In a message dated 95-08-18 02:25:16 EDT, you write:

« Subj: Greek Date: 95-08-18 02:25:16 EDT From: xxxxxxxxxx To: Pasisozis CC: Axios USA, AxiosChi, xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx CC: xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx

Hello, As far as “how absurd these theories sound” and “armchair psychology”. I asked the questions that I thought were valid-honest questions. I dont know why you needed to attack my motive.

As far as your comments on the word arsenokoitai… I do not know what your source for your comments were, can you give me some references? Arsenokoitai is a combination of two Greek words..arsen= male, koitai= bed,Arsen is a masculine definate article. I do not see how you or anyone else can render it as anything other than that. »

-ai is the feminine plural ending. Looking at the use of “koitis” (singular) and “koitai” (plural) in the Bible, it seems that it is used in the singular to indicate permitted sexual activity (“The marriage bed is undefiled”) and in the plural to indicate prohibited activity (“many beds” = “screwing around”). I.e. it seems to indicate monogamy by grammatical means. (I am adding the author of the research on “koitai” to the CC: list for this discussion: George Battelle).

Arsenokoitai is first used in the Sibylline Oracles to mean child molesters. St. John the Faster uses it to refer to a heterosexual act that “some men even perform with their wives”. How could this be, in light of the etymology of “male”+“beds”? The answer is that nothing in the word “arsenokoitis” or “arsenokoitai” (singular and plural, respectively) mandate that it mean all (or even only some) male-male sex. It can (gramatically speaking) refer to any sexual act performed by, or to, a male; the other party may be a woman; sometimes is, sometimes isn't. The grammatically feminine ending combined with the masculine “arsen-” would suggest a man-woman relationship. As I said, actual usage has been mixed, with the word used for various acts, both heterosexual and homosexual. But actual usage is not always correct or logical – e.g. the use of the words “sodomy” or “onanism” which have nothing to do with what actually happened in Sodom (inhospitality manifested especially in an attempted gang rape, followed by an unpunished act of incest of each of Lot's daughters with their father) or to Onan (coitus interruptus used to evade the responsibilities of Levirate marriage). « Concerning the Greek word pais…it can be rendered either servant, or used to describe any child between the ages of 7 and 14.

No, the term is much more general, and can be used to indicate an unmarried male up to age 20-25. A look at the plates in Kenneth Dover's Greek Homosexuality will show that ancient Greek “pederasty” (from pais + eros) was sometimes what we now call pederasty (abuse of underage boys) and sometimes was relations with a mature eromenos (“beloved”).

« Arsen (which symbolizes maleness) is used 8 times in the NT. Both arsen and thelys (femaleness) are found in Romans 1:26 where Paul identifies homosexuality and lesbianism as gross sins.

Arsen and thelys are indeed found in Romans, but nowhere are “homosexuality” or “lesbianism” mentioned. The fact that men do “shameful things with other men” and the women likewise with women does not indicate that ALL same-sex acts are shameful, but only the ones which are referred to, which are clearly linked to WILLFUL REJECTION of God (through idolatry) and willful rejection of one's nature, which are related. I know Pasisozis, and can vouch that he never rejected God or worshipped idols as the people in Romans 1 did. Neither is there a question of him “exchanging” the natural for the unnatural, for he (as all gays) never was otherwise. He never had sex or sexual feelings with a woman, so how could he have “exchanged” this for homosexuality? BTW, the word “afentes”, sometimes translated as “exchanging,” literally means “abandoning,” “leaving.” What is being abandoned or left here? It is just not the same situation.

Remember that 1) “homosexuality” is a word invented in 1869 A.D.; 2) “lesbianism” is a word which dates to Classical Greece or before; possibly all the way back to the seventh-century B.C. life of Sappho of Lesbos. Aristophanes uses the verb “lesbiazo” (“I am a lesbian”) in the fifth century B.C., which is the oldest usage of the word I've seen. Regarding (1), one must therefore be careful to avoid imposing post-1869 A.D. attitudes and preconceptions in an anachronistic manner; and regarding (2), if the word for being a lesbian was at least 500 years old when the New Testament books were written, and existed for much of the Old Testament period also, why is it not used? Greeks knew of both male and female homosexuality, and had plenty of words to describe it. If that is what St. Paul wished to condemn, he could have used words like “arrenophilos” or “thylophile” (note prefix and suffix; these words would mean male and female homosexual respectively). He did not, but instead used (1) a very general term, malakos, which means “soft”, and is mostly used in ways having nothing to do with sex (e.g. “soft clothing”); (2) an obscure technical word which the Slavs didn't even bother to translate when they made their translations of the N.T. This does not sound like a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, but a prohibition on specific behaviors, some of which are (incidentally) homosexual and some heterosexual (note again the history of actual usage of the word “arsenokoitai”).

« Some other verses: Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. This text is very plain, obviously refering to the sex act.

See also Lev 20:13

Literally, it is “You shall not lie the lying of a woman with a male”; implying a confusion of gender roles; the term “abomination” is Hebrew “toevah” which is a technical term for something ritually unclean by virtue of its connection with idolatry. Sometimes it refers to morally wrong activities (e.g. idolatry) and sometimes to things not wrong but unwise for the Hebrews who needed to be distinct and separate from the idolatrous peoples around them (e.g. dietary and agricultural laws). The word mistranslated as “sodomite” in the King James Old Testament is actually “qadesh” (plural “qadeshim”) which the RSV correctly translates as “temple prostitute.” In the time of Leviticus, pagan communities forced their inhabitants to perform service as a temple prostitute (much like a military draft), and were confined in the temple until someone threw them a coin, indicating a desire to have sex. This sex constituted communion with the pagan deity, which was obviously a grave sin of idolatry. Such rites also included cross-dressing (also prohibited in Deuteronomy, even though there are saints who did so, but without idolatry) and forced effeminization of male prostitutes. With an artificial womanlike appearance, these male prostitutes could then be used by the “worshipper”-“john” to lie the lying of a woman with a man, as Leviticus says. But any gay man will tell you that he lies the lying of a man, not a woman. If he wanted a womanly appearance in his partner, he would not be gay, by definition.

Why is lesbianism not mentioned, if this is a blanket condemnation of homosexuality? The word and concept was hardly unknown.

Furthermore, those who do interpret this as an antigay passage would do well to follow the other Levitical prohibitions, for the law that they use to judge others will be used by God to judge them. (Of course, we are not saved by following a legalistic formula; even Orthodox Jews often ignore some of the Levitical precepts, for instance, against wearing of blended fabrics. Furthermore, no one in his right mind would advocate death by stoning to a man who has sex with his wife during her period; no one would call this immoral; few would even advocate denial of jobs or housing to adulterers (which is immoral). Both of these activities are abominations in Leviticus; the fact that we don't follow the Levitical penalties for them demonstrates how our antigay prejudices single gays out for special treatment and color our theology.

« In Romans chapter 1 the person(s) are given over to vile affections as a result of their actions.

Already discussed by Brian and Pasisozis; the fact is that these actions were rejection of God and has nothing to do with the experience of the typical Christian gay person.

« I would deny that there is any real evidence to show that homosexuality has a genetic basis. Even if they did do some testing in the '70s. (not a blind test by the way)

Footnotes? References? Proof? You are entitled to your opinion, but outside of the ex-gay ministries (who have a vested and financial interest in this myth) you will not find very much support of this view. The testing is not in the 1970's, but the 1990's by the way. But it comes as no surprise to gays, who have known all along. And I find the definition of being gay used by these “ministries” to be strange and self-serving: a man who is strongly attracted sexually and/or romantically to other males (or the analogous woman-to-woman situation) is not considered gay if he does not “act” on his feelings. What is he then, heterosexual? A heterosexual is not attracted to the same sex, by definition. What kind of thought process could lead to such a preposterous ethic? Perhaps the fear engendered in an “ex-gay” who knows all along that he/she is still gay but desperately tries to deny this, because he or she has been misled into thinking that these natural feelings mean certain hell.

« An honest search of scripture reveals homsexuality to be sin. (improper hermeneutics and exegesis aside)

An honest search of scripture reveals that the word is never mentioned, even though words for both male and female homosexuality existed in biblical times. What, by the way, were David and Jonathan doing when they became “as one soul” and formed a covenant between them? (“The two shall become one”?). What was meant by David saying that his love “surpassed the love of women”? What about the term “exceeded”? This cannot honestly be harmonized with a view that Leviticus contains a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality. (References: I Samuel 18:1-4, 20:4, 20:14-17, 23:16-18; with regard to references to sexuality note 20:30 and possibly 20:41. It is also no secret that the word “brother” in Greek, Latin, and other languages need not always refer to a familial relation but can refer also to various relationships and unions other than familial brotherhood. The “passing the love of women passage in in II Samuel 1:26).

“Improper hermeneutics and exegesis” is that which is false, not a label to indiscriminately use on anything which does not satisfy an arbitrary litmus test for antigay content.

« The bible says nothing about orientation, only the act itself. Homosexuality is a sin of commission. You have a choice about your actions, you may not have a choice about your feelings.

Where does the Bible make such a distinction. The word for sexual orientation in Greek is “sexoualike prosanatolisis.” Like the other terms mentioned above, it is just not there. The view you expressed is a human rationalization to try to justify an antigay view which does not (unlike, e.g., Hitler) provide a “final solution” to the undesirables it creates (though the Moral Majority used to take out TV ads advocating the death penalty for gays (based on Leviticus), and this “Kill a Queer for Christ” mentality is still alive and well, despite disclaimers by these “Christians.” However, this is not being advocated here.). Thus, this view must create a way of dealing with all the ego-dystonic gays it creates, while still claiming success. The simple, if false, solution which has been adopted is this unnatural dichotomy between “acts” and “orientation”. They go together, you know; humans are (or should be) a harmonious whole, and to encourage fragmentation of one's self into “compartments” (acts here, orientation there; “pure” friendships there, possibly tainted ones there; erotic ones way over THERE!) is a sure path to mental and spiritual illness. I challenge someone to do an impartial study of how many “ex-gays” are on antidepressants and/or antipsychotics despite lack of any psychosis, and no mental difficulties aside from the ego-dystonicity induced by antigay prejudices. God never said we should induce mental illness in people through a myopic and obsessive pursuit of an unrealistic sexual ethic.

« One would think that with no positive statements or examples of homosexuality in the bible, as well as all the positive heterosexual references, the truth would be plain.

Genesis 2:20 …, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD GOD caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the LORD GOD fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Previously in the chapter Adam has seen and named all the animals and not a suitable helper was found. Since he was given a choice for a helper why wasnt he given the choice between another man or a woman?

Because with only two humans on earth, procreation is somewhat important? The fact that He did not give Adam the choice of a computer to pass his time does not mean that computers are also abominations. Likewise with a myriad of things not mentioned in the Bible which no one considers immoral (If computers are immoral, we are all in deep trouble!)

« God doesnt even bring up the possibility-Because it is an abomination, it is not natural. (your feelings may seem natural but the action is not, I dont need to bring up the physiological problems with homosexuality)

You are taking Genesis and gluing it to Leviticus with your own preconceptions. God nowhere mentions this as his motive in Genesis, and “abomination” is not mentioned in the passages you refer to.

Physiological problems with homosexuality? Now don't tell me you've tried and it just didn't work out… seriously; if it is anal intercourse you are referring to, this is just one act of many; and many gays do not perform it. Remember that homosexual sex is only “unitive” and not “procreative” (the same applies to heterosexual sex when the partners do not desire children), so that there is no imperative to “stick it in there” (to put it bluntly). There are a great variety of both heterosexual and homosexual sex acts which are non-procreative; there is only one act which is procreative. All can be enjoyable and satisfying to those of whatever orientation. Incidentally, the non-procreative acts other than anal intercourse are also safer from the point of view of STDs and AIDS. Though AIDS first struck gays in the U.S., other countries have shown different patterns, and even in the U.S., the highest risk group has been heterosexual women for some time now. Keep in mind that when AIDS first appeared, and statistics of alleged 70% infection rates among urban gays were trumpeted amidst rejoicing “Christian” fundamentalists, they expected all gays to be dead by now, whereas the community has grown and prospered during this time. So, I say, what “physiological problems with homosexuality”?

« You can be as RELIGIOUS as you want-but that doesnt make you a Christian. God wants relationship not religion. When you sin you hurt that relationship.

My friend, may God reveal the truth of His word to you with manifold blessings.

True; this applies equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation and such things. May God bless us all with His Truth and his Grace, and grant that we may do His will in all things. Amen.

« Greetings to the rest of our onlookers.

Brian

And greetings to you. I have been following this discussion since its inception with interest, as I have been researching the topic since 1987 and have at times been quite surprised by some of the things I have found out.

« BTW –colors and font style are located in the edit menu bar. (Macintosh) For IBM check member services.

Thanks for the information. Does it have a feature to include escape sequences and such, to embed ANSI art or effects like flashing or double-width or double-height text into e-mail and/or message boards? There is also the issue of inaccessible mail headers such as “Charset:” and “Reply-To:” which AOL, being a Unix system, should make accessible.

In the meantime, I'll try your suggestion when I log on.

Sincerely in Christ,

Nick Zymaris

Public Discussion Page