I read a couple comments that people agreed with Rrhain that the apparent references in the New Testament to homosexuality were really only to male prostitution. I was pretty stunned by this, as I didn't see anything at all to back up his position, so I thought I'd take another go at it and try to stick to the main points.
Picking Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6, the clearest references to the subject, here's my points and the only answers I heard from Rrhain. (Maybe he said something more, and I missed it.)
1. Romans 1
quote:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, etc....
Rrhain focused on "that which is unseemly," which is all one word in Greek. He said it is a clear reference to male prostitution, but he gave no example where the word is ever used in such a context. He also insisted that the context here refers to temple activity.
It seems clear enough to me that even if the context referred to temple activity, which there is no indication of, the points cannot be missed. Women and men both turn "the natural use" into what is "against nature," according to Paul. In both cases it is "that which is unseemly."
2. "that which is unseemly"
Contrary to what Rrhain said, "that which is unseemly" has nothing to do with prostitution, whether male, female, or otherwise. It means "that which is unseemly," which is why they tranlated it that way. It is used twice in the NT. The other time is Revelation 16:15, which reads:
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Shame there is also
aschemosune. It means unseemly or indecent, not male prostitution. It is from
askemon, which means indecent, unseemly, or deformed. In fact, the only difference between the two words is one is an adjective and the other a noun.
Askemon is used once in the NT, in 1 Cor 12:23, which reads, "Those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor, and our uncomely (
askemon) parts have more abundanct comeliness." Even here, comeliness is
euschemosune, which is probably (according to Strong's) the opposite of aschemosune (the a- meaning "not") and it means "charm or elegance of figure; external beauty."
In other words, aschemosune means that which is not charming, elegant, or beautiful. In other words, "unseemly."
3. 1 Cor 6:9
The passage here is simple. Paul says certain people won't inherit the kingdom of God. The question is what he meant by the word "arsenokoites."
The word consists of "arseno," which means male, and "koites," which mean coitus. I think the meaning there is obvious.
Paul does mention a second type of person, obviously similar to the one just mentioned, because he lists them one after another. The word he uses there is "malakos." It mainly means "soft to the touch," but it was used of homosexuals, boys raised for the use of men, and male prostitutes.
Rrhain made a point of saying that definition 2d (ignoring 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c) was definitely Paul's meaning, but "malakos" wasn't even the word under discussion. Even if "malakos" was a reference here to a male prostitute, it would then prove
arsenokoites was not, because that would make Paul redundant (which he was prone to being, but not to making a list that includes the same thing twice).
Out of context, in a list like it is, it is always more appropriate to take the general sense of a word, not a specific sense (especially the 4th one listed), so even
malakos is a prohibition by Paul against homosexuality. The translators rightly distinguish between the two words by using the "soft" sense of one and the "coitus" sense of the other and translating "effeminate" and "homosexual."
4. Rrhain's assertion that ancients didn't classify people into homosexual and heterosexual.
First off, the words used in 1 Cor 6:9 prove he was wrong.
Second, even if he were right, it's irrelevant. The issue here is not whether the Bible says that being a homosexual is wrong, but whether it really prohibits the act of homosexuality. So, whether anyone called anyone else a homosexual is irrelevant.
5. The Bible is against sex outside of marriage
Paul's writings are clearly against even heterosexual acts if they are outside of marriage. Paul's discussions of marriage are all male to female (ref. 1 Cor 7), not male to male or female to female, which he already said is "against nature."
Surely it's apparent that a man who prohibits heterosexual acts outside of marriage is going to prohibit homosexual acts as well.
6. Course of Performance
The churches that followed recently after Paul (what happened 600 years later hardly applies to what Paul believes, but what happened within 50 years within churches he started very much applies) were even more ascetic than he was.
a. Justin, who had been in both Corinth and Rome, says (around AD 150) that the churches in general taught that marriage was expressly for child bearing. Otherwise, they avoided marriage.
b. Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 190) taught that a perfectly spiritual man would lose all his lusts.
c. Origen (c. AD 220), a student of Clement's, asked to be castrated, was refused by the leaders of the church, then lived celibate his whole life. He said that the reason bishops were to have only one wife was out of self-control. It was considered spiritual to remain unmarried should you become widowed.
d. Athenagoras (admittedly with Montanist leanings) referred even to marriage as "specious adultery."
The "course of performance" (I'm borrowing a legal term) shows that Paul and his later disciples were against sexual lust in general. Marriage was to help those who could not abstain (1 Cor 7 again), but generally it was good to overcome sexual desires. One who couldn't had marriage, male-female marriage, to turn to, and nothing else.
You may not like these views or agree with them, but those were clearly Paul's views.
For those of you who don't agree, maybe you could tell me what I'm missing. I didn't see even a little bit of evidence that Paul was referring to male prostitution or that Paul or the churches ever considered homosexual behavior acceptable or homosexual marriages legitimate.
[edited to fix formatting]
[This message has been edited by truthlover, 08-19-2003]
™ Version 4.2
