There would be a quite easy explanation. It would be considered a sin for men who could be impregnating women to refuse to sleep with women, because they are sexually attracted to men. The same for women who refuse to sleep with men to become pregnant (although women really didn't have much of a choice in this back then anyway) rather to be with other women. Much of the thinking back then was to propagate the species. People who were not working towards this, especially who were not in high enough positions to really complain, would be viewed as sinning.
Today, we are pretty much overpopulated (at least if you consider are use of available resources), so propagating the species is not really important enough for most people to consider it a sin if a person, male or female, chooses for whatever reason not to do it.
First of all, I've already posted earlier how no where in the story of Sodom, is homosexuality actually mentioned as a reason why God destroyed it, so the passages referring to Sodom and Gamorrah really don't relate well to your argument.
Second, being "effeminate" is almost certainly a hormone issue or at the very least, out of a person's conscience control. How in the world could someone believe that God would condemn something that is almost definitely natural? It would be like God condemning a hermaphrodite for being born with both male and female sex organs. And why only effeminate males? Why not manly women?
This is so much nothing, I am just going to say OK, you win.
Goshin, the problem is that it looks very like you are only seeing the possible interpretation you want to see. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that other interpretation are right. It is further within likely that the people who wrote the scripture interpreted things based on their own ideas.
Goshin, the problem is that it looks very like you are only seeing the possible interpretation you want to see. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that other interpretation are right. It is further within likely that the people who wrote the scripture interpreted things based on their own ideas.
I would assume that it means men who deliberately adopt a feminine persona, such as transvestites.
And saying Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality is simply disingenuous and untrue.
Well, I've spent a lot of time over the course of four decades working to understand the Bible. This includes studying the original texts and the meanings of the original words; the principles of Hermaneutics; and the thoughts of various noted theologians and commentators.
The first principle of hermaneutics is that you interpret scripture, with more scripture. That is, you find other scripture that addresses the same topic or a very similar one, and see what that says.
Looking at the whole bible, it seems improbable that homosexuality would not be viewed as sin, simply because "it is modern homosexuality".
Don't you folks contend that homosexuality is inborn and a certain percentage of people have always been of homo orientation? Including in ancient times? Then why the assumption that ancient homo practices were one thing, and abominable to God, but "modern" homosexual practices are something new and different? Seems unlikely.
As I say, it comes across as a convoluted attempt to wriggle around what the Bible says, and claim "it doesn't really mean what it seems to say".
It's not the difference between modern homosexual feelings, and ancient homosexual feelings, because they are the same. The difference is how homosexuals act, today they act the same as hetero people in their relationships. But in ancient times it was a bit different, homosexuals didn't really have the option to live with a partner of their choosing. Marriage for love is a modern way of thinking about marriage, and back then getting married was often not determined by the people getting married. Therefore not wanting to get involved with a marriage because you were gay didn't really fly. If you did it could mean a death sentence, dishonor to your family etc, etc. It wasn't good, so most if not all hid their homosexuality. Also unlike today it was a necessity for everyone to procreate to keep their numbers up.
In the Bible it never flat out says homosexuality is a sin, it talks about acts. And homosexuals don't act the way they do today as they did in ancient times. For homosexuals to participate in acts that were more congruent to their orientation, they often had to sin. Like go to, or be temple prostitutes, commit adultery against their spouse, worship false idols, to commit homosexual acts. And in those times, these acts were often associated with homosexuality. I don't think God really cares about homosexuality, but how homosexuals go about in treating their sexuality, and relationships. Which also rings true to hetero relationships. If homosexuality was sin, would we see so many other species exhibit homosexual tendencies, it doesn't produce any offspring, but they still do it. Why would God show us this in nature if homosexuality was a sin, and a choice just like any other sin, and not just innately a variation in His creation.
.1Cr 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The bolded phrase is in the original Greek the word arsenokoites, which Thayer's lexicon translates as one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Tell you what folks, we'll have a little contest.
We will each start with a pile of motorcycle parts and a manual entitled "How to build a Harley Electroglide."
I will interpret the manual as meaning exactly what it says.
You will interpret the manual as not meaning what it says, but instead referring to some historical practices that are no longer relevant.
First person to build a working motorcycle wins. :mrgreen:
Ironically enough, I understand the cheese get's it's color from being emulsed in - *drum roll* - wine.Ha!
anybody need cheese with their "whine"
If you are considering stories from the Bible, then you must consider the thinking of the people of that time. Interpreting it with just the thinking of modern times is just not being honest. The way the people back then thought is actually more important in interpreting the Bible then the way we think now.
All this bible stuff is fine and dandy, it's sorta interesting to hear people interpret their religions/books and what they think it means. I just can't help to think one thing though, it doesn't matter! It has it has no impact on the OP and topic at hand really, it's a sub-disccussion. Why? because even if the bible was against it or if it was all for it, that has no impact on the law and why it is still discrimination to deny them equal rights.
More wiggling. Some of you just don't want to accept that the Bible means what it says, becasue you don't like what it says, and you're trying to justify it with all kinds of around-the-block convolutions.
1Cr 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The bolded phrase is in the original Greek the word arsenokoites, which Thayer's lexicon translates as one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
The word "arsenokoitai" (sometimes translated "abusers of themselves with mankind") literally means male-bed. "Bed" is a euphemism for copulating. This word is extremely rare in Greek. Paul was apparently the first author to use this word. The word taken literally (male-copulator) is very ambiguous. Take, for example, the word "lady-killer." Does it mean "a lady who kills" or "someone who kills ladies"? In our language it means the latter, but even then it is not clear because we do not mean that someone literally kills ladies but that their charm "kills" them. So taking the word "arsenokoitai" or "male-copulator," does it mean "a male who copulates men"; does it mean "a man who copulates with women"; does it mean "a man who is copulated?"
The Bible does not clarify. These are the only two passages in the whole Bible where this word is used... Apparently there is no known contemporaneous literature in which this word is used. However, relatively close to the time Paul wrote it was used to refer to a male copulator connected with temple prostitution. It probably had this meaning until the late fourth century after which it came to mean a lot of different things, including homosexual activity.
Ironically enough, I understand the cheese get's it's color from being emulsed in - *drum roll* - wine.
I quote: "This cheese gets its distinctive purple hue from a Cabernet emulsion, which also creates a taste unlike anything you’ve tried before."
Info Link: Just scroll down a bit.
Not really wiggling, just investigating, and having a differing point of view. Like a different translation of the word arsenokoitai.
But let’s take a look at how this word “arsonokoite” was coined by Paul. Let’s look at Leviticus 20:13:
Leviticus 20:13 (NASB – English Translation)
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Leviticus 20:13 (NASB – Greek Translation)
“kai ov an koimhqh meta arsenov koithn gunaikov bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi qanatousqwsan enoxoi eisin”
Notice the words “arsenov koithn” (roughly translated as “male bed”). Paul simply went back to the Levitical prohibitions and took the wording from there to coin a word of his own (something he did repeatedly).
The similarities in language would not have gone unnoticed by the Jews in Paul’s day just as it does not go unnoticed today.
Paul’s meaning was clear.
Ironically enough, I understand the cheese get's it's color from being emulsed in - *drum roll* - wine.
I quote: "This cheese gets its distinctive purple hue from a Cabernet emulsion, which also creates a taste unlike anything you’ve tried before."
Info Link: Just scroll down a bit.
Miss, that is exactly what I do. I do indeed consider cultural relevance, and interpret carefully based on the context of WHO is speaking, WHOM they are speaking to, WHAT they are talking about, and WHEN/WHERE this is placed so as to know the proper interpretation. For instance, I know that the requirements of a Levite priest are not incumbent on ordinary believers. Some practices or promises were given for a specific people in a specific period of time.
Attempting to explain that NT scripture does not mean what it plainly says is another matter. I've explained using quoted posts what my research into ancient homosexual practices revealed: that is was NOT all about prostitution and temple-boys, but that practices more closely resembling modern homosexual practices were indeed part of Greek culture during relevant periods of history.
The Greeks used the term Pederaesty to refer to most of the practices you're talking about, but the NT uses the term arsenkoites. If it referred only to pederasty, then why didn't it say pederasty instead? Instead a term that would likely be understood to more generally refer to homosexuality was used. The most straightforward interpretation is that the scriptures I refereced are condemning homosexuality generally, rather than certain specific ancient practices.... because the authors knew about those ancient practices, and if they meant only those then they would have been more specific.
I was asked to explain myself. I did. I was told my explanation was wrong, so I explained further why I held my interpretation.
The bible can be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me.
Tell you what folks, we'll have a little contest.
We will each start with a pile of motorcycle parts and a manual entitled "How to build a Harley Electroglide."
I will interpret the manual as meaning exactly what it says.
You will interpret the manual as not meaning what it says, but instead referring to some historical practices that are no longer relevant.
First person to build a working motorcycle wins. :mrgreen:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?