Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cci-bdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry From: larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: fornication and Christianity Message-ID: <128@cci-bdc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 14:34:15 EST Article-I.D.: cci-bdc.128 Posted: Wed Jan 30 14:34:15 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 02:09:15 EST References: <343@uvm-cs.UUCP> <543@mako.UUCP> Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 53 Xref: seismo net.singles:6277 net.religion.christian:105 > > For the moment, assume that the greek *was* correctly translated. > If so, then what hat did Paul pull out this "no fornication" stuff > from? Freeing us from the Law, and then setting up rules against > things which were previously ok, just doesn't compute. > > On the other hand, if the greek *has* been incorrectly translated, > it seems that quite a number of people have incorrectly translated > it the same way !? How could this be? we spend a lot of time wondering whether the greek was translated correctly...what about the other languages before it? what about the oral tradition that surely started long before...? who's to say what was and wasn't implemented for practicality as opposed to true objections on god's part (a good portion of the kosher laws, for example...if you tell people they'll get sick if they eat uncooked pork they ignore you -- tell them god will kill you for it and they listen up real fast)... > > Examples of sexual immorality mentioned are never "just" fornication, > they're always adultery or incest, or some such. (correct me if I'm > wrong) Also, it's interesting that Satan tempted Jesus with food > and power, but not sex. many of the sexual references are also fairly vague...for example, sodom and gomorrah...while one translation of the hebrew led to the current definition of the word "sodomite" another and equally valid translation indicates a different form of abuse altogether, with no sexual connotations whatsoever... and if people are going to look at the exact words written, who's to say some homophobic or just plain stodgy editor added a word here or there or translated something a bit liberally... it doesn't seem to make much sense that "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. it is an abomination." should mean that male homosexuality is inpermissible, but that there is no mention of lesbian sexual practices (are lesbians a product of the twentieth century, or is it the men that wrote the bible got off on watching two women go at it, or is it just that they (being shepherds) were so busy molesting the sheep (which is also not mentioned) that they didn't notice...? larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.