Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Church Discipline and Gay Christians
Message-ID: <367@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 02:33:10 EST
Article-I.D.: oakhill.367
Posted: Tue Mar 19 02:33:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:20:36 EST
References: <1292@akgua.UUCP> <ihuxl.1509>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 67
Summary: 

Alan Edwards defending the idea that homsexuals are sinners:
>   Another scripture is in I Corinthians 6:9-11 were Paul says:
>
>        9 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,

Since many gays claim that some Christians twist scripture to suit their
own ends it is interesting to investigate one of the versus where it
appears condemnation agains homsexuality occurs.  This last verse contains
two of the three words by Paul that are commonly interpreted today to relate
to homesexuality.  (As an aside, it certainly seems to me that at first glance
this would be an obvious interpretation.)

From John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality":

  The first of the two, basically "soft," [effeminate] is an extremely common
  greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning "sick"
  and in patristic writings with the senses as varied as "liquid," "cowardly,"
  "refined," "weak willed," "delicate," "gentle," and "debauched."  In a
  specifically moral context it very frequently means "licentious," "loose,"
  or "wanting in self-control."  At a broad level it might be translated as
  either "unrestrained" or "wanton," but to assume that either of these
  concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is
  never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference
  to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary
  with the Paline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.

  [There are several footnotes through all of this but for purposes of brevity
   they are not included.  Next Boswell goes on to show that this word was
   unanimously taken to mean masterbation until well into the 20th century
   even by those theologians who most stigmatized homosexuality.  Finally
   Boswell goes into details on just why "abusers of themselves with men"
   (the second word of Paul's we are interested in) very likely was used
   to mean "male prostitutes" by Paul.  Boswell continues...]

  Perhaps the most extensive evidence that "[second word in greek]" did not
  connote "homosexual" or even "sodomite" in the time of Paul is offered by
  the vast amount of writing extant on the subject of homoerotic sexuality
  in Greek in which this term does not occur.  It is extremely difficult
  to believe that if the word actually meant "homosexual" or "sodomite," *NO*
  previous or contemporary author would have used it in a way which clearly
  indicated this connection.  [And Boswell goes into many greek words of the
  time which did refer to homosexuality.]

So what at first seems an obvious reference to homosexuality is instead seen
to be a filtered effect of greek words through cultural glasses from
possibly weak translations.

Of course Boswell's treatment does not "prove" homosexuality was not meant by
Paul.  But it does bring up some good reasons why that assumption should be
questioned.

>   Paul tells us that "the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> kingdom of God" in verse 9 and then goes on to list some sins
> that we need to be aware so that we're "not deceived".

In order to not "be deceived" it is important that when one reads and quotes
scripture one does so with regard to its true meaning.  Acting as though
God spoke in Old English to the original people who wrote the Bible is just
irresponsible.  There have been some good postings on this net as to
how to go about examining scriptural references in their native languages.
Of course, this can only properly be done if our own cultural biases
are recognized along with those of the scriptural periods themselves.

Dave Trissel         {seismo,gatech,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill