Posted on 05/02/2005 3:15:13 AM PDT by infocats
How do you account for the story of the Sacred Band of Thebes, and elite unite supposedly composed of 150 pairs of lovers? While homosexual bonds certainly were an element of elite culture, they were not strictly limited to the class of the symposia.
Also, Alexander's men were hardly "the average Greek farmer" once his campaign was under way.
There's your problem. The current media culture by and large is obsessed with bringing every period and personage down to their level. There must be no heroes or examples of true virtue, for to admit this is to admit that they themselves are less than heroic in their chosen lifestyles. Therefore, to put it bluntly, they revise history to make it more palatable to the current culture. Everybody was a homosexual, don't you know?
Obviously you don't watch the history channel. I'm afraid you are just stating another case that if you don't like the message, you shoot the messenger...a rather tired but old story.
I think it's telling that it originally began simply as a legend of an elite unit and that the legend degenerated along with Greek life to the point where in the Hellenistic period a sexual element was introduced into the story - just at the same time as Greece was becoming debauched.
It's the same today - every historical figure who was not a notorious womanizer is nowadays retroactively portrayed as a homosexual.
This is true. But I still doubt that Egyptian, Parthian and Syrian footsoldiers were so much wealthier than their Greek counterparts that they could, almost each and everyone of them, afford a separate, kept boy toy.
You caught me dead to rights. I do not watch the History Channel. I don't have cable. I made a dangerous assumption that since it was a part of the current media, that it joined the rest in a tendency toward cultural revisionism.
They won't be shattered. They'll just be...,be...,be different. Hmmmm..... whats the word I'm looking for?
Oh yes. ALTERNATE
They'll have an alternate life, because of they're alternate lifestyle. The shatteredness you perceive will be from your own perverse percetions, exposing the fact that your intolerant of another group of people.
(SARCASM OFF)
I'm sure that like everyone else, they come in with a point of view dependant upon the particular producer, but to my simple mind, they seem to offer their programming in a pretty fair and objective manner.
Is this really true? Or is this false opinion of yours exempt from cultural influence, in contradiction to your axiom?
The state mandates a lot of this garbage...I was checking out our health coverage forms to take off an employee that recently passed away. There was a new section on same sex partner benefits blah blah blah.
Is this really true? Or is this false opinion of yours exempt from cultural influence, in contradiction to your axiom?
With the possible exception of the ten commandments...and some physical constants like the speed of light, force of gravity, plank's constant etc., I don't believe there are many absolutes in life.
Since perversion is not specifically spelled out within the ten commandments (unlike for example killing, covetnousness etc.), then perversion is defined by a given culture at a given point in time...and certainly not by me.
So you're not buying the fact that the human reproductive system was designed for reproduction?
So you're not buying the fact that the human reproductive system was designed for reproduction?
I'm not sure I understand your point. First, let's assume as a given that the human reproductive system was designed by an intelligent force as opposed to by mere natural selection.
I'm not sure what this has or hasn't to do with perversion by which I'm assuming you mean to be the use thereof for reasons unintended.
I personally don't agree that time frame has anything to with wether or not homosexual behavior is a perversion - the fact that the Bible would indicate is its a perversion is enough for me.
Anyone believing that the classic Greeks were A-OK in their homosexual activities is demonstrating Moral relativism. It's the same as what they are teaching in the public schools - that what's OK for me is morally alright.
Anyone believing that the classic Greeks were A-OK in their homosexual activities is demonstrating Moral relativism. It's the same as what they are teaching in the public schools - that what's OK for me is morally alright.
1) much of the activity in question occurred long before the Christian Bible.
2) with the possible exception of the ten commandmants, the bible is largely the word of man, not the word of God.
3) Homosexual behavior is mentioned perhaps a half dozen times throuhout the bible...and that almost in passing. As a percentage of the total biblical real estate, it occupies a diminimus percentage of the whole...yet by listening to modern fundamentalists, one would come away with the impression that homosexuality was a core fundamental message of biblical teaching.
To my mind, this is no less a perversion of true intent that let's say, Al Qaeda's interpretation of the Koran.
Wasn't a core teaching of Jesus that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"...or the biblical admonition of "judge not lest ye be judged?"
If you want to discuss true perversion, I can't think of a better place to start.
If you believe in God, then this must be so, whether He brought His designs into being by evolutionary means or by some kind of special creation.
I'm not sure what this has or hasn't to do with perversion by which I'm assuming you mean to be the use thereof for reasons unintended.
That's what I mean. This isn't an obscure point. Who would argue that eyes weren't designed for seeing or that ears weren't designed for hearing? Similarly with the human reproductive system; the reproductive system was designed for reproduction. The pleasurable aspect of intercourse is ordered toward reproduction. Intercourse also serves to unite the couple. The pleasurable nature of intercourse isn't an end in itself. If intercourse wasn't pleasurable, neither of us would be here today.
We can also see in nature that children are happiest when they're raised by their natural parents in a committed, lifetime relationship. So we see that the act that conceives children was also designed to unite the parents for the benefit of the children, each other, and society.
To argue otherwise results in absurdities.
Contraceptive agents (self-induced sterility) or acts (like withdrawal) then, are intrinsically evil, since they violate the order of nature, just as binging and purging violates the order of nature.
I completely agree with you, I just never heard the point put..well so humorously
This viewpoint would indicate that you are admitting that you are not a Christian. As Christianity is based upon faith - and guidance from the Bible. If the Bible is not 100% truth as inspired by (and some say dictated by) God, then it would be difficult to defend any portion thereof.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder or believer as the case may be. I didn't ask, nor do I require, anyone's help in that regard.
My mother was a Catholic, my father was a Jew. I am neither; rather I am a Deist with very strong leanings toward Buddhism, where the emphasis is on how, as opposed to what, to think.
We cannot pick and choose the parts of the Bible we think are applicable and trash the rest. It's either all right or all wrong. I choose to believe that it is all right and correct.
And that is certainly your right; faith is a strong belief in an ideology or doctrine in spite of sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"much of the activity in question occurred long before the Christian Bible." - OH - really? Ancient Hebrews make up the human characters of the Old Testament - part of MY Bible.....
Organized religion hardly started with the Hebrews. The Phoeniacian, Etruscans, Persians, Egyptians etc. all worshipped Gods. As a point in fact, it is thought that monotheism was based upon a Persian God, although to be honest, I can't remember which one.
Exactly how many times does God have to mention something in His Word for it to mean anything? Once should be enough....
Again, you are assuming that the Judeao Christian Bible is the literal word of God which I categorically reject. Excepting for the ten commandments which were handed down from God to Moses, much of the rest is folklore, second and third hand accounts of he said she said, and much of it by mad prophets. If you could reference some Biblical Rosetta Stone that states that the bible is literally the word of God, I would certainly appreciate the reference.
Without a significant knowledge of the Bible (through diligent study and prayerful consideration) you are not qualified to analyze the Bible and if my or anyone else's interpretation is "perversion". And calling a "Spade" a spade is not judgment. I am not convicting anyone and punishing them. That's up to God. But I should not have to "tolerate" such behavior in my presence or in connection with me or my business. But you have already demonstrated a more "Secular Humanist" WorldView - and thus have decided that Christianity is wrong - so I see no further reason to argue with you.
I didn't realize that a discussion was the same as an argument. I am not trying to convince you of anything because faith is faith and that's the name of that tune. You have yours and I mine.
Where I believe you are making a mistake is in your assumption that the world begins and ends with the Judaeo Christian Bible. There is a wide world of global history, especially as it pertains to faith and religion, in which Christianity should be viewed contextually.
I in no way endorse homosexuality in particular or perversion in general other than to say that it has always existed and no doubt, always will. As it turns out, it is a dangerous practice in light of current STD's.
Two other quick points. When men lying with men was first described as sinful, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it was probably done so because the then world was sparsely populated and this practice would hardly have solved that problem.
As far as hoding out the early Hebrews or Canaanites as some paradigm of absolute virtue, they routinely practiced ritual child sacrifice.
Which was an abomination to God (the God described in the Bible, which you made it a point of saying you "categorically reject" as being the Word of God.)
I don't understand it either. When you consider that Microsoft gave (not sold, gave) it's source code to the Communist Chinese government...
and Bill Gates funds abortions and forced sterlizations...
and the Microsoft corporation's positions on homosexuals...
and the fact that the DOJ anti-trust suit against Microsoft was started under Bush the Elder and turned into a cash squeeze by the Clintons...
I simply don't understand the fascination that conservatives have for Microsoft.
They make money. So what? So does George Soros. So does Teresa Heinz. So do the leftists in Hollywood.
Conservatives don't let friends send money to companies that fund socialist causes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.