Anti-Gay Doctor, Fired from Medical Journal, Uses Final Article to Promote God

It’s not talking about that. Of course it’s not going to be translated as “homosexual” when that word didn’t exist. There are other subtle differences in translation. Using “boy” instead of “man”, for example.

Evidence please.

So what? This is typical conservative prescriptivism, while avoiding how the word has become established in current usage (not to mention academic definitions in the literature).

Sorry, this is not about me. This is about how the word is used.

Because language changes. The man who coined the term “homophobia” intended it to cover expressed antagonism, not merely a feeling of fear. He wrote “But here the phobia appears as antagonism directly toward a particular group of people”.

But we already have one.

Your weasel word “indirectly” gives the game away. As I have pointed out, the “homo” in “homophobia” does not come from Greek or Latin. It it literally a contraction of the English word “homosexual”. The word “homophobia” is an English language portmanteau.

Evidence please. You appear to know little of the history of language. I guess you object to the philological incompetence of the word “homosexual”, which combines a Greek word meaning “same” with an English adjective about sex, without containing any words whatsoever which refer to sexual attraction. That’s as sloppy as it gets, and that’s how language works.

Do you realize how much you’re exposing yourself here? I can’t believe you’re writing this stuff.

1 Like

Not talking about what?

I agree. But the Greeks did have words which referred to men and women who had sexual feelings for people of the same sex, and they’re not used in the New Testament either.

We’re both agreed that arsenekoites doesn’t refer to homosexuals (but does refer to homosexual acts), and that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuals as people or homosexuality as a sexual orientation, right?

I agree.

This, I’m not so sure of. We just don’t know exactly what the word means. If I remember correctly, though, in Sybilline Oracles, the word is used in context of slavery, kidnapping and violence, suggesting a predatory interpretation of the word is warranted.

“homophobia” doesn’t even have Greek roots.

It has one Greek root, “phobos”, which originally mean fear but has over the centuries come to mean fear or aversion; and one English root, “homo”, which is short for “homosexual”, which has one Greek root and one Latin root.

It means “aversion to homosexuals”, which is unusually apt for its derivation.

Current usage is never erroneous, since the meanings of words change over time and are determined by their current usage. Current usage may be sloppy, ungrammatical, ambiguous, or even contradictory, but it cannot be erroneous. Using etymological dictionaries to determine the meaning of words, rather than just their derivation, is a really bad idea.

For an excellent example, the etymological root of “current usage” suggests it means the same as “running practice”.

2 Likes

So what’s your excuse?

For example:

The actual meaning taken from the Greek roots would be ‘fear of sameness’.

1 Like

There’s a very solid scholarly consensus. Scobie [1] and Campbell argue against the restriction of the word to pederasty.[2] Hays, Scobie, and Malick point out that the meaning is identified by its derivation from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the component words refer to homosexual conduct.[3]

Wright identifies other compound verbs ending in – koit ē s and referring to sexual activity.[4] Via agrees arsenokoitēs refers to homosexual activity.[5]

Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to homosexual behavior; EDNT,[6] LSJ,[7] ANLEX,[8] NIDNTT,[9] LN,[10] Zodhiates,[11] and BDAG[12].


[1] ‘There is no evidence that the term was restricted to pederasty ; beyond doubt, the NT here repeats the Leviticus condemnation of all same-sex relations (cf. J.G. Taylor 1995: 6-7; Hays 1996: 382-83).’, Scobie, ‘The Ways of Our God: An approach to biblical theology’, p. 838 (2003).

[2] ‘In response, however, it must be pointed out, first, that arsenokoites is a broad term that cannot be confined to specific instances of homosexual activity such as male prostitution or pederasty . This is in keeping with the term’s Old Testament background where lying with a “male” (a very general term) is proscribed, relating to “every kind of male-male intercourse.” 13 In fact, the Old Testament " bans every type of homosexual intercourse ." not just male prostitution or intercourse with youths.’, Campbell, ‘Marriage and Family in the Biblical World’, p. 243 (2003).

[3] ‘Although the word arsenokoitēs appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to Paul’s use of it, it is evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for "one who lies with a male [as with a woman] " (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). (Despite recent challenges to this interpretation, the meaning is confirmed by the evidence of the Sybilline Oracles 2.73 ). Paul here repeats the standard Jewish condemnation of homosexual conduct .’, Hays, ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching, p. 97 (1997); ’ It clearly echoes the Greek of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the LXX ( arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed”), so that arsenokoites literally means “one who goes to bed with a male” (cf. Malick 1993b: 482-87).', Scobie, ‘The Ways of Our God: An approach to biblical theology’, p. 838 (2003); ‘It is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women .’, Malick, ‘The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9’, Bibliotheca Sacra (150.600.484), 1996.

[4] ‘He points out that in all other similar compounds ending in -koites the first half specifies the object of the sleeping, or its scene or sphere . That is, the first part always functions in an adverbial sense.21 This is because koites has a verbal force, in most not all instances, arseno denotes the object.22 Hence, the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes “‘male homosexual activity’ without qualification .”’, Haas, ‘Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice’ (1), 1999; other –koitēs/os cognates include doulokoitēs (sexual relations with slaves, doulos ), mētrokoitēs (sexual relations with one’s mother, mētēr ), and polukoitos (sexual relations with many people, polus ).

[5] ‘True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does .’, Via, ‘Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views’, p. 13 (2003); Via acknowledges this despite supporting homosexual unions.

[6] ‘ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ arsenokoitēs male homosexual Referring to a male who engages in sexual activity with men or boys* : 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Pol. Phil . 5:3; W. L. PETERSEN, “Can ἀρσενοκοῖται be translated by ‘Homosexuals’?” Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986) 187-91. — D. F. WRIGHT, Translating ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ,” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987) 396-98.’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 158 (1990).

[7] ‘ἀρρενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ, sodomite , AP9.686, (Maced. iv/vi A.D., v. BCHsuppl. 8 no. 87); (ἀρσ-) 1Ep.Cor.6.9.’, Liddell, Scott, Jones, & McKenzie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p. 246 (rev. and augm. throughout, 19996).

[8] ‘ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast.’, Friberg, Friberg, & Miller, ‘Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, p. 76 (2000).

[9] ‘ἄρσην G781 (arsēn), male; θῆλυς G2559 (thēlys), female; ἀρσενοκοίτης G780 (arsenokoitēs), male homosexual, pederast, sodomite .’, Brown, ‘New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’, volume 2, p. 562 (1986).

[10] ‘88.280 ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse —‘homosexual.’’, Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 771 (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition 1996).

[11] ‘733. ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]).’, Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000).

[12] ‘a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex , pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, ’86, 187–91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, ’87, 396–98; REB’s rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed. RBrawley, ’96, 117–36); 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. Romans forbade pederasty w. free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre-Cicero (JBremmer, Arethusa 13, ’80, 288 and notes); Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, ’78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, ’84, 125–53).’, Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’, p. 135 (3rd ed. 2000).

1 Like

Possible. Doesn’t matter much to me, honestly. I just went with Evangelical sensibilities. I put this question, together with the question of the nature of the Bible, to bed years ago.

A lot of it comes down to how a people present themselves. The doctor’s email was quite vitriolic which really didn’t help him out. If the doctor had used kinder language and politely explained why he can’t support institutions that present homosexuality in a flattering light there may not have been this type of reaction.

Let’s look at this from the other direction. Imagine if the AHA made a statement describing how they couldn’t have neanderthal fascist right wingers in their midst, nor could they support doctors who aligned themselves with gay bashing Judeo-Christian hate mongerers. That would be a bit over the top, wouldn’t it?

But hopefully not. If he had “kindly and politely explained” why he was offended by seeing an ad in which an African American was positively depicted, because he does not like to be subjected to that kind of thing, how do you think that would have gone over?

What is the difference?

1 Like

We’ve been mostly been talking about this bigot’s vile letter to the ballet company. But what about his abusing his position as editor to use the journal as a platform to propagandize for his religious faith? If there was any doubts left re: his unsuitability for the position, that should have erased them?

Not very well, but sexuality and race are viewed differently in our culture. They are not necessarily the same in all situations.

The onus is on you. The history of usage of the term (which according to your own source only goes back to 1972, so it didn’t even exist when I was a child) shows that it originated in particular cultural quarters, and that its embryonic development, so to speak, was within a certain cultural womb. The majority of everyday folks I talk to (clerks in grocery stores, people in churches, etc.) never use the term.

Again, by “current usage” you mean usage by a certain group, i.e., journalists in the mainstream legacy media, academics (who, surveys show, are far to the left of the general population on every issue), members of special interest groups, etc. Convince me that the man on the street uses the term.

So already he departs from empiricism and is led by a hypothetical theoretical model. The usage would be empirical if he simply gave a name to an existing antagonism (in which case “phobia” would not be the right word); it would also be empirical if he simply described an existing fear (i.e., if he had noted that a number of people have admitted to fear of homosexuals, in which case “phobia” would be the right word); but to note the antagonism, and then attribute that antagonism to “fear” as the cause, is to make a theoretical leap. Where are the research papers, where are the original notes, establishing that people with antagonism are motivated by fear? But of course, social science is filled with such unwarranted leaps, which is why a good deal of academic social science is crap, as I said before.

Which is itself formed directly from Greek and Latin roots. I don’t think much of your degree in “Classics” if this is the level of philological analysis they taught you in your program. You even went so far as to deny that the “homo” prefix came from the Greek root for “same”. A simple check with the OED would have told you otherwise.

A word does not have to contain a complete pathway to the meaning, but what indicators it gives have to be accurate. The “phobia” in “homophobia” is simply inaccurate, given the actual meaning of the word in usage, which is about hate and persecution, not fear.

I never “expose myself” in public. That would be in bad taste. Also, in many jurisdictions, there are laws against it.

I agree with you that presentation is important. I haven’t actually commented on what the doctor wrote, since (as frequently happens in these discussions) the discussion has become broader, and the doctor’s statement seems to have dropped out of the picture. But in general, I agree with your approach:

So I don’t think I disagree with you.

I was trying to point out the way the word “homophobic” has slid into our language, without any clear philological rationale for its current usage, and has become a heavily politicized term, despite its formal “look” as a mere name for one phobia among others. I find that modern people are very rarely on the alert regarding these linguistic novelties, rarely examine them at the very point of their birth for soundness, and rarely interrogate the early purveyors of them, but tend to pick them up “by ear” and repeat them; thus, they spread, and quickly morph in meaning, acquiring connotations which travel with them. It used to be that philosophers, literary critics, journalists and others would pounce on such novelties and give them a critical scrutiny, but now they all seem to be too busy crusading for this or that left-liberal cause to do any detached, critical analysis of the language we use. But I’ve said enough on this point.

If I had been in charge of the terminology at the moment of its birth, I would have coined the term “homoerotophobia” to specify the precise object of the fear; but nobody asked me.

And if I intended the term to refer to hatred of homosexuals, I would not have employed the “phobia” part at all, but would have used a Greek or Latin root that referred to hatred. And if I intended the term to refer to persecution of homosexuals, I again would have used a different Greek or Latin root, such as the one I suggested above (dioko). In other words, I would have chosen my term on the basis of its accuracy in description. But again, no one asked me. So all I can do is point out the latent ambiguities and confusions in currently politically and socially charged terms, and warn others of their rhetorical uses.

It’s standard Christian doctrine that all people will be ressurrected for judgement. There is no limitation them being believers at any time. This is what Paul taught too. (Romans 2:5,6), (Romans 1:18,19).

I doubt many scholars would agree with your interpretation of the judgement.
It’s a good question about babies
The bible doesn’t say specifically, any answer would be speculative.

Yes, if the Pharisees had admitted they were blind, they would have need of repentance and would be able to accept Christ’s message.
But since they consider themselves righteous, their Sin will remain on them.
This is obvious from Jesus teaching in that he forgave the Sin of people before they became believers. Take for example, the paralysed man whom Jesus healed in Mathew 9-
Mathew 9: 2 All at once some people brought him a paralyzed man lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he told the paralyzed man, “Be courageous, son! Your sins are forgiven.”

It’s very clear that Jesus saw unbelievers are people burdened with Sin and needing forgiveness.

Your doctrine needs to be clearer. What would have made the Pharisees without sin according to you? Their self identification as “blind”? That’s nonsense, many people who follow other religions or are athiests are very confident that they are not “blind”… are they also with Sin?

The Pharisees claiming that they were not blind would not make any difference to their knowledge of the law and hence their Sins. The problem is not that the Pharisees are blind, the problem is that they claim to see.The point Jesus is making is about their attitude of self righteousness which is preventing them from repenting and recieving forgiveness.
Jesus has already mentioned this with regard to the judgement over Israel which hindered many from seeing who he was -
Mathew 13: 14 “With them the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says: ‘You will listen and listen but never understand. You will look and look but never comprehend,

15 for this people’s heart has become dull, and their ears are hard of hearing.They have shut their eyes so that they might not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

If the Pharisees had been aware of their spiritual blindness, it would have lead to repentance and their sins would have been forgiven.

Depends on how you define compelling. For Christians, the fact that the bible teaches it’s a sin is compelling enough. And the only people Christians would expect to follow such a standard would be fellow Christians. Same concept applies to things like adultery. A non Christian sleeping around outside marriage is expected and no one can compel others to follow any particular religions standards. A pastor doing something of this sort would be a scandal and hypocrisy. Because he has committed to follow Christian standards of living.

Yes, there is definitely a personal cost involved.
As to being an unavoidable charecteristic, no one is without Sin. It’s an unavoidable charecteristic for human beings. Sanctification is a biblical process by which people are transformed by the power of God to be able to follow his will. I have a friend with same sex attraction who claims this has happened to him. How do you know it’s not possible?

You missed my point! I said myself in the same paragraph the reason is based in scripture.

Why should I care? I don’t see any reason to be making the request on moral grounds.

1 Like

I am not asking you to care. I am just sharing my perspective on the subject. Whether you care or not, agree or disagree, it a valid perspective that happens to be different from your viewpoint.

It has nothing to do with what I was saying. I’m not disputing that Christians have this perspective.