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.

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.

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 making my point. Many ancient non-Christian civilizations did not regard homosexuality as sinful. All pre-20th-century Christian teaching is that homosexuality is sinful. You certainly don't have to accept that teaching. My point is that it is intellectually and historically dishonest to say that the bible and Christianity have not consistently been understood to condemn homosexuality for 1950 years or so. There is no way that a 1946 translation (or even a 14th, 16th, or 17th century translation) led to "Christian homophobia". That concept is intellectually dishonest and historically laughable.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:DP. It's obviously correct to say that all churches' teaching prior to mid-20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful.

As I understand it, OP and her sources are focussing on the New Testament. We all agree Jesus said nothing on the subject. The only other New Testament passage is from Paul, but the Guardian piece disputes the translation. Which if correct would leave nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality.

If that's the case, then Christians who condemn homosexuality have to fall back on the Old Testament--Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah, although the Adam Erickson piece somebody posted disputes them, too.

Point is, if you knock off the New Testament, then only Bible literalists who think everything in the Old Testament is God's word would still have a basis for homophobia. Few Christians today are Bible literalists. As a pp pointed out, the Old Testament also has father-daughter incest.

There's a third source, which is cultural biases. Undoubtedly these affected Aquinas, Luther, etc, although they did find supposed "authority" in the Bible. But culture is changing, thank goodness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It's obviously correct to say that all churches' teaching prior to mid-20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful.

As I understand it, OP and her sources are focussing on the New Testament. We all agree Jesus said nothing on the subject. The only other New Testament passage is from Paul, but the Guardian piece disputes the translation. Which if correct would leave nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality.

If that's the case, then Christians who condemn homosexuality have to fall back on the Old Testament--Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah, although the Adam Erickson piece somebody posted disputes them, too.

Point is, if you knock off the New Testament, then only Bible literalists who think everything in the Old Testament is God's word would still have a basis for homophobia. Few Christians today are Bible literalists. As a pp pointed out, the Old Testament also has father-daughter incest.

There's a third source, which is cultural biases. Undoubtedly these affected Aquinas, Luther, etc, although they did find supposed "authority" in the Bible. But culture is changing, thank goodness.

This is simply fallacious (the Guardian piece assertions, not your post). Go to Biblehub for 1 Cor. 6 and look up the Wycliffe bible (14th century), Tyndale bible (16th century), and King James bible (17th century). The King James bible uses euphemistic terms (although they would have been clear enough in the 17th century) in the 1 Cor. 6 passage, but Wycliffe is explicit, sic "nor lechers against nature, nor those who do lechery with men". These "1946 mistranslation" arguments are not a result of serious scholarship.

So do the folks in the Guardian need to go back further than 1946, back to the 16th century, and dispute those translations too? Because it seems like if the translation was wrong in 1946, it would have been wrong then, too.

Which isn't to say Christian homophobia didn't exist before 1946. Of course it did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It's obviously correct to say that all churches' teaching prior to mid-20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful.

As I understand it, OP and her sources are focussing on the New Testament. We all agree Jesus said nothing on the subject. The only other New Testament passage is from Paul, but the Guardian piece disputes the translation. Which if correct would leave nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality.

If that's the case, then Christians who condemn homosexuality have to fall back on the Old Testament--Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah, although the Adam Erickson piece somebody posted disputes them, too.

Point is, if you knock off the New Testament, then only Bible literalists who think everything in the Old Testament is God's word would still have a basis for homophobia. Few Christians today are Bible literalists. As a pp pointed out, the Old Testament also has father-daughter incest.

There's a third source, which is cultural biases. Undoubtedly these affected Aquinas, Luther, etc, although they did find supposed "authority" in the Bible. But culture is changing, thank goodness.

This is simply fallacious (the Guardian piece assertions, not your post). Go to Biblehub for 1 Cor. 6 and look up the Wycliffe bible (14th century), Tyndale bible (16th century), and King James bible (17th century). The King James bible uses euphemistic terms (although they would have been clear enough in the 17th century) in the 1 Cor. 6 passage, but Wycliffe is explicit, sic "nor lechers against nature, nor those who do lechery with men". These "1946 mistranslation" arguments are not a result of serious scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:DP. It's obviously correct to say that all churches' teaching prior to mid-20th century regarded homosexual behavior as sinful.

As I understand it, OP and her sources are focussing on the New Testament. We all agree Jesus said nothing on the subject. The only other New Testament passage is from Paul, but the Guardian piece disputes the translation. Which if correct would leave nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality.

If that's the case, then Christians who condemn homosexuality have to fall back on the Old Testament--Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah, although the Adam Erickson piece somebody posted disputes them, too.

Point is, if you knock off the New Testament, then only Bible literalists who think everything in the Old Testament is God's word would still have a basis for homophobia. Few Christians today are Bible literalists. As a pp pointed out, the Old Testament also has father-daughter incest.

There's a third source, which is cultural biases. Undoubtedly these affected Aquinas, Luther, etc, although they did find supposed "authority" in the Bible. But culture is changing, thank goodness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. I think many American Christians don’t fully understand that the Bible is actually composed of multiple documents written at multiple times from multiple perspectives— that was then translated into English hundreds of years ago by people embedded in a particular culture and language which the translation reflects. While I’m thinking KJV, I think the overall issues related to translation of very old documents from very different cultures is worth considering with respect to other translations as well.

OP

Yes and that some translations were translations themselves from Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek.

That is why historical context is important - and looking for underlying transcendent truths. Agree with PP on the command to love others as ourselves (that together with loving God, fullfills all OT laws) - and to not judge.

It really is unfortunate that homophobia is held up as a sign of piety by some Christians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 19 has incest (daughters sleep with their father) and we don't accept that.

Seems to me we shouldn't take the bible so literally. Jesus taught to love everyone. That should include homosexuals.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV

The Bible has many examples of people in earlier times committing acts of evil. So what? That is in no way an approval of those acts.

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 19 has incest (daughters sleep with their father) and we don't accept that.

Seems to me we shouldn't take the bible so literally. Jesus taught to love everyone. That should include homosexuals.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV

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