ladyinred
11-03-2007, 07:02 PM
I know you are a biblical scholar,and if I remember correctly have studied greek or latin. I don't know if you are familar with this.English translation of Aramaic. It isn't not the whole bible but what I thought you might find interesting is the 1 Corinthians verses that are always thrown at GLBT people and what this says.http://www.v-a.com/bible/
http://www.v-a.com/bible/letters/ ,
this has the 1 Corinthians 1:6 verses in it.http://www.v-a.com/bible/letters/1corinthians.html so called directed at homosexuality(not even a word until the nineteenth century)
From what I read about greek history men often took boys as servants and as their lovers(they also were their mentors, if I remember right they preferred boys who had not yet reached full maturity or had masculine body hair, it was their ideal of beauty for a male partner.) They actually thought this ideal as they thought these young boys were superior to a woman's love. This was the norm in those times, historically but there were other norms that we know people had adhered to historically that we would not adhere to now, in those societies, women were more like property in Roman society, children could be sold into slavery, slavery was the norm,prostitution was wide spread among others.
How can people use social norms of the past like those to judge gay people today, even the idea of marriage is different (Concubine anyone? Property?) and we don't sell children into slavery.We also don't feed people to the lions or crucify them when they commit crimes.
Something interesting off this website:About Roman culture : This was excerpted from the article from this website:http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/sexualit1/Sexuality_Homosexuality_Prostitution_Love.htm
The Roman Empire has often been portrayed as possessing a moral tolerance of homosexuality, and there is some truth in this. But, the Roman conception of same-sex relationships was very different than that of the modern West. The most important factors in the Roman view seem to have been the status and role of the partners.
The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another. While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown.
Unlike the modern view, social class mattered a great deal in the acceptability of homosexual relations. The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves. But homosexual relations between freeborn Romans were regarded as disgraceful.
The role taken by the respective partners in homosexual acts between males mattered a great deal to the Romans. The measure of sexual manhood was to penetrate, while to be penetrated was regarded as effeminizing. The first was seen as an assertion of dominance, the latter as a degrading submission.
Paul wrote in response to his own times, the customs back then. what he saw in the culture at the time .
"
http://www.v-a.com/bible/letters/ ,
this has the 1 Corinthians 1:6 verses in it.http://www.v-a.com/bible/letters/1corinthians.html so called directed at homosexuality(not even a word until the nineteenth century)
From what I read about greek history men often took boys as servants and as their lovers(they also were their mentors, if I remember right they preferred boys who had not yet reached full maturity or had masculine body hair, it was their ideal of beauty for a male partner.) They actually thought this ideal as they thought these young boys were superior to a woman's love. This was the norm in those times, historically but there were other norms that we know people had adhered to historically that we would not adhere to now, in those societies, women were more like property in Roman society, children could be sold into slavery, slavery was the norm,prostitution was wide spread among others.
How can people use social norms of the past like those to judge gay people today, even the idea of marriage is different (Concubine anyone? Property?) and we don't sell children into slavery.We also don't feed people to the lions or crucify them when they commit crimes.
Something interesting off this website:About Roman culture : This was excerpted from the article from this website:http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/sexualit1/Sexuality_Homosexuality_Prostitution_Love.htm
The Roman Empire has often been portrayed as possessing a moral tolerance of homosexuality, and there is some truth in this. But, the Roman conception of same-sex relationships was very different than that of the modern West. The most important factors in the Roman view seem to have been the status and role of the partners.
The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another. While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown.
Unlike the modern view, social class mattered a great deal in the acceptability of homosexual relations. The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves. But homosexual relations between freeborn Romans were regarded as disgraceful.
The role taken by the respective partners in homosexual acts between males mattered a great deal to the Romans. The measure of sexual manhood was to penetrate, while to be penetrated was regarded as effeminizing. The first was seen as an assertion of dominance, the latter as a degrading submission.
Paul wrote in response to his own times, the customs back then. what he saw in the culture at the time .
"