I just discovered that Cectic has a talk page, where you can give him a good reaming. It doesn’t look like anyone has commented on #157 yet. I’m sure you can start a topic.

Either way, I already figured you didn’t buy into Paul’s views on homosexuality.

The larger argument that it implies, that the NT doesn’t condemn homosexuality is also deceptive, because at 1 Cor 6:9 Paul condemns it again, specifically mentioning malakhoi, which are homosexuals who take the submissive role, strongly implying effeminate mannerisms also, and arsenokoitai, which is composed of the units: male-, bed-, acting together, so there isn’t much doubt about what that means. I notice the NRSV renders these ‘male prostitutes’ and ’sodomite’ which is not quite right in either case, but that is a good reason not to rely on translations. If I were translating the text I would say: ‘the effeminate… and homosexuals.’

As for Rom 1:27, the thing that the men turn away from because they are on fire for other men is the khrasis of females. That is a a noun derived from the verb khraomai with a suffix that means ‘in the state of being or doing’ whatever the verb is. In this case, the range of meaning is: use> make use of> make use of in the right way> enjoy. That is a somewhat archaic use of ‘enjoy’ I suppose, but its often employed in the translationese we use to indicate the underlying Greek more than translate it; it means something more like ‘the right to exercise control over’ (e.g. the bishop enjoys several sources of income), than ‘to take pleasure in’ although it doesn’t exclude that meaning.

Sorry, for the Greek lesson, but the short of it is, many Christians who support gay rights, or people who think they can persuade Christians to support gay rights, claim that homosexuality is not condemned in the NT, when Paul condemns it very clearly and stridently. The thing that really rubs me the wrong about that comic is that it doesn’t actually state its argument. It presents a discussion between two children who cannot be expected to fully understand a text as difficult as Paul, especially through all the distortions of translation, and it says one of them doesn’t see in the text what the other does. To present its argument in this insinuating way strongly implies to me that the author of the strip knows that what he says is not true and doesn’t care so long as he can persuade the reader to his view point.

The next mistake people make about me, is that when I insist on something like this, that in order to talk about Paul we ought to actually understand what Paul says, is thinking that I agree with Paul. But see my post here for some insight into my own views on the matter:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=48283

I’m not challenging your credentials as I’m sure you can cite more sources, but biblegateway.com says “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another…”

Natural USE and natural ENJOYMENT are pretty different interpretations. Additionally, the comic uses yet another translation. I don’t think the comic was lying. Your source may be more authoritative (can’t wait to see your reply on that since you are an expert), but based on what I researched on the google, that’s a pretty easy mistake.

I do agree that there are better arguments, though. Honestly, using the bible to argue against the biblical can be humorous sometimes, but giving the bible any sort of weight or authority concedes it has importance, which any unbeliever should be very hesitant to do.

Rights for homosexuals should be granted simply because all humans deserve the same rights and opportunities (which is moral), NOT because bibley and his undersea adventures sez so or doesn’t sez so.

http://cectic.com/157.html

First let me make this clear: I am not a christian, I am bisexual, and I am a Classics professor with considerable background in the NT.

This comic is what is generally known as a lie. While 1:26 may not refer to Lesbians (like Queen Victoria, it is possible Paul did not believe they existed), 1:27 says that men abandoned their natural enjoyment of women and burned for each other. There is no question at all about what that means.

Some people would prefer if Paul did not condemn homosexuality, but the fact is he did and there is no getting around it. There is no need to lie about it, just use another line of argument.

I posted this here, by the way, because there doesn’t seem to be a way to post at the cartoon site.

I’ve also seen the inevitable debate of “Creation vs. evolution” on those pages. Ya know, it’s no fun to argue with a fundie. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with their stupid. No matter how well-reasoned or thought out and your arguments are and if they’re backed by proof…they’ll always be proven “right” *cough* by the virtue of their conviction. In their tiny minds. Sorry. Just had to get that off my chest.

However, they are great fun to mock. :p

Yeah, I’ve seen the light! Religion is the solution! The earth is only 6000 years old! We’re all actually inbred! There is no evolution! Everything stays the same the way God intended!

*end sarcasm* ….Yeah. I’m gonna stop now before my brain explodes. :p

But this is tres amusing.

/sarcasm