Lev 20:13 and Homosexuality

[kern]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

I am sorry to use all caps but this is easily the third time in this thread alone you have misrepresented my position. I want you to read it now, and try to understand it as I wrote it, rather than as your prejudice requires you to read it and pretend I am "scrambling for some excuse" or whatever that claptrap was about.

Seebs was saying that you saw us as scrambling for excuses.

That's an attitude I have encountered before (I don't remember if it was from you or not). They assumed that we were starting from the position that "homosexuality is OK" and then making up whatever excuses or rationalizations we could to explain away the "obvious" passages in the Bible.

This is not what we are doing.

The Bible, without a single mention of any acceptable homosexual behavior, denounces it repeatedly. This is not debatable. It denounces it in both the old and new testaments. This is not debatable. There IS no context, there IS no transaltional complexity, there IS no problem that you have yet shown, and yet you insist it is there. Where? Where is it?

You don't have to agree with our position, you don't have to think that it is valid, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have support for our position which we have posted both here and in the other homosexuality threads.

You say the passages are clear, we don't agree. This doesn't mean that our position doesn't exist, it means that you do not agree with it.

Well, if I don't see it I'd be a liar to sit here and tell you ok, it's debatable. It doesn't look debatable to me,

Yes, I respect that opinion -- you believe the passages are completely clear and unambiguous. I understand this and I accept it as your viewpoint.

Why can't you understand that we believe they are not clear? Why are you unwilling to even accept that we have that opinion?

except in that as I have mentioned some people will debate just for the sake of contention, which I have already established is behavior the Bible expressly advises the Christian to avoid.

OK, I am saying that I have read the passages in the Bible and I believe that they are not clear. You think I am doing this just to argue? Why would you think I am lying about my motives? I have said that I find the passages ambiguous and debatable, and I stand by that. I am not doing this "for the sake of contention".

-Chris

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
What do YOU believe, and why? Why do you find ambiguity? I keep asking this and you keep showing me things that are as clear as the blue sky on a cloudless day. Where is your doubt coming from? You can't tell me. You just insist it is there.

OK, I want to address this specific point with a small example.

In the Paul letter where he speaks of the particular sins he speaks of "malakoi" and "arsenokotai"; these are the words that are translated in some Bibles as "homosexual offenders" or the like.

However, considere the following two points:
1. These words are unknown outside of Paul's letter.
2. In the 1900 years since the writing of the letter, the word has been translated in a number of ways by different translators.

Can you admit that this at least opens the verse up to debate? Even if you are 100% convinced of your own opinion, can't you even admit that the verse *can* be debated? That there is *something* here that might cause us to call the verse into question?

-Chris

 

[Outspoken]

"Can you admit that this at least opens the verse up to debate? "

I would say no because it is clarified what is ment in the context of the passage.

Oh, seebs I do see you as compasionate, but to the point of allowance of sin. I would rather seem incompassionate and not allow sin or tell someone its okay to sin, then compassionate and let them stumble. Like I always say, a friend is someone who will tell you you're wrong even if it means loosing the friendship over. I'd rather get beat up by a drunk friend taking his keys away and loose his friendship then let him drive and possibly kill himself.

 

[seebs]

Where in the context of 1 Cor 6:9 do we have any clarification of what that word means that doesn't work just as well for all the other translations we've had for it over the years?

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Can you admit that this at least opens the verse up to debate? "

I would say no because it is clarified what is ment in the context of the passage.

OK, so you are disagreeing with my interpretation or opinion. The fact that you disagree does not mean that my position doesn't even exist. It just means you don't agree with it.

Shane is acting like seebs and I don't even believe our own posts, like we're just pulling things out of thin air because we like arguing. I'm trying (maybe in vain?) to show that we believe we have actual points to make regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

It feels sometimes like talking to someone who insists that the Bible clearly says OSAS, and denies that there is *any* possible way *anyone* could *ever* read it any other way. I mean, clearly, there are times when interpretation is debatable, and even if I'm pretty sure which interpretation I think is true, I try not to accuse people of making it up or lying just because they read it differently.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Can you admit that this at least opens the verse up to debate? "

I would say no because it is clarified what is ment in the context of the passage.

Oh, seebs I do see you as compasionate, but to the point of allowance of sin. I would rather seem incompassionate and not allow sin or tell someone its okay to sin, then compassionate and let them stumble. Like I always say, a friend is someone who will tell you you're wrong even if it means loosing the friendship over. I'd rather get beat up by a drunk friend taking his keys away and loose his friendship then let him drive and possibly kill himself.

If being willing to take a beating in order to save a friend from risking his life is not compassion, how do you define compassion?

 

[seebs]

Agreed. What you describe sounds very compassionate to me, Louis.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by kern
OK, I want to address this specific point with a small example.

In the Paul letter where he speaks of the particular sins he speaks of "malakoi" and "arsenokotai"; these are the words that are translated in some Bibles as "homosexual offenders" or the like.

However, considere the following two points:
1. These words are unknown outside of Paul's letter.
2. In the 1900 years since the writing of the letter, the word has been translated in a number of ways by different translators.

Can you admit that this at least opens the verse up to debate? Even if you are 100% convinced of your own opinion, can't you even admit that the verse *can* be debated? That there is *something* here that might cause us to call the verse into question?

-Chris

 

No, becaue for one the words are not "unknown outside of pauls letter."  Arsenokotai at least is a compound of the words, man and couch, or recline.  Malakoi is not as clear in its derivation but refers to softness, and in the context of the verse it is clear which direction it is heading, as it precedes the phrase including arsenokotai. 

 

As I have been asking repeatedly, I want to know what exactly is confusing about these issues.

 

[seebs]

What's confusing is that a compound of "man and bed" (clearly sexual) could mean anything from male prostitutes to men who sleep with (something) to... There's tons of things it *might* mean. It most certainly does not mean "both gay men and lesbians", which is what "homosexuals" means.

Saint Jerome said it was "masculorum concubitores". What makes you so sure you know better than he did?

 

[Shane Roach]

The context of the sentence is clearly nothing to do with specifically for-profit or ritual sex acts. Also, I do not see the common reading as in contradiction to Saint Jerome. I think your remark about me thinking I know better than Saint Jerome is a red herring in the argument. It's just an emotionalistic outburst that serves nothing but to draw attention away from the actual question of whether or not your argument makes sense that there is some confusion here.


There is no reason to make the assumption that a perverse sexual act, carried out in a situation outside of a pagan religion, somehow becomes ok. Certainly all other varieties of sexual sin remain sinful whether in or out of a pagan worship ritual.

 

[seebs]

The point, Shane, is that we haven't got a single clear instance of the act being condemned that is not part of such a ritual.

The context of the sentence is a list of sinful things that people might have done.

And if you don't see a contradiction between "male prostitutes" and "homosexuals", I suggest you reconsider. Let's compare.

MP: Sex for money.
HS: Sex for attraction.
MP: Sex with either, depending.
HS: Sex with same sex.
MP: Always male, obviously.
HS: Male or female.

These are pretty different. "Homosexuals" and "male prostitutes" are *NOT* the same thing.

Anyway, once again, what "context" do you see in that sentence that tells you exactly what acts are and aren't listed? It's a list of sinful things; all we know about them is that they're sinful. Male prostitution certainly sounds sinful to my untrained ear.

Basically, you're still begging the question. You keep assuming your conclusion; you say "taking it out of the pagan context doesn't make it okay, because it's still wrong".

If it were "bowing to pagan idols", you'd immediately grant that changing context mattered. If it were "heterosexual sex", you'd grant that context mattered.

Why doesn't it matter here? Because you've *already made up your mind*. You aren't asking the question "what does the Bible say here", you're asking the question "what does the Bible say about this despicable perverse thing". That's no way to learn God's will; you have to find the condemnation in the source text *without* making those assumptions.

 

[seebs]

Okay, let's narrow this down: *exactly* what "context" do you feel 1 Cor 6:9 implies? Would "prostitution" not fit in the list? Why not? You seem quite sure that for-profit or ritual sex acts could not have been listed among the sins Paul was talking about. Why?

 

[Outspoken]

"The fact that you disagree does not mean that my position doesn't even exist. It just means you don't agree with it."

I would agree, you can change the text then you would have proof, but as it stands now, you don't have any


"If being willing to take a beating in order to save a friend from risking his life is not compassion, how do you define compassion?"

If you take a beating in order for a man to kill or rape women, that's to a fault. That's what I'm refering to, so please don't take my comments out of context Fragments, you know better, as do you seebs. Just shows me how ya'll like to twist statements ever so slightly to make them say something totally different.

 

[Outspoken]

"The point, Shane, is that we haven't got a single clear instance of the act being condemned that is not part of such a ritual."

that is just outright untrue.

 

[seebs]

I think we've reached the point of no further progress again. I find your arguments lacking in evidence; you find mine lacking in evidence. Neither of us will be convinced by any of this.

 

[Outspoken]

"I find your arguments lacking in evidence; you find mine lacking in evidence. Neither of us will be convinced by any of this."

Okay, well just get your sissors and start cutting out passages, because that's the only way you have any way to refute the bible Its a sin seebs.

 

[seebs]

Well, just go ahead and throw away any history books or linguistics books, because that's the only way you have any way to change what it "clearly" says.

Sheesh! Just when we're getting along, you turn into a jerk again.

Honestly, I just *WISH* I could put you in a room with one of the men who, after weeks of study, decided that the Southern Baptists *had* to separate from the Northern Baptists, because the Northern Baptists were simply *ignoring* the clear teachings of the Bible.

I don't think you'd ever convince him that slavery was wrong, or that he'd ever convince you slavery was right.

I *do* think you'd both come out of the experience with a clearer understanding of how frustrating it is when someone simply denies that your understanding is a possible one.

 

[Outspoken]

"Well, just go ahead and throw away any history books or linguistics books, because that's the only way you have any way to change what it "clearly" says."

LOL, no the text says one thing and you say another. That's okay, just don't say you adhere to what the bible says.

"I just *WISH* I could put you in a room "

Been there done that.

"I don't think you'd ever convince him that slavery was wrong"

sure I could, I've heard all the arguments I've even read a book on it, and I've seen how eaisly you can refute them.

"I *do* think you'd both come out of the experience with a clearer understanding of how frustrating it is when someone simply denies that your understanding is a possible one."

maybe so, but he, like you, is simply ignoring what the text says.

 

[seebs]

Okay, fine. Every Christian who lived between the death of Christ and the 1500's simply ignored what the Bible says; a few people raised occasional concerns about it over the next couple hundred years, but as late as 1823, people were writing papers on Biblical support for slavery, but none of them were making *ANY* effort to read the Bible. I guess you can believe that. I don't; I believe that people frequently and regularly misread the Bible, and that most of them never really confront the problem.