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.
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? What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
On your advice, I read through several threads that seem to address the topic. This one 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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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:
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:
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…
), I defer to your expertise in Greek.