Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality? Guest Interview with Jeffrey Siker
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2023
- Bart has written a new book on Revelation, titled "Armageddon - What the Bible Really Says about the End". In it, he examines the least-read and most-misunderstood book of the Bible. It will be out in late March, but you can pre-order here: bit.ly/armgddn. Pre-orders really help drive publicity, so if you're interested in the subject (and why wouldn't you be? It's The. End. Of. The. World!), get it now while it's hot!
Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses
___________________________
One of the few ways people today actually appeal to the Old Testament is to condemn same-sex sexual relations (while they ignore much of everything else it says). Such people usually take it as obvious that the New Testament condemns them as well. But DOES the Bible condemn homosexuality? As it turns this a lively debate among biblical scholars, and the dominant view among critical scholars is not at all what you might expect. And their reasons for holding this view is even less widely known. In this episode I interview biblical scholar Jeffrey Siker (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) longtime professor of New Testament (who is also an ordained Presbyterian minister) who explains why in fact the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality.
In this episode, Bart flips the script and becomes the interviewer, asking Dr Siker about
_________________________
*Advertising Disclaimer: We are an affiliate partner for Wondrium, so if you sign up for a paid plan with them, we will earn a commission. This in no way affects your price and you’ll be supporting our show, so we thank you.
I spent 16 years hating myself and praying everyday to not be gay. It drove me to years of addiction because I hated myself all because of what I heard in church. Being told I was an abomination for something that I cannot even control. I knew I was gay at the age of 8 and honestly probably earlier. I am no longer a Christian and honestly don't believe in God and was able to get sober. I have been in a wonderful relationship for the past 10 years and have been sober for 2 of them and am so lucky to have had him stick by me. You make a difference, I saw you on myth vision. I am Hyperion now, @MorgueOfficial is who got me into it but even that I am not sure of. I thank you so much for covering this. ❤️ To everyone
I'm glad that you too escaped the pain and condemnation that was heaped upon you. I also struggled for about 15 years with this and my chronic depression and anxiety over it. I'm glad you're feeling better now my relationship has been for about 25 years now, with three stepchildren and soon to be our 4th grandchild.
Wonderful story Greg. Glad you made it out. All the best for the future matey.
I cannot talk on behalf of Christianity, but in Islam, it's not you who is an abomination. It's the act of rebellion against your maker that is an abomination. We are all sinners, but the best amongst sinners are those who turn back to their maker and repent before the clock rings the bell of the test end.
Life is a like a blink of an eye. It's just an hour of exam. Whether you pass or fail. Our desires are a distraction.
@@adamdilem941 Can you stop this? It is like saying, black skin is rebellion against God but he doesn't judge you. When something is an integral part of you, you can't separate it from the person.
This "we are all sinners"-narrative is just manipulative. It acts as if stealing or being gay is the same thing. But it isn't. You can stop stealing while staying true to yourself. You can't stop being gay without crippling your soul. "It isn't good for humans to be alone," is written in the bible. Funny, how this suddenly doesn't apply anymore when it comes to LGBT.
Hi Greg, have you read "The Man Jesus Loved" by Theodore Jennings Jnr.? If not I do recommend it. Thank you for sharing your story.
Why would anybody expect "the Bible" to speak with one voice about anything?
Delusion or believing what they were taught by the nuns/priests.
Bc, while the Bible has many diff authors, their words came from ONE 3rce Holy God.
@@pattheplanter Sounds like you suffered under Roman Catholicism. Not too surprising. I hope & pray that if it shipwrecked your faith, that you will find your way to Jesus SOON. But this time with the teaching of the Catholic church, not the ROMAN Catholic church.
Please watch the following to know what I mean:
"Catholic, but not ROMAN Catholic// John Barnett" (yt)
@@Anabee3 All priests are lying or deluded, no exceptions. Tell yourself whatever story you need to get you through the day but don't believe the Churches, they have always lied. I know their history.
Fundamentalists very try to pretend it does...even though there is zero debate that it wasn't written a huge number of different people, in different times and places. Indisputable, really.
I like Bart interviewing other Academics. He has a way of asking questions which leads to an interesting discussion.
Exactly. Bart is also great at helping academics explain the points so that a person without the extensive background understand what the issues are and how it’s much more complicated than what they are commonly told in their religious institutions.
It does. Winger is going to need new pants after he views this one...
Great example how an atheist and a Christian can have deep discussions, be civil, and still come out the best of friends! So insightful!
I really like that as well. Reasonable people can come to different personal conclusions on important topics but still be very respectful toward one another with acceptance of those differences.
It’s pretty obvious that we can all have these conversations . People have theme everyday . Nothing special going on here.
Only uneducated morons in TH-cam comments and Reddit can’t have conversations .
But still didn't answer the question within an hour
As long as they are not fundamentalists there is room for meaningful discussions.
@@tzakman8697so you’re fundaphobic
I knew I was gay at age 13! But couldn’t except myself because of church and society! Got married to a woman & had 2 sons! Stuck out the marriage for 20 years unhappily! Got divorced & came out my kids were 16 & 14. The 16 moved away with me my younger son stayed with my x wife! Later met a man became my partner! Unfortunately he was hooked on pain pills from a car accident years before! He accidentally overdosed and died day before Thanksgiving we only had a year and a half together! I tried dating but never found true love again! But I still believe in God! I take the Bible with a grain of salt! Sing in a church choir at a liberal Lutheran Church! They except gay people! Getting older now given up looking for a partner now but happy to be free to now be true to myself!
I'd rather spend my whole life a virgin than risk committing a sin.
"Sexuality" does change by the way over time if you do certain things for a long period of time.
Very helpful information. Bart, your books helped free me from a fundamentalist worldview approximately 15 years ago. I consider this the most important happening in my life.
There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism if you understand the fundamental thing with God is LOVE.
Is it? The christian god is not above, wrath, envy, jealousy, desire, or anything that we would consider unethical. The main villain of the bible seems to be the fallible creator, who tinkers and throws tamper tantrums, if his creations, whom he made don‘t behave in the way he expects.
So is the main theme Love, can we attribute that to the god-being od the bible?
True love would not be commanded, and forced under threat of torture.
Anyone that commands and expects worship, is automatically unworthy of it.
There is just no way to compare the biblical god with anything like love, in a meaningful way.
@@derfuzzy8854 Where on earth did you read about a God who has temper tantrums? If you put your hand in the fire it gets burned.
@@derfuzzy8854 The is no Christian god. There is only God. One God for all people.
@@SimonSverige Oh he admits it freely himself "I am a jealous, a wrathful god". He is frequently described in most stories prone to anger,jealousy and basically any characteristic, you would ascribe as negative in human beings. He even deceives people with false vision in one storie in Kings.
About the lable: We can change that to "The god, as described in the bible" better?
The story of Lot and his daughters is one of the strangest in a strange book.
You want to see strange, read Judges 19.
@@montagdp Thanks for the tip. I needed a good wholesome Bible story to read to my kids to keep them on the correct path.
@@montagdp thanks for the tip.
@@montagdpThat is a good one to mention to someone who claims to get his morals from the Bible.
My favorite is when David asks for permission to marry Solomon's daughter. Solomon agrees to arrange the marriage but only if David can kill 100 Philistine men and come back with their foreskins. What does David do? He comes back with 200 foreskins. That's a good story to talk about while your family is having dinner...
I grew up on a dairy farm and was charged with observing the cows for when they come into heat so they could be bread in a timely fashion in terms of maximising milk production. Cows mount each other constantly in the absence of a bull and I had to observe and report this behaviour from the age of 5. One of my teachers at school was in a lesbian relationship and I understood there was a connection because of our common mammalian heritage. What I never questioned back in the forties that homosexuality was part of nature. Consequently I never bought that homosexuality was unnatural. I’m decidedly heterosexual, but I have never felt homosexual people should be condemned or ostracised. This discussion is really forthright and avoids dubious rationalisations.
Animals will jump anything when they are in heat that doesn't mean they are home sexual lol. That's like saying when dogs jump on humans like that that its beastiality.
I’ve never given a damn who someone else loves.
We aren't supposed to behave as farm animals do. That is the point. Am I supposed to hump a pillow because a dog does it? No!!! Human beings are supposed to exercise self-control. Or shall I now get out and eat the grass on my lawn?
Homosexuality occurs with the same percentage throughout the primate kingdom.
@@tatie7604Farm animals eat, sleep and reproduce. We should probably do those!
Thank you for discussing this. When I was a Cristian, I believed that same sex attraction was just a perverted friendship. I've learned that it isn't. I now know that same-sex attraction is natural for some people and that it has been around since the beginning of time.
Did you read what the Bible said about it? It says the opposite of what you said. You are denying reality.
This is due to the fall of mankind, pedophiles have attractions they ought not have
I’m not entirely familiar with the psychological data we have on that but that seems to be the case too. In christianity we believe that all have a different cross to bare to honour God
The Bible says death and disease came through sin, so we deviated from God’s intended path for us which is why people have attractions they ought not have
Because it is natural doesn’t make it good. Whatever is good is whatever is according to God’s will for He is the standard of good and without God there is no moral standard
If you don’t believe in God that’s your choice, I respect that. But Christians (according to Biblical beliefs) don’t see homosexuality like a special sin it’s the same as lying and stealing. All sin has the ways of death, the death of the soul as it is separated from God
A Christian homosexual would refrain from acting on these attractions they have, and in that way honour the Lord whilst simultaneously trusting in the promise that Christ will ultimately fulfill us in ways our earthly attractions never could. Have a blessed day friend 🙏
Have you ever wondered why all the men in ancient Greece were homosexuals?
None of them were born that way, much less all of them.
They were sexually abused as boys and became abusers themselves, just like today.
My son tried to tell me not all gay people practice the sexual part of expressing "love". Then I accidentally read the text "I can't fall asleep without your cummies" to his male "friend".
He was otherwise still a virgin trying to convince me he was sure he was bi sexual at the least.
Man is a sinner by nature and practice.Sin is natural.
I'm a practicing homosexual. If practice makes perfect, I'm definitely perfect.
Next stop, Carnegie hall! 😂
I definitely need to get more practice in
@@darkcyndoge disgusting, disturbed psyche
😂
Same lol
30:39 Imagine John Doe says a racist comment, and when someone points it out another comes to his defense saying, "No, John Doe was born in Idaho in 1951."
The rationalizations some people make to defend their cherished beliefs are fascinating and frightening.
Are you kidding, that's a perfect example!
My mom was born in 1940 when India was a part of the British Empire. My mom to this day calls all South Indian people "madrasis", because she is North Indian. Back then, the British ruled all of South India through the Madras Presidency.
My wife is South Indian and hates that term, because South Indians are not all the same. When the Madras Presidency became Madras State, the first thing the South Indians did was break up Madras State along ethnic lines. So, when my mom uses that word, my wife feels like my mom is being racist against South Indians.
Were North Indians using that term in the 1940s racist? It depends on intent, which is a form of context. For example, my mom is trying to learn the proper terms, because she is exposed to South Indians now more than ever, so she is trying not to be insensitive. So, is she racist for once using the term "madrasi"?
Things get interesting when you realize people in different times have different ideas, and applying ideas from modern times will lead you to greatly misunderstand what people in ancient times actually thought.
His point is not that Jesus was intentionally excluding homosexuals, but that he literally did not think of whether to include them, because he had no concept of them as a category of people, much less a category of people who would want to marry. Thus, they would not enter his mind when discussing marriage. In his time, this is not homophobic. We can't know what Jesus would have thought of homosexual marriage should the modern conception be explained to him.
Seems to me you're rationalizing to defend your cherished, bigoted, "Christian" beliefs. Frightening.
I love that you waited until the end to reveal Jeff as a christian pastor. I'm sure a lot of people were even more surprised by what he revealed
Why would you spoil that for people reading though the comments?
@jc_alpha choices
Of course he's not a Christian pastor - he would never fool genuine Christians who study the bible properly without misrepresenting it.
@@Chris_Sheridan
You can tell straight away when a fundamentalist appears in the comment section of Bart's videos
Please crawl back under your rock
@@strumspicks2456 .. and you have a problem with fundamental values?
You do know the actual meaning of fundamental? .. it applies in many areas of life - similar to the term 'basic' and 'from original principles'.
Why are you so afraid of good moral values that are healthy for society ie. basic family values.
I am an 87 year old gay Christian who has never had a homosexual relationship in my life.
I rejected my sexual identity at the point where I was supposed to move out of my family home situation to live as part of the gay community.
I refused!
I married for 18 years, had four children, but eventually divorce was inevitable.
Please do not reject gay people because you don't know their situation and assume they are committing sin minute to minute.
In our present time, people are learning to accept gay people for who they are, not for assumptions religious people make about "the sinful gay situation."
I was born gay and do understand that my sexual identity is God-given and inevitable!
Young people have grown up with gay companions and have come to realize that they are "people" at an early age.
Young people understand who gay people are and truly cannot understand "the church's rejection of them."
Basically, gay rejection is really a middle-age and old-age phenomenon.
There is a time limit to the existence of our typical Christian churches.
Young people refuse to darken the door of a church once they leave the family nest!
Churches will ultimately die out because of its inhumanity to certain people (gays, lesbians, and trans-people).
The "spirit of Jesus" will continue to exist in the hearts of true Christians and they will not need a "Church" to legitimize their presence!
The Bible never talks about Homosexuality because in ancient times people didn't classify sexual preferences into identities like the way we do nowadays. People didn't go around saying ''I'm straight, I'm gay, I'm lesbian, I'm bisexual".
Ancient people just didn't classify themselves like that.
Given that 'homosexuality' is a mixture of Greek and Latin that is unsurprising, but so what?
We've advanced and found various forms classification to be rather useful since then.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar
_["Given that 'homosexuality' is a mixture of Greek and Latin that is unsurprising, but so what? "]_
He's pointing out that because ancient people didn't think about sexual attraction like we do, the Bible couldn't prohibit homosexuality as we know it.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar The poster was obviously talking about reasonably equivalent terms: rebutting this semantically is like claiming Greeks and Romans didn't think "man" and "woman" existed as categories because the terms are Germanic and Old English in origin. (To be clear, Greek had anēr/gynē, and Latin had vir/femina).
That's true. But what they condemned is homosexual behaviour. Which wouldn't really matter (different times, different culture) if modern Christians didn't source morals from the book. At best they do the whole "hate the sin not the sinner" bullshitery. At worst they advocate for laws targeting homosexual people
When people ask "does the Biblie condemn homosexuality" this is usually what they refer to. Many Christians are actually ok with celibate homosexuals
@@AurorXZ I think you missed my point, which was we do use the term now, because such a classification is useful, so what if it wasn't used then?
Thank you gentlemen, it was a great interview and discussion.
Great conversation.... thank you!
Very interesting and helpful to see what is in the scripture, really meant then and how is to be understood now.
This is one of the best discussions of this subject I've ever seen as it is accessible and not dogmatic. The sad part is that the people who most need to watch this video won't.
Yess! I'm forwarding it to people who need some perspective on this issue.
Very interesting discussion, but still not answering the question
I wish I could have known this 40 years ago when I started to struggle with this very topic
Just because someone is giving you a green light to sin against your creator, it doesn't mean that you are ok to do so. In the day of Judgement this guy's opinion won't give you a free card out of jail/hell.
@@adamdilem941 Why are you condemning others? You are not the one who will judge that, and God - I am more than sure! - only sees souls. He doesn't care if they are gay or straight, which color their skin is or what ever other factors our (and your!) limited human minds can come up with. He loves ALL of us! And to pounce on someone just because you feel their sensibility with this topic, just because you want to look down on someone, just because you do not want to look at yourself and your own issues is not the way. God is love, and if you were a true believer, you would not judge.
@thelyrebird1310 You deserve love just like anybody else, don't let others unsettle you. God does not care about sexual "orientation" (that expression already makes me squeamish, because it is in itself incorrect already). Love, peace and healing to you, but most of all: happiness, in your private life as well. Because you deserve it, be sure of that!
@@ElinT13
"God loves all of us, God is love"
How about we give God a chance to speak on his behalf instead of you dictating to him who he is and what he loves?! Did you create him or did he create you? You are master over him or is he master over you?
Let's see what he has to say about himself:
Psalm 5:4-6
"Oh God you hates all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man."
Psalm 11:5
"The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence"
Psalm 139:21-22
"Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies"
Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers"
Leviticus 20:23
"And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them"
Psalm 5:5-6 ESV
"Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man"
Hosea 9:15
"Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels"
Psalm 119:53
"Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked, who forsake your law."
Malachi 1:2-3
“Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”
Psalm 145:20
"The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
GOD DESTROYING HOMOSEXUALS SODOM AND GOMORRAH :
Genesis 19:13
"for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
Deuteronomy 29:23
"like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and in His wrath."
As you can see God himself tells youthat he does not love all of us. Certainly not Sodomites and their Allies. He hates the wicked. But he forgives those who repent and turn away from their wickedness. But those who do not, they will face hell fire for eternity. That's God's decree.
You claim: "God doesn't doesn't care if one is gay or straight, black or white..."
God doesn't care about your skin colour when it comes to his judgement. But he has told us that he cares whether you are righteous or rebel against his will and Law. Being black or White you have no choice on that, he created you black or white or Chinese or male or female. Being a Sodomite however is a sexual evil fetish that he forbade you and that you have control over it. You are responsible for your actions in any just court. It's like a pedophile saying God doesn't care about my fetish just as he doesn't care about my skin colour.
Thanks to deceived people like you we have now Gay Drag queens performing X rated strip dances in nurseries, primary and secondary schools. Before you know it, soon they will be legalising pedophilia as they're already bringing scientists on tv and newspapers to brainwash people that "They are born that way". Does that so called "scientific" excuse sound familiar to you?
@@ElinT13 When did he Judge? Why are you attacking him for stating that comes straight from the bible?
Bible Verses About Homosexuality
Genesis 19:1-11
That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he
saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground.
"My lords," he said, "come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then
get up early in the morning and be on your way again." "Oh no," they replied. "We'll just spend the night
out here in the city square." But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for
them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. But before they retired for the night, all
the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to
Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex
with them!"
So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged,
"don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you
can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my
protection."
"Stand back!" they shouted. "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he's acting like our judge!
We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But
the two angels reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men,
young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside.
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice *homosexuality*, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
(NLT)
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices *homosexuality*, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
(NLT)
Judges 19:16-24
That evening an old man came home from his work in the fields. He was from the hill country of
Ephraim, but he was living in Gibeah, where the people were from the tribe of Benjamin. When he saw
the travelers sitting in the town square, he asked them where they were from and where they were going.
"We have been in Bethlehem in Judah," the man replied. "We are on our way to a remote area in the hill
country of Ephraim, which is my home. I traveled to Bethlehem, and now I'm returning home. But no one
has taken us in for the night, even though we have everything we need. We have straw and feed for our
donkeys and plenty of bread and wine for ourselves."
"You are welcome to stay with me," the old man said. "I will give you anything you might need. But
whatever you do, don't spend the night in the square." So he took them home with him and fed the
donkeys. After they washed their feet, they ate and drank together. While they were enjoying themselves,
a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. They began beating at the door and
shouting to the old man, "Bring out the man who is staying with you so we can have sex with him." The
old man stepped outside to talk to them. "No, my brothers, don't do such an evil thing. For this man is a
guest in my house, and such a thing would be shameful. Here, take my virgin daughter and this man's
concubine. I will bring them out to you, and you can abuse them and do whatever you like. But don't do
such a shameful thing to this man."
1 Kings 14:24
And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the
nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.
1 Kings 15:12
He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
2 Kings 23:7
He also tore down the living quarters of the male and female shrine prostitutes that were inside the
Temple of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah pole.
Romans 1:18-32
But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their
wickedness.... Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And
they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and
confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious,
ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and
degrading things with each other's bodies. *They traded the truth about God for a lie*. So they worshiped
and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural
way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal
sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men,
and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved*.
Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let
them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed,
hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters
of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.
They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's
justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they
encourage others to do them, too.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves.
Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or
practice *homosexuality*, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people
none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed;
you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
by the Spirit of our God.
Something was said here about the Old Testament's "condemnation of the rich against the poor". I don't know if there's enough other material for it in the Bible, but that's a topic I'd be very interested in hearing more about.
Actually, this is a very important subject because in fact Jesus condemns accumulation of wealth. And I think this is one thing that shows how different views Jesus had against the Jewish establishment at the time!
@@fz1205 This is also an issue were fundamentalists suddenly don't care as much about the bible.
longcastle..where in the Old Testament is stated that, otherwise there wouldn't no jewish kings if it condemned it.
@@JeannieSoko The jewish kings are portrayed as a compromise. In first Samuel it is made very clear, that the people want a king and God gives them one, but he says clearly, that they made a decision against God. The whole deuteronomistic literature from Deutoronomy to second Kings is a harsh critic of monarchy. Even more intense is the criticism from the prophets, especially Jeremia and Amos. If the bible is consistent in one thing, it is about siding always with the poor against the rich.
The bible shows Gods loyalty to Israel despite of their monarchy, not because of it. David isn't even portrayed that good, Solomon isn't either.
@@derpfaddesweisen thanks for the reference, i will read more into it.
Another informative program, deals thoughtfully with a subject that remains culturally controversial. Thanks for what you do.
I’m watching this now, but I’m also putting it in my “Watch later” list so I can refer to it in the future
Excellent overview of this seemingly complex issue... Thanks, Drs Ehrman and Siker!
It's not complex at all. It is made complex by the dubious historical narrative this scholar places over the text and context.
I understand that the debate here is not about saying it is ok or not okay. Simply providing the changing perspectives on the matter over the years in the church
Wau! I am not a Christian but I would like to learn about these kind of issues. Dr. Ehrman is an amazing scholar! Thank you.
I’m not an authority figure but I am Christian. I would be humbled to attempt to answer any questions you have.
Thank you for bringing up the subject. I was expecting much more from an "expert in the topic of homosexuality in the Bible" though. The arguments presented in John Shelby Spong's book "The Sins of Scripture" are much more elaborate and seem pretty convincing to me as a former fundamental Christian.
Spong and Ehrman would be interesting.
You were never Born Again.
Bishop Spong could never get Jerry Falwell to debate him. At one point their churches were across the street from each other. Christians separated by belief in the God of Abraham.
So summarizing, the answer is "Not exactly, but yes, exactly, and that doesn't matter that much anyway."
Love the friendly banter
This is why I like scholars. They may not always agree with each other, but they at least get us past all the personal opinions and emotions that cloud the issues -- into (in this case) the contexts and reasons for whatever the texts are that are being examined.
I couldn't agree more. People could learn a lot from observing the relationship between these two scholars.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that just because they are scholars, they have no possibility of bias due to personal beliefs. And that possibility is perhaps even greater in this field of study, in which the “academic” is likely to hold strong personal feelings about and opinions on the same subject matter in which he is also purported to be an academic or an expert.
Except when politics and money get involved. Some historians cannot say certain thing and some scientist cannot publish certain things if they want to keep their funding.
I don't need and expert to tell me what the text plainly says. Homosexuality is a sin and it is also a sinful habit.
And they also sneak in their subtle deceptions. 🤔
If the passages dealing with homosexuality and condaming homosexuality can be dismissed because of the context of the time of the bible, then can most of rulings and other condemnations be dismissed using the same argument and therefore making the bible obsolete??
When Nietzsche declared God to be dead, it was more because he had noticed that God had been dead all along...
Yep.
Very interesting conversation n thought- provoking too.
Thanks guys! Great discussion.
I really like how Bart held his feet to the fire more or less and didn't hold back on the questions just because they're friends.
Sophistry is integral to Philosophy
@@enijize1234 Meaning?
You think they answered the question of the topic? They would better fight but give an answer at the end 😜
No you did not.@@SuperMrAndersen
This is also another kind of a case where the Bible writers were not speaking from a scientific perspective. Because Paul saying, men laying with men is "unnatural" is contradicted in Nature where a variety of animals do engage in same sex behavior.
Tbf, the bible writers were never speaking from anything that would be considered science as we know it today.
If you cannot see that it's not natural, you're absolutely blind. Lmao 😂🤦
@@br1qbat Agree. Science was still barely a thing back then. But when people use verses to form opinions and/or even governmental policies, I think it's fair to point out when that opinion is contradicted by science.
He says the same about women with short hair. This should make you question if his view of what it means to be "natural" is the same as our modern view (it isn't).
Homosexuality as we understand it is as similar to the thing condemned in the bible, as Evangelicalism is to the teachings of Jesus.
Show me this example. Whenever I have looked into it, I find no compelling reference to animals engaging in homosexual sex. "Same sex behavior" might just be the wiggle room you're looking for. But if it is not homosexual intercourse it doesn't really count. Please provide your references. I've mostly found: two lions hunting together and grooming each other. Sorry, not the case. Dogs humping each other. Dogs do that to show dominance, and even a female dog will "hump" another to show this dominance - and it is unrelated to homosexuality - as is sniffing butts.
Really enjoyed this podcast. Thank you
Haven't watched yet, but have heard a lot about Dr E, and see his videos YT, so this looks like a great place to start. I'm a former evangelical and a Gnostic transbian
Ah man, I was digging the Revelation streak! But excited to hear y'alls take on this.
Leviticus also talks about not eating pork, but does Peter's dream basically negate all of Leviticus in the eyes of Christians?
Jews were not to eat pork. It does not say man is not to eat pork.
@@simon-ty7no But how do you separate the moral from ceremonial. For instance, is there a moral reason behind not eating pork? Was there a health issue since pigs eat so much junk that can be passed on to humans who eat them and possibly cause severe illness or even death? Can we say what the purpose was behind such rule? Usually, it seems to me, that there is a moral purpose behind the ceremonial. This is what I mean when I ask if it, "basically negates all of Leviticus?"
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922 But weren't all the rules in Leviticus meant for the Jews?
@@markadams7046 no. some are moral laws, some ceremonial. Some are what is right and some are how the jews separate themselves from others. kosher rules are not morals laws that apply to everyone
@@markadams7046 that doesnt mean kosher laws had no rhyme or reason.
Thanks for your explanation and wide perspective, deep and objective, may God bless you and your family. Amiin
Bart is a great interviewer. He keeps the guest on track with excellent, provocative questions without stealing the show.
Discussion starts at 5:25.
I live in a very red state. There is a subsidies sucking church on every corner.
I've been telling ppl that's how God made them, he must want them that way.
Thanks for great discussion
God didn't make them that way. You believe that lie because you're gullible.
Im gay and live in Oklahoma, and it has gotten better here, especially in the two cities OKC and Tulsa
I believe what you said that there are many different people here because the Lord wanted us here, in many different forms because I believe we were meant to try and learn to love one another before gaining access to heaven
I'm also Christian and it's not easy with other christians tell me I'm proud to live in sin and gay people telling me I believe in nonsense, I say to them there are 10 commandments not one involves sexual oriantain besides adultery and coveting. Everyone who quotes The Bible and the 6 verses I say none were from Jesus who never spoke a word against homosexuality. It apparently is a big deal more to humans than it is our Lord, so I believe. And the last I pointed to is he put it in nature to show us it is natural. Just wanted to say keep fighting the good fight and don't let other christians tell you, you can't be a good Christian if you're gay. We are not just Lust we are Love too, just like straight people can lust but also love.
@@zt3823 According to the Bible we inherit a sinful nature. So that can be anything against God. Everyone struggles with different sins. Just because you see in it what you call nature doesn't make it natural. We see murder in the world, stealing, and rape. Just because it happens between animals and humans doesn't make it right. After all, all of creation was cursed.
Lust is a sin for everyone. Sigmund Freud invented the idea of "gay" and sexual orientation. Our bodies physically are not designed to act sexually with the same sex. If we embark on sexually engaging in this way, we are going against the creation ordinance. This affects us spiritually as well. Trauma is often at the root of aberrant sexual desires. It's never too late to repent.
Genesis gives us the creation ordinance. Men are to be with Women sexually in a holy marriage. That's it. You're not believing in the God of the Bible, or in Jesus of the Bible. Jesus didn't address homosexuality per se because it was so widely understood to be not permitted by God, he didn't need to.
Love this discussion, gentleman
Interesting topic and it feels like we just scratched the surface.
At around 27:30, I have to disagree with the notion that the people in the Bible only cared about the acts, not the thoughts. One of the Ten Commandments is about having thoughts for your neighbor's wife, not just about having sex with her. And Jesus was very clear about thought sins being equal to actual sinful acts. Among the several dozen authors of the Bible, there was disagreement about the severity of thought crimes but it is clear that some of them considered them as bad or worse than doing the bad deed.
With what we know now about the brain, thought crime shouldn't even be considered and shows how fkd up religion is
@@crede9427 Exactly. We have known that thought crimes are not and cannot be crimes for more than a century. But the grip of religious organizations on the population is very much based on punishing thoughts.
They were wrong in everything.
Very valuable conversation!!
I'm so confused. This is exactly why people reject religion over basic human decency.
I really enjoyed the banter during the open of the interview ❤ 5:38
I Cleary see why Bart is no longer a Christian. Cause Geez! This guy has his points, but confuses the heck outta me. IM SOLD!! way 2 go bart. You held it down!
Yeah, I think that Bart made it possible for me the listen to the dodges and auto-excuses and learn some facts, even though about 90% wasn't relevant to any question that was asked. Those were informative nonetheless. But damn, it disgusts me so much when people like his friend just avoid answering questions and distract with unrelated topics instead. And even then, the christian scholars lays bare how awfully horrific morality in the bible is concerning how to view other people. He can sugar coat it all he wants but things like "it's the lesser sin", while talking about a town wanting to rape men and Lot offering his daughters to be raped instead, that's some messed up stuff and it's messed up to downplay it like that.
I loved Bart's response on that one though :p He sees it as the book of horrors that it is and just went: Haha wow! okay! :p And he went back to topic. So well done, I suppose. You have to have a strong stomach to discuss biblical morality and not get distracted with every batshit insane detail in the stories.
Marvelous! Thanks for this conversation. Is the 2006 encyclopedia still recommended, or is it now outdated?
I find it rather fascinating that a lot of people live their lives based on a book written by multiple human beings, thousands of years ago where costumes were SO MUCH DIFFERENT from the modern days and still believe in them until this day. Let's study the Bible for it's historical meaning and to learn about how life was back then and please contextualize its messages to the modern days. I'm happy to be who I am and a freaking book is not going to dictate my life and tell me what's right to be happy and live a great life. Thank you for the video.
Bart, I would like to know specifically what your view is on the subject. Are there any additional videos out there?
How are people going to accept the contextual angle in Leviticus, for example, with passages like Isaiah 40:8?
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”
So then with your question I
Ask you do you follow the entire law of Leviticus? Do you follow the 10 commandments to the T?
@@endswithme555
Ok, you don’t how either
@@mindymild what?!!
@@endswithme555
Did I stutter?
@@mindymild if by stutter you mean did your last statement make any sense, it didn’t.
You might want to proofread before you hit the reply button.
Your first response “ok you don’t how either” makes zero sense!
lol
With this type of argument, you might just say that belief in the existence of God is a cultural artifact that must be put in the cultural context of that time , so we can ignore it too. And Jesus was a 1st century Jew so his belief in God must also be put in the proper context and can be ignored as well.
Guess you weren’t listening huh.
@@misterhope5241 the difference with you is I understand what I listen to and I also know things. I also notice you are incapable of formulating an argument .
Maybe we should talk about how many times the Bible has been translated and language has affected that.
Yeah, another vid like the Goodacre one. Bart is such a pro as an interviewer.
No, very different from the Goodacre interview. Here Ehrman feels it necessary very often to step out of his interviewing role to compensate for Siker’s seeming inability to express himself coherently. Much of this is Ehrman interviewing himself.
You can tell Jeffrey is a real musician because he's using his music mic for a video call, lol.
Love my Audix OM series mics. Nukeproof and great sound.
I would watch a 2 (or more) hour podcast about the Syrian New Testament with these two as hosts.
the correct name for the Old Testament is shabby, worn-out. The wrong name creates misunderstanding.
I have a great respect for Dr. Ehrman, but I am always suspicious of reading the Hebrew Bible though the eyes of Christianity. I would be more interested in how the Talmud approaches these issues. How did the Jewish community at the time, or time period, read/apply these laws.
In the same context of prohibiting homosexual acts, you also can’t wear shirts that is mixed cotton and polyester which was mentioned in the video, or you can’t grow different crops in the same field
@@byron9630 That is a great red herring, but the issue/and topic of the video is the actual prohibition of homosexual acts. I merely pointed out that I wondered what the Jewish thinkers of the time thought about the passage and how they interpreted it. It seems there is a lot of Post-Modern criticism going on with these texts today, and I am simply curious about what it meant and how it was viewed at the time by the religion that produced it.
Man this comment section is far out..
I feel like as soon as this ended Jeff dimmed the lights and adjusted the camera and did some chatroulette piano playing.
Honestly, in this day and age, it is OK to say top and bottom.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with religion is, it’s fluidity of beliefs and interpretations. This is what causes it to be more myth, the fact.
That is why as a Christian I just believe in God and try to be a good person and that's all.
That is true for every aspect of human life though
Religion is more a reification of culture and philosophy, relevant to the time of its development, more than anything else. Religion makes a lot more sense in that context.
Would you rather that it was absolutely explicit and dogmatic?
@@BlueBoardAnalysisas an atheist, I can respect your position.
I like dealing with smart people. That is why I don't now go to any religious event.
It also says that eating shellfish is an abomination.
First off, the question of whether a religion's scriptures condemn or don't condemn something is a matter for only those who choose to practice that religion. The greater issue here is freedom to be not religious or religious as one sees best.
It’s a strange rationale to say that because people don’t obey all the law, the “picking and choosing” argument. I guess we could apply the same rationale to our time. Because people don’t obey a strict speed limit, that also calls into question whether we should pay taxes.
You are right.
The difference between "laws" then and now is that our current laws have been agreed upon in a democratic way based mostly on what is good for our modern society, while the Fable is a partly random collection of folk tales from the iron age.
The issue with the Law that I couldn’t get around is what parts of the Law falls under the Ordinances?
Here in the Manila, Philippines, some pastors in the Presbyterian church and also the Baptist go to a Jesuit university (Ateneo de Manila, Loyola Schools) for their studies in theology.
This is a superb discussion and a huge learning experience - thank you!
I disagree. Jeffry Siker is not arguing in good faith. He’s just another apologist twisting logic (and occasionally brutalizing the English language). Thumbs down.
@@jeffryphillipsburns That doesn't seem fair. Siker comes across as quite erudite and intellectually honest in my opinion, and Ehrman is clearly enjoying the discussion.
@@jeffryphillipsburns That's my take as well. Siker takes some of the most straightforward verses in the text and spins them to match his agenda. Liberalism, not Christ, is his saviour/faith.
@@Charlotte_Martel - So, you claim to be the expert on early Christianity and Biblical studies that Dr Siker IS? Hubris in spades. And denialism, too, towards someone who is trying to bring you knowledge.
@@MossyMozart I never claimed to be a Biblical expert, but I am literate enough to know that when a sentence states "The table is black," it doesn't actually mean that the table is white.
It's amusing how you resort to appealing to authority, yet you readily reject the straightforward interpretation of these verses from the majority of Biblical scholars until extreme liberals entered the field. It's almost as if we choose which sources qualify as experts based on how closely they align with our own opinions.
My biggest takeaway from this discussion is that there is an enormous push to have homosexuality accepted as normal in the modern Christian church. Mr. Ehrman, in his book "Misquoting Jesus" talks about various pressures, both internal and external, the scribes had that caused them to change the text. I'm sure the "texts" (new modern translations) will be changed to promote this view.
Jesus never spoke on homosexuality nor did he speak on abortion; both were occurring in his time 🤔 Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate, perhaps God changed his mind about the whole homosexuality thing and that's why it's called a New covenant I didn't new; with nothing being said in the New testament about. Paul while he was nothing more than a commentator... In other words I think banning gays. By Christians is totally being put some sweats and to think you know the mind of God; if you didn't want gazing trans he wouldn't have created, and if you say it's Satan's fault that you're saying Satan has just as much power 🤔💭
@@mickeydecurious God will burn these abominations in hell forever.
Homosexuality is natural and normal. We have been around and will always be around, thanks be to God.
@@Good_Grace
However, nasty it is and unhygienic. Yeah it is kind of natural.
Wild animals are seem to do it occasionally
People do it with the opposite sex
They are considered straight, but occasionally experiment with anal intercourse
So you may find anal intercourse disgusting But you have no authority to Defined the bounds of nature. Human biology is not just simply male and female there are many medical conditions that put a person somewhere in between
When you look at the fine details you have to ask what is normal?
Go to another country and watch guys walking down the street holding hands They are not gay they would laugh at you if you said they were
But you would be embarrassed to walk down the street hand-in-hand with another guy
It’s cultural dude. Open your eyes.
@@Good_GraceYes it is. Heterosexual people do it too. They also have oral sex. You can’t deny the biological fact if homosexual orientation just because you find anal sex icky. And many homosexuals do not have anal sex. Lighten up.
Thanks for informing people about the evil in the Fable.
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible" - Mark Twain
Thanks guys.
What a joke..... his entire argument is basically my god is not an evil horrible bastard so the places in the Bible where he apears to be, or orders people to do evil horrible things, must be misinterpreted.
You have to take into consideration the culture of the time in which the message was meant for..... he says.
He can't see the truth! which is: the primitive people wanted their preferences to have the weight of God behind them so they wrote those words into the mouth of God..... at some level deep inside anybody who says you have to take into consideration the culture and the time which it was written, subconsciously know that the text reflects the opinions of the people who wrote it........ but that would mean it's not God's opinion and they can't possibly face that reality.
What absolute bollocks. I guess you wear two ringlets, never wear polycotton, have never eaten shellfish and would be fine about selling your daughters into slavery because it says so in Leviticus. If you can’t interpret the bible then you’re a literalist and therefore obviously a hypocrite. Can’t have it both ways, end of story.
Thanks for the interesting and informative discussion. I have some (possibly silly) questions about Leviticus 18:22. I'm interested in why modern readers only take this as applying to the conduct of men. I assume most people today expect the Bible's moral codes and laws to apply to everyone. What would it mean to apply this passage to everyone? As a woman, what would I be prohibited from doing? If a particular religious community did want to say this statute only applies to the conduct of men, if they were to apply the same logic to the rest of the biblical statutes and ordinances, as a woman which other statutes would not apply to me? Would I basically be off scot-free in terms of needing to obey >90% of the biblical statutes?
Just curious, not sure if they're very silly questions!
Of course they are not silly questions. Men wrote the books. You could say their dicks wrote the books. Why would a dick consider a woman... except for sex of course?
the difference is this: during history women were not considered as beings with agency over their lives (or very minimal) so they did not bother with them, but men had agency, will, desire so it was imperative if you want to control men you need a higher authority (God) directly ordering what free agents (men) should or should not do
The idea what women have agency or they have euqal agency and rights as men is a very very very very..... very very modern idea. People in the past did not bother with women they were controlled by their family, husband or other men. You only needed to control men to control society.
@@fixpontt I understand that and I suppose that is partly why I asked, because our notion of sexuality and sexual orientation has also changed completely, as Jeffrey and Bart discuss in the video. So my question was basically, well, if a modern religious authority or individual insists on applying these biblical statutes about specific sexual acts in spite of the historical change in our understanding of sexuality, then presumably they must also apply the biblical statutes as in spite of the historical change in our understanding of gender and women. Therefore, wouldn't the codes not actually apply to me or any other woman (with a few exceptions where the statutes are specifically directed at women, like Leviticus 20:16)? So I would not be required to abide by them, neither in letter nor in spirit, since the people writing them wrote them only for men because they had no concept that I had that sort of agency anyway.
They’re not silly questions at all. Corresponding to @fixPontt’s point, the Hebrew Bible was written to men. The idea was probably that men would interpret it and apply it to the women of their household.
There could be various reason Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t say what women can’t do with each other:
1. Woman on woman would not violate the rights of a man’s ownership 🤮 of her sexuality
2. Maybe Women weren’t supposed to have sexual desires 😂 so how would they have sex without a man?
3. Women were seen as so desperate to please men that they wouldn’t want another woman. This is a laughable concept in a way, but there is denigration and oppression behind it, as when Rachel is dying, but Yahweh’s messenger visiting her says, “You’re going to have a boy, so don’t worry about the dying painfully and young part.” Or the enmity between Leah and Rachel in order to be the one to have the next son for Jacob.
In terms of the Jewish Bible ("Old Testament") it's potentially ambiguous. As the man on the left in the video said, some Rabbi's thought it of course also applied to women, while others thought it didn't.
As for the New Testament, which would be the defacto law Christians are under (not the Jewish Bible), it does seem to say that homosexuality of all kinds, man or woman, is thought of as harmful and wrong by God. Jesus and other New Testament authors make a few passing remarks about "Sexual Immorality" ("Porneia") in the Greek which some scholars understand to be a blanket Jewish term for all levitical forbidden or harmful sexual relations.
Paul however is the most clear on the matter. In Romans 1, 1st Corinthians, and other places, he seems to say clearly that all forms of homosexual acts, and even mindsets, are against God and harmful in the Christian worldview.
So does this apply to all the prohibitions in those verses ? .. or is it pick and choose?.. even though they are all in the same context ???
The issue with translating the “soft fellows” as male prostitutes is that pornoi appears pretty much directly above it. Pornos is directly identified as the word for a male prostitute in a variety of Greek texts. One would need a good reason to translate it differently here if one is to assert that a far lesser known word is being substituted for it below.
Would effete be a better understanding?
@@mdmenzel perhaps.
Very helpful discussion. Thank you
It seems to me that writers of scripture put words in God’s mouth to support their own agenda. People have used the Bible to justify slavery, inferiority of women, genocide, war, and other abominable activities. Jesus’ message is love God, love your neighbor and forgive your enemy.
Well that is the main purpose of the Bible ... wouldn't be much left if we could invade, kill folk, and control women
Not a good attack. Look and discover they few wars were religious. Christians fought slavery as well. And it was the secular communism that killed nearly 200 million people in the 20th century.
You're being biased, and a bigot. Much of what you said is only true, in that, during some phases of Europe - EVERYONE was Christian - thus those who did bad were as well, in a world where all were. Likewise - those who opposed Galileo were Christian - AS WERE HIS SUPPORTERS.
Delightful!
Romans chapter 1 explains this. Some moral practices of Old Testaments were carried through in New Testament.
A book I found very illuminating on this topic was *Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality* (1980) by John Boswell.
The Gay Gospels by Keith Sharpe is terrific
I found the Bible itself to be illuminating on the subject.
TL;DR: It's OK now because we changed our minds.
This entire hour is just them saying "ehhh what can you do?!"
Anyone who quotes Lev 18:22 and 20:13 to claim homosexuality is an abomination MUST ALSO obey Lev 19:37 and Lev 20:22 "Keep ALL my decrees and ALL my laws and follow them.." All 613 of them. They don't get a choice. I was a Baptist Pastor and I am proudly gay, medically proven during electronic shock therapy organized by a Dr who was President of the Baptist Church, to punish me for being gay. They then said I am not welcome to even attend church. Thanks for your video.
When he said "have to hunt for it" it reminded me of Jhon campea saying, "I hunted, hunted, Rob, for spider man's junk"
Is there any possible phrasing that this guest would actually accept as an ancient condemnation of same sex relations? Seems he can make excuses for just about anything.
I think they've backed the wrong horse when they oversimplify about "orientation" as the point of divergence between antiquity and modernity. There are hints of an implicit understanding of sexual orientation from several sources in antiquity, even if it's mired in things as fanciful and bizarre as astrological determinism (and even if these were largely concerned with sexual acts). Siker very briefly touched on a much more promising point of divergence - one related to orientation, but also broader than this: the social normalization of long-term, same-aged monogamous relationships between those exclusively interested in the same sex.
We really have to compound the descriptors, because otherwise there are always comparable examples from antiquity. And even as it is, we can still find things that fit the bill of "long-term, same-aged monogamous romantic relationships."
well even if the Bible said in Hebrew, Thou shall not butt-Fuck ... that would still be wrong. Just because the Bible says so does not make it right. Much of the Bible is downright evil.
I guess you weren’t listening or just fail to keep up.
Awesome podcast thank you dr. Herman 👍
Bible Verses About Homosexuality
Genesis 19:1-11
That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he
saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground.
"My lords," he said, "come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then
get up early in the morning and be on your way again." "Oh no," they replied. "We'll just spend the night
out here in the city square." But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for
them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. But before they retired for the night, all
the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to
Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex
with them!"
So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged,
"don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you
can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my
protection."
"Stand back!" they shouted. "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he's acting like our judge!
We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But
the two angels reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men,
young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside.
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
(NLT)
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
(NLT)
Judges 19:16-24
That evening an old man came home from his work in the fields. He was from the hill country of
Ephraim, but he was living in Gibeah, where the people were from the tribe of Benjamin. When he saw
the travelers sitting in the town square, he asked them where they were from and where they were going.
"We have been in Bethlehem in Judah," the man replied. "We are on our way to a remote area in the hill
country of Ephraim, which is my home. I traveled to Bethlehem, and now I'm returning home. But no one
has taken us in for the night, even though we have everything we need. We have straw and feed for our
donkeys and plenty of bread and wine for ourselves."
"You are welcome to stay with me," the old man said. "I will give you anything you might need. But
whatever you do, don't spend the night in the square." So he took them home with him and fed the
donkeys. After they washed their feet, they ate and drank together. While they were enjoying themselves,
a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. They began beating at the door and
shouting to the old man, "Bring out the man who is staying with you so we can have sex with him." The
old man stepped outside to talk to them. "No, my brothers, don't do such an evil thing. For this man is a
guest in my house, and such a thing would be shameful. Here, take my virgin daughter and this man's
concubine. I will bring them out to you, and you can abuse them and do whatever you like. But don't do
such a shameful thing to this man."
1 Kings 14:24
And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the
nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.
1 Kings 15:12
He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
2 Kings 23:7
He also tore down the living quarters of the male and female shrine prostitutes that were inside the
Temple of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah pole.
They're saying the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality because the Bible condemns a bunch of other things that people don't care about? I just don't understand the argument?
There is no argument. They had nothing, so they just played whataboutism for an hour. Bart knows that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior.
I look forward o hearing about the Syriac NT, or any other topic on Syrian Orthodox community/history.
I think to ask any question about the Bible in general is really to ask if the people who collected its books had any single purpose in mind. And the answer to that is “no” in my opinion. If one asked the writer of Genesis they would have given a different reason for writing the book than Psalms. For no other work of literature of such breadth and variegated composition would we ever ask the question if the whole thing does or is something, and to do otherwise I think is to ask a theological question.
That's nonsense. The individual books may indeed have been written for different purposes, but they were also drawn together to serve a common purpose. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask if one takes them as a whole do they support X or Y.
But here we have the compiled books of a tradition that is constantly referencing itself.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar Well, sure, they were collected, presumably, for SOME purpose, but it couldn’t be purpose that could possibly make such a disparate collection align in anything approaching a granular level. So yes, it is indeed “unreasonable” to expect any kind of consistency. Certain parts of the Bible would seem to condemn homosexual practice. That doesn’t mean the Bible as a whole condemns it. The Bible as a WHOLE does very little.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Really? You don't think the Bible as a whole makes the case for a particular god? That's certainly what it's fan clubs believe.
And if it is supposedly the inspired word of that God then consistency would be expected. The fact it manifestly does not have that would suggest, at the very least, that it is not inspired by any deity.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar - That story people love to tell about a mob bringing a woman to Jesus for stoning due to adultery brings the lie to the consistent "inspired word of God". When Jesus tells the mob that he without sin should cast the first stone, they all leave, disappointed that they won't lick their lips over bloodshed today. Jesus then tells the woman to go and sin no more. Good churchy story with a strong anti-sin, pro-Jesus message, no?
Well, no. This story did NOT appear in any manuscript prior to the 12th Century! Some scribe along the way got creative. If those scribes so blithely added in their own words, what did they leave out?
I don't know when this interview took place.
Therefore I would refer the speakers and others who have commented on the discussion to read the Academic Assessment published by the Wijngaarde Institute entitled" Christian objections to same sex relationships".
I'm surprised that it hasn't percolated into the public sphere.
I'm not going to attempt to summarize or precis its findings as it behoves anyone genuinely concerned with the Bible and Church teachings on homosexuality to read the document itself.
Tom Shantivanam
They sum it up themselves in the introduction: "They finally make it possible to confirm that the two key verses in Leviticus - and, more generally, the entire Hebrew Bible - do not prohibit, much less condemn, free and faithful same-sex relationships. And they also allow a similar degree of confidence with regard to all three passages from the apostle Paul." Somebody should get the entire clergy of the Church of England to read this.
@@pattheplanter Anyone with an iota of sense knows such 'scholarship' is just thinly veiled activism.
@@ConsideringPhlebas As opposed to the thinly-veiled inactivism of the conservative statements? Have you read it?
@@pattheplanter
No, and yet there are some things that you know exactly what they will be before you read them.
Sounds like he meant the My Pillow Guy.
Judge not lest you bè judged and with what judgememt you judge so shall you be judged mercy belongs to the merciful .i myself according to god am one of the biggest sinners ever therefore i will seek the mercy seat of god .
Amen. We are all sinners. Which is why we need faith and Jesus and his complete work on the cross
Bart is an icon
edifying as usual.
I found it interesting that you did not talk about the idea of covenant.
This is kind of new to me, I only heard it from a Christian friend a while ago, so pardon me if I get this wrong.
As I understand it, the old testament rules and laws do not apply to modern Christians, because those are part of the covenant JHVH had with the Jewish people. The covenant of JHVH with Christians is Jesus who was sacrificed symbolically at least, for the Christians. The rules for this covenant are in what Jesus said. So that means the New Testament only applies. And then we have to find it coming from his mouth. Not some later guy like Paul he took it upon himself to make up extra stuff.
Ever since I tripped over the fact that Paul came after Jesus, and was not concurrent with him, it makes me question why his gospels are gospels?
So these two things together has me thinking there is no condemnation of homosexuality that applies to modern Christians.
Anything they can find they have to bend quite a bit to get to.
If I remember correctly there are many passages of the new testament where Jesus says the people have to follow the laws of old still.
The ten commandments are in the old testament.
Jesus doesn't condemn homosexuality in the pages of the NT where he appears. He does though, something much more distresful: He "condemns" all sexuality - at least that sexuality of today which is considered an autonomous function of our organism, and as such, a human right.
When he says for instance, that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mathew 5:28) he certainly doesn't suggest that this act is blessed. And when he speaks of "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Mathew 19:12) he also doesn't mean that a man should cut of his genitals...
Who can live without being carnal - regardless of sexual orientation? Not someone who simply complies with some external orders and restrictions for sure...
@NullStaticVoid .. Read Romans chapter 1 - the Christian Greek scriptures have not changed God's moral laws. There is nothing that replaces marriage between a man and a woman. There is not one account that makes provision for a 'new' morality ie. the acceptance of sexual practices outside of traditional marriage - for single heterosexuals, fornication and adultery are serious sins. For homosexuals/lesbians who continue to practice perverted sex acts, they are sinning against their own bodies - it's irrelevant if they have engaged in a 'civil' partnership - God's law supersedes man's law where it conflicts with God's righteous standards.
I am at 12:20 in your video. I have read that prior to 1946 the text said not to lay with a child. And it has been mistranslated ever since then.
"They can't even find that." They don't even look.
The very first person they meet qualified. But they spend no further time looking
Great discussion! Most enjoyable! It is really quite incomprehensible to me that people make such a big thing of two men/women loving each other, so often because of the Book of Leviticus, yet Leviticus also condemns tattoos and the eating of shellfish (bottom feeders) every bit as much. Yet often the people condemning the homosexuals are tattooed and eat shellfish too; however, they don't seem to see the irony in their condemnation.
Tattooing spreads disease as does the eating of shellfish and contact with all of the "unclean" animals.
Sodomy spreads hepatitis and many other diseases. Not just physical health, but mental health illness is on display to pervert children. ANYBODY who derives sexual arousal at the smell of feces has a neurosis.
God was looking out for us, but the psychopath always hates the one who is trying to help him.
Christians cherry pick their Bible thats why. But we should all be aware that NO ONE should follow the Old Testament laws since they are a contract between god and the Israelites of the time. They have nothing to do with us today.
@@eurech I am well aware that Christians cherry-pick from the Bible. My comment was written not because I didn't understand why this happens, but simply because I wanted to draw attention to this phenomenon.
So many people have tattoos today, which to me is totally incomprehensible, since I see no beauty in them at all. And as for eating shellfish, just about everyone I know raves about shellfish of all kinds. That, too, is largely incomprehensible to me. Personally, I eat shellfish only when I have to. But the curious thing is this: Many people I have met over the years who have tattoos and who eat shellfish are so often ignorant about the Old Testament's teachings on these things. Yet they always seem to know that homosexuality is an "abomination". 🙂 (Sorry to sound rather cynical, but I often wonder whether have these people know what an abomination is, or at least what its meaning is/was in this context.)
It is not for me to comment on the relevance of the Old Testament to today's Christians. It seems to me that if it had absolutely no relevance, then it wouldn't be included in the Bible that Christians use.
Isn't the discarding of the Old Testament a form of cherry-picking too?
@@ladamyre1 If entering the Kingdom of Heaven depends on not being tattooed and not eating shellfish, I should be assured at the 'Pearly Gates'! For I am not tattooed and dislike shellfish.
I dislike the word 'sodomy'. A word taken from the fable of Sodom and Gomorrah. One can bet one's bottom dollar that when someone refers to sodomy, the person commenting will invariably be a homophobe.
It is perfectly possible to be gay without engaging in what you refer to as "sodomy", they tell me. I will add the following: To each his own! What other people do in their boudoirs is no concern of mine. In modern parlance: Whatever floats your boat!
@@xelakram your inadvertent homosexual irony in para.#2..."one can bet one's bottom dollar..."
While it's true that the ancients would not have phrased things as we might today, sex and the reasons people do it have not really changed. To my knowledge, in every passage where the Bible references morality with regard to sexual relations, it's always referring to the aspects of attraction and pleasure.
It seems very clear that this is what Paul is aiming at in his commentary on Romans 1, as he states that the men burned in their desire for one another, leaving the "natural function of the woman." I note that, in 1st Corinthians 7, he states that it's better for people to marry than to burn. The Greek word is different here, but the idea seems to be the same: passion, sexual desire. Some translations, such as the NASB, actually build that understanding into the text: " For is better to marry than to burn with passion."
I honestly cannot see anything about dominance or male bonding rituals in what Paul is saying. He seems to be taking aim at pure sexual passion, stemming from attraction. Admittedly, I say this as a Christian, but I'm looking as objectively as possible at the text, rather than acting on some personal conviction (I've been rethinking this issue for a while now). I just don't think that Dr. Siker's efforts to limit Paul's remarks to a cultural context works exegetically. Paul very much appears to be condemning homosexual relationships in general.
As far as I can see, the only culturally-limiting case progressives can make (appealing to the text, that is) is to argue that Paul is just as mistaken about the nature of homosexuality as he was in his Greo-Roman understanding of how hair relates to human sexuality (when he states that it's a shame for a man to have long hair or for a woman to pray with her head uncovered). In that instance, Paul's advice to the churches was based on a scientific inaccuracy. If he'd known the truth, his advice would probably have been different. So we might then ask, "What would Paul say about homosexual relationships if he were to have a modern scientific understanding of the matter?"
Paul attributes the Romans' sexual licentiousness to their practice of idolatry. Modern gay people aren't idolaters, nor have they ever "left the natural function" of heterosexuality. Also, Paul was working from the expectation that the world was going to end imminently, so his ideal for his followers was to have them unencumbered by any sort of relationship. Therefore, in his view, apart from being single, it was better to marry and thus have sex licitly than to have it illicitly outside of marriage.
you are not going to find much agreement on this channel.
@@bluerfoot As I indicated, I'm rethinking all of this. My point above was simply focusing on the textual side of the issue: what it says and actually means. I don't hold to mainline evangelical understandings of inspiration or inerrancy. I actually admire Dr. Ehrman and agree with much of what he says.
@Terry Christian I see what you're saying here. My question would be whether Paul is linking homosexuality with idolatry in terms of it being an idolatrous practice, or is he saying it's an evidence of having departed from God *along with* idolatry (in other words, the two separate consequences of one root issue).
@@tchristianphoto You say : "Also, Paul was working from the expectation that the world was going to end imminently." Contrary to his expectations, the world did not come to an end. So the premises of his reasoning - and hence, his own reasoning - were flawed. In other words, all his teachings are rubbish.