From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:38:43 GMT
Summary: I don't think the meaning of the word is known

In article <92244@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

> Comtemporary secular texts almost always use "arsenokoite" to mean a male
> temple prostitute.

I don't believe that's the case.  The last time I looked at the ongoing
scholarly debate on this, there were far too few uses of the term in
contexts sufficiently close to Paul to be helpful, and these were them-
sevles indeterminate in sense.  Several papers have appeared in recent
years that I have not yet had a chance to look at, and I hope to get a
look at these Real Soon Now, as I may have some time to get to a library.

All the arguing about the exact meaning of this word is pointless, as
Paul never gives it enough context to specify HIS meaning.  Much the
same can be said of his other terms in the infamous list, and I think
that the most enlightening one is "drunkards" (though "the greedy" and
"the immoral" and "revilers" -- to use the RSV translations) are all
excellent examples in their own ways of the problems inherent in making
Paul out as a "lawgiver."

So, Paul contends that drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom.  Does
this mean all who drink? (some do indeed interpret it that way); or
is this a condemnation of certain behavior stereotypically associated
with heavy drinking, such as physical abuse of family memebers and the
like?  In the latter case, is heavy drinking WITHOUT the rephrehensible
behavior a sin or not?  And of course still other interpretations can
be ventured -- with Paul giving very little aid in resolving the issue,
as the resolution will depend on how you read the REST of Paul!

I would suggest that any *simple* prescription here is mistaken --
drink, like sex, has in any culture that practices it a lot of social
baggage -- and provides a great deal of "occasion for sin," specially
tricky situations that people tend to muck up to their own, and others',
pain and grief.  The opportunities for sin, for failure in love of God
and other human beings, are especially rife where booze is big and sex
is an expected concommitant (as the Navy is being forced to admit. :-))

It is possible, to some degree, to avoid such sin by placing fences
around the occasions that may elicit it: by forbidding drink entirely
or completely forswearing sex.  And for some that may be the correct
thing to do.  But it may also miss the mark -- the teetotaller may be
as bad a wife-beater as his drunk neighbor.  The celibate monk may be
as vicious a misogynist as any legendary Don Juan.

Paul is not drawing sharp boundaries or giving details of what is and
what is not sinful -- he is pointing, with very broad gestures, at a
number of human trouble spots.  The use of his lists is for our self-
examination against areas in which many tend to fail, to call us to
a greater commitment to the Great Commandment on which all law hangs.
Use of this list to condemn others (as in our perennial incursions of
bible-thumpers spouting hatred for homosexuals) itself would seem to
me to bring one into danger of fitting all-too-well one of the OTHER
terms on the list, the revilers of others.

-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc