The Glade 4.0

http://colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

Interesting article describing same-sex unions in the early christian church.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I wonder if it would do any good to point out, that if you want to see a Biblical understanding of what *actually* existed between Sergius and Bacchus, look up the covenant of David and Jonathon.

The ceremony between the two was considered in the Greek Orthodox Church was considered a "making of brothers", and had nothing sexual about it. It's very alike to the making of a covenant.

Did you read the posted article? The author talks about some very clear references to a relationship that goes beyond platonic.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

1) I am skeptical that the reference is to a marriage.

2)There are churches today that perform same sex marriages.

3) Even if the reference linked is to same sex marriage, they were as wrong to do it then as some denominations are wrong to do it today.

4) History and Scripture show that church leaders are quite capable of getting it wrong on some issues.

5) Haven't we discussed this issue enough? How about giving it a rest.

But, if the early christian church was performing same sex unions, doesn't it stand to reason that they had a more immediate understanding of Christ's view on love an marriage, unfiltered by several massive political changes to the Bible?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The early Christian church also slaughtered unbelievers by the millions, stagnated all scientific progress and essentially ran the governments of Europe for about 500 years due to their near-monopoly on literacy, and made holy war on pretty much the entire known world at one time or another. It took a series of monumental catastrophes (The Great Famine, The Black Death) to discredit them and start reforms, as people finally figured out that prayer would not, as the church said, summon God to solve all their problems. So, I really don't think we should give the early church much credit for what they did, unless of course you want today's Christians (>2 billion people) to believe that this is actually the correct way to run things.

Yep, I read the article, which is based on an interpretation by Boswell, who other historians believe, well, to quote one of them -

" But to begin with, I will say flatly that neither Boswell's reconstruction of them nor his method of argumentation can possibly support the interpretation he proposes....Even the most cursory examination of Boswell's documentation exposes the way he has struggled to force a group of documents to conform to his conclusions. Despite its facade of scholarship, the book is studded with unwarranted a priori assumptions, with arguments from silence, and with dubious, or in some cases outrageously false, translations of critical terms. And Boswell's insouciance about historical accuracy would be unacceptable in an undergraduate paper."

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/ ... rling.html

I completely agree with you. I think we should all go back and adopt the kinder, gentler policies and methods of the early church.

In an effort to appease the TLDNR folks:


Link

Glad to see that some reporter wrote a shoddy story a year ago so it could be found and discredited...again. Its always amusing when folks get a hold of books written by a man dead for 15 years who's historical methodology is slipshod and disingenuous at best; not to mention discredited (by historians of all sexual proclivity). I guess it's an old tactic: Wait long enough hoping people will forget what has been disproven and present it like it's "new".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

It hardly did any such thing. You're exaggerating the numbers significantly, and it did so against opponents that had already shown themselves quite willing to oppress and attack Christians. You're also not describing the "early church" you're describing the church in the middle ages, especially AFTER the Great Schism, or about a thousand years into its history.



not at all



It hardly did any such thing. It did not have a monopoly or even a near-monopoly on literacy, and Popes really had little control over most governments, even the Holy Roman Empire. Ultimately secular rulers held the military power. Maybe you'd be wise to consider that Boniface VIII was slapped and beaten by the King of France and held in captivity, and other such wrangling between clergy and secular rulers were common; the threat of excommunication being far less effective than people often think.



If by "entire known world" you mean PAlestine, sure. You should also remember that by that time Muslims had attacked and dismantled churches and shrines in Spain, not to mention the Church of the Holy Sepulchere, and that the aggression was not merely unprovoked attacks on muslims who had been innocently coexisting until that time.



The Church hardly promised that prayer would either summon God or solve all earthly problems.



Maybe you should stop describing the midieval church as the early church, and using a strawman oversimplification of history to do it. The proper way to run things doesn't include creating distorted histories of things you don't like either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wow, there is so much incorrect and distorted history in this post I don't even know where to begin.

So, you those of you posting here support a marriage like ceremony, similar to those described here, between men?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Depends. Is it in the church, not in the church, and what exactly is the purpose of it and what's the relationship between the men, both at the time in the past cited, and what would it be now?

I commend you in pointing out that there is at least superficial support for same-sex marriage in church tradition. I'd advise you not to overextend here. Although I don't think Scripture teaches that same-sex attractions, sex, or relationships (when monogamous) are necessarily wrong, it also clearly does not say they are explicitly right either, and I hold my opinions on what Scripture says in the firm understanding that I may, ultimately, not be correct about what it really means. My main goal in pointing out the flaws in "the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality" is to point out uncertainty, not to claim I am unequivocally right. My position is my own, and it ultimately is not one that falls into the category of salvation-dependant.

If you'll pardon the digression, my point here is that you have the opportunity to improve your reputation here monumentally if you approach this topic with a firm understanding of the limits of what you've pointed out. I realize you may be averse to advice from me, but I would implore you to try your very best to approach this particular thread without trying for a "99 yard touchdown run" mentality on the issue, if you'll pardon the expression. I couldn't think of any way to describe it that didn't have the possibility of being misconstrued.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Considering what's been posted concerning Boswell and his conclusions, I'd call it a 5 yard loss, myself.

You're not helping.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you had told me that the "early christian church" was more in favor of gay marriage than Obama, I wouldn't have believed it.

I wasn't trying to help.

Eh, not so sure I agree with those attacks on Boswell.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

A marriage is a covenant.

Not all covenants are marriages.

The "attacks" are pretty factual. One example of how Boswell stretches his translations -

"For example, discussing a passage from Xenophon, he translates a passage which in Greek reads aner kai pais suzugentes homilousin, "man and boy converse/consort, being bound together" (cf. Greek-English Lexicon, ed. Liddell and Scott, col. 1669) "as in Boeotia, man and boy live together, like married people." In a footnote to this passage, he does grant that "like married people" is not literally expressed here-but fails to inform the nonspecialist reader that there is no mention of marriage in the passage at all!"

Indeed. Such a relationship might easily exist between, say, a knight and a squire.

Some people imagine homoeroticism in any sort of close male relationship; to the point that men showering in the same locker room is viewed as "homoerotic".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wrong. I'd say "millions" is a pretty conservative estimate. He's not just talking about the crusades. He's talking about every single person executed or killed in the name of the church from the council at Nicea and onward, whether for heresy or witchcraft or anything at all. And I think you're being far too kind in a rather pathetic attempt to justify the crusades even in what you do post.



"All" is probably hyperbole. They certainly did their best to slow scientific advancement though. Galileo wasn't a one-off isolated event. He was neither the first nor the last who's research received such treatment.



Not for lack of trying. The church held varying degrees of influence throughout history. It should be noted that the Church of England exists as an entity separated from papal authority because King Henry wanted his marriage annulled and couldn't get it done. This both proves Xequecal's point and yours. The church weilded incredible power, to the point of kingdoms needing to go to extraordinary ends (such as creating a new church) to retain any level of autonomy. Nevertheless, some did go to those ends, such as Henry (with Wycliff's support) to achieve that autonomy. That wouldn't be the last time the catholic church tried to interfere in England's affairs, though.



Don't forget the Jews were every bit as victimized by Christians in the crusades as Muslims were.

Over a period of about 400 years, various crusades also attacked: Spain, Portugal, Egypt, Occitania, Syria, Russia (against the Russian Orthodox in the Northern Crusades), the Stedingers of Germany/Netherlands, Estonia, Prussia, Poland, the Balkans, Finland and Bohemia. Not all the targets were muslim (although many were.)

Furthermore, apart from the crusades the church(es) was(were) involved at a foundational level in just about every major European war between the time periods of Nicea right up to (and including) World War 2.

And not every conquest was an actual war...the "Word about the Christ" typically did not spread through nice voluntary evangelism and acceptance of the local populace. The vast majority of christian expansion involved forced conversions and the violent eradication of old customs and beliefs.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Read the Narrative of Cabeza de Vaca some time, to get an interesting period perspective on forced conversion of native peoples during that time frame.

The Catholic church continues to try and exert church authority over secular governments, even in this day and age. We can see that with the threats they make in places like DC, their work on behalf of denying marriage equality, their support for legislation that actually *increases* unwanted pregnancy, and their attempts to force legislators to do as the church wills.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

All legitimate social concerns of Christianity.

1) Threats? They're simply pointing out to the power that be that if they try to force them to do something they cannot do with a clear conscience before God, then the power that be will have to look elsewhere. You're all up for separation of church and state; why support the state telling churches what they must do?

2) Again, conscience before God.

3) the only thing that increases unwanted pregnancy is people not taking responsibility for their own actions, unless you're arguing that the church is forcing people to have sex.

4) The church has legitimate concerns here. They are not telling legislators what they can or cannot do; they are telling them that if they want to remain in good standing with the church, this is the requirement.

When talking about the Crusades, you need to specify which one you are talking about. The drives and results of them vary to much to lump them together.

For example, the 4th Crusade was initiated by the Pope in order to counter violent muslim expansion, but it quickly got completely out of his control, and became a way for some nobles to get some cash. They attacked and sacked Constantinople, a Christian state. The Pope excomunicated the crusaders.

Also, saying that the church was involved in every major European war, is somewhat true, but completely misleading. An organization that large, with members in every single European country, couldn't help to be involved to some extent or another. But that doesn't mean they were responsible, or caused them.

And regarding stagnation of scientific discovery, that is just hogwash. At certain points the Church has (like Galileo), but in its history it has done far more to advance science. There is an incredible amount of knowledge that would have been completely lost during the Dark Ages, were it not for the Church.

And most scientific advancement occured in the church. This isn't because the church restricted science not done by the church, but that the church was one of the only place where such science could be done. Some governments supported it to some extent, in order to come up with weapons of war (that's how Leonardo got a lot of his support), but especially for research that had little practical military application, the only option was the Church.