Posted by pc on April 14, 19102 at 22:39:46:
In Reply to: Explain Please posted by Carrie and Lisa on April 10, 19102 at 22:25:17:
:: 1. arsenokoitai probably meant temple prostitutes BUT it could also have meant traders in gay slavery. Jeramy lists ALL the
appearences of the word. Up until the 4th century, the word was NOT used to refer to gays, even when homophobic christians
were discussing the very passage!
:We are ignorant to what you are talking
about so we won't even bother with this.
Then please see Jeramys link to all of the known historical uses of the word.
: 2. Leviticus 18:22 ans 20:13 refer to the baal fertility rituals and not homosexuality.
(1): 18:22 follows iimediately after a prohibition of dedicating your children to the Pagan God Molech by passing them through the ritual fire into the hand of the existing priests and priestesses who would then raise them as devotees of the temple, eventually becoming priests and priestesses themselves, including engaging in temple prostitution.
These prostitutes were young boys... boys who wore vests and masks of the sex goddess asherah... the customers fo these girl-boys were always men.. men who lied with males as though they were females.... this is why the word to'evah is employed instead of zimah. In condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry, "to'ebah" is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general a different word "zimah," appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29). "to'ebah" specifically means "idol" (E.g., Isa. 44:19; Ezek 7:20, 16:36; Jer. 16:18; cf. Deut. 7:25-26).
Furthermore, we see at the end of Leviticus 20 the admonition that all the things declared to'ebah in chapter 20 are to'ebah because they are the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites.
Just to further explain the temple prostitution ting, here is what Stachild has to say:
At least now we are talking about the reality that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are forbidding certain activities. But there is still the claim that they are forbidding any same sex activity. Personally I don't believe the text actually says that!
But what do they actually say? They say that men lying with males as if they were women is to'ebah. To me this clearly means that men lying with males and not doing it as if they were women but as with men is NOT what is being said to be to'ebah here.
What in the world does it mean for a man to lie with a male as if he was a woman? Especially when we think in terms of contrasting this with a man lying with a male not acting as if he was a woman?
An important Historical fact illuminates this for us. In ancient Canaanitic Pagan religion a practice called temple prostitution flourished. The idea was that fertility of the land depended upon the Bull God, Ba'al or Molech, having sex with the Earth Goddess, Ashtoreth. This divine reality was magickally connected to the ritual sex acts in the Pagan temples. The 'worshipper' would visit the Temple to worship the Goddess and in this worship he would become the avatar of the God and then have sex with the Goddess in the temple, making an offering first of course (I did say this was prostitution.).
The Goddess was a priestess ritually dressed as the Goddess often wearing elaborate Goddess vestments and a Goddess mask. However, more often than not the Goddess was not a priestess but a priest! A male dressed as a woman and pretending to be a woman, the Goddess incarnate. The 'worshipper' was not interested in being sexual with a man. No, he was interested in being sexual with the female Goddess, but half the time he'd engage in this sex with the female Goddess by lying with a male as if he was a woman, the Goddess herself.
: 3. Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of the context of idolatry. Even the greek words Paul used seem to indicate something
OTHER than true homosexuality.
I apologize for the bluntness.
The Christian Testament Text on Homosexuality
by Fr. Daniel Helminiak, Dignity Houston BBS
Romans 1:18-32 (especially 26-27: "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men.")
* `unnatural' mistranslates the term `para physin,' which means rather "beyond what is ordinary or usual." There can be no moral condemnation implies in this term, for in Romans 11:24 God is said to act `para physin.'
* The Greek terms applies to the same-sex acts (atimia = ill-reputed; aschemosyne = uncomely) imply social unacceptability, not moral judgment; though current translations may obscure this fact.
Paul is appealing to Jewish purity sensitivities (see above). In contrast, terms implying real wrong, unethical behavior (asebeia = godlessness, impiety; adikia = wickedness, injustice, wrongdoing), occur in verses 18-19 and 28-31 before and after the section of same sex acts. The contrast must be intentional.
* What is Paul's point? That the idolatry of the Gentiles resulted not only in real wrongdoing, but also in "dirty" behaviors.
* Why bring up purity issues, which Jesus disqualified? To gain the sympathy of the Roman Jewish Christians who knew of Paul's support for the Gentiles, and who appeal to Jewish self-righteousness (1:18-32), then a turn of the tables where the Jews themselves are shown to be sinful (2:1, 17), then a shift to a Gentile perspective (9:3) and finally insistence that Gentiles also respect the Jews (11:13). Verse 14:14 makes clear that the purity issue was raised only for rhetorical reasons: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."
* Why use same-sex acts as the purity issue? Because it would work." Homosexual behavior was an obvious issue, known clearly as a purity concern among the Jews, evidently not a bone of contention like circumcision and the dietary laws, and not likely to offend the Gentiles, who knew the Jews' peculiarity in this matter.
* If verse 26 refers to homosexual acts, it would be the sole Biblical reference to lesbianism -- very unlikely. Lesbianism was little discussed in the ancient world and unlike male-male sex, it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Testament as uncleanness, so it does not fit St Paul's concern here about impurity contrary to the Jewish Law (verse 24). So `para physin' here could refer to any kind of unusual or forbidden sexual activity, like sex during menstruation.
* Conclusion: Linguistic analysis and the overall rhetorical structure of the letter show that Romans presents same-sex acts only as a purity issue. No ethical judgment against samesex acts is at stake here. Rather, the Epistle mentions them precisely to make the point that purity issues have no importance in Christ.
:: 4. The sodom story is not relevant to this discussion.
:This is not relevant, why?
Because their sin was gang-rape, as an honest reading will show. Jude says they went after heteras sarkos: "other flesh"
:: Homosexuality is OKAY! let's stop this nonsense, ok?
:According to the Bible it's NOT, so you'll have to explain yourself a little better please.