Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anat · 10-24-2006, 12:50 PM

Gilgamesh and Enkidu?

Clivedurdle · 10-24-2006, 01:15 PM

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/god...gilgaenk1.html

Quote:

The first meeting between Enkidu and Gilgamesh will set up a pattern for other great literary meetings of soul siblings. Our heroes meet first as contenders, fight hard, but instead of a kill at the end of the combat, the winner, Gilgamesh, takes the loser, Enkidu, as a friend for life. There is a deep meaning in the way they face each other as challengers before the fight, and then surrender their weapons, emotional, physical and mental to embrace each other in friendship. The same pattern will be repeated by Arthur and Lancelot in the Grail Cycle or Robin Hood and Little John. It is as if they all needed to test the true value of the opponent before accepting him as complement.

The above writer probably avoids the direct issue of male sexuality by the use of the tern "soul sibling".

I had not realised how much we avoid issues by this pretence that true love should not be consummated.

The Evil One · 10-24-2006, 02:03 PM

On the other hand, it is faulty logic to assume that, because a gay relationship would have been described in terms of a strong friendship, therefore every description of a strong friendship must indicate a gay relationship. Presumably even ancient Hebrews had bessy mates sometimes.

Toto · 10-24-2006, 02:22 PM

Might as well throw this in: Archeological evidence of same sex couples in early Christianity

Clivedurdle · 10-24-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Down in Africa, Augustine's boyfriend Alypius died in 386, and Augustine repented of his love for him which had once been more intense than his love for God. He ceased being a Manichaean, converted to Christianity, sublimated his homoerotic emotions and redirected them toward Christ, and exhorted everyone else to do likewise.

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho3.htm

Quote:

Monastic Vigilance

The most interesting development of homophobia during this period was the Penitential System, which incidentally indicates a better awareness of exactly what homosexuals to in bed, even though the disapproval of such activity is still blinded by prejudice. The authors of the handbooks of penances — written mostly in the puritanical Celtic Churches of Ireland and Wales, then spreading their influence to England, France and Germany from about 569 to 1008 — seem to know what they are talking about, and clearly specify the previously ambiguous "sins" of Sodom.
Every act is ranked according to its degree of sinfulness. The basic penance consists of exclusion from the sacraments, self-mortification (though younger boys were beaten with rods at the hands of older clerics), fasting on bread and water on holy days (which included most days), and general discomfort. The major difference between the penances was the amount of time they were required.

The Penitential of Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury in 670 required 1 year for inter-femoral contact (penis between thighs); 3 years for all lesbian activity, undifferentiated; 7 to 15 years for anal intercourse; 7 to 22 years for fellatio; and, for comparison, 7 to 10 years for murder; 15 years for infanticide (reduced to 7 years if the mother was a pauper).

If caught kissing, boys under the age of 20 were subject to 6 special fasts; 8 fasts if it was "licentious kissing"; 10 fasts if it was "kissing with emission"; more if it involved mutual masturbation; and much longer if the partners were over the age of 20. Sometimes the penance was greater for the insertor than for the receptor. It should be emphasized that all of these penances are for acts between mutually consenting adults.

It is interesting that the penances were usually greater for "those who befouled their lips" (as Columban described fellatio in 600) than for those who used their or others' bums. When Theodore says that fellatio is "the worst of all evils," he quite literally means just that — that it is worse than murder (maximum 15 years' penance) and deserves up to 22 years of penance and even a lifetime for the habitual offender. Probably this severity is due to the belief that the mouth was ordained to receive the eucharist, whereas the arse plays no special role in Christian ritual. Or perhaps it is just a regional Celtic oddity, for it seems that even twentieth-century British men had a greater aversion to fellatio than did American men, and felt that anal intercourse was more normal.

blastula · 10-24-2006, 04:15 PM

Toned abs and flowing robes set off my gaydar.

You wonder ever why Jesus never condemned gays?

NatSciNarg · 10-25-2006, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Toned abs and flowing robes set off my gaydar.

You wonder ever why Jesus never condemned gays?

Jerry Springer's way ahead of you...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4161109.stm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News

Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "If Jerry Springer - The Opera isn't blasphemous then nothing in Britain is sacred."

He said the show was "much worse" than he expected when he saw it and said it portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant". A coprophiliac is someone sexually aroused by faeces.

"[Jesus] proclaims he is a bit gay, he has this shouting match with the devil - it's just foul-mouthed tirades against the devil and against his blessed mother," Mr Green said.

"The damage that must have done to impressionable young people is incalculable."

spin · 10-25-2006, 02:57 AM

To try to put a damper on this little affair, the last time we had a similar discussion -- I think also involving David and Jonathan --, I pointed to the normal relationship between males in Arab countries. These relations are normally not homosexual relationships but when homophobic Anglo-Saxons see men walking the street holding hands, the h.A.S.'s brains run on overdrive, because they are trained not to have the same sort of intimacy that is available to these young men. We can usually only find this sort of intimacy between women in our countries.

This Arab male example is from a very different society from our own, yet it is contemporary. We need to be very careful when projecting our modern understandings onto the far past. I doubt that we can make sense of the relationship, though it was probably closer to a modern Semitic culture than an Anglo-Saxon one.

spin

Dean Anderson · 10-25-2006, 03:20 AM

One verse that has always puzzled me in the David and Jonathan story is this one:

1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

"Exceeded"? What is being translated here? What are we supposed to understand as happening here?

spin · 10-25-2006, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

One verse that has always puzzled me in the David and Jonathan story is this one:

1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

"Exceeded"? What is being translated here? What are we supposed to understand as happening here?

David wept more.

spin

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

10-24-2006, 12:50 PM	#11
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Gilgamesh and Enkidu?

10-24-2006, 02:03 PM	#13
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	On the other hand, it is faulty logic to assume that, because a gay relationship would have been described in terms of a strong friendship, therefore every description of a strong friendship must indicate a gay relationship. Presumably even ancient Hebrews had bessy mates sometimes.

10-24-2006, 02:22 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Might as well throw this in: Archeological evidence of same sex couples in early Christianity

10-24-2006, 04:15 PM	#16
blastula Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 6,070	Toned abs and flowing robes set off my gaydar. You wonder ever why Jesus never condemned gays?

10-25-2006, 02:57 AM	#18
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	To try to put a damper on this little affair, the last time we had a similar discussion -- I think also involving David and Jonathan --, I pointed to the normal relationship between males in Arab countries. These relations are normally not homosexual relationships but when homophobic Anglo-Saxons see men walking the street holding hands, the h.A.S.'s brains run on overdrive, because they are trained not to have the same sort of intimacy that is available to these young men. We can usually only find this sort of intimacy between women in our countries. This Arab male example is from a very different society from our own, yet it is contemporary. We need to be very careful when projecting our modern understandings onto the far past. I doubt that we can make sense of the relationship, though it was probably closer to a modern Semitic culture than an Anglo-Saxon one. spin

10-25-2006, 03:20 AM	#19
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	One verse that has always puzzled me in the David and Jonathan story is this one: 1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. "Exceeded"? What is being translated here? What are we supposed to understand as happening here?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.