Anti Gay Baptists

Liebling said:
This translation you are using is widely debatable. It was asserted later by the church that they meant homosexuals but does not exist in the original bible. A translation is not the same as the true intent of the work written.

The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai.

Malakoi means soft, but the second word has been lost over the years and seemingly has no direct translation. The early translators described it to be people with "soft morals" or unethical peoples. It was Martin Luther who interpretted it as referring to masturbation, and not homosexuality. It seems that each person who has translated it subjects this particular set of words to whatever their own society deems to be of particular distaste. It's possible that during the time of the Jeruselem Bible, it was Sodomites and at a later time, translated by the church as homosexuals.

The problem with translations has always been that the translators subjectively translate the "truth" with that which is common belief at the time of the translation, thusly changing the text all together.

As for citing the laws of Leviticus, a Christian does not believe that the laws of Leviticus are applicable since the birth and scripture of Christ, since belief in Jesus transcends the penalties set forth in Leviticus.
Click to expand...


:bravo::worship::bravo:
 
Liebling said:
This translation you are using is widely debatable. It was asserted later by the church that they meant homosexuals but does not exist in the original bible. A translation is not the same as the true intent of the work written.

The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai.

Malakoi means soft, but the second word has been lost over the years and seemingly has no direct translation. The early translators described it to be people with "soft morals" or unethical peoples. It was Martin Luther who interpretted it as referring to masturbation, and not homosexuality. It seems that each person who has translated it subjects this particular set of words to whatever their own society deems to be of particular distaste. It's possible that during the time of the Jeruselem Bible, it was Sodomites and at a later time, translated by the church as homosexuals.

The problem with translations has always been that the translators subjectively translate the "truth" with that which is common belief at the time of the translation, thusly changing the text all together.

As for citing the laws of Leviticus, a Christian does not believe that the laws of Leviticus are applicable since the birth and scripture of Christ, since belief in Jesus transcends the penalties set forth in Leviticus.
Click to expand...

Very Good.
Yet all the Translations agree going back to our earilest understanding.

According to the Christian Greek Scripture the Law Code Ended with the Death of Christ. Some translations say "he completed the Law." But Christ reinforced the view of immoral sexual behavior. All that was abandoned was the punishment seeing as the Jewish System was about to end in 70 C.E. and Christians were under the Law of Romans and defered all judicial cases to the higher power.

ggazoo said:
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the Greek "arsenokoitai" and "malaokos", and it was in fact relation to Corinthians to which you are referring. "Malakos" was a common word used to describe someone who was soft in character or "effeminate" (as you mention). While this could apply to men who were thought to assume the feminine role in a sexual encounter with another man, it also applied to men who bathed too often, enjoy gourmet food, laughed frequently or had a smaller bone structure.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a description.
This discription in this context isn't simply refering to features alone but of punishable behavior in Gods eyes. The Context is Fornication, not simply looking like a woman.

We still do this today.
"That person looks gay"
"He is EMO"
"He walks like a woman or a gay man"

The implication is...Homosexual.

I have been told that some lanuages lacked words to appropriatelly describe homosexuality, such as spanish. Implication and description would be the appropriate method of reference.


When it comes to "arsenokoitai", you have to remember that passages in both Corinthians and Timothy refer to male prostitution. "Arsenokeeteh" literally means "male-active-bed". Unfortunately, arsenokeeteh has been interpreted by some to mean homosexual. The term arsenokeeteh is obscure, as evidenced by the variety of interpretations it has been assigned throughout history (including "people with infamous habits", and "child molesters").
Click to expand...


StrangerinStrang La was clearly wrong about you. You are not ignorant at all. You are willing to do the research. And I must applaud your precision.


No, I don't think that pathos indicates "sexual orientation",
Click to expand...

Why, elaborate.
Why is desire different from orientation?
Click to expand...
 
MZ3Boy84 said:
:bravo::worship::bravo:
Click to expand...


You're applauding the same thing that I said; where's my kudos? lol

Saquist said:
StrangerinStrang La was clearly wrong about you. You are not ignorant at all. You are willing to do the research. And I must applaud your precision.
Click to expand...


Thanks Saquist, I appreciate that. And I apologize for not elaborating earlier.

Saquist said:
Why, elaborate.
Why is desire different from orientation?
Click to expand...


Not too much that I can say here. Only that the desires of straight men and women are not different than that of gay men and women. The only "difference" I suppose, would be which sex they desire. But I only mean that everyone has sexual desires, gay or straight. I'm not sure that someones desire drives who they are attracted too. But... the more I type this, the more that I see your point.
 
ggazoo said:
You're applauding the same thing that I said; where's my kudos? lol




Thanks Saquist, I appreciate that. And I apologize for not elaborating earlier.




Not too much that I can say here. Only that the desires of straight men and women are not different than that of gay men and women. The only "difference" I suppose, would be which sex they desire. But I only mean that everyone has sexual desires, gay or straight. I'm not sure that someones desire drives who they are attracted too. But... the more I type this, the more that I see your point.
Click to expand...

No doubt, I see your point of the words used and the obscurity of meaning aswell. Seeing as the Bible only sanctioned one type of sexual intercourse I think there is enough information to conclude it does not support the practice. This is perhaps the most illuminating discussion I've ever head on biblical standards. There's nothing like questioning what you thought you knew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top