|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
I think there has been an interesting reversal as far as friendships go - in other words what would have been a perfectly normal relationship in other times is seen as suspiciously homosexual now.
One example that springs to mind is the friendships forged between women in the late 1800/early 1900s. I remember reading an account where one woman jumped on the others lap and asked her who she loved best (which apparently was habitual between the pair). If I did that to ANYONE now, 'everyone' would agree we were in some sort of sexual relationship. For those two, it was merely an example of their love for each other.
While there was a tendency to whitewash things previously (O'Keefe's insistence that her flowers had no hidden meanings, and contained no allusions to women's gentalia is a prime example) I don't think the over-sexualisation is any better.
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek.*
Resident alien
# 3207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lesser Weevil:
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assert that a large portion of Greek men had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. If that is true, what can we say about these soldiers’ sexual orientation?
That it's not a matter easily reduced to simple categorisations?
And probably not that different from what we understand of sexual orientation contemporaneously in terms of behavior, political identity, erotic attraction, emotional attraction, situational demands, etc. and changes in those dimensions over time (fluidity).
Understanding orientation in all of its nuances is complicated.
[ 21. August 2005, 23:55: Message edited by: iGeek. ]
--------------------
.sig on holiday
Posts: 702 | From: Hot-on-us, TX | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Lesser Weevil --
The Theban Sacred Band was specifically chosen from among existing same-sex couples. Its existence in itself says nothing at all about the incidence of same-sex behaviour or "orientation malleability" among heterosexual soldiers.
The concept of there being at all times 150 fighting fit pairs of same sex lovers may strain the estimates of the population of Thebes and the "normal" occurance of same-sex orientation - no more than 10 per cent and possibly as low as 5 per cent. If Theban society paralleled that of Athens, in which same sex relationships (but possibly not always sex) between heterosexual older men (ie 20-25 or 30) and boys (post-pubertal until around 18), it's possible there may have been some hets in the Sacred Band at one time or another -- though as I recall they were not older/younger couples but couples of around the same age.
Far more likely, idealism and romanticism have made smoothed out what was always rough around the edges -- and the number in the Band, and the period at which it existed have been fiddled with to present a "good story." But I doubt they fiddled with the actual point of the story -- and that rather militates against this being an example which supports your idea. That idea may be perfectly right, of course, but I wouldn't want to base it on the Sacred Band.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Plutarch reckons they were older/younger couples. Of course he was writing centuries later.
There was at that time, in the Greek cities, in literature at any rate, no social construct similar to our ideas of "gay" or "homosexual".
Physical relations between adult men with teenage boys was considered to be normal, or at any rate inevitable and explicable, if not exactly completely socially acceptable. It would not have detracted from the adults image as a macho man (as important then as now) in fact it would have reinforced it. I'm so much a man that not only do I fuck my wife but I fuck your wife as well -= and then I go and fuck your daughters - and then I fuck your sons. As Julius Caesar didn't quite say.
But the younger man was supposed to be, or at least politely assumed to be, playing the "female" part. Responding, passively and perhaps reluctantly to the advances of the randy bugger who was approaching him. To continue that behaviour into adulthood would have been regarded as effeminate and unmanly and reprehensble, and would have brought shame on the young man - but not on the older man. (Which might be what Philip and/or Plutarch was getting at)
The older man in such a couple, provided he appeared as the active partner (in public at least) would not have been thought of as in any way effeminate or "gay" or obligately homosexual. Quite the opposite.
Very different set of values from anything we now have. Or from anything we read about in the Bible - the contemporary Jews seem to have had quite other views on these things.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
I think there has been an interesting reversal as far as friendships go - in other words what would have been a perfectly normal relationship in other times is seen as suspiciously homosexual now.
Bishop Charles Gore's habit of taking students for walks with his arm around their shoulders gave rise to the expression "The Cuddesdon Cuddle".
And there's the extraordinary incident related in J G Lockhart's "Cosmo Gordon Lang" where Edward King, Bishop of Lincoln, put his hand on the future Archbishop of Canterbury's thigh at table in the Bishop's Palace and said, "We're all naughty boys here, and I'm the naughtiest of them!"
(I'd need to check the exact wording, but that was certainly the general drift.)
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lesser Weevil
Apprentice
# 10070
|
Posted
John,
As Ken has suggested, homosexual behavior was common in the Greek city-states. It is somewhat dangerous to generalize across the numerous distinct societies that made up what we call the Ancient Greek period (roughly from 1000 BCE to the death of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE). However, many of those societies encouraged sexual relationships between adolescents and older males as part of a mentoring process. This pattern also extended to the military of those societies: young warriors were teamed with older warriors as servant-trainees. Those relationships also often included a sexual element. (See this article. )
The Sacred Band was noteworthy among its contemporaries not because they were homosexuals, but because the couples fought side-by-side in an effective fighting force. (Other city-states deployed their warriors on the basis of kinship, separating couples during battles.)
Ken’s comments about the extent of homosexual behavior in Greek society in general extend my comments about Greek males in the military. It would appear from the historical record that a large portion of Greek men had sexual relationships with both men and women.
That is the interesting historical fact; ancient Greece presents a human experience of that seems to differ from our society’s assumptions about the elements that govern sexual behavior.
--------------------
In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.
Euripides, Heraclidae, circa 428 B.C.
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Now for a different discussion.
I have always assumed, partly on the testimony of conservatives on this Ship, that the approved conservative Christian stance was to say that while homosexual acts were sinful, the orientation was not. So it was allowed to condemn the acts and treat the actors as sinners, but that a celibate gay person was okay.
Now I realize that there are still some people who believe that there is no such thing as being gay apart from the acts -- that there is no such thing as orientation. But for what follows, that doesn't seem to be a factor.
The issue of the (Canadian) Anglican Journal that arrived yesterday makes clear that the Diocese of the Arctic has decided in full Synod that it will no longer employ or allow to be hired by any parish any homosexual person or any person who supports those who are homosexual. No reference to committing acts. No leeway given to those who are celibate. And no clear definition of support, so that even in the Arctic people are wondering if having a gay brother -- cousin -- uncle -- friend -- means they too may not be hired as janitors in Anglican churches.
Anyone care to propose how this might be defended as a CHristian position?
I have to add that this is the one diocese in Canada that might include a reasonable number of sympathizers with the Primate who would be Canterbury.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Anyone care to propose how this might be defended as a Christian position?
Can't see how.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
John, on the Gay marriage thread, I made the comment that there are an uncomfortable number of people who believe that us queers are ontologically different from "normal" humans. This belief goes along with believing that nothing good could come from a lesbian or gay man - no good fruits of the Spirit can be evidenced.
I have observed this belief in action on a number of occasions - the celibate lesbian ministry student refused ordination, for instance, or the celibate lesbian lay person not allowed to be ordained as elder even though the congregation elected her.
It is why I have always maintained that gay and lesbian people should just get on with having sex, since the church, underneath all the talk of acts, when pressed, really means orientation. We might as well fight the whole battle, not divide into "good" and "bad" queers.
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I have always assumed, partly on the testimony of conservatives on this Ship, that the approved conservative Christian stance was to say that while homosexual acts were sinful, the orientation was not. So it was allowed to condemn the acts and treat the actors as sinners, but that a celibate gay person was okay.
Yes, except the celibate gay person would be sinning in other ways, just like a celibate straight person.
quote:
The issue of the (Canadian) Anglican Journal that arrived yesterday makes clear that the Diocese of the Arctic has decided in full Synod that it will no longer employ or allow to be hired by any parish any homosexual person or any person who supports those who are homosexual. No reference to committing acts. No leeway given to those who are celibate. And no clear definition of support, so that even in the Arctic people are wondering if having a gay brother -- cousin -- uncle -- friend -- means they too may not be hired as janitors in Anglican churches.
Anyone care to propose how this might be defended as a CHristian position?
It is possible, if they are being sloppy and accept that it is understood that by "homosexual person", they mean "sexually active homosexual" and by "support" they mean "affirm the rightness of such behaviour".
It does sound as if this document has been written by someone who is either sloppy or homophobic. Neither is exactly ideal, and it definitely seems to send out the wrong message.
My experience with such people suggests they are being sloppy in their thinking and writing.
You'd be surprised how many people have said homosexuality is ontologically wrong, as Arabella describes. But when I then probe their views and question them about whether temptation is wrong or just giving in to it, they change their minds and agree that it is only the sexual activity that it wrong. It is sad. It is bad. But at the end of the day, it's almost always sloppy thinking from them rather than malice.
[ 27. August 2005, 09:50: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
As a follow up to my last post, I'd be interested in where the teaching that homosexual orientation is ontologically bad comes from.
As I mentioned, I have spoken to quite a few people with that view, and all of them have changed it when gently asked a few simple questions.
My guess is that part of it is a badly thought through knee-jerk reaction by a few teachers, probably betraying an underlying homophobia that they would repent of if it was made clear to them.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Well, the motion presented to Synod by the Bishops reportedly was phrased as I have described. And one or two of their bishops have defended it.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Copied from closed thread in Purgatory quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Steve Tomkins put together quite a while ago an article about the arguments for and against homosexuality. One of the arguments he mentioned was that “Church tradition is not unanimous” and as evidence he cited James Boswell’s book ‘Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe.’
While I personally agree with the Catholic journal ‘First Things’ critical review of Boswell’s book, I wondered if there were any shipmates who agreed that “Church tradition is not unanimous” and could suggest other authors or links that agree with that statement?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
We should understand that the church's teachings have been shaped through very specific historical processes. The church created an image of the world and man, an image that when judged by today's knowledge is wrong, but the fathers couldn't have known that.
The church has always viewed homosexuality as incompatible with Christianity. The church's view on sexuality has always been very specific.
However, this approach does not correspond to the truth. Our world is much more complex than the Byzantine or the medieval societies thought. The church's opinion should change, not in order to accommodate for modern people's wants, but in order to reflect reality and truth.
Was it unanimous? Yes. No pre-marital relationships, no extra-marital relationship, no homosexual relationships, no masturbation, no sex between the married couple during fasting.
Is it true? It is the result of a very specific world-view, a world-view that was even convenient for our fathers, but one that does not reflect the complexity of the real world. Limited by the scientific knowledge of it's time and the social status quo, unanimous but inaccurate, is a legacy we have the right to change in God, to present with a more accurate view of man and the world and, eventually, of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Would this be a helpful time to state whether we're speaking of tradition or Tradition?
Andreas, it seems from your post that you draw a distinction between the Church's teaching and the Truth. Please would you clarify your position on the teaching of the Church and how it relates to Truth?
Many thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Back-to-Front, I think that we should really define that Tradition thing. Paradosis means what was given. The term implies that the Lord taught the Apostles thus, and they taught others and so on, up till our days. Do you think that the Lord taught the Apostles authoritatively concerning sexuality? If you think that this is the case, then there is no room for discussion. I'm not arguing from a Protestant perspective here, but it is a fact that Jesus is not depicted in the gospels as teaching concerning sexuality and the world.
The teaching of the Church is simple. If I am allowed to quote from a Greek book on the issue:
quote:
The Church's opinion on sexuality is rather, we would say, suffocatingly restrictive, and because of that fact, it seems quite unrealistic to modern society. Total absence of relationships outside marriage, and, even periodical, abstinence within marriage. This means no to pre-marital relationships, no to extra-marital relationships, no to the relationships which are against nature, and, in addition, the keeping of periodical fasting, that is sexual abstinence. God's commandment therefore is hot, and truly sometimes ends to "burn" many [people].
And again
quote:
This is the way all the commandments of God are, and, like all, this that has to do with sexuality also. It is fire that truly burns, but this fire, sometimes it torments the people, and, sometimes it burns the sick parts of human existence, and at the same time, the Holy Spirit comforts, cools, and increases these parts that are healthy. Unfortunately, this cooling version of the fire, is unknown to the vast majority of the people, even of the religious people.
And again
quote:
The vision the Church offers, or rather, suggests to the young man is very high and important. For the shake of it's fulfillment the Church calls the young man to deny pre-marital relationships. When two persons complete their relationships outside the ecclesiastical and sacramental borders of the church, it is evident that they put their existences outside the orbit of the Sacrament of Marriage, and they self-limit their lives and their relationships in the human and psychological limits. They have every right to do so, but they should not forget that this way they deny the saving work of Christ and the Church he instituted.
I think that the above quotations, show the [Orthodox] Church's approach to the issue.
The question however, dear Back-to-Front, is if God's will is that all people live like that, i.e. be holy. I think that it can be shown nowdays that this is not the case. But if not all people are to live a holy life, then the Church's approach is not in accordance with reality, or, truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Thank you for that, Andreas. However, I fear that you may have somewhat missed my point. I perhaps wasn't clear before.
I wasn't referring to sexuality. I was referring to the distinction that you draw between Truth and the Church's teaching, as it has come up on this thread and on others in the past, and it helps me to understand your meaning if you explain where you understand the place of the Church's teaching in relation to Truth and how you arrive at the place of recognising a distinction.
Many thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Oh, I see.
I think that the Church's fathers were outstanding people. But does this mean that they are infallible, even as a body?
The relationship one enters with the holy Spirit, even a Saint, does not turn him into a know-it-all. Rather, we see in the gospel, that for example even the completeness of the deity that dwelt in Jesus, didn't make him to know-it-all in his humanity. For He said that not even the Son of Man knows when the world is going to end and the Judgment to take place. We also see Paul to err, even when he assures us by the Lord that he was going to be alive when the resurrection of the quick and the dead and the Judgment would take place.
Our Saints gave answers to the questions of their times. They couldn't have known things like the black holes, or dark matter; they explained things within a different framework.
We are to do what they did; take into consideration everything there is to know, and then give a Christian interpretation for the world. This is to get done in an ecclesiastical way though. Personal opinions, while enough to get the dialog running, they cannot be presented as the Church's opinion.
Our fathers shaped an understanding of the world, of man, of the church, of Jesus, even of God, using the data they had available. They thought that the world was created in a radically different way than the world we see. Our world seemed too chaotic for them. They didn't think it was God's original work. They thought that the world exists in a fallen state. Because the first man sinned, the world changed radically.
But today, we can know for sure that this is not what actually happened. We know that although this could have happened, for God is almighty, this is not what happened. their world-view was wrong, but are they to blame? Of course not. They couldn't have known about the Big Bang and dinosaurs, about the hominidae and time horizons.
The interpretation they gave shaped what we call [Orthodox] Christianity. But this understanding of the world is wrong. And the implications of that error are many and great.
Of course, this post just outlines a few aspects of why I made the distinction. It's not possible to talk about these things in threads. But I hope I explained my position, to a degree.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Now for a different discussion.
I have always assumed, partly on the testimony of conservatives on this Ship, that the approved conservative Christian stance was to say that while homosexual acts were sinful, the orientation was not. So it was allowed to condemn the acts and treat the actors as sinners, but that a celibate gay person was okay.
Now I realize that there are still some people who believe that there is no such thing as being gay apart from the acts -- that there is no such thing as orientation. But for what follows, that doesn't seem to be a factor.
Anyone care to propose how this might be defended as a CHristian position?
I guess one could argue that homosexual orientation is a modern construct. So it then could be said the relevant biblical passages speak only against the act and not the orientation becuase it did not exist.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Addressing the original OP in Purgatory: I haven't read the SteveTom article recently, but I believe the reference to Church tradition not being unanimous refers to the ancient (yep, Ss. Sergius and Bacchus) rite of adelphopoiia.
This has caused various shitstorms in Orthodox communities in the West. See here for a summary.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Well, phudfan, I know what construction I would put on 2Sam.1.26: quote:
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
That's a pretty desparate attempt, given that
- David is so clearly heterosexual when he lusts after Bathsheba!
- Sex isn't mentioned
- EVEN if this is a reference to sex between Jonathan and David, that doesn't mean we can take what David says as a blessing from God on that sexual relationship.
I have only just discovered this (very long) thread and have not read EVERY post, so apologies if I am repeating something said by someone else.
The KEY reference to something going on between David and jonathan is when David is hiding in a cave and Jonathan is shooting arrows. They embrace and then the various English translations go coy. Jonathan 'exceeded himself'
is thought thought to be a reference to ejaculation (My Hebrew is very rusty but I can look it up if my comment gets contested).
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Eminent Coot,
You mean shitstorms in America and some more backwoods areas of Russia and Greece surely, (don't call me Shirley!). It's barely rippled the Orthopond in Western Europe.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The KEY reference to something going on between David and jonathan is when David is hiding in a cave and Jonathan is shooting arrows. They embrace and then the various English translations go coy. Jonathan 'exceeded himself'
is thought thought to be a reference to ejaculation (My Hebrew is very rusty but I can look it up if my comment gets contested).
I presume you mean 1 Sam 20:41.
quote:
After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together-- but David wept the most.
Strongs gives this information about word you refer to in the final phrase:
quote:
1431 ld;G' gadal {gaw-dal'}
Meaning: 1) to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to grow up 1a2) to become great 1a3) to be magnified 1b) (Piel) 1b1) to cause to grow 1b2) to make great, powerful 1b3) to magnify 1c) (Pual) to be brought up 1d) (Hiphil) 1d1) to make great 1d2) to magnify 1d3) to do great things 1e) (Hithpael) to magnify oneself
Origin: a primitive root; TWOT - 315; v
Usage: AV - magnify 32, great 26, grow 14, nourish up 7, grow up 6, greater 5, misc 25; 115
(Sorry - don't know how to put Hebrew into the ship!)
I can't myself see any reason to take that as reference to ejaculation. Is there any other ancient text where that word is used in that way?
Even if David and Jonathan did have sex, what does that prove? That two men broke the Jewish law? Its certainly not a conmendation that their actions were accepted or blessed by God.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Addressing the original OP in Purgatory: I haven't read the SteveTom article recently, but I believe the reference to Church tradition not being unanimous refers to the ancient (yep, Ss. Sergius and Bacchus) rite of adelphopoiia.
This has caused various shitstorms in Orthodox communities in the West. See here for a summary.
Thanks Coot, I looked over the site and apart from what Boswell has to say about the Orthodox rite of adelphopoiia there is little else from the history of the church that would support the claim that church tradition is not fairly unanimous in condemning homosexuality.
Boswell, quoted alot on gay theological sites, rests his case heavily on the rite of adelphopoiia. One would imagine if there was other evidence he would drawn people’s attention to it.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The KEY reference to something going on between David and jonathan is when David is hiding in a cave and Jonathan is shooting arrows. They embrace and then the various English translations go coy. Jonathan 'exceeded himself'
is thought thought to be a reference to ejaculation (My Hebrew is very rusty but I can look it up if my comment gets contested).
I presume you mean 1 Sam 20:41.
quote:
After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together-- but David wept the most.
Strongs gives this information about word you refer to in the final phrase:
quote:
1431 ld;G' gadal {gaw-dal'}
Meaning: 1) to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to grow up 1a2) to become great 1a3) to be magnified 1b) (Piel) 1b1) to cause to grow 1b2) to make great, powerful 1b3) to magnify 1c) (Pual) to be brought up 1d) (Hiphil) 1d1) to make great 1d2) to magnify 1d3) to do great things 1e) (Hithpael) to magnify oneself
Origin: a primitive root; TWOT - 315; v
Usage: AV - magnify 32, great 26, grow 14, nourish up 7, grow up 6, greater 5, misc 25; 115
(Sorry - don't know how to put Hebrew into the ship!)
I can't myself see any reason to take that as reference to ejaculation. Is there any other ancient text where that word is used in that way?
Even if David and Jonathan did have sex, what does that prove? That two men broke the Jewish law? Its certainly not a conmendation that their actions were accepted or blessed by God.
My memory is not as great as it used to be and I have gone through my shelves trying to find a reference to this but cannot.
The RSV of the Bible has a marginal note to v.41 `exceeded' as an alternative to `recovered'. The Hebrew word is `higdil' which can mean `to swell up'. Could it be that the erotic side of their relationship is here being more than hinted at! i.e. erection, ejaculation and recovery?
Another clue is in 1Sanuel 20-30-31 where Saul calls Jonathan the son of a perverse woman who has’ chosen’ David. The Hebrew bocher = chosen is more likely, according to S. R. Drover, to be chaber = fellow. In the Septuagint it is rendered thus in the Greek as metachos = partner, sharing, intimate companion.
In the same verses, ‘to your own confusion’ (KJV) – bosheth – More modern translations render as ‘shame’. In Ancient Israel shame was associated with nakedness cf. Leviticus 18:1-19
In other words, Saul knows perfectly well what sort of relationship Jonathan has with David is he is far from approving.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Hi leo,
Even if Jonathan and David had an illicit relationship isn't it a big step from that to saying the whole Bible promotes homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships?
For me two questions remain:
1. Where is the overall Biblical pattern of homosexuality in the Bible?
2. Where apart from the so called gay rite of adelphopoiia is the evidence of acceptance by the church tradition?
(Orientation is an ambiguous issue because the homosexual Christians I know, struggled with but have generally kept to celibacy.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Orthopond. I like it. Where the Orthopods live.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Thanks Coot, I looked over the site and apart from what Boswell has to say about the Orthodox rite of adelphopoiia there is little else from the history of the church that would support the claim that church tradition is not fairly unanimous in condemning homosexuality.
Boswell, quoted alot on gay theological sites, rests his case heavily on the rite of adelphopoiia. One would imagine if there was other evidence he would drawn people’s attention to it.
That website only talks about Boswell in passing. The work being cited is (a redaction of a longer article, cool word) by Nicholas Zymaris who independently translated the rite and went to the places where the rite was still performed and interviewed people. Axios, Zymaris.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi leo,
Even if Jonathan and David had an illicit relationship isn't it a big step from that to saying the whole Bible promotes homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships?
For me two questions remain:
1. Where is the overall Biblical pattern of homosexuality in the Bible?
2. Where apart from the so called gay rite of adelphopoiia is the evidence of acceptance by the church tradition?
(Orientation is an ambiguous issue because the homosexual Christians I know, struggled with but have generally kept to celibacy.)
I wasn't arguing that the Bible 'promotes' anything particularly, just commenting on a post somebody made about David and Jonathan.
I would hazard a guess, however, that Jesus promoted 'friendship' as a model relationship, given that he did not have much time for 'family'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Hi Leo,
What evidence is there that Jesus promoted homosexual friendship over and above heterosexual marriage? He did not condemn marriage and he did not say to his followers choose friendship over marriage. Anyway its an argument from silence. Jesus said very little about slavery, technology or the environment but we apply Jesus’ principles to those areas anyway.
I would suggest that even though Jesus did not choose heterosexual marriage himself he did not promote homosexual friendship either. It would be strange to interpret every “love” in the gospels as sexual. The Jesus and the centurion and Jesus and Lazarus scenarios are far fetched because you have to assume a lot that isn’t actually mentioned or implied in the text.
However, I believe that Jesus signals his approval of heterosexual relationships by saying things like “don’t look lustfully at a woman because its adultery.” Implying that marriage relationships should be heterosexual and that adultery was bad. Also Matt 12, when Jesus talks about heaven, says marriage (heterosexual) will not be in heaven. Interestingly he gives an earthly alternative of singleness. On divorce Jesus reminds his audience of the Old Testament teaching about a man leaving his parents to get married to a woman.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
A summary of my position in the debate:
Now (I think) I've made up my mind that homosexual relationships are no more or less sinful than those of heterosexual people. It's all about how you love someone and how they love you, not what gender they are.
And yes, I read the whole thread. Or to be strictly accurate, I skim read two thirds and read the other third in detail.
I know. I have no life. Lucky I'm a very fast reader.
Never mind.
1 Samuel 20:41
There seems to be a lot of usage of exceeded in the translations I've looked at. Sometimes the idea is omitted entirely, some take it to mean David cried most.
Or, in the YLT (?) David 'exerted'.
Mmm. Interesting.
Here is someone who definitely thinks Jonathan and David were lovers.
I'm trying to find the Hebrew but I don't really know where to look, so I'll maybe check back if I find anything.
(or someone else could put me out of my Hebrew-ignorant misery, hint hint ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
1 Samuel 20:41
There seems to be a lot of usage of exceeded in the translations I've looked at. Sometimes the idea is omitted entirely, some take it to mean David cried most.
Or, in the YLT (?) David 'exerted'.
Mmm. Interesting.
You, and others, are suggesting some sexual meaning to the word "exerted". That seems to be a modern understanding of the word - a sort of double-entendre. But if there is no ancient use of that word or phrase implying a sexual action, then we are on very shaky ground assuming it must be sexual here. Does anyone know of such an ancient text?
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
Here is someone who definitely thinks Jonathan and David were lovers.
Again - Even if David and Jonathan were lovers, what does that prove? They broke the Jewish law. How can we take that as any indication that God approved of the relationship?
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
The coot,
Do you know of any rites or theologians outside the rite of adelphopoiia?
Leo,
I agree, Jesus didn’t say much directly about what relationship ‘mode’ people should have. This of course doesn’t mean it isn’t important. It just means we have to examine carefully his statements that touched indirectly on relationships.
So the question is, can we determine Jesus’ approval for friendship over marriage from the examples you have given?
[ 18. September 2005, 05:45: Message edited by: Luke ]
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
quote:
Again - Even if David and Jonathan were lovers, what does that prove? They broke the Jewish law. How can we take that as any indication that God approved of the relationship?
Fair point (and I'm not convinced myself)...
However.
(Yeah, there's always a however)
Wouldn't God have...well...said something? I mean, the whole thing with Bathsheba, even though it was dead obvious that this was adultery and A Bad Idea, God still makes it Very Clear He Is Not Happy.
If, and it's an if. IF Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship, might God not have said, 'Oi! Watch it!' or words to that effect if there was disapproval?
Ifs, ands and buts. Gotta love them
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
[If, and it's an if. IF Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship, might God not have said, 'Oi! Watch it!' or words to that effect if there was disapproval?
Two points
1. Someone must show that something in the verse had some sexual meaning to the ancient world it was written in. If this is not the case, then a modern reading of sexual activity is simple double-entendre.
2. God had already spoken about what was right and wrong in the law. Why did he need to say it again? So when he does speak up via a prophecy about Bathsheba, it seems this was more of an exception rather than a rule.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowKate
Shipmate
# 9331
|
Posted
Frankly, I've never felt that there was compelling evidence to Jonathan and David being lovers. Maybe they were, maybe they were not. More than anything I feel it's not a necessary argument.
I feel that what Jesus teaches in the Gospels is more than enough to warrant the full inclusion of gays in the church.
--------------------
Coffee is the answer
Posts: 1227 | From: Left at the loophole | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RainbowKate:
Frankly, I've never felt that there was compelling evidence to Jonathan and David being lovers. Maybe they were, maybe they were not. More than anything I feel it's not a necessary argument.
Yes I agree and with that and with what Fish Fish said.
I feel that what Jesus teaches in the Gospels is more than enough to warrant the full inclusion of gays in the church.
Do you mean in the sense that it doesn't matter if your gay, white, female or male you may particpate in the life of the church? Or do you mean that Jesus approved of homosexual relationships?
[edited to fix code]
[ 21. September 2005, 19:11: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Righteous Rebel
Ship's Hobbit Lover
# 7524
|
Posted
I am a homosexual Christian; some folks think that term is non-existent. But there are those of us out here who truly do love God and do our best to serve Him, albeit, not usually in an organized church (at least not in my case). If one takes a look at church history, one will find all sorts of things the Church taught in earlier times: discouraging bathing, because nakedness was a sin; not walking under a ladder, because a ladder propped against a wall formed a triangle, which represented the Trinity. Therefore it was blasphemous to walk under a ladder. There are several other, equally ignorant, if not downright stupid teachings the Church has espoused down through the time, and new ones seem to be cropping up all the time. A big discussion going on now in the gay community is whether or not gay rights and civil rights are the same thing. I would be interested in some opinions on this. Don't think I can set up a poll on this thread. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
To be or not to be: is there really any question?
Posts: 223 | From: Blue Ridge Mtns., TN USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Well, I think I need more info, because off bat I can' see any reason why gay rights wouldn't involve demanding civil rights. But you say the gay community is divided about this?
(and I know what you mean about the whole "gay Christian" thing. I strongly feel one of my callings is to help make the Church a more hospitable place for gay Christians. Any advice on how to achieve that welcome. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Hm, interesting. NZ has a new gay MP who doesn't believe in gay rights - I think his huge personal fortune might have something to do with it.
Where I get annoyed is with gay and lesbian people who talk and behave as though they are the worst discriminated against group in the history of humankind. I am very well aware that my experience of oppression is neglible, even compared to some other classes of people in NZ. I can see third world people lining up to have my life, particularly the regular food and ability to purchase.
On the other hand, it isn't that long ago that homosexuality was a crime in NZ - when I first came out, I was a criminal in the eyes of the law. Even once that law was passed, it was still OK to discriminate against me in employment, housing and services (this changed in 1994).
One needs a sense of balance, because neither view is a good place to live.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowKate
Shipmate
# 9331
|
Posted
Originally posted by Luke: quote:
Do you mean in the sense that it doesn't matter if your gay, white, female or male you may particpate in the life of the church? Or do you mean that Jesus approved of homosexual relationships?
Yes, to both questions.
--------------------
Coffee is the answer
Posts: 1227 | From: Left at the loophole | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
I have no problem with the first question either. But I'd have to disagree with you on the second question. How did Jesus approve of homosexual relationships?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Is the default option 'if Jesus said nothing either way about 'x' that indicates divinely revealed disapproval'? That would seem to rule an awful lot of things out.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Of course the opposite can be said. "If Jesus said nothing about 'X' then it must be OK."
So we have to look at indirect examples and the overall themes.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
That's always amused me, too, DOD. But somehow, saying that Jesus didn't say anything about television (something which brings a lot more sin into the world than I do, simply by being more widely available and pandering to some pretty nasty tastes) doesn't seem to be seen as relevant in the argument. Likewise aeroplanes, kitchen blenders and advanced forms of surgery (things I don't have a problem with).
Jesus did say that we were to love one another. To love our enemies. Not to judge, because that was up to him. One clear message was that he wasn't too keen on people storing up riches, but I don't notice too many people condemning that from the pulpit.
I've always thought that Jesus' message was simplicity itself, and that in fact it was antithetical to the formation of churches, particularly the large worldwide organisations we live with today. I think there's more evidence for that too, right throughout the gospels.
In the mean time, I am a Christian because I try to do God's work. That is: feed the hungry, help the sick, minister to the prisoner and widow. Those are the obvious messages liberally spread through the gospel. What other people want to believe about me doesn't worry me - its only God I need to be right with. If I spend all my time bewailing my manifold sins and wickedness, as anti-gay people would have me do, then I'm not getting on with being a Christian, I'm just focussing on myself.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Jesus came to live among us sinners so we might become his children. We live in a world, a beautiful, ordered world made chaotic and dark by sin. Before we screwed it up Adam and Eve were made as a couple and then despite the fall this heterosexual pattern is re-enforced by God through generations upon generations of heterosexual couples. Most of the famous Biblical heroes have wives, some are celibate and the heroines have husbands. Of course there were examples of sin in these relationships. But heterosexual relationships were such a dominate theme in the Old Testament that Jesus doesn’t challenge it. All his comments that directly or indirectly touch on sexual relationships assume heterosexual relationships as the Biblical norm.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Catrine
Shipmate
# 9811
|
Posted
I'm with APW here, it's more important to keep your eyes on Jesus rather than whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It's not for us to decide whether or not it is, but what we need to do is show charity and love to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. In fact their sexual orientation should not even come into it.
Posts: 2614 | From: Midlands | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowKate
Shipmate
# 9331
|
Posted
Arabella summed up my thoughts far better than I could.
Jesus' focus was on love- and I think if found a paticular kind of love wrong he would have said so. The biblical norm may well have been that of heterosexual relationships, but does that mean he was only refering to them?
I've always understood sin to be something that seperates me from the love of God. To marry a man and live a life which would be a lie would do that far more profoundly for me than to live a life of honesty and integrity.
--------------------
Coffee is the answer
Posts: 1227 | From: Left at the loophole | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowKate
Shipmate
# 9331
|
Posted
Originally posted by Luke: quote:
I have no problem with the first question either. But I'd have to disagree with you on the second question. How did Jesus approve of homosexual relationships?
What you really seem to be saying Luke is that you're fine with people being gay as long as they don't act on those desires. Frankly, I can't understand how you can welcome someone into the church if you're immediatly putting restrictions on their sexual lives- effectivly saying that they are not permitted the same loving, nurturing, intimate relationships that straight couples can have. Now you may say "I don't believe in sex before marriage." Fair enough. Judge us the same then, and let us get married.
--------------------
Coffee is the answer
Posts: 1227 | From: Left at the loophole | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Eminent Coot,
You mean shitstorms in America and some more backwoods areas of Russia and Greece surely, (don't call me Shirley!). It's barely rippled the Orthopond in Western Europe.
So, Father Gregory, is the rite of adelphopoiia currently in use in any Orthodox jurisdiction? It sounds from the article Coot linked to that it's in use in Albania.
If a gay couple in England wanted to be joined by this rite, could they be? If a gay couple from Albania moved to England or the US, how would their new bishop view the situation? Would it be accepted?
Since the rite creates an impediment to marriage, it wouldn't be marriage, exactly. But it's very interesting.
I was talking to my sister this past weekend, and told her that I thought that, eventually, the Church might end up with a rite like the rite of second marriage, a penitential rite which acknowledged that the relationship wasn't the ideal of a first marriage between a man and a woman, but which blessed the relationship and brought it into the Church. But I thought such a thing was a long way in the future. Maybe, instead, it's a short way in our past?
Very interesting.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Luke, I think what I'm trying to say is that sex isn't really that important in the message of Jesus. The church seems to have decided the strong message of love for those around us, particularly those who are not as lucky as we are, is not as important as controlling some people's sex lives.
I have no interest in what the church thinks of my sex life. I do have an interest in what God thinks about my exercising of the love that Jesus was sent into the world to demonstrate.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Josephine
We are into very tricky waters here. Certainly, no Orthodox jurisdiction operating in Britain would allow such a thing and that goes for the rest of western Europe I suspect. It's not that you can't find priests and bishops who might exercise a private opinion that such a rite for a non-sexually active same sex couple might be appropriate. It's just that the climate for it isn't right. There really would be trouble if any bishop authorised such a rite. Whether it still goes on in Albania ... I know not. The fact that it went on once (before it was suppressed) is interesting, I grant.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Yes it's difficult that the Bible allows people to be gay but not participate in homosexual relationships. Similar I imagine to a heterosexual who struggles with lust but is prohibited from adultery or someone who has a thievery issue and isn’t allowed to handle the church finances. I think each of these restrictions are actually loving because they help prevent the person from sinning. I guess it depends on your definition of what loving is.
Kate, the problem with the argument “as long as the relationship is loving it’s OK” is that this can be applied to any relationship combination. Leviticus bans a number of differant sexual combinations. Not only are homosexual relationships banned but human/animal and incestual relationships are also banned. But what if these relationships were loving as well, are they OK then? Jesus doesn’t condem bestiality, incest or pedophilia.
Arabella, I can't answer for all of Christendom but I think that love includes helping prevent sin. Of course we disagree what sin is.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Yes it's difficult that the Bible allows people to be gay but not participate in homosexual relationships. Similar I imagine to a heterosexual who struggles with lust but is prohibited from adultery ...
Nope, not even close. The heterosexual person still gets to get married and have sex. The homosexual person doesn't get to have sex with anyone.
And what's with this "the Bible allows people to be gay" phrasing? People are gay -- the Bible doesn't govern this, doesn't allow it to happen or not happen. It's a fact of life. Admitting that in the way you phrase things would be a step toward taking the reality of gay people seriously.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
