Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

[Anonymous]

Muslims throw gay men off buildings in the Middle East. They hang gay men too.

Why do Muslims do those things, and why do people not mention it and ignore it when discussing religion and glbtia+?

We are supposed to be shocked and disgusted by Christians who aren’t affirming what they consider sin, but still expressing love for gay people as God’s creations, yet close our eyes to the violent nature of Islam’s treatment of gay people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ancient world pre Christianity wasn't exactly a welcoming place for homosexuality either. There were variations across the civilized world on how homosexual activity was viewed but there was never a time or place where same sex couples could marry and be treated as fully valid in the eyes of society. Roman society pre Christianity certainly saw homosexuality as deviant behavior and accusations of homosexual activity was a slur. That said, homosexual activity was also commonplace as a sexual activity.

A great deal of it had to do with that people were viewed through the prism of class and culture, not sex, and as long as you performed cultural public facing expectations of your tribe in your public behavior and attitudes, which would be extremely traditional and regulated, what happened in the bedroom was irrelevant. So an emperor could have a wife, as was culturally expected for him, but have his gay lovers too, and it wouldn't be that controversial. But for an emperor to have a male "husband" would have been enormously controversial and widely derided.

You can certainly make the case that Christianity codified attitudes that led to less tolerance for homosexual activity, especially the Christian emphasis on sexual purity and the sanctity of sex between male and female (which, if anything, distinctly benefited Christian women over pagan women). But in practice it changed little. The entire history of the Christian world is littered with homosexual activity. It was rampant enough in the medieval era. If anything, my own casual observation is that it was really the tribal Germanic cultures who adopted the Christian faith that had more to do with homophobia in the later ages than anything in the Bible or the early Church in the Mediterranean world. We can see how there was always more tolerance for homosexual behavior behind closed doors in the Mediterranean Europe than Germanic/Northern Europe, which is an intriguing angle and worth exploring.

The real cultural changes launched by the widespread adoption of the Christian faith was the status of women. And babies. The early Christians were perceived as weirdos for rescuing unwanted abandoned female babies, a commonplace activity of the time.

The real cultural changes launched by the widespread adoption of the Christian faith was the status of women. And babies. The early Christians were perceived as weirdos for rescuing unwanted abandoned female babies, a commonplace activity of the time.

Thank you for writing this. This is absolutely true. Christianity was a radical new way of the order of life for women and the treatment of poor people, unwanted babies, children, slaves. Christianity said their lives were valuable and told Christians to love them and treat them with kindness and love in the name of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ really changed the world. It’s very sad so few understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

Can I preface this by saying that I really appreciate the thoughtful back and forth here. It’s so rare in the religion forum.

We just don’t know what Jesus thought about homosexuality, because there’s no record of it.

As you point out, times have changed. Now homosexual relations are possible within the institution of marriage. We can’t say either way what Jesus would have thought of that. Importantly, though, we can’t assert that he would have disapproved.

[Anonymous]

It's obvious that early religions/nations were extremely committed to procreation, because that's how nations grew in power and survive.

Homosexuality detracted from procreation.

The Pope himself recently clarified that freaky sex is all good and godly, in the context of procreative marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

How is monogamy better for women?

Monogamy means fewer women get a rich husband, a larger share of the homemaking work, and have more pressure for sex or their husband's company, and then more than now, women didn't get to choose a husband whose company they'd enjoy.
Polygamy is better than monogamy for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This recent doc makes sense to me. I am a straight Christian but value being part of a welcoming inclusive church. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, many historians believe ast Owul’s condemnation was referring to ancient Roman practice of older men exploiting young boys (pedophilia) rather than homosexuality between consenting adults. The oft quoted Leviticus scriptures were in context of seemly conduct for the Temple - and if the reference to homosexuality being an abomination were a mistranslation, that makes sense to me.

We are all made in God’s image.

Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/01/christian-homophobia-bible-mistranslation-1946-documentary

A new documentary challenges an alleged 1946 mistranslation that helped lead to a justification for Christian anti-gayness
Vivian Ho
Fri 1 Dec 2023

What if all the anti-gay, homophobic rhetoric that has come from the Christian right over these past few decades was rooted in a mistranslation of the Bible?
In the documentary, 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted Culture, researchers and scholars delve into the 1946 mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and explore how it fuelled the Christian anti-gay movement that still thrives today.

Ha! Google knows that "ast Owul's" is a variant spelling of "St Paul's"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

I have a difficult time with interpreting what compassionate looks like with regard to sin.
Because he loved everyone, spent time with, invited everyone,…to “go and sin no more”
—which we know is an impossible task. But we strive not to sin, fail, and ask forgiveness.

My issue with this is not in being compassionate toward others who are “in sin” as we ALL are. But it’s in the “pride” part of it. IF it is a sin—which many now claim it is not, then—as Christians—we can accept and live the sinner, but we can’t be celebrating ithe state of sin and refusal to repent from it with pride parades because if I acting on an attraction to same sex is sinful, God does not want us doing that.
And since God does not want us having sexual relationships outside of the marriage covenant, and has defined Biblical marriage as a covenant between man, woman, and God, it is difficult to reconcile affirming same sex relations in the context of what Jesus teaches is necessary for salvation (confession of sin and repentance).

On the other hand— one can probably argue that many many many (most?)heterosexual Christians have sex prior to marriage and then eventually stop doing that when they get married (“go and sin no more”) and churches don’t make a huge case out of whether they are or are not a “casual sex for 20-something singles” affirming church! There’s no flag for that outside the more liberal denominations.
It’s just sort of a non issue. The church accepts that we fall short of that expectation.
But there’s also not a casual sex parade for heterosexual that insists that we celebrate our lustful nature as part of our “identity” so it’s difficult to be consistent on this.

If “the church” can’t agreee on what behaviors are sinful, then one can’t acknowledge sin to repent from it. Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This recent doc makes sense to me. I am a straight Christian but value being part of a welcoming inclusive church. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, many historians believe ast Owul’s condemnation was referring to ancient Roman practice of older men exploiting young boys (pedophilia) rather than homosexuality between consenting adults. The oft quoted Leviticus scriptures were in context of seemly conduct for the Temple - and if the reference to homosexuality being an abomination were a mistranslation, that makes sense to me.

We are all made in God’s image.

Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/01/christian-homophobia-bible-mistranslation-1946-documentary

A new documentary challenges an alleged 1946 mistranslation that helped lead to a justification for Christian anti-gayness
Vivian Ho
Fri 1 Dec 2023

What if all the anti-gay, homophobic rhetoric that has come from the Christian right over these past few decades was rooted in a mistranslation of the Bible?
In the documentary, 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted Culture, researchers and scholars delve into the 1946 mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and explore how it fuelled the Christian anti-gay movement that still thrives today.

The homophobia appears to be (extremely) exasperated in the Catholic community, why???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

I have a difficult time with interpreting what compassionate looks like with regard to sin.
Because he loved everyone, spent time with, invited everyone,…to “go and sin no more”
—which we know is an impossible task. But we strive not to sin, fail, and ask forgiveness.

My issue with this is not in being compassionate toward others who are “in sin” as we ALL are. But it’s in the “pride” part of it. IF it is a sin—which many now claim it is not, then—as Christians—we can accept and live the sinner, but we can’t be celebrating ithe state of sin and refusal to repent from it with pride parades because if I acting on an attraction to same sex is sinful, God does not want us doing that.
And since God does not want us having sexual relationships outside of the marriage covenant, and has defined Biblical marriage as a covenant between man, woman, and God, it is difficult to reconcile affirming same sex relations in the context of what Jesus teaches is necessary for salvation (confession of sin and repentance).

On the other hand— one can probably argue that many many many (most?)heterosexual Christians have sex prior to marriage and then eventually stop doing that when they get married (“go and sin no more”) and churches don’t make a huge case out of whether they are or are not a “casual sex for 20-something singles” affirming church! There’s no flag for that outside the more liberal denominations.
It’s just sort of a non issue. The church accepts that we fall short of that expectation.
But there’s also not a casual sex parade for heterosexual that insists that we celebrate our lustful nature as part of our “identity” so it’s difficult to be consistent on this.

If “the church” can’t agreee on what behaviors are sinful, then one can’t acknowledge sin to repent from it. Simple as that.

I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

I have a difficult time with interpreting what compassionate looks like with regard to sin.
Because he loved everyone, spent time with, invited everyone,…to “go and sin no more”
—which we know is an impossible task. But we strive not to sin, fail, and ask forgiveness.

My issue with this is not in being compassionate toward others who are “in sin” as we ALL are. But it’s in the “pride” part of it. IF it is a sin—which many now claim it is not, then—as Christians—we can accept and live the sinner, but we can’t be celebrating ithe state of sin and refusal to repent from it with pride parades because if I acting on an attraction to same sex is sinful, God does not want us doing that.
And since God does not want us having sexual relationships outside of the marriage covenant, and has defined Biblical marriage as a covenant between man, woman, and God, it is difficult to reconcile affirming same sex relations in the context of what Jesus teaches is necessary for salvation (confession of sin and repentance).

On the other hand— one can probably argue that many many many (most?)heterosexual Christians have sex prior to marriage and then eventually stop doing that when they get married (“go and sin no more”) and churches don’t make a huge case out of whether they are or are not a “casual sex for 20-something singles” affirming church! There’s no flag for that outside the more liberal denominations.
It’s just sort of a non issue. The church accepts that we fall short of that expectation.
But there’s also not a casual sex parade for heterosexual that insists that we celebrate our lustful nature as part of our “identity” so it’s difficult to be consistent on this.

If “the church” can’t agreee on what behaviors are sinful, then one can’t acknowledge sin to repent from it. Simple as that.

I thought Jesus said we shouldn't be judging others and just be loving everyone. So why are we deciding what is a sin and what is not? That's is God's role, not ours. If someone wants to take pride in being gay, and God doesn't like that, then God will deal with that. We shouldn't be doing anything about it. We should just be loving everyone.

This. Jesus said that God is the ultimate judge, not a church bureaucracy, not you and me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

How is monogamy better for women?

Monogamy means fewer women get a rich husband, a larger share of the homemaking work, and have more pressure for sex or their husband's company, and then more than now, women didn't get to choose a husband whose company they'd enjoy.
Polygamy is better than monogamy for women.

Your point about the supposed merits of polygamy are off topic and you could be just another troll. But I disagree with every one of them, and I suspect others here do too, so here it goes.

You’re arguing that splitting your husband’s wealth and sexual attentions with other wives is better for women, not worse. I disagree, as I suspect so the vast majority here. Why is more sex, or more of your husband’s company, a bad thing, unless you hate him? Are you arguing that marital intimacy is actually a bad thing?

As you point out, the point about showing your husband is outdated, although I’m not sure why this is relevant. Your other point, about vying to be the only wife of a rich husband, is obsolete now that women can earn their own money, also it makes no sense because the earnings of a guy who makes $500k means “only” (sarcasm here) $250k apiece if there are two wives and less if there are more wives.

Plus spare me all the jealousy among competing wives, or the unequal treatment of wives despite some scriptures saying they must be treated equally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's obvious that early religions/nations were extremely committed to procreation, because that's how nations grew in power and survive.

Homosexuality detracted from procreation.

The Pope himself recently clarified that freaky sex is all good and godly, in the context of procreative marriage.

I'm sure this is how the teaching started. It makes obvious sense in terms of history and human survival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior did not materialize out of the ectoplasm in 1946.

This. The very idea shows a complete ignorance of Christianity, the Church, and the Bible. All church teaching (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant denominations) prior to the middle 20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful. I'm not saying you have to agree with that teaching, but when people talk like "homophobia" is the result of a translation that occurred almost 2000 years into the history of the church, they are not being serious.

OP

Ignorant of what exactly? That most ancient civilizations did not stigmatize or punish homosexuality until 4th century AD when Constantine converted the declining Roman Empire to Christianity? Jesus had nothing to say about the matter giving us a sense that he did not regard homosexuality as an abomination before God in the same league as many other behaviors. He had plenty to say about other types of sin (attitudes and actions that separate us from the love of God) - such as those who were/ are judgmental, hypocritical and lack compassion for others who are suffering in different ways.

Ancient Rome
As long as a man played the penetrative role, it was socially acceptable and considered natural for him to have same-sex relations, without a perceived loss of his masculinity or social standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#:~:text=Ancient%20Rome,-Main%20articles%3A%20Sexuality&text=As%20long%20as%20a%20man,his%20masculinity%20or%20social%20standing.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Greece?
During these times, homosexuality was seen as normal and necessary due to the power dynamic at play between an older, dominant man, and a younger, submissive one. Yet, when two men of similar age shared a similar relationship, it was deemed taboo and, in fact, perverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#:~:text=During%20these%20times%2C%20homosexuality%20was,and%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20perverse.


Was homosexuality accepted in ancient Egypt?
No ancient Egyptian document mentions that homosexual acts were set under penalty. Thus it was very likely tolerated, as there has never been proof suggesting otherwise. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD is said to have exterminated a large number of "effeminate priests" based in Alexandria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#:~:text=No%20ancient%20Egyptian%20document%20mentions,effeminate%20priests%22%20based%20in%20Alexandria


Speaking for myself, many of my favorite priests and church leaders are gay. I am so glad that they can be their true awesome selves in our church (and in many others now). Jesus advised us that we will know a tree by its fruit. The gay people I know at my large church reflect the fruits of the spirit that St Paul talks about in Galatians 5: 22-23: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Against such things there is no law or condemnation.

You are guilty of cherrypicking what you want to believe and making widespread assumptions about pagan civilizations with absolutely no knowledge of them. Pagan civilizations were not beau ideals when it came to homosexuality. There was never a time when two grown male adults could openly be married in the eyes of their civilization with all the due rights associated with it. There were no rights for homosexuality. The Romans were also very aware of the Greek (some Greek, not all Greek) man-boy love and it was controversial for them and not exactly something they accepted as "normal."

A great deal of your misunderstanding lies in that homosexuality was seen as a sexual act rather than a sexual identity, whether man-boy or man-man love, or woman-woman. Roman literature and history is filled with using homosexuality as a slur against a person, not a praise, just as other forms of deviant sexual behaviors were also used slurs. At the same time, it was an era when men could engage in homosexual activity and still be treated as a regularly married man with a wife and family, which they often did have. It was treated as one would treat a fetish.

You also ignore that the mindset of the ancient world was sharply different and based on entirely different outlooks. It was a world, for example, where men had complete "ownership" over family members so if the wife produced yet another unwanted daughter, the father could order the slaves to leave the baby to be abandoned outside the walls for the vultures, and then go sleep with his male lover, assuming he had one. And it was accepted and within the bounds of legality of the times. The consideration for the value of human life practically did not exist in any meaningful sense, people were viewed by their tribe/people, their status as free or slave, and if free, their family and wealth. Society operated against that framework. A wealthy man from a prominent family would receive far more freedom and flexibility in his private life than a slave or a poor man. And the vast majority were either peasants or slaves with preciously few rights or protection. So I would be very careful before trying to see that a "better" morality was lost with the arrival of Christianity.

When Christianity arrived on the scene, it did introduce a new morality that fundamentally changed how the world viewed itself and people viewed each other, but it wasn't invented by the early Church. A great deal of Christian morality derived from the strict rules governing family and sexual relationships of the Jewish people (there were multiple Jewish groups), along with adaptation and evolution as it spread out of the Eastern Mediterranean and across the known world. Still, Jesus makes it clear that he subscribed to the laws of the Jewish people before him. But the absence of information in the Bible shouldn't be taken to mean that Jesus would have given his thumbs up to open acceptance of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not know what he would have said or thought. But given the context of his time and his origin and his people, if he thought about homosexuality, it was as a sexual act, not an identity, and given that he deferred to existing Jewish laws in so many areas governing family relationships, it's likely he would have seen it against that backdrop.

I'd consider homosexuality a red herring in many ways because we're arguing about something that didn't have the same societal meaning and perspectives at the time. It wasn't important enough to Jesus to talk about it, yet he also didn't single out acceptance of homosexuality either, and that does tell you something. The concept of a "gay man" rather than someone who liked to sleep with men first emerged in Germany in the mid 19th century. But what would be much more intriguing is the modern concept of transgenderism and non-binarism and fluid sexual identities. Now what Jesus would have thought about that is surely an interesting question.

DP. Agree that pre-Christian societies were not the tolerant paradises some here would like to think.

The tradition of man-boy love, in particular, involves power imbalances that should give us all pause.

But you’re wrong in asserting that Jesus would “likely” have opposed homosexuality because of his time and background. It also seems meaningless to conclude that because he isn’t on the record as saying anything affirmatively in favor of homosexuality, this absence “tells us something,” and that something must be negative. Against all this, you should weigh his acceptance of and love for all types of people.

PS. Jesus broke many taboos of his time. Accepting foreigners (parable of the Good Samaritan), teaching women (Mary and Martha), eating with the despised and “unclean” tax collectors, and more. Plus he lived in a heavily romanized part of the world. You just can’t assert that because he isn’t on record as saying anything affirming homosexuality, this must mean he thinks what anyone of his background would have thought.

I'm a new poster. Good points, but the taboos Jesus broke weren't sexual. We know Jesus was against adultery and fornication, and had rather strict views on a man taking only one wife (an improvement for women's status at the time). We can assume that Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality during the first century, because it was only available in the context of an extra-marital / non-marital relationship. How this translates to gay marriage in the 21st century is a but less clear. We do know his response would have been compassionate regardless.

How is monogamy better for women?

Monogamy means fewer women get a rich husband, a larger share of the homemaking work, and have more pressure for sex or their husband's company, and then more than now, women didn't get to choose a husband whose company they'd enjoy.
Polygamy is better than monogamy for women.

I can't tell if this is a real response or if it's satirical. Monogamous marriage means that a husband's resources are better able to provide for his wife and kids. Most men who practice polygyny aren't rich, and live in areas where women don't usually work outside the home (as it was then). So polygyny = thinner resources, and results in more women living in poverty. Also, lots of research shows the negative effects of polygyny on women, higher rates of domestic abuse, and worse outcomes for their kids who are all competing for resources from the dad. There is more that you're not getting here, but I don't have time to respond. Just google it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7750426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6998378/
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol64/iss6/4/