Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[dies-l]

The military has rules. This guy joined the military knowing those rules, and he chose to violate them. Thank God he got caught and punished. He made the choice. Whether he agrees with the rules or not, his enlistment was an agreement to follow the rules or be punished. He threw away 14 years of service only to be demoted to an E-1 and kicked out after 3 months of hard labor.

So, wait I'm confused. I sounds like you are saying now that your opinions are based on something other than your beliefs and convictions? If not, then why would it matter that this person violated the rules? And, how do you know this guy was guilty? Was there any evidence to that effect ... no, wait, I'm sorry, you said you don't base your opinions on evidence, so that would have been irrelevent. I suppose he must have just looked like the type of guy who might have kiddie porn, which is against the rules, and in your opinion, which is based only on your beliefs and convictions (and your interpretation of the Bible), breaking the rules is bad? I think I am catching on.

But, I am still confused about one thing . . . . If you really are the relativist that you are claiming to be, then why are you discussing your opinions with us? You claim no logical basis for your opinions, so you are unlikely to convince anyone else that they are correct. And, since you don't base your own opinions on anything other than your own beliefs and convictions, such that any argumentation or evidence to contrary is irrelevent, the discussion will have no impact on your own opinions. In this case, it would seem like discussing your opinions would be a waste of time.

 

[Dogbean]

All right, Big Bad Wolf, Leviticus is just the first verse that came to mind. I can quote other verses from the New Testament that condemn homosexuality. We've been over this before but for the sake of David Brider, I'll give a couple here.

1 Cor 6:9-10 9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:5-11 5But the goal of our (A)instruction is love (B)from a pure heart and a (C)good conscience and a sincere (D)faith.

6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to (E)fruitless discussion,
7(F)wanting to be (G)teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
8But we know that (H)the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9realizing the fact that (I)law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and (J)rebellious, for the (K)ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and (L)profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and (M)immoral men and (N)homosexuals and (O)kidnappers and (P)liars and (Q)perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (R)sound teaching, 11according to (S)the glorious gospel of (T)the blessed God, with which I have been (U)entrusted.

 

[Dogbean]

So, wait I'm confused. I sounds like you are saying now that your opinions are based on something other than your beliefs and convictions? If not, then why would it matter that this person violated the rules? And, how do you know this guy was guilty? Was there any evidence to that effect ... no, wait, I'm sorry, you said you don't base your opinions on evidence, so that would have been irrelevent. I suppose he must have just looked like the type of guy who might have kiddie porn, which is against the rules, and in your opinion, which is based only on your beliefs and convictions (and your interpretation of the Bible), breaking the rules is bad? I think I am catching on.

But, I am still confused about one thing . . . . If you really are the relativist that you are claiming to be, then why are you discussing your opinions with us? You claim no logical basis for your opinions, so you are unlikely to convince anyone else that they are correct. And, since you don't base your own opinions on anything other than your own beliefs and convictions, such that any argumentation or evidence to contrary is irrelevent, the discussion will have no impact on your own opinions. In this case, it would seem like discussing your opinions would be a waste of time.

This post is ridiculous! Step back and think about the drivel that's coming out of your mouth here. You're so focused on trying to debunk what I'm saying that you fail to see that you are making no sense here. I'm not going to get into an arguement with you since I can't even make sense out of what you are saying.

Why am I discussing with you guys? Because it's fun and it's a good way to waste time during a slow day at work. That's why. I don't sweat anything you have to say. And at the end of the day when I go home, I forget about everything that goes on here because I know the Truth and I know many people here who I get into debates with are not interested in it. They are more interested in trying to show off their vain intelligence here, trying to impress everyone with big words and debating skills. They are not interested in being enlightened by anyone else. Therefore, I get torn apart on a regular basis, but it does not bother me. It has no eternal significance.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I'm not for gay marriage, but I'm certainly not against adoption.

 

[BigBadWlf]

All right, Big Bad Wolf, Leviticus is just the first verse that came to mind. I can quote other verses from the New Testament that condemn homosexuality.

And racists quote both old and new testament verses as justification for their views. Does being able to quote scripture make racism acceptable?

We've been over this before but for the sake of David Brider, I'll give a couple here.

1 Cor 6:9-10
1 Tim 1:5-11

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

There is no reason or justification for the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual

This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. Specifically koitai is feminine. Thus making arsenokoites (if one accepts the compound origin of the definition) a reference to a man in a woman’s bed, not a man in the bed of another man.


Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it either. That aside…the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places, but none of them are connected to homosexuality. If you're going to use this justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all the other appearances of arsen and koite and the fact that they were referring to completely separate things

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

 

[Dogbean]

I honestly don't see how the Scripture can be used to support racism. There's no way, man.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I honestly don't see how the Scripture can be used to support racism. There's no way, man.

The same way you are using scripture to justify your personal prejudice against gays and lesbians

 

[Brennin]

And racists quote both old and new testament verses as justification for their views. Does being able to quote scripture make racism acceptable?

Quote them.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen.

That is false. I suggest you stop lifting arguments from gay apologetic websites.

There is no reason or justification for the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual

There is every justification.

This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

It's funny how he has to make recourse to English to make his point. That is because he has not demonstrated a working knowledge of Greek, much like the pseudoscholar, Dale Martin, he lifted this from. Anyway, Paul appears to have coined the term and he did so with Levitivus in mind. It literally denotes "men who bed men."

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. Specifically koitai is feminine. Thus making arsenokoites (if one accepts the compound origin of the definition) a reference to a man in a woman’s bed, not a man in the bed of another man.

The nominative plural ending for first declension, masculine nouns with stems ending in eta is alpha-iota. You obviously do not know Greek.

Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites but rarely. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either. What does become clear from those writings is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes.

That is false. Obviously, you have never bothered to check Martin's reference, as it does not support his claim.


I, for one, am tired of the opposition recycling the same old canards in these discussions.

 

[Brennin]

The same way you are using scripture to justify your personal prejudice against gays and lesbians

To the contrary, it is like how you try to distort scripture to excuse the sin of homoeroticism.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Quote them.

Been there done that.

That is false.

Evidence?

There is every justification.

Your desire to justify your own petty personal prejudice is not justification

Paul appears to have coined the term and he did so with Levitivus in mind.

Evidence?

It literally denotes "men who bed men."

Evidence?

The nominative plural ending for first declension, masculine nouns with stems ending in eta is alpha-iota. You obviously do not know Greek.

Coming form you that is a laugh

That is false.

Evidence?

I, for one, am tired of the opposition recycling the same old canards in these discussions.

And I’m tired of claims that are never backed up and the recycling of racism to justify anti-gay prejudice

 

[Dogbean]

The same way you are using scripture to justify your personal prejudice against gays and lesbians

Big Bad Wolf, haven't we been round and round on this enough in our earlier discussions? I told you over and over again that I am not prejudiced against gays and lesbians. They are sinners who need to be reached out to in love. And I can love them personally without having the government extend to them the benefits of marriage. Marriage has been instituted by God to be the union of one man and one woman, and it is sacred. Your problem is with the definition of marriage. Your faith icon says you are catholic; that means you read the same Bible I do. You should know and understand this. Times are changing but God's Word does not. And just because I cling to God's view of marriage does not mean I am prejudiced toward anyone. And while I will continue to support any legislation to preserve what marriage is, I will never think of gays and lesbians as substandard people or less than what I am, and I will love them just like anyone else.

 

[Brennin]

Been there done that.

In other words, you can't.

Evidence?

You obviously don't know how this whole argument thing works. You made the assertion. Thus, the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

Evidence?

See the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

Evidence?

arsen = man; koite^ = "euphemism" for sex (in this context). Koite^ carries verbal force in this compound and arsen refers to the object of action.

Coming form you that is a laugh

That would be a horse laugh.

Evidence?

You obviously don't know how this whole argument thing works. You made the assertion. Thus, the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

And I’m tired of claims that are never backed up and the recycling of racism to justify anti-gay prejudice

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

 

[Brennin]

Wow, I see what you mean BigBadWlf. Racists can get a lot of mileage out of the following verses:

Acts 8:26-40

26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place. 27And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot." 30So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

"Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
33In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth." 34And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 40But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.

Not to mention Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


Such naked racism!

 

[David Brider]

David! You are a believer and you are seriously asking this? Here's one verse. I can give you others.

Leviticus 18:22-23 (New International Version)

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Trouble is, that verse doesn't say "homosexuality is detestable". The strongest case you can make for that verse to support your argument is that it might be talking about male-male sex (but if that's your argument, then you're confusing sexual orientation with sexual activity).

But it probably isn't talking about sex, because in Leviticus 18 you've got something like a dozen verses, all consistently (in just about every translation I've come across) translated as "do not have sexual relations with..." (or sometimes "do not uncover the nakedness of..."). Then in verse 22, it suddenly shifts to this rather clunky phrase that gets translated as "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (as has been pointed out elsewhere in these threads, literally it's something like "do not lie with a man the lyings of a woman"). No mention of sexual relations.

So no, I'm not convinced that that verse represents a strong case against homosexuality.

David.

 

[Dogbean]

All right David Brider, fair enough. That verse in Leviticus is a little clunky. But how do you get around what I said in this post?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

Trouble is, that verse doesn't say "homosexuality is detestable". The strongest case you can make for that verse to support your argument is that it might be talking about male-male sex (but if that's your argument, then you're confusing sexual orientation with sexual activity).

The problem is that this verse describes homosexual practice, so for you to look at whether it says anything about homosexuality is to miss what it says in the first place.

But it probably isn't talking about sex, because in Leviticus 18 you've got something like a dozen verses, all consistently (in just about every translation I've come across) translated as "do not have sexual relations with..." (or sometimes "do not uncover the nakedness of...").

And ‘do not lie with’ and ‘do not lie carnally with’ You haven’t given the whole picture.
It is impossible to see this chapter about anything other than sexual activities including a man lying with a man as with a woman. how can that verse not be talking about male-male sex?

So no, I'm not convinced that that verse represents a strong case against homosexuality.

Ok that’s your choice, I would say it clearly is and your objection is illogical.

 

[David Brider]

All right David Brider, fair enough. That verse in Leviticus is a little clunky. But how do you get around what I said in this post?

Given that the word "arsenokoites" has been translated in many different ways over the years, I'm not convinced that "homosexual" is necessarily the best translation of the word. It's certainly not the only possible translation of the word.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it refers to promiscuity - either committed by a man or with men.

David.

 

[David Brider]

The problem is that this verse describes homosexual practice...

What makes you think that, though?

For that matter, how are you defining "homosexual practice"?

so for you to look at whether it says anything about homosexuality is to miss what it says in the first place.

Given that tackleberry's assertion was that it says that "homosexuality is detestable", then I'd say that the fact that it doesn't say anything about homosexuality per se is in fact totally relevant to the discussion at hand.

...in Leviticus 18 you've got something like a dozen verses, all consistently (in just about every translation I've come across) translated as "do not have sexual relations with..." (or sometimes "do not uncover the nakedness of...").

And ‘do not lie with’ and ‘do not lie carnally with’ You haven’t given the whole picture.

I've yet to come across any translations that render the verses before 18:22 as "do not lie with" or "do not lie carnally with" - which translations are you thinking of?

It is impossible to see this chapter about anything other than sexual activities including a man lying with a man as with a woman.

Mostly, yes. But if verse 22 is meant to convey the same concepts as the preceding dozen or so verses, then why is it worded so differently?

how can that verse not be talking about male-male sex?

The verse means precisely what it says, and what it says is "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman". The assumption that it's referring to sex is a common one, but from the wording of the verse, and the context of the previous ones, it's unlikely to be referring to sex.

Ok that’s your choice, I would say it clearly is and your objection is illogical.

On the contrary, I'd say that if you're insisting, despite the evidence, that Leviticus 18:22 is referring to homosexuality, then it's your position that's illogical.

David.

 

[Dogbean]

David, why do you fight this so hard? Why so insistant? "Fornicators" covers the promiscuity you mention.

It means homosexual. God does not approve of homosexual practice. Bottom line. You need to stop coming up with loopholes and accept that God does not approve of gay behavior. Stop trying to justify it.

 

[David Brider]

David, why do you fight this so hard? Why so insistant? "Fornicators" covers the promiscuity you mention.

To be honest, I don't think of myself as fighting particularly hard or insistently. But anyway.

Fornication refers to sexual intercourse with someone to whom one is not married.

Promiscuity refers to sexual activity with multiple partners.

So the two don't mean the same thing (although there can certainly be a degree of overlap between them).

It means homosexual.

If it (and by "it" I take it you mean the word arsenokoites) means "homosexual", then why has it been translated so many different ways down the years? Why has the translation "homosexual" only recently been adopted?

God does not approve of homosexual practice. Bottom line. You need to stop coming up with loopholes and accept that God does not approve of gay behavior.

And yet, as I've said - I've studied and re-studied the verses commonly brought up to make this assertion, and I've found that they don't say what I've been told they say. If someone, somewhere, could present a clear, cut-and-dried Biblical argument that either same-gender sexual activity is 100% sinful, or even that same-gender sexual attraction is 100% sinful, I'd accept that. Trouble is, there is no such Biblical argument.

Stop trying to justify it.

I'm not trying to justify anything. It's not as if I have anything to justify.

David.