Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[David Brider]

This is not difficult. Arsenokoitai refers to men who bed one or more men.

Given that "arsenokoitai" only contains "arseno" once, and the "koitai" is plural, surely it's more likely to be either men who sleep with more than one person, or people who sleep with more than one man - i.e., some form of promiscuity. I'd be inclined to go with the latter, but which ever you opt for I don't see anything intrinsic to the word to suggest that Paul's necessarily using it to refer to a male-male situation. As others have pointed out, Greek already had a word to convey the meaning of male-male sex, so why would Paul not have used that instead of effectively making up this entirely new word?

 

[brightmorningstar]

friends, the Bible versions all say the likes of homosexual offenders, homosexuals, sodomites and abusers of themselves with mankind.
The extensive investigation and dialogue in recent years has not provided a conclusive challenge to this.
If pro homosexuals want to write their own pro-gay Bible then they can do so, as far as the Bibles we have they obviously dont believe or accpet what they say so ist not use arguing about it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is not difficult. Arsenokoitai refers to men who bed one or more men.

goal post shifting.

That wasn't how you translated arsenokroite like 3 posts ago

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The extensive investigation and dialogue in recent years has not provided a conclusive challenge to this.

Yes it has. Some people choose to ignore these challenges and pretend they don't exist, but that does not make them non-existant

 

[David Brider]

friends, the Bible versions all say the likes of homosexual offenders, homosexuals, sodomites and abusers of themselves with mankind.

But are they accurate translations of what Paul intended, or are they reflective of the times in which they were translated? What exactly does "abusers of themselves with mankind" mean? (I'm wondering if this, more than anything else, is the source of the claim that arsenokoites has been translated as "masturbators" since historically masturbation has been called self-abuse; even so "abusers of themselves with mankind" is an odd choice of phrase.) At least one translation uses the rather bizarre phrase "those who practice homosexuality", which I can only assume was translated by people who had no understanding of what homosexuality is...

The extensive investigation and dialogue in recent years has not provided a conclusive challenge to this.

Conclusive, no. But nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that a.) arsenokoites has been subject to different translations down the years - translations which don't all mean the same thing as each other, and that b.) analysis of the root of the word arsenokoites demonstrates that the assumption that it means "homosexuals" is not necessarily accurate.

If pro homosexuals want to write their own pro-gay Bible then they can do so...

Frankly, no - I'm far happier with coming to a clearer understanding of what the Bible we've got means.

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear David Brider,

But are they accurate translations of what Paul intended, or are they reflective of the times in which they were translated?

They are from the risen Lord Jesus Christ for all time as Paul wrote. See for example Galatians 1 and Ephesians 5, You clearly just don t believe the Bible.
In 1 Cor 6:9 one already sees pornos and moichos which is adultery outside marriage as we can see from 1 Cor 5 and Matthew 19 etc. So abusers of themselves with mankind is homosexual practice to the KJV times, and sodomites, and homosexual offenders is contemporary language.

Frankly, no - I'm far happier with coming to a clearer understanding of what the Bible we've got means.

it means what it says sodomites, abusers of themselves with mankind means homosexual offenders. We believe this is the word of God, if you don’t believe this is write a pro-gay version.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

and sodomites, and homosexual offenders is contemporary language.

Baloney.

"sodomite" did not come to refer to homosexual intercourse until the end of the 13th century. At the time of Paul's writing, "sodomite" meant nothing other than "inhabitant of Sodom". Seems that if people actually read some of the scholarly research on such matters, rather than just swallowing whatever supports their pre-existing convictions, they might now this sort of thing.

sodomy c.1297, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma, ult. from Heb. s'dom "Sodom," morally corrupt city in ancient Palestine, said to have been destroyed, with neighboring Gomorrah, by fire from heaven (Gen. xviii-xix). Sodomize coined 1868. In Du. slang, besodemieteren means "to deceive," and evidently is built from the traditional notion of "corruption" in Sodom. sod (2) term of abuse, 1818, short for sodomite (see sodomy). British colloquial sod-all "nothing" is attested from 1958. pederasty "sodomy with a boy," 1609, from Mod.L. pæderastia, from Gk. paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast," from pais (gen. paidos) "child, boy" (see pedo-) + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love." Pederast is 1730s, from Fr. pédéraste, from Gk. paiderastes.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear David Brider,
They are from the risen Lord Jesus Christ for all time as Paul wrote. See for example Galatians 1 and Ephesians 5, You clearly just don t believe the Bible.

Non Sequiter. It does not matter how accurately Paul presented Jesus' message into Greek. Those who translated the Greek into English were not apostles inspired of God to be inerrant in their interpretation.

In 1 Cor 6:9 one already sees pornos and moichos which is adultery outside marriage as we can see from 1 Cor 5 and Matthew 19 etc. So abusers of themselves with mankind is homosexual practice to the KJV times, and sodomites, and homosexual offenders is contemporary language.

I'll grant you the possibilty in the AV because of the appended "with mankind." But how do you explain the fact that Martin Luther's translation into German cleary considers the arsenokoitai to be masturbators?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Justinian I and Byzantine power politics of late antiquity

The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 500s AD. Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, was the first to declare that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them, in order to create homosexual scapegoats for recent earthquakes and other disasters of his time (see Extreme weather events of 535-536), but most of all to enact anti-homosexual laws that he then used upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else.[citation needed]

 

[Inviolable]

We really need an eye rolling smiley for statements like this



That is an amazing claim. Particularly since all the published evidence says the opposite. Care to back up your claims with evidence?



Because doing so would break truth in advertising laws

Only if you have trouble comprehending the difference between being gay and being black or white or yellow or brown...
Do you have trouble understanding that?

 

[OllieFranz]

Only if you have trouble comprehending the difference between being gay and being black or white or yellow or brown...
Do you have trouble understanding that?

There is just as much of a difference between being Jewish and being black or white or yellow or brown ...

Does that make it OK to discriminate against Jews in housing and employment. Or does it make it OK try to change the laws to forbid Jews to marry? First and foremost, Blacks, Whites, Browns, Yellows, Jews, and, yes, even gays are human beings, entitled to be treated with human digniy, and common decency.

 

[Inviolable]

There is just as much of a difference between being Jewish and being black or white or yellow or brown ...

Does that make it OK to discriminate against Jews in housing and employment. Or does it make it OK try to change the laws to forbid Jews to marry? First and foremost, Blacks, Whites, Browns, Yellows, Jews, and, yes, even gays are human beings, entitled to be treated with human digniy, and common decency.

Well I agree with you, that we're all human beings. Being gay however is a completely different frame of mind then being Jewish or black.
Of course we all deserve rights and we should all be happy.
I'm not mistreating homosexuals. I give them every ounce of dignity and common decency I give everyone else. I just happen to think gay sex is repulsive. Whats wrong with that?
Should I be labeled because I don't agree with homosexual sex?

 

[HaloHope]

Well I agree with you, that we're all human beings. Being gay however is a completely different frame of mind then being Jewish or black.
Of course we all deserve rights and we should all be happy.
I'm not mistreating homosexuals. I give them every ounce of dignity and common decency I give everyone else. I just happen to think gay sex is repulsive. Whats wrong with that?
Should I be labeled because I don't agree with homosexual sex?

People shouldn't be labelled or treated badly for thinking homosexuality is wrong. If however you vote to restrict the rights of gay people id personally label anyone who did in a negative way because doing your best to weaken and undermine the relationships of others (people wholl youll probably never meet and have no bearing on your life) then its overstepping the mark.

Civil marriage in the UK for gay people seemed to pass by with minimal resistance apart from the few loony toons protesting the first few peoples weddings. I dont see why its an issue in any western country, it should be normal completely in the western world by now.

 

[Inviolable]

People shouldn't be labelled or treated badly for thinking homosexuality is wrong. If however you vote to restrict the rights of gay people id personally label anyone who did in a negative way because doing your best to weaken and undermine the relationships of others (people wholl youll probably never meet and have no bearing on your life) then its overstepping the mark.

Civil marriage in the UK for gay people seemed to pass by with minimal resistance apart from the few loony toons protesting the first few peoples weddings. I dont see why its an issue in any western country, it should be normal completely in the western world by now.

It's not negative, I just don't think homosexuality is normal. Dont see a reason to treat it as normal either. But whats wrong with being abnormal?

 

[HaloHope]

It's not negative, I just don't think homosexuality is normal. Dont see a reason to treat it as normal either. But whats wrong with being abnormal?

Nothing, unless it gives people an excuse to treat you differently to people they perceive as "normal".

 

[Inviolable]

Nothing, unless it gives people an excuse to treat you differently to people they perceive as "normal".

Give examples. There are some abnormal people who really need to be treated different. In my opinion, homosexuals are among them.

 

[HaloHope]

Give examples. There are some abnormal people who really need to be treated different. In my opinion, homosexuals are among them.

Well you obviously know that I was getting at homosexuals being treated differently in the states and being denied civil marriages just because they were gay.

A few decades ago black people were denied civil rights due to being black and some white people perceiving them as different. While it's a different thing it is still the same reasoning from the individuals who restricted peoples rights.

The ONLY reason for treating someone differently and denying them rights if they break civil law and HARM other people.

I'm curious as to why you think that myself and my girlfriend should be treated differently based on our sexuality.

 

[Andreusz]

Give examples. There are some abnormal people who really need to be treated different. In my opinion, homosexuals are among them.

And what sort of different treatment do you think we merit?

(By the way, I find the thought of heterosexual sex repulsive.)

 

[Inviolable]

Well you obviously know that I was getting at homosexuals being treated differently in the states and being denied civil marriages just because they were gay.

A few decades ago black people were denied civil rights due to being black and some white people perceiving them as different. While it's a different thing it is still the same reasoning from the individuals who restricted peoples rights.

The ONLY reason for treating someone differently and denying them rights if they break civil law and HARM other people.

I'm curious as to why you think that myself and my girlfriend should be treated differently based on our sexuality.

You have no idea how tired I am of hearing, how uncivil it is to deny gays their rights to marry because blacks were once denied the right to do something.
That has got to be the oldest argument. I mean going back to the 70's.

We treat people differently all the time. All the time. Every where all across the face of the planet. I'd guess that right now millions of people are being treated differently and I can assure you they're not feeling like they're being mistreated in the least.
This isn't a question about hate. I don't hate anyone. Well... there are a few people I really don't like but thats another story.
It's not a stigma or a dogma or a matter of prejudice or ignorance.
I know who I am and I know who they are.
I just think they're abnormal. Not normal. Not like a lot of other people are.
I think they act in an odd way. I don't hate them for the color of their skin or because of where they came from. I don't even hate them for being abnormal. It would be just silly to hate someone because they're abnormal.
You just treat abnormal people as if they're abnormal.
You don't like being abnormal?

 

[Andreusz]

I insist that gay marriage represents the greatest form of legalized child abuse ever written into law, because social experiments in other countries that allow gay marriage have shown that adult children of gay parents suffer from high rates of depression, anxiety and divorce.

Several times the poster of the OP has been challenged to give evidence for this statement, but he has provided none. I submit that this is because no such evidence exists. In other words, the the OP is a lie. (I'm an atheist, and don't know how Christianity works ... is lying considered wrong?) It is the sort of lie that was told about the Jews in Czarist Russia an Nazi Germany, is is thus to be considered dangerous, even threatening. Perhaps the moderators could look into this.