Appendix. . The following article was written / completed on June 27, 2013. There is some duplication with a few parts of the text of the book but this is very limited. The essay is stand-alone, it does not need supporting documentation or explanation. . . .
Religious Considerations . Christians have pursued a no-win strategy on the issue of homosexuality to the extent they have mobilized beyond the local level to fight national battles. This is their habitual custom of hitting their opponent's fist with their jaw. . "We hate the sin but love the sinner." "Homosexuals are welcome in our church, We have no antipathy toward homosexuals, we simply want to preserve God's plan for the family." And so forth, ad nauseum. . This is a war, and you do not win wars by out-competing your enemy in a contest he or she is not interested in: Who can show the most compassion? . And, by the way, "hate the sin, love the sinner," is not Biblical. This should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the Bible in any serious sense but a writer at Angelqueen.org, a site intended for "Dallas Area Catholics" makes this as clear as possible. Not only isn't some version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner' not in the Bible, it is anti-Biblical. Leviticus 18: 29 is just one example of the principle involved; in case after case, unless there is sincere repentance and some measure of justice, God condemns not only the sin but also the sinner. The question to ask Christians is this: What part of Romans 1: 24-32 don't you understand? The very best available analysis of this material is Robert Gagnon's article, "The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response," but there are several other essays that deserve recognition for their contributions to the subject. Among them: "A Sermon on Romans 1: 18-32" by Jan Lugibihl of the Chicago Community Mennonite Church -dated October 24, 2010; "An Exegetical Study of Romans 1:18-32" by S. Lewis Johnson of Dallas Theological Seminary, originally published in 1972 but re-issued at the site LifeCoach4God in 2012; an article simply titled "Homosexuality," with the subtitle "Romans 1: 18-32," published by Ligonier Ministries; and The Other Dark Exchange: Homosexuality, Parts 1 & 2, by Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention, published in 2010 by the Desiring God Foundation. Don't let Evangelical names for organizations fool you; in each of these cases the scholarship is first rate. All of these studies is available online at no cost. You can read the verses in Romans 1 for yourself easily enough if you have a copy of the Bible in your possession. However, for full effect you should read this material in a good modern language translation, especially the 1972 New English Bible, but the New Jerusalem is also worthwhile, or the classic Jerusalem Bible, or the Oxford Bible or the Revised Standard Version. For this material the New International Version is also reliable. The point being that the Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality and homosexuals and detests them and all their works. "They deserve death," he said. He meant it. Here is the crux of the passage in question from the New English translation: "...God has given them up to shameful passions. Their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and their men in turn, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion." "Thus, because they have not seen fit to acknowledge God, he has given them up to their own depraved reason. This leads them to break all rules of conduct. They are filled with every kind of injustice, mischief, rapacity, and malice; they are one mass of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and malevolence; whisperers and scandal-mongers, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent new kinds of mischief, they show no loyalty to parents, no conscience, no fidelity to their plighted word; they are without natural affection and without pity. They know well enough the just decree of God, that those who behave like this deserve to die, and yet they do it; not only so, they actually applaud such practices." Could anything be less ambiguous? For homosexuals and their supporters, anything can be made to seem ambiguous, though, which was especially true with respect to the late John Boswell (he died from AIDS in 1994), a Yale 'scholar' who is widely cited by homosexuals and their allies as providing a "correction" for normative Biblical interpretation. Except that Boswell's research was shoddy to begin with, is filled with errors of many kinds, and has been severely criticized -"condemned" is not too strong of a word- by actual Bible scholars of many persuasions. The criticisms have been made by "the usual suspects," a large number of enraged Catholics particularly inasmuch as Boswell was Catholic himself, but hardly by Catholics alone. In fact some of Boswell's harshest critics have been homosexuals. For instance, there is the "Gay Academic Union." In 1985 it published a major annotated set of reviews of Boswell's 1980 volume, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. This was re-issued in 2003 by the Pink Triangle Trust and is available on the Web under the title: "Bibliography of Reviews." This is from the introduction to the reviews themselves: "The five years that have elapsed since the publication of Boswell’s book would appear to constitute a triumphal progress. A popular as well as scholarly success, John Boswell has been in great demand as a lecturer, commanding four-figure fees, and — largely on the strength of Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality — has been promoted to the rank of full professor of history at Yale University. His book has been translated into French (without change), and an Italian version is forthcoming." "Closer inspection of the record of response reveals a more motley picture. The first reviews of the book appeared chiefly in popular periodicals, mainstream magazines such as Newsweek and New Republic, as well as the gay press. These notices were overwhelmingly favorable, many quite uncritically so. As reports began to come in from the academic research journals, however, serious flaws in Boswell’s argumentation emerged - even in reviews which tended to be laudatory." Which is only the start; things went from bad to worse from there. To repeat, this refers to the opinion of other homosexuals. Almost all evaluations by Catholic scholars were extremely negative and many university scholars with no personal stake in Boswell's book also published scathing attacks on it. The entire project was a disaster which, regardless of the poor quality of the research, had been praised to the sky by the New York Times and a large number of "respected" publications. None of which knew what they were talking about. But, of course, it is those early and uncritical views that remain alive in the public mind because the press does nothing at all to remedy the false impression it created to begin with. And, to the extent that Boswell is still topical, the point is not moot, the press still refers to Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality as the definitive study of homosexuality in Christian history -with the view it promotes, that the early Church was accepting of homosexuals, is advertised as true to the facts. Instead it is a travesty of the facts from start to finish The reason that homosexual academics dislike Boswell is because they hate Christianity, about which they are not reluctant to say so. This is because the historical Church persecuted homosexuals from the first era for which records are known, until recently. As the homosexuals see it, Boswell whitewashed Christian history in a misguided attempt to persuade the Catholic Church to reconsider its stand on the issue. Typical of homosexual criticisms of Boswell was the review of Wayne Dynes in the Fall 1980 issue of Gay Books Bulletin, which complained of the bias that pervades the text, concluding with his assessment of the author as "amateurish and tendentious” in his efforts at Biblical exegesis. But this kind of review became increasingly commonplace. And there were more and more critical reviews from all quarters. Indeed, as the homosexual academics said, "the longer the experts have pondered, the more negative have been their conclusions." Thus: "What needs explanation is why so many [other] reviewers have been impelled to treat the book with a respect that verges on reverence." Possibly the answer is very simple: Because in secular elite culture people still are religious under the skin, we are hard wired for religion, all of us have the "God gene." When an actual religion becomes disfavored, in the case of the United States this means Christianity and Judaism, religious sensitivity is transferred to some other object of affections, such as commitment to the Ideal of Civil Rights, in this case falsely attributing to homosexuals the spiritual mantle of anti-homosexual Martin Luther King, as equivalent to faith in Christ or in the Torah. But since these "new believers" are blissfully unaware of just how religious they really are, they have become even more zealous than the most fervent Orthodox Jew or believing Christian and in the process lose all objectivity. All the while, in psychological denial of any such thing, proclaiming to the heavens their supposedly enlightened and supposedly informed opinions. This seems to explain things reasonably well. In any case, the Homosexuals published a large number of reviews, most of them partly or entirely unfavorable. A few examples: Jeffrey Weeks, in the July 1980 edition of the scholarly journal, History Today, regarded Boswell's book as misleading and unprofessional. James A. Brundage, writing in the Catholic Historical Review, for January 1982. discussed Boswell's " major faults." For example, something which fooled a lot of people, despite all of the scholarly apparatus in the tome, many small-typeface footnotes, etc., "his citations are not always to the point, he occasionally refers to sources without indicating where the evidence can be found, and he sometimes ignores significant studies that bear upon his theme. Further, some of Boswell’s statements are demonstrably untrue." Nest we get to David F. Wright's 30 page review-article in Volume 38, 1984, of Vigiliae Christianae: “Homosexuals or Prostitutes: The Meaning of Arsenokoites (I Cor. 6: 9, I Tim. 1: 10).” While the title suggests divinity school arcana, the subject has actually been quite topical is discussions of early Christianity and homosexuality. According to a theory made much of by homosexuals and their semi-Biblically literate defenders, and emphasized by Boswell, I Corinthians 6: 9 does not condemn homosexual as such, it only condemns male prostitution. This, of course, begs the question of whether some or most male prostitutes were heterosexuals who serviced childless women who sought to become pregnant. After all, and no-one in their right mind disputes the fact, nearly all ancient religions were fertility faiths; indeed, this is a very common criticism. So, what would homosexual prostitutes be doing in any fertility religion context? Yet this leaves another class of prostitutes in the Greco-Roman somewhat secular world, males, generally young boys, who were hired by homosexuals, sometimes identified using the Greek language word, arsenokoites. Hence "arse," which needs no explanation. Wright summoned all the evidence he knew about to demolish Boswell's contention. The word can and does have other meanings than 'male hooker.' And in any case that was not what the Apostle Paul was referring to. But Wright wasn't done. Boswell had offended him with his fallacious assertions and contorted arguments. Thus there was a follow-up lecture in which Wright took up the matter of Boswell’s claims that early Christian apologists understood the “sin of the Sodomites” non-sexually and that with the advent of Christianity and the ending, for believers, of the Old Testament Holiness Code, specifically Leviticus, prohibitions of homosexuality became null and void. This, of course, is ridiculous. It was Paul who first made the argument that the Holiness code no longer necessarily applied. But Paul also argued strenuously that parts absolutely still apply, especially those parts pertaining to sexual morality. Boswell totally misconstrued this. Wright's conclusion was that the Fathers of the Church -all the "names" which are familiar to students of Christian history- used the Bible in their writings extensively as soon as there was a New Testament canon, specifically all those passages that condemn homosexuality, about which they spoke pretty much with one voice in expressing utter contempt for this horrible kind of sin. All of this information provided by homosexuals. But there is vastly more if you are interested in the subject and look for other reviews. One fairly common type of criticism can be found in an essay by Marian Therese Horvat entitled: "Rewriting History to Serve the Gay Agenda." One quote from this review will get the point across: "One of the most disturbing trends in academia today is the wholesale practice of historical revisionism, or what has been described as “advocacy scholarship,” that is, scholarship in the service of a social and political agenda." Other scholars have characterized Boswell's 1980 book as laced with contradictions, false to the historical record, and beyond credulity. This even was true for scholars whom you would think would be favorably disposed since they teach at avowedly pro-homosexual institutions. A case in point is a review by Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School published in volume 14 of The Journal of Religious Ethics in 1986. As Hays said, Boswell's approach to early Christian history, and especially his interpretation of the Bible, "has no support in the text and is a textbook case of reading into the text what one wants to find there." Richard John Neuhaus also examined much of the literature about Boswell's opus and observed that the early rave reviews, those most frequently cited by homosexuals and their sycophants, were almost all misguided in their favorable opinions. Neuhaus' study, "The Case of John Boswell," rips his book to shreds. For example, Boswell went to lengths to reinterpret Romans 1 as not condemning homosexuality at all, but chastising idolatry and specific sexual behavior associated with it. This view, said Neuhaus, is blatant falsification of Paul's message. Although it "is true that Romans 1 is concerned with idolatry, but the plain meaning of the text is that homosexual acts themselves are an evidence of turning away from God and the natural order that he has ordained. Put differently, the point is not that some homosexual acts are wrong because they are associated with idolatry; rather that homosexual acts are wrong because they themselves are a form of idolatry." We can legitimately debate Paul's accuracy in characterizing Pagan religion of his era the way he did. A charitable view is that Paul was referring to customs in locations he was aware of; in other places different Pagan religious systems were unlike what is described in Romans 1. Greek religion was different than Roman religion or Phyrgian religion or Celtic religion, and so forth. Indeed, some Pagan faiths were vehemently anti-homosexual, as was true of Assyrian derived religion, of Isisism, and, for that matter, Greek folk religion of the countryside and small towns. Paul, a former Pharisee, was repeating the standard Jewish criticism of Paganism that was common in Torah / Talmud tradition. But Neuhaus was correct, Paul's main point concerns the complete unacceptability of homosexuality as such. Boswell refused to understand Romans 1 for what it obviously is. What "Boswell's historical scavenger hunt does not produce is any evidence whatever that authoritative Christian teaching ever departed from the recognition that homosexual acts are morally wrong." Wherever one looks in Boswell's book you will find outright distortions of historical meaning. Take the thesis of revisionist historians like Boswell that "what Paul meant by homosexuality is not what we mean by homosexuality today." Therefore, Boswell insists "that the people Paul had in mind are "manifestly not homosexual; what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons." This point-of-view is preposterous. It is pure fantasy in the service of homosexual advocacy. There isn't the least indication that the conduct that Paul condemned in Romans 1 had anything to do with errant heterosexuals. Except to make the point, which all genuine Christians make, that homosexuality is a choice, the worst possible choice, but something that can be repudiated by the sinner if he or she whole-heartedly repents, actually has the deepest possible regrets, and completely quits homosexuality, denouncing it with no reservations. Each homosexual, in his or her past, was heterosexual; only after making a choice to abandon sexual normality did the person become homosexual. Biblical faith rejects the view that homosexuality is genetically determined. The cultural damage that Boswell did was considerable and has acted to further the views of truly sick people like Episcopalian bishop John Spong, someone who, based on no evidence that really is evidence, takes the view that Paul was a "repressed and frustrated homosexual." This is outright defamation, there is no other word for it. Lastly, about Boswell, reference should be made to a review of his last book, published in 1994, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. This is the text that makes the claim that various medieval ostensibly Christian homosexuals were "married" by the Church. Paul Halsall of Fordham University demolished that view in his rejoinder of December 17 1995. As Halsall put it: "A careful examination of the book reveals that Boswell fails utterly to make his case. His study is undermined throughout by selective omissions of evidence, serious mistranslations and misrepresentations, and fanciful speculation. At one point in our investigation we wondered if we could find even one important reference that was accurate." Very briefly, Halsall also had words for Boswell's treatment of the Greek philosophers whom many Christian theologians have cited in their analyses of the early Church. There is broader relevance inasmuch as modern-day homosexuals and their accomplices frequently refer to ancient Athens as some sort of "model" for an ideal homosexual-tolerant society. This is a gross misreading of history. And Boswell takes homosexual mythology about Greece to a new level in misrepresenting that era of time. For example, Boswell "claims that Aristotle spoke in admiring terms about a famous pair of male lovers. The reference in the footnote is mistaken, but where Aristotle does speak of the two he simply mentions that they were lovers without in any way approving of the relationship. In the same place, Boswell leads his readers to believe, through selective citations, that Plato also extolled homosexual love. He fails to mention, however, that elsewhere both Plato and Aristotle insist that homosexual activities would be forbidden in an ideal community." Want to be a full professor at Yale? Invent history that pleases homosexuals, pleases the New York Times, and that falsifies the record at every possible turn. Misconstrue Christian and Jewish beliefs and distort the message of the Bible at every opportunity. That's all it takes..... ----- Finally, it would be appropriate to quote from Christian writers of the early Church to underscore the point that Boswell -hence everyone who uses his books as "authority" for their views- was completely mistaken in his interpretation of historic Christian attitudes toward homosexuality. Justin Martyr, ca. 150 AD ...a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. Tertullian, ca. 200 AD ...all other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities. Augustine ca. 400 AD ...those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way. Additionally, one of the earliest of all Christian texts, the Didache, written after the Gospel of Mark but either before Matthew or contemporaneous with it, some time in the mid to late 1st century AD, condemns homosexuality in chapter 2. Various translations of the word for this behavior have been made use of but "pederasty" is most literal. However many scholars choose to translate the term as "sodomy" inasmuch as the writer of the text seems to have used the word pederasty as a circumlocution to refer to all homosexual acts. St. John Chrysostom, in the late 3rd century had all kinds of things to say about homosexuality. Louis Crompton, in his 2006 book, Homosexuality and Civilization, notes that Chrysostom called same-sex conduct " Satanical," "detestable," and "monstrous." Homosexuals are "worse then murderers," and this applies both to males and females. Chrysostom "follows Roman law in denouncing homosexuality chiefly as a contravention of ordained sex roles but prescribes the Jewish option of death by stoning." These calls for death were not metaphorical. Nor were these verdicts on homosexuality limited to Christians. Here is the Jewish perspective on the issue: Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus who lived from about 20 BC until 50 AD. On January 13, 2012, Prayson Daniel published an article about Philo at the site, With All I Am. The article mostly consists of extended quotation from Philo's Special Laws. Book III of the Laws characterizes homosexuality as a "great infamy," something sickening to even think about, and shameful in the extreme. Reading this material, about a sin which "is a subject of boasting not only to those who practice it, but even to those who suffer it, and who, being accustomed to bearing the affliction of being treated like women," receive the just reward for their perversity by being universally reviled, reminds one of nothing so much as Romans 1. Such persons, Philo said, who violate the natural law, who are a disgrace to themselves and their families, who undermine the morality of society, are "worthy of death." Philo also left no doubt whatsoever that the material in Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, was all about homosexuality. Philo wrote-out the Jewish understanding of his era, explaining that the crime of Sodom was the fact that "men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature." This was an "intolerable evil" that should not be allowed to exist. About which, while disapproving of any such thing, even a flagrant homosexual like Warren Johansson agreed was, indeed, not only what Philo said but was the best possible interpretation of Genesis 19. Johansson's book, sometimes titled Judaism and Homosexuality, incomplete and unpublished at the time of his death, is available online. There is a literature specifically about Genesis 19 and use of the term "sodomy" (or cognates) in the Bible; there literally are hundreds of titles, mostly scholarly articles, or sometimes chapters in books. But the point should be clear: Any interpretation of the sin of Sodom as "inhospitality" or anything along those lines is indefensible. The text, in all cases, refers to homosexual acts. The penalty for egregious acts of homosexual sex under Roman law in that era was not mild rebuke, and the Romans were not the caricature of themselves that contemporary homosexuals claim. On this subject see the very worthwhile discussion, "Sex in Ancient Rome," from the Classical Numismatics Discussion Board for March 3, 2012. Numismatics? To know the value of Roman coins you need to know some Roman history..... One of the writers commented on impressions of Roman life as drenched with deviant sex, impressions current in today's popular culture. This view, he said, is far more false than true and -to the limited extent it is factual- basically only applies to the upper classes. Hence his observation about reading Nigel Rodgers' book, Ancient Rome. Said the writer, "I quote, "The Roman reputation for widespread sexual debauchery is hardly merited. It derives more from Suetonius racy portraits of the 12 Caesars, reinforced by Hollywood films and discoveries of "shocking" pictures at Pompeii, than from the reality of life for most people in the Roman world, who seldom had the opportunity for sexual depravity." "The ideal of Rome," the commentary continues, "was one of chastity. Tombstones and eulogies emphasize chastity. Pudicia is part of the catalog of virtues. Augustus' legislation sought to enforce this ideal, albeit largely [on] the upper classes..." Later in the discussion there is the comment that surviving literature about sex in the Roman era necessarily presents a misleading impression. Works by Suetonius and others have been passed down "because then, as now, ...sex sells. Few people are interested in a lengthy description of a virtuous life. That's why Dante's Inferno is more famous and more read than his Paradiso, and why hardly anyone touches Milton's Paradise Regain'd." Which is to say that we should not be misled either by homosexuals who stress the debaucheries to promote homosexuality, nor by fire-and-brimstone preachers who have a stake in depicting Roman society with its non-Christian religion as necessarily lewd, licentious, and libertine -unfit for human habitation. Roman reality was very different -for the most part. Self-disclosure: As a scholar of Comparative Religion my interest is ensuring that each religion is treated as objectively as possible, not sparing any faults as I perceive them but showing appreciation for what is good in them, which, not incidentally, Paul did on at least two occasions, at the temple of Diana at Ephesus and with respect to the "Unknown God" venerated at Athens. There is also the factor of time-bound facts. That is, there is something that non-historians writing about history sometimes simply "don't get," namely, what was true in one era might or might not be true in another. Times change and sometimes laws change also. Which is obvious enough in thinking about American law -and the same principle applied in the Roman world. What is most relevant here is Roman law in the first century AD. For that was the kind of law that the writers of the New Testament referred to, not the law as it existed centuries before or that would exist in 200 AD or later. Complete clarity about this subject is not possible; too much of the historical record has been lost. However, enough survives to understand the basics and to gain some appreciation for what the early Christians meant when making allusions to then-current law and punishment. To describe what is most essential to know, first century Romans could refer to two important sets of laws pertaining to homosexuality. Apparently it was a matter of judicial discretion which of these laws held precedence in particular cases although, then as now, recent law generally was decisive. Lex Scantinia was long established and seems to date from the third century BC in its original form. By the time of Christ this law was seldom enforced but it was still widely known. Its relevant provisions were that adult males who were passive partners in homosexual activities should be sentenced to death or, in some cases, be required to pay an exorbitant fine. The law also made it illegal, carrying the death penalty, to have homosexual relations with a minor. As the Wikipedia article on Lex Scantinia says, the law was primarily intended to protect "youths from freeborn families in good standing" and as legal remedy to use against Roman officials who abused their powers and extorted homosexual sex with individuals over whom they had legal authority. The law did not apply to male prostitutes or slaves. Contrary to Boswell, who said "if there was a law against homosexual relations, no one in Cicero's day knew anything about it," it seems as if Cicero himself, in two extant letters now known, which he wrote to Caelius, there is extended discussion of these "non-existing" laws, delving into a number of legal technicalities that would hardly have come up unless the Lex Scantinia was still in effect.. Within a generation or two from Cicero's time the Lex Scantinia became very topical under the Augustus. The emperor wanted to update and expand these laws. Hence the Lex Julia, or Julian Laws, described in some detail in the Corpus Juris Civilis. A translation from Latin can be found online. Like the Lex Scantinia, despite the more-or-less universalistic language of the Julian Laws, it should be noted that some classes of people, such as slaves, were not covered by their provisions, but the scope of the laws was extensive; they were concerned with 'everyone who counted.' In them we read "qui cim masculis nefandum libidinem exercere audent." To put this in understandable English, those who take part in "vile acts of lust" with other men shall be "punished with death." The law also demanded death for adultery, but that is a separate issue. Joseph Shullam, in his "A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans," said that the purpose of these laws "was to bring family life under the laws of the state in order to increase the birth rate rather than for political or moral considerations.” This may be true, but it remains a fact that these laws were widely publicized, everyone know about them, and they became a point of reference on the issue of homosexuality from that time onward. You can even argue that, certainly in some respects, the later Christian emperors were influenced by these laws. The Julian Laws were promulgated in 19 BC. Finally, in 9 BC, came the Lex Papia Poppaea, which sought to use the Law as an incentive for Roman women to have as many babies as possible. Obviously toleration of homosexuality would be at cross purposes with such policy and Augustus was a practical man. "Historic Origin of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality," found at the site _www.well.com_ (http://www.well.com/) , provides the following material: "According to Livy, in 17 B.C. Augustus read out this speech, which seemed "written for the hour", in the Senate in support of his own legislation encouraging marriage and childbearing." Hence the origin of a popular maxim that is with us to this day..... If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure. To understate the case, this was not a time of official approval of homosexuality. How many years after the time of Augustus -he died in 14 AD- his laws remained in effect is anyone's guess. Apparently enforcement became lax after about 50 years, there are enough references to openly practiced homosexuality to realize exactly this, but people paid lip service to the laws and many, probably including the earliest Christians, looked up to them as a model for the state and society. It is important to remember that the reputation of Augustus outlived the man by many years, vaguely the way that FDR continues to be regarded as a champion of the people by millions of Americans almost 70 years after his death. Great men are never forgotten. Augustus was clearly the inspiration for the emperor Domitian. Approximately 70 years after Augustus' death, in 89 AD, Domitian "re-enacted" the Julian Laws. By that time these laws were neglected, partly because of the psychological maladies of emperors like Nero, but Domitian determined to correct that problem by reviving and reanimating the policy of the Lex Julia. Not that Christians were about to praise Domitian for much of anything. Primarily over the issue of Christian refusal to worship the emperor, widespread persecution broke out, directed by the Roman state, and thousands of Christians were killed. One theory has it that various negative references to personified evil in the Book of Revelation refer to Domitian, in fact. But Domitian's anti-homosexual policies otherwise were largely consistent with Christian values expressed in Paul's epistles. Christians were well aware that many Romans, whatever was true in some Greek cities, were highly critical of homosexuality. Angelo di Berardino, O.S.A., phrased matters this way in a paper he wrote entitled "Christianity and Anthropology -Homosexuality in Classical antiquity": "The Romans called male homosexuality practiced with adolescents...the "Greek vice..." It was widely agreed that homosexuality "was unknown in more ancient Roman times. This was so completely foreign to Roman values that they absolutely condemned it. However in Horace's time it had gained a certain foothold in Rome.....Cicero wrote: "It seems to me that this habit of loving boys originated in the Greek gymnasiums, where these love affairs are free and tolerated." The relevance of all this concerns Christian practice in the years of the earliest Church. Both Romans 1 and the Didache demand death for homosexuals. Was this punishment ever carried out? The answer is that we don't know for sure. However, what is clear is that Christian morality was not too different than Roman morality in the Augustan age, until perhaps the time of Claudius (with a psychotic interruption in the form of Caligula), and in some respects well into the second century AD. That is, yes, there were important differences, especially compulsory emperor veneration, but there were common moral grounds that people had to have noticed. It was anything but an era of homosexual frolic without rules. It is also clear that Christians, following Jewish custom, demanded death for homosexuals in their midst -presuming that the homosexuals in question did not leave when asked to by a congregation. But it usually was illegal for anyone but the state to carry out executions. One exception was for the crime of blasphemy. Hence the martyrdom of St. Stephen, stoned to death by an angry crowd according to the account in the Book of Acts. And there may have been one or another additional exception since the Gospel of John records a scene where an adulteress was almost killed this way, although that might have been a case of "vigilante justice." Regardless, ordinarily only Romans could put people to death. Hence the suggestion by some scholars that statements in the New Testament should be taken as meaning that Christian communities sometimes asked the Romans to execute one of their number because they believed that Biblical teaching could not settle for anything less. In that light what Paul said in Romans 1: 32 can be taken as a justification for an action recently carried out, with a homosexual killed by the Romans at Christian request. Needless to say, Christians do not want to think about Christian origins this way. But consider the fact that what to modern men and women are major incongruities were part of the order of society in the past. Leviticus is in the Bible, after all. And Mosaic law was still very much alive in the first century AD. It may be fashionable to denigrate Leviticus in some circles these days. There are those 613 "commandments" which supplement the 10 we are more familiar with, and some of those divine rules are, by modern-day lights, arbitrary and meaningless. However, that was hardly how people alive in the time of Christ saw things. Indeed, the New Testament borrows from Leviticus. Consider the two great commandments of the Gospel of Matthew, from chapter 22, verses 34 - 40: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. Deuteronomy 6: 5 gives us: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Leviticus 19: 18, says "you shall love your neighbor...as yourself." What follows this injunction to righteousness and sincere faith ? Leviticus 20: 13. "If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death." Homosexuals were put to death, literally. To read such material as allegory or metaphor is absurd. This was common practice in the ancient Mid East. Precedent had been established by the Assyrians -who were devotees of the Goddess Ishtar- and the so-called Middle Assyrian Laws are specific about it. The deaths they meted out to homosexuals were gruesome and could feature public humiliation, torture, and impalement. Zoroastrians also had a reputation for dealing summarily with homosexuals. About the Zoroastrians, however, many areas of knowledge are simply missing from the record, a result of massive persecution by Muslims and mass book burnings of Zoroastrian literature. Which is not some kind of wild accusation; this is documented in detail in Mary Boyce's 1979 book, Zoroastrians, especially chapters 10, 11, and 12. Who was Mary Boyce? Some conservative novelist who hates Arabs? Not exactly. Until her recent death she was a distinguished professor of Iranian Studies at London University. She was also the world's leading scholar of Zoroastrian history. Regardless, there are texts to investigate and the verdict is unmistakable. Yasna 51 of the Avesta tells us that Zarathushtra was not polluted -defiled- in any way and, since homosexuality embodies defilement, no pederast ever "gained his ear." The Datistan-i Denik 72: 2 states that homosexuals carry out Satan's will; Satan is homosexual and through endless deceptions he causes susceptible human beings to become homosexual. And the Vendidad, called the "Leviticus of the Iranians" by M.N. Dhalla, is laced with references that condemn homosexuality. Such knowledge as is available makes it reasonably clear that the Zoroastrians also executed homosexuals, or otherwise punished them with the greatest severity. For those who may be interested, while this is only indirectly related to the theme, Buddhist condemnations of homosexuality can be found in the Digha Nikaya, the Anguttaranikaya, and the Mahavagga. For a detailed discussion of this subject see Leonard Zwilling's article, "Homosexuality As Seen In Indian Buddhist Texts", from Jose Ignacio Cabezon, ed., Buddhism, Sexuality & Gender, published in 1992. For Hindus, most of whom are vehemently opposed to homosexuality, scriptural criticism of homosexuality is primarily through the high value placed on marriage between men and women, hence anything that devalues such marriage is horribly wrong, although there are passages in the Manu Smrti -the Code of Manu- that are explicit on the issue, such as Manu 11: 174-175. To return to the testimony of ancient religion in he Biblical world, special note should be taken of the discovery of a major text at Dier Alla in Jordan in 1967, analyzed in the years since then, which is nothing less than the reputed words of the prophet Balaam, written to honor Balaam's religion, and which possibly may be the prototype for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah -or maybe more likely, shows us a Pagan document that draws on the same source as the story in Genesis. In it, at any rate, a Goddess similar to Ishtar, possibly Ishtar herself, is responsible for the destruction of the evil homosexual cities. Elimination of homosexuals from society was anything but an objective unique to the Jews. And the first Christians obviously carried this practice over into their new religion. Contemporary interpretation of ancient religion as supportive of homosexuality is ridiculous on the face of it. The "gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild" interpretation of Christianity is utterly false to the Bible. Obviously there is considerable support for a view of Jesus as compassionate and kind and loving. And given the importance -centrality- of the Sermon on the Mount in Christian tradition, it is hardly arguable that Christians seek to emulate the Jesus of that sermon as much as possible. This was true in the beginning, it was true for St. Francis of Assisi, and true for Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa, among many others. However, that was not all that Jesus was. To cite just one example of a very different Jesus, one that makes a very different point, Matthew 21: 12 informs us that Christ could become angry and violent. This is the pericope in which Jesus entered the temple in Jerusalem and "overturned the tables of the money changers, expelling them, by force, from the building. The Sermon on the Mount is not 100% of what the Christian message is all about. There is a legitimate place for righteous anger and even for physical force. The "gentle Jesus" model of Christian faith is false because it neuters Christ and turns him into a prayerful Quaker pacifist at all times, no exceptions, a view that distorts the Biblical account of Jesus' overall life. This says that the way to deal with homosexuals and their stewards is the way that is described in relevant homosexual-specific verses in the Bible. Many contemporary believers do not seem to recognize the fact that each and every one of the 30 passages in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, 15 in each Testament, that condemn homosexuality, were taken at face value by the people who wrote those passages. In most cases a verse simply says that sodomy is totally unacceptable, contrary to God's will, and evil. But in a few passages, especially those found in Leviticus and Romans (but also see Deuteronomy 32: 32-35 and I Corinthians 6: 9), are very clear to the effect that homosexuals are to be uncompromisingly opposed. . Christians understood such things very clearly until some time in the 19th century. And at least the scholars among them understood that the values of the original Christians were passed down to later generations, with Christian rulers like Justinian doubling down on anti-homosexual laws when enforcement had atrophied. . That is, where do you think that medieval Christian law came from? Thin air? And why do you suppose that Thomas Jefferson, when we wrote law for the Commonwealth of Virginia, crafted a passage in which the penalty for sodomy was death? These are the facts, they are not fictions. . The Christian view, which is also the Jewish view and the view of most other religions, is that homosexuals have no legitimate claim to a place in society. The reasons for these views are as valid now as they were at any time in history. . The point here is not that we need to return to laws of 50 AD or 1500 AD, or reactivate Thomas Jefferson's statutes. But this is a war and homosexuals and all of their allies must be defeated -not appeased. To win a war waged over values it is essential to know what you are talking about, thoroughly, so that you can bring the fight to the enemy and crush all of his arguments into nothingness. Hate the sin and love the sinner? For a sinner who abandons sin, of course, its the right thing to do. But otherwise, hate the sin and fight the sinner -with everything you've got -until he loses. The general idea was captured in an April 2013 article published at Angelqueen.org, a website "for Dallas Area Catholics." The essay by "tantamergo" was entitled : "Is “love the sinner, hate the sin” biblical?" The writer was unhappy with what he considered to be misguided attempts by Christians, especially Catholics who should know better such as Cardinal Dolan, to compromise-away centuries of Church teaching on the issue, and to not even know, let alone understand, some of the most basic positions on homosexuality expressed in the Bible. Instead, in case after case of spokesmen for the Church what one gets is the feel-good theme, “sentiment trumps all” -which has nothing to do with Christian faith and everything to do with pop psychology and the Political Correctness views of the mainstream media. What it amounts to, while the writer didn't put it in these words, is that America has a new official religion, Nihilistic Unitarianism, and all media statements on controversial issues such as homosexuality must conform to this modern orthodoxy on pain of public characterization as being irrelevant. Regardless, the witness of the Bible is crucial for actual Christian believers and to the Bible we need to turn for moral clarity. . What one find when you do this, actually study the Judeo-Christian scriptures, is that the "love the sinner" motif is absent in many, many important places in the text; indeed, the text often takes a position that is the diametric opposite of "love the sinner" pop theology. Indeed, if this was another time in history that viewpoint would be branded as a heresy, it is that far off the charts. . "Dr. Phil" did not die for your sins, in a sense he is part of the problem. . After re-reading much of the Pentateuch the writer pointed out that "the Lord frequently condemned those who had engaged in various sinful activities in the strongest terms. Not the sin they engaged in, but the perpetrators themselves." Leviticus 18, for instance, takes a stand "against all manner of sexual depravity." It then says: “Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations shall perish from the midst of his people.” In other words, they should be exiled or killed. We can also interpret this passage as saying that God will destroy these grievous sinners himself in his own way. None of this says anything at all about meeting with DignityUSA, attending a conference of so-called Log Cabin Republicans, consulting with the "Lesbian Avengers," or appearing on an interview show along with GOProud or GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. And it certainly doesn't mean hob-nobbing with members of the revived "Queer Nation, " active again in Denver. . If anything, to translate Biblical injunctions into contemporary terms, the Holy Book tells us to condemn each of these groups and all of their members, to feel contempt for them and their values -and to work to discredit everything about them. . Not exactly what the article says, but to take its implications to their logical conclusion........ . As the writer continued, what many people actually mean when they use the adage “love the sinner, hate the sin” is: “love the sinner, cover up for/ explain away / minimize the sin.” . It is impossible not to agree with this assessment; "love the sinner" is an excuse to do nothing, or to rationalize away one's unwillingness to do some serious research so that you become well-enough informed so that you can actually carry debate points successfully in open discussion. But, you know, everything else is more important, especially money, status, and social acceptance. . Most people are scared to death of genuine controversy. The first Christians thrived on controversy. Against the argument that the "old law" is no longer operative because of Christ, said the writer, while there is a point to be made about the entirety of that law, parts of which are clearly obsolete, clearly the morality of the Hebrew Bible is not in that category. The opposite is the case: "our Savior spoke quite frequently of sheep and goats, pious and sinners. He also stated that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Moreover, there is no distinction in the New Testament between horrible sins and the individuals who commit those sins. . " Commission of a mortal sin requires full consent of the will – and those lost in fundamentally sinful lifestyles like addiction or sexual depravity are, in a sense, almost inseparable from the sins they commit, and sometimes glory in." The responsibility of a Christian is to show real backbone, to stand up for what is right, and if there are penalties for doing so, do the right thing anyway. It really is that simple. . Maybe not easy, maybe very difficult, maybe painful, but utterly simple. For a Christian there only is one question that matters: Do I stand up for Jesus -or not? . The article concludes with these words: “...the Church has always known homosexual acts to be gravely sinful, it was constantly condemned in Scripture, and since we love souls and what is good for them, we have to try to convince people to repent and leave their sins.” "Is that really too hard?" . . . Nowhere else is this war we need to fight more important than with respect to children. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
