|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Allythea Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. .... That's nice? I went to a user named ty_ping, who knows more about this than I do. Here's her reply.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:05 pm
ty_ping You asked for it. *dives in* Quote: The terms malakoi (lit., “soft men,” but taken in the sense of men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners) [ Literally Malakoi just means "Soft" or "Soft to the touch" considering it's biblical word use (Twice in Matt once in Luke used metaphorically to refer to men with "Soft morals" and only once in Corinthians not to refer to not a male who practices lewdness but to any person in general who are addicted to sin's of the flesh.) to break down the word to such a single use as this is ridiculous and wrong. -Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thayers Lexicon, Strongs lexicon. Quote: and arsenokoitai (literally, “men who lie with [koite] a male [arsen]”) Actually literally it would be translated to arsen (man) koite (sex) Now Dale B. Martin takes this apart and says that we can't always judge a word by it's compound parts, taking understand for an example which does not mean to stand under. However English does have words that the compound parts of do come together to make a whole. Airport (A place for airplanes to rest or things of the air to rest) Chairman (Chair the originating word does refer to someone or something that is the head of an establishment, not a tool to sit on) However the argument against these is that their modern use differs from their original use which probably differs from their origin use so trying to decipher a word based on it's compound parts is difficult and can go either way since we don't know for certain the historical connections behind it. However with historical speculation (who were the Corinthians? Romanesqe era ideology and morality) It's hard to get a blanket condiment out of it due to it's lack of mention to women and how koite can refer to adulterious sex as well. And in Roman times it was not uncommon to take a slave boy to bed if you were bored with your wife. However it was also not uncommon for a slave to wish for that to higer their position in the slave hierarchy (After all if you're the slave master likes to sleep with the other slaves will think twice before using you for themselves or beating you which would explain why the word connected itself to Malakoi if we were to take that for men who wanted to be on the bottom it could be refering to slaves who seduce their already married masters) Quote: in 1 Cor 6:9 are clearly inclusive of all homosexual bonds, as is evident from the following. With regard to malakoi note: (a) its place in a vice list amidst other participants in illicit sexual intercourse, (b) its pairing with the immediately following arsenokoitai, (c) Philo of Alexandria’s (a first-century Jew’s) use of cognate words to refer to the effeminate male partner in a homosexual bond, and (d) occasional Greco-Roman usage of malakoi (and the comparable Latin molles) to denote effeminate adult males who are biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men. However considering the above Malakoi can refer to ANYONE with loose sexual morals, heterosexual and homosexual alike. In a sense it can be a blanket word for "Slut" or "Sex crazed" as well. So even it's word place in the vice list may not be connecting itself to arsenokoitai but attached to Moichos (translated to adulterer but more or less means one who is "Faithless towards God" ((Thayers)) which is attached to Eidololtres (Idolaters) THESE three words together make sense, "The Idolaters or the Faithless in God or those with loose morals" (Eidololtres oute moichos oute malakos) Quote: With regard to arsenokoitai note: (a) clear connections of this word to the absolute Levitical prohibitions of man-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13), Which even that makes more sense with my above translation that this is all referring to Idolatry as Levedicus is referring to temple prostitution. Va'th zakar lo thi shakab mishkaby inshah, toeb'eh hava Of the verse, the two bolded words are the ones I will address in this response. First there is zakar, which goes beyond simply "man" (enoch), but is a complex term meaning closer "one worthy of distinction/honor/note." It is a masculine term, as you well know, but does not apply to all men, only those of esteem in a culture/society at large. Next there is toeb'eh, which is abhorrently translated as "abomination." Its usage elsewhere suggests quite clearly a closer tie with this word to ritual uncleanliness (which while being an abhorrent practice to G-d, is NOT a connotatively intrinsically disgraceful act due to the act itself). When translating into the Greek, the authors chose the word bdeglyma, which is closer to the latter, not the former's meaning. Grave sins in Hebrew were termed Zimmah, something the author did not apply to Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. Zakar which is not a commonly used word for man. It's a complex word since it can mean a male, or to remember (in a sacred sense to record to make a memorial of) Zakar could refer to only the first born son of a family (Since he is the one who will continue the family line) or a man of distinction (A preist either of the Jewish religion or another religion) The definition of it says "Zakar A Male as being he through whom the memorial of his parents is continued" (It gives a few exceptions of this rule but thats the basic choice of the word) Basically Zakar, if being used to denote "All men" is a really strange word choice. And is usually used to refer to someone or some men of distinction (It is used to refer to Adam the *First* man, occasionally it is used when for men who are circumcized ((Or will be circumcized because they will become men of distinction an example here is Gen 17:23 it says "Every Male (Zakar) among Men (enowsh)" Enowish is a more common word for man or mankind as is the word 'iysh and adam ('iysh being the MOST commonly used word for anything male)) Iyish is used almost 100 times in referance to men in Levidicus alone, Zakar is used 18 times in levidicus It is used to refer to a perfect male animal to be used in sacrifice, To the temple priests, to first born sons, and to men who are... Sactifying their possesions? I'm not quite sure whats going on in Levidicus 27 where Zakar is used the most. (3, 5, 6 and 7 the word MAN is Zakar every other one is Iyish) Adam and Enowsh are not used. Finally, looking at the scriptural and cultural context of the verse, a strange thing is noted. Whlie the beginning of chapter 18 certainly deals with sexual sins (incest, prostitution, etc.), a change occurs in verse 21, preceding the verse in question. It references the Mesopotamian fire god, Molech, and denounces those who sacrifice children, or quite literally give their seed to this god. This is not your run-of-the-mill sex sin...but a quite specific subset of idolatry related sex sins. This vice list is enhanced by the verse following 22, relating to women's sexual concurrance with beasts (beastiality was common mainly in fertility cults). Thus, all the pieces are in place for verses 21-23 to be a new vice list completely...as vice lists in Hebrew are very carefully constructed and do not break/meander without cause. So given it addresses ritual uncleanliness with men of note/worth, it seems far more likely that the verse in question deals with a much more specific condemnation than homosexuality as a general construct. Best option? Gender transcendence in terms of Mesopotamian fertility cults, particularly the cult of Innana/Ishtar...and later on Isis in Roman times. I'd suggest reading Will Roscoe's Priests of the Goddess, as it is quite the informative article about the practice of gender transcendence in this time and how it might relate to the passage at hand. Briefly- a priest would dress up in feminine garbs, and take the guise of the goddess to whom he was devoted. Local farmers would be well aware of these priests, as they and they alone seemed to have the power to bless the crops through intercession with the goddess (like Innana/Ishtar, since she has direct access to the Wheat God). Being the intercessor, the priest would demand sexual services in exchange for the goddess' blessing on the crop. This would be idolatry to G-d, as it placed another being before Him and detracted from worshipping Him...in short, a ritually unclean practice not to be done, with a person of esteem in the culture...fitting the bill of the Hebrew in verse 22. Plus, Jewish Law is very specific, looking into the chapter you can see how within the other sexual laws it outline that male AND female are not to partake in certain acts. Except this one which only seems to pertain to men, why would God make a law against homosexuals, but only have the law apply to men? And how could a Christian use this as blanket condement when it does not at any point refer to women? While Tradidtional Judaism will argue that the commands for Jews not to "Do as they did in Egypt" applies to Homosexual women as women were permitted to marry one another there are many, MANY things they did in egypt, some of which the Jewish people continued to do anyway. This command is overtly vauge and could be refering to anything or simply reinforcing the specifications of the law, serving as a reminder of the uncleanslyness God was saving the Jewish people from. To connect such a compleatly vauge referance to another vauge referance and say "This means homosexual sex" is quite illogical. and final finally, the Jewish Torah is permitted to be modernized with new interpretations which means there are those that agree and disagree in either case these laws No Longer Apply to christians and it all falls under the Law of Agape and Christian Liberty, which I will get into more later. Quote: evident from the fact that the word, exclusively used in Jewish and Christian contexts until late in antiquity, was formulated directly from the Levitical prohibitions, that ancient rabbis used a parallel Hebrew term, mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), to apply to all men-male sexual bonds, and that 1 Tim 1:10 explicitly connects opposition to this vice (among other vices) to the law of Moses; (b) early Judaism’s univocal interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions against men-male intercourse as allowing only sexual relations between a man and a woman (e.g., Josephus, Philo, the rabbis); (c) the singular use of arsenokoites and related words subsequent to Paul in connection with male-male intercourse per se, without limitation to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes; (d) the implications of the context of 1 Corinthians 5-7, given the parallel case of adult, consensual incest in ch. 5, the assumption of consent in the vice list in 6:9-10, the citation of Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16 (see also 11:7-9, 12), and the presumption everywhere in ch. 7 that sex is confined to male-female marriage; and (e) the fact that the Greco-Roman milieu considered it worse for a man to have sex with another adult male than with a boy because the former had left behind his “softness.” But at the same time they are all terribly unspecific. A long time ago I muddled through some hebrew and made up the perfect condiment. Hell even the Qur'an has a perfect condiment in it against homosexual sex and specific examples against it and yet in the Jewish and Christian religion it's all vague. If we were to put equal value on the supposed condiments of homosexuality as we did on all the condiments of heterosexuality we could see heterosexuality being equally condemned and yet no one thinks that way and things like promiscuity, adultery and divorce do not result in the same kind of backlash as even suspected homosexuality does. More on this later as well... Quote: The best of the scholarly proponents of homosexual practice recognize the point made above. Note that I do not cite such support for my own sake. I have researched the matter of Scripture and homosexual practice in its historical and hermeneutical context as much or more than the scholars below have. Rather I cite these scholars for the sake of those who can’t hear truth from the writings of someone who does not endorse homosexual practice but may hear it from those who do endorse such behavior. Huh? Quote: For example, Louis Compton in the massive Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003) has written: According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114) Exactly, hence even his inability to refer it to modern homosexuality or homosexual demands and want's of today. The whole monogamy for homosexuals is actually relatively new, which is why there are Homosexuals who don't want there to be same sax marriage, because they see it as part of heir culture to not be like straight people and that homosexuality isn't about monogamy. (And perhaps that monogamy is some kind of sexual punishment because sex is bad if you have to do it do it with only one person.) Even with this in mind now stating that Paul is giving a condenmnt of ALL homosexuality is in a sense impossible since homosexuality as it is today has changed. Quote: Similarly, Bernadette Brooten, who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relation to early Christianity (especially Rom 1:26), at least from a pro-homosex perspective, criticized both John Boswell and Robin Scroggs for their use of an exploitation argument: Boswell . . . argued that . . . “The early Christian church does not appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se.” The sources on female homoeroticism that I present in this book run absolutely counter to [this conclusion]. (p. 11) If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty. (Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996], 253 n. 106, 257, 361) She also criticized the use of an orientation argument: Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God. (p. 244) Para Pushin disagrees with this Quote: Yadda Yadda alot of restating the same and quoting people that agree with the essay writer. However realize that Homosexuality is also a very MINOR theme in the new testament and to Paul, and after each vice list he goes into how the people are forgiven and not to judge one another and to love one another. Jesus too makes no mention of these vices. To say what is or isnot sin for a Christian is not their place to say. Under the Law of Agape as well as the comand of Jesus not to point out the flaws of others when you are not perfect (Be not like the Pharasis and the whole dust speck and log thing) it is never the place of a Christian to look for or judge the errors in other people. Many will complain that by not standing against something you stand for it, however you do not have to take a position to stand. You do not stand for their decision, for it is not your decision to approve. You do not stand against their decision for it is not your decision to dis-aprove. To judge them is to judge some aspect of God's creation imperfect and to then judge God. To hate what they are or what they do or anything about them is to hate a flaw in the hevenly creator for you cannot look upon a man and say "Brother I love you but I hate your existance" How can you love someone yet hate their actions? How can there ever be love when they have been marred by that hate? Love is not approval, love is not permission, love is not saying "do this or do that" Love simply IS. And to pesonally or even with any justification say something is right or wrong in your or even God's view is to make a Judgement call on God. This is a very tough decision to make, because it not only compels a Christian not to judge wheather something like lieing, stealing or yes, even homosexuality is right or wrong, but simply love them. Paul outlines what love is in 1 Cor 13, speaking that love and works out of love are greater then hope and faith. Faith, so even one's faith in the Bible, or faith in what they believe must fall short, become the second man to love, and as I stated above, if you love, HOW can you judge? Considering this and the general attitude towards homosexuality condemning it or making it more sinful or making it wrong for those outside of the faith or making it out to be any worse then pre-marital sex, divorce or adultery (IF it is a sin) is worse. Causing people to turn away from God or even worse Trowing them out and driving them away from God is an even greater sin (I'd argue interpreting scripture to be exclusive instead of inclusive becomes blasphemy against the holy spirit because you are driving people away from God using Gods word, and thus is the unforgivable sin)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:07 pm
And, here's Elf Lord Chiewn's reply to the same. Elf Lord Chiewn Sorry, Ty. I'm neither Ananel nor P_P, and I do not consider this worthy of a more in-depth rebuttal in any case. Still taking a whack though. =P Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The terms malakoi (lit., “soft men,” but taken in the sense of men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners) and arsenokoitai (literally, “men who lie with [koite] a male [arsen]”) in 1 Cor 6:9 are clearly inclusive of all homosexual bonds, as is evident from the following. This almost works. However, as has been thoroughly discussed, compound or invented words do not necessarily reflect the sum of their parts. Feminism, for example, denotes a theory of sexual equality (while initially taken to refer to femininity, its meaning shifted over a relatively short period of time). In fact, the term "feminine" derives from a description of suckling. If I were to look back in two thousand years and attempt to figure out what this lost word "feminism" may have meant, I might equate it to breastfeeding, women in general, or lesbianism. I would also be incorrect. One demerit for Dr. Gagnon's assumptions, and another for attempting to pass them off as "clearly" correct. This is also clearly a refutation of suppositions like that of pederasty as the intended meaning of the passage, which puts it on precarious ground. This sounds more like bifurcation (with a championing of one camp based on unwarranted inferences) than anything exegetical. One more demerit for the false dichotomy. That's three total. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori With regard to malakoi note: (a) its place in a vice list amidst other participants in illicit sexual intercourse, Which is not conclusive. Not only was Paul inconsistent, he was less than specific (and less than scriptural, for that matter) in this instance. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori (b) its pairing with the immediately following arsenokoitai, Circular, unless this term is established. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori (c) Philo of Alexandria’s (a first-century Jew’s) use of cognate words to refer to the effeminate male partner in a homosexual bond, Philo's language was a peculiar blend which may not have stacked up with all other instances other term. Regardless, this could also be used to refer to pederasty. Jewish Encyclopedia (dot com) Philo, of Jewish descent, was by birth a Hellene, a member of one of those colonies, organized after the conquests of Alexander the Great, that were dominated by Greek language and culture. The vernacular of these colonies, Hellenistic Greek proper, was everywhere corrupted by idiotisms and solecisms, and in specifically Jewish circles by Hebraisms and Semitisms, numerous examples of which are found in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. The educated classes, however, had created for themselves from the classics, in the so-called κοινὴ διάλεκτος, a purer medium of expression. In the same way Philo formed his language by means of extensive reading of the classics. Scholars at an early date pointed out resemblances to Plato (Suidas, s.v.; Jerome, "De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis," Catalogue, s.v.). But there are also expressions and phrases taken from Aristotle, as well as from Attic orators and historians, and poetic phrases and allusions to the poets. Philo's works offer an anthology of Greek phraseology of the most different periods; and his language, in consequence, lacks simplicity and purity (see Treitel, "De Philonis Judæi Sermone," Breslau, 1870; Jessen, De Elocutione Philonis Alexandrini," 1889). Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori and (d) occasional Greco-Roman usage of malakoi (and the comparable Latin molles) to denote effeminate adult males who are biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men. This I am not familiar with. However, if this is post-Pauline usage, it may have been influenced by assumptive readings of Paul. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori With regard to arsenokoitai note: (a) clear connections of this word to the absolute Levitical prohibitions of man-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13), evident from the fact that the word, exclusively used in Jewish and Christian contexts until late in antiquity, was formulated directly from the Levitical prohibitions, that ancient rabbis used a parallel Hebrew term, mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), to apply to all men-male sexual bonds, According to Scroggs, perhaps. But Scroggs is not the end-all, be-all, and neither is Levitical Law. Four demerits. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori and that 1 Tim 1:10 explicitly connects opposition to this vice (among other vices) to the law of Moses; Which appears to fuel Paul's words in this case to begin with. He certainly isn't arguing from Yeshua. Funny that a celibate Jew is referencing the Old Law as "sound doctrine." Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori (b) early Judaism’s univocal interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions against men-male intercourse as allowing only sexual relations between a man and a woman (e.g., Josephus, Philo, the rabbis); Appeal to tradition. Better yet, appeal to early Jewish tradition. This is dangerously close to cherry-picking. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori (c) the singular use of arsenokoites and related words subsequent to Paul in connection with male-male intercourse per se, without limitation to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes; that may be reasonably assumed. We do not know what these words meant. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori (d) the implications of the context of 1 Corinthians 5-7, given the parallel case of adult, consensual incest in ch. 5, the assumption of consent in the vice list in 6:9-10, 1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. There are three lists. Very interesting. Something tells me Yeshua might have objected to some of these (do not keep company/eat with certain people, and so on. Paul may also have strictly meant not to associate with non-Christians (so the church would not be assimilated). Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori the citation of Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16 Specifically regarding prostitution. 1 Cor 11 is (for lack of a better term) completely ******** not sure how this is any kind of a worthy position to argue from. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori and the presumption everywhere in ch. 7 that sex is confined to male-female marriage; Argument from ignorance. Appeal to tradition Pauline presumption. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori and (e) the fact that the Greco-Roman milieu considered it worse for a man to have sex with another adult male than with a boy because the former had left behind his “softness.” This is laughable, particularly as evidence against pederasty as the subject of Paul's disdain. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The best of the scholarly proponents of homosexual practice recognize the point made above. Then do not count me among them. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Note that I do not cite such support for my own sake. I have researched the matter of Scripture and homosexual practice in its historical and hermeneutical context as much or more than the scholars below have. Rather I cite these scholars for the sake of those who can’t hear truth from the writings of someone who does not endorse homosexual practice but may hear it from those who do endorse such behavior. For example, Louis Compton in the massive Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003) has written: According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Historically speaking, it would likely not have occurred to Paul that such relationships could or would exist. Regardless, this feels like a strawman to me. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. Which means nothing. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114) Yup, definitely a straw man. "Mutual devotion" does not appear to factor into this argument at all. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Similarly, Bernadette Brooten, who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relation to early Christianity (especially Rom 1:26), at least from a pro-homosex perspective, criticized both John Boswell and Robin Scroggs Funny that one of Scroggs's assertions was cited earlier as necessarily true. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori for their use of an exploitation argument: Boswell . . . argued that . . . “The early Christian church does not appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se.” The sources on female homoeroticism that I present in this book run absolutely counter to [this conclusion]. (p. 11) Which is effectively irrelevant. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty. (Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996], 253 n. 106, 257, 361) Romans 1:27 is a problem mainly on account of its utter ambiguity. The remark about Levitical Law is untrue. And I am forced to question the validity of this source when used in this context. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori She also criticized the use of an orientation argument: Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God. (p. 244) Good for her. I don't really care, because she's spouting bullshit at this point. "Exchanged" here refers to what God forced them to do, not what they did of their own volition. In fact, from this, it sounds as though God altered their sexuality just to piss them off. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori On the issue of homosexual orientation, incidentally, which many today still falsely claim to be radically new knowledge, note the following quotation from Thomas K. Hubbard: Homosexuality in this era [viz., of the early imperial age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook, 386) Brain. Hurt. Does not compute. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori William Schoedel in a significant article on “Same-Sex Eros: Paul and the Greco-Roman Tradition” states that “some support” exists in Philo, Abraham 135 for thinking that Paul might be speaking in Rom 1:26-27 “only of same-sex acts performed by those who are by nature heterosexual.” But he then dismisses the suggestion: But such a phenomenon does not excuse some other form of same-sex eros in the mind of a person like Philo. Moreover, we would expect Paul to make that form of the argument more explicit if he intended it. . . . Paul’s wholesale attack on Greco-Roman culture makes better sense if, like Josephus and Philo, he lumps all forms of same-sex eros together as a mark of Gentile decadence. (Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, pp. 67-68 ) Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Schoedel also acknowledges that a “conception of a psychological disorder socially engendered or reinforced and genetically transmitted may be presupposed” for Philo (p. 56 [emphasis added]; see also my short review and critique of Schoedel in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 392-94). If so, that would imply a natural bias. It might be presupposed that God and Yeshua do not share such a bias. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Martti Nissinen, who has written the best book on the Bible and homosexuality from a pro-homosex perspective and whose work I heavily critique in The Bible and Homosexual Practice (precisely because it is the best on the other side), I suppose this isn't the time to insist on an explanation as to why. *scribbles notes for future reading* Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori acknowledges in one of his more candid moments: Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would not have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior. (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World [Fortress, 1998], 109-12) Anyone else notice that this isn't speaking in definites? It's also addressing the passage in a very peculiar fashion. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Dan O. Via also acknowledges in his response to my essay in Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress, 2003) that the Bible’s rule against homosexual practice is “an absolute prohibition” that condemns homosexual practice “unconditionally” and “absolute[ly]” (pp. 93-95). In his essay in Two Views he rightly notes: The Pauline texts . . . do not support this limitation of male homosexuality to pederasty. Moreover, some Greek sources suggest that—at least in principle—a relationship should not be begun until the boy is almost grown and should be lifelong. . . . I believe that Hays is correct in holding that arsenokoites [in 1 Cor 6:9] refers to a man who engages in same-sex intercourse. . . . True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does. . . . First Cor[inthians] 6:9-10 simply classifies homosexuality as a moral sin that finally keeps one out of the kingdom of God. (pp. 11, 13) Via's personal belief is not my concern, and is shitty evidence. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Even Walter Wink, in his generally mean-spirited review of my book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had to admit Loaded language much? This REEKS of apologetics. And I mean that in the worst possible sense. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori : Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme [of homosexual practice]. This section is filled with exegetical insights. I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it. . . . Gagnon imagines a request from the Corinthians to Paul for advice, based on 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 [on how to respond to a man in a loving and committed union with another man]. “. . . . When you mentioned that arsenokoitai would be excluded from the coming kingdom of God, you were not including somebody like this man, were you?” . . . No, Paul wouldn’t accept that relationship for a minute. (“To Hell with Gays?” Christian Century 119:13 [June 5-12, 2002]: 32-33; at Great. Let's all take The Screwtape Letters as an authority on the bible, which we should also take as a comprehensive work representing one perspective. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori In short, the notion that Paul—or, for that matter, any other author of Scripture or Jesus himself—would have been favorably disposed to same-sex intercourse in the context of a committed union shows a great misunderstanding of the texts of Scripture in their historical context. Problem here. For one, I don't care what Paul thought about it much. For another, I don't know what causes the assumption that he would have necessarily condemned any such thing based on Christianity and not Judaism. And finally, I find the insinuation that Yeshua would have denounced gay sex in any context to be insulting, both as a reader and as someone concerned with what may be touted as exegetical or scholarly work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:17 pm
"The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome."
Well, this quote is entirely true and I don't have as much time on my hands as you do to continue. My resolve remains the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:34 am
Allythea "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome." Well, this quote is entirely true and I don't have as much time on my hands as you do to continue. My resolve remains the same. That sentence wasn't even IN the replies. Either refute or concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:51 pm
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Allythea "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome." Well, this quote is entirely true and I don't have as much time on my hands as you do to continue. My resolve remains the same. That sentence wasn't even IN the replies. Either refute or concede. No, it was in the first post and you forgot the other choice: to disagree. I disagree with you on this subject. No need to continue going in circles. Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:00 am
Allythea Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Allythea "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome." Well, this quote is entirely true and I don't have as much time on my hands as you do to continue. My resolve remains the same. That sentence wasn't even IN the replies. Either refute or concede. No, it was in the first post and you forgot the other choice: to disagree. I disagree with you on this subject. No need to continue going in circles. Thanks for your time. That isn't actually an option in debating. You either back up your opinion, or you aknowledge that the other person is right. You can't go running around in circles with your fingers in your ears saying "LALALALA I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:05 pm
Or just chill and you realize you are in a christian Guild and that you can remain in your own beliefs and no one has to be conformed to either side. Yea this is a place to debate but friendly and jsut to get different views on different beliefs and openly share yours. However no one has to admit defeat or that they are worng. We are all subject to our own beliefs and no one is forced to change their beliefs because somone thinks they are wrong. Thank you and have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
account banning service12
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:42 pm
being gay is a sin it shouln't be in the church, but that doesn't mean we hate gays. God tells us to love everyone, but if you're sining and you know it but you dont repent you don't belong in the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:54 pm
Walking_In_Refuge Or just chill and you realize you are in a christian Guild and that you can remain in your own beliefs and no one has to be conformed to either side. Yea this is a place to debate but friendly and jsut to get different views on different beliefs and openly share yours. However no one has to admit defeat or that they are worng. We are all subject to our own beliefs and no one is forced to change their beliefs because somone thinks they are wrong. Thank you and have a nice day. I'm a Christian and I'm *technically in this guild, and I think that the rules of debate do apply, if we're being honest. If she can't refute it, she's conceding...by default. Sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming that God is on your side is a tactic worthy of the US Government, not honest Christian people having a discussion. If she's not to up to the challenge, she should say so, admit she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it properly (none of us are seminarians, are we? Going to be doesn't count) and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:31 pm
I listen to debates all the time and most of them end in an agreement to disagree. I think it's very respectful and civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:57 pm
LadyBugLes Walking_In_Refuge Or just chill and you realize you are in a christian Guild and that you can remain in your own beliefs and no one has to be conformed to either side. Yea this is a place to debate but friendly and jsut to get different views on different beliefs and openly share yours. However no one has to admit defeat or that they are worng. We are all subject to our own beliefs and no one is forced to change their beliefs because somone thinks they are wrong. Thank you and have a nice day. I'm a Christian and I'm *technically in this guild, and I think that the rules of debate do apply, if we're being honest. If she can't refute it, she's conceding...by default. Sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming that God is on your side is a tactic worthy of the US Government, not honest Christian people having a discussion. If she's not to up to the challenge, she should say so, admit she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it properly (none of us are seminarians, are we? Going to be doesn't count) and be done with it. Never once said you weren't a christian or a part of this guild now did I? My point however was neither of yall are going to move on your beliefs, so it's stupid going around and around just to start an argument. A debate isn't an agrument to start off with. And when in a Christian it's not going to end the same as it owuld outside one. Hell, half the time the attitude in them aren't the same. And it shouldn't be, not in a Christian guild. Agree or disagree with that statement, I don't care. My point was to stop a possible agruement from beginning, and I did my job so I'm done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:14 pm
Walking_In_Refuge LadyBugLes Walking_In_Refuge Or just chill and you realize you are in a christian Guild and that you can remain in your own beliefs and no one has to be conformed to either side. Yea this is a place to debate but friendly and jsut to get different views on different beliefs and openly share yours. However no one has to admit defeat or that they are worng. We are all subject to our own beliefs and no one is forced to change their beliefs because somone thinks they are wrong. Thank you and have a nice day. I'm a Christian and I'm *technically in this guild, and I think that the rules of debate do apply, if we're being honest. If she can't refute it, she's conceding...by default. Sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming that God is on your side is a tactic worthy of the US Government, not honest Christian people having a discussion. If she's not to up to the challenge, she should say so, admit she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it properly (none of us are seminarians, are we? Going to be doesn't count) and be done with it. Never once said you weren't a christian or a part of this guild now did I? My point however was neither of yall are going to move on your beliefs, so it's stupid going around and around just to start an argument. A debate isn't an agrument to start off with. And when in a Christian it's not going to end the same as it owuld outside one. Hell, half the time the attitude in them aren't the same. And it shouldn't be, not in a Christian guild. Agree or disagree with that statement, I don't care. My point was to stop a possible agruement from beginning, and I did my job so I'm done. Sara, I only said "technically" because I never post in here, and every time i ever did I felt so unwelcome it wasn't even funny... and the rules of debate apply in a forum titled "debates".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:39 pm
Allythea I listen to debates all the time and most of them end in an agreement to disagree. I think it's very respectful and civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:57 pm
Ugh, who cares. She gave up the debate weeks ago, if anyone else is intelligent enough to reply to the last points I raised they can feel free and I'll refute those too. Won't be that hard. To any serious debaters wandering in here, it's obvious she conceded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
