xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Well the wording of an English translation in a modern context is going to be different from the original word, in the original context.
Pederasty was common among the Romans who though nothing about it than casual sex with a woman - as long as the catcher was a slave or of lesser status: i.e., they did discourage homosexual intercourse between equals, because of that penetration principle: the penetrated party is equivalent to a woman, it implies a loss of status.
In short, the catcher in a relationship is tantamount to a woman, if women have no status, then a male who allows himself to be penetrated has no status, being a women, i.e., it's entirely a political-economic thing, really has nothing to do with the act of sexual gratification with whoever - Romans still had homosexual relationships with each other, they just had to sneak around to do it, and every culture has men who prefer acting like women, the Indonesian Kathoeys, etc., and the Romans had a whole list of roles for homosexuals: Wikipedia: Homosexuality in Ancient Rome: Roles
It was widespread and common in Rome at the time Paul was writing, presumably, it was a way for the early Christians to differentiate themselves from the Romans.
The early Christians in Rome were predominantly slaves as well, and as such, probably subject to rape and beating, as the Romans were one of the more sadistic civilizations in the world, or at least as sadistic as the other ones, the whole practice of Sadism/Masochism is more or less inherited directly from Roman practices that continued through the middle ages, and it's not inconceivable that deep somewhere in the Vatican library is a justification for pederasty - the Bible is not everything that was written at the time, it's what the Catholic hierarchy deemed safe for the masses to see.
Pauls exhortations to celibacy were likely part of this as well, as many of the Christian converts were Manichean duallists, who believed the only way to escape their degraded lot was to cease reproducing at all (See Tertullians Apologia), and presumably the most hated practices of the Romans would be inveighed against in order to gain converts, which would likely include pederasty and homosexuality which were distinctly urban Roman practices as opposed to Italian culture in general which was largely agrarian, and family oriented, much like it is now.
In short, Paul is recruiting heavily at this time, and trying to keep the independent churches and cults springing up everywhere somewhat consolidated, so he's trying to be all things to all people, but he doesn't want it to turn into just another Roman mystery cult - i.e., the story of Lazarus was interpreted in certain Greek mystery cults as an initiation in homosexuality, many mystery cults of the time revolved around various aspects of sexuality, from Dionysian to fertility cults, etc., Manicheans and dualist themselves ranged from strict celibacy and martyrdom, to practicing every kind of sex Except reproductive between men and women both - the common theme there was to avoid reproduction and quit feeding the Roman monster with slave labor - kind or a reproductive strike, maybe histories first collective bargaining agreement, lol.
Christianity is syncretic from the start in this, absorbing and co-opting the principles of myriad cults and religions - the deification of Christ is itself an syncretism of Roman practice of deifying the emperors, itself brought over from Egypt by Caesar.
This thing is a lot more complex however than the bible: the Lutherans etc., came to terms with homosexuality a long time ago, they pretty much just pretend it's not there, after the Victorian fashion - the current backlash against homosexuality is driven by militant Calvinist predispensationalist theology, and it's a whole different thing that draws most of it's inspiration from Revelations, and has to do with dispensationalist disputes that will make you head spin, the most homophobic faction are the reconstructionist/dominionist factions, and ironically, by a quirk of Calvinist theology, it's possible, perhaps even required for a homosexual to persecute other homosexuals, possibly why so many right wing "family values" activists keep turning out to be gay.
In a way, you could say the Romans never really changed, Martin Luther just led another revolt, and Christianity itself is essentially engaged in one long revolt against Rome, which for whatever reason, homosexuality (and sexual excess in general) remains a symbol of.
In that though, gays are singled out probably mostly due to high visibility, there's a lot of that they're easy targets and there is probably some of that old animist sexual demonism in there, as well as the usual propitiatory offering, i.e. "to please god" (god hates fags) so god will not punish the Christians for toleration.
Clearly, there is a lot of Christian guilt involved, and not a little bit of political haymaking.
< Message edited by xssve -- 4/8/2012 8:40:12 AM >
_____________________________
Walking nightmare...
|
RE: COCKsuckin is unChristian - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread