[Guitarman121319]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well no. because killing hurts someone else. consensual sex with an adult of the same sex hurts no one.

Hurts God.

*EDIT
(Leviticus 20:13)

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by kent|

Hurts God.

*EDIT
(Leviticus 20:13)

i guess wearing clothes of mixed fibers hurts God.

[Guitarman121319]

Does the bible say so? *checks* *finds verse*

Well, I guess so.

*EDIT
That is not the topic we are talking about. You are more than welcome to start a thread about that.

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well no. because killing hurts someone else. consensual sex with an adult of the same sex hurts no one.

Though it does not hurt in the same realm as murder or abuse, what about STDs? Of course, consensual sex with a partner of either sex could possibly land you with an STD.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by slap_j

And a man who is chaste is neither?

Not being sexual, right? ... is your tendency to make a quadrachotomy? ... Homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, and asexual? Come on.

What about one's internal life?

Do you mean like you see something that arouses you, even if you commit no conscious decision? Or do you mean a sexual act in one's mind?

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Bryan

i guess wearing clothes of mixed fibers hurts God.

For the sake of driving that point home, let's not care what Leviticus says or that it was the Law of Theocratic Israel. IF God rules that homosexual acts are wrong, IF God rules that having a homosexual partner is wrong, WOULD you submit to that? It isn't that it hurts God. It is God's righteous decree whether those who do such things deserve death. However, IF you're not willing, that tells you where your heart is; the fact beyond, of whether God does or not, is important distinction. My point of asking this is thus: if you are not willing to submit to God's law, then you are willing to reinterpret for your own means ANY and ALL verses that could speak against your behavior. Words and logic are your slaves, and IF your heart is a slave to this sin, then IT controls your interpretation of Scripture. Not the Holy Spirit.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Not being sexual, right? ... is your tendency to make a quadrachotomy? ... Homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, and asexual? Come on.

Um, no. I don't believe in a sexual binary (in regards to orientation, not gender) or any such thing as that. I'm just suggesting that if what makes someone homosexual is that they engage in sex acts with members of their own gender then it follows that abstaining from sex entirely makes you asexual. Of course I don't believe that to be true which is why I mentioned one's internal life.

Do you mean like you see something that arouses you, even if you commit no conscious decision? Or do you mean a sexual act in one's mind?

Yes. Fantasies, all of that.

[Thrash]

Thank you for reading and responding to my post on the last page...

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well no. because killing hurts someone else. consensual sex with an adult of the same sex hurts no one.

Bryan, this statement begs the question; if you're right and homosexual behavior is not sinful, then of course it hurts no one. But if homosexual behavior is sinful, then of course it hurts both parties. Adam and Eve sinned together, and their sin hurt both of them even though it was consensual.

In other words, we can't say whether homosexual sex "hurts no one" until we find out if it's sinful.

I almost finished my post yesterday, but I had to leave the library earlier than expected. I've got a few resources to look through, and then I should have my response to you ready. You can expect it around noon.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well, I guess it is time for the resident homo to weigh in. Being gay, for most gays and lesbians, is not a choice. It is a natural desire that exists. I didn't choose to be gay, I just am. Most people, will not choose to be a certain way that would make them an outcast (I am sure there are exceptions to that rule).

As far as 1 Cor 6:9 goes, I find it interesting that Paul, when he writes that verses, doesn't use the common word for homosexual in the Greek at the time. Instead, he makes up a completely new word that was never before seen in any greek texts. And when considered in the context of the word next to it often translated "effiminate" or "Male Prostitute" leads one to believe he is talking about those who hired temple prostitutes during pagan rituals.

So if Paul is truly laying out a prohibition against two men who love each other engaging in consensual sex, why does he not use the greek word for homosexual and instead point to pagan sex ritual?

Bryan,

Regarding Paul "inventing a word," this shows an anachronistic view of 1st century Greek. Whereas the later manuscripts divide the words so that 1 Cor 6:9 has the word "ἀρσενοκοῖται," often translated "homosexual offenders," the earliest Greek manuscripts show undivided strings of upper-case letters. This doesn't mean that Paul couldn't have identified ἀρσενοκοῖται as a word, or even as a new word, but it means that we ought to be careful about how we use the idea of Paul "coining a term." I think it's more responsible to think of the two words that are used in this one term, and find out how they are related elsewhere in Scripture.

As a side note, Greek had plenty of words for cult prostitutes, so if Paul wanted to bring those ideas to mind, one needs to show why he would need to coin a term instead of using one of those terms. This actually militates against your position, Bryan, because it indicates that Paul did not intend his readers to think only of (or perhaps even primarily of) homosexual cult prostitution. In fact, as I argue below, it is more reasonable to assume that Paul is not referring to the situation at Corinth or Rome primarily, but rather drawing upon the Old Testament. As is Paul's habit, he is here alluding to the Septuagint (LXX) without quoting it.

The word ἀρσενοκοῖται is formed from the roots ἄρσεν (a common Greek noun, "male") and κοίτη (another common noun, "couch"). If we do a simple search of the LXX for these two words in close proximity, an unsurprising text pops up:

Lev 18:22 καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.

(Quite literally)
"And with man you shall not bed the bedding of woman; for it is an abomination."

The first phrase, "also with men," is brought forward in the word order for emphasis in the Greek and Hebrew both. The third word is our word ἄρσην in the genetive case; the sixth is our word κοίτη, in the accusative. The repetition in "bed the bedding" is due to the fact that the word κοιμηθήση is the verbal, here "you shall bed," and its object is the noun "bed." This reproduces the Hebrew. A more readable translation would be, "You shall not bed men in the way of women; for that is abomination."

Here's the Hebrew:

ואת־זכר לא תשׁכב משׁכבי אשׁה תועבה הוא׃
This I would translate, again literally,
"And with man you shall not bed the bedding of woman. That is abomination."

So, the Septuagint is a wooden translation of the Hebrew text at this point. The Hebrew word here for male, זכר, zkr, is not the most common word for "man." It's not even the Hebrew counterpart to the word used here for "woman." I can think of two other, more common words for "man" off the top of my head (אישׁ and אדם). Likewise, the word in Greek, ἄρσεν, is less common than ἄνθροπος or ἀνῆρ. It seems that the word choice might reflect a concern for making sure the reference is not to a human or a husband, but to a male. It is as if Moses, the LXX translator, and Paul were all equally concerned to draw attention to the fact that it is the maleness of the sexual partner, and nothing else, that is at issue here.

Another text is even more compelling:

Lev 20:13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.

(Literally)
And if one should bed with a man the bedding of woman, both have done an abomination; they are to be put to death, they are guilty.

Here our words, ἄρσην and κοίτη, appear adjacent to one another. κοίτην γυναικός is “bedding of woman.” The same construction could replace woman with man, to get κοίτην ἄρσενος, “bedding of man.” A person who committed the act would then be an ἀρσενοκοῖτης. Here's the Hebrew and my wooden translation:

ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכב את־זכר משׁכבי אשׁה תועבה עשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם׃
And a man who beds with a male the bedding of a woman – the both of them have done an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Note that in both verses, Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13, it is made clear that the act is the punishable offense, with no reference to orientation; to say that this refers to a heterosexual committing homosexual acts goes beyond the evidence. In fact, the text seems to go out of its way to establish that the problem is that what is meant for man with woman is exchanged for man with man.

What I am arguing here is that whereas every argument I have ever read or heard on this passage tries to find Paul's context within the pagan thought world of Greco-Roman 1st century, and they do so because they can't find ἀρσενοκοῖται anywhere before Paul. They really ought to be remembering that Paul always has Scripture as his primary background, and in this case, the background is clearly Leviticus.

In other words, in order to understand Paul, we need to understand Leviticus.

This immediately sets at naught any attempt to play Paul against the OT (which some have attempted). For the Dispensationalist, this means that one must say that the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality is repeated in the Law of Christ and is therefore binding on Christians (eliminating any attempt to use the word “abomination” to claim that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are ceremonial and not moral Law). For the Covenant theologian, this establishes not a new interpretation of, but the recapitulation of, the prohibition of Leviticus. For the Lutheran, this indicates that the Gospel frees men and women from slavery to the sin which, when the commandment came, sprang to life and killed you. You are no longer bound to homosexual lusts, because Christ sets the captives free. In other words, Paul is here setting the hermeneutical bound outside which one may not go and still claim to be faithful to the commands of Scripture, the intention of Paul, et cetera.

You might wonder how I can be so certain that Leviticus is the background for this passage. Considering there is no extrabiblical context to be found for the word (and simply assigning it to pagan prostitution is problematic, since there was no shortage of terms for male prostitution), and considering the fact that there are strong linguistic and hermeneutical reasons to connect 1 Cor 6:9 with Lev 18:22 and 20:13, the claim seems to stand on its own feet. The Greek word ἀρσενοκοῖται makes a one-thought summary of a command-breaker. To be abrupt, Paul is summarizing such a person as a “man-bedder.”

On a (long) side note, though Strong's is a good resource, a better one is the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Baur, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (often abbreviated “BDAG”), but it requires the reader to know Biblical Greek. Here's some of the relevant information from BDAG on ἀρσενοκοῖτης:

...cp. the association of ἄρσην and κοίτη Lev 20:13... cp. the formation of μητροκοίτης [μήτηρ + κοίτη] 'one who has intercourse w. his mother' Hipponax 15, 2 Diehl^3... a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPeterson, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosxuality, ed. RBrawley, '96, 117-36)... Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, '78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, '84, 125-53)...

All this is found, by the way, on p. 135 of BDAG (2000). To interpret the entry, first note that the bolded section is bolded in the original, which indicates the lexical definition of the word. The rest gives information from the Bible and ancient literature.

Vigiliae Christianae (abbreviated VigChr) is a scholarly journal cited three times in the above lexical entry. The journal's subtitle is, “A review of early Christian life and language.” The last citation, an article by David F. Wright, refers to “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)” (Wright, VigChr 38, as cited above). The article itself reviews a study by John Boswell of Yale University, called “Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginnings fo the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century,” where, according to Wright, Boswell argues that Paul has male prostitution in mind in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1, not homosexuality per se.

Wright then goes on to consider Boswell's method, claims, and their merit. Here's one quote:

But first attention must be drawn to the evidence of the Septuagint:

Lev. 18:22...
Lev. 20:13...

Boswell quotes these LXX verses elsewhere in his study (p. 100 n. 28) but never considers their possible significance for the meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται in the New Testament. The reason is no doubt to be found in his claim that these Levitical prohibitions had little or no influence on early Christian attitudes. 'It would simply not have occurred to most early Christians to invoke the authority of the old law to justify the morality of the new: the Levitical regulations had no hold n Christians and are manifestly irrelevant in explaining Christian hostility to gay sexuality' (p. 105).

Wright then goes on to show that Boswell's use of early Christian sources does not prove what he claims, and that in fact 1 Cor 6:9 was used by some early Christians to prohibit homosexuality, said to be against nature (he quotes the Apostolic Constitution on this), and that Origen, Tertullian, and the Apostolic Constitution all point to Leviticus as the background for 1 Cor 6:9. Wright then examines the Patristic and other early occurrences of the word, and Boswell's use of the same, with the conclusion that, if anything can be granted to Boswell, it certainly cannot be that ἀρσενοκοῖτης has a proper meaning of male prostitution or that a more general description of homosexuality is excluded (see p. 141ff for his summary conclusions).

Here's Wright's primary conclusion (found on p. 145):

Most previous studies conclude that th ekinds of lists encountered in our two verses developed in late Judaism exposed to strong Hellenistic influences, but they have failed to produce a comparable list in which ἀρσενοκοίτης or its equivalent appeared prior to 1 Corinthians. Nevertheless, that Hellenistic Jewish writings unambiguously condemned the homosexuality encountered among the Greek world is not in doubt. At the same time the moral philosophers of the Hellenistic era were increasingly coming to question homosexual indulgence. The presumption is thus created that ἀρσενοκοιτία came into use, under the influence of the LXX of Leviticus, to denote that homoerotic vice which Jewish writers like Philo, Josephus, Paul and Ps-Phocylides regarded as a signal token of pagan Greek depravity. It is not apparent that investigation of the sources of the New Testament's Lasterkataloge [vice-list] serves to establish further than this the meaning of the term. But it is probably significant that the word itself and comparable phrases used by Philo, Josephus and Ps-Phocylides spoke generically of male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual engagement with παῖδες [youths]. It is difficult to believe that ἀρσενοκοιτία only the commonest Greek relationship involving an adult and a teenager. The interchangeability demonstrated above between ἀρσενοκοιτία and παιδοπφορία [boy seduction] argues that the latter was encompassed within the former. A broader study of early Christian attitudes to homosexuality would confirm this.

In other words, Wright has argued (much as I claimed) that the proper context for 1 Cor 6 is Leviticus, and that claims that male prostitution or pederasty are in view are unconvincing.

The first article cited from Vigiliae Christianae in the BDAG entry on ἀρσενοκοίτης is a brief response to Wright by William L. Peterson (VigChr 40 '86: 187-191). Peterson agrees with Wright that Boswell's study draws the wrong conclusions, but he takes issue with Wright's use of the word “homosexual” to translate ἀρσενοκοίτης. Peterson's argument is that Paul (and other ancient writers) did not have the concept of “homosexual” available to them – sexual acts were judged, and those who committed those acts, but our word “homosexual” describes a person with an affinity or orientation, and thus its use in translating Paul is anachronistic. Wright then fired back (VigChr 41 (87):396-398), saying that Peterson had misunderstood – Wright was arguing that Leviticus must give the proper content to ἀρσενοκοίτης, and that Wright's use of the word “homosexual” and “homosexuality” referred likewise to those who commit homosexual acts, with no reference to orientation.

Back to Leviticus. A quick commentary survey has yielded the following results:

• Baruch Levine's JPS Torah Commentary on Leviticus – Homosexual acts in general are condemned here, because it is a Canaanite thing to do.


• R.K. Harrison's Tyndale Old Testament Commentary on Leviticus – Homosexual acts in general are condemned here, because of their association with Egyptian and Mesopotamian idolatry (and the possibility that Egyptians subjected defeated enemies to homosexual acts as a form of humiliation), as well as cult prostitution. Harrison mentions that the Mesopotamian male cultic figures may have been eunuchs rather than prostitutes, however. Harrison points out that Deut 23:17 condemns cult prostitution for both sexes directly with its own vocabulary.


• Jacob Milgrom's Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus 17-22 – Whereas various places in the Ancient Near East regulate or prohibit certain types of homosexual sex (such as incestual acts or those with the young), “The difference between the biblical legislation and other Near Eastern laws must not be overlooked: the Bible allows for no exceptions; all acts of sodomy are prohibited, whether performed by rich or poor, higher or lower status, citizen or alien... Many theories have been propounded to provide a rationale for this prohibition. One must surely exist, since this absolute ban on anal intercourse is unique not only in the Bible but, as shown in Olyan's (1994: 1997a) recent, comprehensive study, in the entire ancient Near Eastern and classical world” (p. 1556). Milgrom goes on to hypothesize that the rationale for sexual prohibitions in Leviticus is the safeguarding of procreation in a stable family.


• Nobuyoshi Kiuchi's Apollos Old Testament Commentary on Leviticus – simply states that all male homosexual acts are hereby forbidden (and that one should not infer from the absence of a condemnation of lesbianism that lesbianism is thereby permitted).


• A search of other commentaries has yielded similar answers. In fact, I have yet to find a commentary which attempts to argue that the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is anything less than a rejection of all homosexual intercourse between men. While some sort of ritualized or deliberately humiliating act might have been in the background (if male prostitutes, and not merely castrated priests, served Ishtar in Mesopotamia, and Egyptian sodomizing of enemies, is in view), nevertheless these are not the acts which are condemned, and the claims go beyond the evidence when writers say that they know the reason for the prohibition.

The argument, then, is this: Homosexual intercourse is condemned as abomination in Leviticus. The command is alluded to and thus recapitulated in 1 Cor 6:9. Therefore, homosexual sex is a sexual sin.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by Bryan

i guess wearing clothes of mixed fibers hurts God.

Just because you don't understand the reason behind a command, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[TravisR]

As a gay Christian, I can honestly say I've come to a place where God has given me a peace that has been tremendous in allowing me to fully reconcile my faith with the fullness of who I am. I see that Bryan has already presented some of the Biblical arguments in support of same sex relationships, specifically regarding Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, so I'll refrain from delving too deeply into those waters. Honestly, I'm not at all in the mood or of the mind to debate with any of you about what's right and what's wrong, but I happened to check into this forum and I thought I might offer you the benefit of sharing some things floating around in my head.

As I came to face my sexuality honestly with myself for the first time, I wrestled with many of these same arguments. I believe that it's probably impossible to be absolutely certain on an intellectual level of what each scripture says or means. Looking at the translation of 1 Corinthians 6 is very interesting, for example. Was Paul really just making a reference to the Levitical law or was he pointing to something more specific that his audience would have been familiar with? We have an abundance of cultural and historical evidence that would point towards the latter but it isn't necessarily overwhelming, and the other side makes a pretty strong case, too. Interestingly, that same word, "arsenokoitai", which is translated as "homosexual offenders" in the NIV in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is translated as "perverts" in 1 Timothy 1:10. The lack of consistency here can be frustrating. It occurs to me, however, that in each instance where we see some type of homosexual behavior behind described in scripture, it is being described within a context which is obviously sinful. In Romans 1, far too many Christians are far too quick to dismiss the first half of the passage which describes men who knew God but did not glorify him or give him thanks, and who worshiped false idols rather than the Creator. The scripture says that it was "BECAUSE OF THIS" God gave them over to their "shameful lusts". Why don't people take the time to sit back and really take in the scripture as a whole rather than picking and choosing the parts which suit us?

I don't even know what else to say right now. But I'd like to leave you with this scripture. Food for thought:

Romans 13:8-10
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

[Adam K]

Originally Posted by TravisR

As I came to face my sexuality honestly with myself for the first time....

I'm wondering what this "sexuality" is? Is this something that exists by itself? Something that's just "there"? I guess what I'm trying to get at is the idea that "sexuality" is rather something that is interwoven into the context of institutional marriage rather than something that can be separated. I'm not saying that this clearly rules out homosexuality by itself, but that if one of the end goals of institutional marriage is offspring then we see at least a leaning towards "heterosexuality" as a priority. And of course there are always adoptive options for those marriages which are unable to produce offspring. Like I said none of this rules out homosexuality by itself, but I don't really think that it is really able to be addressed in an intelligible way by modern society anyway. I do know that their are a lot of negative aspects to an acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, at least when it comes to issues of entitlement. As Christians we believe in a God who grants us what he chooses to, in light of the fact that we are entitled to nothing. But I think this issue of entitlement and "rights" are the offspring of a bigger cultural shift anyways, but we as Christians are still called to deny ourselves in the face of a culture that claims autonomy.

So what I do know are two things:

1. We are called to love those who are deemed worthless and outcasts by society.
2. We are to deny ourselves and stand up to a world system that claims entitlement.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Adam K

I do know that their are a lot of negative aspects to an acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, at least when it comes to issues of entitlement.

I beg your pardon??

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Adam K

I'm wondering what this "sexuality" is? Is this something that exists by itself? Something that's just "there"?

In the simplest terms, I would define my sexuality as an attraction. In my case, it's an attraction for the same sex. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you ask whether it exists by itself... but I would say that it exists as a part of me. I have always been this way. I believe that God knew I would be this way before I was even born and that he made me this way. In that sense, my sexuality is not independent of who I am. If I weren't gay, I wouldn't be the same person and so I thank God that I am gay because I like who I am and God loves me as I am!