That old time Homosexuality

[pgwenthold]

A letter to the editor in the local rag had the following assertion:

Jesus was a Jew and taught during a time and culture where homosexuality would have been detestable.

Now, I know a little about Roman slave boys, but to what extent does that have relevence to the time and culture of Jesus?

I can imagine there might not have been a lot of homosexuality in the culture where Jesus taught, but the time? Was homosexuality really detestable at that time?

 

[Operaider]

A letter to the editor in the local rag had the following assertion:



Now, I know a little about Roman slave boys, but to what extent does that have relevence to the time and culture of Jesus?

I can imagine there might not have been a lot of homosexuality in the culture where Jesus taught, but the time? Was homosexuality really detestable at that time?

Would it really matter to "the son of God"?

Is he saying that the only reason the bible forbids homosexuality is because Jesus was swayed by the trends of his time?

I don't understand the letter at all

 

[TragicMonkey]

Was homosexuality really detestable at that time?

Not in Greece or Persia.

The Romans were generally accepting of people's personal inclinations, but expected everyone to marry and have children regardless of their orientation. Bisexuality seemed fairly common. Julius Caesar was reputedly quite promiscuous with both men and women, but his nephew Augustus was very much against homosexuality in the upper classes--because it didn't lead to the population increases among Senatorial families that he thought necessary for political stability. Tiberius was regarded as going too far, with his villa full of rather young boys--he crossed the line between having love affairs and becoming a dirty old man, an object of ridicule. I think the Romans could be said to have been okay with it, but it was frowned on if an important public figure let his lusts overcome the dignity of his office--with heterosexuality, too, but to a greater degree with homosexuality. Double standard, but that's culture for ya.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: That old time Homosexuality

Would it really matter to "the son of God"?

Is he saying that the only reason the bible forbids homosexuality is because Jesus was swayed by the trends of his time?

I don't understand the letter at all

That's because I didn't give the whole letter, just one comment.

It started with a letter who said that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Today's letter said he didn't have to because at the time, homosexuality was detestable.

 

[headscratcher4]

I’m going to make a nonsensical argument from the absence of evidence.

We know that Jesus was clearly exercised about a number of sinful behaviors and actions. How? Well, he saved the sinner. For example, Jesus thought prostitution was bad, and he saved Mary Magdalene. Apparently being a tax-gatherer for Rome was bad because Jesus saved Mathew and rescued him from being an evil tax-gatherer. Apparently, diseases were an indication of sin, as he saved lepers and the like.

But, in spite of all the furry these days about the sinful nature of homosexuality, Jesus never saved a homosexual. Nowhere did Jesus pick out a deviant homosexual and either save that person or condemn that person to hell. Therefore, one must assume one of two things, either there were no homosexuals and thus Jesus didn’t have to cast out that devil and offer the sinner salvation. This seems unlikely, as we know that homosexual behavior existed (and did so in the middle-east) because, if for no other reason, they were occupied and greatly influenced by Roman and Greek culture (both far more accepting of some kinds of homosexual behavior).

Of, alternatively, while homosexual behavior existed, nothing about it so offended Jesus as to believe that homosexuals needed special salvation for that particular sin. In other words, Jesus didn’t think he needed to save homosexuals. Now, we know that he loved mankind and would have provided a path to salvation for any sinner (it is what he was about). Thus the fact that there is an absence of saving homosexuals means that he didn’t perceive it as a sin.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Actually, there is a fairly good argument that Jesus did save a homo. Being ex-Catholic, I cannot provide you with the Biblical passage, but I'm sure someone here can. It's where the Roman soldier comes and gets Jesus to heal his "servant". Apparently there is a good linguistic case that "servant" in that passage meant "bodyservant", ie, the youth who took care of his employer in, er, various ways that go a bit beyond lacing up armor. Jesus went ahead and healed the kid, which was the subject of much shock since that was aiding the Romans.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually, there is a fairly good argument that Jesus did save a homo. Being ex-Catholic, I cannot provide you with the Biblical passage, but I'm sure someone here can. It's where the Roman soldier comes and gets Jesus to heal his "servant". Apparently there is a good linguistic case that "servant" in that passage meant "bodyservant", ie, the youth who took care of his employer in, er, various ways that go a bit beyond lacing up armor. Jesus went ahead and healed the kid, which was the subject of much shock since that was aiding the Romans.

What did Jesus heal him of, though? Did he heal him of his 'servitude' or just the measles?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What did Jesus heal him of, though? Did he heal him of his 'servitude' or just the measles?

The Roman didn't complain afterward, did he? Perhaps the servant was having trouble walking.

 

[headscratcher4]

Yes, but such a servent was a slave...given the worst case scenario -- i.e. this was a homosexual relationship -- there is nothing to indicate that the "bodyservent" was a practicing homosexual as opposed to a "forced" homosexual (i.e. by nature of his position in society, slave, he had little occupational choice...a Roman soldier wanted him to be a bitch-boy, he was a bitch-boy. Not unlike the distinction made between homosexuality and homosexual acts among prisioners). My point it that the body servent wouldn't have needed to be cleansed of homosexuality if it wasn't his fault/intent and it was essentially the result of an act of forced rape. He would only be need to be cleansed -- if it is a sin -- of wanten and willful participation, i.e. he liked it and would have been doing it whether "forced" or not.

The one who it seems to me would have had to have been "saved" was the Roman soldier...especially as prostutitues were available to him yet he chose to "do" his bodyservent...demonstrating a sinful nature, etc.

I understand what you are saying, but if it was a forced relationship for whcih the bodyservent had no control, why would he need salvation? Surely, even the catholic church doesn't hold rape victems responsible for a sin FORCED upon them without willfulness or choice? Or, does it?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Surely, even the catholic church doesn't hold rape victems responsible for a sin FORCED upon them without willfulness or choice? Or, does it?

Doesn't the Catholic church (among others) hold us all responsible for a sin forced on us for the mere crime of being born?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, but such a servent was a slave...given the worst case scenario -- i.e. this was a homosexual relationship -- there is nothing to indicate that the "bodyservent" was a practicing homosexual as opposed to a "forced" homosexual (i.e. by nature of his position in society, slave, he had little occupational choice...a Roman soldier wanted him to be a bitch-boy, he was a bitch-boy. Not unlike the distinction made between homosexuality and homosexual acts among prisioners). My point it that the body servent wouldn't have needed to be cleansed of homosexuality if it wasn't his fault/intent and it was essentially the result of an act of forced rape. He would only be need to be cleansed -- if it is a sin -- of wanten and willful participation, i.e. he liked it and would have been doing it whether "forced" or not.

The one who it seems to me would have had to have been "saved" was the Roman soldier...especially as prostutitues were available to him yet he chose to "do" his bodyservent...demonstrating a sinful nature, etc.

I understand what you are saying, but if it was a forced relationship for whcih the bodyservent had no control, why would he need salvation? Surely, even the catholic church doesn't hold rape victems responsible for a sin FORCED upon them without willfulness or choice? Or, does it?

Lol. Sorry, I was unclear. When I said "Jesus saved" I meant "Jesus healed"--he was curing the guy's illness. I saw no connection to the homosexuality, beyond the fact that Jesus didn't deny homosexuals his miracle cures, which suggests he was okay with it. Catholics don't use the term "saved"...I fear I forgot that it actually means something theological to some people!

And as far as the bodyservant went, he probably was a slave, but that doesn't mean the relationship was unwilling. It might be seen as a sensible move, if one is a slave, to get one's master into a relationship. It seems to have worked--the soldier was anxious enough about his well-being to seek out a crazed spiritual healer when more ordinary remedies failed.