I doubt it was any rarer than it is today. It was just unremarked apon because it had no social apartness or category, gay or straight, you got married young and had as many children as possible.

I wonder what he thinks Genesis ch. 19 and Judges ch. 19 are about. Then again, he's lecturing at an Episcopal church; I don't wonder.

The Bible doesn't have many passages talking about homesexuality? Since when? Strange how he danced around the issue that the Bible specifically states it is immoral, completely wrong, and there are no loopholes.

How many passages does the Bible have about sex with animals? The Bible doesn't have to discuss homosexuality because it is abundantly clear that it is unacceptable in a Jewish framework. How much time does American statutory law spend on cannibalism?

Bart:

Too many for my taste.

"White has been able to decipher what the Bible says about homosexuality" means that he thought and reasoned and twisted the texts until he came up with the meaning he wanted. I can imagine what "historical perspective" he is going to speak from when he discusses those "few passages in the Bible" that speak about what he terms "the H word." I have read some of the sources that he is probably going to cite.

Homosexual acts are inappropriate activities for Christians, that's wehat both the Old and New Testaments teach.

Dt 23:17; 1 Ki 14:24, 15:21, 22:46, 23:7; Isa 1:10, 3:9, 13:19; Jer 23:14, 49:18, 50:40; Lam 4:6; Ez 16:46-49; Amos 4:11; Zep 2:9; Mt 10:15, 11:23-24; Mk 6:11; Lk 10:12, 17:29; 2 Pe 2:6; Jud 1:7.

Maybe Mr. White has the Reader's Digest edition?

This theological dog-and-pony show is sort of like the Democrats trying to flim-flam the gun people with Hanoi John dead goose pictures. Sorry, fellows, it won't work this time either. I realize the people who want to "progress" back to pre-Hebrew ethics think that believers are a bunch of dumb red-states rubes, but they need to be aware that if the dumb rubes know anything they know their Bibles.

For example, they know the difference between dietary "abomination." Strong's, H8263, and idolaty and sexual abomination, both H8441. This sort of attack on Bibical values isn't going to work any better than the attack on Christianity based on sprurious apocryphal "Gospels."

What drives me up a tree is those who point out that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. I even read recently a comment on the supposed "tension" between Paul's view and Jesus' silence.

Give me a break. Jesus talked about divorce, when directly asked about it, because there may have been some contemporary controversy because of differences between the Mosaic law and the "oral Torah" that the Pharisees were devoted to. But there was no controversy about homsexuality, jsut as there was no controversy over whether or not pork barbecue is better sliced or pulled.

"just as there was no controversy over whether or not pork barbecue is better sliced or pulled."

Somehow, I don't think Jesus addressed this subject to the Jews of his time - but I could be wrong.

Seeing as it didn't seem to make his list, what does the good professor think the people of Sodom got wacked for?

Wearing brown belts with black shoes?

According to Jewish tradition, Sodom was destroyed for sins such as crooked courts, hating strangers, and outlawing charity.

If you want something Biblical to cite against gay marriage without trying to outlaw pork, you might try citing the definition of marriage in the instructions to Adam or the command to be fruitful and multiply. After all, when God addressed Adam or Noah's family, He was talking to people who symbolize the entire human race.

On the other hand, the instructions given to Noah also outlaw eating animals alive, so Fear Factor is clearly an abomination.

Joseph H.: Dietary abomination is a different word in Hebrew than sexual abomination. The pro-homo lobby would like you the think that buggery is in the same category as lobster, but it's not the same concept and not the same word in Hebrew.

Lou - no matter what type of "abomination", it's still a bad thing.

Leviticus was a health code, not a moral code. The Levis enforced a code designed to keep the tribes healthy, whether it involved shell fish (some poor Israelite had an allergic reaction to a shell fish) or gay sex (which always had its own health problems and doesn't produce sons to keep the tribes strong). Many people have allergic reactions to peanuts. If goobers existed in OT times I'm sure they would be an "abomination unto the Lord".

Deuteronomy mandates stoning to death for homosexuality (which begs the question - why aren't you out killing gays as God commands? Seems to me you're pretty luekwarm in support of God's word). It mandates the same punishment for arguing with your parents. Equivalent punishment implies equivalent level of sinfullness. So if homosexuality is a sin, it's about as bad as arguing with your parents.

Daniel:

Though it would be appropriate to stone homosexuals Caesar forbids it.

"Though it would be appropriate to stone homosexuals ..."

That is sickening. It also begs the question of why you elevate Caesar above God's commands. One thinks you don't have the courage of your beliefs.

Daniel:

At the time of Leviticus, what didn't pose a health hazard. I'll bet thousands of times more children were killed by tainted water than were ever killed by shellfish. And, given the germ theory of disease was still some ways off, combined with already short lifespans due to death by all kinds of diseases, how would they know there was any health risk associated with homosexuality?

We're commanded to render unto Caesar.

OJ - if you are without sin then you get to cast the first stone.

But let me get this straight. Are you saying that if the law did not prevent you from doing so, you would gladly go out and kill gays? If you answer yes, congratulations - you are one sick f**k.

Daniel:

Of course I'm sinful, but I struggle against it. Those who embrace sin ought to be punished. They'd soon stop.

OJ - you didn't answer my question, you dodged it in a cowardly fashion.

PJ - get your brother help as soon as possible.

Daniel:

Yes.

Yes

Then OJ I feel very sorry for you and your hatred. PJ, please, please get your brother the help he needs.

As an aside, would you then agree that the Nazis were doing God's work when they were murdering homosexuals in the concentration camps (they were the ones wearing the pink triangle)?

Daniel:

No. The Nazis were similarly aberrant.

Non sequetor OJ.

Were the aberrant Nazis doing God's work by killing homosexuals?

"... all Men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

I looked hard to find the double secret codicil where the Creator says 'unalienable, except by OJ"

Couldn't. Perhaps the Creator knows better than you, OJ?

The OT (Only Testament) uses different terms to describe shellfish and to describe homosexuality. It also uses different terms to describe bestiality and to describe homosexuality. I'm not sure of the relevance...

In any case, Leviticus was not addressed to the human race in general. I've seen a Christian theologian describe it as the chart of a different patient. I would describe it as the doctor's chart.

On the other hand, you can be sure that OJ will forgive homosexuals after they're executed.

Daniel:

Sequitir, heavy with homosexuals themselves, they were nonetheless, in their own minds, doing Darwin's work.

Again, non sequetor, OJ.

Were the Nazis doing God's work as well as Darwin's by fullfilling the requirements of Leviticus to kill homosexuals?

You can wiggle all you want, I'm not letting you off this hook.

Daniel:

Everything is God's work. But Nazism was in large measure a homosexual pathology, so the Nazis were part of the same problem.

Let's put it another way, OJ. Were the Nazis acting in accordance with God's command in Leviticus when they mass murdered gays in the concentration camps?

Let's see if you have the cojones to take your hatred to its logical conclusion.

No, they were acting on Darwinist theory and their own psychosexual hatreds.

A Judeo-Christian society that stoned homosexuals would be acting in accordance with God's commands.

So long as gays are killed for religious reasons that's OK, OJ? In keeping with Deuteronomy is it OK to kill a child for arguing with it's parents?

You see it doesn't matter what the Nazis were acting on. The bloodthirsty Assyrians and the arrogant Babylonians were doing God's will (chastizing a sinful Israel) without once thinking that they were serving Yahweh. So what the Nazis were thinking or what their motivations were is irrelevant to whether or not they were conforming to God's will and doing his work.

Say, you don't mind if I send this comment link to other locations on the blogoshpere so everyone can know how you feel about this issue?

Oh I almost forgot OJ. You'd better be careful not to pick up sticks on the sabbath. That too is punished with the death penalty.

However, if you are a slave owner, slave-beating is a protected legal right, along with selling your daughter into slavery.

Given that they all suffer the same punishment, it follows that homosexuality is as sinful as arguing with your parents or picking up sticks on the sabbath.

Daniel:

It's all that matters.

Punishing homosexuals for transgressing societal morality is perfectly acceptable in a decent society.

The Nazis weren't trying to build a decent society.

So the Prophets were lying when they claimed that Assyria and Babylon were acting as God's instruments to punish a sinful Israel?

And please careful not to play baseball on a Saturday. Picking up sticks (the bat) on the Sabbath is a heinous a homosexuality.

No Prophet said similar of the Nazis.

Non sequetor yet again OJ.

The question is whether or not the instruments of God's punishments (be they Assyrian, Babylonian,, or Nazi) can carry out his will without realizing it. The Assyrians and Babylonians were no more pro-Yahweh than the Nazis, prophetic visons notwithstanding.

And what about picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Why won't you address this point?

My grandfather was a Sabbatarian. I'm not. If we decided to return to Sabbath laws I'd obey them, as I obey sodomy laws.

So you just cherry pick what you want from God's law?

Gentiles have a different Covenant with God than Jews do.

According to Jewish tradition, it is forbidden for gentiles to observe the Sabbath. I suppose that means we'll have to sue the Seventh-Day Adventists for copyright infringement.

So which covenant do you adhere to OJ? I don't recall anything in the NEW Testament about being required to kill gays.

We're not required to, that's why we aren't.

You didn't answer my question. And if we aren't required to do so, why are so obsessed with killing gays?

Obsessed? You're the one who's going on about it. The post merely notes that homosexuality is forbidden.

"Punishing homosexuals for transgressing societal morality is perfectly acceptable in a decent society."

That is very difficult to square with

"... all Men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

Keeping in mind, since He created homosexuals, that as you do unto the least of his children, so you do unto him.

But you're the one that wants to do it.

Now then, about that covenant. Which one did you say you adhere to?

Jeff:

The Declaration precludes morality?

Daniel:

Wants to? No. I said it would be morally permissible and consistent with Judeo-Christianity for is to do so. We don't punish sin that way much anymore though.

It very clearly precludes stoning people to death who have done nothing to harm you.

And you should be very wary of stoning people because of the way their Creator made them.

I'll have to go back to Leviticus. I think it says very bad things will happen to those who fail to enforce the edicts therein. It is all well and good to say "unto Caeser" but--if memory serves--you don't have the option in this case.

Jeff:

It's just a behavior, that's why it was rare when the Law was enforced.

Wants to? No.

B******t, OJ.

My question to you:
But let me get this straight. Are you saying that if the law did not prevent you from doing so, you would gladly go out and kill gays? If you answer yes, congratulations - you are one sick f**k.

Your answer to me:
Yes

So when are you going to let me know which covenant you adhere to?

Daniel:

You've been hanging around here for the better part of a week now raving about the stoning of homosexuals--you are by definition obsessed.

If our laws still provided for us to burn witches and stone deviants and adulterers and blasphemers I'd gladly do so.

OJ:

Just a behavior, huh?

Better check with your co-religionists, then. It seems you are not singing out of the same hymnal.

If our laws still provided for us to burn witches and stone deviants and adulterers and blasphemers I'd gladly do so.

Somebody sometime ago said something important about casting the first stone. Would you please refresh my memory?

For some reason, my fancy footwork with the link doesn't work. Here it is:

http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/change.shtml

Of course, anything this side of death is just behavior.