggesting there is no biblical basis for being opposed to homosexual behavior. And I think we agree that, if you take the Bible to be the truth, then you have to be opposed to homosexual behavior.
Most of us figure what is going on behind closed doors between consenting adults is something we are happy to not know about. My heartburn with the homosexual movement is that they want to force me to approve - to say it is of the same value to society and just as good in God's eyes as marriage. And sorry - I'm NOT going to say I approve of it.
"Thank you. The difference between liberals and conservatives writ small. Libs constantly need "reaffirmation" of their "values." Conservatives need no such hand-holding."
Since my original statement was that I would NOT come here to reaffirm my beliefs, your response seems off beat.
Having said that, I would agree with you though. Because I think liberals are more open to changing their views as the world changes. Liberals fought for women's suffrage and an end to slavery before conservatives did.
"However, the guy in the article is suggesting there is no biblical basis for being opposed to homosexual behavior. And I think we agree that, if you take the Bible to be the truth, then you have to be opposed to homosexual behavior. "
I admit my posts are lacking perspective with relation to the original article. This has caused some confusion, I apologize.
"My heartburn with the homosexual movement is that they want to force me to approve - to say it is of the same value to society and just as good in God's eyes as marriage. "
I fail to see how tolerating is approving. If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't go to one...
Gays are not going to give up and become straight. You will all have to accept them sooner or later.
bttt
History recheck! I believe Christians were very involved in the abolitionist movement. And I can think of no religion in the world that affirms women as does Christianity.
Because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" had very different political meanings a century ago it's just not good to argue that they did more (or less) than conservatives.
Everything we do . . . is a choice made.
I propose that they abstain. (gasp!) A reverse Nike, if you will. JUST DON'T DO IT!
"History recheck! I believe Christians were very involved in the abolitionist movement. And I can think of no religion in the world that affirms women as does Christianity."
The west is socially ahead of much of the world because of secularism, not christianity. Before the enlightenment, the islmaic world was at least as advanced as us socially and technologically. But in the last 300 years we've rocketed ahead of them since we adopted secularism.
"Because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" had very different political meanings a century ago it's just not good to argue that they did more (or less) than conservatives."
Fair enough.
Where to begin as you have even contradicted yourself with this post.
Let's start with this statement, "Religion has, and always will either evolve with social values, or become deprecared to the annals of antiquity."
How about, this is just an estimate mind you, a religion, that has stood the test of, oh gee, let's say TWO THOUSAND YEARS OR SO!!!!!
That religion would be Christianity.
That's all very nice. But if you're right that we're a meaningless byproduct of a meaningless universe, why shouldn't we consider might the closest thing to right we'll ever see?
I don't know who you mean by Julian.
The last pagan emperor of Rome was Julian the Apostate, who tried to get everyone sacrificing goats and pigs to Jupiter like in the old days. It didn't work.
"Subservient" by what definition? In what manner? To all men? Some men? One man per woman? Do you know? Do you care?"
By their husbands.
I suppose you mean to say to their husbands, in which case you are finally begining to address some of what the Bible says.
Now, then: what does the Bible say to husbands?
Are you saying the church has not resisted vehemently against women's rights? Still there is debate about letting women into the clergy!
A religious body choosing who can hold a religious office based on a religious text! Shocking! Offensive!
"So what do you plan to do about it?"
Secular and civil rights trump religious, it's taken care of.
It is? A husband can easily tell his wife who to vote for, and you can't stop it. And secret ballots only stop that sort of thing if they vote on election day, which lots of people don't do these day because they vote absentee.
BTW, do you think there are "secular and civil rights" having to do with who can be clergy?
Why is that remarkable? Granted, just because currently I can think of no reason why we would ever consider one race/gender better than another in the future, does not mean that some new information cannot change that. But according to gentics, there is no race. Given what we know now, everyone should be treated equally regardless of race/gender.
Should? Why? Because the races are equal? Why should that matter?
I'm serious, by the way. I don't think you can provide a substantive answer, or provide a serious defense of humanism in general.
The remarkable thing is that you think that "progress" (which is a meaningless concept in an atheist universe anyway, but that hardly ever stopped someone from believing in it) is irreversible, contrary to pretty much all recorded history. Your comment here is equally naive: you actually imagine people dispassionately weighing the evidence of science when considering whether or not to be racist!
As for gender, it's enough for the sexes to be different. Will you admit that much?
I don't know where you studied history. Well actually, it reads like you didn't, but immersed yourself in "women's studies," but you really need to take a better look at the history of our nation.
Secularism has really only become prevalent in the last century, and I for one will certainly not give it any credit for advancing us in any way shape or form.
For one example, it wreaks havoc to the rectum, according to a friend of mine who's a nurse.
Aw gee, I didn't really want to go there!
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.