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 ...
If you have a bible then please look them up for yourself.
A word of advice....
Do not mess with the word of God.
What strikes me about this issue, as well as with abortion and ordaining women, is that pretty much all Christian churches agreed on these issues for centuries. It was only in the mid 1900s (or later) that some churches started to change on these issues. What these churches have done, in effect, is say that they were wrong for many decades or several centuries. What makes them so sure that they are suddenly “right” now?
As to the "focus on homosexuality," that is because there is a homosexual lobby while there is no corresponding "shack up" lobby.
Thanks... very moving.
Interesting thing about your god, if he did exist, I wouldn't worship him. The idea of living on my knees for a self-professed, jealous tyrant, does not appeal to me.
I figure I'd be better off taking my chances with satan, I'll tell you why. First off, like I said, I think your god is a tyrant. So where does that leave me when I die? Now I know what you're going to say, but stay with me, my story gets better. Second, everything we know about satan, we get from a book that was written by his enemy's cronies. Didn't see that coming, did you? Now, satan and his fallen angels had a fight with god, but why? The bible says they were jealous (I think...), but more likely, they god tired of his incessant self-righteousness, just like I would. This is when the biblical smear campaign begins to try and keep other people from following satan's example and rebelling. Well, I'm not buying it.
So, if I were predisposed to believe in the supernatural, and I had to choose between living for eternity in heaven on my knees, or take my chances that satan is not such a bad guy, I'll take door number two please. Besides, all the bad girls would be in hell!
Instead of addressing the issue at hand in a reasonable manner, you used insults in an attempt to score points in the argument. I believe that it was wrong to attack this man's sex life and to call his wife "stuffy".
And perhaps you should have used the word "different" rather than "more". Saying "more" suggests that there is something wrong with his sex life if he is doing it the way that you assume that he is.
You accused him of being intolerant, yet you spoke disdainfully about his sex life when you know absolutely nothing about it. Isn't that intolerant and judgemental?
The point is that it is no ones business what kind or sex he has! And no one is trying to dictate his sex life to him!
I did not say sex with your wife/husband is boring, sheesh, focus people!
For the record, I think even bad sex is good sex.
Do other people besides yourself have a mind? How do you know that they aren't just pre-programmed robots? Explain.
No! I know nothing about him, I don't even know if he is married. I don't even know if he is a he! It was a hypothestical example! I'll do it again for you if it's annoying you all so much.
"If you want to have amazing sex with your amazing wife for the rest of your life, more power to you!"
Can we continue now? The point remains the same, no one is trying have a say in what kind of sex he (if he is a he) has with his wife (if he has a wife). So what makes him think he can condemn homosexuals?
If homosexuals started saying people who have straight sex are abominations, I'd call them bigots too.
How is this taken out of context? Cut-n-paste from Bible Gateway.
Leviticus 20
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Gays deserve death. You agree? Or maybe you deny the absolute truth of the bible?
That's the first one I tried. If you think I'm going through the list with you I'm not. I agree the list was compiled by someone who has no love of the bible, therefore there is bias, but you can't take things like the passage above out of context too much. It says explicitly gays deserve death. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes stuff like this would feel more at home in Iran.
On the one hand you speak of what two adults do in privacy, and on the other hand you speak of the obligation of others to condone their sexual behavior and reward it. These are two entirely different things. Which is it? A privacy issue or a public approval issue?
Why is pedophilia wrong? Is adult-child sex wrong if the child consents? What do you base your values on?
The government can no more force humanism on all than it can force Judaism on all. We the people get to define our public institutions like marriage. We've done that. The wisdom we draw our values from is irrelevant. Most of us think pedophilia is wrong, and just why we think that is our own business.
You have a constitutional right to speak and make your case, regardless of how crazy it is. You do not have a constitutional right to have your ideas accepted and approved by all.
No one is interested in understanding your butt.
When homosexuals say that a tolerant, live and let live attitude isn't enough, and insist that people must not only tolerate their behavior, but ALSO agree with them that it is right and good, what would you call them?
When homosexuals say that a tolerant, live and let live attitude isn't enough, and insist that people must not only tolerate their behavior, but ALSO agree with them that it is right and good, what would you call them?
I know other people are not robots... are you suggesting you have doubts?
I think a more logical example is the movie 'The 13th Floor.' Great flick. Or the matrix? Those are possibilities, but... until we have some proof of those realities, I will stick with the one I know. Do I deny outright that we do not live in the matrix? No... anything is possible, but to put any credence into such ideas is pointless stupidity. For now our reality is the natural world we know.
I know other people are not robots... are you suggesting you have doubts?
I think a more logical example is the movie 'The 13th Floor.' Great flick. Or the matrix? Those are possibilities, but... until we have some proof of those realities, I will stick with the one I know. Do I deny outright that we do not live in the matrix? No... anything is possible, but to put any credence into such ideas is pointless stupidity. For now our reality is the natural world we know.
Gays deserve death. You agree? Or maybe you deny the absolute truth of the bible?
Yes I agree that under the law of Moses Homosexuals,adulterers, and others deserved death.
Under the law of Christ, these behaviors are still detestable and should not be supported but condemned.
They are an abomination to God.
Ping
Yes a fan (somebody had already taken the name TenaciousD, boo hoo), and yes listing slightly to the left. But it's never black-and-white; I also take Scripture seriously. I think it's great that this is a forum where you are comfortable bringing these sorts of questions. (No, I don't have the answers; I just encourage open-Bible investigation from any stage of belief -- I speak as a former, longtime nonbeliever.)
If a homosexual said you HAVE to agree with him of course I'd call him intolerant. You can't control people's thoughts and opinions. Freedom of speech is the most important freedom. If someone wants to show they're a bigot, go ahead.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
My man Voltaire.
Your posts reveal you to be a tortured soul. You are obviously desperately grasping for the truths that will give you peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, while at the same time working very hard to reject the God that can give them all to you.
Your sins do not put you beyond the reach of God's love. We are all sinners. I do not look down on anyone for their sins. Rather, I think, "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
You claim to be tolerant and open minded, will you not open your mind for the moment and view this presentation?
http://www.livingwaters.com/listenwatch.shtml
What do you have to lose. You are obviously not happy now. Could it be any worse? Do you intend to live the rest of your life like this. Do you think acceptance by the world is your key to happiness. Forget what the world tells you. Take the time now to explore your one-on-one relationship with God.
It will take courage to venture into the unknown. Do you have enough of it? The rewards are great. Give it a chance at least. As I said, what do you have to lose?
If you "know" something to be the truth, prove it.
You intimated that you don't believe in the supernatural / extra-natural.
That means that you believe that a mind is "natural" and as such can be proven by science. So I'll ask you again:
Please EXPLAIN __HOW__ YOU KNOW that other people besides yourself have a mind, and that they aren't just pre-programmed robots?
Please don't deflect my question by attempting to make me the subject again this time like you did in your previous reply. Your inexplicable reference to a movie you saw once is also an illogical non sequitur that has nothing to do with my question.
TGFRP (I hope you don't mind the acronym) - I'm comparing the fact that Jesus didn't mention them. Try to stay with me. If a sin is only a sin if Jesus mentioned it, then we would need to overturn a lot of sins.
Alacarte - I'm with you.
TGFRP - On the one hand you speak of what two adults do in privacy, and on the other hand you speak of the obligation of others to condone their sexual behavior and reward it. These are two entirely different things. Which is it? A privacy issue or a public approval issue?
Alacarte - Condone and reward? No... minding your own business is not condoning or rewarding. Public approval has nothing to do with it, it is a privacy and civil rights issue. If you don't like gay sex, don't do it, period.
TGFRP - Why is pedophilia wrong? Is adult-child sex wrong if the child consents? What do you base your values on?
Alacarte - The age of consent is defined as the age when a child is old enough to knowingly enagage in a sexual act and be able to take responsibility for their actions. We consider children under this age unable to make this decision for themselves and this rule is in place to protect them. This value is based on what is best for children.
TGFRP - The government can no more force humanism on all than it can force Judaism on all. We the people get to define our public institutions like marriage. We've done that. The wisdom we draw our values from is irrelevant. Most of us think pedophilia is wrong, and just why we think that is our own business.
Alacarte - It used to be ok to marry your 12 year old cousin. That changed because those rules were no longer applicable due to social and biological problems. Now marriage must be redefined again to accomodate a new social change. It has nothing to do with you. If you don't want to marry a man... then don't marry a man! That is not rewarding or accepting, that is minding your own business.
TGFRP - You have a constitutional right to speak and make your case, regardless of how crazy it is. You do not have a constitutional right to have your ideas accepted and approved by all.
Alacarte - So we should still be able to marry our 12 year old cousins? I'm sure there were lots of men who had cute cousins they wanted to marry back then. This rule definitely 'imposed' on people back then, since men could no longer marry their cousin, or 13 year old girls, no matter how much they were in love, but they changed the rules anyway...
"Accepted and approved by all." I think this is the crux of our differences. You think allowing gays to marry somehow imposes on you. If you were going to be forced to marry another man, or attend their ceremonies, then that would be imposing on you. Gays don't want your approval, or your blessing, they want you to mind your own business and they'll mind theirs.
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.