(no subject)

[alexmegami]

Jen and I were briefly talking about whether or not the New Testament specifically addresses homosexuality, and I only remembered now. So, here are various translations of the passage I was thinking of (1 Corinthians 9-10):

Explicitly Mention Homosexuality:

NIV: 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NASB: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

NLV: 9 Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God. 10 Also those who steal, or those who always want to get more of everything, or who get drunk, or who say bad things about others, or take things that are not theirs, will have no place in the holy nation of God.

Don't Explicitly Mention Homosexuality, But Could Be Interpreted As Including It:

KJV: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The Message: 9-10 Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom.

DRB: 9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

RSE: 9 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 sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So: it may depend on your definition of "sexual perverts", or who "the effeminate" or "abusers of themselves with mankind" are, or what "sex sins" are... but Corinthians is definitely NT, and there's definitely an argument to be made that homosexuality is condemned, either directly or by association.

Comments

[musesshadow.livejournal.com]

The other thing to consider is whether or not these issues are relevant to modern times. Many of the sins listed in the bible are expressed in relation to the values of the time in which they were written. Shellfish and pork were big no-nos for the table. More likely is that these items are hard to clean or keep safe to eat when traveling a desert and cooking over a fire.

To a society that was reliant upon procreation to spread its culture, any sexual relationship not resulting in the production of children would be viewed in a poor light. Also considering that these societies were trying to distance themselves from their neighbours, they'd probably move away from homosexuality which was prevalent (and even popular) in both Egyptian and Roman society.

In modern society, many of these concerns are no longer applicable. Procreation is no longer required (indeed, it's suggested our planet may be over-populated). Given the prevalent nature of heterosexuality in modern day, the division from the rest of society isn't a valid reason.

People rarely investigate or consider the social reasoning behind religious tenets. Don't forget guys, religious books are written by humans who are prone to submitting their own social beliefs as the word of god. Remember that next time someone shouts about what their god says.

[jaltok]

My first issue is that all translations have issues with the words they used (I'm not saying this for anything specific) which do not translate properly in later uses of the same word -- I don't have my marked-up bible here so can't give examples.

Besides which Paul was too focused on the Church of Law rather than the Church of Love for me to lose sleep over what he wrote.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

There's also Romans 1.

[firstfaerie.livejournal.com]

As has been said, it's all about social context... not just religious rules, but social rules, and laws set up for survival and civic order. That said, though I haven't looked it up, I heard that it's stated in the NT that Christian women are supposed to keep their head covered, but that there's no such law written in the Quran itself. Culture seems to overtake religion everytime (note that anthropologically speaking, religion is often a part of a culture, not the other way around).

[achpsident.livejournal.com]

I saw this one essay on the web, which sadly seems to be offline at the moment, suggesting that Paul didn't see God, he saw Satan, which got the Church off on a bad start to say the least.