# How often does the bible encourage/discourage these things **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 15, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861 "2005-09-15T21:38:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/21 "2005-09-16T01:20:23Z")
Thanks Zev. Seems like a silly law to me, but who am I to question Him. Yerba you have totally missed the point. You claimed that nowhere did the Bible say that slavery was good, it only implied it was acceptable. I have pointed out numerous cases where it explicitely says that slavery is not just good but obligatory. Nowhere did I suggest that it says that slavery is universally good, but that wasn’t your point or mine. My point was simply that there are numerous instances where God says that enslaving people is essential. That goes way beyond simply implying it’s acceptable if people want to. It says that people have to do it even if they actively object. People are directly ordered to take slaves. The point being it is totally incorrect to say there are no verses stating that slavery is good. There are literally dozens of versus where God commands people be enslaved. If God commands that someone takes slaves then that is an example of a verse saying that slavery, in that instance at least, is good since God Himself ordered it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/22 "2005-09-16T02:29:23Z")
> [@yerba buena](#): > > At least twice in the Old Testament, and at least twice in the New Testament. (People will argue this passage refers to heterosexuals practicing homosexual acts, not homosexuals – a topic for GD, I’m sure) > [1 Corinthians 6:9-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;): “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” This is simply a flat out mistranslation. The words translated as “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders,” have no such meaning in Greek. We’ve done this several times on this board and to save time doing it again, I’ll link you to a couple of other recent threads on the subject. [What does Arsenokoites actually mean?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318819) [What does the Bible say about homosexuality?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=316560) > [@](#): > > [Romans 1:24-27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:24-27;&version=31;): “the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” You didn’t quote the whole thing. Here’s the context: _1because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 1:24Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 1:25for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 1:28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;_ If you read the whole thing, you’ll see that it’s about people worshipping idols, and that it is GOD who turns them gay (or “gives them up” to gay desires) as a punushment. I would also dispute the translation of _para phusis_ as "against nature (“against their _own_ natures” or “uncharacteristic” would be more like it), but in any case, the hedonism in this passage is described as a _consequence_ of idolotry, it does not represent a _per se_ condemnation of homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/23 "2005-09-16T02:44:22Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Zev he’s asking about the Bible, not the Torah/Talmud. To say that the Bible never encourages people to give away all there money is simply incorrect. Consider for example Matthew 19:21 "“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” That seems pretty explicit. Similarly there are fairly unambiguous condemnations of homosexuality in the NT. Well the Bible is always claimed to be “the instruction manual for Christians”, it is important to realise that even though Christians claimed the Bible to be consistent throughout, the books are written at different times throughout the hundreds of years, by different authors, for different purposes, though believed to be from the same “Source”. When reading a biblical text, one has to remember the historical context where it was written, and why it was written at _that_ time and what it means for us _now_. Some books are meant to be poetry – in Psalms, there’s this famous bittter verse of wanting to crush the head of a baby of the enemies against floor. But I seriously don’t think God meant for us to do that – rather, it was the psalmist expressing his despair, sorrow and anger. > [@](#): > > I’d also have to question the accuracy of a claim that the Torah never condones parents killing their children ( Wesley it can’t be murder if you accept that the state and God has authorised it. That is the highest possible authority for a legal execution, not a murder.). [snipped] Interesting, in one of the books regarding the Exdous, someone was stoned to death because the parents couldn’t put up with him anymore. That ‘someone’ was apparently rude and really wayward. When it comes to the levitical laws, Christians thinkers nowadays like to differenate between the percepts of the law and the letter of the law. It is impossible, they claimed, and not God’s intention for us to keep the letter of the law. What is more important is to keep the spirit of the law. Hence,in the above exampe, the percept is that to show respect for your parents is really important. > [@](#): > > Obviously a direct order from God to make sex slaves of teenage girls is condoning slavery, but what about passages that mention how slaves are to be treated? Is that condoning it, it or simply accepting it as inevitable? Are passages dealing with the treatment of disease or corpses considered to be condoning condoning death and disease, or simply accepting those things as inevitable even with an all-powerful God? According to my understanding, God’s laws for treatment for slaves were much more civilised than that of any civilisation at that times. And there are some claims that why there are so many rules about disease and death – those are to keep the Israelites safe as they trekked through the desert. And I don’t see why God being all-powerful means that the Israelities don’t need to give a hoot about death and diseases. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/24 "2005-09-16T02:55:51Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Thanks Zev. Seems like a silly law to me, but who am I to question Him. > > Yerba you have totally missed the point. You claimed that nowhere did the Bible say that slavery was good, it only implied it was acceptable. I have pointed out numerous cases where it explicitely says that slavery is not just good but obligatory. I would like to comment on the loaded term slavery. The Bible also explictly states that the “terms and condition” for “slavery” is different from what was practised in the modern era. Whether that those slaves would treated according to the law is a different matter all together. About Moses commanding the people to take slaves, as mentioned, sometimes things have to be seened from its context at that point. At any rate, this thread gotten me quite interested in the topic, and I did a google search. Here’s an article I find rather interesting: [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html](http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html) ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/25 "2005-09-16T04:13:51Z")
> [@ExtraKun](#): > > Interesting, in one of the books regarding the Exdous, someone was stoned to death because the parents couldn’t put up with him anymore. That ‘someone’ was apparently rude and really wayward. Either I’m experiencing a massive brain-freeze, or you’re simply wrong. Who was stoned in Exodus (or anywhere else in the Pentatuch for that matter) because his parents couldn’t put up with him anymore? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/26 "2005-09-16T04:52:01Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I think you’ve missed something. There are numerous instances where people are commanded directly by the Prophets of God himself to take slaves. > > “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” > > “And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,… And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.” > > When God himself commands his Prophets to command the people to take human beings as booty in war you can’t get much more condoning of slavery. It’s a direct order from the top to enslave other human beings. I’m not sure whether the fact that they are clearly being enslaved for sexual purposes makes it better or worse, but undoubtedly slavery is being condoned, even demanded. :smack: I stand corrected. ANd I just read that two weeks ago… ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/27 "2005-09-16T06:08:53Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Either I’m experiencing a massive brain-freeze, or you’re simply wrong. > > Who was stoned in Exodus (or anywhere else in the Pentatuch for that matter) because his parents couldn’t put up with him anymore? > > Zev Steinhardt Sorry, it is a major brain-fart on my part. Actually, I was thinking of Leviticus 24, and the issue is with blashempy of the Name. ---
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/28 "2005-09-16T22:36:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is simply a flat out mistranslation. The words translated as “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders,” have no such meaning in Greek. On your advice, I read through several threads that seem to address the topic. [This one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318819) seems to be the most informative, and the best parts are written by you, so I’ll basically respond to that thread here. > [@](#): > > There are no known uses of the word before Paul and he may have invented it himself … Literally, arenos means “male” and koites means “bed.” I don’t understand how you can say that there is a **definite** mistranslation here. Given no known uses of the word, wouldn’t it be safe to say that the literal translation (males who sleep with each other) is closest? > [@](#): > > I think it’s generally taken that anal sex was probably the intent, but oral sex is a possibility as well, or John the faster could have been referring to any kind of non-procreative sex. There are other possibilities as well (rape or violent sex, women anally penetrating their husbands, men prostituting their wives to others) but anal sex is probably the best guess. > > The question, then, is was Paul condemning only the specific act of anal sex wihout regard to gender? Did he intend to forbid anal sex for married couples (or oral sex)? It seems to me that any of these definitions would mark a clear Biblical discouragement of modern homosexual sex (anal, oral). Now, if you want to make the distinction that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but homosexual acts as a subset of non-procreative sex which are also banned ( SAY IT AIN’T SO!!! ☹ ), I defer to your expertise in Greek. The only case in which arsenokoites would not apply to modern homosexuals is if it were a condemnation of the specific act of pederasty and nothing more – but you admit that’s your opinion and that’s a minority opinion. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If you read the whole thing, you’ll see that it’s about people worshipping idols, and that it is GOD who turns them gay (or “gives them up” to gay desires) as a punushment. I would also dispute the translation of _para phusis_ as "against nature (“against their _own_ natures” or “uncharacteristic” would be more like it), but in any case, the hedonism in this passage is described as a _consequence_ of idolotry, it does not represent a _per se_ condemnation of homosexuality. I don’t see how the full passage helps the case for misinterpretation at all. (1) If God is using homosexuality as a punishment for idolatry, doesn’t that imply that homosexuality is a punishment? (1a) If you are to counter with “homosexuality was only a punishment because they were heterosexual,” then why does the passage refer to “natural” and “unnatural” acts? (2) Look at all the other “punishments” for idolatry in v.29-32: “filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” If there is no condemnation of homosexuality implied in v.26-27, why is it that the other punishments for idolatry are definite Biblical no-nos? Or are you arguing that the Bible doesn’t condemn unlovingness and untrustworthiness either (except as a punishment for idolatry)? (3) Which version of the Bible did you get that translation from? Is that your own? (I tried to match it on biblegateway with the most popular versions and could not). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/29 "2005-09-17T00:37:59Z")
> [@Duck Duck Goose](#): > > Nnnnnn…not really. > > [Bible Gateway.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=31&context=chapter=) > > > [@](#): > > > > Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” > > There’s a semantic difference between “sell everything you have and give **it to** the poor” and “sell everything you have and give **to** the poor”. The verse reads as the latter. If you are reading this to mean that rich people don’t have to sell \*\*all \*\* they own and give it **all** to the poor, then explain Matthew 19:22, which follows immediately: > [@](#): > > When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Why would a wealthy man be sad, if the commandment did not require him to give up all that he owned? Yeah, really. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2005, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/30 "2005-09-17T04:08:51Z")
> [@yerba buena](#): > > On your advice, I read through several threads that seem to address the topic. [This one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318819) seems to be the most informative, and the best parts are written by you, so I’ll basically respond to that thread here. > I don’t understand how you can say that there is a **definite** mistranslation here. Given no known uses of the word, wouldn’t it be safe to say that the literal translation (males who sleep with each other) is closest? No, because there is attestation for the word being applied to heterosexual- even _marital_ sex, and because the way that _koites_ was used in compounds of this nature always indicated the penetrative partner only, not the passive. That means it cold not have applied to _both_ partners in a sexual act and therefore could not have been applied to all homosexuals. I should also point out that ancient people did not yet have an understanding of fixed sexual orientations. They did not think in terms of “straight” and “gay.” It was all just behavior. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that any of these definitions would mark a clear Biblical discouragement of modern homosexual sex (anal, oral). Only if you’re the giver and not if it referred to prostitution. Even if you want to define _aresenokoites_ as an oral or anal penetrator (“buttfucker?” “mouthfucker?”) then you have to concede that “homosexuals” is an incorrect translation. Do you think that oral and anal sex between married couples is sinful? > [@](#): > > Now, if you want to make the distinction that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but homosexual acts as a subset of non-procreative sex which are also banned ( SAY IT AIN’T SO!!! ☹ ), I defer to your expertise in Greek. Not both partners in the act, not necessarily homosexuals and probably not loving but exploitive, coercive and probably pederastic. Did I mention in either of those older threads that there is some attestation for the word as “child molester?” It’s even translated as such in many Bible versions. > [@](#): > > The only case in which arsenokoites would not apply to modern homosexuals is if it were a condemnation of the specific act of pederasty and nothing more – but you admit that’s your opinion and that’s a minority opinion. Not such a minority opinion, really, and not the only way it would not have to apply to “modern homosexuals.” It is actually a minority opinion that the word meant “homosexuals.” Most of the evidence and the opinion is that the word had some relationship to male prostitution, but there is no clear consensus on whether it indicated the prostitutes (who were usually slaves) or the Johns. It is _my_ consdered opinion after reading as much as I possibly could not only about all extant ancient uses of the word but also about sexual practices in the Hellenistic world, that Paul was probably condemning men (especially married men) who patronized male prostitutes. If the word indicated _either_ partner in prostitution, then prostutution was the sin. It doesn’t have to be applied to homosexuals or homosexual acts in general. The truth is that no one knows for sure what _arsenokoites_ meant. All we have is educated guesses. Anyone who tells you it definitely meant “homosexuals” is either misinformed or is being dishonest. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how the full passage helps the case for misinterpretation at all. > > (1) If God is using homosexuality as a punishment for idolatry, doesn’t that imply that homosexuality is a punishment? So what? Being punished isn’t a sin in itself. 1 Samuel 5 says that God punished the city of Ashdod by giving them all hemorrhoids. Does that mean having hemorrhoids is a sin? > [@](#): > > (1a) If you are to counter with “homosexuality was only a punishment because they were heterosexual,” then why does the passage refer to “natural” and “unnatural” acts? It doesn’t. It says _phusin_ and _para phusin_. As I said above, these words refer to one’s own nature or character. They behaved uncharacteristically, not like themselves. They went crazy. > [@](#): > > (2) Look at all the other “punishments” for idolatry in v.29-32: “filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Paul calls all these things consequences of their refusing to have God “in their knowledge.” The whole passage is essentially an assertion by Paul that those who abandon God (leading to a loss of knowledge of right and wrong, humility, compassion, honesty, etc.) or worship idols (which included cultic prostitution, hence which Paul thought led to licentiousness and sexual abandon) suffer consequences. It does not amount to a condemnation of loving homosexual relationships, but says that (in paul’s opinion) a lack of God leads to a loss of moral control (including sexual control). > [@](#): > > (3) Which version of the Bible did you get that translation from? Is that your own? (I tried to match it on biblegateway with the most popular versions and could not). [American Standard Version](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/romans-asv.html) ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2005, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861/31 "2005-09-17T12:39:46Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > If you are reading this to mean that rich people don’t have to sell \*\*all \*\* they own and give it **all** to the poor, then explain Matthew 19:22, which follows immediately:Why would a wealthy man be sad, if the commandment did not require him to give up all that he owned? > > Yeah, really. The explanation follows: > [@](#): > > 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. > > 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. I had read Philip Yanecy’s explanation of this verse in _The Jesus I never Knew_. Wealth at that time was considered as God’s blessing, and what Jesus said actually run opposite against popular thinking of the time. The rich men is sad because he couldn’t be parted with his wealth. Following, the verses are: > [@](#): > > ``` > 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" > > 26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." > > ``` The disciples were shocked because either a) the rich were considered blessed and b) no one could really give up all his riches. Verse 26 could mean salvation is not by any means of man, but by God. This meshes well with the beginning of encounter: > [@](#): > > 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” > > ``` > 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." > > 18"Which ones?" the man inquired. > > ``` > > Jesus replied, " ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]" > > ``` > 20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" > > ``` The rich young man is confident that by his own means (keeping of the law and obeying the commandment) that he could get eternal life. Jesus upped the ante, showing that no one, by his own effort, could gain eternal life. That’s from IMHO – a real bible scholar could answer better that I do, course… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-often-does-the-bible-encourage-discourage-these-things/321861.md?page=1)