kmoney said:
I've seen this before. There are rationalizations for just about every reference in the bible that is against homosexuality. In the OT people say it was about pagan religious rites where priests would have gay sex. In the NT they argue against the meaning of the original language or in a couple passages say it is talking about homosexual sex in idolatry, similar to what is said in the OT.
What continues to surprise me as I read through the bible for the first time is the amount of context that is lost on the majority of modern readers. Most of my friends who are believers know the basic tenets of Christianity; basically enough so they feel comfortable with their salvation. Though despite their limited knowledge, they also adopt the stigma against gays. They don't exactly know where the bible says such things, but they
know it's in there. I believe their apathy on the subject is irresponsible, especially when they are basing their moral beliefs on a book such as the bible.
kmoney said:
As far as "arsenokoites" [snip]
So yes, it is possible to call into question the meaning of "arsenokoites", but do you at least admit that homosexuality is a possibility?
Certainly! I applaud the fact that people such as yourself take the time to investigate these problems further, rather than simply accepting them because a few literally-read verses agree with what you would want them to say. The bible is an extremely complex document because of the matter in which it was compiled and the sheer number of circumstances unique to the writers during the first few centuries.
It's not that I'm trying to rationalize away or circumvent these verses; on the contrary, I'm trying to get to the truth.
If you are being honest with yourself, you cannot find any truths in obscure verses such as these by doing a literal reading with modern eyes, giving no respect as to context or taking into account cultural awareness of the time in which the piece was written.
From everything I've read by professionals of etymology and greek language, it appears the true meaning of what Paul meant by the term will never be known. The following quote sums up my opinion on the subject.
Reading 'arsenokoitai' as homosexuals is an example of eisegesis. Homophobes who want to find condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are capable of reading their prejudice into any given passage, just as their predecessors were capable of finding abundant encouragement for antisemitism and racism in the Bible.
It is abundantly clear from the evidence of later Christian usage that the term arsenokoites changed meaning from its original use by Paul. It eventually came to refer to anything from child molesting to anal intercourse with one's wife. This semantic drift probably occurred because Paul's warnings were so successful that the phenomenon he addressed actually disappeared from prominence in Christian controlled areas of late antiquity/early medieval times. After the fall of paganism, temple prostitutes would have become a thing of the past, and male prostitutes, always probably fewer in number than female prostitutes, probably dwindled to extreme rarity. Later Christians, having forgotten the original meaning of arsenokoitai inserted a meaning they wished to see there. -
source
kmoney said:
Well first, I think you were joking, but just in case....I was kidding about the wanting more money thing.
I was
kmoney said:
And as far as the double standard, there are laws against perjury and theft. As far as adultery, I understand that talk of homosexuality does overshadow much on TOL, but many on here will argue that adultery should be a crime as well, so there isn't a double standard. And for lying, lying isn't always a sin. Rahab in the bible lied to save some Israelites. A more modern example would be to lie to save Jews during the Holocaust. So I do not think you can make a law against "lying". You may still see that as a double standard, but I don't really see it that way.
I appreciate the fact that many on ToL back up their beliefs on homosexuality with equally harsh punishments for adultery. However, words are merely words and actually attempting to implement biblical laws on modern-day America would, in my opinion, result in the downfall of this country. This may be digressing from the topic, but if America was to base our system of law on an ancient set of commandments, it should be those of Solon, not Moses. Solon was an Athenian lawmaker who lived until 558 bce; here were his commandments:
1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents. -
good article comparing the commandments of Moses and Solon.
kmoney said:
I'll end with this: Even if those verses do not mean homosexuality I still think you can call homosexuality a sin. You have to look at the bigger picture. God created men and women for each other. Sex is for marriage and marriage is for a man and a woman. So at best I would put homosexuality with fornication.
If the verses in the bible do not condemn homosexuality in any form, which I believe, and Christians were to agree with you and put it on the same level as fornication; that would be a significant step forward.
