men kept for unnatural purposes? (page 4)

OnTheWayOut

I do believe the bible was talking about Ryan Seacrest

LOL. I will be thinking of a way to use that. Hilarious.

oneairhead

Flipper,

We do have something in common, Sa Kinnison, he was very funny and is still one of my favorite comedians.

one

Mary

somewhere in the new testament it lists grave sins that would prevent one from inheriting the kingdom. "men kept for unnatural purposes" is listed. who are they? are we talking prostitutes?

No. New light has flashed up and Jehovah has revealed that it's actually talking about Circuit Overseers. That's why the Society is scurring to get rid of them asap.

hamsterbait

This term which carries an implication of a submissive male, could also include gigolos who allow women to tie them up and whip them and torture them and call them wicked names.

males who do not want to be strong powerful chick-balling macho men - but lisping selfish males, without wealth or cleverness, who depend on a STRONG muscular woman to teach them the discipline, cowering in terror as she makes to beat them with a baseball bat, and spending her cash on Louis Vuitton leatherware.

i think the term could also include the slave of the Centurion, who Jesus cured at a distance. What leather clad celebrations occurred that night, with beatings manacles and verbal abuse spat at the delighted victim the account fails to mention...

HB

Low-Key Lysmith

I wonder if this is what Samwise Gamgee meant when he pleaded with Gandalf not to "turn him into anything unnatural".

Sam obviously had no desire to become a tranny prostitute.

Indo_Dude

Hamster...LOL. Your description is funny, but actually not that far off.

Jesus used the word 'malakos / malakoi' only twice. Once in Matthew and once in Luke. In both instances it referred to wearing soft, luxuriant clothing worn by wealthy people. Paul likewise used the same language to describe similar. We know Paul didn't mean male prostitution because he used the word 'pornoi' meaning male prostitution in 1 Cor. 6:9. As Paul used it he meant love of rich clothing, jewelry, and otherwise dressing like a harlot. Also it indicates that he frowned on moral weakness, adultery, and essentially being a sex addict.

It's also interesting to note that during that time frame there were Galli priests who castrated themselves as male slaves / priests to the fertility goddesses. They would have castration festivals and orgies for the fertility goddesses during this time.

The Jewish historian Josephus who lived from 37 to 101 A.D. said that eunuchs were what Jesus had been talking about in soft men. See 'Antiquities of the Jews 4:8-40'. He said that 'all those who had made themselves eunuchs be held in detestation, and avoid any conversation with them, he who has deprived himself of his manhood'.

I guess this is why I find it sad / funny / bizarre how many fundies will scream, 'it's clear the bible says.....'. Most fundies I've ever met have never really read the bible from cover to cover in their own language, much less have any idea of ancient languages to be making such bold proclamations. As recently as just a few decades ago, fundies were declaring that the bible was clear on how much God hated intermixed racial marriages. We don't hear a peep about that any more. But most will still stick their head in the sand and declare that they know what the bible says, and will ignore anything to the contrary. Small minds, make for small worlds.

VoidEater

The work malakoi ("men kept for unnatural purposes") is really "soft". It might mean "soft" as in decadent or spoiled, or easily given over to excess (Aristotle seems to use this latter meaning). Plato seems to use the term to mean "feeble". Josephus uses it to mean "weak in battle".

Malakoi may be a term for "effeminate", but this seems a stretch. It isn't translated as "homosexual men" specifically until the 20th century.

Malakoi probably has no relation to prostitution here since pornoi is already being used for this. While Paul has his semantic problems, he probably would not be repeating himself.

Indo_Dude

Odd, how for the first 1800+ years after Jesus died, the church didn't teach that homosexuality was an illicit practice. For many years, religious leaders claimed because the bible says it's so, that gentiles couldn't be true believers. Then women. Slavery and racial divide was also touted as being right with God. Also, there is far stronger prohibition against divorcing and remarriage in the bible, but that is overlooked and downplayed.

Even John Gill the famous Baptist minister in the mid 1700s had defined malakoi to refer to Onanism, or masturbation, NOT homosexuality. He said in his book 'Exposition of the Bible' that they were 'corrupters of themselves, by voluntary pollution, such as are guilty of the sin of Onan'.

BurnTheShips

Odd, how for the first 1800+ years after Jesus died, the church didn't teach that homosexuality was an illicit practice.

This is not an accurate statement. The early Church consistently interpreted passages such as the one in Romans 1:26, 27 as applying to homosexual practices.

John Chrystostom of Constantinople, late 4th century--a Greek speaker BTW, so he would presumably understand malakoi pretty well.

All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases.....

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.vi.html

BTS

VoidEater

BTS: Romans 1 does not use malakoi; indeed, the entire chapter brings a smorgasboard of lusts to light, none of which are "being malakoi".

Chrysostom is problemmatic: his antisemitism wouldn't mesh well with some, his seeming sexism could put off others; though, perhaps strangely, I agree with his condemnation of adopting religious practices (such as circumcision). But from a quick reading of the link, this Homily does not seem to refer to malakoi either.

What a cursory reading of this Homily shows me is a certain discomfort with "lawlessness" and unbridled lust. Yes, Chrysostom is a bit hung up on the male and female becoming one flesh, but he seems to not take into consideration today's understanding of orientation nor of "lawful" relationships between couples of the same gender. His thrust, as it were, seems focused on the chaotic (to his mind) nature of promiscuity, of acting on impulse and being driven by an animalistic sense of lust - which he sees as an abandonment of God.

In this case, I'm not so sure Chrysostom is a solid denial of committed same-gender relationships - though we could certainly start a thread on what is "natural", especially regarding Paul's use of the word. Rather, it seems a call to lawfulness and restraint, which I see a lot of value in.

But Chrysostom seems to make no reference to malakoi (at least in this Homily), making his understanding of greek mute on this topic.

men kept for unnatural purposes?

Share this