The truth is that the word Malakos has meant something different every century it's been used. In Paul's time it was used to refer to Morally weak men, or men who enjoyed too much pleasure with women, but in Martin Luther's day it meant masturbator. Slowly but surely after until now, it's been grossly mistranslated into something dealing with homosexual men. It could mean male prostitute, just like it has 10 million other definitions, but none of the accurate definitions ever define the word as a homosexual male.
The word Arsenokoites literally translates into Male Bed, not male penetrator. If the word arsenokoites has been found in documents that pre date christ, then could you give me a list of these documents of which they are in? Because I'm pretty sure every single scholar(reguradless of what they believe the word to mean) agrees that Paul created this word, and that it never existed in literature before Corinthians was written.
I haven't seen one piece of Greek literature that uses this word as a referrence to those who are impotent the opposite sex. Not once.
I don't interpret scripture by starting out with an Idea then trying to prove it. That's for the anti gay side to unrighteously do. Even though I am a lesbian, I was brainwashed to believe that homosexuality was a sin, and that it was a choice. I believed this blindly, and argued for it until I turned blue. However the truth has a funny way of breaking down one's incorrect argument, and God and His word did just that. You see, when one reads the bible for what it says, and then actually learns of the history and context to understand what it 'MEANS', then one would see that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, homosexual relationships, or the sexual affection in those relationships. The anti gay view of the bible has to make up lies,incorporate mistranslations and misinterpretations, and impliment literalism(at least at the convient parts of the bible) into their beliefs in order to find anti homosexuality in the bible.
What Jesus said in Matthew 19 was nothing more then a command to not divorce except in cases of unfaithfulness, because God wanted married couples to stay together and not get divorced. Jesus never gave a definition for a relationship, nor did he give a definition for marriage. He simply quoted a biblical text to show us God's purpose for us staying together with our spouses, and then in this same chapter, he said that homosexuals(natural born eunuchs), castrated people(man made eunuchs), and Celibate people(Eunuchs who are that way to serve the Kingdom of God), cannot accept traditional sense of marriage. Just because the bible speaks of the only kind of real marriage that existed(heterosexual marriage) doesn't mean that Gay marriage is condemned, it simply means that Gay marriage either didn't exist in those times, were not public or common, or were simply contracts b/w platonic friends that had nothing to do with raising families or love. As I've said before there's not one verse in the bible that says 'and marriage shall only be b/w a man and a woman', nor is there a verse that says 'and only Men should have affections for women, and women should only have affections for men'. Even if the bible did say this, there would be nothing one could do about their natural homosexual orientation.
You say there's not one instance in the bible where homosexuality is condoned, well that depends on your definition of condoned. Because Jesus mentioned homosexuals as natural eunuchs in Matthew 19 and said that they were naturally born that way from their mother's womb. Even if Jesus didn't say this, again the fact that the bible doesn't mention something doesn't give us justification to make assumptions about it. The bible never condones women going to college, or Men being able to keep house while their wives keep jobs, or that slavery is a horrid practice that should be banished, etc. However women are allowed to go to college and it's not a sin, Men can be stay at home dads while their wives have jobs and this isn't a sin, and slavery is anti life and just plain wrong no matter what kind of slavery it is. We didn't have the bible to determine these things, we had common sense that has been given to us by God. Common sense tells me if I'm born gay, and have no way of changing my orientation, and my homosexuality hurts no one, takes nothing from no one, and God's word doesn't condemn my natural orientation, then there's nothing wrong with homosexuality at all.
As for Paul's saying, again Paul said that Men having long hair is a shame for them and unnatural. Does that mean we adhere to that, and does that mean that men having long hair is unnatural or a shame to him, or that in Paul's time it was(more specifically in Roman culture)? Of course in an archaic time period like Ancient Rome or Greece women couldn't be pastors. No one would take that religious institution seriously, because of Men's ancient ignorant reasoning that women cannot lead or is not as efficient as Men are in leader positions. However God chooses all of his leaders in all of his chuches, and if that leader so happens to be a woman, then that's alright with me.
Homosexuality doesn't occur in society, it occurs in our biology. It's not a cultural phenomenon, it's an orientation. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and God never says there is. As a christian you do get to choose which parts of the bible you follow, because I can assure you, if you aren't on death row, then you haven't followed the whole bible. I don't follow the whole bible, and I'm not ashamed of it. I'm actually glad I don't, because some of it is brutal and unneccessary, and I'm not about violence or misogyny, I'm about love, peace, and equality for all.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
ludacriswife06
16 years ago
I'm not doing my exegesis backwards and the bible doesn't say that homosexual offenders won't inherit the kingdom of God. There's absolutely no word in that verse that translates into homosexual offender. Probably because there's no such thing as a homosexual offender, that doesn't even make sense. You have no proof and no ancient textual data that proves that arsenokoites translates into homosexual or homosexual offender.
You say scripture defines marriage everytime it speaks of it as b/w a man and woman. Well scripture never said that marriage is only b/w a man and a woman, and if you are making assumptions because of the omissions of same sex marriage, then that's not a very logical way of interpreting the bible. Many things then can be assumed because they are omitted from scripture, many harmful things.
"A eunuch is someone who is asexual or does not have sex" This would be true, except there's actually ancient textual data that says that eunuchs were very much sexually active. Natural born eunuchs were eunuchs who had no attraction towards the opposite sex, but had attractions exclusively for the same sex in the eyes of the ancients. Man made eunuchs were castrated eunuchs who were both heterosexuals and homosexuals, because there's proof that both gay and straight eunuchs were sexually active. And then there were eunuchs who made themselves that way to serve the kingdom of God. We know them better as celibate people. I'm sure there existed asexual people of all kinds(not just eunuchs), however you will be laughed at if you tell anyone who's studied eunuchs that they were either asexual or celibate, because the evidence suggest otherwise. For more information go to "www.well.com/user/aquarius/";.
"I bring up that the bible never condones homosexuality, after pointing out several cases where it denounces it." Except where Jesus says that Homosexuals are born that way from their mother's womb. Also you haven't given me one verse that denounces or even describes homosexuality.
"You say that you don't follow the whole bible, and therein lies the problem" You don't follow the bible either. Unless you don't eat shrimp, don't wear mixed fabric clothing, don't touch woman when they are on their periods, or sit in chairs where woman who are on their periods have sitten, separate yourself from society and ask forgiveness from God when you have wet dreams in which you ejaculate sperm involuntarily, or view growing two different types of seeds on the same land as wrong, view the murder of those who commit adultery, women who commit fornication, those who practice witchcraft, and those who disobey their parents as acceptable?
"I don't think you see scripture as the unadulterated word of God" Yes I do, however somethings for an ancient culture, and I won't go back to the bronze age with some of the 'rules' from scripture. Like the ones I listed above.
"However we do not get to use our judgment as to which parts of scripture to accept" I won't believe I've done anything wrong by coming on my period, and I will not separate myself from society while I'm on my period. I will not kill anyone who commits fornication or disobeys their parents.
If we are no longer under Mosaic law, then that means we don't follow all of the bible. You can't have your cake and eat it to. We don't follow the whole bible, and that's that.
"for us to say we don't like part of God's words is to tell him that we don't agree with him"
I'm sorry I don't like the part of God's word where people die for petty crimes, like fornication and adultery. You can't teach me to love my neighbors my whole life, and then expect me feel okay about the killing of people simply because of who they decided to have consentual sex with. That's not forgiveness or compassion. The Mosaic law wasn't really that compassionate or loving. It was brutal and archaic. Places I never plan to return to in my own life.
"We all are born with a sinful nature" Again sinful nature has nothing to do with being born biologically how we are meant to. A sinful nature isn't sin itself, and we still have a choice to sin or not. There's no choice with sexuality, and it's not something that surrounds us like a 'sinful nature' would. Our sexuality is a part of who we are like our arms and skin color is. What scripture says that people are 'born' with a sinful nature btw?
"the desire to do what's wrong" Sexuality isn't a desire. You have the basic fundamentals of sexuality wrong, and you are trying to compare sin that can be chosen, to something that's biologically chosen for us by God. It doesn't work.
"Whether it is the sin of homosexuality or something else, being a Christian is denying that sinful nature" Homosexuality isn't a sin, and denying one's sexuality will cause nothing but destruction and death. God brings life not death.
reply
share