• Zloubida@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

    None of these words can be translated by “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, if you understand homosexuality as “a loving and stable romantic and sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex” like the marriages blessed by this pastor.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      26 days ago

      The word αρσενοκοιται

      αρσεν Male

      κοιται Bed

      It literally means “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)”

      As for Romans 1:27

      1000053561

      The Greek and the English both make it clear that they “burned in their lust one toward another”. Which describes a passionate, consensual relationship.

      When talking about marriage, marriage is insituted by God. In fact, it’s the first sacrament (if you see it as one) instituted.

      Genesis 2:24 ESV [24] Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

      The marriage is between a man and a woman. It remains that way throughout the whole Bible, that it’s between a man and a woman. The only time a sexual union is mentioned between two men or two women, it’s condemned. A man and a man cannot get married, neither can two women.

      • Zloubida@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        The word αρσενοκοιται

        αρσεν Male

        κοιται Bed

        It literally means “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)”

        And “butterfly” literally means “winged insect made of butter”.

        An ἀρσενοκοίτης is a male who has homosexual relationships, but there’s no certainty about which kind. Nothing permits to be sure that Paul thought there about all kinds of homosexual relationships, that’s why I said and still say that these texts aren’t clear.

        We have two clues, however, that suggest this is not the case. The first is Romans 1:27, which does not speak of love but of lust. Nothing to do with today’s romantic and sexual homosexuality. The second is Paul’s context: in his time, homosexual sexuality existed mainly in the form of pederasty, that is, the rape of young boys by mature men. So when Paul writes about “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)” he has this image first in mind. It would therefore be entirely justified to translate ἀρσενοκοῖται as “pederasts” and not as “homosexuals”.

        If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of “taking the Bible seriously.”

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          26 days ago

          Ah yes, I’m sure “males who bed with other males” is referring to a butterfly.

          Romans 1:27 speaks of “lust for one another”. Mutual lust is an aspect of a sexual relationship. Are you trying to tell me that homosexual men don’t lust after each other?

          The word ἀρσενοκοίτης can be related to what’s written in the Septuagint in Leviticus 18:22

          “καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.”

          There is absolutely zero mention of children when there could be. That’s just a vague theory which isn’t as probable as showing what the text actually says and has been interpreted to do so

          If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of “taking the Bible seriously.”

          Where did my “cultural homophobia” originate?

          And these “scholarly revelations” about the meaning of these verses in the Bible did not predate the LGB movement. They mysteriously popped up after. Isn’t this not injecting cultural values into the text? Why can’t we inject cultural Chinese values into the text and claim that the “eye of a needle” is actually a gate or some unfounded rubbish.

          • Zloubida@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            Romans 1:27 speaks of “lust for one another”. Mutual lust is an aspect of a sexual relationship. Are you trying to tell me that homosexual men don’t lust after each other?

            In my mother tongue, lust and desire are very different things. It’s normal to desire your significant other, not to lust after them. It may not be the case in English, but it was in Greek.

            There is absolutely zero mention of children when there could be

            Yes, but that’s why I spoke about culture. There were no need to explicitly speak about children, as the involvement of children was the norm. On the contrary if Paul spoke about adult relationship too, it would have been logical for him to say that explicitly, and he didn’t.

            And these “scholarly revelations” about the meaning of these verses in the Bible did not predate the LGB movement.

            That’s normal, science and culture evolve, and out understanding of the Scriptures have to evolve too. Just like everyone thought that the Bible taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was logical for everyone that, say Isaiah 40:22 was geocentric. And we discovered that Earth was not the center of the universe, and we stopped to take these texts literally. It will be the same with the texts about homosexuality, as our understanding of sexuality changed.