NationStates Jolt Archive

RuleCaucasia, this one's for you... not that other people aren't welcome.

Please, explain to me, how is being Gay wrong, or a sin, or not okay? please, back this up with biblical passages, or quotes, or (GASP) logic.

If anyone "backs up" the ill-conceived idea that being gay is a sin, have a look through Exodus and a few other bits of the Old Testament to remind them of other stupid passages such as God supposedly telling you it's not OK for your daughter to go free if she's sold into slavery, etc etc etc

Whoops. Though I am not a christian, I've stumbled upon a few bible quotes through TV and movies on obscure channels and such that are something along the lines of: "And the man who sleeps with another man shall burn in torment in the gates of hell" etc. It doesn't say HOW it's a sin, I guess because they think it's unnatural, against god's will and so on.

I want everyone to know I support gay rights.

Perhaps he tried it once, but forgot foreplay and lubricant? That could put you off.

Perhaps he tried it once, but forgot foreplay and lubricant? That could put you off.

You win teh thread.
Wait,you live near Corby?Wasn't that featured on QI,something to do with Mars?

It sure is, if you read the Bible. But who cares about some old dusty book afterall, except a couple billion morons which don't count anyway.

It sure is, if you read the Bible. But who cares about some old dusty book afterall, except a couple billion morons which don't count anyway.

Some people who are not Christians care quite deeply about the Bible's impact on our collective society. Not to mention the large number of Christians who can and will vote on issues affecting everyone, and many of these will vote according to their religion.

It would be foolish to dismiss them.

The reason the old testament speaks against homosexuality is based on the fact it was seen as a waste of the gift of life, then again they said the same thing about sex for any reason but procreation.

This was written in Leviticus, the book of Law. In the New Testament it says that there because the promise was not made yet. Then the promise of eternal life was made so rather than following the out-dated traditions that the law mentioned it was more important to love God and at the end of the day that's what matters.

The New testament mentions homosexuality once. This is in a list saying the 'insert sin here' will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It also lists so many other things that it does cover prettymuch everyone that has ever existed so if interpreted in the way that all gays go to hell then we're all screwed as everyone has proably sinned atleast once in their life.. Another interpretation that a more liberal Christian may agree with is that what's meant is alone none of these people will enter the kingdom of God, with God's love anyone can enter. It fits in well with the talk of forgiveness and the powers of love, grace & mercy.

For the record I'm a Christian but I am pro gay rights.

Perhaps he tried it once, but forgot foreplay and lubricant? That could put you off.

Wow, a winner so soon in the thread!

You win teh thread.
Wait,you live near Corby?Wasn't that featured on QI,something to do with Mars?

Thanks :)
QI? I don't have a telly, so don't recognise that. Apparently there's a crater on Mars called Corby, or so Google tells me (http://www.fourth-millennium.net/space-exploration/space-exploration-corby-crater.html) :)

There are many examples of bible quotes that a modern christian would (and should) not take seriously nowadays. Some examples: A married couple shall not have intercourse when a woman is menstruating. If they disobey, both man and wife shall be executed. (Leviticus 18:19 ) If a bride is found not to be a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed on the spot by stoning. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21 ) The book of Leviticus also contains laws against wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread and a prohibition against those who have defects in their eyesight from approaching the altar of God.

So if obscure bible quotes are indeed "proof" for something being a sin....well, if you accept sinners wearing clothes made of different threads you can as well accept gay sinners. After all, neither is a mortal sin. :)

RuleCaucasia, this one's for you... not that other people aren't welcome.

Please, explain to me, how is being Gay wrong, or a sin, or not okay? please, back this up with biblical passages, or quotes, or (GASP) logic.
(Slight hijack, but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate it when people create new threads rather than completely de-railing an existing one. Hmm, I should start a thread about that...)

I'm not christian, but I'm very interested in the bible... and the bible never ONCE says that it's a sin. It says that it's an ABOMINATION, but thats no worse than wearing polyester, not killing a pig, or eating shrimp.


But if I'm mistaken, you're welcome to (attempt in vain) to back up your homophobia with the bible.

It says somewhere in Leviticus (I think 11:17) that "a man should not lie with another man as with a woman, for it is an abomination, and they both should be put to death". (Or something similar.) Someday I'll find out what the original Hebrew said and make a literal translation, but for now I'm stuck with the New Oxford.

That is the sole quote on which all of the homophobia is apparently based. Note that it says "as with a woman", which would imply vaginal penetration (the only kind endorsed by the Bible); I'd really like to see someone do that on a guy. =.=

Well, maybe. But meh.

In other words if two guys fuck standing up they're in the clear. Or in a pool, or I suppose in any position other than missionary. Shame, I rather like missionary.

In other words if two guys fuck standing up they're in the clear. Or in a pool, or I suppose in any position other than missionary. Shame, I rather like missionary.
And I can't help but notice that the sexism of the Bible works out great for women, in this case. Nowhere does it say that women are prohibited from getting their lez on.

And I can't help but notice that the sexism of the Bible works out great for women, in this case. Nowhere does it say that women are prohibited from getting their lez on.

That's cause god's a big ole dyke lover.

That's cause god's a big ole dyke lover.

Watching two hot women go at it is good. Watching to hairy guys at it has the "ick" factor. :)

Watching two hot women go at it is good. Watching to hairy guys at it has the "ick" factor. :)

Well for some people. Honestly as a gay man lesbian porn has never interested me. When does it end? I mean, how does lesbian sex end? Do they get bored? With guys it's pretty simple.

Watching two hot women go at it is good. Watching to hairy guys at it has the "ick" factor. :)
Well sure, if you word it that way. Watching two HAIRY guys has an ick factor. But so does watching two hairy girls go at it.

And I can't help but notice that the sexism of the Bible works out great for women, in this case. Nowhere does it say that women are prohibited from getting their lez on.

That's because then, as now, lesbians turned guys on, and thus they weren't mentioned in the Bible as being prohibited because the Bible was mostly written by men. Technically, two teenagers or kids can also have sex (they're not "men"), ditto transsexuals or those who don't define themselves as "men".

<.<

Well sure, if you word it that way. Watching two HAIRY guys has an ick factor. But so does watching two hairy girls go at it.

There's no such thing as hairy, ugly lesbians. They're all young and hot. Don't you watch porn? :)

Well for some people. Honestly as a gay man lesbian porn has never interested me. When does it end?


Who says it has to?


I mean, how does lesbian sex end?

Very, very happily.


Do they get bored?

NO.


With guys it's pretty simple.
In my experience, it's no more or less complicated with girls versus guys. At least, not from a physical standpoint. ;)

It's just that most of what our pop culture focuses on when it comes to sex is about male arousal and orgasm. That's what most people know more about.

For instance, try to think of slang phrases for male masturbation. Then try to think of slang for female masturbation. Most people know at least twice as many phrases for male masturbation.

There's no such thing as hairy, ugly lesbians. They're all young and hot. Don't you watch porn? :)
I like how all lesbians are either prison guards, naughty nurses, or working at a car wash.

Porno is so educational!

There's no such thing as hairy, ugly lesbians. They're all young and hot. Don't you watch porn? :)

there are one's out there

Well for some people. Honestly as a gay man lesbian porn has never interested me. When does it end? I mean, how does lesbian sex end? Do they get bored? With guys it's pretty simple.

As a rather confused teenager pornography doesn't interest me at all, including lesbian porn; indeed, until age 13 or so I didn't even know how they did it (what did they penetrate what with? etc.). It's still sometimes a little bit confusing to me, but then, I've never seen the attraction in sticking sensitive body organs into other people's waste disposal systems -- as I've said before -- so just ignore me.

Who says it has to?


Very, very happily.


NO.


In my experience, it's no more or less complicated with girls versus guys. At least, not from a physical standpoint. ;)

It's just that most of what our pop culture focuses on when it comes to sex is about male arousal and orgasm. That's what most people know more about.

For instance, try to think of slang phrases for male masturbation. Then try to think of slang for female masturbation. Most people know at least twice as many phrases for male masturbation.

I would submit that men masturbate atleast twice as often as women.

I would submit that men masturbate atleast twice as often as women.

Not true. +.^

Who says it has to?

Because otherwise you'll either starve to death, or get arrested for lewd behaviour when you try and go shopping.

Not true. +.^

This calls for a masturbation competition.

Whack-a-thon?

RuleCaucasia, this one's for you... not that other people aren't welcome.

Please, explain to me, how is being Gay wrong, or a sin, or not okay? please, back this up with biblical passages, or quotes, or (GASP) logic.

Translation: I'm confident that whatever arguments you present will be ones I'm ready for, and so refuting them will validate my opinion on this matter. I am not willing to honestly entertain the possibility that you might have a point. I also reserve the right to decide, on behalf of the debate, what is or is not logical, which will enable me to undercut anything that gets too close to refuting me.

I would submit that men masturbate atleast twice as often as women.

It depends.

RuleCaucasia, this one's for you... not that other people aren't welcome.

Please, explain to me, how is being Gay wrong, or a sin, or not okay? please, back this up with biblical passages, or quotes, or (GASP) logic.

Well, I'm not all up about "gay" being a sin. But I'm not gay myself, so to have gay sex myself would be "wrong" because I am not into it.

You may do it all you like, with other consenting adults in privacy.

How's that?

Because otherwise you'll either starve to death, or get arrested for lewd behaviour when you try and go shopping.

Who "goes out" shopping anymore? We have the internet, all we need to do is select what we want to buy, type in our credit card number, and it'll arrive at our front door within 4-6 weeks (give or take due to shipping and handling).

I would submit that men masturbate atleast twice as often as women.
Yeah, that's what they want you to think.

Remember, most women are taught that sex is the currency they use to buy love, companionship, and respect from men. If word gets out that women actually LIKE to fuck, the whole system will fall apart!

This calls for a masturbation competition.

Whack-a-thon?

nah, I don't masturbate. Ask someone more sex-interested.

Yeah, that's what they want you to think.

Remember, most women are taught that sex is the currency they use to buy love, companionship, and respect from men. If word gets out that women actually LIKE to fuck, the whole system will fall apart!

The word has been out for some time, at least in my area.

Now I may be mistaken, but I heard from an ex church minister that the Old Testiment was overiden by the New Testiment and the laws and such no longer apply.

So doesn't that mean that the leviticus quote is an invalid arguement?

Now I may be mistaken, but I heard from an ex church minister that the Old Testiment was overiden by the New Testiment and the laws and such no longer applies.

So doesn't that mean that the leviticus quote is and invalid arguement?

Some use Romans 1:26-27. Otherwise known as "Suck the dick, lose the kingdom".

God intended for man-woman sex, not woman-woman or man-man.

And since violating God's intentions is sinful, being gay is definitely a sin!

God intended for man-woman sex, not woman-woman or man-man.

And since violating God's intentions is sinful, being gay is definitely a sin!

Do you think that it's all that important?

Now I may be mistaken, but I heard from an ex church minister that the Old Testiment was overiden by the New Testiment and the laws and such no longer apply.

So doesn't that mean that the leviticus quote is an invalid arguement?

What he was refering to was the idea of Dispensationism. That's where the Word of God is revealed in stages, and given within the context of the culture of the time.

If you look at a lot of the Old Testament laws, some of them seem pretty bizarre or crass by today's standards, but for the time may have made a lot more sense to the people receiving it. In some cases, they never knew exactly why they had to do things a certain way, but today it is much clearer, especially in areas dealing with health and personal hygeine.

The New Testament is another Dispensation, sort of the next level of spirituality. The people were more advanced, culture more advanced, and with Jesus there taking point, a deeper spiritual truth could be revealed, putting some of the old stuff into a context, and doing away with it where a spiritual version was more useful.

For example, if you take the 10 Commandments, you can categorize them roughly into two categories; sins against God, and sins against your fellows. In those days, things had to be spelled out pretty specifically, because the level of spiritual understanding was more primitive. A couple thousand years later, Jesus offered what we now call part of The Golden Rule. He said Love the Lord your God with all yoru heart, all your strength, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." Basically, a more elegant phrasing of what people should, in theory, be following already. It superceded the 10 Commandments, but it doesn't contradict them.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Purportedly a letter to Dr. Laura during her "homos are an abomination" nonsense that landed her television show in a late-late-latenight slot typically reserved for Ron Popeil.

*steeples hands and looks over them*
I'm sure you now understand that it's not in your...best interests to cross the homocracy.
*fade to black*

J.

This is old, but I love it.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord--Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness--Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination--Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Purportedly a letter to Dr. Laura during her "homos are an abomination" nonsense that landed her television show in a late-late-latenight slot typically reserved for Ron Popeil.

*steeples hands and looks over them*
I'm sure you now understand that it's not in your...best interests to cross the homocracy.
*fade to black*

J.

God damnit! :( :mad:

God damnit! :( :mad:

A blasphemer! Welcome to our fold.

The bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

It's pointless to debate this any futher unless you believe in God, and therefore believe the bible to be the word of God. But it's quite clear that bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.

It's not an *unforgivable* sin... which, sadly, many so-called Christians forget and over look their own sins as an opportunity to pass judgement.

Do you think that it's all that important?

Yes.

The bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

It's pointless to debate this any futher unless you believe in God, and therefore believe the bible to be the word of God. But it's quite clear that bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.

It's not an *unforgivable* sin... which, sadly, many so-called Christians forget and over look their own sins as an opportunity to pass judgement.

Speaking as a Christian;

Bullshit. :)

Speaking as a Christian;

Bullshit. :)

I love the intellectual counterpoints.

Speaking as a Christian;

Bullshit. :)

I really don't know what you mean... but if you *are* speaking as a Christian, you should know that your personal opinions don't carry more weight than the word of God. The bible is clear on this matter whether you choose to be or not.

I'm not condeming homosexuals (like many Christians do), I am merely answering the question posed by this thread. According to the bible, homosexuality is a sin.

I really don't know what you mean... but if you *are* speaking as a Christian, you should know that your personal opinions don't carry more weight than the word of God. The bible is clear on this matter whether you choose to be or not.

I'm not condeming homosexuals (like many Christians do), I am merely answering the question posed by this thread. According to the bible, homosexuality is a sin.

The Bible is wrong.

Corinthians is a mistranslation. We don't know what the hell arsenokoites really means, since Paul made the word up, but the best guess is "male temple prostitute". And one of the Leviticus quotes may have been so horribly mistranslated that the original was about not sleeping on the same bed as a menstruating woman.

And one of the Leviticus quotes may have been so horribly mistranslated that the original was about not sleeping on the same bed as a menstruating woman.

Then the error is not merely in mistranslation, but in interpretation by Hebrew speakers for about two thousand years.

I honestly don't see how anyone could come to such a conclusion, looking at the Hebrew.

I really don't know what you mean... but if you *are* speaking as a Christian, you should know that your personal opinions don't carry more weight than the word of God. The bible is clear on this matter whether you choose to be or not.

I'm not condeming homosexuals (like many Christians do), I am merely answering the question posed by this thread. According to the bible, homosexuality is a sin.

And what are your thoughts on the myriad other things the Bible says is a sin? I think it's obvious that the laws of the Old Testament are pretty much bunk in context of the modern world, whether you are a devout Christian or not.

Anybody who wants to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality better live up to all of its standards, or risk being a hypocrite. And hypocrisy is a stoneable offense, no? ;)

Then the error is not merely in mistranslation, but in interpretation by Hebrew speakers for about two thousand years.

I honestly don't see how anyone could come to such a conclusion, looking at the Hebrew.

I very well may be wrong about the Leviticus quote, since it was years ago that I dug whatever it was up. I don't even know which verse it was supposed to be.

Which conclusion? I very well may be wrong about the Leviticus quote, since it was years ago that I dug whatever it was up.

The conclusion that it means anything close to a prohibition on sleeping on the bed of a menstruating woman.

There is a clear connotation of sex - "ve'et zachar lo tishkav" references two people, the subject of the command ("you shall not lie") and the object of the action (a member of "mankind"), and connects them with a common Biblical euphemism for sex (tishkav) that, furthermore, is done to a person by the grammar of the sentence.

I might see room for an interpretation of the "as with womankind" part as not referring to penetrative sex, though.

I think it's pretty clear that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. You can go on and on about the original Hebrew or the original greek NT, bus since this is all speculation all we have is the modern translations to go by and they are clear. Of course, it doesn't matter anyway because the Bible is just a mythologicla work of fiction. Science says that homosexuality is a natural occurence not only in humans, but in all mammals and especially in our simian cousins.

I think it's pretty clear that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. You can go on and on about the original Hebrew or the original greek NT, bus since this is all speculation all we have is the modern translations to go by and they are clear. Of course, it doesn't matter anyway because the Bible is just a mythologicla work of fiction. Science says that homosexuality is a natural occurence not only in humans, but in all mammals and especially in our simian cousins.

This man talks sense! :)

This man talks sense! :)

I'm on the down side of my acid trip. I make more sense when I'm on the downside. The upside is more fun, though.

I think it's pretty clear that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. You can go on and on about the original Hebrew or the original greek NT, bus since this is all speculation all we have is the modern translations to go by and they are clear. Of course, it doesn't matter anyway because the Bible is just a mythologicla work of fiction. Science says that homosexuality is a natural occurence not only in humans, but in all mammals and especially in our simian cousins.

Well, true enough. But just because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that it is.

The Bible is wrong.

I'm curious... You call yourself Christian, and then make a remark like the above. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, you believe in SOME of what's written in the Bible, so what do you do, pick and choose?

I'm curious... You call yourself Christian, and then make a remark like the above. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, you believe in SOME of what's written in the Bible, so what do you do, pick and choose?

No worse than the fundies who pick and choose from Old Testament prohibitions to justify their intolerance...

Well, true enough. But just because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that it is.

Sure, but because it's the Bible that defines what a sin is, then it's also true to say that there is no such thing as a sin. A sin, according to the Bible, is an affront to God. Since God is just some mythological creature it matters not what an affront to him is. There is just what people do and there is just malice and benevolence, sympathy and indifference. These are the nonreligious ideas through which human actions should be judged. If there is some God or superintelligence governing what we do and how we will be judged in some continuance of our lives after death then we have absolutely no idea at all by what parameters we will be judged and no clues to give us any hints so we might as well be humanist about it while we're humans.

Sure, but because it's the Bible that defines what a sin is, then it's also true to say that there is no such thing as a sin. A sin, according to the Bible, is an affront to God. Since God is just some mythological creature it matters not what an affront to him is. There is just what people do and there is just malice and benevolence, sympathy and indifference. These are the nonreligious ideas through which human actions should be judged. If there is some God or superintelligence governing what we do and how we will be judged in some continuance of our lives after death then we have absolutely no idea at all by what perameters we will be judged and no clues to give us any hints so we might as well be humanist about it while we're humans.

Truth. If a fictional book is going to tell me what I can and can't do, I'd rather follow Starship Troopers. No sins, and I get to kill bugs!

Truth. If a fictional book is going to tell me what I can and can't do, I'd rather follow Starship Troopers. No sins, and I get to kill bugs!

You quoted me before I could fix my spelling of the word "parameters." :(

No worse than the fundies who pick and choose from Old Testament prohibitions to justify their intolerance...

Please review my post on dispensations

I'm curious... You call yourself Christian, and then make a remark like the above. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, you believe in SOME of what's written in the Bible, so what do you do, pick and choose?

Yep. :)

I believe in Christ as my savior. I don't believe in the Bible. At least not at face value. However, the New Testament's gospels(along with other apocrypha) are stories from the time by people of the time detailing the life of Jesus Christ and in these His teachings live on. The trick of it is to sort Jesus's teachings from the ulterior motives of those telling the stories, those deciding whose stories should be told and those translating these stories into formats that preserve their own power and positions.

THere's actually a surprising amount of text concerning Jesus from the time, but there is still a myth effect in the New Testament. There's even more myth in the Old Testament.

But whose judgement do I trust when it comes to sorting fact from myth? Mine. I'm certainly going to listen avidly and learn omnivorously when it comes to other people's opinions and research, but my faith is my own, and it's my inner voice I'll trust.

I always listen to what the voices tell me to do. :D

I always listen to what the voices tell me to do. :D

I hope I can make room in my sig for that.

Yay!

Yep. :)

I believe in Christ as my savior. I don't believe in the Bible. At least not at face value. However, the New Testament's gospels(along with other apocrypha) are stories from the time by people of the time detailing the life of Jesus Christ and in these His teachings live on. The trick of it is to sort Jesus's teachings from the ulterior motives of those telling the stories, those deciding whose stories should be told and those translating these stories into formats that preserve their own power and positions.

THere's actually a surprising amount of text concerning Jesus from the time, but there is still a myth effect in the New Testament. There's even more myth in the Old Testament.

But whose judgement do I trust when it comes to sorting fact from myth? Mine. I'm certainly going to listen avidly and learn omnivorously when it comes to other people's opinions and research, but my faith is my own, and it's my inner voice I'll trust.

I always listen to what the voices tell me to do. :D

LG, for what it's worth you've just earned a load of respect from me.

I'm a christian, and I don't think homosexuality is a sin.
For one message changed from moses to Jesus. So we know god adapts rules to time.
I can see homosexuality being bad thing in socity that has few and scattered people who could disapear from one bad year. But today with overpopulation how can it still be a bad thing?
And god says MOST IMPORTANT rule is "Love thy neighbour" So how can somoene be condemned for love?
Bible also says god loves us all. ALL.

Yep. :)

I believe in Christ as my savior. I don't believe in the Bible. At least not at face value. However, the New Testament's gospels(along with other apocrypha) are stories from the time by people of the time detailing the life of Jesus Christ and in these His teachings live on. The trick of it is to sort Jesus's teachings from the ulterior motives of those telling the stories, those deciding whose stories should be told and those translating these stories into formats that preserve their own power and positions.

THere's actually a surprising amount of text concerning Jesus from the time, but there is still a myth effect in the New Testament. There's even more myth in the Old Testament.

But whose judgement do I trust when it comes to sorting fact from myth? Mine. I'm certainly going to listen avidly and learn omnivorously when it comes to other people's opinions and research, but my faith is my own, and it's my inner voice I'll trust.

I always listen to what the voices tell me to do. :D

Thats the bunny!

Yep. :)

I believe in Christ as my savior. I don't believe in the Bible. At least not at face value. However, the New Testament's gospels(along with other apocrypha) are stories from the time by people of the time detailing the life of Jesus Christ and in these His teachings live on. The trick of it is to sort Jesus's teachings from the ulterior motives of those telling the stories, those deciding whose stories should be told and those translating these stories into formats that preserve their own power and positions.

THere's actually a surprising amount of text concerning Jesus from the time, but there is still a myth effect in the New Testament. There's even more myth in the Old Testament.

But whose judgement do I trust when it comes to sorting fact from myth? Mine. I'm certainly going to listen avidly and learn omnivorously when it comes to other people's opinions and research, but my faith is my own, and it's my inner voice I'll trust.

I always listen to what the voices tell me to do. :D
Didn't listening to your inner voices lead to the String cheese/ anal region/ bowling ball incident of '84?

Yep. :)

I believe in Christ as my savior. I don't believe in the Bible. At least not at face value. However, the New Testament's gospels(along with other apocrypha) are stories from the time by people of the time detailing the life of Jesus Christ and in these His teachings live on. The trick of it is to sort Jesus's teachings from the ulterior motives of those telling the stories, those deciding whose stories should be told and those translating these stories into formats that preserve their own power and positions.

THere's actually a surprising amount of text concerning Jesus from the time, but there is still a myth effect in the New Testament. There's even more myth in the Old Testament.

But whose judgement do I trust when it comes to sorting fact from myth? Mine. I'm certainly going to listen avidly and learn omnivorously when it comes to other people's opinions and research, but my faith is my own, and it's my inner voice I'll trust.

I always listen to what the voices tell me to do. :D

Well, I disagree massively with your approach, but I respect you for being open and upfront about it, which is a heck of a lot better than most.

I'm a christian, and I don't think homosexuality is a sin.
For one message changed from moses to Jesus. So we know god adapts rules to time.
I can see homosexuality being bad thing in socity that has few and scattered people who could disapear from one bad year. But today with overpopulation how can it still be a bad thing?
And god says MOST IMPORTANT rule is "Love thy neighbour" So how can somoene be condemned for love?
Bible also says god loves us all. ALL.

First of all, "Love thy neighbor" is not a sexual mission statement. If that's your justification for homosexuality then brace yourself, because that kind of logic can justify a LOT more than you bargained for.

Second, only the most ignorand and short-sighted fundamentalist will tell you that God doesn't love sinners. Of course He loves us all. That's completely beside the point.

LG, for what it's worth you've just earned a load of respect from me.

I'll take tributes in the form of peanut butter cups and tacos. :)

Didn't listening to your inner voices lead to the String cheese/ anal region/ bowling ball incident of '84?

'94. I was twelve in '84, you pervert. :p

'94. I was twelve in '84, you pervert. :p

I was five. How do you think I felt?


This isn't the place to be having this conversation, is it?

I was five. How do you think I felt?


This isn't the place to be having this conversation, is it?

I'm not convinced that there IS a proper place to discuss the String Cheese/Anal region/Bowling Ball Incident. :p

First of all, "Love thy neighbor" is not a sexual mission statement. If that's your justification for homosexuality then brace yourself, because that kind of logic can justify a LOT more than you bargained for.

Second, only the most ignorand and short-sighted fundamentalist will tell you that God doesn't love sinners. Of course He loves us all. That's completely beside the point.

Acctually my love thy neighbour was directed at the people who take right to say someone else is going to hell. Newsflash, only god knows that, and such hatemongers are are not god, not prophets, not even christians.

And I have this to say. If homosexuality is a sin, its right there with missing to go to church on sunday once a year.
And hating somene for it, screaming at them and telling them they go to hell, is there with killing.

I'm not convinced that there IS a proper place to discuss the String Cheese/Anal region/Bowling Ball Incident. :p

Okay, this is like a train wreck. You know you're not going to like what you see but you have to look, soooo.... explain?

Please, explain to me, how is being Gay wrong, or a sin, or not okay? please, back this up with biblical passages, or quotes, or (GASP) logic.

gay is ok. god doesn't care about your sexual kinks. :fluffle:

God intended for man-woman sex, not woman-woman or man-man.

And since violating God's intentions is sinful, being gay is definitely a sin!

Why? Because he initially created a man and a woman?

God intended for Adam-Eve sex, not Bob-Sue, or George-Mary.

Okay, this is like a train wreck. You know you're not going to like what you see but you have to look, soooo.... explain?

I think that some things are better left to the imagination. :)

I think that some things are better left to the imagination. :)

But an explanation would leave one horrible picture in my head while my imagination can come up with literally thousands of permutations of the event which I cannot control. Don't leave me and the dozens of others reading this thread will all those images. It's not nice. :(

But an explanation would leave one horrible picture in my head while my imagination can come up with literally thousands of permutations of the event which I cannot control. Don't leave me and the dozens of others reading this thread will all those images. It's not nice. :(

Well I'd like to, but I gotta run. See you later. :D

Well I'd like to, but I gotta run. See you later. :D

Shit.

God intended for man-woman sex, not woman-woman or man-man.

And since violating God's intentions is sinful, being gay is definitely a sin!

are you also aware that God created the animals and that they have had homosexual relations? (prime example penguins, made the news a while back) so if animals are doing it, who have more instinct and less thought than humans... how could it be wrong?

The simple fact homosexuality is present in the animal population is evidence enough it is natural. Whether it is a sin? I couldn't care less what some 2000 year old book may or may not say about it.

Seriously, I have never had a Christian explain to me why certain parts of the bible are to be taken as gospel (no pun intended) and other things are simply ignored as archaic. I'm not saying this to pick a fight, I truley and honestly don't understand. Every time I ask the question I either get the "I'm not going to dignify that with a response," or I never get a straight answer. Why is homosexuality a sin, yet somehow everything mentioned in the Dr. Laura letter (see post on 3rd page). Sure, the person was being a bit of a smartass, but those are legitimate quotes.

This is also a legit quote: Deuteronomy 23:1- No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Why are none of these rules followed?

Technically, it only says man-man sex is a sin.


Thus bibilically prooving that jesus was big on lesbian porn. Probably teenage lesbian porn, at that.


Also notice Boy-Boy sex is not a sin.

Yeah, the holy trinity's a bunch of fuckin' perverts.

The fact that people have gay sex, and people are natural, means gay sex is natural too. Therefore, if God is going to condemn us to an afterlife in a dark and fiery place for doing it, I don't see why She bothered to give us the instinct and ability to in the first place. Sort of like giving a kid a toy and punishing him for playing with it.

This is long. Force yourselves to read it. Please.

Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences

by Dale B. Martin

The New Testament provides little ammunition to those wishing to condemn modern homosexuality. Compared to the much more certain condemnations of anger, wealth (sometimes anything but poverty), adultery, or disobedience of wives and children, the few passages that might be taken as condemning homosexuality are meager. It is not surprising, therefore, that the interpretation of two mere words has commanded a disproportionate amount of attention. Both words, arsenokoités and malakos, occur in a vice list in 1 Cor. 6:9, and arsenokoités recurs in 1 Tim. 1:10. Although the translation of these two words has varied through the years, in the twentieth century they have often been taken to refer to people who engage in homosexual, or at least male homosexual, sex, and the conclusion sometimes then follows that the New Testament or Paul, condemns homosexual "activity."

Usually the statement is accompanied by a shrugged-shoulder expression, as if to say, I'm not condemning homosexuality! I'm just reading the Bible. It's there in the text. Such protestations of objectivity, however, become untenable when examined closely. By analyzing ancient meanings of the terms, on the one hand, and historical changes in the translation of the terms on the other, we discover that interpretations of arsenokoités and malakos as condemning modern homosexuality have been driven more by ideological interests in marginalizing gay and lesbian people than by the general strictures of historical criticism.

In the end, the goal of this chapter is not mere historical or philological accuracy. By emphasizing the ideological contexts in which interpretation has taken place and will always take place, I intend to challenge the objectivist notion that the Bible or historical criticism can provide contemporary Christians with a reliable foundation for ethical reflection. Neither a simple reading of "what the Bible says" nor a professional historical-critical reconstruction of the ancient meaning of the texts will provide a prescription for contemporary Christian ethics. Indeed, the naive attempts by conservative Christians, well-meaning though they may be, to derive their ethics from a "simple" reading of the Bible have meant merely that they impute to the Bible their own destructive ideologies.1 The destruction is today nowhere more evident than in the church's mistreatment of lesbian and gay Christians.

Arsenokoités

From the earliest English translations of the Bible, arsenokoités has suffered confusing treatment. Wyclif (in 1380) translated it as "thei that don leccherie with men" and until the twentieth century similar translations prevailed, primarily "abusars of them selves with the mankynde" (Tyndale 1534; see also Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539, Geneva Bible 1557, KJV 1611, ASV 1901; the Douai-Rheims version of 1582 was a bit clearer: "the liers vvith mankinde"). A curious shift in translation occurred in the mid-twentieth century. Suddenly, the language of psychology and "normalcy" creeps into English versions. Although some still use archaic terms, like "sodomite" OB 1966, NAB 1970, NRSV 1989), several influential versions substitute more modem concepts like "sexual perverts" (RSV 1946, REB 1992) or terms that reflect the nineteenth century's invention of the category of the "homosexual," such as the NIV's (1973) "homosexual offenders." Some translations even go so far as to collapse arsenokoités and malakos together into one term: "homosexual perverts" or "homosexual perversion" (TEV 1966, NEB 1970). Modem commentators also offer a variety of interpretations. Some explain that malakos refers to the "passive" partner in male-male anal intercourse and arsenokoités the "active" partner, thus the two disputable terms being taken care of mutually.2 Some simply import wholesale the modem category and translate arsenokoités as "male homosexual."3 Others, in an attempt, I suppose, to separate the "sin" from the "sinner," have suggested "practicing homosexuals."4

Between the end of the nineteenth and the middle of the twentieth century, therefore, the translation of arsenokoités shifted from being the reference to an action that any man might well perform, regardless of orientation or disorientation, to refer to a "perversion," either an action or a propensity taken to be self-evidently abnormal and diseased. The shift in translation, that is, reflected the invention of the category of "homosexuality" as an abnormal orientation, an invention that occurred in the nineteenth century but gained popular currency only gradually in the twentieth.5 Furthermore, whereas earlier translations had all taken the term (correctly) to refer to men, the newer translations broadened the reference to include people of either sex who could be diagnosed as suffering from the new modem neurosis of homosexuality. Thorough historical or philological evidence was never adduced to support this shift in translation. The interpretations were prompted not by criteria of historical criticism but by shifts in modem sexual ideology.

As the debate over homosexuality and the Bible has become more explicit, various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoités as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in general. A common error made in such attempts is to point to its two parts, arsLn and koitLs, and say that "obviously" the word refers to men who have sex with men.6 Scholars sometimes support this reading by pointing out that the two words occur together, though not joined, in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible and in Philo in a context in which he condemns male homosexual sex.7 Either Paul, it is suggested, or someone before him simply combined the two words together to form a new term for men who have sex with men.

This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning.8

The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Unfortunately, we have very few uses of arsenokoités and most of those occur in simple lists of sins, mostly in quotations of the biblical lists, thus pro- viding no explanation of the term, no independent usage, and few clues from the context about the term's meaning. But having analyzed these different occurrences of arsenokoités, especially cases where it occurs in vice lists that do not merely quote 1 Cor. 6:9 or 1 Tim. 1:10, I am convinced that we can make some guarded statements.

As others have noted, vice lists are sometimes organized into groups of "sins," with sins put together that have something to do with one another.9 First are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics or injustice. Analyzing the occurrence of arsenokoités in different vice lists, I noticed that it often occurs not where we would expect to find reference to homosexual intercourse — that is, along with adultery (moicheia) and prostitution or illicit sex (porneia) — but among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation. Though this provides little to go on, I suggest that a careful analysis of the actual context of the use of arsenokoités, free from linguistically specious arguments from etymology or the word's separate parts, indicates that arsenokoités had a more specific meaning in Greco-Roman culture than homosexual penetration in general, a meaning that is now lost to us. It seems to have referred to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex.

One of the earliest appearances of the word (here the verb) occurs in Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 Although the date of this section of the oracle — indeed, of the finished oracle itself — is uncertain, there is no reason to take the text as dependent on Paul or the New Testament. The oracle probably provides an independent use of the word. It occurs in a section listing acts of economic injustice and exploitation; in fact, the editors of the English translation here quoted (J. J. Collins) label the section "On Justice":

(Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.)
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.
Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)
Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.

The term occurs in a list of what we might call "economic sins," actions related to economic injustice or exploitation: accepting gifts from unjust sources, extortion, withholding wages, oppressing the poor. "Stealing seeds" probably refers to the hoarding of grain; in the ancient world, the poor often accused the rich of withholding grain from the market as a price-fixing strategy.11 I would argue that other sins here mentioned that have no necessary economic connotation probably do here. Thus the references to speech and keeping secrets may connote the use of information for unjust gain, like fraud, extortion, or blackmail; and "murder" here may hint at motivations of economic gain, recalling, for example, the murder of Naboth by Jezebel (1 Kings 21). In any case, no other term in the section refers to sex. Indeed, nothing in the context (including what precedes and follows this quotation) suggests that a sexual action in general is being referred to at all. If we take the context as indicating the meaning, we should assume that arsenokoitein here refers to some kind of economic exploitation, probably by sexual means: rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort.

This suggestion is supported by the fact that a list of sexual sins does occur elsewhere in the same oracle, which is where we might expect to find a reference to male-male sex (2.279-82). The author condemns "defiling the flesh by licentiousness," "undoing the girdle of virginity by secret intercourse," abortion, and exposure of infants (the last two often taken to be means of birth control used by people enslaved to sex; such people proved by these deeds that they had sex purely out of lust rather than from the "nobler" motive of procreation). If the prohibition against arsenokoitein was taken to condemn homosexual intercourse in general, one would expect the term to occur here, rather than among the terms condemning unjust exploitation.12

A similar case exists in the second-century Acts of John. "John" is condemning the rich men of Ephesus:

You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment (section 36; Hennecke-Schneemelcher).

Here also, arsenokoités occurs in a list of sins related to economics and injustice: delighting in wealth, robbery, swindling, thievery. Note also the list of those who prosper by their power over others: kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, warmongers. The emphasis throughout the section is on power, money, and unjust exploitation, not sex.

As was the case in the Sybilline Oracle, "John" does denounce sexual sins elsewhere in the text, and the word arsenokoités is absent (section 35). If this author took arsenokoités to refer generally to homosexual sex or penetration, we would expect him to mention it among the other sexual sins, rather than in the section condemning the rich for economic exploitation. Thus, here also arsenokoités probably refers to some kind of economic exploitation, again perhaps by sexual means.

Another second-century Christian document offers corroborative, though a bit less obvious, evidence. Theophilus of Antioch, in his treatise addressed To Autolychus, provides a vice list.13 First come the two sexual sins of adultery and fornication or prostitution.14 Next come three economic sinners: thief, plunderer, and defrauder (or robber). Sixth is arsenokoités. The next group includes savagery, abusive behavior, wrath, and jealousy or envy, all of which the ancients would recognize as sins of "passion": that is, uncontrolled emotion. Next come instances of pride: boastfulness and conceit or haughtiness. I take the next term, pléktés ("striker") to denote someone who thinks he can go around hitting people as if they were his slaves. Then occurs the term "avaricious," or "greedy." Finally are two phrases related to the family: disobedience to parents and selling one's children. These last three may all have been taken as belonging to the category of greed, surely in the case of selling one's children and also perhaps in the reference to parents, if the particular action is understood as a refusal to support one's parents in their old age.

arsenokoités is separated from the sexual sins by three terms that refer to economic injustice. Would this be the case if it was understood as a condemnation of simple male homosexual intercourse? Furthermore, as Robert Grant notes, Theophilus takes these terms, with the exceptions of phthoneros and hyperoptLs, from vice lists in the Pauline corpus. Therefore, it is notable that Theophilus places arsenokoités in a different position. Grouping it with economic sins, I suggest, reflects his understanding of the social role to which it referred and his rhetorical goal of grouping the vices by category.

Later in the same work, arsenokoitia occurs in another list: again adultery and porneia come first, then arsenokoitia, followed by greed (pleonexia) and athemitoi eidOlolatreia, referring to idolatry. This list is not very helpful, since the term could here be taken as a sexual vice, grouped with the two preceding terms, or as an economic vice, grouped with the following. One possible explanation is that it is both: it is economic exploitation by some sexual means.15

There are two texts in which one might reasonably take arsenokoitia as referring to homosexual sex. In each case, however, I believe a careful reading encourages more cautious conclusions. The first occurs in Hippolytus's Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.22-23. Hippolytus claims to be passing along a Gnostic myth about the seduction of Eve and Adam by the evil being Naas. Naas came to Eve, deceived her, and committed adultery with her. He then came to Adam and "possessed him like a boy (slave)." This is how, according to the myth, moicheia (adultery) and arsenokoitia came into the world. Since arsenokoitia is in parallel construction with moicheia, it would be reasonable for the reader to take its reference as simply homosexual penetration. We should note, nonetheless, the element of deception and fraud here. The language about Naas's treatment of Adam, indeed, which could be read "taking or possessing him like a slave," could connote exploitation and even rape. Certainly the context allows a reading of arsenokoitia to imply the unjust and coercive use of another person sexually.

The second debatable use of the term occurs in a quotation of the second — to third-century writer Bardesanes found in Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel.16 Bardesanes is remarking that the peoples who live east of the Euphrates River take the charge of arsenokoitia very seriously: "From the Euphrates River all the way to the ocean in the East, a man who is derided as a murderer or thief will not be the least bit angry; but if he is derided as an arsenokoités, he will defend himself to the point of murder. [Among the Greeks, wise men who have lovers (er?menous echontes, males whom they love; "favorites") are not condemned]" (my trans.).

On the surface, this passage appears to equate "being an arsenokoités" and "having a favorite." But there are complicating factors. In the first place, the text seems to have gone through some corruption in transmission. The sentence I have given in brackets does not occur in the Syriac fragments of Bardesanes's text or in the other ancient authors who seem to know Bardesanes's account, leading Jacoby, the editor of the Greek fragments, to suggest that Eusebius himself supplied the comment.I7 Thus Eusebius's text would provide evidence only that he or other late-Christian scribes wanted to equate arsenokoités with "having a favorite." This fourth-century usage would therefore be less important for ascertaining an earlier, perhaps more specific, meaning of the term. Furthermore, we should note that the phrases occur in Eusebius in a parallel construction, but this does not necessarily mean that the second phrase is a defining gloss on the first. The point could be that "wise men" among the Greeks are not condemned for an action that is similar to one found offensive to Easterners. The equation of the terms is not absolutely clear. I offer these thoughts only as speculations meant to urge caution, but caution is justified. Especially since this text from Eusebius is the only one that might reasonably be taken to equate arsenokoitia with simple homosexual penetration, we should be wary of saying that it always does.18

I should be clear about my claims here. I am not claiming to know what arsenokoités meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant. I freely admit that it could have been taken as a reference to homosexual sex19 But given the scarcity of evidence and the several contexts just analyzed, in which arsenokoités appears to refer to some particular kind of economic exploitation, no one should be allowed to get away with claiming that "of course" the term refers to "men who have sex with other men." It is certainly possible, I think probable, that arsenokoités referred to a particular role of exploiting others by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily by homosexual sex. The more important question, I think, is why some scholars are certain it refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology.

Malakos

The translations and interpretations of malakos provide an even clearer case of ideological scholarship. For one thing, in contrast to the case with arsenokoités, in which we have too few occurrences of the term to make confident claims, we possess many occurrences of malakos and can be fairly confident about its meaning. Moreover, the changes in translation of malakos provide an even clearer record of how interpretive decisions have changed due to historical shifts in the ideology of sexuality.

Early English translations render malakos by terms that denote a general weakness of character or degeneracy, usually "weaklinges" (Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539; see also Wyclif 1380, "lechouris ayens kynde," and Geneva Bible 1557, "wantons"). From the end of the sixteenth century to the twentieth, the preferred translation was "effeminate" (Douai-Rheims 1582, KJV 1611, ASV 1901). As was the case with arsenokoites, however, a curious shift takes place in the mid-twentieth century. The translation of malakos as "effeminate" is universally rejected and some term that denotes a particular sexual action or orientation is substituted. The JB (1966) chooses "catamite," the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoités and malakos together as "sodomite," others translate malakos as "male prostitute" (NIV 1973, NRSV 1989), and again some combine both terms and offer the modem medicalized categories of sexual, or particularly homosexual, "perversion" (RSV 1946, TEV 1966, NEB 1970, REB 1992). As was the case with arsenokoités, no real historical or philological evidence has been marshaled to support these shifts in translation, especially not that from the "effeminacy" of earlier versions to the "homosexual perversion" of the last fifty years. In fact, all the historical and philological evidence is on the side of the earlier versions. The shift in translation resulted not from the findings of historical scholarship but from shifts in sexual ideology.

This hypothesis is easy to support because malakos is easy to define. Evidence from the ancient sources is abundant and easily accessible. malakos can refer to many things: the softness of expensive clothes, the richness and delicacy of gourmet food, the gentleness of light winds and breezes. When used as a term of moral condemnation, the word still refers to something perceived as "soft": laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, the feminine. For the ancients, or at least for the men who produced almost all our ancient literature, the connection was commonsensical and natural. Women are weak, fearful, vulnerable, tender. They stay indoors and protect their soft skin and nature: their flesh is moister, more flaccid, and more porous than male flesh, which is why their bodies retain all that excess fluid that must be expelled every month. The female is quintessentially penetrable; their pores are looser than men's. One might even say that in the ancient male ideology women exist to be penetrated. It is their purpose (telos). And their "soft-ness" or "porousnes" is nature's way of inscribing on and within their bodies this reason for their existence.20

And so it was that a man who allowed himself to be penetrated — by either a man or a woman — could be labeled a malakos. But to say that malakos meant a man who was penetrated is simply wrong. In fact, a perfectly good word existed that seems to have had that narrower meaning: kinaedos. malakos, rather, referred to this entire complex of femininity.21 This can be recognized by looking at the range of ways men condemned other men by calling them malakoi.

As I mentioned, a man could, by submitting to penetration, leave himself open to charges of malakia.22 but in those cases, the term refers to the effeminacy of which the penetration is only a sign or proof; it does not refer to the sexual act itself. The category of effeminate men was much broader than that. In philosophical texts, for example, malakoi are those people who cannot put up with hard work. Xenophon uses the term for lazy me.23 For Epictetus and the Cynic Epistles, the term refers to men who take life easy rather than enduring the hardships of philosophy.24 In Dio Cassius, Plutarch, and Josephus, cowards are maJakoi.25 Throughout ancient literature, malakoi are men who live lives of decadence and luxury.26 They drink too much wine, have too much sex, love gourmet food, and hire professional cooks. According to Josephus, a man may be accused of malakia if he is weak in battle, enjoys luxury, or is reluctant to commit suicide (War 7.338; Antiquities 5.246; 10.194). Dio Chrysostom says that the common crowd might stupidly call a man malakos just because he studies a lot —that is, a bookworm might be called a sissy (66.25).

The term malakos occurs repeatedly in the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomy, a book that tells how to recognize someone's character by body type and body language, including whether a man is really effeminate even if he outwardly appears virile. The word never refers specifically to penetration in homosexual sex (although men who endure it are discussed in the book). Rather, it denotes the feminine, whether the reference is to feet, ankles, thighs, bones, flesh, or whatever (see esp. chap. 6 passim). It always represents the negative female characteristic to which the positive masculine characteristic is contrasted. For example, if a man has weak eyes, it means one of two things: either he is malakos and thLlu or he is a depressive and lacks spirit (808a10). Each option contains a pair of synonyms: just as "depressive" and "lacking spirit" (katLphLs, athymos) are synonyms, so are malakos and thLlu, both referring to effeminacy. Malakia, therefore, was a rather broad social category. It included, of course, penetrated men, but many others besides. To put it simply, all penetrated men were malakoi, but not all malakoi were penetrated men.27

In fact, malakos more often referred to men who prettied themselves up to further their heterosexual exploits. In Greco-Roman culture, it seems generally to have been assumed that both men and women would be attracted to a pretty-boy. And boys who worked to make themselves more attractive, whether they were crying to attract men or women, were called effeminate. An old hag in a play by Aristophanes drags off a young man, saying, "Come along, my little softie" (malakion), although she has perfectly heterosexual things in mind (Ecclesiazusae 1058). The Roman playwright Plautus uses the Latin transliteration malacus to indicate effeminate men. But whereas in one comedy the term is cinaedus malacus, referring to a penetrated man, in another it is moechus malacus, referring to a man who seduces other men's wives (Miles Gloriosus 3.1 [1.668]; Truculentus2.7.49 [1.610]).

In the ancient world, effeminacy was implicated in heterosexual sex as much as homosexual — or more so.28 When Diogenes the Cynic sees a young man prettied up, he cannot tell whether the boy is crying to attract a man or a woman; in either case the boy is equally effeminate (Diogenes Laertius 6.54; the term malakos does not occur here, but effeminacy is the subject).29 Chariton in his novel Chaereas and Callirhoe provides a typical portrait of an effeminate man (1.4.9): he has a fresh hairdo, scented with perfume; he wears eye makeup, a soft (malakon) mantle, and light, swishy slippers; his fingers glisten with rings. Only a modem audience would find it strange that he is off to seduce not a man but a maiden.30 When the author of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomy wants to portray the "Charitable Type" of man, he makes him typically effeminate-and very hetero-sexual. Such men, he says, are delicate, pale, with shining eyes and wrinkled noses; they cry a lot, are "reminiscent," warmhearted, and with nice dispositions. They are particularly fond of women, with whom they have lots of sex, and they tend to produce female children (808a34).

Ancient sexist ideology was quite different from modem sexist-and heterosexist-ideology. The ancients operated with an axis that represented masculinity at one end and femininity at the other. All people theoretically could be assigned a particular place on the axis. The ancients could also assume, rather less often or obviously, an axis on which men-who-love-boys occupied one end and men-who-love-women the other, with most men assumed to fall somewhere in the middle as naturally omni-sexual. To some extent, therefore, we can recognize analogies to the modern axes of masculine-feminine and heterosexual-homosexual. But where as in modern ideology the two axes are usually collapsed together, with queer men of all sexual positions considered feminine and straight guys masculine (and even more masculine the lustier they are), the two axes had no relation to one another in the ancient ideology. A man could be branded as effeminate whether he had sex with men or with women. Effeminacy had no relation to the sex of one's partner but to a complex system of signals with a much wider reference code. Thus it would never have occurred to an ancient person to think that malakos or any other word indicating the feminine in itself referred to homosexual sex at all. It could just as easily refer to heterosexual sex.31

This can be demonstrated by analyzing those famous texts in which men argue about whether the love of women is inferior or superior to the love of boys. Each side accuses the other of effeminacy and can claim some logical grounds for doing so. In Plato's Symposium, where Aristophanes is made to relate his fanciful myth about the origins of the different kinds of loves, man for man, man for woman, and woman for woman, it is taken as natural that male-male love is the most "manly" (andreiotatoi) of all three (192A). In the Symposium no one attempts to argue the opposite, more difficult case. In Plutarch's Dialogue on Love (Moralia 7 48E- 771 E), the man defending the love of women does accuse the penetrated man of malakia and thLlu tes, but the speaker advocating the love of boys is given the stronger case. He says that the love of females is, of course, more effeminate (750F); the love of women is "moist" (hygron), "housebound," "unmanly" (anandrois), and im- plicated in ta malaka, "softness" (7 51A-B). Men who fall in love with women demonstrate their effeminacy (malakia) and weakness (astheneia, 753F; 7600) by the fact that they are controlled by women.

Similar mutual insults are exchanged in the Pseudo-Lucianic Affairs of the Heart. The man advocating the love of women is portrayed by the author as the more effeminate. He is said to be skilled in the use of makeup, presumably, the narrator comments, in order to attract women, who like that kind of thing (9). True, in his own turn, the "woman lover" complains that the penetrated man in homosexual sex is feminized; it is masculine to ejaculate seed and feminine to receive it (28, 19; note malakizesthai). But the man advocating the love of boys counters that heterosexual sex taints a man with femininity, which is why men are so eager to take a bath after copulating with women (43). Male love, on the other hand, is manly, he says, associated with athletics, learning, books, and sports equipment, rather than with cosmetics and combs (9, 44).32

I cite these texts not to celebrate homosexual love. What strikes me about them is rather their rank misogyny.33 But that is just the point. The real problem with being penetrated was that it implicated the man in the feminine, and malakos referred not to the penetration per se but to the perceived aspects of femaleness associated with it. The word malakos refers to the en- tire ancient complex of the devaluation of the feminine. Thus people could use malakos as an insult directed against men who love women too much.34

At issue here is the ancient horror of the feminine, which can be gruesomely illustrated by an example from Epictetus. In one of his especially "manly" moments, Epictetus praises an athlete who died rather than submit to an operation that would have saved his life by amputating his diseased genitals (1.2.25-26). Whereas we might think the paramount issue would be the man's wish to avoid an excruciatingly painful operation, the issue for Epictetus is the man's manly refusal to go on living if he must do so without his masculine equipment-the things that set him apart from despised femininity. It is better to die than be less than a man. Or, perhaps more to the point, any sensible person would rather be dead than be a woman.

There is no question, then, about what malakos referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either obviously or obliquely to the feminine. There is no historical reason to take malakos as a specific reference to the penetrated man in homosexual intercourse.35 It is even less defensible to narrow that reference down further to mean "male prostitute."36 The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. malakos means "effeminate."

Why has this obvious translation been universally rejected in recent English versions? Doubtless because contemporary scholars have been loath to consider effeminacy a moral category but have been less hesitant in condemning gay and lesbian people. Today, effeminacy may be perceived as a quaint or distasteful personal mannerism, but the prissy church musician or stereotyped interior designer is not, merely on the basis of a limp wrist, to be considered fuel for hell. For most English-speaking Christians in the twentieth century, effeminacy may be unattractive, but it is not a sin. Their Bibles could not be allowed to condemn so vociferously something that was a mere embarrassment. So the obvious translation of malakos as "effeminate" was jettisoned.

Consequences

Being faced with a Pauline condemnation of effeminacy hardly solves the more important hermeneutical issues. Suppose that we wanted to be historically and philologically rigorous and restore the translation "effeminate" to our Bibles. What do we then tell our congregations "effeminacy" means? As I have already illustrated in part, in the ancient world a man could be condemned as effeminate for, among many other things, eating or drinking too much, enjoying gourmet cooking, wearing nice underwear or shoes, wearing much of anything on his head, having long hair, shaving, caring for his skin, wearing cologne or aftershave, dancing too much, laughing too much, or gesticulating too much. Keeping one's knees together is effeminate, as well as swaying when walking, or bowing the head. And of course there were the sexual acts and positions: being penetrated (by a man or a woman), enjoying sex with women too much, or masturbating37 the list could go on-and that contributed to the usefulness of the word as a weapon. It was a malleable condemnation.

Naturally, many of these things do not make a man effeminate today. If in trying to be "biblical," then, we attempt to "take seriously" Paul's condemnation, do we condemn what Paul and his readers are likely to have considered effeminate-that is, take the historical route? Or do we condemn only those things that our culture considers effeminate? And what might that be? Taking piano lessons? ballet dancing? singing falsetto in the men and boys' choir? shaving one's body hair for anything but a swim meet or a bicycle race? being a drag queen? having a transsexual operation? camping it up? or wearing any article of "women's clothes" (unless you are a TV talk show host trying to make a point)? refusing to own a gun? driving an automatic transmission instead of a stick shift? drinking tea? actually requesting sherry? Or do we just narrow the category to include only those people most heterosexist Christians would really like to condemn: "gays" and "manly men" who are careless enough to get caught? Condemning penetrated men for being effeminate would also implicate us in a more elusive and pervasive problem: the misogyny of degrading the penetrated. The ancient condemnation of the penetrated man was possible only because sexist ideology had already inscribed the inferiority of women into heterosexual sex. To be penetrated was to be inferior because women were inferior. Let us also be clear that our modem culture has in no way liberated itself from this sexism. This should be obvious every time a frat boy says "This sucks!" or "Fuck you!"-thus implicating both his girlfriend and possibly his roommate in the despised role of the penetrated. The particular form taken by modem heterosexism is derived largely from sexism. People who retain Paul's condemnation of effeminacy as ethical grounding for a condemnation of contemporary gay sex must face the fact that they thereby participate in the hatred of women inherent in the ancient use of the term. In the face of such confusion and uncertainty, no wonder modem heterosexist scholars and Christians have shrunk from translating malakos as "effeminate." I myself would not advocate reading a condemnation of effeminacy out loud in church as the "word of the Lord." But to mask such problems and tell our fellow Christians that the word "really" refers just to boy prostitutes or, worse, "passive homosexuals" is by this time just willful ignorance or dishonesty. Some scholars and Christians have wanted to make arsenokoités and malakos mean both more and less than the words actually mean, according to the heterosexist goals of the moment. Rather than noting that arsenokoites may refer to a specific role of exploitation, they say it refers to all "active homosexuals" or "sodomites" or some such catch-all term, often broadening its reference even more to include all homosexual eroticism. And rather than admitting the obvious, that malakos is a blanket condemnation of all effeminacy; they explain that it refers quite particularly to the penetrated man in homosexual sex. Modem scholars have conveniently narrowed down the wide range of meanings of malakia so that it now condemns one group: gay men-in particular, "bottoms." In order to use 1 Cor. 6:9 to condemn contemporary homosexual relationships, they must insist that the two words mean no more but also no Jess than what they say they mean. It should be clear that this exercise is driven more by heterosexist ideology than historical criticism.

My goal is not to deny that Paul condemned homosexual acts but to highlight the ideological contexts in which such discussions have taken place. My goal is to dispute appeals to "what the Bible says" as a foundation for Christian ethical arguments. It really is time to cut the Gordian knot of fundamentalism. And do not be fooled: any argument that tries to defend its ethical position by an appeal to "what the Bible says" without explicitly acknowledging the agency and contingency of the interpreter is fundamentalism, whether it comes from a right-wing Southern Baptist or a moderate Presbyterian. We must simply stop giving that kind of argument any credibility. Furthermore, we will not find the answers merely by becoming better historians or exegetes. The test for whether an interpretation is Christian or not does not hang on whether it is historically accurate or exegetically nuanced. The touchstone is not the historically reconstructed meaning in the past, nor is it the fancifully imagined, modernly constructed intentions of the biblical writers.38 Nor can any responsible Christian-after the revolutionary changes in Christian thought in the past twenty years, much less in the past three hundred-maintain that Christian interpretations are those conforming to Christian tradition. The traditions, all of them, have changed too much and are far too open to cynical manipulation to be taken as foundations for gauging the ethical value of a reading of scripture.

The only recourse in our radical contingency is to accept our contingency and look for guidance within the discourse that we occupy and that forms our very selves. The best place to find criteria for talking about ethics and interpretation will be in Christian discourse itself, which includes scripture and tradition but not in a "foundational" sense. Nor do I mean that Christian discourse can itself furnish a stable base on which to secure ethical positions; it is merely the context in which those positions are formed and discussed. Conscious of this precarious contingency, and looking for guiding lights within the discourse, I take my stand with a quotation from an impeccably traditional witness, Augustine, who wrote: "Who- ever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand it at all" (Christian Doctrine 1.35.40).

By this light, any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no de- bate about the fact that the church's stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness, and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just claim, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same- sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing a lover's voice when they go to sleep or awake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends? Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of "heterosexual fulfillment" (a "nonbiblical" concept, by the way) while consigning thousands of its members to a life of either celibacy or endless psychological manipulations that masquerade as "healing"?

The burden of proof in the last twenty years has shifted. There are too many of us who are not sick, or inverted, or perverted, or even "effeminate," but who just have a knack for falling in love with people of our own sex. When we have been damaged, it has not been due to our homosexuality but to your and our denial of it. The burden of proof now is not on us, to show that we are not sick, but rather on those who insist that we would be better off going back into the closet. What will "build the double love of God and of our neighbor?"

I have tried to illustrate how all appeals to "what the Bible says" are ideological and problematic. But in the end, all appeals, whether to the Bible or anything else, must submit to the test of love. To people who say this is simplistic, I say, far from it. There are no easy answers. "Love" will not work as a foundation for ethics in a prescriptive or predictable fashion either-as can be seen by all the injustices, imperialisms, and violence committed in the name of love. But rather than expecting the answer to come from a particular method of reading the Bible, we at least push the discussion to where it ought to be: into the realm of debates about Christian love, rather than into either fundamentalism or modernist historicism.

We ask the question that must be asked: "What is the loving thing to do?"

What I want to know is, what about us Bi people? And, also, are thresomes okay? Foursomes? Aerosol cheese?

What I want to know is, what about us Bi people? And, also, are thresomes okay? Foursomes? Aerosol cheese?

Thank you. I'm assuming their good. But maybe we should attempt to be holy and only have group sex in multiples of 3.

Actually, being a descendant of the Cherokee people, I think it would be beter to only do it in multiples of seven. Perhaps nines.

Actually, being a descendant of the Cherokee people, I think it would be beter to only do it in multiples of seven. Perhaps nines.

Y'know, 42 is the answer to life, the universe, and everything...

Yes, but the question is 7x9.

Technically, it only says man-man sex is a sin.


Thus bibilically prooving that jesus was big on lesbian porn. Probably teenage lesbian porn, at that.


Also notice Boy-Boy sex is not a sin.

Yeah, the holy trinity's a bunch of fuckin' perverts.

Jesus founded NAMBLA?!?!

:eek:

Gay sex doesnt feel that bad trust me. you gives you a sense of feelings like you two can connect i belive everyone should experinces love. god will judge on many other things besides sexuialty

Radical Centrists?

I think I love you.

Where'd you get that from?

Radical Centrists?

I think I love you.

Where'd you get that from?

Google, actually. Someone mentioned Arsenokoités earlier in the thread and the etymology geek in me wanted to hunt it down, so I did.

Here's the link. (http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html) Oddly enough, it's a site on Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry.

It’s proof that there is always more depth to the subject then either the homophobes or the Christian-bashers would have you believe. Fascinating stuff.