Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure. I think that it would be irresponsible to assume that Jesus was completely consistent along some idealistic lines (like socially accepting everyone). By the way, I don't think that he's ridiculing the butt-boys themselves, but using the position as a hyperbole - you didnt go into the desert to see a butt-boy, but a prophet.

So... looking for consistency in Jesus' words and teachings is "irresponsible"?

If Paul had not used "according to nature" with respect to the relationship between males and females, the argument would be significantly harder to close. Given that he uses this same terminology, I don't think that there is any basis whatsoever that Paul refers to anything other than homosexuality in 1 Corinthians and Romans using the same terms as Aristotle and Plutarch.

I don't see anything in 1 Corinthians 6 that's even close to "according to nature" in the English translation. Are you reading this in the Greek or something?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So... looking for consistency in Jesus' words and teachings is "irresponsible"?

No, but choosing the most unlikely interpretation of Jesus' teachings with the assumption of consistency is.

Also, remember that we have four canonical Gospels as well as several pseudipigraphal ones, each of them presenting a Jesus that no rule of logic dictates must be internally consistent. Puleeeze.

I don't see anything in 1 Corinthians 6 that's even close to "according to nature" in the English translation. Are you reading this in the Greek or something?

You're right, it's not in 1 Corinthians. I'm connecting Romans 1 with 1 Corinthians 6 - same author, same views.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To be perfectly clear:

Paul uses para foosin in Romans 1 with reference to homosexuality, clearly teaching that it is part of rebellion against God, just like Plutarch.

I believe also Paul like Plutarch, who used malakoi of 1 Cor 6 together with para foosin, uses this word in the same way. We know that Plutarch and Paul used the same words to decry homosexuality, teaching that it is against nature.

Moralia 751c “But to consort with males whether without consent, in which case it involves violence and bridgandage; or if with consent, there is still weakness (malaki/a // malakia - see 1 Cor 6.9 below) and effeminacy (qhlu/thti // theluteti) on the part of those who contrary to nature (para\ fu/sin // para fooseen in Romans 1) allow themselves in Plato’s words ‘to be covered and mounted like cattle’ (the whole phrase is “no/mw? tetra/podoj kai\ paidospoei=sqai&#8221 - this is completely ill-favored favor (= a1xarij xa/rij = ungraced grace - the same word for grace in the NT).”

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Few things in New Testament interpretation are this clear. :biglaugh:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but choosing the most unlikely interpretation of Jesus' teachings with the assumption of consistency is.

What about that interpretation is unlikely? It seems much more likely to me that Jesus would chide people for expecting earthly signs of prestige than that he would make comments about the gay harem of the king, especially since such behaviour would probably be just as condemned for kings of the area as for the common people under Mosaic Law.

Also, remember that we have four canonical Gospels as well as several pseudipigraphal ones, each of them presenting a Jesus that no rule of logic dictates must be internally consistent. Puleeeze.

Three of your four canonical gospels seem to come from the same source, so we would expect consistency there. Also, we would expect consistency within each individual gospel.

You're right, it's not in 1 Corinthians. I'm connecting Romans 1 with 1 Corinthians 6 - same author, same views.

You yourself said that the term "malakoi" alone is used to refer to things other than homosexuality when used without the term "para fusin". I refer you to your earlier statement:

It is the use of malakoi (effiminate) with para fusin (contrary to nature) in Plutarch, Aristotle, and Paul that makes it perfectly clear that Paul is referring to homosexuality. It isn't malakoi alone because obviously that is used in many other ways (as the author correctly points out) by these authors and others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Few things in New Testament interpretation are this clear. :biglaugh:

Does that point to the convincing nature of your position, or to the futile nature of the Bible as a basis for theology?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does that point to the convincing nature of your position, or to the futile nature of the Bible as a basis for theology?

Both.:yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You yourself said that the term "malakoi" alone is used to refer to things other than homosexuality when used without the term "para fusin". I refer you to your earlier statement:

Yes. I don't need you to refer me to my previous statements - I have been repeating myself quite a bit for your benefit. The connection between malakoi and para foosin in Paul is between 1 Cor and Romans, and I made that clear several times.

EDIT: I have been told that what is obvious to me may not be obvious to others. I assumed that it was obvious that I believe Romans 1 to provide context for 1 Cor 6 due to my repeated quoting of them together in the OP and elsewhere. The argument that malakoi is unclear (and therefore not applicable to homosexuality in any way) is supported by a parallel appeal to the ambiguity of Romans 1. However, we have a wonderful example in Plutarch where he uses both terms together to refer unquestionably to homosexuality.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Three of your four canonical gospels seem to come from the same source, so we would expect consistency there. Also, we would expect consistency within each individual gospel.

Obviously, I disagree. There is no reason at all for us to expect consistency in any of the Gospels, especially in an absolute, highly rigorously intellectual sense. Although three of the Gospels theoretically use one source, they all edit them for their own reasons. Each of the Gospels also went through several redactions, and inconsistencies can be the result of these editors or the original source(s). Lots of room for error, and everyone who touched the Gospels had a bias, an agenda, and were limited by their own competencies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

EDIT: I have been told that what is obvious to me may not be obvious to others. I assumed that it was obvious that I believe Romans 1 to provide context for 1 Cor 6 due to my repeated quoting of them together in the OP and elsewhere. The argument that malakoi is unclear (and therefore not applicable to homosexuality in any way) is supported by a parallel appeal to the ambiguity of Romans 1. However, we have a wonderful example in Plutarch where he uses both terms together to refer unquestionably to homosexuality.

Obviously, I'm running up against the fact that I do not read Greek, either modern or Biblical, but I do realize that words can have different meanings depending on context.

You've stated that when a man is described as both "soft" and "contrary to nature", that this usage of the two terms indicates that it's intended to describe the man as homosexual... fine. I don't see why that this means that every instance of the word "soft" without "contrary to nature" implies that the person is homosexual, especially when we can see that similar terms in modern English can convey a meaning of "unmanly" or "effeminate" without implying that the man in question is gay.

As an example: a person may be described as "green with envy". This does not mean that another instance of someone else being described as "green" automatically implies envy, because there are lots of other meanings (e.g. sickness, inexperience, etc.) that the word "green" can denote.

In the case of 1 Corinthians 6, we have, as I see, it two possibilities for the intended definition of malakoi: homosexual men, or men overly focused on earthly comfort. The latter possiblity definitely fits into the teachings of Paul as a whole (he isn't too big on "the flesh", after all), so I don't see why it should be immediately discounted.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, you're doing great and I appreciate your interaction with this...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously, I'm running up against the fact that I do not read Greek, either modern or Biblical, but I do realize that words can have different meanings depending on context.

As I said, you're doing great. I have a lot of other experience in this field too that helps.

You've stated that when a man is described as both "soft" and "contrary to nature", that this usage of the two terms indicates that it's intended to describe the man as homosexual... fine. I don't see why that this means that every instance of the word "soft" without "contrary to nature" implies that the person is homosexual, especially when we can see that similar terms in modern English can convey a meaning of "unmanly" or "effeminate" without implying that the man in question is gay.

Here's where I think that my opponents are weakest. There are many possible definitions of malakoi - weak, effiminate, etc, but all of them have the strong undercurrent of being passive sexually, whether male or female. When the word is used in the masculine, it without variance (at least I know of none, and I have read quite a bit of Greek) it refers to the sexuality of the male. For example, if it refers to his clothing, he is wearing "gay clothing". Understand? The natrual/unnatural clarification in Romans merely accentuates a theme that is already there in malakoi.

The ambiguity of the meaning doesn't come from the language, but rather a sophomoric looking at the variety of meanings listed in the dictionary and a choosing of one that is most preferable for the interpreter (like trying to force the NT to be kind towards the GLBT population).

In the case of 1 Corinthians 6, we have, as I see, it two possibilities for the intended definition of malakoi: homosexual men, or men overly focused on earthly comfort. The latter possiblity definitely fits into the teachings of Paul as a whole (he isn't too big on "the flesh", after all), so I don't see why it should be immediately discounted.

Comfort with respect to having sex with other men.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*bump due to recent interest*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

BNT 1 Corinthians 6:9

"H ouvk oi;date o[ti a;dikoi qeou/ basilei,an ouv klhronomh,sousinÈ mh. plana/sqe\ ou;te po,rnoi ou;te eivdwlola,trai ou;te moicoi. ou;te malakoi. ou;te avrsenokoi/tai

ESV 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (literally either being on the giving or receiving end).

Some people think that translating malakoi. as “male homosexual” is incorrect, but Plutarch is explicit in how the word is to be defined. I do not intend whatsoever to imply that this is how we should treat homosexuals today, but any argument based on Scripture cannot argue that there is a translation error in modern Bibles regarding this issue in either Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians.

In a fleeting moment of genuis yesterday, I translated malakoi as "sexually effiminate males" and arsenokoitai as "sexually agressive males."

I think that this best captures the idea, especially because one doesn't need to be "homosexual" in order to participate in these activities.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bump due to recent discussions

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Another bump for current discussion