In ancient times or people of long ago, why was sodomy considered bad for society? What was the reasoning behind the condemnation? Sodomy is by definition anal sex, oral sex, or sex with animals. OK, sex with animals may not work on a biological level, since animals may have different numbers of chromosomes than humans, and anal sex is very risky sexual behavior, because the anus is a very delicate tissue, easily prone to damage and rips. Oral sex may be considered unsanitary, because one is touching someone’s genitals with his hands or mouth from who-knows-where. I would understand that those sexual behaviors carry risks to some degree to the individual, but how are these behaviors damaging for society to the point that people in the past decided to outlaw them (think Victorian England and “gross indecency” and “sodomitic vice”)? :dubious:
Also, is a person who commits “sodomitic vice” a “sodomitically vicious person”, grammatically speaking?
I’m pretty skeptical of that explanation. Unless your tribesmen are so in to sodomy that they totally forgo vaginal intercourse, I imagine there will still be more then adequate traditional sexing to keep the womanfolk pregnant.
Well, even today, the Catholic Church has a thing against certain sexual practices, including “normal” sex with birth control, that leave no possibility of pregnancy. I’ve never totally understood their reasoning, but if I did, that might shed some light on the OP’s question.
If we’re talking old testament, remember the Israelites had MANY prohibitions on vaginal intercourse as well. Rules about menstrual cycles, bathing rituals, childbirth seclusion periods, etc. But all this is forgotton, all people remember is the anus!
Thank you so much! I found the article extremely helpful. How about some smileys? :D:D:D
If the article is all true, then that certainly sums up to mean that the original Hebrew scholars presumably interpreted that Onan’s story meant that Onan liked to play with his doodle, as the asker so casually and humorously puts it, instead of being a cruel rapist of his wife, creating an impression that touching oneself was “sinful”. Time passed by, and generations added more interpretations, all adding to the theory that Onan was a “sinful masturbator”, and that masturbation itself was “sinful”. According to the article, it is mentioned that the Hebrews knew about sex for procreation and sex for pleasure, but it was the Christians who went a step further and declared all sex for pleasure was “sinful”. Since Christianity spread abroad across the world, their ideals about sex spread across as well. At the very end of the article, it mentions that this “code of morality” becomes overturned: that masturbation is perfectly natural, and homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in society. Oh, it answered my question! :D:D:D
In ancient times, sodomy was considered bad for society because of the initial interpretation of Onan’s story and subsequent, uncritical additions to the story and the Christian distaste for sex of pleasure.
Now, my question is this: why did the early Christians have a distaste for pleasurable sex? Perhaps, the early Christians were attracted to the Hebrew Bible, because they thought that it provided proof from God that supported their ideals? :dubious:
There was a strong trend toward denial of “the flesh” and the illusion of the material world, gnostic christianity was big at the time, starving guys atop pillars were celebrities, I could see how frowning on being a slave to your meatsack would come about.
Well, if you really think about it, how many species other than human beings have created birth control devices to consciously prevent or control fertility? I presume such an act would be considered “unnatural” in a sense that birth control devices do not occur in nature. Perhaps, this ideal of appeal to nature is considered to be very positive? I think one should also keep in mind that birth control devices are not perfect and thus “leave no possibility of pregnancy” whatsoever, as you seem to imply, and some people who engage in sex do not even bother with using birth control devices, because using birth control devices and contraceptives requires careful and timely planning, and some people just want to have sex right away. Not very rational. :rolleyes:
So, it’s all about being closer to God and rejecting worldly pleasures to pursue God’s attention to bring about security for their own well-being! Ah, that makes sense!
It wasn’t considered bad among the Greeks, for example. It also wasn’t considered bad among the AT-Israelites, as the Staff report points out: Onan’s sin was not spilling the seed, but denying his duty to his dead brother.
The usual explanation, that sodomists or homosexuals don’t have children, is obviously wrong once you look at the Greek societies like Sparta, where the men lived together homosexual for most of their lives, but still got together with women to do their duty to the state and produce children.
Wait just a minute… So all (most?) of those bad-assed (no pun intended) Spartan warriors, like the “300” that held off the Persians at Thermopylae, were “butthole buddies”? :eek:
Cite, please? :dubious:
I guess that would also mean that “don’t ask, don’t tell” never really became an ‘issue’.
Um, a cite for what everybody who starts studying ancient greek language or history knows?
Let’s start with Greek mythology: in the Illias, Achilleus shares the tent with Patrokles, his bosom-buddy and best friend; when he’s killed by Hektor after dressing up in Achilleus’ armor, Achilleus is destitute and takes horrible revenge on Hektor (desecrating his corpse, which was a big no-no).
Or there was the sacred band of Thebes - 300 lifetime lovers fighting in pairs. The official reasoning was that a man would fight to death to a) protect his lover and b) not appear cowardly in front of his lover, and therefore be superior to a guy who “only” fought for his home country and might flee if the odds were bad.
As for Sparta, while some scholars disagree as to how widely it was practised (and of course remembering that there were different periods during the whole “Ancient” time), that men considered homosexual relations normal is pretty much accpeted, and the close relationship between younger and elder boys was part of the education process. Whether each boy did indeed have sex with the elder or just a very very very close relationship is a matter of opinon.
When the men had to marry for procreation, the women were made to resemble men as much possible, apparently to ease the shock of sleeping with them.
Or take the philosopher Plato - hisideal of love was originally not non-sexual love, but … love between men. Because women didn’t have real souls, real love could only be between men, mind and body, or sex and soul-meeting.
No other species on this planet is as technologically or medically advanced enough for reliable birth control; however, the most important part is that almost no other species on this planet ** needs** birth control. Humans* are the only species that doesn’t go periodically into heat, but is always in the mood for sex.
Leaving aside the Bonobo chimps and apes/monkeys in general for the moment.
No. In general it is a very bad idea to appeal to “Nature” for morals and ethical rules, for two reasons:
Humans are intelligent (somewhat) and have ethics in the first place. So what animals following only their instincts - when mating - do or don’t do shouldn’t be a regard for humans.
most of the time when the argument “this is natural” is used, it’s used by clueless people with no real knowledge of real-life biology science.
Ask a real biologist, and they will tell you that almost no statement about nature can be made with certainty - there are always exceptions. Warm blooded animals with spines are mammals? Except for the platypus.
Animals have sex for procreation only, therefore hetero? Except for all those homo couples observed - not only in capitivity, but in the wild. (the % varies by species - some have 10% homos, some 90%).
Animals care for their young ones? Some do, some don’t, some eat foreign kids (lions when taking over an existing group).
Animals don’t have wars? Well chimps do. Not religious war as far as we know now, though.
Animals don’t cooperate? Well, social animals like chimps do. And studies show that cooperation is an advantage to survival.
Animals don’t lie? Well chimps do. And studies show that up to a certain percentage, a group can tolerate a few liars and egoistic individuals.
Animals don’t cheat on their spouses, they stay true for whole life? Looking only at those animals who do form life-long bonds - not all do - Storks for example do cheat quite often.
And so on.
Nobody said that humans are rational; and a condom or pressar doesn’t require a lot of “timely planning” beyond carrying or getting one inserted.
Try re-reading the article again. That’s not at all what the article says. It says that
So: nothing about playing with his penis.
Nothing about raping his own wife - it was about the wife of his dead brother.
Nothing about touching oneself being sinful.
Because when Christianity was trying to figure out the tenents of its religion (first the Pauline letters and the councils of the Church, discussing different opinions and declaring some as heresies) one big influence was from Manichaeism., which was also popular and widespread around that time. The basic idea was that the soul was from heaven or God, but the flesh / body from hell/ Satan.
So anything with the soul was good, but anything to do with the flesh was bad.
While Manicheaism itself was declared a heresy, the idea itself snuck in through the back door, combining with the Ascetic movement where holy men sat on Pillars or went into the desert to show how little the body meant to them.
It has stayed as one side of Christian thought over the centuries, with the Albigenser and some centuries later the Puritans as prominent examples.
Basically, modern theology says that nobody is guilty because Christ dying in place of a lamb was necessary.
Putting the blame on the Romans or the Jews depended on what audience it was adressed to, to whitewash the own group.
In addition, the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple in 70, but happened around 30. After the destruction of the temple, the Roman laws were different from before. So when one account says that Pilate ordered Jesus killed because the High Priest of the Jews didn’t have the authority, that was true after 70, but probably not around 30
He is being snarky. This is not a widespread belief among normal Christians any longer.
In the Middle Ages, it was popular toflagellate yourself as punishment for your sins (and there were lots of ways to sin) - but coupled with the magic belief that the current crapsack state of the world was punishment from God for the sins of the people, and that by publically atoning for it, God would lift the punishment and make the world less sucky (it was sucky with wars and little ice age causing hunger).
Today, only some groups like Opus Dei still follow that.
Most non-Catholics believe that God forgives you if you are sorry, following Luther’s interpretation of the Romans letter.
And even Catholics have let up a bit and use confession and a few rosarys as penance.
