Rebuked

Originally posted by whodey
So tell me, why did Christ come to earth? Was it not to free of us sin? Was it not to convict us of sin so that we would desire to repent of our sin? Of course, if we cannot even agree that sin exists, we might as well throw out the reason he came at all. What good to us is he if the whole notion of sin is of no importance?

Agree with your general gist but some of you christians seem to come off as negative and close-minded (to other religons). Like you focus too much on sin. Yes we sin,lets move on from there or we'll never stop sinning-as all actions(sins)start with thoughts.

Originally posted by duecer
again...the word homosexual is a fairly modern incarnation. what we are talking about is behavior. The bible only talks about behavior, not about orientation. Male sexual relations would have been described as paiderasste instead of Malakoi. Paiderasste was the common market word that best described a "homosexual" or what we view as homosexual today. At any r ...[text shortened]... th their orientation, then isn't it completely natural from their perspective?

again...the word homosexual is a fairly modern incarnation. what we are talking about is behavior. The bible only talks about behavior, not about orientation.

I am not disagreeing with you that 'homosexual' is a relatively new concept. And I appreciate that many words will have a certain semantic content that will not correspond to any word in another language. This is quite natural and often translators must overcome this with a proliferation of footnotes. I don't see how that is irrelevant to this discussion and I don't understand why you have made the distinction between homosexual behaviour and orientation.

Male sexual relations would have been described as paiderasste instead of Malakoi. Paiderasste was the common market word that best described a "homosexual" or what we view as homosexual today. At any rate malakoi does not describe sexual behavior.

Again. I am skeptical. You are not a native Koine Greek speaker and I have to question on what authority you make these linguistic claims. Just looking at 'paiderasste' I can see that this must originally have meant sex involving a child (although I think adulescent makes more sense.) You have to support these claims with dictionaries.

really? I think the wording there is fairly clear, try reading it again. (hint)changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. He is clearly talking about false idols here.

Yes. But there is no explicit mention of paganism or idolatry. You are certainly right that it can be inferred from context. It is hypocricy however that you do not allow the inference that St. Paul is talking about homosexuality when he explicitly says men who burn with desire for another. Isn't that precisely the homosexual condition?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Agree with your general gist but some of you christians seem to come off as negative and close-minded (to other religons). Like you focus too much on sin. Yes we sin,lets move on from there or we'll never stop sinning-as all actions(sins)start with thoughts.

But sin is what ails us. So if Christians are right and Christ is the key to conquering sin, then why would we focus on anything else?

Originally posted by Conrau K

I don't understand why you have made the distinction between homosexual behaviour and orientation.

culturally there were many behaviors covered under the umbrella of homosexual. There were those who kept young boys as sexual slaves, there were temple prostitutes, there was the practice of anally raping conquered enemies to humiliate them, amongst other things. I think understanding the difference between orientation and behavior that would be unacceptable in almost any society is relevant.


Again. I am skeptical. You are not a native Koine Greek speaker and I have to question on what authority you make these linguistic claims. Just looking at 'paiderasste' I can see that this must originally have meant sex involving a child (although I think adulescent makes more sense.) You have to support these claims with dictionaries.

nor are you a native Koine speaker, you question the translation yet you have offered no other common word that would fit the meaning of what we know to be gay today. There are those that offer this as the closest approximation, accept it or reject as you will, but that doesn't change the fact that malakoi doesn't mean gay.

It is hypocricy however that you do not allow the inference that St. Paul is talking about homosexuality when he explicitly says men who burn with desire for another. Isn't that precisely the homosexual condition?

men and women who burn for each other are in sin also, so that isn't an apt comparison I think. hypocritical? I don't think so; the wording is not ambiguos in the greek, only the various interpretations. Many of the interpretations say homosexual, not having a word that means that in the greek yet still including it in the translation is not only intellectually dishonest but its biased.

Originally posted by duecer
Originally posted by Conrau K

[b] I don't understand why you have made the distinction between homosexual behaviour and orientation.

culturally there were many behaviors covered under the umbrella of homosexual. There were those who kept young boys as sexual slaves, there were temple prostitutes, there was the practice of anally raping conquered en ...[text shortened]... ill including it in the translation is not only intellectually dishonest but its biased.[/b]

culturally there were many behaviors covered under the umbrella of homosexual. There were those who kept young boys as sexual slaves, there were temple prostitutes, there was the practice of anally raping conquered enemies to humiliate them, amongst other things. I think understanding the difference between orientation and behavior that would be unacceptable in almost any society is relevant.

And exactly how is that relevant? What is being discussed here is the morality of homosexual activity, whether it takes place in a brothel or a monogamous relationship. It does not seem that St. Paul cares to recognise any difference. He only discusses those men who burn for a passion for one another.


nor are you a native Koine speaker, you question the translation yet you have offered no other common word that would fit the meaning of what we know to be gay today. There are those that offer this as the closest approximation, accept it or reject as you will, but that doesn't change the fact that malakoi doesn't mean gay.

You are right. I am not a native Koine Greek speaker -- which is why I am not the one saying "this means that and I don't have to provide any links or scholarly references to justify that claim". You are acting childishly, like humpty-dumpty saying 'The words means what I says it means'. From what I know of Classical Greek, I highly doubt that 'paiderasste' means 'homosexuality'. The stem 'paid' means child. Consequently, you need to justify these claims -- your claim 'that doesn't change the fact that malakoi doesn't mean gay' is frankly unconvincing.

Then there is also the problem that you have denied that the Greek culture even had the idea of homosexuality. Yet you quite freely say that such and such word equates to homosexual or gay.

men and women who burn for each other are in sin also, so that isn't an apt comparison I think. hypocritical?

The point is irrelevant. Sure, lust is wrong. But St. Paul is drawing attention specifically to those men who burn with desire for one another. In short, he is describing the homosexual condition.

Originally posted by whodey
But sin is what ails us. So if Christians are right and Christ is the key to conquering sin, then why would we focus on anything else?

My metaphysical system requires me to have all switches turned to the "on" position.That means trying to look at everything positively rather than focussing on negative stuff.This means as regards to 'sin' I acknowledge it and move on .I dont keep focussing on it all day long..
Now please note strongly, this is only my view and I , in no way, am I saying my view is better than yours. In fact, I conceed, it could be worse. 🙂

Originally posted by souverein
I agree that the Greek hardly thought in terms of sexual orientation. They made distinction between active and passive, between love (or friendship) and lust. Sexual behaviour was dependent on the place someone had in society, and also on age.
Therefore there is not a Greek word that covers the meaning of our word homosexual as we use it. Pederastoi didn' ...[text shortened]... at trouble otherwise. So, do we call all sex that is not intended for offspring not natural?

finally someone who understands...rec'd

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
culturally there were many behaviors covered under the umbrella of homosexual. There were those who kept young boys as sexual slaves, there were temple prostitutes, there was the practice of anally raping conquered enemies to humiliate them, amongst other things. I think understanding the difference between orientation and behavior that would be unacce ...[text shortened]... h desire for one another. In short, he is describing the homosexual condition.

you need to read souverein's post on the subject, he seems to have succintly said what I have been clumsily saying.

I've heard your objections, and they are strawman arguments, and where they are not, they are arguments based on a predetermined point of view. There is a difference between the reprehensable behavior that Paul wrote of, and loving relationships between 2 consenting adults. There is no known greek word for that; malakoi doesn't fit, and the KJV version comes fairly close in terms of usage. The other word Paul uses is arsenokoitai; many scholars are crediting him with the invention of a new word. It has been found only in a few documents over the last 2000 years, the usages do not clearly point to homosexuality as we understand it, in fact they are uncertain of its actual meaning

Originally posted by karoly aczel
My metaphysical system requires me to have all switches turned to the "on" position.That means trying to look at everything positively rather than focussing on negative stuff.This means as regards to 'sin' I acknowledge it and move on .I dont keep focussing on it all day long..
Now please note strongly, this is only my view and I , in no way, am I saying my view is better than yours. In fact, I conceed, it could be worse. 🙂

I know just what you are saying. That is why some well meaning Christians approach sin in a spirit of condemnation, however, CHrist did not condemn. He convicted them while showing mercy and love. If he were to ignore it, however, he would have done them no favors.

Of course, if you think that Christ was "negative" then I don't know what to tell ya.

Originally posted by duecer
you need to read souverein's post on the subject, he seems to have succintly said what I have been clumsily saying.

I've heard your objections, and they are strawman arguments, and where they are not, they are arguments based on a predetermined point of view. There is a difference between the reprehensable behavior that Paul wrote of, and loving relations point to homosexuality as we understand it, in fact they are uncertain of its actual meaning

Paul wrote of "...2 consenting adults"? Where? Paul wrote of hushand and wife.

Someone in favour of sex with kids can also claim that Christ never spoke of pedophilia and its only a term invented recently.

Someone in favour of sex with animals can similarly argue. In fact drunkeness, murder, covetousness, obesity (gluttony) are all condemned in the Bible but someone with an axe to grind can find ways to justify just about any sin... which is all you are trying to do here .. justify a sin.

Originally posted by duecer
you need to read souverein's post on the subject, he seems to have succintly said what I have been clumsily saying.

I've heard your objections, and they are strawman arguments, and where they are not, they are arguments based on a predetermined point of view. There is a difference between the reprehensable behavior that Paul wrote of, and loving relations ...[text shortened]... point to homosexuality as we understand it, in fact they are uncertain of its actual meaning

you need to read souverein's post on the subject, he seems to have succintly said what I have been clumsily saying.

Really? souverein says that you are simply wrong about your explanation of 'paiderasste'.

I've heard your objections, and they are strawman arguments, and where they are not, they are arguments based on a predetermined point of view.

What exactly is that pre-determined view? How can you presume to know my motivations?

There is a difference between the reprehensable behavior that Paul wrote of, and loving relationships between 2 consenting adults.

Again, St. Paul is making no distinction between loving and unloving relationships. He simply says those men who have turned away from the 'natural function' toward women and who burn with passion for one another. Isn't that precisely what homosexuality, whether monogamous or promiscuous, is?

There is no known greek word for that; malakoi doesn't fit, and the KJV version comes fairly close in terms of usage. The other word Paul uses is arsenokoitai; many scholars are crediting him with the invention of a new word. It has been found only in a few documents over the last 2000 years, the usages do not clearly point to homosexuality as we understand it, in fact they are uncertain of its actual meaning

Exactly what are your qualifications in Koine Greek? On what authority do you make these claims? Which scholars do you refer to? I don't see why after five posts you still fail to answer this basic question. If you make an obscure linguistic claim about the Greek language, you ought to be able to support this with reasonable evidence from dictionaries, concordances or scholarly articles. Otherwise it just seems like you are making it up.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]you need to read souverein's post on the subject, he seems to have succintly said what I have been clumsily saying.

Really? souverein says that you are simply wrong about your explanation of 'paiderasste'.

I've heard your objections, and they are strawman arguments, and where they are not, they are arguments based on a predetermined point concordances or scholarly articles. Otherwise it just seems like you are making it up.

ermm sorry, no. souverien substantiates pretty much what I have said. The term paideresste does mean sexual relations between man and adolescent, but the exact word for consentual sex between two adult males does not exist. If Paul wanted to make that point the wording he would have used would have ben vastly different than the what it is; and malakoi does not mean gay.

true I can't know your motivations so I'll ask. Why do you hate gays? and why do you equate them to rapist, pedophiles and prostitutes?

"men who have turned away from their natural function?" If men are born with this orientation, then is this not natural for them? If its natural then its not a sin, right?


exactly what are your qualifications in Koine? You condemn my arguments yet you offer no proof of your qualifications, or documentation that your argument is correct. Pot Kettle Black. enjoy

Originally posted by whodey
So as long as the homosexual is not effeminate or unmanly he is "OK"? 🙄

Paul also speaks out against homosexual activity in 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:24-27. In addition, there are the verses within the OT that condemn it as well. Are you now going to reinterpret them all for me?

I Timothy 1:10 (KJV)

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

where does it say "gay" or "homosexual?" It doesn't does it. So then what does this word, arsenokoitai mean? The word does not appear in literature anywhere before this usage. At the time of Martin Luther it was said to be a reference to masturbation, does that then mean that any who masturbate are gay? That would mean that 98% of the male population is gay, and the other 2% were gay and liars.
Another possible meaning for that word in context is male prostitute, with no distinction to sexual preference. The word is thought to be a blend of man and bed, or man beder's. This could easily be euphamism for male prostitiute. one that bed's either men or women. I think this may a fair and accurate rendering of the word, as in this and the Corinthian context it is simply listed as one of many similar social evils.

Originally posted by duecer
ermm sorry, no. souverien substantiates pretty much what I have said. The term paideresste does mean sexual relations between man and adolescent, but the exact word for consentual sex between two adult males does not exist. If Paul wanted to make that point the wording he would have used would have ben vastly different than the what it is; and malakoi does no ...[text shortened]... your qualifications, or documentation that your argument is correct. Pot Kettle Black. enjoy

ermm sorry, no. souverien substantiates pretty much what I have said. The term paideresste does mean sexual relations between man and adolescent, but the exact word for consentual sex between two adult males does not exist. If Paul wanted to make that point the wording he would have used would have ben vastly different than the what it is; and malakoi does not mean gay.


Firstly, I have agreed with you from the start that the Greek language has no exact word corresponding to 'homosexual'. What I have questioned is your assertion is that if St. Paul wanted to refer to homosexuality, he would have used the word 'paiderasste'. Clearly this is false. 'Paiderasste' has a much narrower meaning. It is also contradictory for you to claim simultaneous that there is no word for homosexual yet paiderasste means homosexuality. Go figure.

true I can't know your motivations so I'll ask. Why do you hate gays? and why do you equate them to rapist, pedophiles and prostitutes?

I don't hate gays. I haven't condemned homosexuals. I am only arguing about what St. Paul taught, whatever the implications this has for Christians.


"men who have turned away from their natural function?" If men are born with this orientation, then is this not natural for them? If its natural then its not a sin, right?

No. St. Paul is saying that they go away from the natural function which is toward women. He is not acknlowedging the possibility of other natural functions.

exactly what are [b]your qualifications in Koine? You condemn my arguments yet you offer no proof of your qualifications, or documentation that your argument is correct. Pot Kettle Black. enjoy[/b]

I don't condemn you arguments. I only ask for evidence, a perfectly reasonable request. And I don't need to have qualifications since I am not the one making the claims about the Greek language. You are and you should support your claims with some kind of evidence. However, I have studied Attic Greek which is a precursor to Koine.

Conrau K,
I repeat an argument presented by Andrew Sullivan here.

Perhaps a Christian who wished to reconcile homosexual behaviour with Biblical text could argue as follows, picking up what was said above regarding what is natural for people who are gay.

All texts require interpretation. What is Paul getting at in this passage? (Romans 1:27)

Perhaps Paul is alluding to the way in which the Romans, having been given the chance of following the one true god, nonetheless persisted in polytheism. Under this interpretation, Paul argues using the analogy of heterosexual men who turn away from the 'natural use' of their bodies. Paul lacked the frame of reference and knowledge to consider that for some men, their nature might be to have sex with men.

Of course the RC church takes a different view of the teleology of human sexual relations. However, I think that to argue that other interpretations are untenable is itself untenable.