Amazing. I've never heard of that, but I don't find it surprising as the history of Christian views on such matters is not consistent. Thank you for mentioning it.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Please Explain: "Gay Christian"
- Thread starter NewGuyOnTheBlock
- Start date
Amazing. I've never heard of that, but I don't find it surprising as the history of Christian views on such matters is not consistent. Thank you for mentioning it.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
It is recorded in the annals of the Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova and is by no means unique.
There was also a long tradition of formal brotherhood ceremonies in which men were permanently bonded together into a life long relationship, Adelphopoiesis, Affrerementand the Ordo ad fratres faciendum. These were formal sacraments linking two men under the eyes of god.
Last edited:
Oh, I've definitely heard of that. Ss. Sergius and Bacchus were joined in one of those ceremonies and they've long been honored as examples of a gay Christian marriage. Naysayers like to say that it was just an arrangement to make "brothers" out of two unrelated men, but that ignores the blatant homoerotic undertones of those relationships. It reminds me of the strong romantic love that David and Jonathan had for each other. If that wasn't homoerotic, I don't know what is.
In fact, from what I understand, there was a Greek order of warriors(I forget the name), where homosexuality was commonplace. However, these were warriors, and among the best, I understand. Hardly effeminate.
Yeah, the Sacred Band of Thebes. No, homosexuality itself wasn't viewed as effeminate. It was certainly praised at times. What the Greco-Roman world looked down on was the partner who was on the receptive end. The Romans had a bunch of colorful insults for those people. But homoerotic love between manly men was seen as a great thing.
Sacred Band of Thebes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sergius and Bacchus were also warriors.
This article is also enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality
I found this paragraph to be most interesting:
In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who took on the passive role of a bride (rather than marry as equals with another man).[8] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[9]
It seems that those edicts condemned what we would call effeminacy and being the receptive partner, which is in keeping with ancient Greco-Roman sexual mores and gender roles. But it doesn't seem to condemn homosexuality itself.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Same sex marriage was a focus of our last elections here in Australia unfortunately, I say unfortunately because we had plenty of far more significant problems to deal with and the consensus supporting gay marriage is quite clear.
Hence I did a little research.
What I found most perplexing were the arguments levied against it - none of them seemed to make any sense at all, even at the most basic level. Generally in political dialogue both sides of a given position have at least some elements of logic or reason that they can cantilever into an argument.
In this case it did appear to boil down to simply political expediency - the voting power of the Christian lobby being the prize, even though they represented a distinct minority. And worse - even though the majority of Christians seem to take no issue either, only their ancient leadership.
Hence I did a little research.
What I found most perplexing were the arguments levied against it - none of them seemed to make any sense at all, even at the most basic level. Generally in political dialogue both sides of a given position have at least some elements of logic or reason that they can cantilever into an argument.
In this case it did appear to boil down to simply political expediency - the voting power of the Christian lobby being the prize, even though they represented a distinct minority. And worse - even though the majority of Christians seem to take no issue either, only their ancient leadership.
Last edited:
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Just to be clear at the outset...I am both and atheist and "straight".
I can not know nor explain why any "gay" person (male or female) would enjoin any "conservative" political viewpoint...any. "Conservatives" (I prefer the nomenclature as being "regressive") tend towards abject bigotry and hate of any persons they dislike or deem "different" from themselves, but that is a different topic for a different forum.
But let's at least be fair here. Not ALL self-identifying "Christians" are, as you offer, "condemning" of gay people.
Denominations, and even more specifically, individual churches, may welcome all to their worship and services.
And,the "abomination" of homosexuality ranks right up there equally with such matters as eating shellfish,etc. [Proverbs 6:16-19], [Proverbs 17:15], [Galatians 5:19-21], just getting started...
if you accept such silly things as "truth". Yes, I've read Proverbs, Numbers, Deut., etc. Odd how many "Christians" have never read, much less abide by "scripture" to invalidate the words of their named Savior, much less follow the mandates of pious rules ascribed as "faith" and loyalty to a "God". But never mind the hypocrisies that puts forward for now... atheists are immune to such things.
It remains of no interest to me whether or not you are a "believer" in supernatural entities or not, nor if you are sexually attracted towards your own gender. Honestly, I don't care. I don't pretend that I understand believing in Santa anymore than I feel "born" with any physical attraction towards men. NO paradox there...just doesn't exist for me. But then, I'm not "gay". But if you are, I really do not care either. I support equal representation under law. Simple.
I even support the notion that "churches" may choose whom they allow as "members", and whom they choose to exclude, as any non-profit "club" may exercise (or exorcize) their wishes by their own rules.
But, and this is a big but. You may always VOTE (as I most often do) to best serve your own interests. Bigots and fools can ALWAYS be voted out of office. If you believe in equal justice under law, then VOTE. Otherwise, you are just "pi**ing up a rope.
"Lincoln Log" Republicans have been voting for years (decades?) to preserve "conservative" values in their elected officials, never to discover any representation within their own community of "gay Christians". That is always your choice, your call, your desire to fulfill.
Here we all go again.
If being gay is more important to you than being a part of the under taxed minority of wealthy people, vote differently this time.
Otherwise, you get what you don't vote for or against. Period.
It's sad. They are preying on the fears and ignorance of the populace. People need to be educated in the fact that the relation between Christianity and homosexuality is a lot more nuanced than most think.
Indeed. The early Christians would be appalled at such an attitude.
The only other places that might be adduced from the Old Testament against homosexuality are Deuteronomy 23:17 and Kings 14:24, and*-doubtless the best know n places Leviticus 18:20 and 20: 13, where a man's sleeping the asleep of women" with men is labelled ritual impurity for Jews. None of these was cited by early Christians against homosexual behavior. Early Christians had no desire to impose the levitical law on themselves or anyone else. Most non*Jewish Christians were in fact appalled by most of the strictures of the Jewish law and were not about to put themselves under what they considered the bondage of the old law. St. Paul says again and again that we must not fall back on the bondage of the old law, and in fact goes so far as to claim that if we are circumcised (the cornerstone of the old law), Christ will profit us nothing. The early Christians were not to bind themselves to the strictures of the old law. The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D. and recorded in Acts 15, in fact took up this issue specifically and decided that Christians would not be bound by any of the strictures of the old law except for which they list - none of which is related to homosexuality.
Internet History Sourcebooks Project
Well, I can't do but remark that European Christians are much more tolerant and comprehensive toward gay people than American Christians.
By the way, of course you can define yourself "a Christian gay".
Being gay is not a choice. It's in your DNA, so you have to be proud of yourself, of your uniqueness, and you are supposed to fall in love and to be happy like everyone else.
In the Bible there are archaic obsolete statements, by chance told by Jews, like Saint Paul. Jews have always been androcentric, so they considered inferior both women and homosexuals.
Hey
And welcome to the club.
I'm a straight guy.
As a teenager and in my early twenties I used to practise homosexuality several times. For someone like me these practising are "unnatural" and therefore I believe Paul the Apostle was focusing his letters on guys like me.
For a homoseksual, that is someone who was born so and thus can't help being gay, it is rather unnatural to have seks with a girl.
Also in Paul's letter to the Romans he is clearly talking about boys who gave up (natural) seks with their girls in exchange for (unnatural) seks with other boys.
I've been interviewing some christian gays in my country regarding this letter of Paul to the Romans. They all felt they don't fit in the story which Paul had been picturing.
I agree with them and I'm sure that Paul wrote these verses for guys like me, straight guys.
And that we have to repent from what we did.
Same is for Leviticus 18:22.
It says: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Most gays don't do that, but I did. I had seks with boys in the way I had seks with girls.
Gay boys on the other hand in most cases won't do that, because they don't even want to try seks with a girl and seek other gays to have seks with only.
Lev. 18:22 is not against homosexuals. It's against homosexuality. It's a small difference, but as a boy you can only break this rule when you know how it is like to have seks with a girl in the first place.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Saint Frankenstein
Absolutely, I do not believe that the average Catholic has an issue with homosexuality, and that in time the aged powers that be within Catholicism will simply move with the times.
I think it was Galileo that said that you don't change the minds of the old in power - but they die.
Future generations are going to look at this entire issue as some sort of incomprehensible anachronism. When I was a child in school and they made me sit on my left hand because being left handed was evil - I'm only 47, and yes Catholic Nuns beat me for being left handed. When I tell people that today it seems just as absurd as when you try to tell your grandkids that people gave a damn about who you choose to sleep with. You can be a gay Catholic and as sincere and genuine on your faith as anyone.
Absolutely, I do not believe that the average Catholic has an issue with homosexuality, and that in time the aged powers that be within Catholicism will simply move with the times.
I think it was Galileo that said that you don't change the minds of the old in power - but they die.
Future generations are going to look at this entire issue as some sort of incomprehensible anachronism. When I was a child in school and they made me sit on my left hand because being left handed was evil - I'm only 47, and yes Catholic Nuns beat me for being left handed. When I tell people that today it seems just as absurd as when you try to tell your grandkids that people gave a damn about who you choose to sleep with. You can be a gay Catholic and as sincere and genuine on your faith as anyone.
Last edited:
They like to ignore the part where he says all sex is pretty much a sin in 1 Corinthians. I know we should be telling these Christians go out and sin no more but they know very well it is impossible. So at the end of the day everyone has their vices to deal with, harping on any of them as special is hypocritical.
There should be no paradox. Christianity at its core and the lessons taught by Jesus have nothing to do with sexuality. That was added later by men.
That is so true and well said. Polls show that lay Catholics are more accepting of gay rights than even the average American in general. There are many clergy that are accepting of it, too, so things are changing even within the hierarchy. So change is happening, even within our lifetimes. Pope Francis is even trying to steer the Church from obsessing over homosexuality and point us toward carrying out social justice work. I hope the Popes to come in the future continue his good work to remind the Church of her proper mission.
I'm so sorry that that happened to you.
I'm left handed, too.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
And other experts disagree with him. So...
I'm not so sure they disagree with him as much as you think. I looked through some of your links, and I noticed that a lot of arguments hinge on the idea that there are other passages in the Bible that seem to contradict a strict interpretation of those "clobber verses"; in that respect, I agree: there's plenty in the Bible that suggests that LGBT people should be loved and accepted. The difference between them and me is that I don't necessarily think that this should dictate how we interpret those "clobber verses". The books of the Bible were written by different people at different times, so I see no reason to assume that they're all communicating a single cohesive message.
Short version: I still think that there's anti-LGBT material in the Bible. However, I certainly don't think that the balance of pro- and anti-LGBT material justifies an anti-gay position.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Not necessarily forced homosexuality, but forced sex in general.
Arsenokoitai is found used with both men and women.
For instance when Zeus kidnaps and rapes Ganymede.
"...Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.
John the Faster, Penitential, about AD 575.
I found a reference to arsenokoitai as Temple prostitutes (who were quite often sold to the temple, or givin/dedicated by a family,) but more specifically to the Greek custom of an older "HETEROSEXUAL" man, an erastes taking an eromanos, an adolescent boy as a student. The man teachs hunting, warfare, and adult male customs to the boy, and has SEX with him! Greek males also used subordinate males for sex. Also the fact that "HETEROSEXUAL" males in both the Greek and Hebrew worlds could keep male slaves and use them for sex!
In this case it would mean a "HETEROSEXUAL male dominating/using/raping usually younger or subordinate males/slaves/temple prostitutes"
It seems clear that arsenokoites does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships, but to a powerful aggressor subjugating a weaker individual, whether in the context of culture, rape, or slave trading, or temple prostitutes.
A few books on the subject.
The Construction of Homosexuality. Greenberg, David.
Greek Homosexuality. Dover, Kenneth.
Martin, Dale. Arsenokoites and malakos: Meanings and Consequences. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, Robert Brawley.
*