But now you’ve changed your parallel. Originally you equated the act of homosexual sex with “being black”. Now you are changing it to the act of homosexual sex and the act of black sex. The former is not equivalent, the latter is. This is a critical difference.
You would have to be clear about what you mean by “ought not to” in your question. If by this you mean that I consider homosexual sex a sin (because the Bible says so), and black sex not a sin because there is no such prohibition in the Bible, then I don’t see them as equivalent.
If by “ought not to” you mean that either should be somehow prohibited or cause lessor rights, I would agree that they are equivalent.
To be clear, calling an act sin from a Christian perspective, means that it is an offense against God. I would not expect anyone who does not believe in God to care what Christians consider sins. I would also add that as a Christian I believe all individuals are sinners. Therefore in calling an act that someone else may be committing a sin, this in no way means that I see the individual as less moral, or somehow lessor in any way than myself, or anyone else. I think this often gets losts in mentions of sin with non-Christians.
From another point of view, however, that is an arbitrary distinction. Asking someone not to act on an “unavoidable” sexual desire is a considerable request. What is the reason for making it? There doesn’t seem in this case to be any compelling reason with regards to harm caused, etc. It’s a problem because it says it’s a problem in scripture. Sure, there is a possible way to meet the request, in a way that there wouldn’t be if it said that being black were a sin. But only at a personal cost to the person involved. In either case, you’re talking about an unavoidable characteristic of the person in the end.
No. I am pointing out that your are expressing disapproval of someone having consensual sex with the adult partner of his choice if he is homosexual, but not if he is heterosexual. This is no different than denying someone the right of have sex if he is black, but not if he is white.
Follow?
That does not stand up. You are not forced to adhere to a particular form of religion. Many Christians see no prohibition of homosexuality in the Bible, and there are others who believe it prohibits sex between people of different races.
I understand that. Which makes it difficult to understand why some many Christians get their knickers in a knot over this one, tiny instance of “sin”, while ignoring so many others. You’d almost think this was dues to some animus against homosexual people in particular, and that religion is just being used as a pretext. Wouldn’t you?
I follow, but again, this was not what you said in your original statement. Your original statement never mentioned black sex, it was simply about being black. You said: “They are (homophobic), just as anyone who believed being black was a sin would be a racist.”
Also in your above statement you equate disapproval with denying. They are not the same thing. You really shouldn’t care what I disapprove of. You should care what I try to deny to others.
I’m not forced, but I am obligated based on what I have concluded to be true. In the same way you are not forced to be an atheist.
True, but in this case it isn’t “most people.” It’s a minority of Americans who speak of people being “homophobic.” Mostly left-wing, educated Americans. Joe Average doesn’t use big words like that.
And the dictionary doesn’t prove anything about majority usage. It records usage once it becomes sufficiently common to warrant an entry, but that doesn’t have to be majority usage.
I agree that the usage is part of the language, in the sense that it’s out there, but that still doesn’t make it clear or coherent. Remember, a huge number of Americans regularly confuse “infer” and “imply,” and probably even dictionaries allow the wrong meanings as alternate meanings, but it often creates misunderstanding when the two are mixed up. I think it’s good to fight against usage when it is (a) confusing or (b) ideologically slanting. I realize that I will probably lose this battle, for the reason you give, but fighting for clarity is something scholars, writers, and intelligent citizens should do.
Generally speaking, long technical-sounding words with Greek and Latin roots more easily pick up ambiguities and pejorative overtones, because they aren’t native to man-on-the-street English. Shorter Anglo-Saxon words tend not to do this as much, because they generally pertain to the earthy stuff of daily life, rather than big abstractions. So I always am telling people that whatever they have to say, they should say it mostly in Anglo-Saxon, or in relatively short Latin words that have been part of daily English for so long that they seem native (e.g., “justice”). George Orwell has a brilliant essay called Politics and the English Language, where he deliberately takes a Bible passage written in pithy natural English and Latinizes it, producing polysyllabic units, so that the passage reads like a social science textbook. The Latin-science version is almost incomprehensible; you have to work at it to figure out what it means, whereas the Anglo-Saxon original is clear and vivid.
So, “he fears homosexuals” is less likely to confuse people or take on loaded meanings than “he’s homophobic.” And “he hates homosexuals” (which is almost always what people mean by “homophobic”) is clearer (less confusing to people who know what “phobia” means) than “he’s homophobic.” And “he wants to wipe out homosexuals” or “he wants to take away rights from homosexuals” is clearer than “he’s homophobic.” The plain-language versions, eschewing excess Greek and Latin, are preferable; but academics and others of the self-appointed intelligentsia (journalists, leaders of special interest groups, left-wing politicians, etc.) prefer the more bloated, vaguer, polysyllabic language, which allows them to slip in overtones and derogatory senses more easily than plain language does. And I’m not speaking only of “homophobia,” but of all kinds of words.
Believing an action is a sin is not the same as believing someone is lessor for something they are.
Believing an action is a sin is not equivalent to believing to denying someone the ability or right to do that action, or even to believing we should try to deny them that ability or right.
At this point we seem to be going in circles so I’m going to bow out.
Or an atheist called out for being an atheist? What get’s called out is going to vary by what someone things is wrong. I’m not sure why you even brought this up as it is completely unrelated the point I was making. That being said, I don’t disagree with your point. Everyone is and should be able to call out whatever they want. In by experience how and what is called out often says more (good or bad) about the person doing the calling out, then the person they are speaking to/about.
I believe unbelievers who were once believers, will be resurrected for judgment. Babies are unbelievers. Do you believe babies will be resurrected for judgment?
I agree it doesn’t say the Pharisees are without sin; it explains how they could have been.
John 9:
41 Jesus replied, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains.”
That is why they aren’t “blind”, and therefore are not without sin.
That article is kind of misleading. The fact that arsenekoites wasn’t translated “homosexual” for centuries is not surprising since it’s describing people who act a certain way, not people who have a specific sexuality. The Bible doesn’t condemn “being a homosexual”, and “homosexual” is not an appropriate translation here.
However it’s clear about condemning homosexual acts, using terminology which was understood by ancient Hebrews, Christian era Jews, Christian era Christians, and medieval Christians. This can’t be overlooked.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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”.
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 – koitēs 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).