Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A Gay Man Defends Himself

Forum Quick Jump

548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/27/2003 4:13 AM (GMT -6)

Laika

The CEREMONIAL LAW

As opposed to the moral law. The Ceremonial law was not being required of gentiles but the MORAL law is in place UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

Part of the moral law is the ten commandments. Do you believe Paul and Peter decided to let the gentiles ignore the ten commandments and ONLY refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols????

Iconoclast

Do you have some evidence for this proposition? I don’t see Peter making any distinction between the ceremonial law and the “moral” law. And what exactly is the “moral” law anyway? You say that the ten commandments are part of the “moral” law. Is keeping the Sabbath holy part of the “moral” law? Should we be practicing this religiously like the Jews did? And isn’t the Sabbath on Saturday rather than Sunday?

I think Peter’s presupposition of the gentile Christians is that they were Christians – followers of Christ. Jesus said that his command is that we should love one another. Peter probably knew that if we keep the greatest command then we fulfil the law and prophets – therefore there was no need to burden the gentiles with the Jewish moral law – because it is not about trying to adhere to some system of ethics – man is not FOR following the “moral” law – the “moral” law is there FOR man – to guide us toward loving one another.

Tell me, how exactly is homosexuality similar to pedophilia, or rape, or murder? I can clearly see how pedophilia, rape and murder are unloving but I do not see that a Christian gay monogamous couple are being unloving at all – quite the opposite.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/27/2003 4:39 AM (GMT -6)

Laika

If it's culture that determines WHAT the church accepts, then why didn't the early church accept homosexuality since it was very acceptable to the Greeks and the Romans of Paul's day?

Iconoclast

Culture doesn’t determine what the church accepts – it is one variable and it often conditions what is acceptable or not. Paul felt that it was not acceptable in his culture for women to speak out in the church. We feel differently today. 50 years ago the church felt that it was unnacceptable for divorced and remarried people to be “fellowshipped”. Today (by and large) we feel differently.

My understanding of the practice of the Greeks and Romans at that time was that heterosexual men would engage in male child-rape. It is not hard for me to see how this violates the absolute command to love one another. Culture cannot condition this command (to love one another) because it is absolute. Culture can condition what is loving or not. When we learn that the culture understands a certain term (like “homo” for example) to be pejorative towards others then out of love we refrain from using it.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/27/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Tell me, how exactly is homosexuality similar to pedophilia, or rape, or murder? I can clearly see how pedophilia, rape and murder are unloving but I do not see that a Christian gay monogamous couple are being unloving at all – quite the opposite.

Is beastiality loving or unloving? How about necrophilia? How about pedophilia if the child is willing? How about alcoholism if the booze is willing? How about auto-eroticism? Are some sins against our own body or are all sins of the unloving variety?

Either homosexuality has sanctions against it in scripture or it doesn't. Some of you say it doesn't, some of us say it does.

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/27/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Iconoclast

My understanding of the practice of the Greeks and Romans at that time was that heterosexual men would engage in male child-rape.

So when Socrates says he was "in love with two objects—Alcibiades, son of Clinias, and philosophy" and when Alcibiades himself tells of a particular attempt to seduce Socrates one night, this is heterosexual rape of a boy?

Or is this loving homosexuality towards which Paul wouldn't accommodate the gospel?

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

Edited by - Laika on 03/27/2003 09:59:00 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 3/27/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

Laika said:

How about auto-eroticism?

Semeia:

Is that a euphemism for masturbation? Masturbation is a "sin against the body"? Can you provide scriptural evidence for that?

Laika said:

Either homosexuality has sanctions against it in scripture or it doesn't. Some of you say it doesn't, some of us say it does.

Semeia:

Again, we discussed the scripture in depth on the threads I linked. If you would like to discuss what the scripture says and doesn't say, it would be best to start there, with the arguments that have already been presented.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/27/2003 5:29 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Iconoclast

Do you have some evidence for this proposition? I don’t see Peter making any distinction between the ceremonial law and the “moral” law.

Yeah, read where Moses lays down the law. Is it all moral? Is it all ceremonial, washings and sacrifices and stuff? It's a combination. Between that time and the time of Jesus, tons of other laws were added, not given by God. These were the 'laws' Jesus broke,
shucking grain to eat and healing people on the Sabbath.

Here's an aid:

"You shall not kill" --- moral

"But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his body, and it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair on it has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate him who has the infection for seven days." ----- not moral

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/27/2003 5:35 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Laika said:

How about auto-eroticism?

Semeia:

Is that a euphemism for masturbation? Masturbation is a "sin against the body"? Can you provide scriptural evidence for that?

Auto-eroticism is partially choking yourself while you masturbate, the idea being the person gets more of a kick due to the lack of oxygen. The danger being, many of these people accidentally choke themself to death. It's believed Michael Hutchence of INXS and a Japanese rocker, Hide of X-Japan, accidently commited suicide doing this. I included it for it's suicide aspect, not the other aspect.

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/27/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Semeia:

Again, we discussed the scripture in depth on the threads I linked. If you would like to discuss what the scripture says and doesn't say, it would be best to start there, with the arguments that have already been presented.

And

thank you

for the exit strategy. I enjoyed your comments, it's evident you have thought this issue out.

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/27/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6)

Icon: Seems like total chaos when it comes to the law and what is sin.

Laika: (quoting Icon)"...didn't want to lay any greater burdens on the gentiles." other than what's in scripture.

Icon: The whole point is that the Pharisees were insisting that the gentiles had to follow the law of Moses (the scriptural law) and Peter decided that the Holy Spirit did not require it.

PoW: I've split your paragraph in two, and will address just the part on top first. There are three things that I see: First, the issue of what the Law is and was for; and second, that Peter DIDN'T "decide" what the Holy Spirit required; and, third, what "scripture" is.

As to the second... Councils, gathered TOGETHER, may record "it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us", but even Eccumenical Councils are not infallible per se either, as they can be overturned by subsequent ones, as history records.

As to the third... the SCRIPTURE, in Peter's day, is the Law the Psalms and the Prophets, and is ABOUT a particular thing. More than just words being words-on-a-page "scriptural" means that Christ crucified and raised is being revealed.

As to the first... The law both reveals our need and is truly an incarnation (as is creation too, adding up to three incarnations--creation, scripture and Jesus--in Maximus' listing) of the Seond Person of the Trinity. That is why Reformed Christians think and speak of the Decalog as being good news: They point out that the Decalog begins with good news, saying, "I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2). The Decalog is given also as a way to live. Look at what Christ Jesus teaches in Matthew 5!

quote:
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There is ONLY ONE man who is truly righteous: Christ. None of us are. Our ONLY hope is to be, by the Spirit, IN CHRIST. To "put on Christ". not in our behavior, or imitation, but by the Holy Spirit to participate in the divinized humanity of Christ. To die in baptism and be raised in His new live. To be saved by His Blood and justified by His glorious Resurrection.

Despite what contemporary wishes may desire, Jesus "came not to destroy" the law; and the law "shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." So, our falures not excepted, the Law shows us our need, and the law shows us the way to live. And the law shows us our shortcomings. And in obeying the law we do find health; but not enough to save us.

And: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...

Icon: Moreover, Peter DID decide that the gentiles were required to refrain from food sacrificed to the gods and yet Paul said it was not a sin. What do you make of that?

quote:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God; 20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote [thus] by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; 25 it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.

Two things are seen above: first, the fact that the setting did know Moses required extra sensitivity, and even some pastoral administration; and second, that there was an issue that was broader than just the Jewishness of part of the Church--something underlay all involved due to the practices of the pagan temples. Pastoral instructions from the Jerusalem assembly were that the local assembly be unified in their detachment (corporately and individually) from the pagan cultus!

Semeia: If it's not culture that determines WHAT the church accepts...

Observation: Semeia believes that it is "culture that determines WHAT the church accepts."

PoW: Scripture says "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us (as a corporate assembly--not individually!)..." I see a difference between this and what Semeia's standard says.

quote:
POW

The nature of SCRIPTURE is that is is revelatory. It builds. It unfolds. It does not discard. E.g., Already in the garden you hear of the crushing of the serpant's head. Some things are lain aside: e.g., the sacrifice of animals -- used as a bridge to lead us to fuller understanding. But that does not constitute an entire erasure and replacement.

Iconoclast

The statements I bolded seem contradictory to me.

PoW: The sacrifice of animals mentioned above is a plenty good example. The aspect of "sacrifice" is not "discarded," but is revealed with "fuller understanding" in the Cricifixion and Resurrection and Ascension.

quote:
Icon (continued)

Also “used as a bridge to lead us to a fuller understanding” seems to me to be exactly what Doc was talking about when he said, “God has to take people from point A to B before he can hope to get them to Y and Z.” Are you agreeing with Doc here? If so, isn’t this why some commands can be understood to be cultural or conditioned on certain variables? Are you denying this?

If Doc and You had been discussing salvation I would agree. But you were not. You were discussing homosexual union as if it were a form of marriage, and as if it were something that God condones! To apply the logic, were YOUR issue to be one that (to use my words) is not "discarded," but is revealed with "fuller understanding", what would have to be true is that marriage would have to be replaced. Not only that, but marriage would have to be seen as something culturally defined, AT ITS ESSENCE (not just the surfacy things), instead of its true nature as an eschatological reality. IF you go so far as to propose that homosexual union be accepted as also part of the parusia of the eschaton I would reply that the TRUE form of THAT that DOES exist outside of the three-way-relationship of marriage is in the Epicletic assembly of the Church in the Sacraments of the Word and Table. And so, any talk of replacing marriage with homosexual union is no less than the creation of a new religion -- or an old one...seing how the Jerusalem council anathamized it in Acts 15:29! marriage is a form of monasiticm. Outside of marriage the only form of monasticism blessed is celebacy. (I was celebate for 29 years.)

quote:
POW

Much more than culture, the union of man and woman (AND GOD) in marriage is an eschatological reality.

Iconoclast

From www.dictionary.com:

eschatological - A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment.

Mat 22:28-30 - In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her." But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

POW, I certainly agree with you that marriage is not an accomodation to culture (I think it is an acommodation to how we ended up being wired – God saw that it was not good for man to be alone), but I am confused by what you mean about it being an “eschatological reality.” Jesus' words here seem to be at odds with what you are saying - am I misunderstanding what you mean by “eschatological”?

thanks,
Iconoclast

PoW: I'll play that back by you again, Icon. Look closely!

quote:
es·cha·tol·o·gy n.

2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity

AND

es·chato·logi·cal adj.

PoW: I gave you the ADJECTIVE! (You expressed concern that: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." But what is meant is the 'now' plenitude or participation in that for which all is created for.) So when someone declares that marriage is "eschatological" THAT MEANS that is has aspects of -- participates in -- the "ultimate destiny" of the "age to come." The Eucharist IS ALSO Exchatological. Calvin knew this and preached it. Roman Catholics know this, as do Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox! What's that mean. Repeating ... things "eschatological" are those things that "participate in the ultimate destiny of the age to come."

So NO(!), marriage is NOT an "acommodation to how we ended up being wired."

NO, never was. Never will be! THAT would mean going back and re-writing Genesis:

quote:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them . . . 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

PoW: By himself, man (as male only) did not even warrent a "good." But "man as male and female" are seen as blessed as "very good."

Notice that I left out of what I quoted the "be fruitful and multiply" part. Its a speculative area, but some Fathers of the Church have said that perhaps the procreative aspect is a concession to the reality of the mortifying (literally) effects of sin. Procreation is NOT the primary reason for marriage!!!!! But "man as male and female" are seen as blessed as "very good."

-

Pitchthe DETERMINISTIC rhetoric of "wired" and chuck the [PRAGMATISTIC rhetoric of "cultural."

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/27/2003 12:01:44 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/27/2003 5:55 AM (GMT -6)

Laika: And

thank you

for the exit strategy.

PoW: I'm going to take this opportunity to do the same.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/27/2003 6:33 AM (GMT -6)

PotOnWheel dood, you evidently are not "wired" to understand this issue.

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/27/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6)

Laika: PotOnWheel dood, you evidently are not "wired" to understand this issue.

PoW: Please explain!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/27/2003 7:04 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
PotOnWheel
SUPERSTAR

2012 Posts Posted - 03/04/2003 : 2:09:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electra: There is no limit to his love. His arms reach around the world and are open wide enough to include gays and bigots who come to him.

AMEN!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT'S THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/04/2003 2:11:48 PM

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/28/2003 1:56 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Laika

What I find sad about the whole "God wired me this way" argument is that it denies people the HOPE that Christ can change them. If homosexuals are "wired" that way, then so too are pedophiles, rapists,
beastialists, necophiliacs, liars, adulterers, abortionists, etc.

Iconoclast

Here we go – way out of context again. Now, if I likewise take your thought here out of context then I would have to comment on how your logic is completely flawed. Why? Because you are saying that if God “wired” us to do X then he must have “wired” us to do EVERYTHING and since he obviously didn’t “wire” us to do EVERYTHING he must not have wired us to do X.

This logic is easily refuted by saying that God obviously “wired” us to breathe air but did not “wire” us to use faulty logic.

And where is breathing prohibited in scripture?

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/1/2003 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

Just thinking out loud. The whole Acts 15 issue was created by the Acts 10 issue -- when Peter had a vision in which God told him to eat "unclean" foods. God was teaching Peter -- against all his cultural-religious assumptions, that what he thought was unclean wasn't so. Then, to his surprise, Peter WITENESSED God giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles. He thus concluded that God had accepted Gentiles. They had a lot to work out as to what the relationship between Jews and Gentiles was going to look like (hence, Acts 15), but it was Peter's willingness to acknowledge the Spirit over his cultural-religious convictions that got the thing going.

Here's what I'm wondering. I've only had very limited exposure to gay Christians, but I've read a number of people who have felt compelled to rethink their scriptural interpretations and eventually acknowledge that monogomous life-long covenantal gay relationships are blessed by God by their experience of how God moves in gay Christians lives. . Gil Alexander Moegerle (formerly with Focus on the Family); Peggy Campolo (wife of Tony); evangelists Evelyn and Dennis Schave; Sylvia Pennington (former AG preacher who wrote, But Lord, They're Gay!, to give just a few examples. My question, I guess, is this:

What does one make of the life-transforming work that God seems to carry out in many gay people's lives (while not transforming them into heterosexuals)? What should one make of the apparent Spirit-filled annointing that some gay churches seem to experience? Is it all illusion? Is it demonic? Are gay testimonies of how Jesus transformed their life all lies? Or is the Holy Spirit deciding to move among "unclean" people, despite centuries old religious convictions on the part of "clean" people that it cannot be so?

What weight should our own experiences with God (e.g. visions) and our PERCEPTION of God moving have on a) how we interpret the Bible and b) how we assess where God is moving? Honestly, I'm just asking this out loud.

Doc

ps. ten-to-one someone gets on here and blasts me for being "pro-gay" for asking these questions. maybe nine-to-one now that I preempted the strike. But its PETER'S fault... he seemed to give a subjective vision and experience of the Holy Spirit coming on "the unclean" quite a bit of weight.

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/01/2003 11:52:33 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/2/2003 1:33 AM (GMT -6)

Not "blasting" for what you thought...

quote:
What weight should our own experiences with God (e.g. visions) and our PERCEPTION of God moving have on a) how we interpret the Bible and b) how we assess where God is moving? Honestly, I'm just asking this out loud.

Doc

ps. ten-to-one someone gets on here and blasts me for being "pro-gay" for asking these questions. maybe nine-to-one now that I preempted the strike. But its PETER'S fault... he seemed to give a subjective vision and experience of the Holy Spirit coming on "the unclean" quite a bit of weight.

Thinking aloud can be good. I'll give an answer.

Perhaps it would be Ignatias or Irenaeus that would shoot the idea down, for this reason. SCRIPTURE. The specific example in Acts was "out of the sky" but NOT "out of the blue."

It was fully "in accordance with Scripture -- the Law, the Prophets and the Pslams. What prophetic verses foretold the godpel to all the world?" Etc.

There is a standard, and it is "according to the Scriptures." It was Peter who dragged his feet, not scripture. It, Scripture, went on ahead.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/02/2003 06:36:02 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/2/2003 4:25 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Perhaps it would be Ignatias or Irenaeus that would shoot the idea down, for this reason. SCRIPTURE. The specific example in Acts was "out of the sky" but NOT "out of the blue." It was fully "in accordance with Scripture -- the Law, the Prophets and the Pslams. What prophetic verses foretold the godpel to all the world?" Etc.

There is a standard, and it is "according to the Scriptures." It was Peter who dragged his feet, not scripture. It, Scripture, went on ahead.

Right. Good stuff POW. Fee talks about how Pentecostals in the past tried to justify their experience by scripture instead of the other way around. That is, they did not come to the conclusion that the "Holy Spirit was for today" by sound reasoning from the Bible. They had their experience first and then theologized about it. Came up with some pretty bad stuff. But alot of that is and has changed.

I wouldn't want to put experience before scripture. Though, I definitely do not want to interpret scripture alone (sola scriptura?)without the use of other resources, i.e. tradition, reasoning, and experience.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/2/2003 10:10 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the non-blasting (but there may still be plenty of thread to cover... we'll see).

Yes, of course we live by the scriptural criteria. But the question is: how much should our personal revelations/experiences (like Peter's vision) and/or our perception of the Holy Spirit's moving (like Peter's perception in Acts 10) affect our INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION of Scripture? I mean, the Bible Peter believed in certainly did forbid eating "unclean" animals!!! (Leviticus). It was the vision + the perceived move of the Holy Spirit that led Peter, and then others, to REINTERPRETE and REAPPLY the Scripture. The whole theology of Jesus abrogating the Jewish ceremonial codes -- indeed, the whole distinction between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" and "sacrificial" law -- is the result of re-reading the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles. It isn't clear in the text itself!

The contemporary parallel I'm raising is that a number of people believe it has been revealed to them that God accepts gay people who are naturaly orientationed that way and claim they see the power of God wonderfully working in gay believers lives -- while leaving them gay. And many gay believers testify that their lives are revolutionized by the power of the Spirit. They have a love for Christ and for others they never dreamed of. In the light of the experience of gay people and of others witnessing the lives of gay people, many have felt forced to reconsider the meaning of malakoi and [/]arsen koiti (I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10) , the application of Romans 1, the universality and moral nature of the Levitical prohibitions (18, 20), and the unexceptional nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate, at least in a fallen world.

My question is, is this reconsideration valid? Is the meaning of malakoi and arsen koiti more undeniable than the testimony of Christ impacting the lives of gay people and experiences of those who say God is telling them they are accepted? And if one concludes that the interpretation of these terms and verses IS undeniable, what do you make of the testimonies? Are the people deceived? Are they lying? Is it a demonic illusion?

Thinking out loud
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/03/2003 08:30:24 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/2/2003 10:18 PM (GMT -6)

ICON, you posted some really interesting research about malakoi and arsenakoiti some time ago. I thought it was on this thread, but I can't find it. Would you re-post it for us here?
thanks
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/3/2003 1:32 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
But the question is: how much should our personal revelations/experiences (like Peter's vision) and/or our perception of the Holy Spirit's moving (like Peter's perception in Acts 10) affect our INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION of Scripture? I mean, the Bible Peter believed in certainly did forbid eating "unclean" animals!!! (Leviticus). It was the vision + the perceived move of the Holy Spirit that led Peter, and then others, to REINTERPRETE and REAPPLY the Scripture. The whole theology of Jesus abrogating the Jewish ceremonial codes -- indeed, the whole distinction between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" and "sacrificial" law -- is the result of re-reading the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles. It isn't clear in the text itself!

A key word, there, Greg, is "reinterpret." Irenaeus said (I think) "...the Gospel according to the Scriptures." The point being that "cannon" exists as the message, almost identifyable with the Word Himself. And that "Gospel according to the Scriptures" is an ongoing thing. It is not a "replacement", it is more closely a "reinterpretation." But "reinterpretation" doesn't seem right either. The Gospel is not the history of what happened during Jesus life, it is the message unto the salvation of Christ who was foretold by the Prophets. The Gospel is the Gospel. And the CONTINUITY is by the Spirit, and can also be said to be by the Word that is revealed.

What I'm centering on here is that the Word and Spirit are never out of sync. And the message isn't replaced. Your hypothesis that you and others might receive a super-charismatic revelation that is at odds with all the rest of the Church is just mush.

Your treatment of Peter also seems very individualistic. BOTH Peter and Paul went to the whole assembly. Both were convinced that they were right, and were prepared to have to convince the others. But BOTH of THEM recognized that the Spirit and Word were with the whle assembly, and was not a private matter. (Eph.) Besides, who in this debate had such a vision as Peter, or such a blow as Paul. Pretending to be in their ilk is suspicious!!!

===========================

ADDED LATER:

1.

quote:
Greg: "...and the unexceptional nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate"

Does THIS refer to Marriage. Does this refer to the sacrament? The sacrament of marriage: "24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " (Genesis 2:24) Sacraments are NOT "unexceptional" in nature.

2.

There has been occasions (on this board) where those arguing that homosexual union should be accepted (as Godly) where the device of arguement has been to frame the argument so that those coming on it have only two choices: accept homosexual union as Godly OR damn those who pracitice homosexual acts as being completely unloved by God and unembracible by Christians. That is a horrible way to develop consideration of this topic. It is, to use the contemporary term (in the news), a use of HUMAN SHIELDS! It bates those involved to condemn those the Gospel requires us to love. It is divisive. It produces casualties where none are necessary.

NO HUMAN SHEILDS!

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/03/2003 5:25:49 PM

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/3/2003 2:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

ICON, you posted some really interesting research about malakoi and arsenakoiti some time ago. I thought it was on this thread, but I can't find it. Would you re-post it for us here?

It might be in the Question thread.
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1809

Do a google search on those words. Lots of hits.

www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/

Edited by - Laika on 04/03/2003 08:17:36 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/3/2003 12:34 PM (GMT -6)

This article is from the Christian Reformed monthly magazine, "The Banner." (The CRC is in both the USA and Canada.)

PLEASE NOTE BOTH UNDERLINED PORTIONS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH!!!

quote:
CRC Addresses Canadian Government About Same-Sex Unions

The Committee for Contact with the Government (CCG) of the Christian Reformed Church sent a brief to the Canadian government Feb. 19, calling on it to maintain the definition of marriage as "a distinct and unique covenant relationship between a man and woman, established by God and expressed in the context of community." At the same time, the CCG called on the government to provide equal legal protection and benefits for people in other relationships, using a separate definition.

Courts in Ontario and Quebec have recently ruled that the heterosexual definition of marriage is discriminatory against people who are homosexual and have ordered the federal government to redefine marriage. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is examining this issue and will report back to Parliament with recommendations describing how same-sex relationships should be legally recognized. The CCG brief was sent to that committee.

"This is the result of a great deal of prayerful effort to address this controversial issue," said Mike Hogeterp, CCG's research and communications associate. "It reflects a CCG consensus that the CRC has a meaningful contribution to make that is true to Scripture and our confessions within the context of synod's leadership." The officers of the CRC's Board of Trustees-Canada approved CCG's brief for submission to Parliament.

The brief said that the discussion is not about the morality of homosexual behavior, but about whether citizens in same-sex relationships should have similar legal obligations and protections that are applied to married couples.

"Interdependent relationships, where people live in a long-term, intimate and committed relationship, have personal, social, cultural and religious aspects," it said. "Government becomes involved in these relationships because these relationships also involve legal rights and obligations and because vulnerable people in such relationships need to be protected as a matter of justice."

"The synod of the Christian Reformed Church has indicated that the denial of civil and social rights for homosexual persons threatens justice," the brief said.

Going a step further, the brief also asserts that vulnerability and the need for relational stability are present in both sexually intimate and non-sexual (for example, cohabitating siblings) interdependent adult relationships and that provisions for legal equality ought therefore to extend also to non-sexual relationships.

At the same time, the brief said, the institution of marriage must be preserved in its integrity and not redefined as if all sexually intimate interdependent relationships are the same.

"Government can promote justice and provide equality before the law even while it recognizes that there are fundamental differences between marriage and other relationships," the brief said. –

Both the complete brief and a summary are available on the CRC's social-justice website: www. crcjustice. org.

—Gayla R. Postma

THE BANNER APRIL 2003

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/03/2003 5:35:43 PM

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/3/2003 1:33 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:
Greg: "...and the unexceptional nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate"

Does THIS refer to Marriage. Does this refer to the sacrament? The sacrament of marriage: "24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " (Genesis 2:24) Sacraments are NOT "unexceptional" in nature.

I'm guessing he didn't mean "common" but meant "no exceptions, exclusive".

_________________________

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/3/2003 3:58 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

ICON, you posted some really interesting research about malakoi and arsenakoiti some time ago. I thought it was on this thread, but I can't find it. Would you re-post it for us here?

Iconoclast

Gladly, here ya go:

Iconoclast

Icon said: By very definition “sodomite” means someone who is behaving like the people of Sodom behaved.

John Earp

Actually, yes and no. In the original, the word Paul is using is arsenokoites: "Man who copulates with a man." The word is quite graphic, and the meaning is unmistakeable: Men who copulate with men will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

Iconoclast

The meaning is UNMISTAKABLE?!?!? Let’s look at the data:

Excerpts from the following link – bold is mine except for headings:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/arsenkoites21/

>>>>>
"... Neither the porneia [left in original Greek], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor *malakoi*[left in original Greek], nor *arsenokoitai* [left in original Greek], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I Cor. 6:9-10

"We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for male prostitutes and *arsenokoitai*, for slave traders and liars and perjurers." I Tim. 1:9-10

If you wish, I could show you a long list of scholarly quotes on the words in question. The meaning of a word is not determined by its derivation, but by its usage. The meanings of words can change dramatically over short periods of time ("gay" for example). Some contend that Paul coined the word from the Septuagint. I will discuss that later.

So the best thing to do would be to examine the uses of the word. It is found 73 times outside of Paul's letter. In almost every one of these occurrences the word appears in a vice list so it is impossible to tell what they mean. The few times it does not appear in a vice list give us a better insight.

In the Apology of Arisites 13, Fragmenta 12,9-13.5.4 "arsenokoitai" refers to the sins of the Greek Gods. In the context it referred to the time Zeus abducted and raped a boy named Ganymede.

In Apology of Aristides, written 100 years after 1Corinthians, the word appears to be used for molestation of boys by men.

Another occurrence is in an ancient legend where the Snake in the Garden of Eden becomes a satanic being named Naas. Naas uses several tactics (including sexually pleasuring both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy Adam and Eve. Naas is said to have "had Adam like a boy". Naas' sins were called arsenokoitai. This suggests arsenoskoitai refers to a male using superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another.

There is simply no justification for translating arsenoskoitai as "homosexuals". Jeramy Townsley sums it up well by saying:

"... neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably translated as "any homosexual behavior" (or more specifically, the active and passive partners in anal homosexual intercourse, as is the common ..[Interpretation].. by contemporary Christian anti-gay writers) in any other Greek literature, which makes one question why they are translated that way here."

When early, Greek-speaking homophobic Christians (John Chrysostom and Clemet of Alexandria) condemned homosexuality, they did not use arsenokoitai, even when discussing Cor 6:9 and Tim. 1:10. Arguments from silence are generally weak, but had the word meant homosexuals, Chrysostom and Clemet would of most likely condemned homosexuals when they commented on Cor. 6:9 or Tim. 1:10. But they did not.

Some scholars, such as David Wright, believe that Paul coined the word in reference to the Septuagint's translation of Leviticus 20:13, which reads:

"Kai hos an koimethe meta ARSENOS KOITEN gunaikos, bdelugma epoiesan amphoteroi; thanatousthwsan, enoichoi eisin"

But as we already saw earlier, that verse forbids the very specific practice of men lying with boy-prostitutes. This is a nice fit with 1Timothy since there "arsenokoitai" comes directly after "pornoi" which meant "male [temple]- prostitute". The next word is ?andropodistes? which means, "slave dealer" and "kidnapper". The three words could fit together and be translated as "male prostitutes, males who lie with them (arsenokoitai), and slave dealers who procure them."

In Corinthians "arsenokoitai" comes after "malakoi". Scholars do not know what Paul meant with this word. He could of meant boy-prostitutes.

So even if (big "IF" there) Paul coined the word from Leviticus, he didn't mean homosexuals.
<<<<<<<

I will sum up the arguments for why arsenokoites does NOT mean homosexual in a later post.

This article makes the key point that a word CANNOT be understood by its derivation - it must be understood by its colloquial usage. It then goes on to give some evidence for that usage. Which, by the way, is suddenly consistent with the other sins that Paul lists - all sins that exemplify the opposite of loving one another.

The next set of data will show that arsenokoites is an IDIOM used by Paul that had clear meaning at the time which is lost to us today. The meaning of the word in its original usage drifted to whatever the translator wanted it to mean at the time. And THIS is why the different translations we have today are so inconsistent with each other.

As to the “meaning being unmistakable” – the evidence strongly contradicts this statement.

On second thought - lets look first a bit at the derivation of the word itself.

More data on "arsenokoites" from the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/PaulineLists.html#How%20vulgar%20a%20word%20is%20koitai

>>>>>>>>
How vulgar a word is "koitai"?

Boswell's conclusion that arsenokoitai signifies "active male prostitutes" relies on a one sentence analysis:

quote:

The second half of the compound, koitai, is a coarse word, generally denoting base or licentious sexual activities see [Rom 13:13], and in this and other compounds corresponds to the vulgar English word f*cker, i.e., a person who, by insertion, takes the active role in intercourse.

Koitai is better understood as a euphemism for sexual activity. St. Paul uses it in the plural in [Rm 13:13] to describe wantonness or debauchery but that is the most vulgar the term ever gets. The Apostle also uses it to describe how "our father Isaac" conceived both of Rebecca's children [Rm 9:10]. Luke uses it quite neutrally to describe a bed. [Lk 11:7]. A translation for koitai with the same degree of vulgarity is something like the English word bedder.

Morphology

The first part of the word arsenokoites is simply male (not man) so an English transliteration would be male-bedder. Greek compounds, like English, can be either objective (and thus would mean "someone who beds males") or determinative ("a male who beds"). Boswell provides examples of the prefix 'arseno-' in Koine determinative compounds:

however they are of limited relevance. None relates to a male agent or activities involving a male agent. If a Greek writer wants to refer to a male agent (i.e. a male who does something), putting the verb into the masculine grammatical gender is sufficient, unless the action involved is something only women generally do.

……

Conclusion

Boswell's thesis on arsenokoites has been widely criticized for many of its details, but his broad conclusion has generally been accepted: there is no reason to retain the understanding of 'arsenokoitai' as referring to male homosexuals in general. There is significant doubt that Paul would have entertained any such concept as homosexual. No other ancient language had such a term, and the earliest Greek writers used a wide variety of periphrastic constructions to render a similar conception. It might be argued that Paul was only concerned with a particular sexual behaviour, say anal intercourse between males, frequent among male homosexuals of the time. However, there is no evidence that Paul condemned anal intercourse between men and women or between men, or that he saw physical affection between males as something to be avoided.

It is abundantly clear from the evidence of later Christian usage that the term arsenokoites changed meaning from its original use by Paul. It eventually came to refer to anything from child molesting to anal intercourse with one's wife. This semantic drift probably occurred because Paul's warnings were so successful that the phenomenon he addressed actually disappeared from prominence in Christian controlled areas of late antiquity/early medieval times. After the fall of paganism, temple prostitutes would have become a thing of the past, and male prostitutes, always probably fewer in number than female prostitutes, probably dwindled to extreme rarity. Later Christians, having forgotten the original meaning of arsenokoitai inserted a meaning they wished to see there.

Reading 'arsenokoitai' as homosexuals is an example of eisegesis. Homophobes who want to find condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are capable of reading their prejudice into any given passage, just as their predecessors were capable of finding abundant encouragement for antisemitism and racism in the Bible. Do we now read the "mark of Cain" as black skin, as many American preachers in the past did? Do we now read "May his blood be upon us and our children forever" in the Gospel of John as our marching orders to massacre Jews, as medieval European Christians did? The responsibility for orthodox exegesis is not merely scholarly, it is ethical. Everyone who cares about this issue should devote as much effort to prayer and reflection as they do page turning.

At Judgement Day we will not be held accountable for not harassing those we thought were sinners. We will be held accountable for acting fairly and responsibly towards those who depended our actions.
<<<<<<<<<<

The full article is much longer than the excerpts I posted. What this data shows is that the derivation of the word is something more akin to “a male who seeks sex with another” with a connotation of force (the vulgar overtones of koites). Why doesn’t it make more sense from the derivation to think that Paul is talking about rape?

Some more thoughts on “arsenokoitai” from the following link:

http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/word_arsenokoitai.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul's use of the words malakoi and arsenokoitai

From: hans@teleport.com (Hans-Michael Vermeersch)
Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
Date: 26 Oct 1995 23:29:11 GMT
Lines: 100
Message-ID: 46p5k7$kif@maureen.teleport.com

It is the mistaken contention of some that Paul spoke of homosexuals in two other letters. The error comes from cultural bias which has crept into the translation of his letters; specifically regarding two words (malakoi and arsenokoitai). To the church in Corinth and subsequently in a letter to Timothy he wrote:

I Cor. 6:9-10 (NIV) "... Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor MALE PROSTITUTES (malakoi) nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I Tim. 1:9-10 (NIV) "We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and PERVERTS (arsenokoitais), for slave traders and liars and perjurers."

What the NIV refers to in 1 Cor. 9 supposedly as "homosexual offenders" and later in 1 Tim. 1:10 as "perverts" is related in Paul's original letters with the single Greek word arsenokoitai(s) The translators for King James render the word as "abusers of themselves with mankind." Other modern translations construe the term as "child molesters" or even "sodomites" (ironic since we know that the Sodomites were not condemned for homosexuality). Compare the following common translations of the term arsenokoitai.

The various translations of the idiom arsenokoitai as used by Paul give evidence as to its ambiguity. Arndt and Gingrich begin their citation of the term with the reference "a male homosexual." It might be helpful to have a lexicon to explain what they understood a homosexual to be. If the rest of their entry on arsenokoites is any evidence of this, then one may infer a certain amount of cultural bias on the part of these lexographers. The citation goes on to list "pederast" (man who molests boys) and "sodomite" (meaning vague). Child molesters are a subset of both homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. A pederast is not however synonymous with a male homosexual.

The term arsenokoitai is only used twice in the original texts of the Bible; in the two passages by Paul just cited. Usages of the word by contemporaries of Paul (secular or otherwise) seem to be almost nonexistant. (Father D. Helminiak, Ph.D., a Catholic theologian writes in his book "What the Bible really Says About Homosexuality": "1 Corinthians is our earliest record of the word." Yale Professor Dr. J. Boswell writes in his award winning "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality": "Paul appears to have been the first author to use the word, and it appeared very infrequently after him.") Should Paul have intended to condemn child molesters with this word (as Arndt and Gingrich suggest and some translations reflect), a generalization of the passage to condemn all homosexuals would be disingenuous.

Where a modern translation reports Paul's contention in I Corinthians that "male prostitutes" shall not inherit the kingdom of God, the KJV speaks of "the effeminate." This poor rendering of the Greek word malakoi has been used to condemn gays for the past three centuries. The mistranslation owes in part to the already prevalent prejudice against gays present during preparation of this version of the Bible. It also illustrates a common misconception which is held by many people even today, namely the stereotype that all gay men are "effeminate" or feminine in their actions or appearance. Yet Paul was a Greek speaking Jew and a Roman citizen. In the culture in which he wrote the word malakoi, those who engaged in homosexual acts were not considered to be of questionable manhood. The Thebans even formed a legion of warriors composed entirely of gay couples. The group possessed an incredible esprit de corps and could boast of many victories.

Malakoi suffers from the same lexical complexity. The word malakos means literally "soft." There is no indication that it was used in the time of Paul as a derogatory remark leveled exclusively against gays. On the contrary, Hellenistic literature is replete with examples of heterosexuals being characterized as malakos. The label seemed to indicate some sort of general moral weakness or excess. The early church fathers invoked the word malakos against masturbation. Moreover they never used the word to imply being "effeminate" but rather list other terms for this purpose including thelubrios and androgunos whence the term "androgyny."

Did Paul intend to condemn homosexuals? It would appear that his writings leave us with no compelling evidence to decide in the affirmative. Regardless, Paul was a poor authority when it came to matters of sex. He remained single all his life and wished that all men were as he. He saw marriage as a last resort for those who couldn't control their sexual desires. Said Paul, "it is better to marry than to burn" (I Cor. 7:8-9). He thought marriage was good for younger widows to keep them from growing idle and becoming "gossips and busybodies" (I Tim. 5:13). Although Paul was a devout follower of Christ who communed intimately with the Lord, it is fair to say that he didn't fully appreciate the love which God created to be shared between two people.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Some more links on "arsenokoites":

http://www.christianlesbians.com/articles/malakoi.html

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/tim.html

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaytrans.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

http://www.yougogirl.com/gaychristians/cahill0.html

Some more excerpts:

>>>>>>>>>
The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from male-male adult sex.
<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>
The word "arsenokoitai" (sometimes translated "abusers of themselves with mankind") literally means male-bed. "Bed" is a euphemism for copulating. This word is extremely rare in Greek. Paul was apparently the first author to use this word. The word taken literally (male-copulator) is very ambiguous. Take, for example, the word "lady-killer." Does it mean "a lady who kills" or "someone who kills ladies"? In our language it means the latter, but even then it is not clear because we do not mean that someone literally kills ladies but that their charm "kills" them. So taking the word "arsenokoitai" or "male-copulator," does it mean "a male who copulates men"; does it mean "a man who copulates with women"; does it mean "a man who is copulated?"
<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>
The first appearance of the word arsenokoitai in any ancient Greek literature is found in I Corinthians 6:9. While it might have been a word common in Paul's time, it can't be found anywhere else in material dated prior to or current with Paul that has already been discovered. It only begins to make its appearance in literature following Paul. An important tool in discovering the meaning of a word is to trace how it's been used previously but because arsenokoitai is invisible prior to I Corinthians this means of defining the word is missing. The times arsenokoitai is used following Paul seem dependent on Paul's usage of the word. In the Latin Vulgate that follows Paul some 500 years later, Jerome translates it as a male concubine although nothing in the word specifies whether the concubine was involved with a same-sex or opposite-sex individual. What we do know is at the time Paul was writing there were terms common for persons involved in homoeroticism and Paul chose to not use those words but to instead use a word that remains mysterious to us. What this means is that Greek scholars and theologians (among which you and I don't count ourselves) come to arsenokoitai with no previous context for understanding it's meaning and so the best that anyone, whether pro-gay or anti-gay can reason is a guess. In the early work the "New Testament and Homosexuality" Robin Scroggs comes to an understanding of arsenokoitai by looking at the two separate words it combines; arseno (men) and koitai (bed). From this Scroggs concluded that the literal meaning of arsenokoitai was "male bed" which he understood as descriptive of the active male (penetrator) in same-sex intercourse. The problem with this method of interpretation can be seen with examples in English like "lady-killer", "manhole" or "butterfly." You don't arrive at the true meaning of the word "butterfly" by defining the words "butter" and "fly" anymore than it's possible to define the accurate meaning of arsenokoitai by combining "male" and "bed."
<<<<<<<

I really like this one:

>>>>>>>>
Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.
<<<<<<<<

Case closed. Seems unnecessary to provide a summary argument except to say that the meaning of "arsenokoites" is ANYTHING but unmistakable. To say that it is and to give it some hard and fast meaning is to either read into it your own predetermined belief system or to accept someone else's.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/4/2003 1:08 AM (GMT -6)

Greg: "...and the unexceptional nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate"

PoW: Does THIS refer to Marriage. Does this refer to the sacrament? The sacrament of marriage: "24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " (Genesis 2:24) Sacraments are NOT "unexceptional" in nature.

Laika: I'm guessing he didn't mean "common" but meant "no exceptions, exclusive".

PoW: So, Laika, Greg's statement reads that: "many have felt forced to reconsider . . . the unexceptional nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate, at least in a fallen world.

Or, as you say he means: "many have felt forced to reconsider . . . the EXCLUSIVE nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate.

Marriage is a SACRAMENT, a means of grace, an eschatological reality. To say that homosexual union is equal to marriage is to VASTLY lower the status of marriage. But...

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

GOD put the sacrament of marriage together. It is not a mere human creation. It is not to be individualized! It is a means of worship. It is not to be replaced by man-made idols.

548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual