How are Christians supposed to respond to this?

[Archer93]

So, to recap:

And to summarise-

Spirko prefers his own interpretation which involves a city full of man-on-man rapists to the actual words of the actual Bible.
As for why- I'll leave that to the psychologists.

 

[Spirko]

And to summarise-

Spirko prefers his own interpretation which involves a city full of man-on-man rapists to the actual words of the actual Bible.
As for why- I'll leave that to the psychologists.

This is what I get for trying to be respectful to you.

 

[Jase]

There are two problems with your logic here:

The first is that even if Jesus hadn't said anything, it is still condemned elsewhere in the Bible.

The second is that all of the Bible is the words of Jesus (2 Tim 3:15-17).

Timothy 3 only applies to the Old Testament. The New didn't exist yet, and it makes no claim to Biblical infallibility.

Au contraire. Homosexuality was not a part of any "purity" law, but was a part of the moral law. And even if that were true, what "law" are the New Testament condemnations of homosexuality a part of? What "law" are the numerous verses describing marriage as being between one man and one woman a part of?

The prohibition on pagan same-sex relations was a to'evah, which means ritually impure/taboo. As for the New Testament, only 2 verses even mention it, and are known mistranslations. Homosexual has never existed in Corinthians. Prior to 1958, it meant masturbators.

That may be one of your reasons, but the Bible tells us that the reason homosexuality is repeatedly condemned in scripture is because it violates God's purposes for marriage, which is to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the Church.

The Bible says no such thing. The only reason any same-sex relations are even condemned is due to them being abused during pagan idol worship.

How could God's condemnation of Sodom be for inhospitality, when Genesis 18:20 says that His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the incident? Further, 2 Peter 2:6 makes it clear that the wicked activity was not a one-time incident but was an ongoing pattern of sin.
The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.

Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

The confrontation at Lot's door concerning the angels was no mere interrogation. Though the Hebrew word yada ("to know") has a variety of nuances, it is properly translated in the NASB as "have [sexual] relations with." Though the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot's response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"—makes it clear they had other intentions.

It is common practice throughout history, for men to rape villagers in towns that conquered. Rape is about power and violence, not sex. By your logic, 99% of prison inmates are gay because male on male rape is so common there. That's absurd and statistically impossible.

There are some serious issues with the logic of the claim that Sodom's sin was inhospitality.

First, the suggestion itself is doesn't make sense. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime.

Ezekiel disagrees with you. The inhospitality came about due to the citizens being unwilling to feed and clothe the strangers.

Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners? Where does the Bible ever say that inhospitality is a capital crime? On the other hand, the Bible is very clear that homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).
So we're supposed to believe that God ignored the capital crime, yet leveled two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense?

Yup. Inhospitality was a huge deal to people in Biblical days. Even Jesus emphasized it in his parables. And Leviticus is not remotely clear in Hebrew. In Hebrew, those verses indicate the punishment was for one man forcing himself on another in beds of a woman. And capital crimes in Israel were hardly ever punished - they were nearly impossible to meet the burden of proof on.

We know the men of Sodom were homosexual because the text tells us, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter" (19:6), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels.

Every citizen in Sodom was not gay. Absurd and statistically impossible.

It's homosexuals who want to change the definition of marriage. It's homosexuals who want their sin promoted to our children. It's homosexuals who have parades through our streets telling us how great it is to be a homosexual (and then, ironically, telling us that their homosexuality is none of our business).

You mean like heterosexuals rubbing their promiscuity in other peoples faces? How about Mardi Gras? Or the fact that the majority of Christians commit adultery and divorce.

Get that plank out of your eye, stat.

 

[Jase]

Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

C'mon now, ladies, break it up before the thread gets closed.

Who is promoting? Pointing out one's erroneous understanding of the Bible is not promoting.

 

[Spirko]

Timothy 3 only applies to the Old Testament. The New didn't exist yet

...but many of the books that make up the New Testament did.

As for the New Testament, only 2 verses even mention it, and are known mistranslations.

How do you know? What is your background in the translation of Biblical texts?

Homosexual has never existed in Corinthians. Prior to 1958, it meant masturbators.

It's always referred to homosexuality.

The Bible says no such thing.

Yes, it does. The passage from Ephesians is a good example of this.

Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Rebuked this argument already.

It is common practice throughout history, for men to rape villagers in towns that conquered.

We're not talking about a town that was conquered. Nor are we talking about a one time event.

Ezekiel disagrees with you.

Please cite the verse you feel "disagrees" with anything I've said.

Yup. Inhospitality was a huge deal to people in Biblical days.

Please provide the verse that says that inhospitality is a capital offense.

Every citizen in Sodom was not gay. Absurd and statistically impossible.

Nobody has claimed that every citizen was gay.

 

[Jase]

...but many of the books that make up the New Testament did.

No they didn't. The Gospels weren't even written until a minimum of 50 years after Jesus left. And Paul most certainly was not arrogant enough to consider his own writing to be God-breathed, and he is the only author who even hints at same-sex behavior. Either way, timothy is irrelevant.

How do you know? What is your background in the translation of Biblical texts?

Well, I was taught the Torah in Hebrew, and I've obviously done more studying than you have. You've made it blantantly clear you're just regurgitating what some priest tells you, or what plain, out of context English translation you choose to use. FYI, the Bible wasn't written in English and Hebrew and English cannot translate word for word in many many cases.

It's always referred to homosexuality.

Thank you for proving you've never studied this. In Corinthians, the word Paul used that was translated as homosexual, was made up by him. It's a fake word that has never ever been defined. It has meant kidnappers, and from Martin Luther until 1958 A.D., it meant masturbator. That was the universal sin that everyone believed Paul was referring to in that verse. The word homosexuality wasn't even coined until the 1900s, so it's impossible for Corinthians to have always referred to it. There was no such thing for 1500 years of the Bible's history.

There were also 2 Greek words that Paul was well aware of that referred to pederasty and male/male sexual behavior. Paul chose to use neither one. Conservative Bible translators interjected their bias into that verse in 1958 to condemn gays.

Rebuked this argument already.

Maybe in your own head. You've done no such thing in this actual argument.

 

[quatona]

i.e. Having Civil unions in Churches

Churches 'could host civil unions' - mirror.co.uk

And if it happens that one day your church is forced by the State to hold a 'gay marriage' - what is the Christian thing to do?

Have you even read the article? Are you sure you have understood it?

 

[Spirko]

No they didn't.

Yes, they did. 2 Tim was not the first book of the New Testament.

Well, I was taught the Torah in Hebrew, and I've obviously done more studying than you have.

Obviously. That must explain why you thought that 2 Tim was the first book of the New Testament written, even though it's actually the nineteeth, or why you thought that Matthew Mark and Luke were written fifty years after Jesus "left".

Ah, i You've made it blantantly clear you're just regurgitating what some priest tells you

Sorry, but I'm not Catholic.

Thank you for proving you've never studied this. In Corinthians, the word Paul used that was translated as homosexual, was made up by him. It's a fake word that has never ever been defined.

I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it's not a made up word. It comes from two words, "arsén", meaning man, and "koité", which means cohabitation in a sexual sense.

Maybe in your own head. You've done no such thing in this actual argument.

No, I've done so in this thread. But it's clear from other comments you've made here that you haven't read my posts, so I guess we can forgive you for not knowing that.

 

[keith99]

How could God's condemnation of Sodom be for inhospitality, when Genesis 18:20 says that His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the incident? Further, 2 Peter 2:6 makes it clear that the wicked activity was not a one-time incident but was an ongoing pattern of sin.
The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.

So?

It would seem by yuor reasoning that there was no need for the Angels to visit Sodom. But they did visit? Why?

Might it just possibly be that they were going to see/confirm the claims. And if that is the case then what is reported in the incident is serving as confirmation of claims already made. A very Jewish attitude. The crime must be seen to be punished.

 

[keith99]

Thank you for proving you've never studied this. In Corinthians, the word Paul used that was translated as homosexual, was made up by him. It's a fake word that has never ever been defined. It has meant kidnappers, and from Martin Luther until 1958 A.D., it meant masturbator. That was the universal sin that everyone believed Paul was referring to in that verse. The word homosexuality wasn't even coined until the 1900s, so it's impossible for Corinthians to have always referred to it. There was no such thing for 1500 years of the Bible's history.

There were also 2 Greek words that Paul was well aware of that referred to pederasty and male/male sexual behavior. Paul chose to use neither one. Conservative Bible translators interjected their bias into that verse in 1958 to condemn gays.


Maybe in your own head. You've done no such thing in this actual argument.

jblesi@genoptix.com

It seems the most common translation used before 1900 or so was "Abusers of themself with mankind". That seems to fit those who engage in homosexual acts better than masturbators.

At teh leat yuo have some work to do to demonstrate that this means masturbators.

 

[OllieFranz]

jblesi@genoptix.com

It seems the most common translation used before 1900 or so was "Abusers of themself with mankind". That seems to fit those who engage in homosexual acts better than masturbators.

At teh leat yuo have some work to do to demonstrate that this means masturbators.

I've seen the claim that Martin Luther's (German) translation indicates masturbation even more clearly than "abusers of themselves." But I have not seen that translation, nor do I know German, so I'm doubly handicapped in verifying (or proving false) that claim.

In any case, the one non-Christian Koine Greek document to use the word arsenokoiten speaks of the men the word refers to doing the act the word refers to (whatever it is) with or to women, so both masturbation and same-sex relations seem to be out. And this document, like all the Christian documents (all six of them -- including the two Pauline letters), includes it as part of a list of unrelated sins/crimes, so there is no context to draw a fuller meaning from.

 

[Jase]

jblesi@genoptix.com

It seems the most common translation used before 1900 or so was "Abusers of themself with mankind". That seems to fit those who engage in homosexual acts better than masturbators.

At teh leat yuo have some work to do to demonstrate that this means masturbators.

I never said it means that, I said it's one of the many meanings that word has carried. Arsenokoites is a lost meaning. Breaking down the word doesn't help, since that's linguistically flawed. Arseno means man (singular), koites means bed/bedding. So what does "man bed" mean? This also means that Paul was not targeting lesbians. So are we to assume that gay women are ok with Paul?

There were also 2 common words in use that referred to certain male/male sexual behavior. Paiderasste and androkoites. Paul chose to use neither.
Arsenokoites does not exist in any literature prior to Paul's use - strongly indicating he invented it.

Several prominent philosphers/authors have understood it to mean, weak morals, temple prostitutes, rape, rent boys, etc. If the meaning has been unknown and changing throughout it's coining in Corinthians, why should we trust that the last 50 years of Bible translations are anymore accurate?

What the Bible says about masturbation

The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.


History of Arsenokoites - Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals

Around 35 A.D., the Jewish philosopher Philo (a contemporary of Paul’s) held that arsenokoites referred to shrine prostitution (Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42).

Somewhat later appeared the apocryphal Acts of John (a 2nd-century Christian text) and the Sibylline Oracles (a third- or fourth-century Jewish text); in both the word occurs among sins related to economics, i.e., sex induced by a need for money.

A revealing use of it appears around 575 A.D.; Joannes Jejunator (John the Faster), the Patriarch of Constantinople, used the word in a treatise that instructed confessor priests how to ask their parishioners about sexual sin. Here it appears in the context of a paragraph dealing with incestuous relations, and if translated as ‘homosexuality,’ the sentence containing it would read “In fact, many men even commit the sin of homosexuality with their wives.” (Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca, 88:1893-96)


And, because arsen is singular, there was a long period leading up to the Reformation in which the term was taken to refer to masturbation (i.e., involving only one male), a translation that persists in some Greek dictionaries today.

 

[Spirko]

So?

It would seem by yuor reasoning that there was no need for the Angels to visit Sodom. But they did visit? Why?

Might it just possibly be that they were going to see/confirm the claims. And if that is the case then what is reported in the incident is serving as confirmation of claims already made. A very Jewish attitude. The crime must be seen to be punished.

Don't care. In all of my my attempts to discuss this with the non-Christians here in a reasonable and respectful manner, it's finally occurred to me that what the Bible says about this should be an in-house debate and that it really doesn't matter to me whether you guys believe it.

So I'm afraid, "I don't care" is probably the best answer you're going to get out of me on this. I feel I made a pretty good case for why what we believe is true.

If you believe it, fine. If you don't, fine.

 

[keith99]

I've seen the claim that Martin Luther's (German) translation indicates masturbation even more clearly than "abusers of themselves." But I have not seen that translation, nor do I know German, so I'm doubly handicapped in verifying (or proving false) that claim.

In any case, the one non-Christian Koine Greek document to use the word arsenokoiten speaks of the men the word refers to doing the act the word refers to (whatever it is) with or to women, so both masturbation and same-sex relations seem to be out. And this document, like all the Christian documents (all six of them -- including the two Pauline letters), includes it as part of a list of unrelated sins/crimes, so there is no context to draw a fuller meaning from.

I am in a reasonably good position to find out how Martin Luther translated it. My wife is German and speaks German quite well.

In checking the English translations I saw one German translation that quite clearly had homosexuals, but I have no idea how modern that translation was.

 

[keith99]

Your responce is exactly why I said yuo still had some work to do. Funny thing there, most of the time people who really have knowledge come up with thigns to back up their position.

You have. Guess it is time to see if the other side can.

I never said it means that, I said it's one of the many meanings that word has carried. Arsenokoites is a lost meaning. Breaking down the word doesn't help, since that's linguistically flawed. Arseno means man (singular), koites means bed/bedding. So what does "man bed" mean? This also means that Paul was not targeting lesbians. So are we to assume that gay women are ok with Paul?

There were also 2 common words in use that referred to certain male/male sexual behavior. Paiderasste and androkoites. Paul chose to use neither.
Arsenokoites does not exist in any literature prior to Paul's use - strongly indicating he invented it.

Several prominent philosphers/authors have understood it to mean, weak morals, temple prostitutes, rape, rent boys, etc. If the meaning has been unknown and changing throughout it's coining in Corinthians, why should we trust that the last 50 years of Bible translations are anymore accurate?

What the Bible says about masturbation

The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.


History of Arsenokoites - Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals

Around 35 A.D., the Jewish philosopher Philo (a contemporary of Paul’s) held that arsenokoites referred to shrine prostitution (Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42).

Somewhat later appeared the apocryphal Acts of John (a 2nd-century Christian text) and the Sibylline Oracles (a third- or fourth-century Jewish text); in both the word occurs among sins related to economics, i.e., sex induced by a need for money.

A revealing use of it appears around 575 A.D.; Joannes Jejunator (John the Faster), the Patriarch of Constantinople, used the word in a treatise that instructed confessor priests how to ask their parishioners about sexual sin. Here it appears in the context of a paragraph dealing with incestuous relations, and if translated as ‘homosexuality,’ the sentence containing it would read “In fact, many men even commit the sin of homosexuality with their wives.” (Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca, 88:1893-96)


And, because arsen is singular, there was a long period leading up to the Reformation in which the term was taken to refer to masturbation (i.e., involving only one male), a translation that persists in some Greek dictionaries today.

 

[Archer93]

Don't care. In all of my my attempts to discuss this with the non-Christians here in a reasonable and respectful manner, it's finally occurred to me that what the Bible says about this should be an in-house debate and that it really doesn't matter to me whether you guys believe it.

So I'm afraid, "I don't care" is probably the best answer you're going to get out of me on this. I feel I made a pretty good case for why what we believe is true.

If you believe it, fine. If you don't, fine.

Well, there goes the ball and the goal.

 

[Drathnor]

I do love the good old "You have to belive first to understand" argument

 

[Beechwell]

I've seen the claim that Martin Luther's (German) translation indicates masturbation even more clearly than "abusers of themselves." But I have not seen that translation, nor do I know German, so I'm doubly handicapped in verifying (or proving false) that claim.

If the online bibles I searched are to be believed, Luther used the word "Knabenschänder" to translate "arsenokoitai".
"Knabenschänder" means "abuser of boys" (literaly "boy-defiler"), so it's neither masturbator not homosexual (although some seem to believe otherwise).
Maybe Luther thought of pederasty when he translated arsenokoitai? But he wasn't too concerned with a literal translation anyway, since to Luther the bible was more a guide towards Jesus, rather than a divine law-book. And neither did he see Paul's writings the direct word of God.

 

[rsduncan]

This thread is about my main concern about gay rights: that it is a front against religious freedom and a means to attack people of faith by force of law...

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This thread is about my main concern about gay rights: that it is a front against religious freedom and a means to attack people of faith by force of law...

So because of your religion, a group of people should be second-class citizens. Makes sense.