Passages and homosexuality

[Shirtless]

The subject of homosexuality is an intense one in Christian circles. I have voiced an opinion that I do not think the Bible condemns gay sex in itself. I have also said that I believe the Bible is inerrant. So naturally there are Bible passages that need to be addressed.

I felt that if someone is accusing their neighbor of being sinful, the burden of proof is on them. But some said that nothing needed to be added to the passages and that they speak for themselves. So, the prosecution rests (at least for now). What's left is the counter-arguments...

So then Shirtless, simply read those passages and honestly answer whether homosexuality is agianst God's will or not. Clearly it is.

Well, I've had a really long day, so I can't address all of them today. Here is a good start:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It seems that this passage condemns both "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders", indicating that gay sex is a sin. There are a few things that need to be addressed about this...

The possiblility of mistranslation needs to be taken into account. These words are taken from a list of many words, which makes them extremely difficult to translate because there's no conection to them with events or situations. Of course, "male prostitutes" is quite blunt and obvious in the NIV version. But other versions have different meanings:

"effeminate" (KJV) (NASV) (YLT)
"perverts" (CEV)

In addition, the Catholic Church has believed up until the mid 50's that this word meant maturbation. So, which translation is the most accurate? The original Greek word is malakoi which means "soft, delicate", and can be used to describe moral weakness or male effeminacy.

The next term is "homosexual offenders". This hasn't had a broad flavor of translations:

"homosexuals" (NLT)
"sodomites" (YLT)
"those who participate in homosexuality" (AB)
"abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV)

So what's the correct translation? The word used is arsenokoitai, which is a compound noun that Paul himself may have coined. It combines arsen , which means male or man, and koite, which means bed. This word has been used to describe a male/boy prostitute, who serviced both sexes in those days.

In some of Paul's lists, he addresses many issues by combining words together to make a single, repeditive point; look carefully at 1 Timothy 1:9-10, he mentions arsenokoitai:
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane (irreligious NIV),
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10For whoremongers, for (arsenokotai), for menstealers(slave traders NIV),
for liars, for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

So, Paul combines arenokotai with the the slave traders. These particular slave traders (andrapodostai) would buy or kidnap young girls and boys to sell to brothels for prostitution. What does this mean, it means that Paul is against sexual exploitation for finacial gain. In light of this, one looks at 1 Cor 6: 9-10 and realizes that Paul's (or anyone else's) point can sometimes get lost in literal translation. Paraphrasing is often the way to go, like Eugene H. Peterson's translation, The Message:

9Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, 10use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom.

Conclusion: With 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, there is no visable connection to homosexuality by Church fathers (which includes the Latin Vulgate) until the 9th century, and even then it was in the context of prostitution. Prostitution is protested against by Paul many times, and in the case of these passages, men are not excused either.

Though there is no word for homosexual in Ancient Greek, there were many words that Paul could have used that he didn't in any of his writings. His beef is sexual exploitation, and he makes no mention of sex in the context of loving relationships. These two words are not a strong case for condeming all gay acts in any context.

[ochotseat]

The subject of homosexuality is an intense one in Christian circles. I have voiced an opinion that I do not think the Bible condemns gay sex in itself. I have also said that I believe the Bible is inerrant. So naturally there are Bible passages that need to be addressed.

I felt that if someone is accusing their neighbor of being sinful, the burden of proof is on them. But some said that nothing needed to be added to the passages and that they speak for themselves. So, the prosecution rests (at least for now). What's left is the counter-arguments...

So then Shirtless, simply read those passages and honestly answer whether homosexuality is agianst God's will or not. Clearly it is.

Well, I've had a really long day, so I can't address all of them today. Here is a good start:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It seems that this passage condemns both "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders", indicating that gay sex is a sin. There are a few things that need to be addressed about this...

The possiblility of mistranslation needs to be taken into account. These words are taken from a list of many words, which makes them extremely difficult to translate because there's no conection to them with events or situations. Of course, "male prostitutes" is quite blunt and obvious in the NIV version. But other versions have different meanings:

"effeminate" (KJV) (NASV) (YLT)
"perverts" (CEV)

In addition, the Catholic Church has believed up until the mid 50's that this word meant maturbation. So, which translation is the most accurate? The original Greek word is malakoi which means "soft, delicate", and can be used to describe moral weakness or male effeminacy.

The next term is "homosexual offenders". This hasn't had a broad flavor of translations:

"homosexuals" (NLT)
"sodomites" (YLT)
"those who participate in homosexuality" (AB)
"abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV)

So what's the correct translation? The word used is arsenokoitai, which is a compound noun that Paul himself may have coined. It combines arsen , which means male or man, and koite, which means bed. This word has been used to describe a male/boy prostitute, who serviced both sexes in those days.

In some of Paul's lists, he addresses many issues by combining words together to make a single, repeditive point; look carefully at 1 Timothy 1:9-10, he mentions arsenokoitai:
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane (irreligious NIV),
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10For whoremongers, for (arsenokotai), for menstealers(slave traders NIV),
for liars, for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

So, Paul combines arenokotai with the the slave traders. These particular slave traders (andrapodostai) would buy or kidnap young girls and boys to sell to brothels for prostitution. What does this mean, it means that Paul is against sexual exploitation for finacial gain. In light of this, one looks at 1 Cor 6: 9-10 and realizes that Paul's (or anyone else's) point can sometimes get lost in literal translation. Paraphrasing is often the way to go, like Eugene H. Peterson's translation, The Message:

9Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, 10use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom.

Conclusion: With 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, there is no visable connection to homosexuality by Church fathers (which includes the Latin Vulgate) until the 9th century, and even then it was in the context of prostitution. Prostitution is protested against by Paul many times, and in the case of these passages, men are not excused either.

Though there is no word for homosexual in Ancient Greek, there were many words that Paul could have used that he didn't in any of his writings. His beef is sexual exploitation, and he makes no mention of sex in the context of loving relationships. These two words are not a strong case for condeming all gay acts in any context.

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah and the biblical verse that says man will not lie with man? Besides the Bible, nature has seen it fit that most people are not homosexual. You can't argue with God or nature.

[Shirtless]

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah and the biblical verse that says man will not lie with man? Besides the Bible, nature has seen it fit that most people are not homosexual. You can't argue with God or nature.

Well, I couldn't go into all passages then and there. I was going to discuss Romans 1 next, and then Leviticus. Not too many use Sodom and Gomorrah passages because it doesn't have anything of real substance. Then again, Corinthians isn't used often either; the clobber passages are almost always Leviticus and Romans, but I suppose I could explore S&G as well.

[ochotseat]

Well, I couldn't go into all passages then and there. I was going to discuss Romans 1 next, and then Leviticus. Not too many use Sodom and Gomorrah passages because it doesn't have anything of real substance. Then again, Corinthians isn't used often either; the clobber passages are almost always Leviticus and Romans, but I suppose I could explore S&G as well.

Okay, so it's settled. You agree that homosexuality is not the most moral type of relationship.

[Mastermind]

I'm against homosexuality and I agree that Sodom and Gomorrah are completely worthless as far as this issue is concerned.

[Shirtless]

Hey Mastermind. I seem to be having a hard time finding anyone who's against homosexuality, who will give commentary on the Biblical passages that seem to be anti gay.

Could you perhaps fill me in? Not on the philisophical aspect of it, but more of the specific passages that are used often.

Okay, so it's settled. You agree that homosexuality is not the most moral type of relationship.

Actually, that's what the Ancient Greeks thought...but then again, they also believed in monogamy as opposed to their Jewish friends. Those Pagan bastards.

[Mastermind]

Hey Mastermind. I seem to be having a hard time finding anyone who's against homosexuality, who will give commentary on the Biblical passages that seem to be anti gay.

Could you perhaps fill me in? Not on the philisophical aspect of it, but more of the specific passages that are used often.

Can't remember them off the top of my head and it's not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable in. Why not go through the Tektonics pages on it?

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.htm

Scroll down to Homosexuality.

[Shirtless]

That link doesn't work. Is it the section on Leviticus, or the West Wing letter? I googled it and turns out I read both of them already...I also couldn't remember specifics, but I'd like to read them again and give my own spin if you don't mind.

[ochotseat]

I agree that Sodom and Gomorrah are completely worthless as far as this issue is concerned.

No, they aren't worthless. They are indicative of what's happening now. The world's punished for its sins, some groups more than others...

Actually, that's what the Ancient Greeks thought...but then again, they also believed in monogamy as opposed to their Jewish friends. Those Pagan bastards.

The Ancient Greeks only tolerated homoerotic relationships between an older and younger male before marriage, and this was before the introduction of Christianity. Jews discontinued the practice of polygamy as did Mormons. Though you or some others in your blue state may not like it, the majority of people will never accept homosexuality as the norm.

[Mastermind]

Go to http://www.tektonics.org , the letter H and scroll down to homosexuality.


I never said Sodom and Gomorrah are useless, they're just useless regarding homosexuality.

[Felgar]

In the tektonics site I felt the best argument is presented here. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html

[Shirtless]

The Ancient Greeks only tolerated homoerotic relationships between an older and younger male before marriage,

They "tolerated" it so much that they considered it the "more intelligent" of relationships, and a homoerotic friendship was considered the most sophisticated, whereas hetero relationships were to them more about lust and procreation. This was to such a degree that in heterosexual marriages, the wife would dress up like a man on their wedding night (!). The Romans were a little more into the ladies , and they considered the female figure to be the standard of beauty, as opposed to all the Greek statues of men.

and this was before the introduction of Christianity.

You mean before the introduction of the Byzantine Empire.

Jews discontinued the practice of polygamy as did Mormons.

Well, yeah. So would I! That's 'cause Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and they were forced out. When you have no choice but to live in anti-polygamy cultures (as the Mormons did after much persecution) like the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, you have no choice but to bend a little. This is emphasized by Saint Augustine in the 4th century:

"Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living."

Though you or some others in your blue state may not like it, the majority of people will never accept homosexuality as the norm.

Depends what you mean by "the norm". At the very least, 90% of human beings are not gay. So, acceptance? Maybe not. Tolerance? Well, we'll see. And as far as blue states go, I've never been interested in political parties--they both feed from the same trough.
-------------------------------
Mastermind,
I read a few of those articles. I never bother with articles about A) whether Biblical characters are gay or not, since they IMO never have much biblical basis. B) the science of gayness (stuff like that can be twisted so easily for both sides). I only go by Biblical evidence. Do you know how I can find the What is the meaning of "malakos"? page? That link also doesn't work.

Anyway, I read the link you gave and a few of Holding's stuff. I'd like to write about it a little later.

[Mastermind]

Depends what you mean by "the norm". At the very least, 90% of human beings are not gay.

Dude you're basing your statistics on lies. I'd be surprised if the homosexual population is past 6% and I'm being generous. 2% seems more realistic.

Mastermind,
I only go by Biblical evidence. Do you know how I can find the What is the meaning of "malakos"? page? That link also doesn't work.

No idea. Like I said, the subject doesn't hold much interest for me. I assume that if the churches think it's bad, they have a damn good reason too. That, and the fact that when I read a debate on the issue, the debater who believes the bible allows homosexuality alwasy gets trashed.

[Shirtless]

Dude you're basing your statistics on lies.

Well, that's why I said "at the very least". Every time the 10% thing get's brought up, people always say it's more like 3%, but I don't know if that's true or not.

I assume that if the churches think it's bad, they have a damn good reason too.

You and I sure are different! I'm more of a loner. Don't think for a minute that I'm not flexable, I've just been secular for most of my life, and I've seen what Christianity looks like to the secular world. People IMHO are not turning away from God because they're stupid, it's because the Christian establishment won't under any circumstances meet them half-way. I couldn't imagine saying this stuff on a non-apologetic website! I've learned that Christ is a whole lot different than Christ's Church.

Just remember, churches have believed a lot of things throughout history, including slavery, and they wouldn't be entirely off-base by using biblical passages to justify it. If the majority of Christians today believe in something as silly as Young Earth Creationism, all bets are off!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I resent your final statements...