In a sub-conversation over at The Practical Theonomist, I've been discussing with the owner his choice of terminology. He prefers the word "sodomite" to "homosexual" because, well, he is quite sure that the connotations of "homosexual" are dishonest while the term "sodomite" is truthful. And we are to speak the truth. I would agree that we are to speak the truth. My concern is that in "speaking the truth" we do what we can not to terminate the discussion.
Take, for instance, Jesus and His association with prostitutes and tax collectors. I'm guessing that if Jesus was here today (that is, in our English-speaking world) and associating with prostitutes as He did then, you wouldn't find Him walking around with them and telling His disciples in their hearing, "It's a good idea to minister to these whores and sluts." Now, "whore" is defined as "a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money" and "slut" is defined as "an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute", so the terminology would be correct, accurate, true ... but it would certainly terminate any such ministry. These are trigger words that provoke an emotional response long before any literal interpretation can take place. They carry a definition, true, but they also carry emotional baggage, a sense of insult and attack and disdain, that cannot be quickly or simply divorced from the terms. While they may be true terms in definition, they are intended as an affront. So if Jesus intended to continue the ministry to these sinners, He would need to do so 1) while still speaking the truth, but 2) without using unnecessary trigger words that immediately alienate.
The response I get to this notion is, essentially, "Well, if my choice of words offends them, it's their choice to stop listening, not mine." And, of course, it's easy to pull up a heart-warming Bible verse or two about how sinners won't accept what believers have to say. Indeed, put that way, it's almost vindication. And, I have to admit, there is a point at which inflammatory terms might become necessary. Using Jesus's example, He dealt for a long time with the worst of His ministry -- the Pharisees -- in truthful but non-inflammatory terms. Eventually, however, it became necessary to switch gears. They weren't hearing. "Your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees" (a back-handed way of saying, "Their righteousness is insufficient") turned into "You are of your father, the devil", which finally became, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness" (Matt 23:27). As kind and considerate as Jesus was at the beginning, we can clearly see that at the end His choice of language was no longer "kind". They weren't hearing the kinder, gentler terms, so He had to resort to harsher terms. So, I get it. I see that it's necessary at some point. My concern is when people who have something to say to particular people start out, in the name of "speaking the truth", using terms that are intended to offend and then find that the offense is vindication. "See? The Lord said they wouldn't hear, and they didn't."
As for "sodomite", I have to say that I think it's a poor choice of words today. I understand that "homosexual" carries with it connotations that are inaccurate. Today's society hears "homosexual" and thinks "lifestyle" and, almost certainly, "born that way" with its accompanying "therefore it's okay" notion. None of that fits with the biblical concept. It tends to remove the sense of choice and, therefore, culpability. It aims at eliminating God's judgment on the issue. It's wrong in these senses. But I would also contend that "sodomite" is not an accurate representation of the biblical concept either. According to the dictionary, "sodomy" means "anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex", or "copulation with a member of the same sex" or "bestiality". Yes, "bestiality". The biblical term in Hebrew is qadesh (Deut 23:17) and references specifically a male cult temple prostitute. The Greek term is arsenokoites. This term is a combination of arsen -- "man" -- and koites -- a bed (from which we get our term, "coitus"). It is a reference, then, to men who essentially go to bed with men (mixing Greek intent with English vernacular). It does not reference "anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex" or "bestiality", two of the other standard definitions of the term "sodomy". The term "sodomy" is not, therefore, the most accurate, truthful term to express what God is referencing as an abomination (Lev 18:22). It is referencing much more ... and therefore less clear.
The Bible isn't unclear on the subject. Any sexual relations outside of the marriage bed is sin. And "marriage" is clearly defined as "man and woman". So sexual relations with animals or the same gender or a person of the opposite gender to whom one is not married qualifies as sin. Indeed, all of that qualifies as egregious sin, under the judgment of God. We can't minimize it. We can't distort it. We can't call it what it's not. Still, it would seem to me that before we start shouting "Whore!" and "Sodomite!", we might want first to try to select truthful terms that don't begin by insulting the listener before the call to repentance is done. It just seems like the thing that Jesus did -- call for repentance and, if they don't hear, then change tactics.
20 comments:
As for "sodomite", I have to say that I think it's a poor choice of words today. I understand that "homosexual" carries with it connotations that are inaccurate. Today's society hears "homosexual" and thinks "lifestyle" and, almost certainly, "born that way" with its accompanying "therefore it's okay" notion. None of that fits with the biblical concept. It tends to remove the sense of choice and, therefore, culpability. It aims at eliminating God's judgment on the issue. It's wrong in these senses.Well, I certainly agree with this. And I even agree with your problem with modern definition of 'Sodomy', as it would include acts between a man and his wife. Between the two I find the second, which focuses, however vaguely, on the sin, the more accurate.
Your comparison with 'whore' is unfortunate, as the word 'prostitute' is not only a Biblical word, but does not, as far as I know, carry any unfortunate connotations. It means someone who sells sexual favors. And it has always meant that, to the best of my knowledge.
Now, you should know that the modern term is 'sex trade' or 'sex trade worker' or somesuch. And they are working on getting their own union. Or have done:
Sex Trade Workers Industrial Union 690
Sex Workers iu690
All workers employed as dancers and models, telephone sex workers, actors and other workers who use sexuality as the primary tool of their trade (excluding all agents of the boss class able to hire or fire, or possessing equivalent coercive or punitive power).So, I don't mind 'prostitute' at all. Bad comparison.
How about 'Termination of pregnancy' or 'abortion doctor'?
Oh, and the term I was reffering to was not the reference to Deut 23:17 but:
H5467
סדם
sedôm
sed-ome'
From an unused root meaning to scorch; burnt (that is, volcanic or bituminous) district; Sedom, a place near the Dead Sea: - Sodom.
In 16th and 17th Century England, one who practices sodomy. The term sodomite is not equivalent to the modern term homosexual, because sodomites were not believed to have a sexuality that differed from that of non-sodomites. When the category homosexuality appeared in the West in the 19th Century, sex between men was redefined as the consequence of a constitutional feature of deviant individuals, not a momentary sexual sin. Like murderers or arsonists, sodomites were certainly considered wicked, but unlike homosexuals, they were not considered different in kind from other people.From:
http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/sodomite.htm
sodomite - someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomite
Whew! Look, Von, if you don't have anything to say, then don't say it! (That's a joke, son.)
Okay, let's see if I can address some of this. First and foremost, I need to say this as clearly as I know how: To say that "prostitute" or "sodomite" or the like is a "biblical term" is technically a lie. The Bible was not written in English. The translation, then, must accurately express what was intended in the original. In fact, if we are going to say, "Terms are considered 'biblical' if they are found in our English translations", then "homosexual" (in one form or another) is the word that appears in 1 Cor 6:9 in the NAS, the Amplified, the Green's Literal, the NIV, the ESV, the New KJV ... shall I go on? Do you know what else is interesting? In the King James Bible, the word "sodomite" appears only once (in my Deut 23 example). The word "sodomites" appears 4 more times (1 Kings 14, 15, 22, and 2 Kings 23). The standard definition of the term in the Strong's is "male temple prostitute". The word "sodomite" in any form does not appear in the King James in the New Testament ... at all.
Second, it is important that you understand what I am not saying (because it seems painfully clear that you don't). I am not saying "Choose deceptive terms to get along with people." I am not saying "Lie if you have to, but just don't offend anyone." I am saying "Speak the truth". You seem to want to require that we either use the term "sodomite" or lie. False dichotomy. You go on to suggest the same with "sex trade workers", "termination of pregnancy" and "abortion doctor". "See?" you seem to be saying, "You're really ready to lie about all this, aren't you?!"
Having established that "sodomite" is a 15th century term, not a "biblical" term, let's look at what you do not intend to say when you use the term. Your definitions suggest the problem I had but you deny. The term includes certain sexual practices between a husband and wife, but that's not your intent. The term also suggests that it is only one particular sex act between males. Oral sex between males is not technically considered "sodomy", but you and I would certainly label it abomination. And "sodomy" repeatedly comes up as "anal copulation between males", leaving out entirely any sexual activity between females. The term is not expressing what you intend.Now, this is interesting. When I go to the dictionary and look up "homosexuality", I find this: "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex"; "sexual activity with another of the same sex". As it turns out, that is what you're trying to express. It does not intrude into the marriage bed, but definitely refers to all sexual relations between same-gender people, male or female. The dictionary defines it the way you intend it. Now, I understand that you're referencing a modern perception with which you disagree, but the dictionary doesn't see it your way.
Look, I have difficulty with terms like anyone else. I understand, for instance, that "Christian" is just as much of a "biblical term" as "sodomite" is, and it is highly misunderstood. I try to define it as often as I possibly can, and I try to use it as clearly and correctly as I possibly can. But it is the correct term and it expresses what I need to express. "Homosexual" is a misunderstood term because some people include with it lies that are not part of it like "lifestyle" and "born that way" and such. That doesn't make the term faulty. It makes those who misunderstand it faulty. And let's go to the next one. "Marriage" is a "biblical term" that you know today is horribly misunderstood. People who engage in sinful sexual behavior, especially with the same gender, are not currently fighting to redefine marriage. They already see it as defined differently than you and I define it. So ... by the same means by which you are refusing to use the term that is commonly used today to express the concept behind "sodomite", you had better stop using "marriage" because it is highly misunderstood today and does not carry with it the same connotations that it does in the Bible. Now, we both know that's nonsense, but that's where you seem to be arguing.
Most disturbing to me, however, is the simple fact that you don't seem to have the slightest regard for the impact of your word choices on people. You don't care if your word choice (not simply speaking the truth, but an intentional choice of a word intended to offend) ignites a fire (James 3:6). There are other options, other words, other phrases, other expressions that don't require the inflammatory use of terms, but you continue to hold that it isn't necessary to use these or to consider anyone else's perceptions when you speak. That, to me, is a problem.
Stan, I think I have dealt with the issue of how the term Sodomite is Biblical. It reflects 'like the people of Sodom'. The word 'Sodom' is used dozens of times in the Old and New Testament.
One thing that you haven't actually said is why the term 'Sodomite' is inflammatory? What does it communicate that I am not trying to communicate... in the inflammatory sense. (I am not really worried that married couples who engage in oral sex are going to come to my site and be insulted. If they are, I am perfectly willing to discuss the oral sex found in the Song of Solomon.)
What is insulting or inflammatory about 'Sodomite'? The regular media referred to Lawrence v Texas as 'The Texas Sodomy case'. Were they being inflammatory?
As for the 'lie' thing I have asked you several times what word I should use. You have adequately defined 'homosexual' in such a way that you know I won't be using that word. What word do you know of that adequately translates a person who engages in sexual activity with a person of their own sex... and avoids the ideas that you yourself know are in 'homosexual'; including 'desire' or 'lifestyle' or 'born that way'?
The 'gay history' site suggests that that is what 'Sodomite' means... and they use that term on their site. Are they being inflammatory?
The word "Sodom" in both the Old and New Testament refers to a place. The only places the word occurs in the King James Bible is a reference to male cult prostitutes. I suppose, if that's what you're talking about, I will surrender to your use of the term. I don't know of any male cult prostitutes.
The term is inflammatory because of its current perception. It falls into the same category as the use of demeaning slang expressions based on race, gender, and religion. It is viewed as intentionally abusive language along the lines of "fag" or the classic term we all know but know not to use referring to black people. The origin of that word is the French word for black ... so why should it be offensive? It's true, isn't it?
What should you use? I don't use the term "gay" because I find it offensively wrong. If I use it, it's with quotes to indicate that it's wrong. I use the term "homosexual" because, despite what you might think, most people understand it to mean exactly what I intend it to mean and exactly what you mean when you use the term "sodomite". But you don't like that one because someone might take those alternative meanings. Fine. How about this? "People who engage in sexual practices with the same gender against God's express command". That carries all the truth and connotation you intend, right?
Language is shorthand. When it expresses what you're thinking, it is effective. If by "sodomite" you mean to express "People I thoroughly despise because they choose to engage in sexual relations with people of the same gender and that's likely the worst sin of all time", then keep using it. If it is not your intent to get them to see the sin and repent, then keep using the term. If a single word does not express what you intend, use words that do. If laziness is what's getting in your way, then fie upon thee. Or ... you could use "homosexual" like everyone else does with frequent disclaimers of something like "I'm talking about the choice to have sexual relations with the same gender, not some bogus lifestyle thing." Because, despite your feelings on the matter, "homosexual" is in a lot of Bibles as the most accurate translation of the biblical term.
the word "Sodom" in both the Old and New Testament refers to a place.It refers to a place... and an event... an people at that place.
For example:
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2Pe 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) I don't think anyone in Peters audience was confused about this reference.
So again, 'Sodomite' means 'a person like those in Sodom'.
The term is inflammatory because of its current perception. It falls into the same category as the use of demeaning slang expressions based on race, gender, and religion.This is a totally bizarre answer. First of all, it doesn't answer the question of 'why'. One understand the "N" word. It was used as a derogatory word for a non-derogatory thing... ie, race. Are you saying the same thing about 'Sodomite'? That people used it to 'denigrate' those who committed Sodomy?
Secondly, are you putting committing Sodomy in the same category as race and gender?
You say:
despite what you might think, most people understand it to mean exactly what I intend it to mean and exactly what you mean when you use the term "sodomite".That is a very odd thing for you to say, considering I have accepted your own definition... and told you that that is exactly what I don't want to say. And now you turn around and say it doesn't mean that?
Sorry, I tend to believe your first statement... after all, that is what everyone has been trying to convince us the word means. That is what all of the 'gay agenda' is about, trying to convince everyone that 'homosexuality' is all about who you are, not what you do.
Do I think that Sodomy is the worst of all sins? No.
But, it is written:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. The evil for which God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was people engaging in sexual relations with the same gender? See, while I certainly agree that this is what was going on when the angels visited Lot, I always assumed that the evil for which God destroyed them was not mere sexual relations, but a total condition of "unlawful deeds", culminating in "homosexuality" (as defined by the dictionary, not society). From my perspective, "sodomites" (people like those in Sodom) would be "completely degenerate sinners" ... you know, like the ones Paul describes in Rom 1:28-32 which you supplied. That this would include "leaving the natural use of the woman" is a given, but only a part of the condition I would consider "like people of Sodom". Thus, your use of "sodomite" as defined as "like people of Sodom" and meaning instead "people who engage in sexual relations with the same gender" doesn't work at all for me.
"are you putting committing Sodomy in the same category as race and gender?"
So ... are you asking a serious question, or are you intending to be insulting. Here's how it works. When trying to explain things, we sometimes go from the known to the unknown. You know the connotation of the "N" word. You don't know the connotation of the "sodomite" word. So I point at the "N" word that you know to give you the sense of the "sodomite" word you don't. Or, would you prefer a sarcastic answer? "Yes, yes, being a black or a woman is obviously a sin!!" This kind of thing is detrimental to friendly conversation. (By the way, the "N" word was not originally denigrating. It was an evolution of connotation.)
As I understand it, then, you 1) don't care if words have emotional baggage and 2) don't care if you use terms that are insulting to people. "It's in my Bible" (that's a stretch) "so it's the word I'll use even if it is perceived as inflammatory. I don't care what anyone thinks. And I will continue to maintain that any English translation of the Bible that doesn't agree with the words I have decided are the right ones are not viable translations." (Because, after all, there is a whole host of Bible translations that use the word you won't. Why aren't they "biblical"?)
I've been working on language in a variety of places. I posted before on "gay marriage" because my son was getting married and I hoped for a "gay marriage" for him. The word "gay" has been stolen. I want it back. I've argued against changing the definition of "marriage". I don't want that word to be lost. "Homosexual" is defined for us in the dictionary as it really is -- the same thing you mean when you use the word "sodomy". (Not the same thing I mean when I use the term.) I am not willing to surrender that term, either. Further, I am also not willing to surrender the concept that "born that way" means "excused" -- it makes no sense. So I will continue to use the term for what it means, explain it when I need to, and be able to communicate with a whole group of sinners who need repentance. In other words, you have already surrendered to the "gay agenda" by allowing them to use the word as they see fit rather than maintaining the truth about it. Homosexuality is sexual relations between same-gender people ("homo" = "same" + "sexuality" ... can't change the core). Unless someone wants to argue that we do not have a choice as to whom we engage in sexual relations, it will always be a choice. "Born that way" or not, everyone chooses what activities they perform. Sorry. "Lifestyle" doesn't provide an excuse for the chosen behavior. You, on the other hand, give them license for that position by refusing to hold on to the proper definition of the term.
Thus, your use of "sodomite" as defined as "like people of Sodom" and meaning instead "people who engage in sexual relations with the same gender" doesn't work at all for me.Ah, now we may be getting somewhere. You may be very correct that I associate, and mean to associate, more by the word 'Sodomy' and 'Sodomite' than merely 'people who engage in sexual relations with members of the same gender'.
I really do mean 'like the people of Sodom'. For two reason:
1) I read in Romans 1 that wide spread and accepted 'Sodomy' is an indication of Gods judgement on a society, not merely the particular sin of certain individuals.
2) The current political climate reflects this understanding.
Ah, yes, we may be getting somewhere now (which, by the way, was my original aim). You are communicating something in your use of the term "sodomite" that we aren't getting. That, dear brother, is a failure to communicate.
You are communicating something in your use of the term "sodomite" that we aren't getting.I'm not sure why you insist you aren't getting it. First you give a definition of Homosexual that lines up exactly with what I was trying NOT to communicate, and now you discover what I AM trying to communicate with 'Sodomite'.
I'd say you are getting it pretty well.
Still unclear on your 'derogatory' thing. Except for what I want it to mean (which is, of course, derogatory... but not in a way I would have thought you objected to) I don't see it.
I happen to believe that the only 'derogatory' feature of the word Sodomite is it's truth: that it focuses on the act, not on 'being'; that it identifies it as a sin, and speaks of judgment; that it reflects Gods judgment on society.
Forget it, Von. Clearly you aren't concerned about whether or not you communicate what you mean to say to the audience with whom you are trying to communicate. Does it make them mad? That's their problem. There is no need in your mind to care at all if they hear or understand. Indeed, their failure to do so is vindication to you. So me suggesting that you try to communicate in terms that don't inflame is like you telling me "Don't care about your fellow man, Stan." My point is at odds with your aim, so it is not possible that you'll either understand or care if you did.
Clearly you aren't concerned about whether or not you communicate what you mean to say to the audience with whom you are trying to communicate.A fascinating statement. Here I tell you that it does communicate what I want it to... indeed you yourself have proved that, and you and by saying I'm not concerned about whether I communicate or not.
Fascinating.
Oh, and a question. What audience do you suppose a blog entitled 'The Practical Theonomist' would be designed to communicate with? Perhaps it would not be the whelming masses? Or even the majority of evangelicals, or fundamentalists?
No, I write for a rather select crowd. A crowd that I assume is Biblically literate; a crowd that not only knows the history of Sodom, but has read Romans 1.
An audience who will know what I mean when I say, 'Sodomite', and will, for the large part, know why I use the term.
And why I don't use the word 'homosexual' which..."carries with it connotations that are inaccurate. Today's society hears "homosexual" and thinks "lifestyle" and, almost certainly, "born that way" with its accompanying "therefore it's okay" notion. None of that fits with the biblical concept. It tends to remove the sense of choice and, therefore, culpability. It aims at eliminating God's judgment on the issue."
Sorry, my mistake. I thought that yours was a mostly "open blog" in which you wished to disseminate the truth to whomever would read it. I guess I missed the narrow focus. (If you read "narrow focus" as anything of an insult, it is not intended thus.)
I wish to note that it took several iterations and more than a day for me to figure out what you meant by "sodomite", and I am biblically literate, know the history of Sodom, and have read Romans 1. Since it took that long for me to figure out what you meant by the term, I can only guess at the conclusion. Maybe it is that I'm essentially correct and you are not "communicating" as much as simply stating what you think, regardless of who is listening. Perhaps, despite the fact that I am biblically literate, know about Sodom, and read Romans, I am not part of your target audience. Or maybe there are other conclusions equally valid.
Would it be safe to say "Clearly you aren't concerned about whether or not you communicate what you mean to say to all readers of your blog"?
By the way, I listed multiple Bible translations and I also note that the vast majority writers (all that I have found) in complete agreement with your perspective on the sin of sodomy still use the term, and still you insist is inaccurate. Could it be that, while some may see "homosexual" and read "lifestyle", a larger number understand it simply to be an activity? Or is it simply your opinion that we have Bibles and writers who can't be trusted?
Sorry, my mistake. I thought that yours was a mostly "open blog" in which you wished to disseminate the truth to whomever would read it. I guess I missed the narrow focus. (If you read "narrow focus" as anything of an insult, it is not intended thus.)Well, if one reads the 'in order to comment' section you will see more of my target audience.
It is of course 'for all' in the sense it is public. But a blog entitled 'The Practical Theonomist' using a term (Theonomist, not Practical) that only one in one hundred people know can hardly be 'for the public'.
wish to note that it took several iterations and more than a day for me to figure out what you meant by "sodomite", and I am biblically literate, know the history of Sodom, and have read Romans 1.You say that, but in one of your first posts you write:
I understand that "homosexual" carries with it connotations that are inaccurate. Today's society hears "homosexual" and thinks "lifestyle" and, almost certainly, "born that way" with its accompanying "therefore it's okay" notion. None of that fits with the biblical concept. It tends to remove the sense of choice and, therefore, culpability. It aims at eliminating God's judgment on the issue. It's wrong in these senses.... showing that you understood what the world means by 'homosexual' as well.
I posted at 7:00 AM. You started commenting at 11:46 AM. It wasn't until 8:09 PM (9 posts between us) that I began to understand what you meant by "sodomite". The original suggestion you gave was "people who have sexual relations with the same gender", but it wasn't until this whole give-and-take (on multiple blogs) before I finally discovered that you actually meant "people who are like Sodom in that they are of the same sort that Paul describes at the end of Romans 1 ... beyond mere sexual relations." There was, indeed, much confusion because no Bible I own uses the word "sodomite" in the way you are using it. You've coined your own sense -- "people who fulfill Paul's description of utter corruption ... like they did in Sodom". (Hey, why don't we coin a new term? We'll call it "Gommoreah" and use it to refer to the sin-sickness of which we are speaking! No?)
I understand that you object to "homosexual" because it can be heard as "lifestyle" (etc.). When understood that way, it is inaccurate. I also understand that that perception is incorrect. I still don't admit that the word means what they think it means any more than "marriage" means what they think it means or "Christian" means what so many today think it means. You're not willing to surrender biblical terms. Neither am I ... not even to you. Most of my Bibles use the term "homosexual" as a reference to people who engage in sexual relations with the same gender. The dictionary agrees that this is the definition. If I were to surrender the term because they misunderstand it, then I would have to throw out all my favorite Bibles and cut out all my favorite writers for failing to comprehend what the word has been coerced to mean. I, however, am unwilling to bend to their coercion, either in the term "marriage" or "homosexual". They are biblical terms and I will continue to use them as they are correctly defined.
I'm not asking you to change your language.
I believe, with all of its difficulties, that the term 'Sodomite' expresses my meaning better than the term 'homosexual' with all of it's difficulties.
Just as I don't use the term 'adult', 'single', etc.
Obviously a discussion for another time (although I'm pretty sure using "unmarried" instead of "single" would not be inflammatory ... like "sodomite"). (Okay, cheap parting shot. But we can let this go now, right?)
Anytime.
I did find out that using 'virgin' instead of 'single' was inflammatory.
Post a Comment