Thursday, July 10, 2008
A gay
man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
I think he has a case. When fundamentalists talk about the Bible as "God's Word" they are not being entirely truthful. The Bible was written by many men and from the very beginning the authors and church fathers fought like cats and dogs over what should be orthodoxy. The American Bible you now read reflects the winners of ancient political battles, not God's word. Today's Bibles are also incomplete and distorted as a result of various linguistic translations over the centuries.
When someone says they believe "The Holy Bible, my first reaction is, "which one"? There are so many versions of the Bible at outlet malls - and they are all heavily edited by modern man - and cultural prejudices are clearly reflected in the text. Instead of man being in the image of God, we have God in the image of man and his pet bigotries. Of course, the praying public is often not formed of these earthy revisions and take the new, hackneyed versions as "The Gospel."
If these two publishers edited on God's behalf and did not inform readers - thus causing harm for the man suing - the plaintiff should win. It is time that Bible companies let readers know the difference between "God's Word" and the editor's red pen. This would be the only moral and fair thing to do, now wouldn't it?
47 Comments:
THere are indeed many versions of this book of contradictions and illusions. The Vatican possess ancient manuscripts that were rejected for inclusion in the christian version because they were at odds with male supremacy, such as the role of women in society, married clergy and an inclusiveness of gay people. To this day, the Vatican refuses to make these manuscripts known to the public because it would bring its very foundation into disrepute. If it has nothing to hide, why isn't allowing the world's leading biblical scholars to examine them?
posted by , at
7/10/2008 12:11 PM
Except for the fact that the pursuant litigant should be suing his family for not becoming educated. Or he should be suing the pastors and preachers for not speaking clearly. Doubt this will be judged in his favor.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 12:13 PM
Robert,
I would like to know how you have word of these hidden manuscripts and what the origin is. I am very interested. I, without doubt, believe the Vatican has many documents in its' possession that it does not make public or available to others.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 12:14 PM
This will not pan out and he does not have a case. If he did, Jews would be able to sue for the hundreds of statements made against us by Jesus and Paul in the Bible. We cannot. It is freedom of expression for the Bible to say what it does, and censoring it sets a bad precedent. Just like "Mein Kampf" should be allowed to be sold in book stores.
posted by Emily K, at
7/10/2008 12:17 PM
He probably knows he doesnt have a prayer (no pun intended), but at least he's making a point. BTW, the men who wrote the Bible had no concept that 'a homosexual' was something that someone IS. To them, it was just a type of behavior and the condemnations were associated with pederasty, idolatry and pagan promiscuity. These are the findings of the very eminent and scholarly Jesus Seminar. But of course if someone still wants an excuse for hate and discrimination, they'll fine one.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 1:01 PM
Anon at 101
The Jesus seminar did not include all perspectives though it was an important seminar. I doubt, since the beginning of christianity, we will ever have consensus on the bible, the definition of sin, behavior vs. trait, etc...
posted by , at
7/10/2008 1:25 PM
I wonder is the Prostitutes of America have formed a coalition to sue the publishers as well for the discrimination they endure each day from misinformed christian groups?
posted by , at
7/10/2008 1:32 PM
Wayne is truly loosing, or may have already lost, his mind. It's St. Paul's point in Romans 1 about homosexuals being given over to a debased mind in action really.
I do wonder what constitutional right of this man is being violated. I understand that this particular member of the Lavender Brigade doesn't like the fact that a book billions consider to be of supernatural, divine origin condemns his behavior and lifestyle - characterizing it as sinful and an abomination in the eyes of our Creator God. But I would love to hear the argument, which neither the article nor Wayne's post ever addresses, as to how his hurt feelings are a violation of a "constitutional right."
Wayne's account of how the Scriptures came into being and the nature of modern, English translations is probably one of the most laughable items he's ever written. Are you serious Wayne? In order to keep the next post brief, which one of your ludicrous statements and/or half-truths from this post shall I deal with first?
posted by , at
7/10/2008 1:36 PM
Theo:
Theo:
My statement is based on historical fact. Are you suggesting that the church fathers were always in agreement? Are you suggesting that all translations of the Bible were flawless? Was there no turmoil in the early church?
I strongly suggest you educate yourself and read "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Charles Freeman.
As for Paul, he was likely a closeted homosexual with several hang-ups on all sexuality. Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows that this was a very conflicted man. In essence, he stole much of Christianity from Jesus. Today, it is more often Paulianity - with his issues firmly rooted in today's Bible. I don't think Jesus would approve.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/10/2008 1:47 PM
eo-- I generally try to stay away from these arguments. People who have already decided that gay is bad will find every justification in their religion to confirm it. however, you wrote....
...understand that this particular member of the Lavender Brigade doesn't like the fact that a book billions consider to be of supernatural, divine origin condemns his behavior and lifestyle...
2 billion people think this book is of divine origin. Well, not really. My guess is about 1/2 recognize it for what it is. and don't believe your statement.
And then,4 billion don't consider the book to be anything than a collecitonof someone else's fables. If you are looking for a vote on the subject of its divine origin, you just lost.
Finally, wayne's point about translation and meaning is revealed in your coment, however inadvertantly. "Condemns behavior and lifestyle." Nowhere will you find the word anywhere in the Bible. That is YOU translating YOUR beliefs about what the book says.
BUt in fact, no one really knows what paul may have meant, though it is translated in an anti-gay way, because the crucial words appear NOWHERE ELSE in contemporary documents.
Romans itself does not mean what you think it means. It says clearly that G turned bad people into homosexuals (contrary to their nature, which would be unpleasant for anyone), NOT the other way around. It is not a condemnation.
Finally, if you are going to cite your Bible, JC was quite clear about judging others--far more clear than Paul was when he was busy judging others for G knows what.
I know you have managed to convince yourself that you are not judiging anyone, you are just reporting. You should perhaps go back to the story of the woman caught in adultery, re-read it several times, and then try to ocnvince yourself that you are not judging anyone.
JC was quite clear on this subject. Do not look for the splinter...etc
posted by , at
7/10/2008 2:27 PM
Just noticed that a christian (in action and truth) should not condemn nor judge anyone. However, a gay person who does not believe in Christ reminds christians of this all the time and then they judge christians. Gays of such persuassion will always win on this point.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 3:03 PM
Theo,
Wayne is correct. There was much turmoil in the early church as to what writings should or should not be allowed in the Bible. That is historical fact. The New Testament was not formed until four centuries after the death/resurrection of Christ. It was the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox Church) that decided which books to add to the Bible and what books should not be included. Many Eastern Orthodox churches have other books considered canon inside their Bibles which the Catholic, as well as the Protestant Bibles, do not have. Why is that so? And if you read the Bible, some books mentioned other writings (books) which are not in the current Bible. So it does make one wonder why these books did not make it in the final cut.
If you want to discuss Romans 1 you need to read Romans 2. In fact, chapter and verses (as we know it today) were never part of the Bible originally as it was written until centuries later. Another fact. Both Romans1 and 2 chapters were to be read as one. Once you read both chapters (together) you will then get a clearer understanding of what Paul was talking about. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. But rather those that did not acknowledge God and his creation. He let them worship false God's and in turn let them worship their own flesh (pagan rituals). Secondly, Paul in Roman's 2 plainly states that no one has the right to judge another. You are just as guilty of sin as the next person. Paul set up the story in Romans 1 in order to point out that one should not judge another.Which the early Christians did as they do now.
May God be with you!
posted by , at
7/10/2008 3:15 PM
Theo, if we and our "lifestyle" bother you so much, why the hell are you even here?! I'm sure there are plenty of faux-christian websites where you and yours can support each others sanctimonious superiority complexes and justify your exclusionary bigotry. You remind me of those pathetic mental midgets who hold up stupid religious hate-signs at Gay Pride parades. WE IGNORE YOU and go on with the party. The writing on the wall is quite apparent--YOU'VE LOST THE CULTURE WAR! So shut the fuck up and get out of here.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 4:06 PM
What's your point Wayne? Of course one's view of the Bible and its formation is intrinsically tied to their view of the Church and the history of the Church. The Bible obviously didn't drop from the sky, nor was it discovered in a bundle all at once. There were definite phases in the development of what is today Sacred Scripture.
Stage One: The central core of what we today refer to as the New Testament - the biographies of Jesus' life and teachings, death, and resurrection, and St. Paul's major letters - rose to prominence in the First Century. These books were known and referred to as "Scripture" and held authority in the lives of the earliest Christians. However, they were not yet, at this time, referenced as the "canon."
Stage Two: In the Second and Third Centuries the Acts of the Apostles and the universal letters (already known of and circulated) rose to the level of the Gospels and the major Pauline letters. All of these books and letters - biographies, St. Paul's major and minor letters, and the universal letters - were now all collectively referred to as "Scripture" alongside the Hebrew Tanakh (i.e., the "Old Testament"). Yet again, as in the above stage, there was not yet something referred to as an authoritative "canon."
Stage Three: In the Fourth and Fifth centuries a clear sense of the "canon" emerged and the twenty-seven books that now comprise the New Testament were in that canon.
Now, of course in Stage Three there was some dispute over which books should comprise the finalized canon and there was some openness to other books that today are not regarded as "Scripture" and are not included in the "canon," and for very good logical and historical reasons.
But again Wayne, what's your point? Does dispute in Stage Three mean that neither side could have been right or had a superior argument?
As for "The Closing of the Western Mind," already read it. What's your point? I could make book recommendations all day long too. Does Freeman make a particular point you like that I can respond to?
As for St. Paul's view of homosexuality, one only has to look at his writings and ask a simple exegetical question, "What relevance does Romans 1: 27 - 28, 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 have to homosexuality?"
Let's start with Romans:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
There's plenty of farcical exegesis floating around which claims that this verse is not addressed to everyday homosexual behavior but to temple prostitution, and non-homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex against their own nature. The latter point, though perhaps an "out" for some exegetes begs the question of reading modern understandings into an ancient text. However, taken within the historical and social context, there is simply no way that one can read this as a slam against only "temple" acts which permits a "non-religious" homosexuality. In fact, such a position puts the politically correct cart in front of the exegetical horse.
St. Paul here draws upon a conventional polemic against the Gentile world and its idolatry. The Jews regarded homosexuality for whatever reason as a sin - period. It was regarded as shameful because it blurred the all-important distinction of gender roles. This leads to a conclusion that cannot be got around.
Because St. Paul drew on this conventional polemic, there is no way that this can be an "against temple sex only" position, because according to Jewish thought, this sort of homosexual behavior was a symptom of Gentile idolatry. It is because they were idolaters that they engaged in the sinful homosexual act, which was sinful completely apart from religious considerations.
That's the simple fact of the matter, and while one could theoretically get around this with a proposition of homosexuality being inborn, practically speaking there is no getting around the clear message of Paul - via his Jewish forebears - that the homosexual act as a choice is manifestly a sinful one.
And concerning Romans and homosexuality, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4mJZ6y_SZI
Now for Corinthians (and Timothy):
"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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God?"
There's a lot of conspiracy-mongering claiming that understanding "effeminate" in terms of homosexuality is misleading and that the word means "soft" or "vulnerable" and probably refers to those who are unreliable or lacking in courage. That's certainly not supported by other uses of the same word (Greek, "malakos"), which means "young male prostitute." The word is used of men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually. There are numerous examples from Greek literature of the word used this way. In Paul's time, the common preference for a "passive" homosexual partner was one that was effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was for a masculine partner).
The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also found in 1 Timothy 1:10 (Greek, "arsenokoitai"). Critics try to make some issue of this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word, for Paul's use of it seems to be the first ever use of it. The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul hardly needed to invent a word for male-female sex.
Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18: 22 and 20: 13, which used the words "arsenos koitin" and "arsenos ou koimethese." Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of homosexual relations in Leviticus. It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship recognized by classical Greek writers.
The truth stands - the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. It goes against the created order of God. God created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality is singled out in scripture and has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: Homosexuals are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their rebelliousness.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 4:38 PM
Even being easily angered is considered a sin. And I am sure there is a genetic/ environmental cause of such. I'm just saying that if you are gay and believe that being gay is genetic, then some christians will continue to hold their position with the new developments in genetic science pointing to all sorts of biological origins for anger, alcoholism, drug abuse, coveting your neighbors property, adultery etc...
The bible, to the best of my knowledge does not criticise the origin of sin rather that it occurs and for those who believe in the words of scripture or the God of Abraham or whatever you call it ... that certain conduct - irregardless of the origin is not the way to live.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 5:05 PM
This is truly the most ridiculous and absurd lawsuit that I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of absurdity. This case should be dismissed immediately, and it will be. The plaintiff must have a mental problem.
To the religious nut cases on this board who assert that the Bible "condemns homosexuality," please also note that it also advocates slavery, child beating, child killing, the burning of witches and a host of other things that make those who insist upon its inerrancy a bunch of laughable human beings. The vast majority of educated people do not take scripture literally.
One day, the few six or seven verses which purport to "condemn" homosexuality will be as embarrassing to the literalist as those which support slavery. Sadly, the misuse of scripture is still fodder for the homophobic bigot, for that alleged heterosexual guy who has that telling, bizarre urge to seek out and condemn gays and lesbians, who, in their religious ignorance, choose to ignore Galatians 5:14 when it says, "The WHOLE law is summarized in a single statement...'You must love your neighbor as yourself.'"
The Bible was passed down by word-of-mouth and by copying for 1,500 years, until immovable type was invented (the Gutenberg press). Copyists/scribes reproduced, by hand, the manuscripts according to their own biases and beliefs. Entire books were thrown out for political reasons. For example, "The Gospel of Mary" was rejected merely because God just couldn't operate through a woman, they surmised. So much for divine revelation.
The copyists added their own comments and erased ones that they didn't like. Bringing the many versions into harmony was a task that is still ongoing to this very day. Those who take the Bible literally are profoundly ignorant of history and of the Bible that they claim to so adore In fact, it really isn't the Bible that they hunger for; it is the exercise of their own inner darkness and bigotry that provides them with a temporary balm for their own feelings of powerlessness and lack of personal worth. Those who choose to use it to condemn gays and lesbians should truly hang their head in shame.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 5:18 PM
Unfortunately, Chris, loving your neighbor is being defined differently by different people. Seems the crowd cannot even agree on what that means and how that should be carried out.
But I am sure everyone knows of the command.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 5:42 PM
The truth stands - the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. It goes against the created order of God. God created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality is singled out in scripture and has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: Homosexuals are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their rebelliousness.
Theo, God has worked in my life yet I am still gay. In fact he called me many decades ago and talked to me personally in the same manner you and I would talk in person. Yep! Amen! At one time I believed there was a God but had no real faith. I lusted badly after other boys (I was 15 then) and did have sex with them repeatedly. There was no restraint in my life. I had such great hate within my heart so vile that I wished some of my peers were killed because they picked on me. I even played around with black magic. In doing so, I saw a demon.
So the question remains. Why is God still working in my life even tho he gave me over as you say? That absolutely makes no sense. That fact remains, as many other gay Christians will proclaim, we are still gay.
The main problem with Evangelical/Fundamentalist thinking from what I read and experienced by others is this. Many honestly believe God is no longer speaking in our time. That God himself gave everything needed for a person's salvation in a neatly put together book (Bible) 1,600 years ago. And history has shown time and time again (Galileo for example) that those that have used the Bible to try and trump the truth revealed in science is nothing new. And that mindset still goes on today!
Science has proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not visa versa. The Church rejected Galileo's findings based solely on Scripture and I might add the traditional belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The Church has always been afraid of science. Why is that? Is it because people such as yourself, Theo, are afraid that perhaps something maybe proven by science that may contradict the Bible which in turn may make you re-think your positions on other matters of faith? That your faith is so weak that it cannot be challenged unless you believe that Scripture MUST supercede everything else revealed around us by God? Now whose hearts are hardened! God has not confined himself to the Bible! He is still speaking to us!! We must listen to that voice!
There are many things they did not understand 2,000 years ago that have, through the course of history, been revealed to us and we as believers must be willing to hear him speak. You cannot do that when you shut yourself off to the idea that God is still speaking and rely everything solely on Scripture. Christians that do so are the ones that have hardened their hearts. They have simply left reason at their church doorsteps before they enter the church. They do not want anyone challenging their beliefs. The religious leaders of 2,000 years ago hated the fact that Jesus questioned their beliefs and how they arrived at them. Which is understandable given that we do not like the fact that we are being challenged to come out from within our comfort zones.
I believe wholeheartedly that God is still speaking. I just wish more people would be willing to listen to him speak.
God Bless you Theo. And listen for the Lord's voice in your life.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 5:57 PM
Ok. I usually don't get into these arguments either, but since Theo thinks he's so smart, I simply have to address him. He's certainly done some reading on these passages--but, as is common for anti-gay Christians, cherry-picked the scholarly sources that reinforced his own prejudice and ignored evidence that might cause problems for his anti-gay agenda.
On Romans 1:
"St. Paul here draws upon a conventional polemic against the Gentile world and its idolatry. The Jews regarded homosexuality for whatever reason as a sin - period. It was regarded as shameful because it blurred the all-important distinction of gender roles. This leads to a conclusion that cannot be got around."
Very, very true. But if you're going to place Paul in his Hellenistic Jewish context, you have to accept ALL Jewish conventional beliefs about homosexuality and sexual behavior and not just take one aspect. As anyone who is honest with the material will tell you, first century Jewish beliefs about homosexuality had little to do with our modern concept of homosexuality. Jewish writers that we know of did not regard homosexuality "for whatever reason" to be a sin. Read Philo. Read Josephus. Read 4 Maccabees.
For these Jewish writers, men having sex with men is the result of a luxurious lifestyle of decadence, not an orientation. Is this what you believe about gays and lesbians? Really--gay men and lesbians have just had too much luxury in their lives so they start to experiment with sex with the same gender? No, you won't get away with saying, "Regardless of the reasons..." The reasons and rationales are critical for people who wish to be ethical individuals--unless you want to be some automaton.
On malakos:
"There are numerous examples from Greek literature of the word used this way. In Paul's time, the common preference for a "passive" homosexual partner was one that was effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was for a masculine partner)."
BZZZZZT. Wrong! malakos described a state of moral looseness and decadence that could RESULT IN someone taking a "passive" position in sexual acts (and this "passive" position had its own word). malakos described a variety of people of loose morals and lack of firmness--including, interestingly enough, men who had sex with a lot of women. And there are many, many ancient manuscripts to support this. While you may not have a problem with moral weakness being associated with women (1 Tim 2:11-15 --yes, I know Paul did not write it), I do. But then again, I live in 2008 while you are enamored with the sexual and gender morality of a first century pseudo-Stoic moralist like St. Paul.
On arsenokoites:
"Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18: 22 and 20: 13, which used the words "arsenos koitin" and "arsenos ou koimethese."
This is a typical fundamentalist rhetorical strategy. Dogmatically say something is "clearly" so or "obviously" so and that's your defense! If someone challenges you, just speculate on the person's motives because they couldn't possibly have other reasons to oppose your interpretation which is so "clear" and "obvious".
arsenokoites MAY derive from the LXX of Lev. 18:22; 20:13, but it also may NOT because the word often appears in contexts that have to do with sins like stealing, robbing, kidnapping and contexts that seemingly have nothing to do with sex. This has caused a number of people to very plausibly propose that the term relates to "exploitative" sex of some kind (rape, sex in the context of kidnapping/menstealing, etc).
This is just as reasonable of an explanation as yours, and what interpretation you decide to take will depend on your own biases. Go ahead, scream, "It clearly says...!" all you want.
The Bible does not excuse you from being an ethical person with a brain in the 21st century. Just because Hellenistic Jews in imperial Rome believed one thing about the origins of (male) same-sex acts, does not give you license to simply accept that worldview uncritically. I know lots of people bring up the issue of slavery, but that's because it's such a compelling example. It shows just how evil it is to simply parrot and adhere to biblical texts with no critical reflection on the values they represent.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 6:05 PM
Ken,
What a dramatic change for you!! I am glad you tell your story.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 6:06 PM
"That's the simple fact of the matter, and while one could theoretically get around this with a proposition of homosexuality being inborn, practically speaking there is no getting around the clear message of Paul - via his Jewish forebears - that the homosexual act as a choice is manifestly a sinful one."
Regardless of what is or isn't said about "the homosexual act," there's nothing "manifestly sinful" about it, it's just an arbitrary pronunciation. Just because Paul or "God" says so, doesn't change the fact that it's still arbitrary. And If that's your standard for sin, then you don't have one.
If you can't tell the difference between innocuous behavior and malicious behavior, then you're amoral, not moral. Claiming that God also makes no distinction just means that you worship an amoral god. And that's a choice on your part, and that's manifestly immoral.
--
(PS Well said Brian.)
posted by Unknown, at
7/10/2008 6:43 PM
Chris L., we agree on something! Violation of his constitutional rights? My goodness gracious! Glad to see that someone here has the guts to say this guy is wrong. Wayne certainly doesn't.
Now then, a few questions though. Where precisely does the Bible "advocate" slavery? And what was the nature of ancient slavery that's discussed and regulated in the Bible compared to the nature of antebellum slavery? Are they analogous?
And I don't ignore Galatians 5:14, but loving your neighbor includes not stealing from him, not committing adultery with his wife, and not engaging in sinful homosexual conduct with him, etc.
You wrote:
"Copyists/scribes reproduced, by hand, the manuscripts according to their own biases and beliefs" and "The copyists added their own comments and erased ones that they didn't like."
What textual and material evidence do you have for these claims? And are you serious about the "Gospel of Mary"? Your level of complete ignorance in history and theology on that claim is almost astounding!
posted by , at
7/10/2008 7:50 PM
Actually, the "Jewish Forebears" did not see female homosexuality as sinful. Just to make that clear.
Also, the bible makes no mention of a "lifestyle." My gay lifestyle means I go dancing or go on bike rides with a bunch of gay Jews once a month. Without hooking up with one another. Yeah, we dont' "cruise." Many of us go to different Shuls together, however. But I don't think that counts. I'm definitely not promiscuous. Neither are any of my current gay friends and family members.
So what "lifestyle" is exactly condemned in the bible? The act of anal sex? Because that's the closest thing I could find, and hets do that as much as homos, if not more.
If a gay is not promiscuous, and doesn't engage in anal sex, then what's left to condemn?
posted by Emily K, at
7/10/2008 7:54 PM
adam, I recommend a book called "Misquoting Jesus" written by a former hard-core fundamentalist christian and biblical scholar. THEN you'll see the proof.
posted by Emily K, at
7/10/2008 7:55 PM
Theo-- you can go on and on about exigesis as you will, but the point is
1) It is not as clear as you claim it is. The only thing that is clear is that the meaning is not clear, and is in dispute. The sources i have read all indicate that there are NO contemporary documents which use the terms that paul uses.
2) No adultery is quite clear. No homosexuality is not clear at all. No juging is clear.
3) It's not my goddamned book. And turth be told, since you probably ignore 1/2 of what's in there, it's not your godammned book either. but it is convenient to cite it to bolster your prejudice.
4) rahter than address the points i made to you, you went off on a little exegetical trip. It's a lot easier than answering the hard quesitons, I know. and certainly easier than obeying Jesus's command to judge not, look not, cast not.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 7:59 PM
Innocuous and malicious behavior are not what separates sinful behavior by some peoples biblical standards and understanding. For example, in proverbs it advises against becoming a drunkard not because it is malicious but because it distracts a person from reason, work, and interaction with others in a productive manner.
Pro 20:1 Wine makes men foolish, and strong drink makes men come to blows; and whoever comes into error through these is not wise.
Pro 23:7 For as the thoughts of his heart are, so is he: Take food and drink, he says to you; but his heart is not with you.
Pro 23:21 For those who take delight in drink and feasting will come to be in need; and through love of sleep a man will be poorly clothed.
So while a person may agree or disagree with the sinfulness of homosexuality - the line of sinfulness is not defined along being malicious or not.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 8:08 PM
Adam said...
"And I don't ignore Galatians 5:14, but loving your neighbor includes not stealing from him, not committing adultery with his wife, and not engaging in sinful homosexual conduct with him, etc."
So you're saying that if the Bible condoned stealing and adultery that you would too?
posted by Unknown, at
7/10/2008 8:16 PM
"So while a person may agree or disagree with the sinfulness of homosexuality - the line of sinfulness is not defined along being malicious or not."
I agree. I was just trying to be succinct.
posted by Unknown, at
7/10/2008 8:32 PM
Ken, your post was more than a little over the top and contained some inaccuracies. I find it particularly ironic, and possibly even a bit unfair, that Christians of all traditions are today condemned for Pope Urban VIII's belief in the geocentric system formulated by the PAGAN Greek astrologer, Ptolemy, while the heliocentric system that provides the basis for this condemnation is named for Nicolaus Copernicus, the Roman Catholic cleric who formulated the modern heliocentric theory in "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres." Copernicus's masterwork, which is considered to be a defining moment in the history of science, was published in 1543, a scant 89 years before Galileo's supposed overturning of geocentric Christian dogma.
Furthermore, if one considers the fact that the Roman Catholic Church reconsidered the issue and authorized the publication of Galileo's works in 1741, it seems a bit obsessive to continue to hold the pope's abuse of his office against Southern Baptists, Methodists, etc., 375 years after the fact.
Furthermore Ken, you completely mischaracterize the situation - probably due to reading only secondary sources, and probably modern textbooks at that. Galileo was not attacked because he defended the Copernican theory that had been published 80 years before, but because he was foolish enough to both disobey AND publicly caricature his former SUPPORTER, Pope Urban VIII, in a book that had been granted both papal permission and doctrinal authorization.
Now, as to Brian's post, would you be willing sir to go verse by verse through Roman 1 and see who remains truer to the text?
As for the Greek word "arsenokoites," Strong's defines the term as "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual." The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines "arsenokoites" as "an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male." Greek scholars W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich translate "arsenokoites" as "male homosexual."
In addition, Greek scholars point out that St. Paul coined over 100 terms in the New Testament, and one of them was this Greek term "arsenokoitai." People like you Brian who continue to insist that the Bible doesn't classify homosexuality as a sin are actually doing me a favor by demonstrating their ignorance of the Greek language and the Apostle Paul's clear utilization of the Greek Septuagint on this issue and many others. You make the same mistakes that so-called "pro-gay" authors Mollenkott, Scanzoni, Boswell, and Scroggs have made by NOT EVEN addressing the Greek Septuagint background of the Apostle Paul's coining of the "arsenokoitai." It's not that they, and you, could have missed it had you done some basic research - St. Paul used the Septuagint all the time. They, and you, ignore it because it destroys theirs, and your, case and theory.
Here's how the Septuagint reads in (a) Leviticus 18:22 and (b) Leviticus 20:13:
(a) "meta ARSENOS ou koimethese KOITEN gyniakos."
(b) "hos an koimethe meta ARSENOS KOITEN gynaikos."
When the Apostle Paul coined the term "arsenokoite," he took it directly from the Levitical passages of the Septuagint which strictly forbade homosexual behavior. The term refers specifically to homosexual behavior.
As for claims that the term applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the terms demonstrates this claim it erroneous. "Arsene" appears a few times in the New Testament and it ALWAYS refers to "male." "Koite" appears twice in the New Testament, means "bed," and it's used in a sexual connotation.
The two words, when combined and as Paul used them, put "male" and "bed" together in a sexual sense. There is not even a hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make "arsenokoite." The claim is completely bankrupt, which is why homosexuals simply change the subject when the facts are walked through step by step.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 10:40 PM
That's wonderful Theo, you've just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible **SAYS** that homosexuality is sinful. Yay! Woo Whoo! Happy Happy Joy Joy! You Win! But you’ve just glazed past the most important point (which has been made at least twice now BTW) as to what the nature of sin is.
Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that morality is arbitrary, and that you, by choice, worship an amoral god.
What you're suggesting is that if the Bible condoned lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc., that you would then condone those things as well. Which is a position that I find to be despicably immoral.
posted by Unknown, at
7/10/2008 11:35 PM
"Now, as to Brian's post, would you be willing sir to go verse by verse through Roman 1 and see who remains truer to the text?"
Not really. The way you're framing the question shows you're going to set up the rules so the gays can't win. You can't talk about one passage without engaging theories of interpretation and hermeneutics. Anti-gay Christians will hold gays to every jot, tittle and breathing mark in Romans 1, but do not in the same way hold onto every word with other embarrassing passages (e.g. the ones about women ). All of a sudden they're willing to read in hidden "contexts" and insert extrabiblical interpretations that go way beyond what the text actually says. I'm done playing a rigged game.
Anyway, I'm more interested in showing how sexual ethics can reflect justice, love, mercy, etc than being "truer" to sexual ethics formed in repressive, class-stratified, slaveholding, misogynistic society.
"...doing me a favor by demonstrating their ignorance of the Greek language and the Apostle Paul's clear utilization of the Greek Septuagint on this issue and many others."
Yes, keep huffing that it's "clearly" this or that. No, it's not "clear" that Paul coined the term. He used two common words for men and beds (euphemistically: sexual activity). It may have had nothing to do with the LXX. Paul used LXX elsewhere so this is "clearly" from the LXX? Not a good argument when the words are fairly common (outside the NT) and when there are other uses that call your interpretation into question.
Then again, it may have to do with LXX. Heck, I'm even inclined to say he "probably" meant male-male same sex relations--as his contemporaries like Philo and Josephus understood them. Of course, I read Paul in his first century, Hellenistic Jewish context. And, as I noted, that opens a whole other can of worms.
I'll admit Greek is not my primary biblical language (Hebrew is), nor is the NT my primary area of study. But I have studied Greek, have engaged the Septuagint, and understand how language works quite well.
I also know that when you take the parts of a word and try to make a meaning out of them, it doesn't always work (this should be obvious but to dogmatists you often have to explain this to them). For example, you would think that "menstealers" (1 Tim 1:10--right next to arsenokoites, btw) means kidnapping, but it doesn't. It refers to someone who illegitimately acquires a slave (by stealing them or by making a legally free person a slave). Where is the reference to slavery explicit in the word? It isn't there! But, lo and behold, a word can mean something other than its constituent parts!
I'm sure you can think of several examples in English where the component parts of a word tell us little about the meaning.
It's very possible that Paul DIDN'T coin the term. That's an assumption--and a very educated proposal, but it's not as if there isn't evidence that the way you're understanding it is wrong. arsenokoites is certainly used by a lot of Greek (Christian) writers in ways that seem to depart from the understanding of the term as "male-male sex" in all contexts. It appears in contexts that have NOTHING to do with sex. This should have no bearing on how we understand the word? Because of a philologically dubious method of using components of a word to define it?
In an era when we know that Christians have really screwed up in interpretations of the Bible, when there's good evidence that a term may not mean what you think, I say give the traditionally excluded people the benefit of the doubt. I mean, my goodness, how many more people have to suffer because of conservative Christians? The sins of the past should call for some humility from evangelicals who insist that the Bible "clearly" excludes people.
posted by , at
7/11/2008 12:10 AM
Anonymous, regarding the Vatican's posession of manuscripts that were withheld from the bible, evidence of this was provided in a program aired by the History Channel last year. Some leading biblical scholars apparently had asked for access to them but were sternly prohibited from doing so. The Vatican offered no reason for refusing them access. We can draw our own conclusions from that.
posted by , at
7/11/2008 7:38 AM
Theo-- my point originally was that the so-called condemnation of homosexuality is just your interpetation. the degree which you have to twist and turn to prove your point actually proves mine.
the septuagint translation of leivitcal passages clearly shows blahblahblahblah-- translations piled on opinions piled on biases. not anywhere near as clear as 'no adultery'.
Leviticus, according to conservative rabbis, prohibits anal sex. (And the literal translations of the appropriate passages are agin open to highly biased interpreetation). To then say that this condemns homosexuality and 'the gay lifestyle' is just your translation of your biases. It leaves out gay owmen and men who don't have anal sex.
Even if it was much more clearly stated, a book that consistently contradicts itself, or states that the value of pi is 3 is just not a divine authority.
And since it is not my book, it is no authority to me at all.
posted by , at
7/11/2008 11:14 AM
Adam, you have to do your own research. You don't seem to understand that if you have a viewpoint, it's your responsibility to proactively give it. If you have evidence that anything that I say is untrue, say so directly and say why. But people here generally won't take hours of their time answering your laundry list of questions.
That's generally a good debate tactic, but this is a blog. If reality were a philosophy classroom, I'm sure you'd be a millionaire by now. Being "book smart" is very different from having a good sense of the real world. One can be obtained in the classroom and the other comes from raw experience.
As for Wayne, he is more than both willing and able to admit when a fellow gay person is wrong, as am I, and he is also able to admit when he himself is wrong. So he and I disagree on this man's lawsuit. We are both strong enough men to weather such a crisis, I assure you.
Why do you react with such hostility when someone disagrees with you? Is it because you become frustrated that not everyone is willing to validate your map of the world?
posted by , at
7/11/2008 12:58 PM
Thanks Robert.
Yeah, I am highly suspicious of the Catholic church and all of its secrecy and what not.
posted by , at
7/11/2008 1:21 PM
I don't know Crhis, I've seen a lot of the gays here reacting in a very hostile manner towards others who disagree with them. The road goes both ways. Reacting in a hostile manner is observed among right wingers, christians, muslims, gays, etc.... everyone has done it. Hmmmm. I think I've even read some of your comments where you have done the exact same thing.
posted by , at
7/12/2008 12:06 PM
珍藏記憶的盒裡，有你最初的開始
感覺你在最深層的 黑
眼開的 黑 是色彩
髮起的智慧似 黑
嘿! 我愛你添了這一筆!
=================================
Love By 金華堂手工精製胎毛筆
地址：台北市大安區潮州街11號
TEL：886-2-23579747~8
服務網址：http://www.jinbaby.com.tw
嬰兒胎毛筆王國
http://baby.jinbaby.com.tw
胎毛筆，肚臍章，髮畫
金華堂席開百桌布，嬰兒禮品，髮畫部落，肚臍章部落，胎毛筆部落
=================================
=================================
Collecting it in the box of memory, there is your first beginning
Feel you are the deepest Black
The eyes opening It is the color to be black
The intelligence initiated is like Black
Hey! I love you for adding this!
=================================
Hall craft refined foetus writing brush of Love By jinbaby
Address: Street No. Dr.eye: 11 of Chaozhou of Da'an area of Taibei
TEL：886-2-23579747~8
Service website：http://www.jinbaby.com.tw
Baby's foetus writing brush kingdom
http://baby.jinbaby.com.tw
Foetus writing brush，belly button chapter，send pictures
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
3/27/2009 1:23 PM
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10181505&postID=6797483678697541287
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
3/29/2009 2:00 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
4/01/2009 7:54 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
1/10/2010 8:27 PM
微風情趣,
按摩棒..
AV女優..
情趣知識..
微風情趣Motel...
交友聊天室..
情趣,
情趣微風
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
情趣,
av女優,
情趣,
情趣,
遙控跳蛋,
按摩棒,
充氣娃娃,
AV女優,
posted by 微風情趣廣場, at
3/27/2010 11:36 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
6/25/2010 9:25 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/11/2011 12:39 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/06/2013 12:57 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/25/2014 1:26 AM
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at
4/03/2015 5:03 AM
posted by 福爾摩思多益雅思補習班(02) 2365-3288, at
5/25/2015 8:52 AM
<< Home
