Banking on bigotry

[Sue U]

If the the King's English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it should've been good enough for Paul (and the schoolchildren of Texas).

[Big RR]

I don't know, Jesus didn't talk English in The Passion of the Christ.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry Big RR I don't get it. You provide a very thorough proof that wife and husband are gender specific terms. I agree. Wife is the female in a marriage (you said that). Husband is the male in a marriage (you said that).

I wrote that language is being carefully and cleverly distorted but wife does not mean "either a man or a woman" and husband does not mean "either a man or a woman". In what way does your entire agreement result in you "not buying that"?

Is it something to do with your statement that it takes distortion (of language) to mean that marriage might have two wives? Or two husbands? (And I believe you are not speaking of polygamy). Again, we agree.

The universal application of 'she' to wife and 'he' to husband is of course gender specific but does not suit some people's political agenda - so distort the language and hey presto! A duck is a poodle.

4 η THE γυνη WIFE του ιδιου HER OWN σωματος BODY
THE ανηρ HUSBAND του ιδιου HIS OWN σωματος BODY

Greek του is in fact the neutral "the" but in Greek takes meaning per the gender context as given elsewhere in preceding or succeeding sentences or passage (and therefore must be translated accordingly). It remains "the" or "it" when gender is not otherwise indicated.

[Big RR]

Meade--perhaps I misunderstood you; I was merely mentioning that it was not that hard to imagine a marriage of two men or two women, and thus two wives or two husbands.

As to the "universal" application of she to wife and he to husband, I think that might be true, but then these terms did not originally have anything to do with marriage. In traditional language a wife is a woman (hence "I now pronounce you man and wife"), while husband is the head of a household (the bondsman). As these terms became associated with the pair bond/marriage concept, the gender specific roles of the husband (male) as the head of the household and the (female) wife as woman (and probably the bearer of children, which is all many thought women were for) kept the gender identification, but the terms became associated more with the roles played and not the gender (so an unmarried male was not a husband, e.g., even though he may have headed a household). Yes traditionally males were the heads of households and women the childbearers, but as times have changed so have those taking on those roles. So calling a woman who has assumed the responsibilities of head of the household a "husband" is not like calling a duck a poodle, but more like calling the female head of the committee a chairman as she has assumed that role. The gender tie began to disappear once the words were tied to the concept of marriage and the roles within a marriage.

This sort of evolution of language is fairly common. For example, I have a niece who lived with me for about 3 years when she was very young (and who I kept a constant relationship with afterwards) who still calls me her co-father, even though I had nothing to do with her birth (ie.e did not father her in the sense of the word); and my adopted daughters call me Dad even though the same is true for them (I am legally their parents, but that doesn't change what the word means, does it?). Again, I think it comes down to what the words have become identified with, and here I would say the role you fill dictates what you can be called.

[Econoline]

Biblical Greek (not to mention Hebrew or Aramaic) didn't even have any words for "homosexual" and "heterosexual" that mean anything like what those words mean to us today. It's a bit like using the commandment against "graven images" to prohibit television.

[wesw]

ok. I just googled "ancient greek word for homosexual"

the first site at the top was "gaychristian 101"

it took me to a list of 17 words in ancient greek and latin "that paul could have used to describe homosexuals" it also said that he "invented" his own word.

just sayin'.....

[Gob]

If you read that he says; "Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." So he wants the whole human race to be celibate? Fucking nuts.

Hypocrisy of Marital Relationships: So many Christians try to rationalize this but it is clear that a true follower of Jesus can neither divorce someone nor marry someone who is divorced. There is an exception to the rule, however. If spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible. On the same token, the Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is in adulterer. Remember that 80% of this country is Christian yet we have a 50% divorce rate. A majority of divorces are a result of irreconcilable differences, not adultery, which implies that Christians are again practicing selective morality. How many Christians are working on a second, third or fourth marriage?

1) “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6 & Mark 10:9).

2) “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9 & Luke 16:18).

3) "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32).

4) "...whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11 & Luke 16:18), which applies to women as well (Mark 10:12).

[wesw]

I don t really think that that s a good interpretation , gob. it could be an expression of his personal satisfaction in his faith, and his understanding that he is unique, as is everyone.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR, sophistry aside, you might have a point if the children called you "mum". A wife is a woman - agreed. A husband is a man - agreed. Christian marriage consists of one man and one woman - one husband and one wife - because the Lord decreed it.

That the word "marriage" itself is applied to many different situations - agreed. But I think the issue was Christian marriage.

Gob, sometimes your rabid frothing makes senses and other times ... not so much. I don't see what's wrong with Paul saying he wished that other people were like him - unmarried and not preoccupied with sesxuality. He recognizes that is not so and never will be so - hence he advises people to get married rather than become obsessed with unrelieved desire.

Christianity aside, I can think of many ways in which a less sex- and self-obsessed world might exhibit a more human and less violent society.

[Econoline]

I don't see what's wrong with Paul saying he wished that other people were like him - unmarried and not preoccupied with sesxuality. He recognizes that is not so and never will be so - hence he advises people to get married rather than become obsessed with unrelieved desire.

That is exactly the way I see Paul's advice: he sees his own celibacy and disinterest in sex as a (probably somewhat rare) "gift from God". And this makes it quite "Christian" to apply that same advice to homosexuals, who of course are no more likely than heterosexuals to have received this same rare "gift". The fact that this never occurred to Paul (or any other prominent early Christians) obviously stems from the fact that--like many other modern scientific, social, economic, and psychological concepts--the concept of "homosexuality" as we understand it today (and even the very word "homosexual") did not appear until the 19th century.

To say that we must use a 1st-century understanding of the world and of human behavior and reject what we have learned since then is a demand that Christianity does not make regarding most other aspects of modern life...and even Paul rejected much of the 7th-century-BCE worldview that underlaid many of the 613 commandments in the Torah.

(As for the definition of "Christian marriage" as "one man and one woman": you can certainly find that--along with a whole host of other views of marriage!--in the Bible. But anyone who argues that the Bible speaks plainly on an issue as complicated as marriage hasn't taken the time to read all of it.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's cool - let me see how that works:

Anyone who argues that the Bible does not speak plainly on an issue as complicated as marriage hasn't taken the time to read all of it

Oh yeah. That's good and quite straightforward. I like it. Irrefutably put

[Lord Jim]

To say that we must use a 1st-century understanding of the world and of human behavior and reject what we have learned since then is a demand that Christianity does not make regarding most other aspects of modern life...

That's something that can be debated one way or another, but you do realize that's a completely different assertion from:

there is a (fairly well-known) passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7) which could easily be seen as approval of same-sex marriage

In fact your most recent assertion seems to be a concession that your original one was wrong...

(Which would be a smart concession to make, since it was... )

[MajGenl.Meade]

Also Econo, are you perhaps fudging the meaning of "Christian" marriage if you cite pre-Christian practices of Jewish kings (such as David and Solomon)? I would think that Jesus' words about it would be rather more defining than yours or mine, Matthew 19.

However, it is perfectly possible for a sophistic argument to be made that Jesus never actually says.... or that "these words aren't used".... so I'll grant that despite everything in the Bible that is contra-homosexuality and despite there being not one word of approval of it, all those who think Christian marriage is one man/one woman are er... probably just wrong.

[Econoline]

Okay, I'll concede that that last paragraph I put in about "Christian marriage" was a cheap shot, and wrong, and I should not have said it. I stand by the the rest of what I said, though.

To say that we must use a 1st-century understanding of the world and of human behavior and reject what we have learned since then is a demand that Christianity does not make regarding most other aspects of modern life...

That's something that can be debated one way or another, but you do realize that's a completely different assertion from:

there is a (fairly well-known) passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7) which could easily be seen as approval of same-sex marriage

In fact your most recent assertion seems to be a concession that your original one was wrong...

(Which would be a smart concession to make, since it was... )

No, not really...

If you interpret Paul's writings about celibacy versus marriage (and the impossibility of celibacy without the "particular gift" from God that he himself had been given) as applying to EVERYONE--including homosexuals--and then realize that Paul's exclusion of homosexuals was mostly because the (modern) concept of "homosexual" didn't exist yet and would not exist until many centuries* in his (and Christianity's) future...

...then those two statements make perfect sense together. (See also the biblical versus modern understanding of the sins of "usury" and "making [graven] images".)





* (ETA: those are centuries Paul did not believe would exist, since he expected the apocalypse would occur before the end of his own century.)

[Lord Jim]

that Paul's exclusion of homosexuals was mostly because the (modern) concept of "homosexual" didn't exist yet

Okay, I think we're playing a word game here...

If my recollection is correct, the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" didn't come in to use until the advent of the study of psycho analysis in the late 19th Century...

Does that mean that until that time, there was no such thing as "men who laid with women" or "men who laid with men" or "women who laid with women"...?

This is sophistry of the rankest sort....

[wesw]

the Spartan battle cry varied from group to group , but often was the time that "we re here and we re queer" rang across the battlefield, sending quivers up the backsides of their foes....

[Lord Jim]

Instead of trying to shoe horn some acceptance of Gay Marriage into Paul, (which frankly is kind of ridiculous) the far better argument is:

"It doesn't matter what the Bible says; it doesn't matter what Christianity says..."

We live in a secular society, and the decisions about who can and cannot "marry" are secular in nature; religion has no part in it...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't think you really have that exactly right LJ. You and I don't have much of a problem with that argument - may not be too fond of it but it makes sense in the secular arena

But the key part of the plan is to force acceptance on and approval from everyone - not just silence. The word of God must be shown to be wrong - thus proving that God actually approves of the practice of homosexuality. Hence absurd arguments that when Paul condemns homosexuality he is actually recommending it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And in regard to language and the word "homosexual". Greek didn't have a word for it. Of course, neither did English until it did. Paul's word in 1Cor is arsenokoitai

http://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenok ... ysterious/
Provides a discussion of various attempts to explain this word that Paul created.

Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.

The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.

Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1Corinthians6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a “man-lier”). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct

[wesw]

oh I m sure greeks had a word for it....

the y were clever buggers....