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.