Should we allow gay marriage.

[Dogbean]

Thats interesting, I once was examined by a doctor finger inside the anus and I can tell you there were no excitable nerve endings. It must be exclusive to the gay anatomy.

BAM! I can't think of one person in the world who has enjoyed a colonoscopy, especially the first step which is the digital rectal exam (examination of the anus and sphincter with fingers.

... but as Christians we get joy and pleasure from serving and honuring God, not sexual gratification. Romans 13:14, Galatians 5:16, Ephesians 2:3

Yup. My point, made beautifully. The joy of pleasing God should be higher in one's life than personal or sexual gratification.

 

[OllieFranz]

To EnemyPartyII,
men dont have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] so how do they get the pleasure function?? .

Through the same stimulus on the same structure, duh! Of course, because the urethra is re-routed through it, and it is larger, we call it by a different name. But the nerves are the same as is the pleasure (or perhaps the pleasure is greater due to the increased surface area).

The pleasure that is derived from stimulating this organ is so great that it has become a cliche. Choosing pleasure even over common sense has been called "thinking" with this organ.

I can't believe you thought this would be an effective counterargument to the simple statement of the truth that sex is a pleasurabe experience, and that there is nothing wrong in it being pleasurable if it part of a loving, committed marriage.

 

[Brennin]

Through the same stimulus on the same structure, duh! Of course, because the urethra is re-routed through it, and it is larger, we call it by a different name. But the nerves are the same as is the pleasure (or perhaps the pleasure is greater due to the increased surface area).

The pleasure that is derived from stimulating this organ is so great that it has become a cliche. Choosing pleasure even over common sense has been called "thinking" with this organ.

I can't believe you thought this would be an effective counterargument to the simple statement of the truth that sex is a pleasurabe experience, and that there is nothing wrong in it being pleasurable if it part of a loving, committed marriage.

Not all men enjoy prostate stimulation, if that is what you are suggesting. And another cliche is the enjoyment many men derived from passing waste (e.g., the guy who takes a paper into the bathroom because he is in no hurry to get his business done quickly.)

 

[OllieFranz]

Not all men enjoy prostate stimulation, if that is what you are suggesting. And another cliche is the enjoyment many men derived from passing waste (e.g., the guy who takes a paper into the bathroom because he is in no hurry to get his business done quickly.)

It is not theprostate that is the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] grown large. BMS was saying that he gets no pleasure in sex because he has no [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I simply found that to be a preposterous statement.

I don't know how you interpreted that to mean that I was suggesting he should have his prostate stimulated. There are some days that I wonder if Dogbean is the only one on your side of the aisle who reads opposing posts before jumping in with an "answer."

 

[Brennin]

It is not theprostate that is the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] grown large. BMS was saying that he gets no pleasure in sex because he has no [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I simply found that to be a preposterous statement.

I don't know how you interpreted that to mean that I was suggesting he should have his prostate stimulated. There are some days that I wonder if Dogbean is the only one on your side of the aisle who reads opposing posts before jumping in with an "answer."

There is plenty of misreading to go around, apparently. I was writing in the "abstract" about prostate stimulation because the original fallacious post by EPII mentioned it. I did not write anything about you suggesting any man trying it out.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Sorry Olliefranz but te [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] isint in the anus, you have wandered off the criticism of the idea that pleasure is a function of any and every organ.
And I did not say I get no pleasure in sex because I have no [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] I made the point in general about the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] being part of the female sex organ, not up the male anus. You seem to find the obvious somehow ‘preposterous’ which pretty much sums up the dysfunctional thinking behind homosexual practice.

 

[OllieFranz]

And again BMS proves that he does not read an opponent's posts before he responds to them. Of course the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is not in the anus. Neither is the male variant -- the "privy member" as the King James translators called it (Deuteronomy 23:1). And do you still deny that stimulating it during sex gives pleasure? It was that denial that I considered preposterous.

Why would I suggest anything involving the anus to someone who is repelled by the idea, when I am myself repelled by it? (Though, on the other hand, my personal revulsion is no excuse to judge others who see nothing wrong with the practice.)

 

[Polycarp1]

Not all men enjoy prostate stimulation, if that is what you are suggesting. And another cliche is the enjoyment many men derived from passing waste (e.g., the guy who takes a paper into the bathroom because he is in no hurry to get his business done quickly.)

Brennin would like us to accept his expertise in Ancient Greek in parsing out the meaning of various New Testament passages (completely ignoring the distinctions between Homeric Greek of 800 BC, when the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the works of Hesiod and Pindar were produced, the Classic Greek of 500 BC, used by Plato, Socrates, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Xenophon, the Hellenistic Greek of 200 BC used in the Septuagint, and the Koinê Greek of the 1st Century AD in which the New Testament was composed. Yet right here we have an example that he is unable to parse even modern English referring to the common embryonic origin of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in females and the penis in males, a fact known to every high school biology student.

 

[Polycarp1]

While these discussions of the excretory and urogenital systems are no doubt tittilating the prurient among CF members reading the thread, may I point out that the thread topic is "Should we allow gay marriage?" I protest once again the tendency to reduce marriage to sex; that concept to my mind truly does diminish the sanctity of marriage, far more than allowing a committed couple both of the same sex legal recognition of the covenant they have made before God.

There appear to be certain members here whose minds are in the anuses of gay men far more than the penis of even the most virile of men could ever be.

 

[Brennin]

Brennin would like us to accept his expertise in Ancient Greek in parsing out the meaning of various New Testament passages (completely ignoring the distinctions between Homeric Greek of 800 BC, when the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the works of Hesiod and Pindar were produced, the Classic Greek of 500 BC, used by Plato, Socrates, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Xenophon, the Hellenistic Greek of 200 BC used in the Septuagint, and the Koinê Greek of the 1st Century AD in which the New Testament was composed. Yet right here we have an example that he is unable to parse even modern English referring to the common embryonic origin of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in females and the penis in males, a fact known to every high school biology student.

Your attempt at profundity is noted, but Homeric Greek is completely irrelevant to this topic, as is Ionic Greek, Mycenaean Greek, and a whole host of other Greek dialects from various eras. The only two versions of Greek relevant to this topic are Attic and its descendant Koine (which is Hellenistic Greek), both of which I have studied. It seems that your lack of knowledge encompasses not only ecclesiology but Ancient Greek as well.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Your attempt at profundity is noted, but Homeric Greek is completely irrelevant to this topic, as is Ionic Greek, Mycenaean Greek, and a whole host of other Greek dialects from various eras. The only two versions of Greek relevant to this topic are Attic and its descendant Koine (which is Hellenistic Greek), both of which I have studied. It seems that your lack of knowledge encompasses not only ecclesiology but Ancient Greek as well.

Brennin:

In a recent discussion of the word arsenokoitoi, someone made a statement to the effect that compound words do not always equal the sum of their parts. A common English example is "understand" which has nothing to do with standing under anything. In reply, there was a post asking for an example from either Koine or Attic Greek. I saw the post, but, as I was under the influence of powerful painkillers (I'm recovering from surgery) did not think it wise to reply at the time. Using the forum's search function, I have been not able to find the post since.

Was it you who made that post? And if so, did you receive a reply?

Thanks.

 

[Brennin]

Brennin:

In a recent discussion of the word arsenokoitoi, someone made a statement to the effect that compound words do not always equal the sum of their parts. A common English example is "understand" which has nothing to do with standing under anything. In reply, there was a post asking for an example from either Koine or Attic Greek. I saw the post, but, as I was under the influence of powerful painkillers (I'm recovering from surgery) did not think it wise to reply at the time. Using the forum's search function, I have been not able to find the post since.

Was it you who made that post? And if so, did you receive a reply?

Thanks.

That was me and I did not receive a reply. I know of only one example that the opposition has ever produced, and I have yet to look into it.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

That was me and I did not receive a reply. I know of only one example that the opposition has ever produced, and I have yet to look into it.

Here are two for your consideration:

προσκυνέω

The sum of the parts would be "I dog toward" but the meaning is "I worship."

ὑπακοή

The sum of the parts would be "under report/hearing" but the meaning is "obedience."

As for ἀρσενοκοίτης, while I think that it probably refers to some kind of sexual activity that Paul considered illicit, it's not clear that it means "homosexual." Personally, I don't think that Paul coined the word. He would have expected his readers to know what he meant. His is just the first known use of the word. Most likely it refered to a sexual practice that was taboo in that culture and has nothing to do with homosexual sex within a commited, covenanted, exclusive, mutual and equal relationship.

 

[Brennin]

Here are two for your consideration:

προσκυνέω

The sum of the parts would be "I dog toward" but the meaning is "I worship."

That one is easy. Dogs are typically known for their obeisance and that is where the word comes from.

ὑπακοή

The sum of the parts would be "under report/hearing" but the meaning is "obedience."

That one is also pretty easy. It refers to the state of being under another's words/directives/commands, which requires attentive hearing and is the very essence of obedience.

As for ἀρσενοκοίτης, while I think that it probably refers to some kind of sexual activity that Paul considered illicit, it's not clear that it means "homosexual." Personally, I don't think that Paul coined the word. He would have expected his readers to know what he meant. His is just the first known use of the word. Most likely it refered to a sexual practice that was taboo in that culture and has nothing to do with homosexual sex within a commited, covenanted, exclusive, mutual and equal relationship.

No, Paul used arsenokoitai because unlike the other terms available, it was coined to cover any and all forms of homoeroticism between males, as is the case in Leviticus. Paul did not want to leave a loophole for people to claim "oh, he was just condemning pederasty" or "oh, he was just condemning prostitution." Paul foresaw the falsehoods that would be spread by those trying to justify their sins.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

That one is easy. Dogs are typically known for their obeisance and that is where the word comes from.

Knowing where the word comes from does not mean that the sum of the parts is equivalent to the meaning. You could make the same analysis of the word "understand." I don't think that in the Koine period anyone hearing the word "proskuneo" immediately thought of dogs. Just as no English speaker today thinks of standing under something when they hear the word "understand."

That one is also pretty easy. It refers to the state of being under another's words/directives/commands, which requires attentive hearing and is the very essence of obedience.

Again, you have explained the origin of the the compound word, but the sum of the parts does not equal the meaning of the whole. Understand?

No, Paul used arsenokoitai because unlike the other terms available, it was coined to cover any and all forms of homoeroticism between males, as is the case in Leviticus. Paul did not want to leave a loophole for people to claim "oh, he was just condemning pederasty" or "oh, he was just condemning prostitution." Paul foresaw the falsehoods that would be spread by those trying to justify their sins.

So, Paul coined a word that would be ambiguously construed because he foresaw the difficulties that it would create?

As Winston Churchill is supposed to have said when accused of ending a sentence with a preposition "This is a foolishness up with which I will not put."

The conclusions you draw are not justified by the premisses.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Regular Guy,

In a recent discussion of the word arsenokoitoi, someone made a statement to the effect that compound words do not always equal the sum of their parts.

I believe that was me, yet with arsenokoites the sum of their parts literally fits the context of the passage perfectly. For example ‘headcase’ in the sentence ‘for the cold weather we took hats, balaclavas, and headcases’ we would assume from the context that ‘headcases’ meant some sort of headware like hats and balaclavas, not a mentally deranged person. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the offenses begin with fornication, idolatry, adultery, so male sex bed fits. As adultery and fornication already exclude sex outside marriage, arsenokoites isn’t difficult to translate as homosexual offenders with reference to its compound words in the Septuaguint Lev 18 and 20.
The doubts are cast by people who are too fond of homosexuality and what they themselves feel, that they are prepared to cast doubt on any number of Bible passages to argue their point. ie Genesis 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 etc, for all and every kind of reason. Those of us that can see arsenokoites is almost certainly same sex practice on its own already know from the rest of the Bible that same sex practice is excluded and condemned.
Our conclusion therefore is that the pro-gay arguments are simply a major demonstration of disbelief, and indeed thus fall inot the sin of idolotry as holding something more precious to them than Christ. Idolotry is alos in the list with adultery, fornication and homosexual practice.
Now as to discussions about Koine and Attic Greek and the like, not only do I agree with Brenin, but Brenin seems to be agreeing with the Bible writers, the many hundreds over the centuries.
What we have happening with the gay theology is a impression that somehow the many Bible translations and experts over the centuries and today are totally wrong. Whereas we see them as having been totally right and the current doubts baseless.

 

[MercyBurst]

Hey y'all, this stuff has already been covered before along with all the other disgusting, graphic arguments. Christians shouldn't have to suffer these indignities to explain a biblical position. Here try this link, it does this for you:

http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm

 

[Brennin]

Knowing where the word comes from does not mean that the sum of the parts is equivalent to the meaning. You could make the same analysis of the word "understand." I don't think that in the Koine period anyone hearing the word "proskuneo" immediately thought of dogs. Just as no English speaker today thinks of standing under something when they hear the word "understand."

Yes, *I* could make the same analysis of the word understand. That is rather the point; unlike my ideological opponents, I know the subject.

Again, you have explained the origin of the the compound word, but the sum of the parts does not equal the meaning of the whole. Understand?

This is not difficult. Compound words are coined because they typically make sense at the time they are coined. Now, either Paul coined arsenokoitai or it was coined by someone else shortly before him. Also, we have the term translated by two Latin words that literally mean "man bedders" within decades of Paul's use of it. Now, there is at least a 1500 year gap in between the coining of the word "understand" and today. By way of contrast, arsenokoitai meant man-bedders to people who lived within decades of Paul. So sorry, but it is game over for your false analogy.

So, Paul coined a word that would be ambiguously construed because he foresaw the difficulties that it would create?

There is nothing ambiguous about the word. It was taken as men who have sex with men for 1900 years until some homosexuals decided to start misrepresenting it.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

To Regular Guy,
I believe that was me, yet with arsenokoites the sum of their parts literally fits the context of the passage perfectly. For example ‘headcase’ in the sentence ‘for the cold weather we took hats, balaclavas, and headcases’ we would assume from the context that ‘headcases’ meant some sort of headware like hats and balaclavas, not a mentally deranged person. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the offenses begin with fornication, idolatry, adultery, so male sex bed fits. As adultery and fornication already exclude sex outside marriage, arsenokoites isn’t difficult to translate as homosexual offenders with reference to its compound words in the Septuaguint Lev 18 and 20.

Hi BrightMorningStar,

You are right that etymology does not define a word's meaning, but usage and context. The context in which we find arsenokoitai is a vice list. So, it is safe to conclude that an aresenokoites is a practitioner of a particular vice. The exact nature of that vice cannot be concluded from the context. To say that the word refers to homosexuals living in a committed, mutual, exclusive and equal relationship is not justified.

The doubts are cast by people who are too fond of homosexuality and what they themselves feel, that they are prepared to cast doubt on any number of Bible passages to argue their point. ie Genesis 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 etc, for all and every kind of reason. Those of us that can see arsenokoites is almost certainly same sex practice on its own already know from the rest of the Bible that same sex practice is excluded and condemned.

You impugn the motives of those who disagree with you. I submit that you are not in a position to know those motives.

As for the rest of Scripture condemning same sex practice, the Bible was written by and for people who lacked modern scientific knowledge of homosexuality. The original cultural context of the Scriptures was different than our own. I thin that it is wise, in the light of modern understanding, to question whether the ancient condemnations, based as they were in ancient understandings, still apply.

Our conclusion therefore is that the pro-gay arguments are simply a major demonstration of disbelief, and indeed thus fall inot the sin of idolotry as holding something more precious to them than Christ. Idolotry is alos in the list with adultery, fornication and homosexual practice.

If by disbelief, you mean "belief unlike mine" then I agree. I happen to disagree with your understanding of the Bible. This does not mean that I disbelieve the Bible, that I disbelieve the revelation of God in Christ, or that I practice idolatry.

The Bible reveals Christ, but it is not Christ. Placing the Bible itself in the place of Christ is itself a subtle form of idolatry.

Now as to discussions about Koine and Attic Greek and the like, not only do I agree with Brenin, but Brenin seems to be agreeing with the Bible writers, the many hundreds over the centuries.

You and Brennin agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible. The 'many hundreds' of writers of the Bible did not even happen to agree with one another in every instance.

What we have happening with the gay theology is a impression that somehow the many Bible translations and experts over the centuries and today are totally wrong. Whereas we see them as having been totally right and the current doubts baseless.

Well, translators sometimes promote their own theological agenda. The translations disagree on the best way to render aresenokoitai. There is no monolithic agreement on the meaning of this word.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Yes, *I* could make the same analysis of the word understand. That is rather the point; unlike my ideological opponents, I know the subject.

How about we debate issues and not egos?

This is not difficult. Compound words are coined because they typically make sense at the time they are coined. Now, either Paul coined arsenokoitai or it was coined by someone else shortly before him. Also, we have the term translated by two Latin words that literally mean "man bedders" within decades of Paul's use of it. Now, there is at least a 1500 year gap in between the coining of the word "understand" and today. By way of contrast, arsenokoitai meant man-bedders to people who lived within decades of Paul. So sorry, but it is game over for your false analogy.

False analogy? Brennin, all analogies are false if pressed too far. But let's review the debate so far.

You asked for examples from the Greek of compound words in which the meaning is not equivalent to the sum of the parts. I provided two examples. You then showed the etymology of those words. However, that etymology in no way changed the fact that the meaning of the words was not equivalent to the sum of their parts. That point stands.

I have already said that I don't think Paul coined the word 'arsenokoitai.' His is only the first known use of the word. He expected his original readers to understand what the word meant. Because there is little other evidence about the word's use, we can't be sure of Paul's precise intention in using the word. It is safe to say that the arsenokoitai were practitioners of some sort of sexual vice, probably of a homosexual nature. I think it is also safe to say that Paul was not refering to what people today would consider a same-sex marriage. The people of Paul's day did not have the same understanding of homosexuality as we do today.

As for Latin translations, I'm not sure which translations you have in mind. Jerome's Vulgate dates to the fifth century. I'm not aware of any of the Old Latin versions that were produced "within decades" of Paul's original writing. Please cite examples.

That notwithstanding, a Latin translation of arsenokoitai to "man bedder" is hardly a translation at all. It only renders the two parts of the Greek original with literal equivalents. It does not explain what a "man bedder" or "arsenokoites" is.

There is nothing ambiguous about the word. It was taken as men who have sex with men for 1900 years until some homosexuals decided to start misrepresenting it.

This is your contention, but it is by no means as clear as you claim.