Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Darth Executor]

In this thread I have pointed out that the relevant biblical references are very few and very unclear.

They are unclear to you because you ignore 2000 years of church history in which at no point was homosexuality sanctioned. They are completely clear to people who don't rely on feigned pedantry to manufacture a new morality that just so happens to coincide to that of the infectious blight known as liberalism that is currently in the process of turning formerly Christian civilization into mush.

[Jesse]

I don't think there's enough surviving data to judge Roman sensibilities on the subject, and certainly not enough to tell if they changed over time. (Remember that in the modern world we've seen approval of same-sex marriage change by 50 percentage points over a ~50 year timeframe. The long-term effect on Roman social values of at least two different Emperors having same-sex marriages may have been considerable.) Presumably also, if the Romans had found same-sex marriages sufficiently offensive to them, they would have banned them, and we know they didn't. Modern data suggests that if you allow same-sex marriage, then ~2% of the population will engage in them. Presumably the rate was somewhat similar in Roman times, so they would have been 'abnormal' in the sense of being uncommon.

At any rate, it strikes me as somewhat irrelevant to focus on what the Roman people thought about same-sex marriages, since it doesn't really matter whether they loved them, hated them, or were indifferent to them: Regardless of what they thought about them, we know that same-sex marriages were legal in their society and that people did them.

There are, in fact, quite a few scholarly books written on marriage in the Greco-Roman world. You might want to seek those out. Their opinion on the subject is not hidden. The fact that you can only find these two Emperors and what the historians of the time said about the supposed "marriages", tells you something. Tacitus and others made it clear that not only was it unnatural to their culture, but Nero didn't even follow proper Roman custom when he did it. So to the Roman mind, these "marriages" weren't even accepted as real marriages. You also don't take into account of how laws were made in ancient Rome. Emperors had carte blanche to put rules into place without the approval of the citizenry. So the reason why this wasn't banned is self evident. I am not sure how you could you presume modern rates would equate with an ancient Honor/Shame society. It seems you do not know much about the time or the culture.

It's of course not irrelevant at all. What Roman society as a whole thought about a subject is what was important. This again shows that you are not familiar with Honor/Shame in the ancient world. Your definition of legal is a bit off. Toleration of Emperors doing insane things did not mean they were "legal" at all.

It was a formal celebration of a commitment between two individuals engaging in a sexual relationship, with dowry included. The people of Siwa seem to have thought of it as marriage, and apparently valued it more highly than marriage to females. So I am puzzled by your assertion that it was 'not really marriage' - can you elaborate on your reasoning?

Siwa was a polygamous culture. The men were allowed more than one woman but only one boy per man. The obligation to the boy was different than his obligation to his other wives. These obligations seem to shadow those of Greek pederasty. So, I guess you could call it a "form" of marriage. They didn't value it more highly than with females, they valued it differently.

[Starlight]

There are, in fact, quite a few scholarly books written on marriage in the Greco-Roman world.

I am well-read in general about Roman culture, but do you have a specific book recommendation?

Tacitus and others made it clear that not only was it unnatural to their culture,

Tacitus is a somewhat biased source who clearly hated Nero and portrays everything Nero did in the worst possible light and reports every slanderous rumour about Nero as fact. Other sources give a much more positive portrayal of Nero. You're also reading a bit more into Tacitus' quote than it necessarily implies: It doesn't, strictly speaking, say anything about his or his culture's view of same-sex marriage. Rather Tacitus' complaint seems primarily with irregularities in how the ceremony was conducted (rumours I tend to doubt were true). His sentence about "unnatural lusts" needs to be taken in the context of the fact that we know the Roman society was totally fine with homosexual sex acts.

Emperors had carte blanche to put rules into place without the approval of the citizenry. So the reason why this wasn't banned is self evident.

There were other emperors after Nero. If Nero's marriage had been a huge scandal then the next Emperor would have banned the practice. Instead, we see no ban until 342AD, and then the ban is only on cross-dressing during the ceremony. You seem to be speculating that the vast majority of people were against the practice while at the same time implying that all the emperors unanimously supported it... that seems a rather improbable coincidence.

It seems you do not know much about the time or the culture.
...
This again shows that you are not familiar with Honor/Shame in the ancient world.

On Roman culture in general I am decently informed and fairly well-read, though by no means an expert - though I have done a fair amount of focused reading on the subject of homosexuality in the Roman world so I am well-informed on that specifically. The general topic of Honor/Shame in the ancient world used to be a significant hobby of mine, because as a Christian theologian I believed that understanding the cultural context and thought paradigms of the ancient world was absolutely essential to understanding what the biblical authors meant by their words, so I would say I'm basically an expert on that subject.

[Jesse]

I am well-read in general about Roman culture, but do you have a specific book recommendation?

Sure. For this particular conversation I would recommend The Roman Law of Marriage by Percy Corbett, or Roman Marriage by Susan Treggiari. Those are both excellent resources on the subject.

Tacitus is a somewhat biased source who clearly hated Nero and portrays everything Nero did in the worst possible light and reports every slanderous rumour about Nero as fact. Other sources give a much more positive portrayal of Nero. You're also reading a bit more into Tacitus' quote than it necessarily implies: It doesn't, strictly speaking, say anything about his or his culture's view of same-sex marriage. Rather Tacitus' complaint seems primarily with irregularities in how the ceremony was conducted (rumours I tend to doubt were true). His sentence about "unnatural lusts" needs to be taken in the context of the fact that we know the Roman society was totally fine with homosexual sex acts.

Very true that Tacitus was no fan of Nero, he was just the first person I had thought of when this was brought up. However, you can not say the same for Suetonius or Cassius Dio. You will of course find more ancient historians that are against Nero for the simple fact that he was insane and blatantly broke Roman law and customs on a regular basis. To understand why Tacitus as well as the others were so concerned with irregularities of these "marriages" is because they had no legal standing under Roman law. The two books I recommended make it clear that under Roman marriage law, to have conubium (legal marriage), it had to be between a Roman male and Roman female citizen. The fact that Nero and possibly Elagabalus were the only two that disregarded Roman law tells you why they are not looked upon favorably by the likes of Tacitus and others.

There were other emperors after Nero. If Nero's marriage had been a huge scandal then the next Emperor would have banned the practice. Instead, we see no ban until 342AD, and then the ban is only on cross-dressing during the ceremony. You seem to be speculating that the vast majority of people were against the practice while at the same time implying that all the emperors unanimously supported it... that seems a rather improbable coincidence.

There was no need to ban something that was already known to be a blatant violation of the law to begin with. Nero ignored the law because he was the emperor. Why would anyone try to stop an emperor who most thought was out of his mind anyways? Like you said, there were other emperors after Nero and Elagabalus. Yet non of them broke the law of conubium by marrying men. It's easy to see why it was just those two.

On Roman culture in general I am decently informed and fairly well-read, though by no means an expert - though I have done a fair amount of focused reading on the subject of homosexuality in the Roman world so I am well-informed on that specifically. The general topic of Honor/Shame in the ancient world used to be a significant hobby of mine, because as a Christian theologian I believed that understanding the cultural context and thought paradigms of the ancient world was absolutely essential to understanding what the biblical authors meant by their words, so I would say I'm basically an expert on that subject.

Then I hope the two books I recommended come in handy with more of your study on marriage laws.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Um, that's not how 'heart' is generally used in Scripture. If memory serves, the ancient Hebrews thought feeling originated in the bowels or stomach.

A quick search brings up several examples of "heart" being used in the manner which I described. They can be easy to pass over, because we still use a lot of these phrases idiomatically, even today. However, they are there.

A prime case can be found in Genesis 6:5, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." The Hebrew, there, is מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבֹּ֔ו which translates directly to the phrase which I emboldened in the quotation, and which the LXX translated as τις διανοεῖται ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, "the intentions/understanding of their hearts."

This passage is hardly unique. There are numerous passages all throughout the OT which discuss the heart as if it was the seat of thought and emotion.

[Mountain Man]

In this thread I have pointed out that the relevant biblical references are very few and very unclear. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary. Almost the entire biblical case seems to hang on the translation of arsenokoites, a word whose meaning is a huge guess at best.

Wrong again, dummy. Paul's language in 1 Corinthians might be vague if not for the clear instructions in Leviticus and thousands of years of Jewish teaching on which the 1 Corinthians instruction is based. To claim that no one has supported this argument with evidence borders on a lie. Look through the thread. The evidence is there. You've just chosen to ignore it.

[Bill the Cat]

A quick search brings up several examples of "heart" being used in the manner which I described. They can be easy to pass over, because we still use a lot of these phrases idiomatically, even today. However, they are there.

A prime case can be found in Genesis 6:5, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." The Hebrew, there, is מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבֹּ֔ו which translates directly to the phrase which I emboldened in the quotation, and which the LXX translated as τις διανοεῖται ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, "the intentions/understanding of their hearts."

This passage is hardly unique. There are numerous passages all throughout the OT which discuss the heart as if it was the seat of thought and emotion.

But is there evidence that the actual organ was responsible for the emotion, or was it a euphemism the way we use it today?

[fm93]

Oh horse crap! As is typical with cherry pickers like you, you ignored the KEY context which said: "from a Biblical and moral perspective". That is referring to behavior that is contrary to Biblical morality. The problem is that tools like you think that when we say things like "homosexuals are sinning", you try to jump in and insert "that's the person, not the sin" as if you are a mind reader of sorts and know that we REALLY meant the people and not the sin.

The problem with words is that they have this thing called "meaning." You may merely be referring to "the sin," but saying "homosexuals are sinning" and "gays should be discriminated against from a Biblical and moral perspective" has a meaning--"gay people should be prejudicially mistreated against from a Biblical and moral perspective." (Also, the "from a Biblical and moral perspective" part hardly intrinsically refers to behavior.) That's objective fact.

And you know FULL well that those engaging in the sinful behavior are what we are talking about. You are trying to foist YOUR definitions on us

No, I'm just explaining the actual objective definitions.

Name 10. Typically, when someone declares thy are "gay", that comes with the intention to seek same-sex relationships. Any thought to the contrary is simple head-in-the-sand nonsense.

I didn't have ten specific people in mind, but there are entire movements and groups for it, which I assume encompass far more than ten. Besides, in the instances I've heard of Christian teens coming out to their parents, it sounds as if they're primarily saying that they find themselves with unwanted attractions and are begging for help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5649015.html

Wrong. You are again foisting 21st century culture on a 1st century document.

How so? I'm not interpreting a first-century document through modern eyes.

You really think they were referring to the organ called the heart as where emotions were generated?

As Boxing Pythagoras has pointed out, there's good reason to believe that they did, given what the surrounding cultures believed. Old Testament scholar John Walton also supports this point:

Source: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

In the ancient world people believed that the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidney and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture are interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology.

© Copyright Original Source

Certainly doesn't seem to be as ridiculous as you seem to think it is.

[Teallaura]

A quick search brings up several examples of "heart" being used in the manner which I described. They can be easy to pass over, because we still use a lot of these phrases idiomatically, even today. However, they are there.

A prime case can be found in Genesis 6:5, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." The Hebrew, there, is מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבֹּ֔ו which translates directly to the phrase which I emboldened in the quotation, and which the LXX translated as τις διανοεῖται ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, "the intentions/understanding of their hearts."

This passage is hardly unique. There are numerous passages all throughout the OT which discuss the heart as if it was the seat of thought and emotion.

Um, not really. Heart refers usually to innermost being - that it (the person's innermost being) should have thoughts is perfectly rational and does not indicate that the ancient Hebrews thought that thoughts actually occurred in the organ itself.

[lilpixieofterror]

In this thread I have pointed out that the relevant biblical references are very few and very unclear. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary. Almost the entire biblical case seems to hang on the translation of arsenokoites, a word whose meaning is a huge guess at best.

That's right because 2,000 years of church tradition, that all say that you're an idiot that doesn't know what your talking about, is unclear. No evidence being brought forth that proves any of these passages are 'unclear' also doesn't count as evidence. Likewise, the dozens of different traditions that prove you wrong also don't count as evidence either! So it looks like all you got is (as I suspect) a bald assertion of passages you personally dislike as being 'unclear' because you can't refute any of the evidence brought forth. Isn't it great, that all those Christians for the past 2,000 years, that all wrote that homosexuality was a sin are all wrong and you end up being right all a long at the convenient point, in history, where homosexuality finally starts to reach some acceptance?

I don't think there's enough surviving data to judge Roman sensibilities on the subject, and certainly not enough to tell if they changed over time. (Remember that in the modern world we've seen approval of same-sex marriage change by 50 percentage points over a ~50 year timeframe. The long-term effect on Roman social values of at least two different Emperors having same-sex marriages may have been considerable.) Presumably also, if the Romans had found same-sex marriages sufficiently offensive to them, they would have banned them, and we know they didn't. Modern data suggests that if you allow same-sex marriage, then ~2% of the population will engage in them. Presumably the rate was somewhat similar in Roman times, so they would have been 'abnormal' in the sense of being uncommon.

Of course there isn't 'enough data' because the existing data, proves you as wrong, so it has to be ignored. Do you have a single piece of evidence, from anything, that proves that Romans viewed human homosexuality as perfectly normal and celebrated it as something that others should engage in? The fact that only a hand full of examples, from an empire that lasted over a thousand years, exist of any sort of gay marriage should be an indication to you that it likely was not thought of as being normal either. If it was normal, we should expect to see something, beyond a few emperors doing it (and their opponents using it as examples of their madness). Can you even name 10 examples, from the entire Roman world, of gay marriage happening or are your examples limited to a hand full and nothing else? Amazing how an empire could exist for other a thousand years, but examples of gay marriage going on are so few and so spaced, it likely was only something two Roman Emperors did and that was it.

At any rate, it strikes me as somewhat irrelevant to focus on what the Roman people thought about same-sex marriages, since it doesn't really matter whether they loved them, hated them, or were indifferent to them: Regardless of what they thought about them, we know that same-sex marriages were legal in their society and that people did them.

A handful of examples, over a thousand year period, isn't evidence they were normal Roman practices. If anything, that proves they were not. If it was normal, name just 10 examples, of it going on. Can you even dig up that many, from a period of history 5 times as long as the history of the US as being a country?

It was a formal celebration of a commitment between two individuals engaging in a sexual relationship, with dowry included. The people of Siwa seem to have thought of it as marriage, and apparently valued it more highly than marriage to females. So I am puzzled by your assertion that it was 'not really marriage' - can you elaborate on your reasoning?

So one society, out of thousands that have existed, in which a much older male took a much younger male as a spouse, is all the evidence you need that homosexuality is a perfectly normal human practice. Funny how 99.9% of all human societies (from before the modern era) not practicing gay marriage, not having gay marriages, or even finding such practices as unnatural doesn't count as evidence against the idea, but a single one is all the proof you need. How long did you have to search Google to find this one example? Even among this one example, do you really want to use an example of an older man, buying a boy to 'marry' as proof that homosexuality is perfectly normal? This is about as bad as you wanting to use Nero as an example to follow (which the writings we do have, seem to take it as an example of his madness). You might want to do the gay community a favor and stop trying to defend them. I sure wouldn't want you to, if I happened to be part of that community since you seem blissfully unaware that you're kind of confirming the stereotypes about gay people.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But is there evidence that the actual organ was responsible for the emotion, or was it a euphemism the way we use it today?

Um, not really. Heart refers usually to innermost being - that it (the person's innermost being) should have thoughts is perfectly rational and does not indicate that the ancient Hebrews thought that thoughts actually occurred in the organ itself.

The actual Hebrew word being used refers to the organ, and other Ancient Near East cultures-- the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians-- believed that this organ was the seat of thought and intellect. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that the ancient Hebrews would have held a similar view. I see no reason to suppose that the ancient Hebrews meant the references to "heart" as a seat of thought and emotion in an idiomatic, euphemistic, or allegorical manner.

[Jesse]

So one society, out of thousands that have existed, in which a much older male took a much younger male as a spouse, is all the evidence you need that homosexuality is a perfectly normal human practice. Funny how 99.9% of all human societies (from before the modern era) not practicing gay marriage, not having gay marriages, or even finding such practices as unnatural doesn't count as evidence against the idea, but a single one is all the proof you need. How long did you have to search Google to find this one example? Even among this one example, do you really want to use an example of an older man, buying a boy to 'marry' as proof that homosexuality is perfectly normal? This is about as bad as you wanting to use Nero as an example to follow (which the writings we do have, seem to take it as an example of his madness). You might want to do the gay community a favor and stop trying to defend them. I sure wouldn't want you to, if I happened to be part of that community since you seem blissfully unaware that you're kind of confirming the stereotypes about gay people.

I must admit I am confused by this myself. Is Starlight arguing for pederasty and forced same-sex "marriages"? Is he using these examples to say that because there were pederastic cultures and those that broke their own country's laws, that means there should be same-sex marriages here? And would he be okay with pederasty and forced same-sex marriages being legal because it was done in the past? Odd way of looking at this subject...

[Starlight]

The actual Hebrew word being used refers to the organ, and other Ancient Near East cultures-- the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians-- believed that this organ was the seat of thought and intellect. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that the ancient Hebrews would have held a similar view. I see no reason to suppose that the ancient Hebrews meant the references to "heart" as a seat of thought and emotion in an idiomatic, euphemistic, or allegorical manner.

Ancient peoples around the world lacked a modern understanding of the functions of bodily organs. Aristotle, for example, thought that the purpose of the brain was for cooling to stop the body from overheating. Thoughts and emotions were believed to come from various different organs.

So, yes, when the Bible makes references to various bodily organs as being the bodily locations of thoughts, emotions, desires, pleasure, etc, the writer and his audience really did believe those organs were responsible for those things. Ancient peoples had a similarly poor understanding of the shape of the world, and that is reflected in the bible too, with this sort of idea being typical.


lilpixieofterror,
Your latest post strangely alternates between talking about homosexuality and same-sex marriage as if those were the same thing. In many, probably the majority, of cultures in history, homosexual attraction and homosexual sex have been considered acceptable. Relatively few cultures, however, have had formal same-sex marriage ceremonies.

[Jesse]

Ancient peoples had a similarly poor understanding of the shape of the world, and that is reflected in the bible too.

So you believe the flat earth myth? I'm not going to try and prove this assertion false because that has been done by a multitude of experts. I am wondering though, didn't you tell me you were some sort of Christian theologian? But you don't know that what you just said is utterly false? Hmm...

[Starlight]

I must admit I am confused by this myself. Is Starlight arguing for pederasty and forced same-sex "marriages"? Is he using these examples to say that because there were pederastic cultures and those that broke their own country's laws, that means there should be same-sex marriages here? And would he be okay with pederasty and forced same-sex marriages being legal because it was done in the past? Odd way of looking at this subject...

LOL.
Sparko alleged that throughout history "marriage has always been between a man and a woman". I simply pointed out that he was wrong, and that is the sole reason for this tangent on the historical occurrences of same-sex marriages.

As far as Roman same-sex marriages go, I agree with your general view that if the only evidence we had for same-sex marriages occurring was with regard to Nero, then it would indeed be tempting to dismiss it as a quirk of the emperor. However, if you have a read of Craig William's discussion here (that book has become the standard work on homosexuality in the Roman world, and is an excellent read), you'll note that there are references in various sources to other same-sex marriages. Martial names two specific (non-Emperors) couples involved in such marriages. Juvenal gives yet another (presumably fictional) name for the character in his satire that is undergoing a same-sex marriage, and then speaks of same-sex marriages in the plural as he mocks them: "Meanwhile there’s one huge fact that torments these brides: That they can’t give birth" (Satire 2:117-148). Presumably these writers felt that their readers would know what they were talking about when they spoke of same-sex marriages and same-sex marriage ceremonies. William's conclusion to me seems unassailable: "In short, the evidence certainly suggests that some Roman men participated in wedding ceremonies with other men and considered themselves to be married to those men."

Elsewhere in this thread, I have argued that:

1. The few apparent biblical condemnations of homosexuality are extremely translation and interpretation dependent. On purely exegetical grounds I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion along the lines of "the bible condemns homosexuality". I therefore took issue with the repeated declarations of some posters here that the Bible "clearly" condemns homosexuality.

2. Even were it to be the case that the bible did actually contain clear statements condemning homosexuality, then it would be entirely reasonable to apply to those statements the same sort of treatment that we apply to dubious statements in the bible about slavery, racism, genocide, torture, and the rights of women - ie to downplay the biblical emphasis on such statements and reinterpret them through the lens of love for one's neighbor. Christians who do not hold to inerrancy are not bound to endorse each and every immoral statement the biblical authors ever make, and can instead use the central themes of love and kindness for others to overlook some of the bible's less loving verses. Ignoring the 3 NT verses that (allegedly) speak about homosexuality seems very defensible. I therefore took issue with the repeated declarations of some posters here that it is inconsistent or impossible to be a Christian and not believe homosexual behaviour is sinful.

3. That the harms done to gay people in the present and recent past by negative attitudes and social stigma are incredibly large. I find most people simply have no idea as to how much the lives of gay people are, on average, negatively affected by widespread anti-gay attitudes. I linked to some of the scientific evidence on the subject here:

negative attitudes towards gay people result in an estimated over 2000 pre-mature deaths in Canada alone per year. The major scientific medical and psychological organisations in England and the US have been testifying to governments and courts that discrimination and prejudice has the effect of killing massive numbers of gay people, but that gay marriage is, by contrast, beneficial. So your comparison with alcoholism is wrong, because being gay doesn't hurt people the way drinking alcohol does. Instead it's being anti-gay that hurts people: The 'cure' is a thousand times worse than the 'disease'.

I argued that in light of the serious and large negative effects of social prejudice that are doing clear harm to gay people, and in light of the complete lack of any negative effects of being gay in and of itself, that a Christian ethic of love should lead to support for gay people and endorsement of their behaviour.

4. There was a tangent on the subject of ex-gay conversion therapy. I pointed out that it's well-known to not work.

On all those subjects I received a lot of vehement denials and insults, but not much in the way of actual counterarguments or evidence.

So you believe the flat earth myth? I'm not going to try and prove this assertion false because that has been done by a multitude of experts. I am wondering though, didn't you tell me you were some sort of Christian theologian? But you don't know that what you just said is utterly false? Hmm...

The topic of Hebrew cosmology is certainly well outside my field of expertise, but scholars seem to think that the ancient Israelites would have held cosmological views similar to their neighbours and that this seems borne out by numerous statements made in the OT. While some of the ancient Greeks knew that the world was spherical, and indeed calculated the total size of the earth with impressive accuracy, most people in the ancient world do not appear to have held such a view. The "flat earth myth" is the incorrect idea that Europeans in the late middle-ages believed in a flat earth, whereas people in the ancient world actually did generally believe in a flat earth.