From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:20:22 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <94993@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <94915@bu.edu> I (kane@buast7.bu.edu--Hot Young Star) wrote:
> 
> [stuff about Biblical mistranslations and how they have been used against
> homosexuality]
> 
> Two subjects:
> 
> 1. 1 Corinthians and Timothy use "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi". Romans
> uses "para physin".
> 
>    I implied that not even the historical scholars like Boswell were
> sure how to interpret "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi", merely suggesting
> that they most likely did not denote homosexuality in particular. Well,
> it turns out that Boswell DID argue convincingly that "arsenokoitai"
> meant "active male (temple) prostitutes", and by juxtaposition "malakoi"
> meant "passive ("effeminate") male (temple) prostitutes".
> 
>    There is good evidence to support this: temple prostitution was common
> around the Mediterranean (actually it was more widespread than this, forming
> an integral part of the Hindu religion); the Koine Greek stem for male had
> two forms, "arsen-" used as an adjectival modifier (as in "arsenokoitai")
> and "arren-" used as an object ("arrenokoitai"---those who have active
> intercourse with men---is not documented in Koine Greek); the common Koine
> Greek word "malakos" meant "soft", and there is evidence that it was used
> figuratively to mock men who appeared effeminate, in female dress. Since
> by and large those men who appeared in female dress were also (temple)
> prostitutes, "malakoi" came to have the double meaning of "effeminate and
> loose (soft) in morals".

Was there no word in Greek for prostitute?

I'm not particularly interested in this verse, largely because I
agree that there is ambiguity in it.  It may mean "homosexual
prostitute," or "homosexual pederast," or any of a number of
things connected to homosexuality.

>    "Para physin" (as it appears in Romans "against nature") is a bit
> harder to explain. One has to note two important things. First that the
> concept of natural law did not exist as we know it at the time of Paul.
> The word "physin" was almost always used to indicate "personal nature",
> "disposition". Second, one has to carefully note the context of the Romans
> passage. Paul uses this as a rhetorical and fleeting example in the middle
> of a much bigger discourse on idolatry, promiscuity, and those people who
> seemingly get caught up in these ritual acts against their natures---
> "para physin". Ritual homosexual orgies of the time seemed to draw in
> even those who were not inclined to participate in normal circumstances.
> Call it peer pressure if you will. The point is that Paul was apparently
> decrying the promiscuity and idolatry that tempted men to go against their
> own nature.

In short, you admit that you don't have a way of attacking what it
says.
 
> 2. Clayton, this comment is directed toward you in particular.
> 
> Why is it that so many people who utterly reject the authority of the
> government, instead hold dearly to Scriptural authority?

I don't "utterly reject the authority of the government," but
rather, reject the unlimited authority of the government to do
anything and everything that it wishes.  The Constitution was
intended to be a restraint on government power -- and ever since,
those limitations have been "interpreted" away.

> Jefferson, who as we both know advocated small government as his
> Democratic Party was getting off the ground, clearly rejected the
> absolute nature of Scriptural authority, instead calling on the
> gift of reason to sort out what is right and what is wrong with
> authority.

So why did he bother to extract all of Jesus' words out of the
New Testament, and paste them together?  He clearly recognized
that there was some sort of authority, or at least deep meaning
to it, or why bother?  Jefferson wasn't one to just accept any
old idea that wandered in off the street with a lot of history
behind it.

> What makes you so different from Jefferson in this matter?
> 
> For that matter, what about the passage in which Paul says that
> governmental authority is set up by God (sorry I can't remember the

A similar statement appears in I Peter 2:13-14.  The context makes
it clear that the reason was to make sure that the Christian
message was not confused with purely secular revolution -- the
"liberation theology" of that day.  In a country where Christianity
would not be confused with such, or where there is a clear conflict
between God's law and man's law (like Nazi Germany), this clearly
has no applicability.  Romans 1, however, doesn't have any similar
contextual restrictions around it.

> exact reference---it was used to justify "Le droit divin" and absolute
> monarchy and all that rot)? If you accept absolute scriptural

Though not until quite recently -- around the 16th century.

> authority, must you not also accept the part where Paul decrees that
> governments are blessed by God?
> 
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

In fact, I am considered a bit of skeptic in most churches I've
attended.  I ask unpleasant questions about these sort of issues,
and what did the word that was used in Greek mean, and how do we
know what constitutes a general admonition, and what was specific
to a time and place.

I was one of the troublesome ones who asked questions about
the Scriptures concerning homosexuality.  I wasn't comfortable
with the rigid position that homosexuality was always wrong --
even though Romans is quite clear on it.  Why?  Because so much
propaganda in our media promoted the idea that homosexuals were
just like everyone else, and because a few homosexuals I've
run into over the years were relatively normal people (though
most were at least a little odd).  But soc.motss, the parades,
and the generally infantile behavior that has been demonstrated
on USENET by homosexuals, persuaded me that the media were
lying to me.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc