Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unknown4 · 08-31-2004, 03:10 AM

this verse says:

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Does anyone have an idea of what the author is trying to say here? Is this some kind of vague reference to anal sex? Or perhaps venereal disease? I would gather venereal disease was known to exist at this time, but I can't seem to find a lot of reference to it. I'd just like to know what the author meant by this phrase. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

IamMoose · 08-31-2004, 10:45 AM

I always presumed it was a rather oblique reference to anal sex, but you're right, it could be VD. Though why gay men would have been any more prone to the types of VD that were prevalent back then is rather beyond me.

Toto · 08-31-2004, 10:53 AM

Venereal diseases AFAIK were introduced into Europe by returning sailors from Columbus' journeys.

But I believe that the ancients thought that homosexuality led to natural disasters, such as earthquakes.

Quote:

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian in 529 closed the Platonic Academy in Athens, bringing to an end the era of classical learning. Justinian preferred superstition. He believed firmly that the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was an example of how God destroyed cities with homosexual citizens, and feared it would happen again in his realm. So he decided to salvage the Empire by the methodical suppression of homosexuality.

In Justinian's "new laws" he says: "because of such impious conduct cities have indeed perished. . . . Because of such crimes there are famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" (Novellae 77, AD 538). In 543 a plague swept through the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and probably as a terrified reaction to this, Justinian the following year issued another "new law," exhorting the "sodomites" to repent: "There will be no relaxation of enquiry and correction so far as this matter is concerned" (Novellae 144).

IamMoose · 08-31-2004, 11:02 AM

LOL that's weird logic .. like an earthquake would hit just a gay man! (or woman).

Was VD really unknown in Europe till then? I did not know that.

Toto · 08-31-2004, 11:17 AM

Syphilis introduced to Europe after Columbus

Quote:

[after discussing the diseases that the Europeans gave to the Native Americans - ]

How good is the evidence that syphilis came with Columbus from America in 1493? True in 1493 Villalobos descibed an outbreak of a venereal disease, las buvas, in Salamanca, a town some way from the ports. But the best historical record is probably that of Bartholome las Casas, whose father and uncle sailed on Columbus second voyage. Casas was in Seville around the time, and had questioned natives of Hispaniola, and established to his satisfaction that there was a syphilis like disease there, before Columbus arrival, although a mild one. He did not write of it till 1530 in his Apologetica Historica. Oviedo, the other reputable historian shared his view.

Moreover syphilitic bone lesions appeared in many Meso-American burials, and were rare unknown in Europe.

Ruy Dias de Isla (1539) wrote that he had treated men with syphilis in Barcelona, shortly after Columbus return. While there are reports that a syphilis like illness had come back from Africa earlier, these are less well founded. It seems almost certain that syphilis came back with Columbus.

It was shortly named syphilis by Fracastorius, a student of Copernicus. He wrote in verse the tale of a mythical shepherd called Syphilos. "He first wore bubos dreadful to the sight. First felt strange pains and sleepless passed the night. From him the malady received its name, the neighbouring shepherds caught the spreading flame." Presumably the shepherdesses as well.

Battle, rape, slaughter, famine -- the conditions for the spread of a new infection in a virgin population, and spread it did, as at first an acute lethal disease. It spread like wild fire around Europe reaching the Shetland Islands in the far north of Scotland by 1510, and Canton by 1505.

In Scotland an edict of the Town Council of Aberdeen dated 21, April 1497 refers to syphilis. It was "statuted and ordained by the Aldermen and Council that all the light women of the town should desist from their sins of venery." The disease had fairly high initial mortality and was highly contagious and not merely venereal. It was treated with mercury and with infusions of a bark obtained from an island of the West Indies. Syphilis was one of the scourges of society for the next four hundred years - with several names, notably the "Great Pox". True it quietened down over the centuries into a slower but no less certain killer.

One may conclude: severe, often catastrophic epidemic disease strikes when a more urban and sophisticated society meets a society which is less so. The effects may be so great that, with few exceptions there is historical justification for remembering events, rather than celebrating them. If human infections have spread from an old world to a new in the past, then we must be a little careful not to repeat the mistake on an inter-planetary scale.

So whatever the writer of the passage in Roman meant, it was unlikely to be a venereal disease.

unknown4 · 08-31-2004, 11:56 AM

Perhaps that's the tracing of syphilis as a specific VD, but "venereal disease" seems to have been mentioned before by a "Celsus" (about 10 to 40 CE) according to this website: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/TLMedicine.htm

Also, this website mentions the same thing but gives the dates as 17-37 CE for this Celsus. http://www.innvista.com/health/ancient.htm

Toto · 08-31-2004, 12:59 PM

You're probably right that there were diseases referred to as "venereal diseases" in ancient times (Venereal refers to Venus, with reference to love making) although it is hard to tell, given the lack of modern diagnostics. But the association of disease with homosexuality is very modern.

jbernier · 08-31-2004, 02:32 PM

I think that we need to look at the larger context of Romans 1 and the epistle as a whole. Basically he is arguing that sin and death are the result of humans giving the glory due to the Creator to creations - idols, people, etc. Within the context of his argumentation I think it most reasonable to that which they received in 1:27 as both sin and death (remember that it is for their error - which he earlier identifies as the giving of glory to the creation - that is the actual source of the due penalty). In fact, it think it best to read Paul as suggesting that the indecent acts between men are the consequences of this error, not the origin. The "due penalty" for that then becomes sin and death itself (not in the immediate sense that the error directly causes death but in the sense that the existence of sin and death in the world are a result of said error).

Paul is essentially giving us an origin myth - in this case, it is the origins of idolatry (i.e. worship missplaced) , death and sin that are the subject of discussion. In fact I think that much of Romans should be read as origin myth. For Paul, idolatry, death and sin are forever conjoined - you cannot have one without the others. And I think that he is usually homoeroticism as a 'prop' by which he can demonstrate this relationship.

IrishGuy · 08-31-2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Venereal diseases AFAIK were introduced into Europe by returning sailors from Columbus' journeys.

But I believe that the ancients thought that homosexuality led to natural disasters, such as earthquakes.

STDs have been in the ancient world for awhile. Here's a sex ed link.

http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/mesopotamia.html

Quote:

Some of the first references to sexually transmitted diseases are found in Ancient Babylonia, mainly gonnorhea and syphillis. These diseases were said to be caused by the gods and their mismatches which were shown in the sky by the crab and the scorpion. The chancre sore from syphillis was said to literally be a crab bite. In King Hammurabi's Codes, there is a sexual warning to those who oppose him, that "...an evil disease, a dangerous sore which cannot be cured, which the physicians cannot diagnose, which he cannot allay with bandages, and which like the bit of death cannot be removed; and that he, until he brings his life to an end, may lament the loss of his vigor...curse him, his seed, his land, his army, his people and his troops with an evil curse."

Thus, it is also very possible that since Ishtar was regarded as a goddess of love and war, that she was also believed to cast sexually transmitted diseases to the enemies of those that worshipped her. Such a statement from a powerful king may have effected how the enemies of Ancient Babylonia regarded the great state and its sexuality. In opposing Hammurabi, those peoples also had to oppose the goddess Ishtar and the Babylonian ideas of sexual openness.

Here's a more authoritative link:
http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/1997/05_97/std.htm

I don't see why Romans was specificly talking about syphillis. I have no idea where the earthquake thing comes from. I don't see why Paul wasn't talking about some STD other than syphillis.

Casper · 08-31-2004, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So whatever the writer of the passage in Roman meant, it was unlikely to be a venereal disease.

Gonorrhea might be a candidate.

But as a boy I was always told that it referred to masturbation and going blind. :rolling:

08-31-2004, 03:10 AM	#1
unknown4 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 80	Romans 1:27 this verse says: and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Does anyone have an idea of what the author is trying to say here? Is this some kind of vague reference to anal sex? Or perhaps venereal disease? I would gather venereal disease was known to exist at this time, but I can't seem to find a lot of reference to it. I'd just like to know what the author meant by this phrase. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-31-2004, 10:45 AM	#2
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	I always presumed it was a rather oblique reference to anal sex, but you're right, it could be VD. Though why gay men would have been any more prone to the types of VD that were prevalent back then is rather beyond me.

08-31-2004, 11:02 AM	#4
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	LOL that's weird logic .. like an earthquake would hit just a gay man! (or woman). Was VD really unknown in Europe till then? I did not know that.

08-31-2004, 11:56 AM	#6
unknown4 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 80	Perhaps that's the tracing of syphilis as a specific VD, but "venereal disease" seems to have been mentioned before by a "Celsus" (about 10 to 40 CE) according to this website: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/TLMedicine.htm Also, this website mentions the same thing but gives the dates as 17-37 CE for this Celsus. http://www.innvista.com/health/ancient.htm

08-31-2004, 12:59 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You're probably right that there were diseases referred to as "venereal diseases" in ancient times (Venereal refers to Venus, with reference to love making) although it is hard to tell, given the lack of modern diagnostics. But the association of disease with homosexuality is very modern.

08-31-2004, 02:32 PM	#8
jbernier Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 1,011	I think that we need to look at the larger context of Romans 1 and the epistle as a whole. Basically he is arguing that sin and death are the result of humans giving the glory due to the Creator to creations - idols, people, etc. Within the context of his argumentation I think it most reasonable to that which they received in 1:27 as both sin and death (remember that it is for their error - which he earlier identifies as the giving of glory to the creation - that is the actual source of the due penalty). In fact, it think it best to read Paul as suggesting that the indecent acts between men are the consequences of this error, not the origin. The "due penalty" for that then becomes sin and death itself (not in the immediate sense that the error directly causes death but in the sense that the existence of sin and death in the world are a result of said error). Paul is essentially giving us an origin myth - in this case, it is the origins of idolatry (i.e. worship missplaced) , death and sin that are the subject of discussion. In fact I think that much of Romans should be read as origin myth. For Paul, idolatry, death and sin are forever conjoined - you cannot have one without the others. And I think that he is usually homoeroticism as a 'prop' by which he can demonstrate this relationship.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.