Religion, Spirituality, or Lack Thereof


Exactly. The Law codes in Leviticus were applied exclusively to Jewish people and anyone outside of their religion were not expected to abide by them.

This is something that I don’t think a lot of people realize about Judaism. Doesn’t a big part of your religion involve engaging in midrash and reinterpreting the Torah in a variety of ways? It’s very different from the Christian/Muslim mindset of “there is only ONE correct way to interpret the Scripture and anything the deviates from that is heresy!” Of course, I know heresy is still a concept in Judaism, but there still seems to be a lot more acceptance of multifaceted interpretations of the text.


Okay, that’s actually interesting. So this means homosexuality, like all other stuff, was now associated with paganism and thus banned? Wow… these Christians were weird.


Yeah, I can understand. So they didn’t have issues with gay sex, but rather pagan sex… cause then sex had religion.


They probably had an issue with both, since adultery and fornication were both no-nos too, but the pagan aspect of it had a lot to do with why it was so reviled.

Female homosexuality wasn’t greatly condemned as male homosexuality among the ancient Israelites, though also still frowned upon. I remember reading about an argument between two Rabbis trying to decide weather it should be considered on par with harlotry or merely a form sexual indecency. They seemed to lean towards the latter.


You also mentioned ascetiscims. I was never sure when such aspect came into play in Christianity, I thought those ideas of finding anything pleasurable or of the flesh as bad came later, in the Victorian era I guess. Or was such ideas revived at the Victorian era? Or was it another era :thinking: sorry, I tend to mix history a lot.


I see… do you think it had something to do with manliness then?


I’m sure it did. That’s why they would rape prisoners of war and force them into sex slavery. It was a way to “feminize” the enemy combatant. It was also the reasoning behind why Romans had strict hierarchical rule pertaining to what sort of male Roman men were allowed to fuck. A master could fuck a slave, but NEVER the other way around. An older men could fuck a younger man, but it was disgraceful for two full-grown Roman men to fuck each other. Sex had a lot to do with power, and whoever was receiving had to already be of a lower status, otherwise they were “degrading” themselves.


It came pretty early on for Christianity, because it was already an idea that was popular with some Roman mystery cults at the time. Of course, it became more or less extreme during different parts of history. But I know there were some saints in the Byzantine Empire who were greatly revered because they would do weird things like live at the top of a pillar for a year, hardly eating or drinking anything

The Victorians did get pretty weird with their overblown sexual propriety, but I partially suspect that had more to do with growing aristocratic anxieties over the emerging middle class and the ridiculously rigid social codes they constructed as a result of this.

But the Victorians were only so prudish in public. If you want to see some really, really dirty porn, Victorian porn is where it’s at. They got everything: bestiality, bondage, girls fucking each other with carrots, you name it.


Lots of kids at my church (I’m not religious, but my parents make me go) are pressured into being baptized at age 10 or 11. And I find it sad. Many of them aren’t yet convinced of their faith. But their parents insist.


Off topic, but happy birthday!!!


I’m pretty sure shellfish has always been more absorbant than other forms of life to chemicals, even something like naturally occurring lead. Or maybe shellfish were popular among the Canaanites, and it became associated with a foreign and hostile culture or something.

I don’t think a small, ancient community would decide to not eat a food source for no reason


It was just to maintain group unity at a time when that was taken for granted


I think homosexuality, while tolerated, was looked down upon by the Romans as a bit decadent. When the Christians came saying they’d ban it all, it made them look strongly ethical on social issues at a time when the Empire was undergoing turmoil


More like they had a problem with cultic ritualized sex. Also, reproduction was important as it was in pretty much every culture so non-procreative sex was made a social taboo. One we have no need of today. It made sense in a time with high infant mortality and relatively small communities. Children were necessarily highly prized.


Specially if they managed to live past their first five years. Free work-labor!


This is just dumb. They’re afraid of homosexuals, yet they have sex with men.


It’s more like they’re afraid of being seen as “the woman.” It’s more rooted in misogyny than it is in homophobia.


It’s still pointless. They still end up doing what they “shouldn’t” but only in private. History is really weird and that’s something they don’t teach in high school.


Roman culture probably wouldn’t understand our culture’s conception of ‘homosexuality’, really


It’s a mentality that still exists today. Ever heard of guys being on “the down low”? You’d be surprised how many married men go out and fuck other guys, then insist that it “isn’t gay” because they were on top.

I really wish they taught history better in school. It really opens your eyes to how fucked up humans really are