Conservatives

[outlaw]

What version is that? That is one of poorest translations I have ever seen.

The actual phrase is not "active or passive homosexuality", but rather much more unclear. The actual Greek is more implicit of male prosititues and homosexual offenders. "Offenders" is a very ambiguous word; however, it is clear that it is not homosexuality itself that is sinful, but the abuses and perversions of human sexuality (homo or hetero) that are the real sin.

There is considerable evidence that the word arsenokoites translates as one who financially exploits another or others, possibly sexual exploitation….IE like a pimp or a madam or someone who employees a prostitute.

Dale B. Martin. Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences 1996 Westminster John Knox Press.

 

[outlaw]

I never said the homosexual had to lie , I never said anyone had to lie.

I said if *I* knew that someone who was applying for employment was a liar, murder, thief, adulterer, homosexual, etc - then I would not hire them --- it is true that ANY of those folks could lie and say they were NOT one of those - and I'm not about to grill each applicant with a list of this sort, so it is possible that their deception would be reveled later, or not at all - the attempt to imply duplicity of standard where there clearly and deliberately is none is ineffective.

To be employed by you they would have to lie or if they wanted to keep said job they would have to lie.

Which still leaves the question as to why being a homosexual is so morally wrong (in your opinion) yet lying about being a homosexual is obviously not wrong?

In certain positions I have held I was mandated by the law to investigate the background of applicants rather stringently.... in that case certain of these issues might then come to light - but I'm not about to run a background check on each applicant in my current line and if I don't do it on all then I can do it on none.

b'Shalom
Henaynei

why not?

 

[SimplyMe]

What version is that? That is one of poorest translations I have ever seen.

The actual phrase is not "active or passive homosexuality", but rather much more unclear. The actual Greek is more implicit of male prosititues and homosexual offenders. "Offenders" is a very ambiguous word; however, it is clear that it is not homosexuality itself that is sinful, but the abuses and perversions of human sexuality (homo or hetero) that are the real sin.

And what is meant by "passive homosexuality"? Is this an attempt to condemn those who have same-sex desires but do not engage in homsexual acts?

 

[Spherical Time]

And what is meant by "passive homosexuality"? Is this an attempt to condemn those who have same-sex desires but do not engage in homsexual acts?

No.

And for your own peace of mind, I suggest that you do not seek out the answer to that question.

However, if you still want to know what the answer is, PM me and I'll tell you.

 

[kiwimac]

It is indeed an appalling translation of the verse. I think they are attempting to translate "malakos" as meaning "Passive homosexual" but it doesn't come anywhere that meaning.

According to Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.

Malakos, Soft 1. prop., to the touch (opp. to skleros ): of clothing, pl. , Matt 11:8 [BIBLE] (RSV) Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, those who wear soft raiment are in kings’ houses. [/BIBLE], Luke 7:25.

2. of persons and their mode of living; (a) mild, gentle; (b) soft, effeminate: 1 Cor 6:9 [BIBLE] 9 ¶ (RSV) Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, [/BIBLE].

But please note that the word malakos can mean soft or luxurious clothing or a mild, gentle person. It does not mean 'Passive homosexual', to translate it this way is an blatant act of eisegesis (reading into the scripture what you want to see.)

Reference:

A manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Abbott-Smith, G. T & T Clark, Edinburgh. 1950. 3rd ed. pg 277 beginning para. 2.

You should also consider the following comment in studying the meaning of malakos

Malakos occurs widely in ancient sources and refers to the softness of expensive clothes, the richness of food, the gentleness of winds and breezes. The term refers to the effeminacy or softness of which penetration by another man is a sign or proof; it does not refer to the sexual act itself.

In philosophical texts, the plural term malakoi are those who cannot put up with hard work. Xenophon uses the term for lazy men. In Josephus and Plutarch (both first century writers from different cultural backgrounds), cowards are malakoi.

In the ancient world effeminacy was implicated in heterosexual acts just as much as homosexual. Chariton in his novel Chaeras and Callirhoe provides a typical portrait of an effeminate man: he has a fresh hairdo, is scented with perfume, he wears eye makeup, a soft (malakos) mantle, and light swishy slippers; his fingers glisten with rings. He is off to seduce a woman!

Why, given all the ancient evidence, some of which I have mentioned here, was the translation "effeminate" for I Cor 6:9 rejected by Bible translations? Because it reinscribes the misogyny of the term?

Because condemnation of something socially embarrassing could hardly be called the word of God?
In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship.

An attempt by some scholars to interpret I Cor 6:9 by taking malakos to mean the passive partner and arsenokoites the active partner is based on circular reasoning. The meaning of arsenokoites is problematic.

There is no evidence that malakos was ever considered as a technical term for a passive partner. (There are other terms for passive and active partner in Greek. They never appear in the NT) Malakos' general meaning of effeminate is independent of sexual position or object. To define malakos arsenokoites is to define something already clear by something that is obscure.

Good, Deidre. General Theological Seminary.

Source: http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/gensem.html

Kiwimac

 

[Henaynei]

To be employed by you they would have to lie or if they wanted to keep said job they would have to lie.

Which still leaves the question as to why being a homosexual is so morally wrong (in your opinion) yet lying about being a homosexual is obviously not wrong?

Why would they have to lie? Do YOU volunteer your sexual status as a routine part of your employment process? Are you routinely asked about YOUR sexual status in the employment process.

why not?

one of the resons is that background checks are slow and expensive... among other reasons, such a process is cumbersome and infringe upon any attempt to hire in a timely process.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Ignoring is the best thing. Why spend valuable time in discussing such remarks. It only gives these people a feeling of importance and people who think they can discriminate and ignore the rights of a human being, is too much credit for them, even if you disagree. You are not allowed to refuse someone because he/she is gay.....it happens though and they come up with all kinds of excuses. But it is a violation of the human rights bill and therefor these people should be punished according to law for discriminating....simple.....

To me these people haven't anything valuable to ad to my thoughts and feelings about love respect and compassion.

PS: I believe that not all republicans are gay haters.........or even homophobic. Can't imagine they are. It sounds weird, but I'll bet they do excist...LOL

 

[ChristianCenturion]

There is considerable evidence that the word arsenokoites translates as one who financially exploits another or others, possibly sexual exploitation….IE like a pimp or a madam or someone who employees a prostitute.

Dale B. Martin. Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences 1996 Westminster John Knox Press.

A professor at Yale that was able to get a book published is not "considerable" evidence.



arsenokoites (Strong's 733)
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

 

[Blackmarch]

Conservative Republicans in California are threatening to withold their endorsement of Governor Schwarzenegger if he does not fire his lesbian Chief of Staff (story). What is the ethical thing to do?

Rebuke them saying that if she is not creating an environment that could fall under violation of sexual harassment laws.. then it is fine for her to work at her job.

 

[butterfoot]

I voted other. Why because While I would keep her on I am not going to give This extreme group the finger. I will voice my displeasure with thier request. I don't think anyone should be decided if they get a job based on Color, Sexual preference or any other trait such as this. It is her own lifestyle choice and shouldn't affect hiring decisions.

This really should be a non issue. We all don't agree with lifestyle choices others have made but that doesn't mean they are bad at their job or shouldn't be hired. Especially in an Era of Equality and equal rights how dare we even suggest such.

-cw

 

[PastorMikeJ]

well how about not hiring a person that has commited adultry, or forncated...or voted as a Democrat or even a Republican...or a returning vet...or a disabled person...or a Native American, or Hispanic, or African American...

God loves the sinner not the sin...or He wouldn't love us...

 

[Helo]

I wonder if he's actually DONE this or not. Has the governor even adressed it?

 

[Fares]

Last I checked homosexuals were human beens .
Its like firing someone because he is black .
Its none-sense .
They want to be conservatives ? They should forbide the porn industry first, then maybe they should bring the subject of homosexuals !

Shame on them .

 

[outlaw]

Why would they have to lie?

To get or keep their job with you.

Do YOU volunteer your sexual status as a routine part of your employment process? Are you routinely asked about YOUR sexual status in the employment process.

Lets see:
Wedding ring on - check
Picture of self and spouse, prominently displayed in workspace– check
Listing of spouse as next of kin – check
Listing of spouse as beneficiary of insurance – check
Listing of spouse as emergency contact – check
Picture of adorable child, prominently displayed in workspace – check
Anniversary gift delivered to workplace – check
Company picnic and introduction made there - check

one of the resons is that background checks are slow and expensive... among other reasons, such a process is cumbersome and infringe upon any attempt to hire in a timely process.

Less than three business days last time I was involved in such a thing…wow…that is a long time

 

[outlaw]

A professor at Yale that was able to get a book published is not "considerable" evidence.



arsenokoites (Strong's 733)
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

You are not entitled to merely discount a professor or scholar out of hand with merely because you dislike their conclusion. Worse, parroting a conflicting source does noting to support your position

One of the problems encountered with trying to shoehorn arsenokoitai into meaning homosexual arises with the second time the bible uses the word, 1 Timothy 1:10 by the NIV, "for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" here arsenokoitai is translated not as homosexual but as “pervert” which has no connection to sexual orientation.

A second and more important issue is that Strong defines arsenokoitai by defining its root words. Deconstructing compound words is as prone to problems in ancient Greek as it is in English. One does not need to be upright underneath an object to understand it and calling someone a ladykiller does not mean they amuse themselves by murdering women of social stature.

“One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because of the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostellw (I send) the root meaning of "Apostle" is "one who is sent?" In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the "literal" meaning of monogenes is "only begotten." Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapaw (to love), contrast it with philew (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something abuot a special kind of loving, for no other reason that agapaw is used?

All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thiselton offers by way of example, our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." Our "good-bye" is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon "God be with you." Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nescius generated "nice"; it is certainly easy to imagine how "God be with you" came to be contracted as "Good-bye." But I know of no one today who in saying such and such a person is "nice" believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the "root meaning" or "hidden meaning" or "literal meaning" of "nice" is "ignorant."

(D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Books, 1996)



It is probably a fair guess that arsenokoitai has something to do with sexual relations with or by males. But it is an equally fair guess that the word also has to do with being lazy.



the third issues is of course ignoring extra biblical sources and definitions for arsenokoitai, these do not support the translation as “homosexual” at all.

and fourth: arsenokoitai is a plural first declension noun. It appears, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as without an article. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. This isn't to say that arsenokoitai can't be interpreted as a masculine noun, meaning that arsenokoitai was a feminine plural and not referring to males at all.

Taken all together we do not get an “abuser of (one's) self with mankind” as Strong says but rather “pervert abuser of one self with women for money” or in more modern language…a man who employs a prostitute or perhaps said prostitute’s pimp.

 

[Henaynei]

Lets see: Wedding ring on - check
Picture of self and spouse, prominently displayed in workspace– check
Listing of spouse as next of kin – check
Listing of spouse as beneficiary of insurance – check
Listing of spouse as emergency contact – check
Picture of adorable child, prominently displayed in workspace – check
Anniversary gift delivered to workplace – check
Company picnic and introduction made there - check

of those you mention the only one that I have in my work place is my wedding ring:
no pictures, I list my mum-in-luv as my NOK (last I checked in-laws were not gender specific - and I've had plenty of employees list the parents of their live-in girlfriend or boyfriend as in-laws and Emer contacts - these days marriage is not a prerequisite for "in-Laws" either) and Emergency contact, my son as beneficiary (and since heterosexuality is frequently not a prerequisite of parenthood having a child is non-indicitave of sexuality), my hubby confines anniversary and birthday gifts to our personal life), and we have never attended "company" gatherings together... so your list to prove your premise falls a tad short....

Less than three business days last time I was involved in such a thing…wow…that is a long time

3 days (I don't know where you live, but here they have taken weeks to months) and $15-$25 each - for individuals that you may not employ after all - background checks are only warranted on a "need to know" basis - and most jobs in the public sector do not present such a "need to know."

 

[outlaw]

of those you mention the only one that I have in my work place is my wedding ring:
no pictures, I list my mum-in-luv as my NOK (last I checked in-laws were not gender specific - and I've had plenty of employees list the parents of their live-in girlfriend or boyfriend as in-laws and Emer contacts - these days marriage is not a prerequisite for "in-Laws" either) and Emergency contact, my son as beneficiary (and since heterosexuality is frequently not a prerequisite of parenthood having a child is non-indicitave of sexuality), my hubby confines anniversary and birthday gifts to our personal life), and we have never attended "company" gatherings together... so your list to prove your premise falls a tad short.... 3 days (I don't know where you live, but here they have taken weeks to months) and $15-$25 each - for individuals that you may not employ after all - background checks are only warranted on a "need to know" basis - and most jobs in the public sector do not present such a "need to know."

I’m sure that somehow, in some strange way this make prejudice and discrimination acceptable to you

 

[Henaynei]

I’m sure that somehow, in some strange way this make prejudice and discrimination acceptable to you

I deny that I am prejudiced on this matter - I gladly and effectively work with and have social relationships with numerous non-heterosexual individuals - and have maintained these successful relationships without prejudice or religiosity. I have cared for healthy, ill and dying individuals who were of various sexual persuasions with genuine warm and personal professionalism and skill.

we, as a side track to the OP, have been discussing when "discrimination" may or may not be appropriate or legal... under what circumstances and for what reasons discrimination in hiring can, does and even perhaps should happen, contrasted with the opinion that discrimination is never appropriate or legal. I have merely postulated when and how that could occur and is legal - and, yes, I have supported discrimination based on a number of factors, under certain specific circumstances, as I have stated in previous posts in this thread.

 

[outlaw]

I deny that I am prejudiced on this matter - I gladly and effectively work with and have social relationships with numerous non-heterosexual individuals - and have maintained these successful relationships without prejudice or religiosity.

But you wouldn’t hire one….

 

[outlaw]

I have a question for the four individuals who chose “Fire that Sodomite!” in the OP poll. Argent, elizabethchick, evange and gerorge78…would you demand the firing of an appointee if that appointee was a non-Christian? Would you demand the firing of an appointee who is Black or Latino? Would you demand the firing of an appointee who is handicapped?