Huckabee and Homosexuality

Thanks to, JBpixie, for picking this up :) Baptist faith is the source is the bible itself (divine directive), and as such it stands as the basis of their belief system. Social ignorance may be a factor but it is an environmental cue, the religion and the text are the main activists in Baptist homophobia; the divine commands as taken from the bible and the inherent misinterpretation of such still stand. Baptists believe it is the word of god, therefore it must be followed. For now I will just tackle the New Testament. 1. The largest misinterpretation is that the bible has a divine source. The writings of the New Testament do not explicitly tackle the subject of homosexuality. There are references to it, but these are all limited to the Pauline Epistles. The most logical explanation for this fact lies not in a permissive attitude towards the matter, but in the fact that homosexuality had already been condemned by Jewish tradition, to which all the early Christian writers are basically indebted, and that similarly in the Greek world it was censured by the principal Stoic philosophy as opposite to nature. Thus, in the context of the first century, Philo of Alexandria, who is the leading exponent of Hellenistic Judaism, in his treatises repeatedly criticizes sodomy and pederasty as "illicit relations" (On Abraham 135) and those that practice them as "enemies of nature" (Special Laws 3:36); in the same way the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus defines homosexuality as "against nature" (Diatribe 12), while the Roman historian Tacitus speaks openly of the "degeneration of youth" with reference to its practice during the time of Nero (Annals 14, 20, 4). The New Testament therefore has no particular battle to fight in this regard, needing only to support itself with the positions current in the cultural clime of the first century. New testament writers were essentially just following tradition. 2. Homosexuality is highly specific in biblical texts. I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 reads: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. I placed two words in brackets. The first one, "malakoi", "literally means 'soft' and is no technical term for a homosexual." It apparently refers to young boys who would take the "recipient" position in anal sex, often for money. It's also translated in some Bibles as "morally weak". "Aresenokoitai", on the other hand, is clearly a sexual term but, according to Scroggs "Since... the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy for us to be sure what it means. It refers not to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients." At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. Effeminate" is a poor translation of the Greek word, "malakos" which means "soft". The word is not translated as "effeminate" anywhere else in the Bible. It is the same word that is translated as "soft" in Matthew 11:8 ("But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses"; similarly Luke 7:25). In a moral sense, "malakos" just means "licentious"; Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics_ (7.4.4) says specifically that "malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. The translation as "effeminate" seems awfully gratuitous. "Abuser of himself with mankind" is a translation of the Greek word "arsenokoites"; this word has changed meaning several times over the centuries, so it's perhaps understandable how it got translated as it did; but in Paul's time, and in fact until well into the fourth century, it seems to have simply meant a temple prostitute. These words are the words used both in Corinthians and in I Timothy 1:10 which are commonly translated into modern bibles as "homosexual", "effeminate," and "self-indulgent." In these progressive times, however, there is no indication that such terms are in any way connected to homosexuality in itself. In fact, according to Is the Homosexual my Neighbor by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott: The idea of a lifelong homosexual orientation or "condition" is never mentioned in the Bible. Bible writers assumed that everyone was heterosexual and that in times of moral decay, some heterosexual people did some strange and unnatural things with each other. Since the Bible is silent about the homosexual condition, those who want to understand it must rely on the findings of modern behavioural science research. (p. 71) Despite common interpretations of the words "malakoi" and "aresenokoitai" in modern times, there is no clear evidence which links them unquestionably to homosexuality in itself. Instead, in every case in which they are used, there is an implied connection with either prostitution or child molestation. Modern research shows us, however, that such connections are fallacious. There is no research which clearly demonstrates that there is any correlation between homosexuality and the "sins" referenced alongside it in Corinthians and Timothy. John Boswell Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, confirmed by Hall in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Rom 1:26-27). "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." One of the very rare texts in ancient times in which male homosexuality and female homosexuality are condemned together as practices against nature: two other cases occur: Plato (Laws I, 636c) and from the poetic composition circa first century attributed to a Pseudo-Phocilides (Sentences 191-192). But the Pauline passage has certain originality, because of its context. The Apostle is in fact discussing the moral disorder resulting from the lack of knowledge of God in the pagan world, so that homosexuality together with a series of other vices. Idolatry here is the religious aberration: it is this that he sees as the pagans' real problem, and homosexuality is only one possible indication together along with many others. The one claim I will argue for now against Leviticus is that it is a book of the Bible mainly concerned with Jewish Law for that time. To use something from Leviticus one must also accept other Laws from that book, such wonderful items as: No contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness(Lev.15:19-24). (Lev. 25:44) states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. Eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10). (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight, (sorry no one with glasses can go to church). (Lev.19:27) states males should not cut their hair. And so on it goes...discarding one law as irrelevant or out dated makes all of them that. I will leave it at that for now, and to my opponent, to argue the case for the biblical basis of homophobia. Regards, Spiral.