Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[CadyandZoe]

And where did you find that novel definition of "effeminate"? I'd like to know in what English dictionary you found that.

Our Bibles are written in Greek. And we derive our understanding from the passage where the word is found.

 

[CadyandZoe]

according to who?

Why do you ask? Would it change your mind?

 

[CadyandZoe]

is that before or after the verse that glorifies hate of a minority?

why do you hate them?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Love is not a lifestyle

The topic of discussion is not love. The topic of discussion is the behavior of homosexuality and whether such behavior is right or wrong. The obvious answer is that homosexual behavior is wrong.

Mostly because their good neighbors would butcher them and their families if they were outed.

Yada, yada, yada. Appeals to emotion are fallacious arguments. The fact that someone immorally butchered a homosexual person has no bearing on the oughtness of homosexuality.

No one chooses their orientation.

As someone has already said, people choose a sexual partner. The question on the table is this. Is it wrong for a man to choose another man to be his sexual partner? Yes, it is wrong. Is it wrong for a woman to choose another woman to be her sexual partner? Yes, it is wrong.



Yes, of course, people choose their orientation.

 

[TinMan]

everyone choose with who they sleep except victim to crime

Orientatoin isn't an action or a behavior. people are gay, straight or bisexual independent of sex. Virgins have orientation.

as christian who also racial minority I dont feel very love when somebody compare my people to sexual immoral one

Christians are not a minority.

A minority is a culturally, ethnically, religious or racially distinct group that has a shared sense of collective identity and community that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group with socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not.

 

[TinMan]

Why do you ask? Would it change your mind?

If there is evidence to support your claim than yes it would.

 

[TinMan]

why do you hate them?

I'm not the one here calling minorities perverse or comparing them to pedophiles.

 

[TinMan]

The topic of discussion is not love. The topic of discussion is the behavior of homosexuality

It's not a behavior

and whether such behavior is right or wrong. The obvious answer is that homosexual behavior is wrong.

Why do you hate them?

Yada, yada, yada. Appeals to emotion are fallacious arguments. The fact that someone immorally butchered a homosexual person has no bearing on the oughtness of homosexuality.

Not someone but society and not a homosexual person but millions of them. and those committing murder quoted the same verses being tossed around here.
Your attitude towards all these killings is the real sin.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Orientatoin isn't an action or a behavior. people are gay, straight or bisexual independent of sex. Virgins have orientation.

Christians are not a minority.

A minority is a culturally, ethnically, religious or racially distinct group that has a shared sense of collective identity and community that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group with socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not.

Minority status has nothing to do with right or wrong.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If there is evidence to support your claim than yes it would.

What would you consider evidence? How about a recognized English-Greek Lexicon?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm not the one here calling minorities perverse or comparing them to pedophiles.

Do you consider classism right or wrong?

 

[CadyandZoe]

It's not a behavior

I can't reason with someone who denies reality. Suppose we are doing a crossword puzzle where the clue is, "a person who sleeps with the same sex -- 10 letters" Answer: homosexual. The topic of discussion is not centered on the fictional notion of orientation. We are talking about real-world issues.

Why do you hate them?

Again, misdirection is a fallacious argument. Whether one person hates another person has no bearing on the oughtness of a behavior.

Not someone but society

Again, social norms or mores have no bearing on the oughtness of a behavior. Truth and rightness are not determined by a majority opinion.

and not a homosexual person but millions of them.

Numbers have no bearing on morality.

and those committing murder quoted the same verses being tossed around here.

What verses a person quotes has no bearing on what is right or what is wrong. If a man commits murder, the fact that he quoted verses to justify himself doesn't make his murder any less or any more wrong.

You have a bad habit of raising irrelevant issues. Stick to the point and the topic at hand.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If there is evidence to support your claim than yes it would.

The question is the meaning of μαλακοὶ in 1 Corinthians 6, highlighted in bold below.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.​

The word "μαλακos" generally means "soft" and the type of "softness" depends on the context. I. With regard to things that are touched, the term "μαλακos" might refer to a fresh-ploughed fallow; soft grassy meadow; soft skin or flesh; or soft fleece. II. With regard to things that are not subject to touch the term might refer to a gentile death; soft-fair words; tender, youthful looks; mild wine; faint, delicate scent; mild climate; and things such as these. III. Of persons or modes of life, the term might refer to persons who are easier to handle; fallen heros; In a bad sense, the term might refer to a feeble attack; the faint-hearted, cowardly; morally weak, lacking in self-control, weakness of spirit; given to indulgences; feeble style; soft, effeminate music; weak, loose reasoning.

(The summary above was taken from the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon.)

I believe Paul is using the term in the bad sense, speaking about those who are faint-hearted, cowardly, morally weak, lacking self-control, weak of spirit, and given over to indulgences. But I also note that the term comes in the middle of a list of behaviors that the Bible would consider unrighteous sexual behavior.

fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

fornicator
Typically anyone who practices deviant sexual behavior. This would also include such things as incest and marriage between two blood-related individuals, e.g. second cousins.

Idolater
Typically anyone who worships another god, but Paul is probably focused on the praxis of idol worship, which in some rituals includes orgies and other sexually deviant practices.

Adulterer
Typically anyone who has sexual relations with anyone other than the spouse. In the Biblical context, adultery can also involve marriage of a new man, while the first man is still alive.

Effeminate
?

Homosexuals
Literally "lying with men." a sodomite.

For our discussion and your consideration, I left a question mark in place of the definition. Maybe "effeminate" is not the best English word to convey what Paul meant to say. But whatever he meant, it seems that his list brackets a particular mode of life centered around human sexuality.


@BarneyFife @Arthur81

 

[Wrangler]

Orientatoin isn't

Orientation is not the point of this thread. All sinners have orientation to all kinds of sin. Rapists and murderers have orientation. Doesn't make raping and murdering right.

"Orientation" is not some kind of get out of jail free card.

 

[Taken]

do you insist on referring to black people as "negro"?

“Names” of persons have Anciently, Historically and Modernly been given a newborn, by their Parents.

Words used to “describe” another person have Anciently, Historically, Modernly been given BY a Multitude of people IN REFERENCE to another person or group of OTHER persons.

Individual persons, or groups of persons…
Have Anciently, Historically, Modernly…
Accepted their NAMES, and/or Changed their NAMES….
ALSO
Have Anciently, Historically, Modernly…
Accepted “DESCRIPTIVE WORDS” and Rejected Descriptive words being APPLIED to THEM.

Names were given to individuals or adopted by individuals AS a hope FOR, or AS a presence of their “demeanor”.
*** Joy, Gay, Happy, Jesus, Names (for example), Had “expressions” hoped for OR implied regarding their “demeanor”.

*** and Descriptive words given to individuals or adopted by individuals WAS more exclusively a KNOWN “demeanor”…(behavior).

*** Joy, Gay, Happy, / Sad, Dam,/ Christian/…
Names and Descriptions “intertwine”.
Names and Descriptions “MAY have some distortions WHEN being TRANSLATED into OTHER LANGUAGES.”
Names and Descriptions “have different connotations” Per “individual persons own personal view”.

Joy, Gay, Happy…Scripturally has the connotation of content, jubilant.
Sad, Dam….Scripturally has the connotation of discontent.

Suffix’s…such as: TIAN, TION, IAN, CIAN…
Reveal the impression of AGREEMENT, or Following after.

Historically NOT unusual for Known words OF Geographical Locations…FOR the Residents to be Descriptively CALLED by a “derivative” or “variant” OF their residing LOCATION.

Location…Continent Africa, River; Niger, Nation; Nigeria, Residents; Nigerians’…

Location…Continent South America, Explorer and Cardiographer: Italian Amerigo Vespucci;

Location…Outlying islands North of Vespucci’s travels location, Explorer Christopher Columbus: Italian whose adventure was FUNDED by Spain’s monarchy.

Northern geographical location, adopted Names from….Explorers, Cardiographers, Historical Foreign monarchs, Historical foreign named places.
North Lands…America, Columbus, New York, Georgia, Carolinas, Virginia, (for examples).

Africa…it’s Nations, it’s peoples, in about the Niger River, were called durative’s of that geographical area…Niger’s, Nigra’s, Negro’s…

Using “descriptive” terms of that WHICH APPLIED to the People’s discovered from Particular Geographical areas….has a LONG ancient History… REGARDING the most common PHYSICAL FEATURES of such People’s …
** Skin Color, Height, Hair Color, Hair Texture, Eye Color, Eye shape, Lips shape, Nose shape, Ear shapes, Cheek shapes, forehead shape, Head shape, etc.
** As well as “discovery” OF “LANDSCAPES”…and the Peoples’…
“customs”, “rituals”, “foods”, “beliefs”, “inventions”, “gods”, etc.

IF a persons’ Ancient Historical Ancestry is offensive, embarrassing, demeaning, TO THEM….that would be THEIR ISSUE…not mine.

The Lord God Almighty Created and Made and Loves ALL People, and doesn’t give a flip about WHAT “terms People use to Describe the OUTER appearence of a Person.”
God doesn’t CHANGE mens MINDS, nor CHANGE mens LOOKS….
Gods OFFERING IS TO CHANGE a Freely Willing mans HEART!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Arthur81]

Our Bibles are written in Greek. And we derive our understanding from the passage where the word is found.

Yes, the NT was written in Greek, and the OT in Hebrew, which was then translated into Greek known as the Septuagint. Agreed, we find the meaning in the context, as the context helps us what exact meaning or nuance of the word fits.

So, the word "effeminate" in the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT and others takes us first to the ENGLISH dictionary most nearly matching the time of the text. I can see easily that the translators in those versions did not seem to see sexual conduct in the Greek word they were translation, which is malakos.

I know that the RV and ASV attempted to translate a Greek word consistently with the same English word, if the context permits it. So, I look for where else in the translation do I find "effeminate", and I find that the only occurrence in the Bible is in this one verse 1 Cor. 6:9. But, it is so easy now with computers and software, I can now go do a word search for the Greek itself. That will give me a sense of how the Holy Spirit inspired writers used the word malakos. In the NT I find it -

"But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft(malakos) raiment? Behold, they that wear soft(malakos) raiment are in kings' houses." (Matt 11:8 ASV) *Here I find the word used about clothing, in the context of wealth and royalty.

"But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft(malakos) raiment? Behold, they that are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. (Luke 7:25 ASV) *Here more adjectives are used, 'gorgeous' clothing associated with those who live delicately, and are associated with royalty.

That covers all occurrences of the word in the NT. Thanks to the AMGL, I know that in the Septuagint Bible, the Greek OT produced by Jews, the word is used twice: Pro 25:15; 26:22 -

"By long forbearing is a ruler persuaded, And a soft(malakos) tongue breaketh the bone." (Prov 25:15 ASV) *Here the word is associated with patience and soft spoken language to persuade

"The words of a talebearer are as wounds(malakos), and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly". (Prov 26:22 KJV) *It seems to me that the ASV translates the word better.

"The words of a whisperer are as dainty morsels(malakos), And they go down into the innermost parts." (Prov 26:22 ASV) *Comparing the KJV & ASV, I get the impression the meaning is, gossip when first heard and accepted, seems of no danger, just sharing what "you ought to know"; but then it later can cause such wounds.

Examining how the word is fount in the NT & LXX, I cannot see how malakos would ever mean sexual conduct. When I look at the word associations in 1 Cor. 6:9,10 do I find the words arranged as if they are connected?

"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:9-10 ASV)

Corinth was a very idolatrous city, therefore since "fornicators" and "adulterers" are with "idolaters" do we say that the sin of fornication and adultery condemned here is that connected with idols? I do not believe anyone would say that. I find it baseless to pair malakos with arsenokoites as if they are a connected sex sin; especially since malakos is nowhere else in the Bible used in any way close to meaning sexual conduct. BUT, it is claimed that in the secular or classical Greek, malakos is used figuratively to mean a "catamite", a young male prostitute. But, we can check that online using the Lindell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek. It defines malakos for us and it does not give "catamite" as a meaning nor any sin of sexual conduct. BUT, you can do some research and find that the Classical Greek did indeed have a word that meant a "catamite", so if Paul wished to must a word of male to male sexual conduct, the exact word was available to him.

Effeminate/malakos

μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

Catamite/kinaidos

κίναιδος - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

The only way to make malakos mean catamite, homosexual or sodomite is to read into the word out of the minds of the sex obsessed day in which we live. To follow proper hermeneutics, it takes time and effort, if you wish to come to the truth of God!

 

[Wrangler]

So, the word "effeminate" in the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT and others takes us first to the ENGLISH dictionary most nearly matching the time of the text. I can see easily that the translators in those versions did not seem to see sexual conduct in the Greek word they were translation, which is malakos.

A very pedantic and long, 15-paragraph long, post. Not sure if you answered the basic question of whether the Bible identifies homosexuality as a sin. Please answer?

 

[Arthur81]

David and Jonathan NEVER had a single homosexual encounter = you are reading into things that never existed.

When David said his love for Jonathan was greater then that for women = the highest form of love is platonic

Here is a PERFECT Example = "No greater love can a man have then to lay down his life for his friends" - John 15:13

Since you are so certain of your belief, I know you must for certain know how to explain why David compared the love of Jonathan to "the love of women" rather than to the love of brother, mother, father or wife? Explain that to us!

Then tell us why Jerome added the fake sense about a mother's love into that verse? Why would he have done that when there is not manuscript evidence for it?

Also, you will then of course explain why some Hebrew-English Interlinear OT Bibles include the gender indicator of "she" so it would read -

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan SHE was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 KJV)

The other two times the Hebrew qashar is used combined with "she" it is with two females. Many times in the OT qashar is connected with "HE" and it is with males. Now, I know you can explain that away for us, right?

You cannot explain it but you keep repeating a homophobic viewpoint that is unfounded in scripture.

 

[Wrangler]

It's not a behavior

You cannot believe the words you write; homosexuality most certainly is a behavior.

 

[Arthur81]

A very pedantic and long, 15-paragraph long, post. Not sure if you answered the basic question of whether the Bible identifies homosexuality as a sin. Please answer?

That is an easy question if you wish to phrase it that way. The Bible indeed condemns certain acts of homosexuality as sin; AND likewise, the Bible condemns certain acts of heterosexuality as sin! Just as you need to define what acts of heterosexuality are sin, you must also define what acts of homosexuality are sin. You see the mess you get into trying to import modern psychological labels into a 2000 year old book that has NO SUCH equivalent words?? So, with the homophobia of this day, it takes long posts to try to educate the willingly ignorant.