Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
Homosexuality as a state of being is a modern concept this is true. It is not a modern invention, but a result of the greater understanding of psychological processes that has come with systematic study of human psychology and biology.
|
Either way, it's irrelevant as it has no bearing on the Bible, the Torah or any other ancient work.
Quote:
|
Your first and last sentences contradict each other, and the last contradicts itself.
|
There's nothing wrong with my sentences. If you knew anything regarding the ancient Hebrew culture, you would understand why the majority of laws do not specifically reference women. Being a patriarchal society, men were considered the head of their households and women were their subordinates. The majority of laws were specifically given to men who later then conveyed these laws to the women.
Is this really so hard to understand?
Quote:
|
No, and it amazes me that you could get that out what I’ve been writing.
|
Oh, it wasn't hard, especially when you kept repeating "But the Bible doesn't say anything about lesbians!" over and over again.
Quote:
|
Well, no. As you admit above, homosexuality was a concept that did not exist in biblical times and there were no words for it in the languages used at the time. Therefore, those terms could not mean homosexuality in the modern sense.
|
http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html
Quote:
Translating Arsenokoitai
The main issue highlighted in recent debate over 1 Cor 6:9-11 concerns the correct way to render the Greek term arsenokoitai which occurs here. The NRSV reads, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers— none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’
In this recent critical translation arsenokoitai is taken as a reference to those who practice homosexuality. Arsenokoitai poses a problem to the translator because this is its earliest known occurrence in Greek literature. Robin Scroggs has plausibly suggested that Paul created this new word by combining the two terms found in the Greek version of Lev 18:23 (LXX 18:22) and 20:13: arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed,” which translate the Hebrew for “lying with a male” (mishkav zakur; The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate [Fortress, 1983] 106-8). With the likelihood that these Levitical prohibitions are echoed in 1 Cor 6:9, the NRSV is justified in translating the term as a reference to homoerotic intercourse, even if the English “sodomites” is somewhat archaic.
The most vociferous critic of taking arsenokoitai as a reference to homoerotic practice is the late, gay scholar J. Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1980] 335-53). He concludes that arsenokoitai refers to male prostitutes without specifying the gender of their partners. Boswell’s theory has been popularized by the widely known work of gay Catholic J.J. McNeil, who confesses his dependence on Boswell even though his work appeared earlier (The Church and the Homosexual [Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, 1976] 200). Boswell’s broader thesis, the Bible does not justify the later homophobia that appealed to it, has not been challenged, but his lexicography has come under unfavorable review. David F. Wright has devoted an article to demonstrating the inaccuracies of Boswell’s presentation of the data (“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53). Wright and Boswell engage in highly sophisticated and detailed lexicographical argumentation, which space prohibits re-presenting in this brief article. Wright’s most telling argument is that Boswell seriously underestimates the use of arsenokoitai in early Christian writers, and he is especially negligent in his highly selective and inaccurate use of the early, Greek-speaking bishop John Chrysostom. Wright points out how the very texts from Chrysostom cited by Boswell, when viewed in light of their surrounding texts, both undermine Boswell ‘s interpretation and support the traditional view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexuality.
W.L. Petersen agrees with Wright’s dissection of Boswell’s lexicography but draws attention to an anachronism evident in the alternative that Wright offers (“Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by ‘Homosexuals’ (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)?”, Vigiliae Christianae 40 [19861187-91). Petersen criticizes Wright for using “homosexuals” and “homosexuality” as appropriate English terms for arsenokoitai when this is clearly anachronistic. The Oxford classicist K.J. Dover has demonstrated that there was no Greek term for homosexual identity, and the concept of sexual identity itself is a recent phenomenon (Greek Homosexuality [Duckworth, 1979]). The terms in Greek refer to homoerotic practice, not sexual identity. With this in mind the NRSV is not far off the mark, though “sodomites” wrongly draws attention to an intertextual echo suggested by the English term (to Sodom and Gomorrah), when instead arsenokoitai echoes the prohibitions of Leviticus. The NRSV translation is problematic and needs to be revised, but it is more accurate than some critics have allowed.
|
^Read it again.
Isn't linguistics a wonderful thing?
Quote:
|
Because they’re not the same thing. One can have homosexual feelings without being homosexual. Most heterosexuals have homosexual feelins at some point. Bisexuals by definition all have homosexual feelings but are not homosexual. Being homosexual is inself more than having homosexual feelings.
|
I believe you missed the point. You can not be a homosexual without having homosexual feelings. Therefore, it's illogical to state that feelings are irrelevant.
Quote:
One of those feelings is, by the way, love, endorsed all over the place throughout the bible...
...Eros and Agape can both be shared either between opposite sex couples or same sex couples. The love I feel for my wife is the same kind of romantic love a man feels for a woman...
...Eros and agape both.
|
Firstly, the Bible never uses the word "Eros", but rather "Philios".
Secondly, as I've stated twice before, the four main types of love in the Bible are the love between a man and a woman, the love between God and his children, the love between Jesus and the church and the love between neighbours. Love, as dealing with homosexuals, fits into none of the aforemention categories.
What you feel for your wife would be most closely related to the love between a man and a woman (Otherwise known as marriage). However, the Bible would deem the union of two males or two females to be a perversion of marriage. Your feelings between you and your wife are only known by you, but they're not covered nor are they condoned by the Bible.
Quote:
|
In Romans, Paul deems homosexual acts unnatural when engaged in by heterosexuals as part of a pagan temple orgy. They aren’t unnatural because they’re homosexual, but because homosexual acts are unnatural to heterosexuals. Likewise, heterosexual acts would be unnatural to homosexuals.
|
I noticed you ignored this the first time, so once more couldn't hurt *Points below*.
Quote:
Homoeroticism and the Corinthian Social Context
Petersen’s criticism of Wright centers on anachronistically importing twentieth-century concepts of homosexual identity into the translation of ancient texts. This leads us to consider what practice exactly Paul is referring to. Scroggs has argued that Paul did not think—and could not have been thinking—of anything other than the practice of pederasty, intercourse between an active and older man (usually called an erastes, but here an arsenokoitos) and a passive younger man or boy (usually an eromenos but here malakos). Scroggs’ own suspicion is that Paul was against the more degrading forms of this practice that employed a young male prostitute (malakos) or the sexual domination of a master with his slave (109-18).
Scroggs rightly points out that pederasty, prostitution, and a master’s sexual abuse of his slaves are clearly documented as the most common homosexual practices cited in the known literature and portrayed on vase paintings, but extrapolates from this that these are all that Paul could have known of homoeroticism.
There are two reasons why we should not accept Scroggs’ reconstruction. First, Paul stands in line with a long ethical tradition of Judaism that condemned all homosexual practice (as Scroggs is well aware [66-98]), and Scroggs himself acknowledges that Paul identifies with this OT tradition as echoed in his coinage of the lexeme arsenokoitai.
This leads to a second and decisive reason why we cannot accept Scroggs understanding that Paul’s conception must have been limited to pederasty. Pederasty occurred between men and boys, but in Romans 1 Paul condemns a practice that cannot be identified as pederasty: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another” (Rom 1:26). Under no conditions can this verse be reduced to a reference to mere pederasty as Scroggs seeks to do. Furthermore, Scroggs cites the evidence from other Greek writers from Plato to Plutarch and Pseudo-Phocylides who refer to female homoerotic acts (1 30-39). Against Scroggs’ contention, there is evidence for homoerotic activity that was not pederasty. He deals with the evidence that contradicts him with the disclaimer, “What the female part of the slogan may have included is beyond recovery” (133). Scroggs has clearly succumbed to the reductionism he claims he avoids (139). The evidence—which Scroggs himself cites—shows Paul could and did have something besides pederasty in mind, and he condemns both male and female homoeroticism as against the will of God.
The Co-text of 1 Corinthians 5-7
It has often been pointed out that the so-called vice list imbedded in 1 Cor 6:9-10 is somewhat stereotyped, probably adapted from Hellenistic Judaism. Furthermore, there is evidence that this list is combined with elements of a baptismal liturgy which Paul has adopted, describing the effects of being baptized into Christ. Paul asserts that conversion and baptism (“you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”) effect an elimination of the sins listed. The list is not exhaustive nor is it exactly duplicated elsewhere (cf. Rom 1:29-31; 1 Cor 5:10-11; Gal 5:19-21), but it points to the character change brought by the Spirit’s presence in a believer’s life: “And this is what some of you used to be.” The past tense verb indicates that Paul believed that spiritual conversion wrought ethical transformation that includes a reconstruction of one’s sexual practices (cf. Gal 5:16-25; 1 Thess 4:4).
There is a further, perhaps even more important, observation to make about the larger co-text of 1 Corinthians 5-7. The first two terms of the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9, “fornicators” (pornoi) and “idolaters,” link this brief passage with the unifying themes of 1 Corinthians 5-10. At 5:1 the issue of sexual immorality (porneia) is announced, a theme that is addressed in various ways from 5:1-6:20, and the issue of porneia (cf. 7:2) is developed in relation to marriage in 7:1-40, while chs. 8-10 engage the issue of idolatry and idol meat. Thus “the sexually immoral” and “idolaters,” the first two terms of the vice list in 6:9, are representative issues of the teaching of 5:1-10:33.
In this larger co-text Paul gives multiple indications of what is included in the scope of the catch-all term “sexual immorality” (porneia—cf. Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3), including incest (5:1) and involvement with prostitutes (6:13-20).
In 6:9-10 the list is expanded to include adultery, and passive and active homoeroticism. But we find in 7:2 the most revealing passage about what Paul considers porneia: “on account of porneia let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband.” Paul here sets “sexual immorality” against the broader biblical framework of marriage as the proper context for sexual expression. Appeal to Gen 2:24 is to the point since Paul cites this very scriptural tradition in 6:16 as an explanation of the marital-sexual bonding between man and woman: “The two shall become one flesh.” It is this marital expression of sexuality that Paul sets at the rhetorical climax of this section (1 Corinthians 7), building up to this solution after thoroughly portraying the plight of improper sexual expression in the previous two chapters. Thus homoeroticism is not singled out as somehow worse than other forms of porneia, but merely as one other example of it. For Paul, sex is for marriage, which by biblical definition is consummated by sexual intercourse between one man and one woman.
|
http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html
Once again, I urge you to do a little bit of research.
Quote:
|
No, circular logic invalidates the argument. To claim that the bible is not a perfect record is to accept that humans are fallible. Because humans wrote, edited, and translated the Bible, errors and prejudices are bound to have crept in. In addition, there’s cultural context. What is true for one cultural context may not be equally appropriate in another.
|
Of course it would invalidate the argument; That's not the point, though.
God wrote the Bible through humans. Since God is incapable of lying, the Bible is without error. We know that the following is true because the Bible says so. God's word is the same today and it was yesterday, therefore it's not up for interpretation.
This is the underlying logic of Christianity, and to deny any point of it is to denounce your Christian basings.
Quote:
|
That’s where we’re different. Things you see as “clearly defined" seem somewhat muddled and ambiguous to me. It is God’s place to judge me, not the other way around. It is never my place to speak for God.
|
It's only ambigious to you because you want it to be. I could provide all the evidence in the world but, as it doesn't conform to your beliefs, you won't accept it.
Quote:
|
We’re discussing sexuality and sexual roles, and these are inherently different for men and for women, moreso in the time we’re discussing for the reasons you identify above. A man taking the female role in sex was lowering himself by acting like a woman. It was not possible for a woman to take the male role in either sense, either as the physical act or in the social role. Look at the wording of Leviticus: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. This is unambiguously specific to men.
|
Pardon me while I go bang my head against the wall.
I swear I'm writing for my own amusement, because you certainly aren't reading a word I typed. I'm starting to think that you lack any sort of knowledge concerning social roles during Biblical times (Either that, or you're being purposely obtuse for the sole purpose of evasion).
I'm not going to sit here and explain why most Biblical laws reference only men yet are true for both men and women, as I've already done it a few times.
Following your illogical train of thought, Eve should have been permitted to eat of the tree of knowledge, seeing as God never told her not to partake of the fruit.
Quote:
|
It cannot be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality because, as you admit above, that concept did not exist at the time.
|
First and foremost, the concept of homosexuality has existed for many millenia; No one ever stated that it hadn't. I stated that the concept of the psychology behind homosexuality is a relatively new idea. Don't try to twist my words. Anyway, it's nice to know that you know more than the plethora of theologins who don't deny the Bible's blanket condemnation of homosexuality.
Quote:
|
Also, if it is equally applicable to both sexes, then it says that women are not to lie with men as they do with woman. If it applies to both sexes, it actually becomes an endorsement of lesbianism. Woo hoo! Another endorsement. I’m going to tell my wife about this.
|
No, it would say that women aren't to lie with women as they do men. Of course, it doesn't because the laws were entrusted to the men to deliver to their households.
...But nice try. Seriously.
Quote:
|
Circular reasoning again. It doesn’t condemn homosexuality because, as you say above, that concept did not exist at the time and the language had no word for it. It condemns certain homosexual acts, which you are extrapolating to cover all homosexuality and then extrapolating from that to all homosexual practices. One of those practices is, by the way, loving each other, something endorse quite freely in the Bible.
|
What are you talking about? There are a few things wrong with what you just said.
1.) What do you mean the concept of homosexuality didn't exist at that time? The concept clearly existed during Biblical times, otherwise it wouldn't have been prohibited.
2.) I said that there was no Greek word for homosexuality at the time that Paul wrote 1 corinthians; I never that there was no word for it. Once again, don't try to twist my words.
3.) The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. You are the one who is trying to take a blanket statement and only apply it to areas in which you want to. There have been numerous studies done on this subject, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible does indeed condemn all of homosexuality.
Quote:
Um, you really can’t condemn homosexuality without an understanding that male and female sexual roles are different.
Also, I’m flabbergasted that you believe people didn’t understand that sex was different for men and women. Leviticus
condemns a man who acts like a woman.
|
Whether or not people understood the difference in sex for men and women was/is irrelevant. It has no bearing on whether or not the Bible promotes or condemns homosexuality.
You say that Leviticus condemns a man who acts like a woman? Prove it. You're usually quick to produce links. There should be many studies stating as much, but there aren't. There are, however, many more studies which state that the Bible's stance on homosexuality is quite unambiguous-- Studies done, I might add, by highly respected theologians.
Quote:
|
Once again, you are attributing to me ideas that I did not express. Please stop doing this.
|
I only go by what you say.
Quote:
Which statement appears in the Bible:
A. everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
B. everyone who believes in him may not perish, except for those dirty homosexuals.
This is fun! Let’s try some more:
A. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
B. For everyone who asks receives, except if they‘re homosexual; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
A. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
B. Dear friends, let us love one another, except for those damn homos, for love comes from God.
Hee hee. This is really delightful.
|
A, A and A!
But also be wary that one plus doesn't equal two (Yes, you read that right).
I noticed how you conveniently forgot to mention 1 John 3:10. Let me give you a slight refresher as to what it says.
Taken from the NASB:
10By this the (A)children of God and the (B)children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice
righteousness is not of God, nor the one who (C)does not love his (D)brother.
If you don't obey the Word of God, then the previous three statements you made serve no purpose. Maybe perhaps you won't ignore it this time
Quote:
|
Interpretation based on context is rather a different thing from assumptions. I’m doing the former.
|
How about this? Your interpretation is littered with assumptions. Does that make you feel better about it?
Quote:
|
None of those say “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
|
Really? And here I thought your reading comprehension skills were better than that.
Quote:
Lifestyle? I love this one, my lifestyle. I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood, teach English and teacher education, and I’m married to a nurse instructor. I eat a healthy breakfast every morning, drive through commuter traffic to get to work, teach, advise students, have lunch by myself or with my wife or sister. I read poetry books, classic novels and graphic novels. I collect and read comic books. I go to church every Sunday. I’m kind and considerate as best I can be. I dress nicely because it makes me feel good about myself. I listen to folk music and love Hong Kong action movies and Asian horror. I take periodic trips to amusement parks with my family. I go to conventions and sometimes wear costumes.
That’s my lifestyle. If that’s a homosexual lifestyle, there are plenty of straight people living one. Homosexual is my orientation.
|
Wait wait wait... You typed out 15 sentences simply to argue semantics? It seems like a waste to me, since you already knew what I was talking about. Even through all of this, somehow you still didn't address the original question.
Quote:
Quick quiz. Does Romans 12:10 say:
A: love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour.
B: love one another with mutual affection, unless you‘re homosexual; outdo one another in showing honour, unless you‘re
homosexual.
|
I'm going to have to go for "The answer is A", Alex!
Of course Christians are to love one another. However, there is no passage in the Bible where Christians are commanded to be tolerant of sin. In fact, they are commanded to hate sin while loving the Lord.
Quote:
|
That I disagree with you does not mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
|
Let's put it this way; Where are your references? You're usually good at posting them. As it stands, your argument is solely based on assumptions, rather than studies.
Quote:
|
Abomination is an English word, so I doubt other languages have a concensus regarding that usage.
|
The accepted meaning of the word as used in the Bible is derived from ancient Hebrew. The Biblical definition of abomination is "To cause to stray from" while the modern day English definition of the word is "A vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit."
Quote:
|
I can name a dozen churches in the US that don’t have a problem with homosexuality or believe that it is a moral sin.
|
So can I.
Of course, I can also name hundreds of other Churches which simply do not share this view.
Quote:
|
Abomination in this sense is a judgement regarded procedural matters, not morality, and again, refers to certain specific acts, not homosexuality in general. How could it? The concept didn’t exist at the time.
|
What exactly are you talking about? I've gone over this one too many times. Read one of my previous responses if you need a refresher.
Quote:
|
Didn't you dispute Biblical fallibility above? I made reference to not believing in Biblical inerrancy, and you debated with me on that point.
|
No, I didn't dispute anything which you. I was mearly pointing out that if you believe that the Bible is inerrant, then there is no possible way that you could try to condone homosexuality while using it as the basis for your argument.
Quote:
|
Not all Christians believe this. Me, for example. Not all churches believe this. UUA, Unity, MCC, Episcopaleans, for example.
|
The majority of Christians and churches do believe it; So do many theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible and Christianity. The number of people who agree with your view versus those who do not is overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of the classic view.