Most of the time, I have simply asked questions, like “what does malakoi mean?” or I have commented that we are “saved by grace”, or that “Jesus ate with sinners” — or that EXODUS should tell the truth in its advertizing.

I have begged EXODUS to issue an anti-hate statement (which they finally did) bcause I believe that we should “do unto others as we would like others to do to us”. How is that “preaching” or “bashing”? With all due respect, please either give me some examples — or an apology.

Michael asked that question about the meanings at least 3 or 4 times and I did have my recollections of what I’d found. So I shared them. And I said ‘it’s what I concluded’ based on ‘nothing definitive’. How you can assume judgemental or arguing out of that is totally beyond me.

We DO disagree–and we’ve known that from the start and chose to keep dialoguing anyway. I thought one of our goals was to begin to understand one another and to learn from one another. Can we actually do that if you’re going to take affront when I state (not preach) what I believe or why? Haven’t I heard you and Michael preach (not state) YOUR take on the Bible numerous times on this site? (I think if this site had a ‘bashmeter’, you’d trip the needle a lot more than I would.)

Oh, and regarding our next meaningful topic. I’m still chewing on that Hindu thing they threw in on another thread….

My point was that Timothy’s criticism of me for making moral claims that are applicable to others could be leveled at virtually everyone (except perhaps sociopaths) because we all make moral claims that are applicable to others.

Well yes and no.

The distinction is that those moral claims that we make of each other BY LAW are those which have a measurable physical impact on others. But seeking to impose those aspects of your moral code that are internal to a person – ie sexuality, greed, bitterness, slothfulness – on another is (to me) the worst sort of immorality. And I do think that this is one of the strongest, most emphasized, point of the gospels.

Over and over Christ rebuked those who sought to punish others for “immorality”. Perhaps you have a better source than Christ but I’ll take Him as the ultimate authority 🙂

Eddy,

I’ve yet to hear the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” when it wasn’t in the context of excusing bad behavior towards the sinner. If you are the exception, that’s great.

Also, we will not come to agreement on issues of what is or isn’t “moral” or what is or isn’t “sin”. Nor will we come to agreement on the proper interpretation of the clobber passages.

But let’s be careful on our claims about the meanings of words.

“Malakos” means soft, as in clothing. We may suppose that it meant morally soft, or a dandy, or effeminate, or luxurious, or extravagant and wasteful, or anything else we want, but all we can say for certain is that the word meant “soft” and was used elsewhere in the NT in the context of clothing.

“Arsenokoitai” was a created word. There are no examples of this word being used before Paul decided to write this down and very few thereafter. It appears to be a combination of two other words and would translate roughly as “manbed”.

We can spend the rest of our lives arguing the meanings of these two greek words. But for now I think we can agree to disagree and move on to something less controversial such as whether baptism is essential for salvation, whether it should be by emersion or sprinkling, whether at birth or as adult, and whether in Jesus name or in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

“Nothing definitive” and “likely”? If that is so, how can you be certain that arsenokotai definitively prohibits all homosexual behavior? If you’re not sure about one word, how can you be sure about the other? This verse is the one most often cited to PROVE that “unrepentant gays” won’t inherit the Kingdom of God — or is that “nothing definitive” and “likely” too?.

You also mentioned that “In my studies ‘malakos’ meant ’soft, effeminate’ while ‘arsenokoitai’ meant literally ‘man in bed with man for purpose of sex” How is being “soft and effeminate” a sin worthy of Hell? What IS “soft and effenimate”?

You say you were “advised to look within the cultural context for clues as to the distinction between the two.” Hey, I thought we weren’t supposed to look at the cultural context. Folks like me have caught a lot of flak from conservative Christians for suggesting that we should.

“Finally, the belief that all moral views are social constructs reflects a post-modern worldview and its unproven assumptions. I would argue that some moral claims reflect absolute truth and that our task as moral beings is to discover, not create and give assent to, moral truth.”

So god-given is the default scientific answer? Not in those scientific circles I have encountered. Nor is any moral truth then absolute since they are necessarily the work of man. Morals are only absolutes because you claim an absolute arbiter in the form of a god. But man’s own claims neither make gold nor the truth.

That was the ‘homosexuality as we know it today’ possibility that I closed with. Maybe I didn’t pull that thought back together as I should have.

“Malakos” would have been a male prostitute; “arsenokoitai” would have been straight men doing gay things—those would be the ONLY homosexual sins. “Homosexuals as we understand them today” wouldn’t be discussed in that verse…therefore, wouldn’t be sinful.

It’s not my belief but I’m quite familiar with it. You’ll also note that I DID qualify ‘Nothing definitive but I concluded…’ I’ve been blogging here for quite some time and never once remotely suggested that my Bible view was the only one. I think I passed that test some time ago.

There are many churches that will perform same-sex blessings/marriages, and they will be recognized as such – whether the secular State recognizes them is another matter entirely. 🙂

The ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ line was brought up again as an example of more of that conservative gobbledygook. I’m sorry but NOT WHEN I SAY IT. Many of us say it coming from gay backgrounds. We are persuaded Biblically that it is sin but we KNOW and LOVE many gay people. And we don’t have any Biblical directives not to love the ones we haven’t met yet. We’re not out to take anything away; most are motivated to see that gays get the same opportunities to hear the Gospel as anyone else.

To most of us, we live in a world filled with sinners. We don’t get to pick and choose which ones we are called on to love. But on a whole truth level, beyond the Biblical command to love, most of us just happen to care about and like gay people MORE than we do some of those other sinners. (Oh joy! We REALLY, REALLY love YOU! …I can sense your bliss!)

But, we do feel that the Bible calls it sin. More whole truth: on a personal level, having had a certain fondness for homosexual behavior, I have trouble consistently hating it. (But there are other sins I have trouble hating too…slothfulness, gluttony, overdrinking…a little white lie sometimes looks so appealing…) So, anyway ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’…

It’s the political involvement that’s the real rub. How can they say they love us and yet feel that way politically?

I used to be fascinated by the relationship between James Garville(sp?) and his wife–(lol…who’s name I can’t come up with ’cause I’m mixing it with the famous deaf actress…temporarily lost both.). Outspoken Democrat and outspoken Republican married to each other. I learned that it’s the heart that counts. We might see(and do) things radically differently but we share many common concerns. (Laurie mentioned one specific issue where she wanted to bring balance–not end gay rights. It’s okay to agree or disagree but it’s not fair to assume how she stands on other ‘gay rights issues’.)

AND AS TO THE BURNING QUESTION FROM SEVERAL POSTERS: In my studies ‘malakos’ meant ‘soft, effeminate’ while ‘arsenokoitai’ meant literally ‘man in bed with man for purpose of sex’. I was advised to look within the cultural context for clues as to the distinction between the two. Nothing definitive but I concluded that ‘malakos’ was likely an open gay prostitute while ‘arsenokoitai’ was just ‘regular homosexuals’. Some have contested that ‘arsenokoitai’ meant ‘straight men having sex with each other’ and didn’t take into consideration ‘homosexuality as we know it today’.

I’m not Catholic nor ever have been, so I followed the link you sent, and this is what I read: “2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.”

Regarding the meaning of intrinsic: You define it as something that is “an emotional necessity” but I and the dictionary define it as inherent or existing as an essential constituent. I believe that selfishness is inherent in all: it is fundamental to the essence of human beings — and not good. It is not extrinsic to human nature, and it certainly, in my view, is not emotionally necessary.

Again, I did not introduce examples of moral claims in order to show the ways homosexuality is like any of the others, but rather to provide evidence of common moral claims that we all make and that are applicable to others. My point was that Timothy’s criticism of me for making moral claims that are applicable to others could be leveled at virtually everyone (except perhaps sociopaths) because we all make moral claims that are applicable to others.

Your paragraph about equivalence is confusing, but I’ll respond to what I think you’re saying. First, I don’t believe that homosexuality is wrong because it’s not equivalent to heterosexuality; I think it’s not morally equivalent because it’s wrong. You also made an assumption that I was referring to emotional equivalence when I was very specific that I was referring to moral equivalence.

Regarding your statement about Christians belittling homosexuality by comparing it to other sins: You are right that those, Christian or otherwise, who believe homosexual conduct is wrong will put it in the broad category of wrong behaviors. Of course, all wrong behaviors have a specific nature, but they share in common that they’re wrong. I’m sure if you think polyamory is wrong, you think it can be put in the same broad category of wrong behaviors.

I think what you find objectionable about “Christians” comparing homosexual conduct to other “sins” is simply that you don’t think it’s a sin, so how dare anyone else believe differently. That, again, is the fundamental moral claim on which we disagree. Imagine some particular behavior that you do believe is fundamentally wrong. Is there something problematic with you categorizing it as such and plunking it in the category of other behaviors you consider wrong? You believe it’s inappropriate for people to compare homosexual conduct to other wrong behaviors because you have arrived at a different moral conclusion. And around we go.

Finally, the belief that all moral views are social constructs reflects a post-modern worldview and its unproven assumptions. I would argue that some moral claims reflect absolute truth and that our task as moral beings is to discover, not create and give assent to, moral truth.