Legion said:
If I recall my church history correctly, the catholic church was the only christian church in europe after the schism, until the rise of protestantism in the 1500s. All of the current denominations of christianity basically came out of protestantism separation.
What relevance does this have wrt to anything Natoma? Not a damn thing. The catholic church inaccurately proclaims itself as "the church." Infact, "the church" was the body of believers who constituded the christian religion. Get your facts straight. So you are telling me the Pope accepted this behavior and a later pope over turned it and this was all happening unbeknowst to the rest of the world?!
You said the catholic church was not the only christian church, when that is just not the case. The catholic church
was the only christian church before the 1500s protestant movement.
Legion said:
Second, just because information was found after much digging doesn't mean that it was done without the pope's knowledge or that it wasn't common place.
It was common place and had the Pope's support however the Catholic church frowns on such behavior and no real lliterary evidence exists substantiating these claims? So you are telling me the Pope accepted this behavior and a later pope over turned it and this was all happening unbeknowst to the rest of the world?! Don't be ridiculous.
No real literary evidence? Legion you're sitting back and calling things bullshit and irrelevant and whatever, and you're not even reading the history the article is talking about. I'm not saying that the Pope accepted this or didn't, but you don't have any proof to support your claim that the Pope
didn't support this when it was occurring back then.
Legion said:
There is much that was left out of the bible during its translations (especially the king james version), but people today will call it the complete holy word of god. Of course, there are probably another 10-20 books that should be in the bible today, let alone the real translations from the original texts.
You are just reaching Natoma. Biblical consistancy would suggest to you that homosexuality was never accepted Natoma. Please stop believing whatever may be pro your agenda.
Legion I grew up in the church for 18 years and spent a great deal of time researching biblical texts with my step-father and the pastors and deacons at my church. This isn't some reach. It is well documented that the King James Bible differs in meaning, sometimes quite starkly, from the original texts when read in the original languages, or in Latin for instance. And of course this doesn't look at the problem of translating old english in KJB into modern day english by a lay person who has no grounding in linguistics.
Legion said:
Third, there are only two instances that speak on homosexuality. One of which is the most famous, i.e. the one from Leviticus, which says that if mankind lay with mankind as with woman, it is abomination. Of course this has some translation problems. We assume it means sex.
Some believe it means rape, which in those days was not a problem if you raped a woman because she was property and you could do anything to her once you were married. Being that men were not considered property, the rape of a man would be considered anathema at the time. There are other translations of this that have completely different meanings as well.
No we don't Natoma. To lay with some one means to have sex. Thats damn well obvious as the SAME terminology is used throughout the bible.
Some believe in mind control satellites...
Used in the context in which it is used, "to lay with" can be translated to mean, raped. There are multiple translations from the original text as to the meaning of "to lay" and what it means in that society.
The Bible is should not be taken literally first off because it is a series of oral stories handed down over hundreds, if not thousands, of years before being written down. You know it got changed along the way. Second, the meanings of words back then would mean completely different things today. For instance, if I say "Yo don't sweat me" now, you know what it means. In 100 years, it could mean "Hey you, don't eat my cake."
Hell, fo'schizzle mah bizzle nizzle could actually have meaning 100 years from now.
The point is, language evolves, and the translations, in context, of that bible verse do not point necessarily to just an act of sex, but an act of rape on a being that is not considered property.
If man lie with mankind as with woman, it is abomination
If man rapes a man as he would a woman, property, it is abomination
That explanation fits quite well with the socio-political climate in which these people lived. Women were property to be done with as they pleased. Men were not. In some cultures if you rape a woman, you either have to pay the father or the husband restitution, or you're killed for violating that man's property.
Legion said:
The other instance that speaks on homosexuality? Paul, in romans. The same guy who also outlaws women speaking and just about everything else. So no, the case isn't airtight actually.
What exactly are you refering to Natoma?
You said that the christian religion is very much against homosexuality and God states its a wicked behavior. Well firstly, God never says such a thing in the bible. And second, the scriptures used in this manner aren't necessarily even accurate if you look at the original texts and relay them to their historical context.
Legion said:
[EDIT]I forgot about Soddom and Gomorroh.
It touches on the same translation of rape basically, which is why the towns were punished. They tried to rape the angels. Remember that Lot wasn't punished for offering up his daughters to the mob, because women at that time were property. But men were not.
[/EDIT]
No it does not Natoma. The terminology does not at all associate with rape.
Read some biblical history texts. There are many scholars who disagree with you on this matter.
