I one takes Paul’s letters to Timothy literally, it is a sin for a woman to have short hair.
The New Testament was assembled by the early orthodox Christian church in Rome - and was meant for a Roman audience. It is a highly political document. It is important to understand that it was intended to combat competing Gnostic/heretical texts which challenged the authority of the apostolic tradition. A literal application of these texts in modern times is unwise.
I guess I’ll put on my flame-retardant jockeys and point out there is far from universal agreement among New Testament scholars on the substance of DtC’s translation of arsenokotai. Earlier attempts at debate on the subject led inevitably to attacks on not only my intelligence, but my audacity for attempting to make common-sense arguments whilst lacking the proper credentials as a scholar of ancient Greek.
So I will simply repost this, link, which is one of the better encapsulations of a more mainstream view on the subject that is freely-available, and leave it at that. Even if DtC is correct, some logical implications of such pro-homo arguments lead one to A) suggest some explicit acceptance of what we understand to be homosexuality would have been forthcoming had Paul been confronted with it, and B) this hence implies one should use a better literalist read of the text, whilst certain other literalist interpretations (which, coincidentally, disagree with the arguer’s politics) must be vociferously rejected. Both strike me (and others more expert than myself) as absurd.
I know that by jumping in here and commenting, I may be opening myself to an unusual amount of flames and potential unhappiness toward me.
Disclaimer: (If the Spoiler tags don’t work, I apologize to anyone not interested.)
[SPOILER]
I am what most folks would consider a Christian Fundamentalist. I believe in the Virgin Birth (although not that Mary remained a Virgin). I believe in the Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures (66 books, no more, no less). Something I will comment more on below but that I haven’t heard much about here, I also believe in the Preservation of the scriptures.
Further, I believe that God the Father sent His Only Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of all mankind. I believe that He (Christ) rose from the dead on the third day and ascended to Heaven. I believe that a person, in order to reconcile his relationship with God, must accept this payment as a free gift. (There’s more, and if asked I will clarify, but you get the point.)[/SPOILER]
Further Disclaimer: Despite the above, I don’t necessarily agree with the below, I am simply trying to provide information. Feel free to complain, disagree, flame, etc. I’m more than willing to discuss theology and beliefs, but I am also too busy to argue with everyone.
So, in answer to the OP and some of the others raising issues. Honestly, the main reason I think Evangelicals advocate treating gays with respect has more to do with pride than with any interpretation (or mis-interpretation) of Scriptures. You see, I believe that many Evangelical leaders and others believe that they can help “convert” the gay person. I believe that in part (mosty subconsciously) they believe that they can “bring these sinners to Christ.” To be perfectly honest even with what I said above, I sometimes wonder if they really know the way.
As to the issues brought up about scriptures (the words of Paul and Christ), it must be remembered that most Evangelicals believe in, at the least, the Inspiration of Scripture. That is to say, they believe that God told the original authors what to write and they penned the words (or, in some cases, penned the ideas in their own words).
That said, the words of Christ and the words of Paul (where they are commands) carry the same weight as the Word of God. After all, we could say that they are the “Words of Christ as reported by (Matthew/Mark/Like/John/Etc).” So they are as much God’s word as the words of Paul because Paul’s words are really the “Words of God as reported by Paul.” Because of that, I think that many Evangelicals don’t see a difference.
As to the meaning of Greek words, there is a current discussion and debate in Fundamental Christianity involving the Preservation of the Scriptures. The idea here is that not only did God Inspire the original autographs, but he in some way or another Preserved the meaning throughout the ages and despite translations.
The range of beliefs here vary from not believing it at all (God Inspired the originals; man may have miscopied or mistranslated) to believing in Simple Preservation (God inspired the originals and guided the copiers and translators) to the full blown Double Inspiration (God inspired the originals, the copiers, and the translators). (There are some even more extreme beliefs, but they aren’t relevant.) This belief (in Simple Preservation) allows for defining difficult words (like the greek words discussed above.)
Finally, as an aside, as I understand the beliefs in Evangelicals, the authority for the United States for war and bombings and even executions (etc) comes from the fact that the “turn the other cheek” and other similar passages refer to individuals and not to countries. Further, passages in other areas authorize the “officials” of countries to make those choices.
Again, this is just an attempt to help explain, not a dissertation of my own beliefs.
SCCajun
Your spoiler tags worked fine, at least on my computer.
Here’s the thing. I’m a liberal Episcopalian who goes to a church which is openly pro-homosexual. Pretty much everyone I go to church with would agree with everything in that spoiler box except for those of us who lean a little more towards being universal salvationists and those who’d discuss the inclusion of the Apocrypha. What you put in that spoiler box is what I was brought up to believe mainstream Christianity was. If you want to get flamed around here, you’re going to have to try much harder. 
I also believe the original authors were inspired by God when they wrote the scripture, including the Epistles and the Revelation of St. John. (By the way, when referring to the latter book, do people in your branch of Christianity refer to it as the Revelation of St. John? I know some Fundamentalists are quite opposed to saints.) I’m also aware, however, that St. Paul was a man of his own time and prejudices and bound by them as Christ was not. He was also writing to different audiences who needed to hear different messages. I grew up going to a small church in a small town where there was an incredible amount of pressure to conform. One message that church and that town needed to hear was the necessity of reaching out to those who are different and making sure they have a place to belong. I’m now a member of a large, diverse congregation. We’ve just been congratulated on how accessible we are to those with handicaps as well as those who are different; one message we might need to hear is that of not overlooking anyone despite our size. A letter to Polycarp’s congregation down south might focus on different things which need to be changed.
St. Paul condemned a great many things. In the same verses which he condemned “fornication”, he’d also condemn things like gossip, greed, “graspingness”, malice, slander, etc. There was an editorial about Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE in this morning’s newspaper. His benefit package was surely a fine example of greed or graspingness, yet no one is saying he isn’t a Christian or can’t remarry because of it. A number of years ago a Fundamentalist minister in my town beat his wife nearly to death. When caught, he said it wasn’t him, just a man who looked like him and drove a car just like him. His wife later said it was “a demon”. They’re still married and he’s still preaching, although his flock’s about half its size.
I’ve asked some Fundamentalists why homosexuality is different from a whole host of other sins which are far more explicitly condemned, and I still don’t fully understand their response. One thing I have been told is that they see homosexuals as trying to get a behaviour the Fundamentalists see as unequivocally sinful legitimized in a way other sins aren’t. One argument I’ve seen is that everyone sees theft as wrong and no one’s trying to encourage it. On the other hand, I’m not sure that is true of the good old trio of gossip, malice, and slander. The marriage of one of my closest friends has ended within the past year. What destroyed it was that trio. That same trio nearly destroyed me when I was a teenager. I know firsthand the very real damage they do. And yet, some people would have me believe that *homosexuality * destroys marriage? I’ll admit it’s possible, but I doubt it happens nearly as often as things such as the three I mentioned, not to mention adultery.
CJ
As usual Polycarp beats me to such threads and is usualy more eloquent when he posts. Short answer is because the Christ said to. I am thankful to be part of an evangelical congregation (Lutheran flavor) that holds those values.
True- I stand corrected, only the one proscribes death (though it is explicit and never repealed). Deuteronomy and Leviticus does threaten all manner of divine punishments for those who go against any of the laws (including dietary and wardrobe), said punishments to include but not be limited to hemorrhoids, the rape of one’s betrothed, cannibalizing of one’s children, tumors and blindness.
Perhaps the best primary source OT Law website I’ve found, incidentally.
sigh; to repeat, that is still irrelevant to the OP, which was not asking for a critique of evangelical beliefs; rather it was "given what evangelicals believe… "
I dare say that people who have done some research on the meaning of arsenokoitai may disagree on what that word actually means, but almost all agree that it is extremely unlikely that it refers to two men engaged in a loving, sexual relationship. People who try to refute Boswell’s arguments (such as those in **Loopydude’s **link) generally point to those debating about whether it means “male prostitute” or “gigolo” or “anal sex” (etc.) and say “See, even this ‘prohomosex [this is the first time that I have seen this word] scholar’ disagrees with Boswell. This proves that Boswell was full of it.”
I’m on dialup, so I tend to pull up threads, then log off, and then read them. I logged on again to read **Loopy’s **cite, but didn’t check any of the links in that site, so take the following with a grain of salt. This is my interpretation of Loopy’s cite:
Dr. Gagnon cites this, and then no more about it:
I guess we should take this to mean that Boswell has been thoroughly discredited.
Here’s one of my favorite quotes:
I don’t see how this is contradictory. If I say that Tiger Woods is the best golfer in the world today, and then say that the messed up on the last 2 holes (I didn’t really watch, but he did bogey them to force a playoff with Chris DiMarco), I haven’t contradicted myself, now have I? Saying that someone is the best, and then saying that they’re not perfect is not self-contradictory. (These Christian scholars really shouldn’t throw words like “self-contradictory” around lightly; lest someone introduce the kettle to the pot.)
He says
So if Paul was aware of this (I’m willing to agree with this), and Paul thought that it was a sin, why didn’t he clearly (using a common, popular word) denounce it? Let me put it another way: If God came to you and told you to write a new gospel, and he told you that homosexuality was a sin, would you then write “Be thou not a pillow-biter”, or would you write “be thou not a homosexual”? Why use an obscure word (/phrase) and then hope that people 2000 years later can parse your meaning?
Basically, that site is saying that he doesn’t know of any ‘scholars’ that agree with Boswell. Not surprising, since I doubt that he hangs around a lot with ‘prohomosex scholars’.
The following is my (somewhat intoxicated) summation of the rest of the page: “They say I didn’t go thorough the peer review process, but if they check out this link, they will see that 29 of my friends endorsed my stuff. Only 2 people disagreed with me, and one is a “a self-affirmed, practicing ‘gay man.’”, and therefore unreliable. In fact he states that the NT does not explicitly condemn bestiality, polygamy, or homosexual acts, and therefore we should not impose these rules on others. Apparently he (Countryman) likes to have sex with multiple male dogs. The other fails to
He then quotes people who agree with him, and quotes (out of context) others who he says are “prohomosex” but seem to agree with him.
Admittedly, I didn’t check out any of his links, where the bulk of his argument is purported to be.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I agree with you that we (Fundamentalists, Evangelics, etc) don’t treat sinners the same. It is unfortunate, but I think the difference lies in the fact that the “lesser” sins listed above can be seen as things people are not habitually doing and trying to stop. Adultery is the same in a way. There are really three states in the minds of your typical Christian.
I am probably simplifying things and I may not be making much sense at all. It is late and I’m a bit tired.
Maybe I’ll be able to make more sense of it later. But for now, I don’t have a decent answer for that. I do agree it is a problem, though.
SCCajun
Slap me silly and call me an atypical Christian then, because I keep seeing it this way:
Given scriptural interpretation, I’m not convinced that homosexual sex is a sin anyway.
I just want to agree with Rucksinator that Loopydude’s link does not actually offer a an argument that arsenokoites meant “homosexual,” it just seems to take issue with Boswell putting a definite definition of “gigolo” on it. That’s something I’m actually inclined to agree with. I think the vice list contexts, the cultural context, and the way that the word koites was used in Greek compounds all point towards pederasty. The fact that word was used at least a couple of times to refer to heterosexual sex confuses matters and show that the word may have had more than one meaning but one thing that’s clear is that the word refers only to a specific sexual act, and moreover could only refer to one specific partner in the act (the penetrator). That (along with the fact that the word apparently could be used for hetero sex- even for marital sex) lets out a blanket definition for all homosexual sex or relationships. There is still a difficulty in determining what it did mean because no possibility seems to embrace all of the contexts in which it is known to have been used. Boswell’s definition of bisexual gigolos comes the closest but still wouldn’t explain its use in a marital context. A definition of anal sex only would have had other words to describe it, would not really explain its presence on vice lists along with prostitution and would be an unlikely service for women to solicit from gigolos. It seems likely that the word had more than one meaning or that its meaning changed over time. Boswell also offered a suggestion that it may have come to be more general epithet for people who were sexually aggressive or predatory. Maybe he was right, maybe not. We don’t know. But the fact that we don’t know doesn’t mean that we can’t say it didn’t mean homosexuals and those who want to argue that Boswell didn’t prove his case for gigolos or for predators have not proven by default that homosexuality must be correct.
Slight hijack, but could somebody please write arsenokoites phonetically for me please? (I’m guessing “ar-see-no-COY’-tays”, but want to be sure as it’s something I’d like to ad to my repertoire when arguing with Fundi… fundamentalists.)
Is this the theological equivalent of Gaudere’s law at work here?
it was I Corinthians 11 which addresses female hair length & he didn’t quite say that.
Ar-sen-o-KOY-tace.
The plural (which is the form Paul actually uses) is arsenokotai (ar-sen-o-KOY-tie) so sometimes you might see or hear the word spoken of in that form.
The subject isn’t Just War Theology so I won’t get into the other points- I’ll just address this-
The Noachic Law permits the death penalty for murder and perhaps by extension, violent crimes. The Mosaic Law expands this to crimes against The Covenant (worship of other gods, Sabbath-breaking, sexual offenses). Murder & violent crimes are validly punished by secular authorities. Covenantal offenses are to be punished by the enforcers of the Covenant. The enforcers of the Mosaic Covenant are no more- having been swept away in 70 A.D.
Jesus made acceptance of His New Covenant a free will choice and also negated the death penalty for sexual Covenantal offenses. In this age, Covenantal offenses are to be dealt with by the enforcers of the New Covenant. They don’t have authority to exact physical punishment, but to levy spiritual disciplines- the ultimate of which is exclusion from the Church & the Sacraments.
I think the phonetic pronunciation is
Ar’-sen-o-ko-I’-tes.
The koites being the Greek original of coitus.
By the way, in case anybody is interested, this is probably the most comprehensive thread on this subject (what the Bible says about homosexuality).
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254930&highlight=homosexuality+Bible
Where was this please? Is it when he saved the adulteress from stoning?
I posted the correct pronunciation above.
This is incorrect. The English word “coitus” comes from the Latin coito which means “coming together” (no snickering please).
The Greek word koites means “bed.” In compounds like arsenokoites (and there were many) it translated to something like “bedder” and it was generally used with a variety of prefixes (whore/dog/mother/horse, etc.) to describe what an individual was “bedding” Like I said before, when koites was used this way, it always meant the penetrative partner and so translating those compounds as “____fucker” is not an unreasonable way to render the meaning and tone of those compounds. Aresonos means male, so the most literal translation of arsenokoites is “male-bedder” but it still hasn’t been determined for sure if it means one who beds males or a male who beds. Personally, I think it meant something very much like “boy-fucker,” at least I think that’s way that Paul (who may have coined the word himself) intended it. The meaning probably slid around a bit as is common with vulgarities. I don’t think it’s out of the question that a man having anal sex with his wife might be accused of “boy-fucking” her.
That still leaves us with the one known use of the word to apply to gigolos who serviced women (and I doubt many women were paying to be sodomized) so who knows?
Words change and acquire all kinds of esoteric uses. Look at the word “pimp” in English. Imagine how confusing it might be for historians and linguists 2000 years from now trying to figure out what the hell “pimp my ride” means.
Off track, but it’s not entirely unlikely that some women did prefer this. While anal sex is not as pleasurable for women, some do enjoy it and in a land with no reliable birth control it had the assurance that there wouldl no impregnation. (Rich women tended to dally with eunuchs of course- supposedly very good lovers if castrated during or after puberty as they could keep an erection much longer.)
I have wondered if Paul’s condemnation of effeminate men was perhaps a condemnation of eunuchs, or of male prostitutes who donned drag (I understand they existed in every major city) or of those who sold their services at the baths and the courts of nobles. It is not entirely inconceivable that it could even be a condemnation of the growing tendency of Hellenized Jews to perfume themselves and to shave their facial hair.
Though again, I’ve never understood why Paul is given such credence aside from the fact that he wrote the oldest existing verifications of Jesus as Christ. Any divine authority he had to preach or proselytize was basically his word.
Where did Paul condemn effemite men? Would you be referring to his condemnation of hoi malaoi, (“the soft”) which is found in the same list of vices with arsenokoies? This word often gets translated as “effeminate” or as some variation of passive homosexuals but malakoi never actually carried a connotation of effeminacy in Greek. When men were called “soft” it meant they were morally weak or undisciplined. It was frequently used for either womanizers or for masturbators. I believe there is one use of the word someplace in which a man is called malakos for remarrying his ex-wife. The modern stereotype of homosexuals as being highly feminized, unmasculine or weak did not exist in Paul’s day.