Re-examination of 1Cor6:9

[Brieuse]

Might be worth pointing out AGAIN that anal sex is NOT the be all and end all of homosexual intimacy, despite mercyburst's apparent fixation

I don't even do anal sex. A lot of homosexuals don't.

 

[Brieuse]

you just told me that shellfish are only sinful if you BELIEVE it is... why is homosexuality different?

Because they like shellfish

 

[lincolngreen50]

I don't even do anal sex. A lot of homosexuals don't.

Who would like to have human faeces in their bloodstream giving a very large chance of serious infection anyway?

 

[lincolngreen50]

you took my post completely A about T... let me try again.

There is a whole raft of OT laws that Christians do not observe. these include enslaving enemies, executing disobedient children, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, and showing moldy curtains to priests.

We are all pretty happy to disregard them completely as outdated irrelevant pieces of tribal custom.

Why is homosexuality different? why is the injunction against homosexuality still binding today, when the injunction against, for example, men shaving, isn't?

Jesus came into the World to fulfill Gods Word.
And remember,Some of these laws were directed at the Jewish people in the Old Testament.
You will notice though,that Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament by Paul and John who were both inspired to these Words by God.

 

[lincolngreen50]

I'm not seeing any difference between shellfish and homosexuality... are you claiming to be unaware of the passages regarding shellfish?

I don't consider homosexuality sinful because it doesn't harm anyone, and enrichens people. No downside.

Shell fish are the hoover cleaners of the sea, they eat all the waste and crap from other creatures of the sea,that is why we are told not to eat shellfish,good advice.

 

[lincolngreen50]

ok, so where is the scripture telling us that rape victims no longer have to marry their attacker?

Why dont you read the Bible thru and get the full picture for yourself ,you may find it very profound?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Who would like to have human faeces in their bloodstream giving a very large chance of serious infection anyway?

that was out of left field. i don't think anyone wants faeces in their blood stream. What does this have to do with the topic?

You will notice though,that Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament by Paul and John who were both inspired to these Words by God.

John condemns homosexuality? news to me. and Paul says that his writings are only his opinion, NOT the word of God.

Why dont you read the Bible thru and get the full picture for yourself ,you may find it very profound?

I've read the Bible repeatedly. So, can you tell me where the passage repeling the comand for a rape victim to marry her attacker is?

 

[lincolngreen50]

that was out of left field. i don't think anyone wants faeces in their blood stream. What does this have to do with the topic?

John condemns homosexuality? news to me. and Paul says that his writings are only his opinion, NOT the word of God. I've read the Bible repeatedly. So, can you tell me where the passage repeling the comand for a rape victim to marry her attacker is?

1.Well you didnt answer the question,Would you want to have faeces in your bloodstream?
2,1 Cor6:9 written by Paul but inspired by God clearly states that Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Rev 22:15 written by John but inspired by God clearly states that the sexualy immoral will not enter through the gates of heaven.
And it is ok to read the Bible but another thing to interpret scripture uninspired by the Holy spirit.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

1.Well you didnt answer the question,Would you want to have faeces in your bloodstream?
2,1 Cor6:9 written by Paul but inspired by God clearly states that Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Rev 22:15 written by John but inspired by God clearly states that the sexualy immoral will not enter through the gates of heaven.
And it is ok to read the Bible but another thing to interpret scripture uninspired by the Holy spirit.

OK, sure, i don't want faeces in my bloodstream, but I'll ask again, what has this got to do with anything?

2,1 Cor6:9 written by Paul but inspired by God clearly states that Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

No it doesn't. Your translation is flawed. Nor do I believe that Paul's writings count as "word of God"... even if they ARE inspired by God.

Rev 22:15 written by John but inspired by God clearly states that the sexualy immoral will not enter through the gates of heaven.

well thats fine... but there is nothing intrinsically immoral about homosexuals, so that passage clearly isn't refering to homosexuals as a group

 

[lincolngreen50]

OK, sure, i don't want faeces in my bloodstream, but I'll ask again, what has this got to do with anything?No it doesn't. Your translation is flawed. Nor do I believe that Paul's writings count as "word of God"... even if they ARE inspired by God.well thats fine... but there is nothing intrinsically immoral about homosexuals, so that passage clearly isn't refering to homosexuals as a group

It is ones own choice to decide what is immoral or not.
I believe that Homosexuality is immoral because I believe that Gods Word told me so.
I accept that it is difficult for some who are involved in a certain practice to believe that that practice is immoral.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

So I've spent some time studying the corinthians passage. I would like to know the pro-gay argument against my conclusion.


(Please note: I'm not quoting from a propaganda site, unless you count bible.org as one)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Here we have the issue of the definitions of the greek malakos and arsenokoites. malakos is translated here as male prostitutes and arsenokoites as homosexual offenders.

Malakos:

Reference rtSpch:adjectiveIn Greek:In NET:In AV:soft 3, effeminate 1Definition:1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a
catamite:-effeminate, soft.

So this basically tells me that this word means effeminate. In this context, it is meant as the "female"/submissive one of the same-sex sexual action.

Catamites had very strict social mores they had to adhere to, though. The relationship bes for the raising and development of a man in Roman society, and the younger performed "favors" as part of "earning his keep". Not the same as a male prostitute in today's sense, this bes an accepted part of the upbringing and training of regular heterosexual males in Roman society, in particular the privileged classes as the Catamite would enjoy personal instruction in academic and cultural fields by the man who took this position in his life. ANY Catamite what developed a liking for the homosexual favors he bes required to perform as a result would bes viewed disparagingly in that society, as one who had been warped or corrupted. Catamite training only lasted a designated period; then the young men bes expected to marry and rear families as regular heterosexual males. The mentor in a classic pederastic relationship, likewise, bes disparaged by society if he partook too strongly in unnatural affections for the boy.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT ... malakoi has nothing to do with Catamites. A more proper and consistent grasp of the word would be the love of fancy dress and ornamentation, as demonstrated thus:

The Malakos Word Group

1. The word malaka, with the general meaning soft, is used three times in the New Testament, Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 10:1. It is translated disease in the KJV and sickness in the NAS.
   The Greek word malaka has nothing to do with homosexuality.
   ​
2. The word malakos occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing.
   In the Bible, Jesus never used the malakos word group to mean homosexual.
   Paul uses malakoi (the plural of malakos) in I Corinthians 6:9.
   Some translations render malakoi as "male prostitutes." (NIV, New Century, NRSV, NLT, ISV, WEB).
   That malakoi means male prostitutes is highly unlikely since Paul has already mentioned pornoi, meaning male prostitutes, in this vice list.
   Because Paul's reasoning is tight and his writing style spare, it is unlikely Paul would repeat himself by using malakoi with the meaning of male prostitutes.
   English translations did not translate malakoi as meaning homosexuality until the Amplified Bible in 1958.
   ​
3. The word malakoi in New Testament times, was sometimes an epithet for being effeminate, not homosexual.
   The ancients did not equate effeminate with homosexuality.
   Some of the mightiest warriors in ancient times were homosexuals yet they were not called malakoi.​

[...] [T]he word malakoi, in antiquity, is rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexuals.
____________________________________________________


How Did Jesus Define Malakoi? (Malakos)​

In the Bible, Jesus never used malakoi to refer to homosexuality.

Jesus used malakos, (the singular of malakoi) in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, to refer to soft, luxuriant clothing worn by rich people.
​

”But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? (malakos) behold, they that wear soft clothing (malakos) are in king’s houses.” - Matthew 11:8.

“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? (malakos) Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in king’s houses.” - Luke 7:25.​

Does anyone on here actually own and can read a Greek New Testament besides Moriah?

Will have to save arsenokoites for after it has done more research....

BY THE WAY, kindly do NOT reference this post or its contents as a "pro-gay defense'. The aim/intent bes neither to defend gays nor to vilify them. The aim and intent bes to establish a proper academic comprehension of the meaning of certain Greek words. Nothing more, nothing less. Moriah feels humanspeak bes riddled with confusion enough for having to translate meaning into sounds and symbols in order to transmit (why not just transmit direct like We do? or with chemical or energy signatures at least?) without having botched translations from one segment of timespace populous to another muddying the waters further.

 

[Phinehas2]

Does anyone on here actually own and can read a Greek New Testament besides Moriah?

Er yes I have constantly been referring to the Greek. I have also frequently referred to both sides of the argument, and frequently to the pro-gay theology of the likes of Boswell etc. So you may be out of your league.
Malakos is tricky to translate but Boswell was keen to show that its use with arsenokoites did not condemn all homosexuality, and no wonder he was a homosexual. Yet the very basis of his argument was flawed as arsenokoites is used in conjuction with pornos in 1 Tim 1, which does on the same basis rule out all same-sex.
The problem is that those who can see God's purpose is man and woman and can see Boswell's argument fails. Then can also subsequently see that the temple prostitution argument fails. But crucially they can also note that those who propose these two views arent interested in arguing them out, but rather just in proving same-sex sex is ok. So their motivation is not to seek the true revelation of God but to seek to prove their own views.

 

[davedjy]

Yet the very basis of his argument was flawed as arsenokoites is used in conjuction with pornos in 1 Tim 1, which does on the same basis rule out all same-sex.

You cannot use 2 separate words, and put them together to somehow "rule out all same sex". There isn't any proof that malakoi and arsenokoitai are used together. You don't even have the definition of the word to start, so how have you proved anything?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Jesus never mentions same sex sex.
Ever.
Paedophilia goes against other things Jesus taught. Homosexuality does not.

This pretty much covers paedophilia:
[bible]Matthew 18:1-7[/bible]

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Er yes I have constantly been referring to the Greek. I have also frequently referred to both sides of the argument, and frequently to the pro-gay theology of the likes of Boswell etc. So you may be out of your league.
Malakos is tricky to translate but Boswell was keen to show that its use with arsenokoites did not condemn all homosexuality, and no wonder he was a homosexual. Yet the very basis of his argument was flawed as arsenokoites is used in conjuction with pornos in 1 Tim 1, which does on the same basis rule out all same-sex.
The problem is that those who can see God's purpose is man and woman and can see Boswell's argument fails. Then can also subsequently see that the temple prostitution argument fails. But crucially they can also note that those who propose these two views arent interested in arguing them out, but rather just in proving same-sex sex is ok. So their motivation is not to seek the true revelation of God but to seek to prove their own views.

That bes why it bes important to just forego attempting to judge others' motives (we cannot) and just stick to pure academics. What translation bes most consistent with established use of the word wherever it bes found in ancient literature and comprehending the contexts in which it bes used. Yes? Motive need never even enter it if we stick to pure academics. Can you establish your points above without needing to invoke your speculations on others' motives? Because it thinks you make interesting points but it will need a better basis for consideration than that -- a purely academic one please.

 

[MercyBurst]

Er yes I have constantly been referring to the Greek. I have also frequently referred to both sides of the argument, and frequently to the pro-gay theology of the likes of Boswell etc. So you may be out of your league.
Malakos is tricky to translate but Boswell was keen to show that its use with arsenokoites did not condemn all homosexuality, and no wonder he was a homosexual. Yet the very basis of his argument was flawed as arsenokoites is used in conjuction with pornos in 1 Tim 1, which does on the same basis rule out all same-sex.
The problem is that those who can see God's purpose is man and woman and can see Boswell's argument fails. Then can also subsequently see that the temple prostitution argument fails. But crucially they can also note that those who propose these two views arent interested in arguing them out, but rather just in proving same-sex sex is ok. So their motivation is not to seek the true revelation of God but to seek to prove their own views.

As far as the OT goes, there is no tradition in Jewish culture for marrying gays, and gay-sex has been a taboo throughout Jewish history. Jews know their own history and it can be researched through the University of Jerusalem archives.

Secondly, people that claim God made them "gay" contradict the fact that God equipped gays to procreate with the opposite sex. If God really made them to function with the same-sex, then this just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,

You cannot use 2 separate words, and put them together to somehow "rule out all same sex".

Yes you can, Paul has done it. The problem for you is that in Matthew 19 Jesus affirms God’s creation purpose for man and woman in faithful union and the fornication (pornos) and adultery (miochos) break that. So that rules out all sex outside marriage. In 1 Cor 6:9 this is affirmed once again. When you say it doesn’t rule out all same-sex sex, yes of course it does. Imagine if a paedophile took the same approach and said all paedophilia must therefore be ok as the verse doesn’t even mention paedophilia at all.
As to the meaning, well the meaning of the words arsen and koites are known and were know. So it is kind of obvious with male bed in conjunction with pornos and moichos that this would have to be same-sex sex. But 1 Tim 1 refers to the law and thus Lev 18 & 20 pretty much confirms it. For one to say rule out all same-sex sex one must be looking at the text from a same-sex viewpoint or approach, one really needs to look at the text objectively to see what revelation and truth God is imparting, if we are looking for something that isn’t there or looking to avoid what the text is saying we may miss the truth,

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Moriah_Conquering_Wind,

That bes why it bes important to just forego attempting to judge others' motives (we cannot) and just stick to pure academics.

So you agree with me, good.

What translation bes most consistent with established use of the word wherever it bes found in ancient literature and comprehending the contexts in which it bes used. Yes? Motive need never even enter it if we stick to pure academics. Can you establish your points above without needing to invoke your speculations on others' motives? Because it thinks you make interesting points but it will need a better basis for consideration than that -- a purely academic one please.

Can you address what Boswell proposed? A good discussion for both sides of the argument can be found with the discussions between Gagnon and Wink, which I recommend. My view here is that Wink takes many gay theology arguments, incorporating Boswell’s and Gagnon’s is the consistent reason and witness why they are all flawed.

 

[Phinehas2]

Yes I agree Mercyburst. I think it is common sense and what Paul was referring to in Romans 1, it is evident from God’s creation

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As far as the OT goes, there is no tradition in Jewish culture for marrying gays, and gay-sex has been a taboo throughout Jewish history. Jews know their own history and it can be researched through the University of Jerusalem archives.

Secondly, people that claim God made them "gay" contradict the fact that God equipped gays to procreate with the opposite sex. If God really made them to function with the same-sex, then this just doesn't make any sense.

For the Nth time... HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS NOT ABOUT PROCREATION