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  
•       •       •

19019 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2012 at 9:21 PM (1 year 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
 
2012-05-11 12:11:27 AM

postnobills: [www.christianity-revealed.com image 380x235]
Is it just me, or do both these dudes look like Michael Cera?


Wow. You're right. Look:

www.details.com
 
2012-05-11 12:11:41 AM

postnobills: Is it just me, or do both these dudes look like Michael Cera?


The one in the middle is Russell Brand isn't it?
 
2012-05-11 12:12:14 AM

Oznog: the practice of "temple prostitution", whatever that was, was LONG since extinct.


while I appreciate most of your post, I know that statement is wrong, we do know what Temple Prostitution was and it was still around during the time of both Jesus and Paul. In the Roman empire it was heavily practiced in the courts of the cult of Delphi, and in the temples of Aphrodite and Apollo. Temple prostitutes were a way for the Temple to make money and offer 'holy' sexual sacrifices to the gods. A man would go to the temple and pay for a prostitute, either male or female, and these prostitutes were often times priest or priestess as well. They would say a blessing and then go through a ritual sexual act. Temple prostitution didn't die out until long after the Christian conquest of the Roman Empire, when they outlawed it.
 
2012-05-11 12:12:52 AM
I don't suppose that it's worth my time to point out that there is no THE Christian church and that there are tens of thousands of denominations with distinct and sometimes widely varying beliefs and that some churches (even evangelical denominations) *cough* ELCA *cough* are fairly liberal? No? It's not worth my time because this is FARK and it's only ok to talk about religion using broad stereotypes? Oh, I see.

/yeah, I know
 
2012-05-11 12:13:31 AM

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.


That I'm not only in a Bevets thread, but that I was responded to by said farker, well, I don't know what to think. I wish I had a quote for the occasion.
 
2012-05-11 12:14:07 AM

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.


What?!? Bevets mistranslating the bible to forward his own unholy thoughts and ideas on people? You can't be serious?!?!?!?

/Bevets is a homophobe
//the kind touching you shoe in the men's room
 
2012-05-11 12:15:24 AM
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.

Luther says "Hurern", which is somebody who farks around.
 
2012-05-11 12:16:25 AM
Seriously. I cant get this out of my head:

www.christianity-revealed.com

timpfarr.files.wordpress.comtimpfarr.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-05-11 12:16:27 AM

Gwendolyn: 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.


Rewriting, or simply expurgating.

Though sweeping under the rug is also with its precedents.
 
2012-05-11 12:17:17 AM

Lsherm: I wish I had a quote for the occasion.


It's too bad that there isn't some farker that could help you with a ready supply of vaguely misquoted or out of context quotes, perhaps with a nice link to their own site to help back it up.
 
2012-05-11 12:18:27 AM

MasterThief: 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.


Wasn't celibacy just a social custom that also ended up in the teachings of the Church?

Remember that in 1095, Pope Urban II decreed: "Married priests who ignore the celibacy laws should be imprisoned for the good of their souls, and their wives and children to be sold into slavery, and the money to go to church coffers".
 
2012-05-11 12:19:19 AM
I find that the "Arsenokoitai" argument, to me, is splitting teeny weeny hairs, as it implies that the word for homosexual activity had remained fixed throughout the evolution of the Greek language and that any subtle inference that the quoted words might infer something other than the stated act must be given weight. I don't buy that.

Further, We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Well, we can't "probably" conclude that. The bible has been translated for centuries, by thousands of people working both independently and in scholarly groups, representing political and social bias from all both ends of the spectrum, and yet the almost universally accepted translation in 1 Tim 1 (and in other places ) is "homosexual".

I personally would expect that if the word were so vague and uncertain of meaning, there would be a greater divergence in the translations, but there isn't. Setting aside the subtleties of "man bed", or commonalities of use - the word has a solid and accepted translation, whether or not it conforms to our current populist ideology.

To me, its like someone trying to argue that "mid-day meal" doesn't really mean lunch because lunch can sometimes be eaten later in the afternoon, and "mid-day meal" is not used in common parlance.
 
2012-05-11 12:19:28 AM

postnobills: Seriously. I cant get this out of my head:

[www.christianity-revealed.com image 380x235]

[timpfarr.files.wordpress.com image 300x400][timpfarr.files.wordpress.com image 300x400]


www.christianity-revealed.com


collider.com

timpfarr.files.wordpress.comtimpfarr.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-05-11 12:28:28 AM

BrassArt: 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.


You said gay twice
 
2012-05-11 12:29:24 AM

colledge: I find that the "Arsenokoitai" argument, to me, is splitting teeny weeny hairs, as it implies that the word for homosexual activity had remained fixed throughout the evolution of the Greek language and that any subtle inference that the quoted words might infer something other than the stated act must be given weight. I don't buy that.

Further, We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Well, we can't "probably" conclude that. The bible has been translated for centuries, by thousands of people working both independently and in scholarly groups, representing political and social bias from all both ends of the spectrum, and yet the almost universally accepted translation in 1 Tim 1 (and in other places ) is "homosexual".

I personally would expect that if the word were so vague and uncertain of meaning, there would be a greater divergence in the translations, but there isn't. Setting aside the subtleties of "man bed", or commonalities of use - the word has a solid and accepted translation, whether or not it conforms to our current populist ideology.

To me, its like someone trying to argue that "mid-day meal" doesn't really mean lunch because lunch can sometimes be eaten later in the afternoon, and "mid-day meal" is not used in common parlance.


It isn't the long held translation for Homosexual in Greek, IT"S ONLY USED BY PAUL AND THE GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE TORAH!! In the Latin Vulgate it isn't translated as Homosexual. the Latin Vulgate is one of the earliest combined works(382 CE)! The Greek translation of the Torah was written by Philo, and educated Jewish Pharisaical (rabbi if you will) scholar. The ancient sages and Pharisees understood the reference in Leviticus to mean Sex between two men as worship of a pagan god. In the Talmud they talk about what to do in the case of Levirate marriage when it involves a Eunuch and their argument is essentially if he is born with a defect or was made that way he isn't responsible for his dead brother's wife, but if he is a Natural Eunuch, one with the ability but not the inclination then he is responsible for his dead brother's wife. So essentially, and most likely Philo invented that word to describe a passage in Leviticus, which is in reference to having sex with another man in worship of a pagan god, and Paul, being a contemporary of Philo understood that... even though Paul didn't even write that letter!
 
2012-05-11 12:30:07 AM

AR 15-6: 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?


I don't think that "literally" means what you think it means. The secular purpose of marriage is to effectively create a default "alternate" for all of your important life decisions. If you go to the hospital unresponsive, they get to make the decisions for you. They're your default power of attorney, you share ownership of everything, etc.

How exactly are you envisioning medical power of attorney working literally the same in the case of polygamy? Seriously... more than one other person you're married to, does one override the other? They share the decision? Legal ramifications of that? It's much stickier than you think. Marriage is a contract between two people, and is designed exclusively to be between two people. The sex of those persons doesn't much matter to the way the law is written, only to religious nutbags.

Repeat after me: allowing homosexual marriage does not and cannot open the "slippery slope" to polygamy, marrying of children, marrying of animals or inanimate objects or any other stupid thing like that which is used as a boogeyman, because those are untenable legal contracts.
 
2012-05-11 12:31:57 AM

steamingpile: Abortions usually resulted in deaths up until surgical procedures were perfected.


You have clearly never read The Kitchen God's Wife.
 
2012-05-11 12:32:50 AM

steamingpile: Abortions usually resulted in deaths up until surgical procedures were perfected.


Not true. When it's legal and performed by skilled practitioners, the incidence of death is low. When it's illegal, it isn't.

BTW, abortion has been practiced since ancient times.

Sometimes people just hate because they have no other way to explain it, that's why atheists seem to cheer when religious men bite the dust.

You mean like the way conservatives hate Obama just because he's black??

/the only time this atheist cheers when "religious" men die is when said men are actually lying hypocrites who preyed on the gullible
 
2012-05-11 12:32:53 AM

Oznog: His claim to fame is having known Jesus, but that doesn't give him super powers.


Nope. He only got a "vision"
 
2012-05-11 12:40:16 AM

postnobills: www.christianity-revealed.com
Is it just me, or do both these dudes look like Michael Cera?


They look like identical twins to me. We still haven't come up with a NAME for this perversion.

englishvg1.wikispaces.com

Maybe?
 
2012-05-11 12:53:57 AM
Not being a history major or anything like that, I do know that homosexuality was looked on much differently in the distant past.

It seems to me that not until the last couple of centuries has strict taboos formed. The 1900's seem to have started definite social ostracism against them. It got even worse once AIDS appeared because the media promptly and incorrectly felt it was a homosexual only disease.

It didn't help at all that 'patient zero' was gay, though I've never been able to find out where he got infected.

There are records of accepted homosexuality through Roman history. Sparta had a much honored and feared warrior troop made up of mainly paired gays. They were kind of like their special forces. Then there was that whole period of time where men dressed and acted 'Gay' wearing tights and lace, feathered hats and those rather enormous ornate collars.

Come to think of it, that was also around the time the Catholic Church was at the peak of it's power and Popes could buy their way into office.

Regardless, if you want to hammer on religion as an excuse to ban Gay marriages, it should be pointed out that there are more than 10 commandments. Actually, around a couple of hundred. With that many, you can pretty well figure out folks have been breaking or ignoring them pretty much from the time they were recorded.

There is a commandment banning any work on Sunday, which used to be enforced with rather strict punishment. That means, you could not even cook a meal for your family let alone milk the cows. Up through the 50's most general businesses closed on Sunday, by law. You could not buy booze on a Sunday.

That changed sometime between the late 60's and the early 70's. So, folks basically have no problem modifying the 10 Commandments when it suits them.

Remember, for centuries Royalty practiced incest. Then they practiced child weddings. Today some areas still accept child brides and polygamy. Taboos seem to come and go at the whim of society.

When the American Indians were left alone, the majority of the tribes just accepted homosexuality. In many, the homosexual had a position of honor or status. They didn't run them out of town on a rail or go out of their way to make their lives miserable. They had the full rights of any other member of the tribe.

I don't think there's any question that marriage for Gays is a RIGHT. Two people love each other and should be allowed to form a legal bond.

I don't suppose anyone recalls the time in the last 100 years when it was absolutely illegal for a black and white couple to marry? The consequences were quite severe. Now the law protects such unions.

Societies taboos' come and go, depending on which side has the biggest mouth and the money to buy the most political clout.

As food for thought, remember it took just one fanatic to convince an entire country to kill off as many of a section of their population as possible. When you wonder how Hitler managed that, consider the genocides around the globe since then, often performed by masses of people who had to be TOLD who to hate.
 
2012-05-11 01:15:17 AM

djkutch: Yeah. but Christianity wasn't perfected until Luther nailed his 95 thingee to some door. Like how rock wasn't perfected until Steve Miller came along in the 70's.


Does that make Nickelback the Joseph Smith of rock?
 
2012-05-11 01:15:20 AM
The church blew a golden opportunity to embrace gays.

Now, the church looks hateful and mean.

The gays are still here anyway.
 
2012-05-11 01:15:54 AM

Ace Rimmer: BrassArt: 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.

You said gay twice


He likes gay.
 
2012-05-11 01:24:54 AM
 
2012-05-11 01:25:47 AM

Eshkar: "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.


www.deviantart.com

Well, the original text had a "paiderbear" graphic, but it wasn't easy to keep copying, so they omitted it.
 
2012-05-11 01:28:53 AM

Lorelle: steamingpile: Abortions usually resulted in deaths up until surgical procedures were perfected.

Not true. When it's legal and performed by skilled practitioners, the incidence of death is low. When it's illegal, it isn't.

BTW, abortion has been practiced since ancient times.



That is correct. Abortifacient herbs have been in use since ancient times all over human civilizations. Silphium worked so well as an abortifacient in ancient Cyrene that it went extinct from over-harvesting. Other herbs like pennyroyal, tansy, and rue have also been used for this purpose. Administered by a knowledgeable herbalist, these abortifacients were safe and effective. Swallowed by the fistful carelessly, however, could be very dangerous just as with any other drug.
 
2012-05-11 01:34:40 AM

Oznog: Eshkar: "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.

[www.deviantart.com image 328x498]

Well, the original text had a "paiderbear" graphic, but it wasn't easy to keep copying, so they omitted it.


Not cool, and where was there any such implication?
 
2012-05-11 01:38:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: fusillade762: But what about all that stuff in the New Testament condemning homosexuality as a sin??

It actually doesn't, because it couldn't. A blanket condemnation of homosexuality is rather difficult to issue when you have no concept of sexuality as we have it and instead think of sexuality as quite a bit more nuanced than we do.


I'm not sure about that but the passage in Romans 1 where this is brought up is a lengthy discussion of believers deliberately rejecting God for the sake of their own pleasure. The reference to homosexuality is in context of lust so I personally don't think it's the same thing.
 
2012-05-11 01:51:53 AM

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.


He also didn't say anything about alien invasions! Clearly he favors the borg!

I didn't say he supported it, just that Jesus was silent on the issue, and his followers keep pinning all kinds of their hate on him like he was as vindictive and vitriolic as they are, I'm sure we could find a multitude of things he doesn't talk about... but there are just a few that his followers keep on pretending he spoke out about.

Fortunately, I can tell right from wrong even without threats of eternal damnation or magic rewards for not mixing fabrics. I understand the root of the stigma and all... and I'd even say Leviticus was a great guide to sanitary living back in the time it was written... but we now have refrigeration, safely mixed fabrics, relatively cleaner butchering techniques, better water filtration, oh ya, and... much to the hate of religious folk everywhere... condoms. Hardly anyone clings to the notion that sex is only for procreation anymore, yet some of the baggage that idea carried with it last to this day.
 
2012-05-11 01:54:20 AM

kg2095: steamingpile: OK in the end I just don't give a shiat if you are gay or even bi, to even blame it on one sect is insane, gays are not persecuted the way they believe.

Murdered for being gay 1
Murdered for being gay 2
Murdered for being gay 3
Murdered for being gay 4

Demonization of gays 1
Demonization of gays 2
Demonization of gays 3
Demonization of gays 4

Fired for being gay 1
Fired for being gay 2
Fired for being gay 3
Fired for being gay 4


Do you really think facts matter to bigoted twatrockets like him?
 
2012-05-11 02:07:30 AM

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.


fwiw, the bible does speak to the issue of human trafficking... if you bothered to read it, you could see that your morality is very much at odds with the bible on the issue.
 
2012-05-11 02:21:25 AM

Soymilk: Lorelle: steamingpile: Abortions usually resulted in deaths up until surgical procedures were perfected.

Not true. When it's legal and performed by skilled practitioners, the incidence of death is low. When it's illegal, it isn't.

BTW, abortion has been practiced since ancient times.



That is correct. Abortifacient herbs have been in use since ancient times all over human civilizations. Silphium worked so well as an abortifacient in ancient Cyrene that it went extinct from over-harvesting. Other herbs like pennyroyal, tansy, and rue have also been used for this purpose. Administered by a knowledgeable herbalist, these abortifacients were safe and effective. Swallowed by the fistful carelessly, however, could be very dangerous just as with any other drug.


Which is doubly interesting when you consider that these drugs were common in the eras of both Moses and Christ, yet neither group seemed to have any specific issue with them.
 
2012-05-11 02:33:08 AM

AR 15-6: 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?


First off, just a grammar point: it's "O Open-minded One." The vocative O is spelled without an "H".

But as for your question: not at all. Whether the spouses be two men, two women, or one man and one woman, marriage between two people would work the same legally. A marriage contract between three or more people, however, would have to address a number of contingencies that simply cannot happen in a two-person marriage.

Just to give one example: if Allen, Betty, and Chris get married, and then Betty wants to divorce Allen but Chris doesn't, how does that work? What if Chris and Allen want to marry Donna, but Betty doesn't? Ok, I lied, here's another example: suppose Betty is in a coma à la Terri Schiavo, but Chris and Allen disagree on whether Betty should remain on life support? Which of them gets to decide? Do they flip a coin?

I'm not claiming that these are insurmountable obstacles, but they are complications that do not arise in a two-person marriage -- and the issues here have nothing to do with the genders of any of the spouses.
 
2012-05-11 02:38:23 AM

ciberido: AR 15-6: 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?

First off, just a grammar point: it's "O Open-minded One." The vocative O is spelled without an "H".

But as for your question: not at all. Whether the spouses be two men, two women, or one man and one woman, marriage between two people would work the same legally. A marriage contract between three or more people, however, would have to address a number of contingencies that simply cannot happen in a two-person marriage.

Just to give one example: if Allen, Betty, and Chris get married, and then Betty wants to divorce Allen but Chris doesn't, how does that work? What if Chris and Allen want to marry Donna, but Betty doesn't? Ok, I lied, here's another example: suppose Betty is in a coma à la Terri Schiavo, but Chris and Allen disagree on whether Betty should remain on life support? Which of them gets to decide? Do they flip a coin?

I'm not claiming that these are insurmountable obstacles, but they are complications that do not arise in a two-person marriage -- and the issues here have nothing to do with the genders of any of the spouses.


Geez. You make marriage seem like a legal arrangement to determine property rights. It's certainly impossible to arrange a contract between more than two parties.
 
2012-05-11 04:27:49 AM

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.


Not from wiki/a>
 
2012-05-11 05:09:41 AM

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

And where can I subscribe to your newsletter?


sarcasm?


Absolutely not!

My mom and her husband are born-again evangelicals. Gays (me) are going to burn, dinosaurs are tricks of Satan, etc. But they are far from stupid people and can recite Scripture from one end to the other. But they miss the actual historical context, like what you cited, which makes all the difference.

I can't sit and argue the Bible or What Jesus Said with them when they bring it up (which is often). It would be helpful to have you (or someone like you) there!
 
2012-05-11 05:26:25 AM
I didn't read all the comments (tl) but if the article is historically accurate, this is cool stuff.
 
2012-05-11 06:41:15 AM

gingerjet: There is no doubt that there have been same sex relationships and couples throughout history - but you have to twist a lot to come to the conclusions this author did. Times and meanings change. Its impossible to put modern meanings of words and relationships to a thousand years ago.

/gay
//found this yesterday and been reading up on it pretty much all day


Not entirely true. Homosexuality was a lot more accepted in ancient Greece and Rome. But then, they were also into slavery.
 
2012-05-11 07:26:39 AM
So, if anybody wants a copy of the Boswell book: Link
 
2012-05-11 08:26:40 AM

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

Abortions usually resulted in deaths up until surgical procedures were perfected.

Sometimes people just hate because they have no other way to explain it, that's why atheists seem to cheer when religious men bite the dust.

In religion the primary teaching is the man is human and fallible so mistakes will be made and opinions can be changed later.

I'm sorry but from what I've seen the primary religious teaching is "if you don't believe correctly you are going to hell". That goes for most religions not just christianity


Cthulhu doesn't care if you believe in him or not. If you don't it just makes it a little easier to drive you mad.
 
2012-05-11 08:28:55 AM

natazha: Image

Article
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasa c hristianrite.html


Those guys are really setting off my gaydar. It's those gay eyes.
 
2012-05-11 08:33:30 AM

firefly212: So, the klan meeting in my town (when I lived in Stillwater,OK) when they hung the effigy of a black person and wrote all kinds of anti-gay slurs all over town


I remember that. I don't remember any reports of Klan involvement. The two leading theories I recall were drunk rednecks being drunk rednecks and the on-campus gay rights group (I think it was called SODA maybe?) setting the whole thing up so they would have an excuse to be outraged (this connection made largely due to their overblown reaction to the incident and their history of writing controversial things on the sidewalk).
 
2012-05-11 08:38:20 AM

BrassArt: 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.


While Boswell's work has been discredited, it is good to link to a critique that points out why it's garbage.

Procrustean marriage beds.

Excerpt:
......... On an initial reading these rituals appear similar to marriage ceremonies. They refer to the joining of two people in life-long relationship, they speak of a bond of peace and love and oneness of mind, they include ritual actions that parallel those of marriage ceremonies. Yet there are certain features of the rituals that are unlike marriage ceremonies. For example, the texts make it clear that the relation of the participants is spiritual not carnal ("by faith and spiritually"), there is no mention of the marriage bed, the term "marriage" is not used (as it is in marriage rites), the biblical readings are different from those used in marriage ceremonies, several of the rites, significantly, indicate that the relationship is that of an "elder" to a "younger," and the persons joined in the ceremonies are males.

A very telling bit of evidence that these are not gay marriage rites and that medievals knew the difference between these rituals and marriage ceremonies occurs in an eleventh-century manuscript from the Greek monastery at Grottaferrata in Italy. The relevant section is titled "rite for the making of a brother." Included under this heading is a litany, a prayer by the priest, followed by another "prayer for the making of a brother. " Immediately after this prayer a rubric is appended: "Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and the service is ended." Next there is a heading similar to that at the beginning of the section "rite for the making of a brother." This heading reads: "Ecclesiastical Canon of Marriage of the Patriarch Methodius" and it is followed by a prayer for the blessing of the "bond of marriage." This in turn is followed by another rubric which reads: "After this prayer the priest shall place the crowns on them and dismiss them." ........


Boswell's whole thesis is based on mistranslating words into something they aren't.

/I can't wait for the admins to green light the garbage from the Jesus Seminar. That would be an interesting thread.
 
2012-05-11 09:30:26 AM
Jesus Seminar? Aroo?

My religious history major is intrigued.
 
2012-05-11 09:34:37 AM

ciberido: I'm not claiming that these are insurmountable obstacles, but they are complications that do not arise in a two-person marriage -- and the issues here have nothing to do with the genders of any of the spouses.


gimmegimme: Geez. You make marriage seem like a legal arrangement to determine property rights. It's certainly impossible to arrange a contract between more than two parties.


Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat myself::

I'm not claiming that these are insurmountable obstacles. They're examples of how the issues of polygamy and same-sex marriage are not that alike.

"Insurmountable obstacles" means "impossible," by the way.
 
2012-05-11 09:34:45 AM
If I believe this, does tht mean I should believe all the other Christian paintings and writings that suggests Jesus was raised from the dead, performed miracles, etc.?
Or can I just ignore that stuff and only consider true those things that support my preconceived notions/values and permit me to continue to express a general intolerance to other ways of thinking? Please advise.
 
2012-05-11 09:47:56 AM

Sass-O-Rev: I didn't read all the comments (tl) but if the article is historically accurate, this is cool stuff.



No, the article is absolutely false. Google up some of the torture devices from that period. Most of them were specifically designed for homosexuals - like the anal pear. GIS "medieval persecution of homosexuals" and you'll see loads of serious scholarly work on the subject.

It's just a lie someone posted, because they want to claim that the current unpopularity of homo marriage is some kind of weird, recent aberration. In fact, almost every society has been anti-ghey for 3000 years.
 
2012-05-11 09:59:02 AM

WhyteRaven74: It is. The depictions of Basil I and John are consistent with a good number of other depictions dating as far back a few centuries before their time. Among historians it's pretty much been a settled matter for a few decades now.


Wow, he must've been a busy boy. If I remember correctly, Basil was the one that the previous emperor Michael married to his mistress to cover the relationship. Then to make it up for the fact that he intended to keep sleeping with Basil's new wife, Basil was allowed to sleep with the emperor's sister.

\Seems like the Byzantines were pretty open to any marriage arrangements that were convenient.
 
2012-05-11 10:19:11 AM

steamingpile: 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.


See also: "Let it go, Negros - separate but equal is just fine for you".

fark you, steamingpile. I suppose you can attempt to justify discrimination against gays if you so choose, but you're still an asshole.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report