There's a good case on both sides (try Strong's Concordance, if you haven't, btw. )
Joel Send a noteboard - 15/10/2010 05:09:21 AM
A good enough case that I quite literally thank God it's purely academic for me personally. I think I can safely say I'm a veteran of these debates around here, and also think I can safely say that without a good working knowledge of both koine and Hebrew none of us is in a position to definitively state the precise meanings of the language used. Ask around, I'm no liturgical liberal (though I do take issue with treating every word Paul ever wrote as divinely inspired even if it's just a shopping list) but I think it's VERY presumptuous to say, "this statement means x" when it can be interpreted multiple ways. If you're wrong you'll have some serious explaining to do one day.
From what I DO know of the oldest extant texts, the wording is somewhat open to interpretation. I distill it down to two passages I consider critical (we can talk about Paul, but please trust me when I say neither of us wants to do that. ) Acts 15:23-29:
It's paraphrased again in chapter 21, but it's basically the same instructions. Not a lot there, and the tone seems to indicate the Church Fathers were rather liberal in their liturgy as well by the standards of the day. However, one of the few restrictions it affirms is the one against sexual immorality, so case closed, right?
If only. First, there's a margin note; it says "sexual immorality" can also be read as "fornication. " Either way we have the same problem though: It's a strong term with a specific meaning, and we have to figure that out based on a translation from a language no one has actively spoken for centuries. Fortunately it's not a NEW problem, which is where Dr. Strong comes in if you don't have TVoLT on speed dial. The word in question is number 4202 in the Greek lexicon, "porneia" as it would be rendered in English. The Strongs entry for 4202 is:
Note the one thing not specifically mentioned. You can't cheat on your spouse, and you can't sleep with close relatives, but not a word on whether gay sex is automatically fornication.
Joseph Thayer elaborated thus in his later Greek/Hebrew lexicon:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV
That's kind of ambiguous itself, but I take it to mean infidelity was so routine then that Christian converts didn't take the prohibition against it seriously, and thus had to be told point blank.
Why, you may ask, am I focusing so closely on this passage? Simple: Because the Apostles were directly asked if and how much of the Law remained incumbent on Gentile Christians, and this was the whole of the answer they and the Holy Spirit gave. Pretty much any time anyone brings up some obscure Old Testament law no longer observed by Christians, you can cite this passage. And this wasn't Paul telling Timothy what do about his tummy ache; it was Church Fathers writing AS Church Fathers (I like to think of Acts as "The Gospel According to the Holy Spirit. " ) If James and Peter are telling me that I don't have to do x to be a Christian, well, I won't say they're wrong, but it's going to be hard to believe they are unless Jesus Himself comes down and says so.
Then we just have to decide what "fornication" means in terms of the Tanakh. No problem. Except there are no instances of the Hebrew word for "fornication" (Hebrew 2181 in Strongs Concordance) in any of those laws dealing with homosexuality. There aren't many of any kind, surprisingly; there are a total of four, which makes them easy enough to import here:
II Ch. 21:11
This is PROBABLY "fornication" in the metaphorical sense of idolatry. Hard to be certain though, because the various Bronze Age fertility cults ensured there was plenty of, er, "overlap. " Again, it's hard to tell from 3000 (or 2500 if you prefer the post-Exilic dating of I&II Chronicles) years and two languages away.
Whole thing's a metaphor (possibly including Tyre) and "fornication" is just part of that.
Could go either way, but it sounds like the metaphorical sense of "idolatry" again. If a Jewish guy wanted a hooker I bet he didn't have to go all the way to Egypt to get one.
They're only two verses apart, so I'd be tempted to say they're using the same word the same way--except, interestingly, the last one is actually a different word that's translated as "fornication" (this is why people like Strongs. ) So, logically, the thing to do is look at both:
That's the first one, the one used in all but the last passage, and here's the other:
Note the all important word missing throughout these scriptural citations. You'd think if God finds it SO objectionable He'd be a little more clear about what it is we are never, ever EVER to do. He's pretty clear about what should happen if your ox gets lose and gores somebody, and not really known for mincing words, so why be vague this time?
None of that is a conclusive argument that homosexual sex is fine by God, but it does make it a lot harder to absolutely state it's categorically forbidden. In point of fact, I happen to believe that since the Apostles were asked about the whole of the Law that's what they commented on, so all the sexual practices forbidden in the OT (including gay sex ) fall under that umbrella. As I say, I can see good arguments both ways that don't require liberties with the text (IMHO, the argument against actually requires more liberal reading. ) But I honestly can't say which is the truth of the matter, so I won't try to pretend I'm in a position to make the kind of definitive statement that I don't think possible when the text says so little and much of that little is ambiguous. Personally, I think it's a helluva risk to take (literally) but it's easy for me to say that because refusing that risk costs me nothing (and accepting it would be a far greater imposition. ) It's a matter of personal conviction and liberty of conscience. Most religious matters tend to be, I think, and that's certainly true of Christianity, where ones whole relationship with God stands or falls on whether one CHOOSES to embrace it.
From what I DO know of the oldest extant texts, the wording is somewhat open to interpretation. I distill it down to two passages I consider critical (we can talk about Paul, but please trust me when I say neither of us wants to do that. ) Acts 15:23-29:
...The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.
It's paraphrased again in chapter 21, but it's basically the same instructions. Not a lot there, and the tone seems to indicate the Church Fathers were rather liberal in their liturgy as well by the standards of the day. However, one of the few restrictions it affirms is the one against sexual immorality, so case closed, right?
If only. First, there's a margin note; it says "sexual immorality" can also be read as "fornication. " Either way we have the same problem though: It's a strong term with a specific meaning, and we have to figure that out based on a translation from a language no one has actively spoken for centuries. Fortunately it's not a NEW problem, which is where Dr. Strong comes in if you don't have TVoLT on speed dial. The word in question is number 4202 in the Greek lexicon, "porneia" as it would be rendered in English. The Strongs entry for 4202 is:
4202. porneia por-ni'-ah from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.
Note the one thing not specifically mentioned. You can't cheat on your spouse, and you can't sleep with close relatives, but not a word on whether gay sex is automatically fornication.
Joseph Thayer elaborated thus in his later Greek/Hebrew lexicon:
...a. prop. of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Dem. 403, 27; 433, 25): Acts xv. 20, 29; xxi. 25, (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from I Co. vi. 12 sqq. how leniently converts from among the heathens regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected)....
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV
That's kind of ambiguous itself, but I take it to mean infidelity was so routine then that Christian converts didn't take the prohibition against it seriously, and thus had to be told point blank.
Why, you may ask, am I focusing so closely on this passage? Simple: Because the Apostles were directly asked if and how much of the Law remained incumbent on Gentile Christians, and this was the whole of the answer they and the Holy Spirit gave. Pretty much any time anyone brings up some obscure Old Testament law no longer observed by Christians, you can cite this passage. And this wasn't Paul telling Timothy what do about his tummy ache; it was Church Fathers writing AS Church Fathers (I like to think of Acts as "The Gospel According to the Holy Spirit. " ) If James and Peter are telling me that I don't have to do x to be a Christian, well, I won't say they're wrong, but it's going to be hard to believe they are unless Jesus Himself comes down and says so.
Then we just have to decide what "fornication" means in terms of the Tanakh. No problem. Except there are no instances of the Hebrew word for "fornication" (Hebrew 2181 in Strongs Concordance) in any of those laws dealing with homosexuality. There aren't many of any kind, surprisingly; there are a total of four, which makes them easy enough to import here:
Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah [thereto].
II Ch. 21:11
This is PROBABLY "fornication" in the metaphorical sense of idolatry. Hard to be certain though, because the various Bronze Age fertility cults ensured there was plenty of, er, "overlap. " Again, it's hard to tell from 3000 (or 2500 if you prefer the post-Exilic dating of I&II Chronicles) years and two languages away.
And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.
Is. 23:17Whole thing's a metaphor (possibly including Tyre) and "fornication" is just part of that.
Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.
Ez. 16:26Could go either way, but it sounds like the metaphorical sense of "idolatry" again. If a Jewish guy wanted a hooker I bet he didn't have to go all the way to Egypt to get one.
Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied herewith.
They're only two verses apart, so I'd be tempted to say they're using the same word the same way--except, interestingly, the last one is actually a different word that's translated as "fornication" (this is why people like Strongs. ) So, logically, the thing to do is look at both:
2181 adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):--(cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.
2183 zanuwn zaw-noon' from 2181; adultery; figuratively, idolatry:--whoredom. 2184 znuwth zen-ooth' from 2181; adultery, i.e. (figuratively) infidelity, idolatry:--whoredom. 2185 zonowth zo-noth' regarded by some as if from 2109 or an unused root, and applied to military equipments; but evidently the feminine plural active participle of 2181; harlots:--armour. 8457 taznuwth taz-nooth' or taznuth {taz-nooth'}; from 2181; harlotry, i.e. (figuratively) idolatry:--fornication, whoredom.
2183 zanuwn zaw-noon' from 2181; adultery; figuratively, idolatry:--whoredom. 2184 znuwth zen-ooth' from 2181; adultery, i.e. (figuratively) infidelity, idolatry:--whoredom. 2185 zonowth zo-noth' regarded by some as if from 2109 or an unused root, and applied to military equipments; but evidently the feminine plural active participle of 2181; harlots:--armour. 8457 taznuwth taz-nooth' or taznuth {taz-nooth'}; from 2181; harlotry, i.e. (figuratively) idolatry:--fornication, whoredom.
That's the first one, the one used in all but the last passage, and here's the other:
8457 taznuwth taz-nooth' or taznuth {taz-nooth'}; from 2181; harlotry, i.e. (figuratively) idolatry:--fornication, whoredom.
Note the all important word missing throughout these scriptural citations. You'd think if God finds it SO objectionable He'd be a little more clear about what it is we are never, ever EVER to do. He's pretty clear about what should happen if your ox gets lose and gores somebody, and not really known for mincing words, so why be vague this time?
None of that is a conclusive argument that homosexual sex is fine by God, but it does make it a lot harder to absolutely state it's categorically forbidden. In point of fact, I happen to believe that since the Apostles were asked about the whole of the Law that's what they commented on, so all the sexual practices forbidden in the OT (including gay sex ) fall under that umbrella. As I say, I can see good arguments both ways that don't require liberties with the text (IMHO, the argument against actually requires more liberal reading. ) But I honestly can't say which is the truth of the matter, so I won't try to pretend I'm in a position to make the kind of definitive statement that I don't think possible when the text says so little and much of that little is ambiguous. Personally, I think it's a helluva risk to take (literally) but it's easy for me to say that because refusing that risk costs me nothing (and accepting it would be a far greater imposition. ) It's a matter of personal conviction and liberty of conscience. Most religious matters tend to be, I think, and that's certainly true of Christianity, where ones whole relationship with God stands or falls on whether one CHOOSES to embrace it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Love the Sinner
13/10/2010 04:07:28 PM
- 1181 Views
I have to think about that for a while.
13/10/2010 04:30:56 PM
- 714 Views
Suicide is significantly higher in young gay populations
13/10/2010 05:36:01 PM
- 654 Views
That is not what I think requires thought
13/10/2010 05:56:06 PM
- 658 Views
Nossy I ain't a mind reader, no matter how I try or how much I would do Jean Grey
13/10/2010 06:06:42 PM
- 787 Views
ok now show that it caused by what Christian beliefs *NM*
13/10/2010 06:50:32 PM
- 341 Views
I don't think it's the belief's themselves
14/10/2010 12:20:01 AM
- 697 Views
The churches who encourage people to bully gays should be condemned
14/10/2010 06:43:06 PM
- 688 Views
Ah, that Ghandi quote sure does get around. (which is funny, since he wasn't a Christian)
13/10/2010 05:07:42 PM
- 775 Views
I'm not sure that is true
13/10/2010 05:16:30 PM
- 659 Views
When's the last time you heard the quote attributed to anyone else?
13/10/2010 08:34:10 PM
- 636 Views
That many people don't know the correct origin doesn't change it though
13/10/2010 09:31:13 PM
- 786 Views
I think you are missing his point
13/10/2010 05:45:45 PM
- 741 Views
Question (and this one actually is asking for information )...
13/10/2010 06:42:17 PM
- 573 Views
I have seen gays be bullied before
13/10/2010 07:02:35 PM
- 767 Views
You just didn't listen to a thing I said *NM*
13/10/2010 07:09:29 PM
- 302 Views
why do you believe that? Because I don't agree with what you said?
13/10/2010 07:30:27 PM
- 686 Views
I said you aren't listening to a thing I said, for you didn't respond to anything that I wrote
13/10/2010 07:52:50 PM
- 668 Views
you are not interested in talking to anyone who doesn't agree with you
13/10/2010 09:01:03 PM
- 658 Views
I think there's truth in this as well.
13/10/2010 07:55:00 PM
- 711 Views
churches tend to refelect society as much if not more then they influence it
14/10/2010 07:15:35 PM
- 682 Views
Re: I think you are missing his point
13/10/2010 08:30:42 PM
- 742 Views
Re: I think you are missing his point
13/10/2010 09:55:52 PM
- 750 Views
Re: I think you are missing his point
14/10/2010 03:49:14 PM
- 736 Views
Actually you can very much debate whether homosexuality is a sin on a textual level
14/10/2010 05:49:22 PM
- 767 Views
Re: Actually you can very much debate whether homosexuality is a sin on a textual level
14/10/2010 08:52:24 PM
- 777 Views
Do you know greek or hebrew?
14/10/2010 08:57:32 PM
- 636 Views
I know a few words here and there, but not really. Do you?
14/10/2010 10:46:36 PM
- 761 Views
There's a good case on both sides (try Strong's Concordance, if you haven't, btw. )
15/10/2010 05:09:21 AM
- 1181 Views
You're kind of sidestepping a large part of his point
13/10/2010 05:51:53 PM
- 784 Views
so should Christians abandon other religious conviction to stop bullying?
13/10/2010 07:39:54 PM
- 685 Views
Many good points there; I think I'll let you play Defender of the Faith for a bit.
14/10/2010 08:50:23 AM
- 778 Views
I think he is jackass that does not believe other's can have apoint of view
13/10/2010 06:48:12 PM
- 679 Views
That's right, bullying would go away if we didn't have Christians to make moral judgements on things
13/10/2010 08:11:27 PM
- 768 Views
I mostly agree
13/10/2010 08:19:00 PM
- 835 Views
most of the bullies I remember from school were not known for their regular church attendance
14/10/2010 07:24:06 PM
- 647 Views
Let me see if I can understand where we agree, it is hard to do with all the Sarcasm
13/10/2010 08:48:38 PM
- 719 Views
Meh. He's not entirely incorrect. But not all Christians are anti-gay.
13/10/2010 08:43:04 PM
- 742 Views
It is better to be a Tolkein than a Token
13/10/2010 08:52:09 PM
- 713 Views
If I were a Tolkien liberal Christian, wouldn't that make me an American Roman Catholic? *NM*
13/10/2010 09:18:57 PM
- 280 Views
Interesting
13/10/2010 08:56:46 PM
- 1000 Views
His first three sentences were totally unecessary. The rest is conspiracy-laden nonsense.
14/10/2010 12:37:06 AM
- 764 Views
Re:
14/10/2010 03:06:36 AM
- 753 Views
I think Chora has dibs on that bumper sticker.
14/10/2010 09:35:02 AM
- 818 Views
Re:
14/10/2010 11:50:04 PM
- 761 Views
It's nothing at all like cultural relativism.
15/10/2010 01:16:10 AM
- 662 Views
I don't think there is any question...
14/10/2010 04:42:45 AM
- 714 Views
A lot of Christian doctrine states that people cannot know who is worthy of God and it's not up to
14/10/2010 05:41:19 AM
- 709 Views
I think he's reading a lot of things into that letter that aren't there.
14/10/2010 08:22:13 AM
- 663 Views