Lord_Tigersloth
Registered Senior Member
I was talking about this today and realised how little I actually knew. At the time that the new testament of the Bible was written, what were the attitudes of the culture?
Homosexuality
- Thread starter Lord_Tigersloth
- Start date
IN a thread i've posted in 'philosophy' titled The Evolution of Dualism, you will note that patriarchal religions and cults all denigrate sensuality.
For patriarchs sexuality is for procreation only. Even thhough some will argue that the Judaic religion of te Hebrews -a writ in the Bible etc SEEMS to be cool about te joys of sensuality, reead closer and you see they mean just for men....and even ten te onus is on procreation---love between males is out!
In ancinet Greek culture there was an accepted sexual behaviour between older mentors and young boys, but same age male sexual relationships was frowned upon
owever in prepatriarchal culture and Indigenous culture, sam sex was not onlynot frowned upon but celebrated as was bisexuality. The few condemnatory passages in OT and NT against same ex is really MORE condemnation of that very GODDESS religion, and rituals that accepted ambiguous ecstatic sexuality. The specifoc term the patriarchs denigrate all that wit is 'Abomination'
if you see that chart, also note how when te paradigm SEEMS t change from the Age of Religion to the Age of Science (materialistic science), that 'sensuality' stays in the 'bad' category. so although, ambiguous sex including homosexuality, bisexuality, may APPEAR to be accepted it really isn't. there is still a fierce taboo against it. ESPECIALLY between males. when was the last time you say any programme on TV, or film which showed sexual relationship between males? or when was the lat time you say males holding hands or kissing in public?
For patriarchs sexuality is for procreation only. Even thhough some will argue that the Judaic religion of te Hebrews -a writ in the Bible etc SEEMS to be cool about te joys of sensuality, reead closer and you see they mean just for men....and even ten te onus is on procreation---love between males is out!
In ancinet Greek culture there was an accepted sexual behaviour between older mentors and young boys, but same age male sexual relationships was frowned upon
owever in prepatriarchal culture and Indigenous culture, sam sex was not onlynot frowned upon but celebrated as was bisexuality. The few condemnatory passages in OT and NT against same ex is really MORE condemnation of that very GODDESS religion, and rituals that accepted ambiguous ecstatic sexuality. The specifoc term the patriarchs denigrate all that wit is 'Abomination'
if you see that chart, also note how when te paradigm SEEMS t change from the Age of Religion to the Age of Science (materialistic science), that 'sensuality' stays in the 'bad' category. so although, ambiguous sex including homosexuality, bisexuality, may APPEAR to be accepted it really isn't. there is still a fierce taboo against it. ESPECIALLY between males. when was the last time you say any programme on TV, or film which showed sexual relationship between males? or when was the lat time you say males holding hands or kissing in public?
The issue is not mentioned by Jesus.
There are only 5 indirect references in the OT and NT combined -
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9, and I Timothy 1:10-all of which, are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself. There is nothing in the gospels.
In Leviticus it is called an abomination but then so is eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different materials.
Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, has done careful reading in current biblical scholarship about homosexuality and he concludes that "the Bible supplies no real basis for the condemnation of homosexuality."
There is nothing in the bible about long term stable loving relationships between same sex couples, neither are there any references to lesbianism.
Note there is also no reference to abortion which is a hot issue with modern day religionists - clearly their source is not biblical.
There are only 5 indirect references in the OT and NT combined -
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9, and I Timothy 1:10-all of which, are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself. There is nothing in the gospels.
In Leviticus it is called an abomination but then so is eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different materials.
Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, has done careful reading in current biblical scholarship about homosexuality and he concludes that "the Bible supplies no real basis for the condemnation of homosexuality."
There is nothing in the bible about long term stable loving relationships between same sex couples, neither are there any references to lesbianism.
Note there is also no reference to abortion which is a hot issue with modern day religionists - clearly their source is not biblical.
*************Cris said:
M*W: Somewhere I have read that abortion is permitted in the Jewish culture up to the 40th day gestation. Most of the Board certified OB/GYNs who perform abortions I have encountered or researched are Jewish and perform abortions to a much later gestational date (i.e. 26 weeks in Texas).
Lord_Tigersloth
Registered Senior Member
Thanks, that is really useful 
During the time the bible was written, no one really cared. Hell, all of the Roman Emperors, except for Augustus and Claudius, were bisexual. Homo- and Bi-sexuality were accepted in Grecoroman culture as normal.Lord_Tigersloth said:
The whole "g4yz r t3h evul" thing was started by Christians long after the NT was written.
Actually, the two basic cultures were actively and consciously competing from about 500 B.C., when Greek culture came in contact with Jewish culture. The resulting violent clash and war drew the line between them forever.
There was no way Jews could ever accept Greek customs once the Greeks had actually invaded the Holy of Holies in the very Temple and sacrificed a pig on the altar: they became sworn enemies. How can anyone with any knowledge of history not know this?
Sadly, its because Protestants dropped one whole third of the Bible out, following the idiot Martin Luther, who embraced the Jewish canon in an attempt to convert them. Later he was disgruntled at his complete failure to convert the Jews, and spouted anti-Semitic pamphlets against them until his death. This set the stage for Hitler.
In that section of the bible called the Apocrypha, and still found in most Catholic bibles, you will find the missing history of the war between the Greeks and the Jews, which happened just before the coming of Christ and set the stage and the background of beliefs for Jews of that period.
It is a false and superficial reading to think or claim that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality of all types. Both the Old and New Testaments firmly condemn those practices, even though the key words and explicit statements are rare.
The fact is, so much of this is just assumed by OT and NT writers that their books don't make any sense without such basic background.
Here is an example: The Old Testament only mentions by name about one third of the months of the year. It would be impossible now to reconstruct even the names of the months in the calendar used in those times, if we did not appeal to extra-biblical sources like the Talmud to fill in the blanks.
Another clear example: the English Common Book of Prayer (old version) has a whole section on who is allowed to marry who. Although it goes into great detail, forbidding Brother to marry sister, and father/daughter etc. It is clear from the text and context that the purpose is genetic purity and the prevention of inbreeding, the results of which were well known by farmers and clerics alike even a thousand years ago. Yet there is NO command forbidding a brother to marry a brother, or a man/son or mother/daughter. Why? Were those marriages allowed? No! Rather, it was so inconceivable that any man would even try to marry his brother or father, that there was no need to even list it as forbidden. Homosexuality was forbidden as a given, and no laws were needed to cover it.
It is a mistake to think that the authors of the Common Book of Prayer were unaware of homosexuality or its forbidden status, just because it is never mentioned in the entire book which forms the traditional handbook of Anglicanism and Church matters for the last 800 years. They obviously knew there was such a thing, and that it is forbidden.
The same is true of the bible. It rarely mentions things that were well known and taken for granted as forbidden practices banned for all time for all of Israel.
We might have liked the biblical authors to have been more complete or precise for our own purposes, but that is unrealistic. They wrote what they thought was important to write about.
There was no way Jews could ever accept Greek customs once the Greeks had actually invaded the Holy of Holies in the very Temple and sacrificed a pig on the altar: they became sworn enemies. How can anyone with any knowledge of history not know this?
Sadly, its because Protestants dropped one whole third of the Bible out, following the idiot Martin Luther, who embraced the Jewish canon in an attempt to convert them. Later he was disgruntled at his complete failure to convert the Jews, and spouted anti-Semitic pamphlets against them until his death. This set the stage for Hitler.
In that section of the bible called the Apocrypha, and still found in most Catholic bibles, you will find the missing history of the war between the Greeks and the Jews, which happened just before the coming of Christ and set the stage and the background of beliefs for Jews of that period.
It is a false and superficial reading to think or claim that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality of all types. Both the Old and New Testaments firmly condemn those practices, even though the key words and explicit statements are rare.
The fact is, so much of this is just assumed by OT and NT writers that their books don't make any sense without such basic background.
Here is an example: The Old Testament only mentions by name about one third of the months of the year. It would be impossible now to reconstruct even the names of the months in the calendar used in those times, if we did not appeal to extra-biblical sources like the Talmud to fill in the blanks.
Another clear example: the English Common Book of Prayer (old version) has a whole section on who is allowed to marry who. Although it goes into great detail, forbidding Brother to marry sister, and father/daughter etc. It is clear from the text and context that the purpose is genetic purity and the prevention of inbreeding, the results of which were well known by farmers and clerics alike even a thousand years ago. Yet there is NO command forbidding a brother to marry a brother, or a man/son or mother/daughter. Why? Were those marriages allowed? No! Rather, it was so inconceivable that any man would even try to marry his brother or father, that there was no need to even list it as forbidden. Homosexuality was forbidden as a given, and no laws were needed to cover it.
It is a mistake to think that the authors of the Common Book of Prayer were unaware of homosexuality or its forbidden status, just because it is never mentioned in the entire book which forms the traditional handbook of Anglicanism and Church matters for the last 800 years. They obviously knew there was such a thing, and that it is forbidden.
The same is true of the bible. It rarely mentions things that were well known and taken for granted as forbidden practices banned for all time for all of Israel.
We might have liked the biblical authors to have been more complete or precise for our own purposes, but that is unrealistic. They wrote what they thought was important to write about.
Last edited:
its importantto also understan that the patriarchal persecution of 'homosexuality' and 'bisexualit' was in the context of teirmore deeper attak on Goddess religion and rtuals where same sexaulity was not only acceptd but honoured, part of rituals, which would also involve of course trnasgendered, transvesties..........all manner of ambguous sexuality. tis was what te patriarchs called 'Abomination'
deeper, it isa fear of the feminine, especially its anceint association with Nature
deeper, it isa fear of the feminine, especially its anceint association with Nature
Persecution of homosexuality was not 'patriarchical'. If anything, patriarchy would support hetrodox (including homosexual) relationships, since the inequality and the built-in mentorship implied by patriarchy would lend itself to the typical man/boy relationships favoured by homosexuals. As a matter of fact, Greek society, which was extremely patriarchical openly approved of homosexuality in those common forms.
The thesis falls upon its face.
Of course in later periods various Goddess religions were attacked, but this was most often simply a pretext for looting, which the ages of 'empire' building relied upon. The Goddess religions were not particularly singled out to be exterminated or expunged at all. In fact they continued to thrive in the most extreme patriarchical environments, such as the Roman Empire.
Even today, the 'Goddess' religions are not at all extinct or unpopular, since the whole activity centers around prostitution, and that is one of the three largest industries in the modern world.
Fear of the feminine is uniquely a male homosexual attitude, coming from dysfunctional childhood relationships and stunted maturity encouraged by drug abuse.
The thesis falls upon its face.
Of course in later periods various Goddess religions were attacked, but this was most often simply a pretext for looting, which the ages of 'empire' building relied upon. The Goddess religions were not particularly singled out to be exterminated or expunged at all. In fact they continued to thrive in the most extreme patriarchical environments, such as the Roman Empire.
Even today, the 'Goddess' religions are not at all extinct or unpopular, since the whole activity centers around prostitution, and that is one of the three largest industries in the modern world.
Fear of the feminine is uniquely a male homosexual attitude, coming from dysfunctional childhood relationships and stunted maturity encouraged by drug abuse.
*************
M*W: Persecution of homosexuality was an invention of the homophobic patriarchy. Homosexual practices were normal and accepted in Greek and Roman societies where men were married, but it was frowned on for them to commit adultery but not when they fucked young boys up their asses. Often these young boys were castrated so they could maintain their high-pitched voices to sing like angels and fuck like devils. However, this wasn't "true" homosexuality. It was more like socially accepted pedophilia. Most of these perverts still fucked their women occasionally. As far as the Romans go, the RCC is undoubtedly the most patriarchal bunch of thugs since the maleeolent history of Genesis.
*************
M*W: This is absolutely incorrect! The goddess religions were not attacked for the purpose of looting. They were attacked to destroy everything feminine.
*************
M*W: Again, no, you are hallucinating. Goddess religions are making a come-back, and they are NOT centered around prostitution! Goddess religions are centered on healing and Earth energy. They have always been around, just hidden away from danger like during the patriarchal Inquisition. Prostitution is a creation of and perpetuated by the male gender (the patriarchy). It's just another way to keep women under their thumbs and dicks.
*************
M*W: Homosexuals as a rule don't fear the feminine. They embrace it. Homosexuals don't always come from dysfunctional childhood relationships. That's a false belief. Some of the most talented homosexuals have come from very nurturing family relationships, and not all homosexuals are drug abusers.
It's obvious that you are homophobic. A man with his head together wouldn't write something as assinine as this. You have done absoluely no research, and you are a threat to peace among the human race.
Please don't parade this tired old line out.
What nonsense.
If anything it should be obvious that the majority of the Patriarchal Power Elite ARE homosexuals.
And THAT power elite certainly is persecuting women,
by setting wages a third below that of men.
When are feminists going to wake up?
Homosexual males fear you, hate you, and will never let you have any power.
Any intelligent feminist worth her salt isn't going to blame ALL men, or ONLY men for the state of the world.
SOME women also contribute to perpetuating bad aspects of culture and assist in enslaving other women by competing with them. Read some more modern feminist literature please. Half-truths are so boring.
These are all good points, except they don't refute anything I have said, only what you have read into it incorrectly. As if I would disagree with this.
Don't bother dressing me up as a straw dog.
A woman with her head together wouldn't write something as assinine as this.
I've read over ten thousand books and articles, an average of about 5 or 6 per day in my heyday as a researcher. I have mastered five languages and several fields scientific fields just so that I wouldn't have to rely upon the idiotic interpretations of people like you, but instead now I can read the Old Testament for myself in Hebrew and Aramaic (parts of Jeremiah and Daniel) as well as the Septuagint in Semitic Greek, and the Apocrypha and the Apocalyptic literature in Palestinian pointed Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean, Syriac, and I can even read the Book of Enoch in the original Ethiopic.
I am a master of Koine Greek and Classical (Attic, Ionic etc) and I am a New Testment Scholar and Textual Critic.
But that's just a hobby. I am also a physicist, and an Electical Engineer.
What have you done, dickwad.
yes einstuk ...you are , as we say in UK slang, 'up yer arse'.......of course this is free forums. i love it that way. biut you have barged into tis space like abull in a china shop pushin your dodgy teories down everyone's thorats, what you expect but disrespect
you claim to have rad a 1000books. so what, it dontimpress me wat iota if i feel you haven't got any deep insight. which i am afriad i dont see you have......ANd as is typical for know-it-alls, you DUCK questions......so i am first gonna feels yo out...
have you EVER had psychedelic experience?
IF so, whatpsychdelic was it?
If so, what was yyour LAST experience like?
if yo dont want to answer say so. just dont ignore te questions please. tanks
now regarding to points you've made about homoseuxals hating women.....your view reminds of of Mckie..? have forgotten his name for a moment. you can find him writing online condemning te Illuminati yet also condemning feminsism. te guy does my heaed in wit his mixed up views but i hae not been able to contact him. i see your views are similar to his
Listen to Medicine Woman --about ancinet Greek culture, she is spot on. tere are two types of 'homosexuals' and ig that that very term is a relatviely recent one---see Buddha1 treads too!......tose who fear teir love of males and those who accept it. te frmer ca be very viscios to othes, and/or to themselves. YOUR version is of te latte variety.
males who do accept teir feelings for males also have great empathy with women. spcially homosexuals who are termed 'effeminate'
In Goddess religion all forms of ambiguous sexuality was honoured. this was what the patriarchal writers/preachers/oppressors persecuted as the 'Abominations'.....te patriarchal mind-set generally demands 'order' and hates, loathes. fears, ambiguity/chaos/dis-order
this same old same old patriarchal trait is very rvealed in te dos and donts of materialistic culture. where prediction and control is central to its philosophy and practice!
you claim to have rad a 1000books. so what, it dontimpress me wat iota if i feel you haven't got any deep insight. which i am afriad i dont see you have......ANd as is typical for know-it-alls, you DUCK questions......so i am first gonna feels yo out...
have you EVER had psychedelic experience?
IF so, whatpsychdelic was it?
If so, what was yyour LAST experience like?
if yo dont want to answer say so. just dont ignore te questions please. tanks
now regarding to points you've made about homoseuxals hating women.....your view reminds of of Mckie..? have forgotten his name for a moment. you can find him writing online condemning te Illuminati yet also condemning feminsism. te guy does my heaed in wit his mixed up views but i hae not been able to contact him. i see your views are similar to his
Listen to Medicine Woman --about ancinet Greek culture, she is spot on. tere are two types of 'homosexuals' and ig that that very term is a relatviely recent one---see Buddha1 treads too!......tose who fear teir love of males and those who accept it. te frmer ca be very viscios to othes, and/or to themselves. YOUR version is of te latte variety.
males who do accept teir feelings for males also have great empathy with women. spcially homosexuals who are termed 'effeminate'
In Goddess religion all forms of ambiguous sexuality was honoured. this was what the patriarchal writers/preachers/oppressors persecuted as the 'Abominations'.....te patriarchal mind-set generally demands 'order' and hates, loathes. fears, ambiguity/chaos/dis-order
this same old same old patriarchal trait is very rvealed in te dos and donts of materialistic culture. where prediction and control is central to its philosophy and practice!
Lord_Tigersloth
Registered Senior Member
Clearly there is a lot of division on this! Thank you for the input though, and duendy, I don't think that there is anything wrong with being a "sober **ite"