It applies to all sin, I don’t single out homosexuality, but many people like to.
I think you’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I don’t see a serious disagreement about translation here. All the scholars involved, including Dio, seem to agree that these words have some clear connotations of same-sex activity, but also that they’re used in ambiguous ways that don’t fit neatly into our modern cultural categories of homosexual activity vs. heterosexual activity.
So the issue then becomes how you interpret the words to make sense to a modern audience. And this is where our own cultural assumptions come into play.
To go back to my “drunkards” example, Greek dictionaries agree that “methusoi” (I read a little Greek myself, but am not a classical or Biblical scholar) means “drunk, intoxicated, drunkard” (plural). Most of us interpret that as meaning “someone who habitually drinks to excess, an alcoholic” as opposed to “someone who drinks a small amount” or even “a non-alcoholic who gets shitfaced only very rarely”. Our cultural preconceptions put those descriptions into two (or perhaps even three) different categories.
But a strict teetotal sect, whose cultural preconceptions distinguish instead between “someone who consumes alcohol” and “someone who doesn’t consume alcohol” might put all three descriptions in the “intoxicated, drunkard” category. The Greek word itself doesn’t forbid that interpretation: after all, all alcohol is intoxicating, so anyone consuming any alcohol is to some extent intoxicated. Voila, all non-teetotalers are shut out of the kingdom of God.
It’s not about translation into one word versus another: it’s about one’s own preconceptions about which people a particular word applies to. tbonham and Dio and others are rightly pointing out that being a professional Biblical scholar doesn’t exempt one from having such preconceptions.
Kimstu, I found that explanation very clear and helpful.
OK, that’s a fair point. Since we’re all sinners, in thought or in deed, then in your eyes, being homosexual or straight are basically the same when it comes to the morality of it all.
I agree that there is no difference in the morality of a gay or straight person, so we’re are in agreement there (roughly – I think most people are basically moral, and my impression is that you think all people are sinners, but can be saved, but we seem to agree on the equivalence.
So, I guess you would agree that, even if there are parts of the bible that ban homosexuality, since it is on a par with all other sins, including the ones that everyone commits (in thought or in deed), gay or straight, there’s no reason to especially condemn gay people. We’re all sinners and continue to sin and have only one path to salvation.
And here we see exactly why 2000 year old texts* from a different culture, translated from a different (and mostly no longer used language) written by people who are no longer around to answer questions, should not be considered hard and fast rules for a modern society.
Hell, we can’t even agree on what certain constitutional ammendments mean, and they were written in our language within the past 200 years. What makes us think that a 2000 year old text has any more likelyhood of being correctly interpeted?
- Give or take a couple of hundred years for authenticity pourposes.
So, where are your cites?
Thanks, Bright! 
What do you want a cite for?
I cannot speak for anyone else, but this is more or less what I believe. I believe that the Bible does explicitly lay out homosexuality as a sin (and all the supporting verses for that opinion have already been discussed in this threat in length); however, no sin is necessarily greater than any other because any sin puts us short of the glory of God. I also believe that that interpretation, while the most common, is still only my interpretation and any sins are ultimately left up to be settled between God and that individual, so if someone else interprets it differently and can reconcile their Christianity and homosexuality or isn’t a Christian at all, that judgment is God’s to make, not mine.
There is an important distinction though inside the context that it is a sin between a practicing homosexual and a heterosexual. One of the fundamental aspects of salvation is an attempt to live a Christ-like life which means making an effort to not sin. So, if you believe that homosexual acts are sins and you continue to do them, then I believe that to be equally bad as a Christian who cheats on his wife, lies, or any number of other things that the sinner believed at the time of doing them to be sins. However, I don’t think I’ve ever met a homosexual who was a Christian and also believed it to be a sin, so I’m not even sure if that’s a meaningful distinction.
Regardless, I definitely agree that homosexuality is blown WAY out of proportion. If you think it’s a sin, then don’t do it; if you don’t think it’s a sin, then it doesn’t matter.
This argument really isn’t relevant. To those who are non-religious, sure, it makes sense that it shouldn’t be treaded as a hard set of rules, but that’s where your argument ends. To those of us who are religious, whether we regard it as the infallible word of God, just inspired by God through the lives of his followers, or somewhere in between, it holds considerable significance. Though there may be cultural and linguistic gaps, it is still the word of God, so it can’t just be ignored.
And you are missing the point of my “argument” … The whole key to this debate is interpetation of an author’s words or intent - things that can only be done by ‘best guess’ at this point. If we can’t agree on items that were written in our language relatively recently, what makes you think we can accurately interpet the author’s intentions 2000 years later with a huge amount of language (and cultural differences) in play?
My understanding of, at least some, fundamentalist Christian viewpoints, though, is that we’re all sinners. God is infinitely good, so any amount of sin is basically the same relative to that infinite good. The only way to salvation is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, since we’re all sinners.
So, someone who has lascivious thoughts about the checkout girl is as bad as someone who commits murder, relative to that infinite good that is God, and both have an equal shot at salvation as long as they accept Christ, etc.
So, in that sense, being a “practicing” homosexual is the same as someone who is not practicing, but still having lewd thoughts about members of the same sex, and is also the same as someone who takes the Lord’s name in vain, doesn’t honor the Sabbath, has lewd thoughts about the checkout girl, murders – we’re all sinners, and can all be saved. We can have even less control over our thoughts than we do over our behaviors, so everyone’s a sinner.
By that line of reasoning, there’s no real prohibition against homosexuality, at least in the New Testament, any more than there is a prohibition against things that we all, every one of us, do.
Well, guess I won’t be going to the grocery store again. :mad:
That your reading is the correct one, sicne my cites said differently. What else? Common courtesty on this board sez that if you dis my cites, you come up with your own that you consider better.
No kidding. And, don’t get me started on watching movies with <insert favorite actor/actress name here>.
I don’t think I am. What I’m saying is, it just doesn’t matter if it seems that way. If you’re asking if we can determine what Homer may have meant in the Illiad, then you may have a point. However, the Bible, to viritually any Christian, isn’t just the work of some guy scribbling with the pen, but has at least some connection to God. So saying that we can’t make any sort of use because we can’t interpret it correctly seems, to me, to essentially be an argument that the Bible isn’t divinely inspired which defeats the whole purpose. If it is divinely inspired and intended to be meaningful to posterity, then we should still be able to get a useful interpretation out of it.
If it is divinely inspired and intended to be meaningful to posterity, why isn’t it crystal clear? Why should interpretation be required at all?
No, it’s an argument that the translators weren’t divinely inspired. If they weren’t, then your KJV isn’t the literal word of god; it’s a possibly fallible translation, and to get to the real word of God you’d have to take great care to ensure that you understand what was originally written, as best as you possibly can.
I mean, unless you don’t care if God’s word is completely perverted by the wiles of man, and all.
I haven’t offered a reading. I don’t know what the word was supposed to mean and haven’t claimed otherwise. I’m not trying to argue for a particular definition, my claim is that the definition is unknown (but that staright up “homosexuality” is unlikely).
I agree with what you’re saying about classifying sin, that they’re all equal. I also agree that a sin in the mind is as bad as a sin in the flesh. If I came across differently than that, then that’s my fault in poorly explaining my point.
The point I’m trying to make is that IF someone is seeking salvation, though he is still going to sin, he should be striving to life a life that is as free of sin as possible. That means if I do something, in flesh or in mind, that I believe to be a sin, then I am sinning. If I know I am doing that behavior that I believe to be a sin and yet I continue to do it, then I am not striving to live a life that is free of sin. So, sure, lusting after the hot cashier at Safeway is as bad as any other sin, even though it’s in my mind, but if I have a passing thought and end it, that’s very different from lavishing in the thought after realizing that I’m lusting after a woman.
The distinction I made of practicing homosexual may have been a poor one, but the same point holds. Whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin, lusting after a man or a woman are both sins. The distinction I was trying to make was that, if you believe homosexuality is a sin, and yet you continue to perform homosexual acts, you’re not making an effort to live a life without sin.
But I think your conclusion is wrong. There is nothing that says “Oh, you had gay sex, go directly to hell” just as there’s no similar statement about lying or failing to observe the sabath. The difference is, if you are a Christian, you should be trying to avoid sins. Sure, you’re going to screw up and take the Lord’s name in vain here or tell a lie there, it’s bound to happen, but there’s definitely a different between screwing up a little bit and actively choosing to partake in sinful behavior (regardless of what the behavior is).
The argument is that even if the authors were divinely inspired, it’s still often difficult to impossible to understand what they meant. If you can’t be sure what the message actually tells you, then it’s not of much utility that it was divinely inspired.