As a reader of the Daily, I have watched numerous arguments pass through the “Letters to the Editor” section regarding the Biblical view of homosexuality spawning from Rev. Sabin’s removal from the pulpit of the Lord of Life Lutheran Church. While Karl von Uhl’s original argument made a seemingly strong case about the vague nature of the Greek word “arsenokoitai,” I felt that the response by Dr. Charmandaris sufficiently answered Mr. von Uhl’s essay. On February 23, Mr. von Uhl made it clear he disagreed.

In his last letter, Mr. von Uhl made an unconvincing rebuttal to Dr. Charmandaris’s adherence to the biblical view on homosexuality. He claimed that the translation of “arsenokoitai” (“one who sleeps with males”) could refer to members of the female sex rather than the male sex. He also questioned the Dr. Charmandaris’s definition of “malakoi” (males with effeminate characteristics).

First, Mr. von Uhl wondered if perhaps Paul (the author of Corinthians I) was referring to women who slept with men (i.e. adultery) in his use of the word “arsenokoitai.” If this were the case, Paul would likely have explicitly stated it. In fact, he did. He used no uncertain terms when writing of adultery in the church. It is then reasonable to assume that what Paul spoke of was not promiscuous women. That leaves only one other gender for the interpretation of “arsenokoitai.”

Second, Mr. von Uhl questions the “effeminate” definition of “malakoi.” In the definition he used, however, Mr. von Uhl described “malakoi” as one who is “soft, mild, gentle and faint-hearted.”

While these characteristics are good for both sexes (the Bible preaches meekness and gentility), most would likely agree that these are, nonetheless, classical “effeminate” characteristics. The remaining characteristics (cowardliness, moral weakness and lack of self-control) are biblically undesirable, regardless of gender.

Frankly, Mr. von Uhl’s response to Dr. Charmandaris’s interpretations seems to lack any solid biblical foundation. Never once in the Bible is any provision made for homosexuality. That alone should bring into question its place in a Christian lifestyle.

Personally, I cannot accept the thought that the Bible doesn’t really mean to condemn homosexuality. If Mr. von Uhl were correct, my belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God would be invalidated. It would be rendered a collection of half-truths with limited application.

An inherent part of a Christian’s beliefs consists of accepting the Bible in its entirety, even when it conflicts with one’s lifestyle or habits. It is the Word of God — one unit, wholly accurate and true. To question and wonder about its contents is not wrong, but to do so because personal interests are at stake is undermining God’s authority.

Homosexuality is not the issue at hand. The issue is a habitual sin that is supported to such a great extent that it would force a Christian to distort God’s word.

Joel Graff

Senior

Civil engineering