paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
So, you cannot keep up? Nice Christian mouth you have there, sweetheart.You know what occurred to me? That you being a hateful bigot has all bearing on your beliefs. The bible is clear to YOU because you want it to be clear on this. On other things, like that shrimp salad you like or the rayon/cotton blend clothing you wear, it is not or it is optional On something that allows you to hate your fellow humans; to judge them harshly and to give you a false sense of superiority, you see what you want to see and ignore all evidence that it was never that clear.So, it bothers you that a gay man is smarter than you? Understands the historical bible better than you and is a far better Christian that you could ever hope to be? That burns, doesn't it? A man with an education you don't have; with a command of the bible and its historical context that you don't have; a man with an understanding that Christianity is, at its core, about love and not the hate you and your fellow fake Christians spew is gay and that shakes you to your core.Genesis 19:1-9
First of all, in interpreting this event we must take into account the entire situation. Whatever is happening here it is a form of rape. The crowd of men wished to sexually assault or âgangbangâ the angels. The situation is also sewn through with appalling violence. Many assert that Lotâs offer of his daughters instead of the male angels implies that homosexual sex would have been worse than heterosexual sex, but Lot himself gives his reason for his action: âDonât do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.â In our time, this does not make entire sense, but in Lotâs time, hospitality was a nearly sacred concept, and it is that distinction that Lot expresses: the visitors are his guests.
Nonetheless, if we were to accept that the distinction is gender-based, we could only conclude homosexual rape of angels is worse than heterosexual rape. To use this story to condemn all homosexual behavior is unfounded and truly stretching this story outside of its historical framework, but that is exactly what has happened. As Jeffrey S. Silker, in reference to such distortion of this text, wrote in his article in Theology Today, âDavidâs sin of adultery with Bathsheba does not make all heterosexual expressions sinful!â
1 TIMOTHY 1:8-10
Arsenokoitai, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could translate this as âmale bedder.â
We should now be able to derive an exact understanding of the word arsenokoitai based on the two words that surround it. We have, first of all, the enslaved male prostitute, the âmale-bedderâ (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. The New American Bible offers a footnote that might shed some light on the historical context of the time:
âThe Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the âcupbearer of the gods,â whose Latin name was CatamusâŚâ (NAB)
There was a common practice in which men of Paulâs time would have slave âpetâ boys whom they sexually exploited. These boys were prepubescent and without beards so they seemed like females. Today, this practice is referred to as pederasty. Regardless, however, the pornos is clearly a prostitute.
Keeping this in mind, letâs look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the âmale-bedderâ (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute, the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying, âmale prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure themâŚâ Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself.
If this translation of arsenokoitai is correct, it should also make logical sense where it is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, either confirming or refuting our understanding of this word.
1 Corinthians 6:9
The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means âsoft.â In Matthew 11:8
ROMANS 1:24-27
Looking at the men first will help to clarify the passage: âThe men likewise gave up natural relations with womenâŚâ Stop. Did you see that? They gave up natural relations with women, which implies that these men were heterosexuals by nature. The phrase translated as âgave upâ is the Greek word aphente (afenteV) meaning to leave behind, forsake, neglect, or divorce. These men, therefore, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality, and were consumed with passion for one another. Women did likewise. As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature.
Why would men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: âContext is everything.â This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account there are a number or men and a number of women, both plurals. This would most definitely be an orgyâŚeveryone filled with lust and âdishonorable passionsâ having sex with whomever however. But why would Paul be talking about orgies? A little research uncovers the pagan practice of âsacred sexual orgies.â Baal was the Canaanite deity that was worshipped with sexual orgies on Mount Peor in Moab, with which Paul would have been familiar. With this contextual understanding let us read this story again:
âTherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.â
Anyone who isolates the phrase ânatural relationsâ to declare homosexual relations unnatural is interjecting their own prejudice and reading entirely outside of context. Even if we were to isolate that phrase it could only be used to condemn heterosexuals who go against their own heterosexual nature and engage in homosexual activity. As Peter J. Gomes, preacher to Harvard University, further clarifies in his book The Good Book, âIt is not clear that Saint Paul distinguished, as we must, between homosexual persons and heterosexual persons who behave like homosexuals, but what is clear is that what is âunnaturalâ is the one behaving after the manner of the otherâ (page 157).
Leviticus:
First of all âlay lyingsâ has no clear interpretation. The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more commonsense English translation. For example, one can insert âas theâ or âin theâ after the first lay as showed below:
Even if we accept the NIV or KJV translations, (KJV: âThou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.â) we still must understand the historical context of how a man laid with a women, for this is the qualifier of the phrase. Rabbi Arthur Waskow explains, âThe whole structure of sexuality in the Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate female.â 2 The status of women in that time was much lower than that of men, and women were even considered property of the men. This belief regarding gender relations is rejected by most of the Christian church today, but in order to make sense of this specific Jewish law we must keep in mind this context in which it was written. We simply cannot ignore the second half of the phrase, âas with a womanâ as most interpretations tend to do.
- âAnd with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.â
- âAnd with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman.â
For one of the men in the sexual encounter to be treated as one would treat a woman, the man would have been taking a lower status. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered. To fully understand this law, we must consider the historical context in which it was written.
The Old Testament was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the âversionâ of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as âabominationâ was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:
This seems to point to the idea that this specific law has more to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites. As we see, this law isnât as simple as it appears. First of all we have a very unclear law (âAnd with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.â). Second of all, we must consider the historical context of how men treated women in sexual encounters. Thirdly, as revealed through Christ, the fulfillment of the law is truly love. Rape, stealing, hating, etc. are immoral because they are not in line with the Law of Love, which Christ frames so perfectly when questioned about the law. Is a committed homosexual relationship in violation of this law? We could become like the Pharisees and Sadducees trying to pick apart this law forever, but if we look closely, Christâs life truly reveals the Spirit of the Law. Surely this is what Paul meant when he wrote, âBut now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spiritâ (RSV Romans 7:4-6
- a foul thing, a detestable thing
- of idols and things pertaining to idolatry
As we see, the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27
Inclusive Orthodoxy The Rev. Justin R. Cannon
I may not know the bible, but the Minister who authored this certianly knows it better that you and, more importantly, understands what being a Christian is about better than you.
LOL Cannon is a homosexual.
Has it ever occurred to you that him being gay has some bearing on his beliefs? Face the facts, Gomer, the Bible is clear on homosexuality being a sin and some homo "minister" clearly has an agenda. You're becoming a waste of time
sigh, take your blabbering BS and go bother someone that gives a fuck,, retard
