Solo

...which kinda makes one wonder how they were different in their view of the world from Pauline Christians.

Jiri

bacht

If the epistles are reliable it would seem that Paul was an apocalypticist, expecting the end imminently, so social regulation was at most a temporary concern. By the end of the 2nd C the proto-Catholics were developing a normal long-term institution based nominally on Jewish ethics afaik

Solo

Well, that's a somewhat trite comparison. The ancients and people today who are intellectually sub-par often cloak issues which are at the root pragmatic and common sense in fantastic, absolutist moral terms.

To put it delicately, anal intercourse was widely practiced even among heterosexuals in antiquity. R. Stark (Rise of Christianity) declared it was a popular form of safe sex from the viewpoint of birth-control.

However, it was never safe (whether practiced by heteros or homos) from the point of view of its health effects. People penetrated anally were then as now, often dying young, as a result of large injuries (tearing of the intestinal wall) or susceptibility to infections. This is because the smooth epithelium tissue of the mammalian anus has not been designed (by evolution of course) to accomodate jigging external objects and their introducing bacterial cultures foreign to the discrete flora of the organ. The perception of sodomy and specifically analingus as a morally reprehensible act then translates into theological kerfuffle both, the aesthetic antipathy to the act (in males deriving from olfactory discriminators overpowering the lust for dominance) and the empirical observations of its negative effects (including the loss of a functional anal sphincter).

Jiri

Roger Pearse

Nicely put. It is certainly what our children will do.

Stupid hippies.

Back Again

Well thanks for being gentle. Good points but I'm not sure it's ever been more dangerous than having babies.

A quick check of the internet assured me that anal intercourse is alive and well in the 21st century.

arnoldo

In the Epistle of Barnabas (written approx 80-120 C.E) it's alluded to in the admonition "you are not to eat of the hare."

andrewcriddle

The Wikipedia article's claim is not an accurate statement of what Boswell actually said. (Other versions on the web are even further from the original.)

Bosworth said (p. 154) There is a footnote explaining that by "the most common version" Bosworth means the late (10th century) version of Metaphrastes. The footnotes make it clear that ERASTAI is not found in earlier versions of their lives.

This means that the use of "erastai" has nothing to do with the oldest versions of the legend of Sergius and Bacchus. Whatever the implications of the later use of the word, they are implications about how the legend was understood in the middle Byantine period.

Andrew Criddle

Back Again

Thanks for the link. It's not clear to me that it's not pederasty that's being condemned however rather than the sex act. The analogy is poorly formed to the point of being nonsensical.

arnoldo

It very well may be refering to pedastry rather than the sex act, thanxs for the clarification. John Boswell also seems to want to interpret New Testament texts primarily writing against pederasty, male temple prostitution, etc, rather than generic same sex behavior. Is Boswell correct?

Back Again

The simple reading of Romans 1 is that worshipping idols causes a change to come over a person such that they engage in unclean/unnatural acts. I think Paul is using the "common knowledge" that ritual sex and prostitution goes on in the temples to connect idol worship to sexual immorality but it seems clear that the acts themselves are what he considers unnatural or disgusting. I think other readings are stretching it a bit.