Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(I Heart Chaos)   You remember that time in the 10th to 12th centuries when the Christian church had no problem marrying gay couples? Yeah, that was a pretty cool time   (iheartchaos.com) divider line 211
    More: Cool, holy orders, Roman army unit types, Sinai, European integration, pagan, St. Catherine  
•       •       •

19030 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2012 at 9:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-10 10:49:19 PM  

gimmegimme: To be fair, what "JC said" is a translation of a translation of an adaptation of a translation of a committee-approved version of a translation of a rewrite of a translation of hearsay from decades prior recorded in a dead language.


The Gospels were written in Greek, and we have copies of the text dating back to the second century. So we have a decent handle on what was written down. Interestingly enough what the Greek doesn't say, is the word divorce. It uses a different word, that means leaving. Which could strike someone as odd given there was a Greek word for divorce. The reason it wouldn't have been used deals with the context of Jesus' day. There were a good number of Jewish couples that were splitting, without meeting the requirements in order to obtain a proper divorce. It's those people, not those who actually divorced that Jesus was speaking out. And it's thanks to mistranslating the Greek into divorce or thinking of it as divorce that the Church came up with its stance of divorce. Not that it happened out of the blue or that everyone agreed early on.

MasterThief: But after reading some of the reviews of Boswell's book by other historians and theologians, I think Boswell was only seeing what he wanted to see, and I doubt his work is going to change many hearts or minds on the subject.


Some historians and theologians don't like it when someone shows up and points out that perhaps they're wrong like Boswell did. Some of the criticisms I've read of Boswell are utterly lacking in merit, they're just people who can't stand that he pointed out something they should've picked up on themselves. And for all the claims that it meant something else, there's scant little effort put forth to actually prove it.
 
2012-05-10 10:49:24 PM  

Eshkar: you want some fun research... look up "Natural Eunuchs" it turns out the Church around 300 CE changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean someone without equipment. In Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Greece, Rome, and yes even ancient Israel there were two categories of Eunuchs (one Category had two subgroups), first they had unnatural Eunuchs which were either people born with a defect (hence unnatural) or the ones that were made Eunuchs. Then you had the second category, the Natural Eunuchs, they are born and remain 'fully functional' they just lack the inclination. They are what we would call Homosexuals. They weren't referred to as men because in order to be a man you had to have sex with women and produce babies. So in ancient law like in Israel when they said two men shouldn't lie together as one would with women, what they were really saying in today's vernacular is that two heterosexual men shouldn't have sex. Rome had the same kind of law as did Egypt. Though man could have sex with a Eunuch as long as the Eunuch was the passive partner. You look at ancient Roman law and it even outlines this. So when Jesus made reference to "Natural Eunuch's" when he was talking about marriage (remember the 'Gospels' weren't written down until around 70 CE in Rome and so they would have been using Roman Vernacular) he was making a reference to Homosexual Men when he said that there are Eunuchs born this way. The early church use to have Eunuch priest (gay ones, don't forget if your made a Eunuch or were born with a defect you weren't allowed in temple service), sadly those priest sided with the anti-Nicean group and after the Niceans won out they started to turn against all Eunuchs until finally they just changed the meaning of Eunuch to only mean unnatural Eunuch and made sure that if any Natural Eunuchs were caught in homosexual acts they would be made unnatural Eunuchs.
So congrats to the world... you have helped and perpetuated a thousands+ year old vendetta by the Catho ...


Can I pay you to have Christmas dinner with my family?

And where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
 
2012-05-10 10:50:29 PM  

GhostFish: steamingpile: GhostFish: Nothing is gained from trying to push this.

There's no real evidence to support it, and no one that's against same-sex marriage is going to be swayed by it.

You only do yourself a disservice by spreading this circumstantial bullshiat.

Well hey what about the gay penguins?!?!?!?!

When its just a matter of numbers and genetic anomalies where scents are put forth, its the Jaime Lee Curtis variable.

Please do us all a favor and get a real hobby.


I have a hobby and its not giving a shiat who is sticking their dick in whom.

99% of the public doesn't care if you're gay or not, why do they have to force the issue by getting marriage on the docket? There are legal contracts that are more binding in a court than any marriage certificate, I should know I'm not married but the our document with the GF held more weight with the hospital than my own farking mother showing up.

Again let it farking go, in a very short time it will not be an.issue at all but pushing it like this is just prolonging the issues with gays.
 
2012-05-10 10:51:43 PM  
You remember that time in the 10th to 12th centuries when the Christian church had its soldiers invading foreign countries, pillaging them and forcing its citizenry to convert to Christianity under pain of death? Yeah, that was a pretty cool time
 
2012-05-10 10:54:39 PM  

colledge: You remember that time in the 10th to 12th centuries when the Christian church had its soldiers invading foreign countries, pillaging them and forcing its citizenry to convert to Christianity under pain of death? Yeah, that was a pretty cool time


In Christianity's defense, it was a Christian Nation (tm).
 
2012-05-10 10:55:25 PM  

MasterThief: EBSCO


Hey, I used to work for them! It was my first job in the Bay Area (mid-90s). Didn't even know they were still around, what with the Internet and all.
 
2012-05-10 10:55:34 PM  
Not to be pedantic, but isn't copy-pasting a wall of text from someone's book, then calling it a blog post and putting your own name on it, a total no-no?
 
2012-05-10 10:57:22 PM  

steamingpile: Again let it farking go, in a very short time it will not be an.issue at all but pushing it like this is just prolonging the issues with gays.


Silence in the face of injustice is acceptance of that injustice. Insisting we don't deserve equal access to civil institutions is much more responsible for prolonging the issue than speaking out for our rights.
 
2012-05-10 10:57:39 PM  

ck1938: I forgot to check the authorship but it sounds like something David Icke would put together. It would be perfect on the History Channel, squished in between Bigfoot and Illuminati documentaries.


This article has been published multiple times since '09. The only significant changes are the authors' names and occasionally the picture at the top.
If you Google a chunk of text from the main body you'll get multiple links to the same article, different 'writers'
 
2012-05-10 10:58:27 PM  

Forgot_my_password_again: Thats fascinating. I'm a medieval european history buff and I never heard of that.


Not much of a history buff or Farker as this is not even close to being new and has been discussed here many times.
 
2012-05-10 10:59:02 PM  

wildcardjack: Hmmm, Wiki has a whole list of the children of Basil the first.

Hmm, passage lifted from some dude named John Boswell...

Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century[www.assoc-amazon.com image 1x1]

Crap. I thought I recognized that name. I have a copy of that book... In a UPS box for delivery tomorrow. I can't give the book a once over because I come across a copy about once a year.


I'll have a copy of it in about an hour.
 
2012-05-10 11:00:07 PM  

ModernLuddite: Not to be pedantic, but isn't copy-pasting a wall of text from someone's book, then calling it a blog post and putting your own name on it, a total no-no?


So long as it's clearly presented as someone else's words? No. It may be a bit lazy, but credit is given to the original author and the text itself is presented to stand apart from the rest of the text. Also it links to the blog post where it was encountered. And that blog post as a link to somewhere else. There's no plagiarism nor claim of the content being original, so I'd say it's fine.
 
2012-05-10 11:01:24 PM  
The article still doesn't explain why the little Greek boy ran away from home.
 
2012-05-10 11:01:49 PM  

edMinton: MrEricSir: They didn't take a position on abortion until what, the 20th century? Christian morality is incredibly inconsistent.


Absolutely. But only religious people claim that their morals are unwavering and were handed down directly from God.
 
2012-05-10 11:02:18 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: The words of Christ Himself:

Matthew 5:27-28 ESV

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 19:9 ESV

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

I'm going to go park outside of Vegas Congress and throw stones at all those men who are committing adultery.


FIFY, I think you'll get more hits in DC.
 
2012-05-10 11:05:32 PM  

steamingpile: BronyMedic: Gwendolyn: I can't find anything about Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. I'd love to have another talking point against the nut-job evangelicals but people seem to like to re-write history for this stuff.

This. But, you have to remember you're dealing with people who will go so far as to falsify studies to label homosexuals as child molesters so they won't win custody of their children, and rewrite history to claim things like "America's laws are all based on the ten commandments"

So they are falsifying religious data to prove their point, at least in the kid touching realm there are old men that seem to prey on little boys.


Women too. Seriously, between the Catholic Church and female teachers, there must be something irresistible about young boys that I'm just not getting.
 
2012-05-10 11:06:46 PM  
Lsherm:

The priest teaching my class also pointed out, obviously, that Boswell was homosexual and his orientation would influence "the art of translation."

Whatever medieval ceremonies of union he may have found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth. ~ Camille Paglia

1 Timothy 1.9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
 
2012-05-10 11:08:45 PM  

MasterThief: TheEdibleSnuggie: Wait, you mean God...and Jesus...was okay with the homogays?

IN MY BIBLE? IN MY RELIGION!??!??!?!?!?!??!??!??!!!??!??!!!?


/end faux outrage.

However, I find this story very interesting and actually want to do a bit more research on the topic.

Have at it.

It seems like Boswell's book was pretty much panned by academics when it first came out in 1994. (One of the good things about working at a university - unlimited access to EBSCO and ProQuest to read book reviews from the mid-90's). And sadly, since Boswell died of AIDS shortly after the book was released, there's not going to be a revised edition responding to the critics.

As one of the few Catholics on Fark, I would desperately like for Boswell to have been right, and for the prohibition on gay marriage to have been a 14th Century social custom that somehow got put into the teaching of the Church. (I have a close friend from law school who is gay and very happily married, and spending time with him and his husband is what made me think that gay marriage isn't going to be the social disaster many think it will be.) But after reading some of the reviews of Boswell's book by other historians and theologians, I think Boswell was only seeing what he wanted to see, and I doubt his work is going to change many hearts or minds on the subject.


Thank you much sir!

It is greatly appreciated.
 
2012-05-10 11:09:52 PM  
cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com

In case that image doesn't come up, here's the Doonesbury comic that mentioned this back in 1994.

I remember reading that wondering how legit this whole idea was, but actually not enough to do the research. Then again, back in 1994, I don't think I would have been capable of doing the research.
 
2012-05-10 11:09:59 PM  

Bevets: Lsherm:

The priest teaching my class also pointed out, obviously, that Boswell was homosexual and his orientation would influence "the art of translation."

Whatever medieval ceremonies of union he may have found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth. ~ Camille Paglia

1 Timothy 1.9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.


In my defense, I'm not practicing any more... I've perfected my form already.
 
2012-05-10 11:10:35 PM  
What a man who once lived called Jesus said or didn't say is irrelevant. There wasnt anything special about him except that he had followers. There is no God, and heaven and hell are lies, so please stop basing any argument against human equality on any of these nonsense ideas. Try it, if you cant, you need to try harder to mute your conditioned and ingrained ideas/responses.
 
2012-05-10 11:11:06 PM  

Devolving_Spud: Can I pay you to have Christmas dinner with my family?

And where can I subscribe to your newsletter?



sarcasm?
 
2012-05-10 11:13:13 PM  

Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9


Oh good citing the letter of Timothy, that was written 30 years after Paul was executed yet still has Paul's name attached to it. And had Paul ever seen he'd have torn to pieces.
 
2012-05-10 11:15:11 PM  

slave2grind: What a man who once lived called Jesus said or didn't say is irrelevant. There wasnt anything special about him except that he had followers. There is no God, and heaven and hell are lies, so please stop basing any argument against human equality on any of these nonsense ideas. Try it, if you cant, you need to try harder to mute your conditioned and ingrained ideas/responses.


Jesus was a swell guy and didn't say anything about it, but his idiot followers haven't shut up about it for two thousand years.
 
2012-05-10 11:17:05 PM  
Leave it to an American to say "the Church" as if language, region, and denomination doesn't matter. Fark you, Submitter, because of dickbags like you, atheists think that there is one monolithic church...and that makes it impossible to have a reasonable or pragmatic conversation with them about politics.
 
2012-05-10 11:19:38 PM  

Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9


that is a mistranslation, it doesn't say nor refer to Homosexuals, it is referring to Male prostitutes that were temple whores.
 
2012-05-10 11:21:03 PM  

firefly212: Jesus was a swell guy and didn't say anything about it, but his idiot followers haven't shut up about it for two thousand years.


He didn't say anything about the Roman child sex trade, a quite lucrative business at the time, either. Does that mean that is OK? Someone get NAMBLA on the phone.
 
2012-05-10 11:23:14 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Leave it to an American to say "the Church" as if language, region, and denomination doesn't matter. Fark you, Submitter, because of dickbags like you, atheists think that there is one monolithic church...


Nah. There's dickbags, nutjobs, douchewaffles, closet cases, the feeble-minded, the evil... we know that.
 
2012-05-10 11:25:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Cobataiwan: I hate to say this, as I support gay marriage myself, but aren't these rites different from marriage, as in the have a special name "office of civil union" or what not?

They had different names, but keep in mind at the time this was going on, the church had nothing to say on marriage, it wasn't even a sacrament yet. And often times what you find is names that come from particular regions, like the French term affrèrement, however it's not that it was something separate but rather a type. So it wasn't so much something separate from marriage but rather one of the types of marriage that existed.


Very interesting. Often our ancestors had much better institutions than the modern ones. I am not sure that we could have different kinds of marriage today, though. Isn't that the whole complaint against civil unions?

And I see a sort of contradiction in your statement...the church had nothing to say on marriage, but you later claim it was a type of marriage. Care to explain how that can be true?
 
2012-05-10 11:26:37 PM  

Crosshair: firefly212: Jesus was a swell guy and didn't say anything about it, but his idiot followers haven't shut up about it for two thousand years.

He didn't say anything about the Roman child sex trade, a quite lucrative business at the time, either. Does that mean that is OK? Someone get NAMBLA on the phone.


Actually Jesus did say stuff about it, he made reference to it when discussing Eunuchs "born that way" (which would have been understood by the modern Roman audience of that day to refer to what we call homosexuals) and he also condoned it when the centurion came to Jesus begging him to heal his dieing slave boy, which again Romans vernacular would have had an understanding that the boy was his 'body slave', essentially his passive male lover. Jesus healed the boy and also failed to say one of the lines he usually said "go and sin no more" instead he used this man's love for his boy slave as an example of what love is.
 
2012-05-10 11:27:16 PM  

Eshkar: Crosshair: firefly212: Jesus was a swell guy and didn't say anything about it, but his idiot followers haven't shut up about it for two thousand years.

He didn't say anything about the Roman child sex trade, a quite lucrative business at the time, either. Does that mean that is OK? Someone get NAMBLA on the phone.

Actually Jesus did say stuff about it, he made reference to it when discussing Eunuchs "born that way" (which would have been understood by the modern Roman audience of that day to refer to what we call homosexuals) and he also condoned it when the centurion came to Jesus begging him to heal his dieing slave boy, which again Romans vernacular would have had an understanding that the boy was his 'body slave', essentially his passive male lover. Jesus healed the boy and also failed to say one of the lines he usually said "go and sin no more" instead he used this man's love for his boy slave as an example of what love is.


reference to Homosexuality that is
 
2012-05-10 11:29:51 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Look also to the Roman Empire, which performed maritus, and it had nothing to do with gender. It was about property, taxes, and heirs.

Which is what marriage is, now, in America.

Christians get confused. They think "marriage" is a religious thing, when it's merely a legal contract between two people (which should, thus, not discriminate based on gender). The thing that is religious is a "wedding ceremony".

Nobody is telling Christians that they have to perform same-gender weddings. All anybody is asking for is same-gender marriage (i.e. legal contracts).

And here's another thing that bugs me: People allow the Christians to control the discussion when they use the term "same-sex marriage." What we're actually talking about is same-gender legal marriage.

What's the difference?

When you same "same-sex" you conjure up images of sexual activity, which makes a lot of uptight Americans get the picture of two men having sex in their head, which immediately puts these uptight Americans into "shut-down" mode.

If we speak of gender instead of sex, we make it a gender discrimination issue instead of a sexuality issue.

Finally, like the Romans, I don't think same-gender marriage should have anything to do with sex or even love. Two best friends of any gender should be able to marry if it suits their legal needs. What's wrong with naming your platonic best friend as your legal next-of-kin? What's wrong with making it so the person you trust most can inherit your estate and make important decisions when you're unable to do so?

This should not be about being gay or straight. It should be 100% about gender discrimination in the face of a contract between two adult, human, Americans.


Yes, because when most people talk about getting "married" the first thing everyone pictures is "2 legal adults signing government paperwork".

No, the first thing people think when they hear "marriage" is a wedding ceremony. Two people in love, planning to spend their lives together. White dress, tux, best men, flower girl ect... (or whatever their preferences are.)

I'm all for the government side of things for *anyone* being a "civil union".

Let people define their own marriages (as it's meant culturally at this time) under whatever terms they want. Madly in love, soul-mate, breeding partner. Whatever.

None of that has any bearing on government red tape, nor should it. It is frankly, none of the government business what someone's personal feelings are, merely that the criteria for the paperwork is met.

If that criteria is the written consent of two legal adults, than that's all the further they need to look.
 
2012-05-10 11:36:56 PM  

Cobataiwan: I am not sure that we could have different kinds of marriage today, though. Isn't that the whole complaint against civil unions?


Well in the case at hand different types meant nothing more than one type for a man and woman and another type for two men, while they may have been stated differently, functionally they were the same thing. For the French it was two men coming together to be of one bread, one wine and one purse. Which just signified how much they were uniting.
 
2012-05-10 11:36:59 PM  
Same sex marriage may have been legitimate but then later ruled heretical.

I do know the word BUGGERY (sodomy) comes from the word BULGARIAN which referred to the Christian sect of Bogomils which reputedly enjoyed or employed buggery. This sect became popular so the main church crushed them for theological hearsay (not for practicing buggery) but this gave buggery a bad name.

Anyway, some people even today will use "Bulgarian" to denote homosexuals.
 
2012-05-10 11:38:15 PM  
Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9

that is a mistranslation, it doesn't say nor refer to Homosexuals, it is referring to Male prostitutes that were temple whores.


Having several bible apps containing dozens, if not hundreds of translations, I decided to check to see which particular version had been "mistranslated". Every version I consulted (CEV, NIV, ESV, KJB, NKJB etc etc ad nauseam) all speak very clearly to "homosexual behaviour". I can't find a single one that refers to "man whores" in so much as an oblique fashion. I even checked with the more contemporary versions, because it might be argued that the older versions had been translated with a bias.

I will concur that occasionally a group will translate a bible with a political agenda behind it (I am looking at you, Jehova's Witnesses), but they usually are a standout among the established, scholarly and accpeted translations.

If you can point out to me which of the accepted translations refers to "temple prostitues" rather than homosexuals, I would be very interested in following it up.
 
2012-05-10 11:43:15 PM  

KimNorth: Hey my computer would not let me go to the site stating suspicious site WARNING!

I think that is all I need to know....


Didn't finish reading the comments, but I can tell you that the original article was published in the Colfax Record here in Cali back in 2008 - around the time we were voting on Prop 8. It's been lurking around the intarwebs ever since. Here's an archived copy from another site. (pops)

Honestly, I don't care what they did in Europe hundreds of years ago. I care how SCOTUS is going to interpret the 14th amendment when the same gender marriage crap hits them. I also don't want to be that person who bristles if someone wants me to live by the rules of a faith I do not share with them because I find it reprehensible, but then insist that the faith I have rejected is "right" about something. I'll go full secular on this one, thanks. (Though it is fun to poke people farknozzles in the eye with things like that article from time to time)
 
2012-05-10 11:45:21 PM  
Look up Ruth and Naomi. Look up David and Samuel. They were in love, and they were celebrated. Hell, David became king! Why would the authors of the Bible condemn homosexuality and clearly show that King David was gay?
 
2012-05-10 11:45:54 PM  

firefly212: Bevets: Lsherm:

The priest teaching my class also pointed out, obviously, that Boswell was homosexual and his orientation would influence "the art of translation."

Whatever medieval ceremonies of union he may have found, Boswell has not remotely established that they were originally homosexual in our romantic sense. Their real meaning has yet to be determined. Sacrilegious misuse of such ceremonies may indeed have occurred, leading to their banning, but historians are unjustified in extrapolating backwards and reducing fragmentary evidence to its lowest common denominator. The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth. ~ Camille Paglia

1 Timothy 1.9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

In my defense, I'm not practicing any more... I've perfected my form already.


Ba-dum-tissssssh

/FTFY
 
2012-05-10 11:47:00 PM  

Eshkar: Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9

that is a mistranslation, it doesn't say nor refer to Homosexuals, it is referring to Male prostitutes that were temple whores.


He doesn't care. If there's any sin that Bevets revels in, it's bearing false witness.
 
2012-05-10 11:47:45 PM  

Eshkar: Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9

that is a mistranslation, it doesn't say nor refer to Homosexuals, it is referring to Male prostitutes that were temple whores.


You're referring to a mistranslation of the term "arsenokoites". Arsenokoites is literally "man-beds", but it is clearly NOT simply "homosexual men", because there's a contemporary term for that, "androkoites".

It is an exceptionally rare word, in fact it only has a few surviving references in all of antiquity, most the bible, which doesn't explain anything. Later AD references would be pointless, since they are contemporary beliefs about what "arsenokoites" was supposed to be in Leviticus.

Philo said it was temple prostitution, but he lived 20BC-40AD, but it was hundreds of years after Leviticus was written. It's not a bad source, but hardly ironclad.

Paul the Apostle uses the term several times. Now Paul was a contemporary of Philo but not related to Philo's work, and Paul didn't clarify what he was talking about, and may simply have been parroting what he read in Leviticus. Something even HE didn't understand.

The reality is that Leviticus' use of arsenokoites can only be decoded if a contemporary source with a supporting contextual explanation is dug up somewhere. It will probably never happen, its meaning is lost forever.
 
2012-05-10 11:48:05 PM  

SharkTrager: Not much of a history buff or Farker as this is not even close to being new and has been discussed here many times.


No, sorry. Don't live and breath fark like you.

Which makes me happy.
 
2012-05-10 11:52:11 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Look also to the Roman Empire, which performed maritus, and it had nothing to do with gender. It was about property, taxes, and heirs.

Which is what marriage is, now, in America.

Christians get confused. They think "marriage" is a religious thing, when it's merely a legal contract between two people (which should, thus, not discriminate based on gender). The thing that is religious is a "wedding ceremony".

Nobody is telling Christians that they have to perform same-gender weddings. All anybody is asking for is same-gender marriage (i.e. legal contracts).


There isn't enough THIS on the internet to fully describe how much I agree with you on this. This is literally, almost word-for-word, what I've been saying for years.
 
2012-05-10 11:54:23 PM  

Gwendolyn: I can't find anything about Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. I'd love to have another talking point against the nut-job evangelicals but people seem to like to re-write history for this stuff.


Wikipedia says Basil I had two wives, both female, and nine kids. No mention of John.
 
2012-05-10 11:55:34 PM  

colledge: Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9

that is a mistranslation, it doesn't say nor refer to Homosexuals, it is referring to Male prostitutes that were temple whores.

Having several bible apps containing dozens, if not hundreds of translations, I decided to check to see which particular version had been "mistranslated". Every version I consulted (CEV, NIV, ESV, KJB, NKJB etc etc ad nauseam) all speak very clearly to "homosexual behaviour". I can't find a single one that refers to "man whores" in so much as an oblique fashion. I even checked with the more contemporary versions, because it might be argued that the older versions had been translated with a bias.

I will concur that occasionally a group will translate a bible with a political agenda behind it (I am looking at you, Jehova's Witnesses), but they usually are a standout among the established, scholarly and accpeted translations.

If you can point out to me which of the accepted translations refers to "temple prostitues" rather than homosexuals, I would be very interested in following it up.


"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts (original greek): "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Also look in the Roman Latin Vulgate Bible or the 1545 German Bible of Martin Luther which do not make interpret it as homosexuals in that scripture nor in 1 Corinthians 6:9.
and yes the later Church had an agenda in it's interpretation of this scripture due to my earlier mentioned fight among Eunuch Priest and the Niceans after the council of Nicea.
 
2012-05-11 12:02:27 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Gwendolyn: I can't find anything about Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. I'd love to have another talking point against the nut-job evangelicals but people seem to like to re-write history for this stuff.

Wikipedia says Basil I had two wives, both female, and nine kids. No mention of John.


Dude. His name was Basil.
 
2012-05-11 12:04:42 AM  

Eshkar: colledge: Bevets: 1 Timothy 1.9

that is a mistranslation, it doesn't say nor refer to Homosexuals, it is referring to Male prostitutes that were temple whores.

Having several bible apps containing dozens, if not hundreds of translations, I decided to check to see which particular version had been "mistranslated". Every version I consulted (CEV, NIV, ESV, KJB, NKJB etc etc ad nauseam) all speak very clearly to "homosexual behaviour". I can't find a single one that refers to "man whores" in so much as an oblique fashion. I even checked with the more contemporary versions, because it might be argued that the older versions had been translated with a bias.

I will concur that occasionally a group will translate a bible with a political agenda behind it (I am looking at you, Jehova's Witnesses), but they usually are a standout among the established, scholarly and accpeted translations.

If you can point out to me which of the accepted translations refers to "temple prostitues" rather than homosexuals, I would be very interested in following it up.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts (original greek): "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
Also look in the Roman Latin Vulgate Bible or the 1545 German Bible of Martin Luther which do not make interpret it as homosexuals in that scripture nor in 1 Corinthians 6:9.
and yes the later Church had an agenda in it's interpretation of this scripture due to my earlier mentioned fight among Eunuch Priest and the Niceans after the council of Nicea.


I don't think anyone today understands what "temple prostitution" actually was. It was some sort of ritual or fashion or something... whether it was considered deviant or sanctified or just something to do while bored, whether it was private or somewhat public.

The weird part is that by the time Apostle Paul used the term in Roman Corinth, the practice of "temple prostitution", whatever that was, was LONG since extinct. Paul MIGHT be quoting Leviticus without knowing for sure what it was, but he was sure enough that it was something bad. Or, maybe he DID think it meant "homosexual". But who knows. I don't know why anyone would dwell on Paul's opinions about things, 2000 years after the fact. His claim to fame is having known Jesus, but that doesn't give him super powers. If Jesus wanted this to be important, maybe he should have said it himself.
 
2012-05-11 12:05:53 AM  
John Boswell - a gay revisionist historian. The discredited historical research of John Boswell who died of AIDS in 1994. Boswell re-interprets the story of the martyrdom of St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman army officers exposed as Christians and martyred for their faith, as being two gay Christian lovers.

Old and busted.
 
2012-05-11 12:06:42 AM  

GhostFish: Benevolent Misanthrope: ZoeNekros: Don't engage "defense of marriage" people on their own terms. There's no reason to respond to "that's they way it's always been" because that's not an argument. It doesn't matter how wrong they are historically speaking, but only how wrong they are morally speaking. Even if they were right about the history or marriage, it shouldn't be that way. It is immoral to treat gay couples as second-class citizens. That's all there is to it.

Forgive me, but if the dumbasses spout bullshiat as Eternal Truth™, I think the rest of have the right to call bullshiat. And I truly do not give a fark if it offends them. Christians need to be taught that, however willing they are to suspend reason and believe anything said to them by a self-appointed moral arbiter, the rest of us most certainly are not.

Yeah, but they're willing to suspend reason and believe anything said to them by a self-appointed moral arbiter.
So why are you wasting your breath?


This begs the question... If same sex marriage should be legal... Why not polygamy? Quite literally every pro and con about either has the same effects. So riddle me this... Oh open-minded one?
 
2012-05-11 12:08:45 AM  
www.christianity-revealed.com
Is it just me, or do both these dudes look like Michael Cera?
 
2012-05-11 12:10:17 AM  
They didn't call it The Dark Ages for nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report