A bit Effeminate? Don't Count on Going to Heaven.

[Skwim]

So this is pretty confusing, but I'll try to explain it the best I can. The Greek word that is often translated as 'effeminate' or 'male prostitutes' is Malakos. It is a commonly used word in the Bible and, depending on the context, has been translated to mean numerous things. The general meaning attributed to it is 'soft' or 'flexible'. In scripture it refers to everything from fabric to someone with "flexible" morality. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 it is usually interpreted as a male or boy prostitute because of its pairing with the word Arsenokoites.

Arsenokoites is the word that is typically translated as 'homosexuals' or 'sodomites'. This word is a little trickier because there are few other times we have record of its use (in scripture or otherwise), so it is harder to determine its meaning from what little context we have. Outside of scripture it has been used to refer to pedophilia, rape, forcing someone to have sex with you for money, orgies (both heterosexual and homosexual) and incest. Generally it is always in the context of someone with power forcing themselves upon someone without it. In 575 A.D. a Christian treatise on sexual sin noted that men can commit the sin of arsen (singular of arsenokoites) with their wives, suggesting that it is not something exclusive to homosexual or extramarital relations.

I would hypothesize that both the translations of 'effeminate' and 'homosexual' are expressions of cultural fears and anxieties rather than the most accurate translations possible. I think the better argument is that this passage is condemning rape and prostitution more than anything else, but smarter people than I have said otherwise, so who am I to say? Regardless of how you decide to interpret the original Greek,

Here's my stance on arguments such as yours.

It makes absolutely no difference to me what persons A, B, or C around here think words X, Y, or Z originally meant in their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek forms. What is important is what the experts---the various scholars who put the bible together---concluded was the best English word to convey the meaning of a particular word as originally written. Of course the various interpretations of a word---there are at least 10 different interpretations of the Hebrew ra in Isaiah 45:7---doesn't speak well for their efforts (I suspect the individual needs of the backers of the various versions intervened), but it's still the best we have; far better than the over-confident speculations of scriptural dilettantes or the cock-sure conclusions of lone, self-styled Biblical academics.

Bottom line: All words in the Bible stand as their definitions indicate. In the case of "effeminate," we have a word that means

Having feminine qualities untypical of a man :not manly in appearance or manner
(Merriam Webster)


Having the qualities generally attributed to women, as weakness, timidity, delicacy, etc.; unmanly; not virile
(Collins)


an effeminate man looks, behaves, or speaks like a woman
(Macmillan)


(of a man) having characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.
(Oxford)
​

Want to pretend it means something else, go right ahead, but I'm not buying it.

I hope this has helped answer your questions.

Considering that my question was:

"What's god's problem with men with feminine characteristics? A problem so appalling that it's as sinful as fornication and adultery."
​

It's obvious you never came close.

.

 

[Benjamin Bradley]

That's certainly a valid view. As I mentioned, much smarter people than I have translated the text as you've indicated. The NRSV, while still a flawed translation (all translations are imperfect), is considered to be the most accurate by most linguistic scholars so I'd give that one a gander if you're interested.

In the end, I stand by my interpretation though. At the risk of sounding hippy dippy, I think God loves you for you. God may condemn your sins, but He will love you as the incredible being that he made you to be. Many people appear to naturally/inherently have masculine or feminine qualities, regardless of their gender, so I would surmise that God made them as such and loves them for being his beautiful creations.

 

[Grandliseur]

In 24% of the Bible versions I looked at, 13 out of 55, god uses effeminacy as a reason to exclude men from heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NASB)
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,
​

Which means you don't even need to be homosexual, just a little light in the loafers and you're out. Married and your wife is shooting out a young-un every October? It doesn't matter. If you're or limp wristed and appreciate a well designed dress you'd better prepare for hell. Interestingly though, god evidently has no problem with butch women. A woman can wear plaid woolen shirts, don lumberjack boots, chew tabac and spit on the sidewalk, and she still gets to go through the pearly gates.

So, what's going on? What's god's problem with men with feminine characteristics? A problem so appalling that it's as sinful as fornication and adultery.

Truthfully, I looked through the Bible a bit trying to find a reason, but came up dry.


What do you think?

.

None of us can help what the accident of our DNA became. In which case, this is not what it is about. We must then look at the spirit of this scripture, what is it condemning? That is the question.

As you can see, the only thing that stands out in that sentence is what you picked out - effeminate. It must then not be what the person naturally is, big and strong, small and weak in muscles but hopefully strong in the mind; it must therefore be a case of being effeminate that equals the other things condemned, and in the case of homosexuals, do they not usually have the so-called husband and the so-called wife in their relationship where one of the two plays a strong effeminate role? (I must admit my ignorance, thank God).

That is all I can think it is.

I must admit, personally, that I am a bit miffed on some of the things defined about sex in the Bible, not the above, by the way, but other things that I think make the subject of sex and marriage fuzzy. But, what is - is; what isn't - is not. I would have liked clearer lines since God isn't partial, and many Christian patriarchs had more than one wife and were thought - righteous.

Abraham had more than one wife - with God's blessing and probably his causing this to happen as a prophetic image.
Jacob had more than one wife - again by God's will in order for the 12 tribes to come about.
David had about 30 some, maybe nearly 40. He is used as an example of a righteous man.
Solomon - ha - until he went astray from God's worship which God got mad at. it wasn't his hundreds of wives and concubines that were the problem.

Judah, an ancestor of Jesus, had sex with his daughter in law to provide that one with a son since her husband died, and to make up for that, that sex was permitted even made to come about by God. Judah also visited prostitutes.

Some in the Christian congregations of the first century had more than one wife.

I just don't get the fuzziness of the teachings here.

 

[Enoch07]

Here's my stance on arguments such as yours.

It makes absolutely no difference to me what persons A, B, or C around here think words X, Y, or Z originally meant in their Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek forms. What is important is what the experts---the various scholars who put the bible together---concluded was the best English word to convey the meaning of a particular word as originally written. Of course the various interpretations of a word---there are at least 10 different interpretations of the Hebrew ra in Isaiah 45:7---doesn't speak well for their efforts (I suspect the individual needs of the backers of the various versions have intervened), but it's still the best we have; far better than the over-confident speculations of scriptural dilettantes or the cock-sure conclusions of lone self-styled Biblical academics.

Bottom line: All words in the Bible stand as their definitions indicate. In the case of "effeminate," we have a word that means

Having feminine qualities untypical of a man :not manly in appearance or manner
(Merriam Webster)


Having the qualities generally attributed to women, as weakness, timidity, delicacy, etc.; unmanly; not virile
(Collins)


an effeminate man looks, behaves, or speaks like a woman
(Macmillan)


(of a man) having characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.
(Oxford)
​

Want to pretend it means something else, go right ahead, but I'm not buying it.


Considering that my question was:

"What's god's problem with men with feminine characteristics? A problem so appalling that it's as sinful as fornication and adultery."
​

It's obvious you never came close.

.

Defining a word correctly is important though. Otherwise language has no value. If biblical scholars go by the NASB, NIV, ASV etc. Then they truly are useless. Because without translating words back to their original meaning it defies the purpose. A lot of words have evolved from their original meaning, especially in the last 100 years or so. Hate, Cloud, Effiminate and many more have different meanings now than they did when originally translated. Without the original meaning, you get misunderstandings, just like your OP.

 

[Skwim]

We must then look at the spirit of this scripture, what is it condemning?
As you can see, the only thing that stands out in that sentence is what you picked out - effeminate. It must then not be what the person naturally is, big and strong, small and weak in muscles but hopefully strong in the mind; it must therefore be a case of being effeminate that equals the other things condemned, and in the case of homosexuals, do they not usually have the so-called husband and the so-called wife in their relationship where one of the two plays a strong effeminate role? (I must admit my ignorance, thank God).

That is all I can think it is.

Interesting; however, let me set you straight The following is from an article in the Washington Post.

"Why do gay couples use the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ rather than ‘partner’?

Your question seems to assume that when a same-sex couple adopts “husband” and “wife” as their preferred term, they pick one apiece. That’s not the case. When two men have married, there are two husbands; for women, there are two wives. The bottom line: Don’t ask a same-sex couple who is the “husband” or the “wife.”
Source​

I just don't get the fuzziness of the teachings here.

'Tis a puzzlement.

.

 

[Grandliseur]

Interesting; however, let me set you straight The following is from an article in the Washington Post.

"Why do gay couples use the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ rather than ‘partner’?

Your question seems to assume that when a same-sex couple adopts “husband” and “wife” as their preferred term, they pick one apiece. That’s not the case. When two men have married, there are two husbands; for women, there are two wives. The bottom line: Don’t ask a same-sex couple who is the “husband” or the “wife.”
Source​

'Tis a puzzlement.

.

Thank you for showing me how things work. Though, I am not sure, I want to know how this works.

 

[blü 2]

Okay, let's get to the bottom of ... no I'll rephrase that.
1 Corinthians reads:

6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν μὴ πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακόὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
​

and the list part reads, neither πόρνοι (from the verb 'to sell', and here masculine in form: a male prostitute; and thus more loosely a fornicator); nor εἰδωλολάτραι (idolators); nor μοιχοὶ (male adulterers, paramours, debauchers) ...

nor what we're talking about: μαλακόὶ : those males who are soft, tender, sickly, mild, gentle, delicate, effeminate, cowardly, careless, remiss, luxurious, wanton.

So that's all a bit scattershot, but 'effeminate' is certainly an option

and bringing up the rear ─ no, I'll rephrase that: lastly
ἀρσενοκοίτης (men who bed men).

Looks like only truckies get to heaven. The fops are out on their ─ no, I'll rephrase that.

(Cripes, poor old Paul ─ talk about homophobia!)

​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Probably because you are pulling a strawman on the bible inadvertently. By using the modern definition.

Lets take it back to the original greek.

Strong's Greek: 3120. μαλακός (malakos) -- soft, effeminate

An exert: Definition: (a) soft, (b) of persons: soft, delicate

This just means too kind, a pushover, a wuss, a coward, a person weak of character. These individuals are easily manipulated and do not stand up for their beliefs. Is this the kind of person you would want to depend on? Nobody does they are pretty much useless.

That's not helping your case, because those that you describe, so very often they are beaten, battered, and abused. They didn't make a conscious decision to be that way, but their parents kept telling them they aren't good enough, a significant other stole their confidence and self-esteem, bullies, or whatever the reason. Certainly not the types Jesus would shun.
And speaking of Jesus, too kind? A pushover? Jesus' entire ministry revolved around kindness, he did say when struck to turn the other cheek, and he said the meek shall inherit the earth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In 24% of the Bible versions I looked at, 13 out of 55, god uses effeminacy as a reason to exclude men from heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NASB)
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,
​

Which means you don't even need to be homosexual, just a little light in the loafers and you're out. Married and your wife is shooting out a young-un every October? It doesn't matter. If you're limp wristed and appreciate a well designed dress you'd better prepare for hell. Interestingly though, god evidently has no problem with butch women. A woman can wear plaid woolen shirts, don lumberjack boots, chew tabac and spit on the sidewalk, and she still gets to go through the pearly gates.

So, what's going on? What's god's problem with men with feminine characteristics? A problem so appalling that it's as sinful as fornication and adultery.

Truthfully, I looked through the Bible a bit trying to find a reason, but came up dry.


What do you think?

.

The word is malakos which also means "male prostitute". A male prostitute hasn't yet been transformed through the loving, saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sanzbir]

Looks like the word used is "malakoi" (μαλακοὶ). It looks like the most literal meaning of the word is "soft", which can be used as a noun meaning "soft clothing".

We also have some other instances of the word being used in the bible, which translators almost always render into English as "soft clothing" or "fine clothing." Contextually they are as follows:

Matthew 11:7-9 "As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: 'What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swaying in the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in malakois? Look, those who wear malaka are found in kings’ palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.'"

Luke 7:24-26 "After John’s messengers had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: 'What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swaying in the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in malakois? Look, those who wear splendid clothing and live in luxury are found in palaces. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.'"

So when similar terminology is used throughout the other parts of bible it rather explicitly refers to people who wear a certain style of clothing: namely rich, extravagant, and luxurious clothing.

Not to go Magus on you all, but I think translations that use "effeminate" are incorrect. Based on the usage of the word in other places I'd say it would mean those who wear luxurious clothing/those who live an extravagant lifestyle.

My guess is that the line after referring to homosexuals, stereotypes, and the literal translation of the word as "soft" caused translators to assume it referred to effeminacy. But everywhere else the word is used it means "extravagant clothing", so I don't wholly see why the term wouldn't mean the same thing in the context of Corinthians.

 

[Sanzbir]

That's not helping your case, because those that you describe, so very often they are beaten, battered, and abused. They didn't make a conscious decision to be that way, but their parents kept telling them they aren't good enough, a significant other stole their confidence and self-esteem, bullies, or whatever the reason. Certainly not the types Jesus would shun.
And speaking of Jesus, too kind? A pushover? Jesus' entire ministry revolved around kindness, he did say when struck to turn the other cheek, and he said the meek shall inherit the earth.

Not exactly as Enoch07 says, but close. Take it in context of the times. The people who were "soft" were the upper class, nobility, etc. The people who were "rough" were the lower classes, the poor, etc. In the ancient times "softness" was a mark of luxury and wealth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not exactly as Enoch07 says, but close. Take it in context of the times. The people who were "soft" were the upper class, nobility, etc. The people who were "rough" were the lower classes, the poor, etc. In the ancient times "softness" was a mark of luxury and wealth.

Unless you can support that was the intention, I will assume you to be moving the goal posts. When the Bible condemns rich people, it was pretty specific, especially Jesus. He didn't say "soft" people were going through the eye of a needle, he specifically said rich. And you can't describe the concept as meaning one thing (symptoms of abuse), and then say "well over here we have to consider this."

 

[Kenny]

In 24% of the Bible versions I looked at, 13 out of 55, god uses effeminacy as a reason to exclude men from heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NASB)
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,
​

Which means you don't even need to be homosexual, just a little light in the loafers and you're out. Married and your wife is shooting out a young-un every October? It doesn't matter. If you're limp wristed and appreciate a well designed dress you'd better prepare for hell. Interestingly though, god evidently has no problem with butch women. A woman can wear plaid woolen shirts, don lumberjack boots, chew tabac and spit on the sidewalk, and she still gets to go through the pearly gates.

So, what's going on? What's god's problem with men with feminine characteristics? A problem so appalling that it's as sinful as fornication and adultery.

Truthfully, I looked through the Bible a bit trying to find a reason, but came up dry.


What do you think?

.

I think you need to study a little deeper and stop reading with Western 21st century thinking.

 

[Sanzbir]

Unless you can support that was the intention, I will assume you to be moving the goal posts.

I'm not moving goalposts, I'm new to the discussion. My claim that "soft" refers to an aspect of wealth is my initial, unmoved, goalpost.

When the Bible condemns rich people, it was pretty specific, especially Jesus. He didn't say "soft" people were going through the eye of a needle, he specifically said rich.

Well look to my first post in this thread, because I show categorically you are wrong here. The Greek word used is "malakoi", and contrary to what you assert, Jesus uses variations of that exact same word in describing the clothing of the wealthy in two places in the Bible. In fact, the only other point in the bible where this word is used is where it is specifically used to describe the clothing of rich people.

Matthew 11:7-9 "As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: 'What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swaying in the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in malakois? Look, those who wear malaka are found in kings’ palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.'"

Luke 7:24-26 "After John’s messengers had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: 'What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swaying in the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in malakois? Look, those who wear splendid clothing and live in luxury are found in palaces. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.'"

Again, contrary to what you have stated, Jesus did in fact use the exact same word to describe the rich.

And you can't describe the concept as meaning one thing (symptoms of abuse), and then say "well over here we have to consider this."

Lol. I didn't say it was "symptoms of abuse", you did from interpreting Enoch07's interpretation of the word "soft". Enoch07 interprets "soft" as being meek or lacking conviction, an interpretation that I stated I believe is wrong.

My position, if it was not clear enough, is he is right in saying the word is "soft" but wrong in his interpretation of what "soft" means in this context. That's why I said it was "Not exactly as Enoch07 says, but close." His translation is correct, but his contextual interpretation seems wrong to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not moving goalposts, I'm new to the discussion. My claim that "soft" refers to an aspect of wealth is my initial, unmoved, goalpost.

In this case, I made a mix up in who was saying what. My initial post regarding those who are soft as displaying signs of abuse was aimed at Enoch07, who specifically stated that those who are "soft" have a list of characteristics, a list that when summed up points towards signs of abuse.

 

[Skwim]

The word is malakos which also means "male prostitute". A male prostitute hasn't yet been transformed through the loving, saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

See post #21.

.

 

[Skwim]

I think you need to study a little deeper and stop reading with Western 21st century thinking.

I'll take that under advisement. .........................................................................Or maybe not.

.

 

[Enoch07]

That's not helping your case, because those that you describe, so very often they are beaten, battered, and abused. They didn't make a conscious decision to be that way, but their parents kept telling them they aren't good enough, a significant other stole their confidence and self-esteem, bullies, or whatever the reason. Certainly not the types Jesus would shun.
And speaking of Jesus, too kind? A pushover? Jesus' entire ministry revolved around kindness, he did say when struck to turn the other cheek, and he said the meek shall inherit the earth.

Victims are different than flat out cowards.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Victims are different than flat out cowards.

That still doesn't help your case, because the list of things you described so often described those who have been victims of abuse. And you still did mention "too kind," even though Jesus asked of his father to forgive his killers. A Jesus or Gandhi type of characters aren't exactly going to be in the running for "alpha of the year." But that is one of the reasons they are loved and remembered is because they weren't "alpha male" types but rather because of their kindness and messages of peace and hope and love.

 

[Sanzbir]

What is important is what the experts

Then I must ask why you made a thread about the translation choice of what was only the opinion of not even 1/4th of translators you investigated.

You only want expert opinions but chose to use the translation that only 24% used?? What's with that??