# In ancient times, why was sodomy considered bad for society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 20, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086 "2012-01-20T02:04:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/1 "2012-01-20T02:04:54Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/2 "2012-01-20T02:20:05Z")
I’m sure if you go far enough back the prohibition was because it doesn’t lead to children, which denies the tribe additional members. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/3 "2012-01-20T02:25:05Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > I’m sure if you go far enough back the prohibition was because it doesn’t lead to children, which denies the tribe additional members. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/4 "2012-01-20T03:36:11Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > I’m sure if you go far enough back the prohibition was because it doesn’t lead to children, which denies the tribe additional members. > [@Simplicio](#): > > 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. I note that sodomy is touched upon in the Staff Report [What exactly was the sin of Onan?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan) ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/5 "2012-01-20T03:48:44Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > 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. Perhaps there were tribes that vanished. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/6 "2012-01-20T03:50:04Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/7 "2012-01-20T05:14:36Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > 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. > > I note that sodomy is touched upon in the Staff Report [What exactly was the sin of Onan?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan) 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: ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/8 "2012-01-20T05:36:52Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Now, my question is this: why did the early Christians have a distaste for pleasurable sex? 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. > **[Asceticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascetics)** > > Asceticism\[a\] is a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures through self-discipline, self-imposed poverty, and simple living, often for the purpose of pursuing spiritual goals. Ascetics may withdraw from the world for their practices or continue to be part of their society, but typically adopt a frugal lifestyle, characterised by the renunciation of material possessions and physical pleasures, and also spend time fasting while concentrating on the practice of religion Ascetici... ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/9 "2012-01-20T05:44:46Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > against certain sexual practices, including “normal” sex with birth control, that leave no possibility of pregnancy. 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: ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/10 "2012-01-20T05:50:31Z")
> [@grude](#): > > 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. > > [Asceticism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascetics) 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! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/11 "2012-01-20T10:51:36Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > In ancient times or people of long ago, why was sodomy considered bad for society? 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. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/12 "2012-01-20T14:05:27Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > 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. (bolding mine) 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’. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/13 "2012-01-20T14:24:36Z")
> [@JBDivmstr](#): > > 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. > [@](#): > > Plutarch records that the Sacred Band was made up of male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds. According to Plutarch’s Life of Pelopidas,[2] the inspiration for the Band’s formation came from Plato’s Symposium, wherein the character Phaedrus remarks, > > ``` > And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their beloved, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? > —[3] > > ``` > > The Sacred Band originally was formed of 300 hand-picked men who were couples[4], each lover and beloved selected from the ranks of the existing Theban citizen-army. The pairs consisted of the older “heníochoi”, or charioteers, and the younger “parabátai”, or companions, all housed and trained at the city’s expense in order to fight as hoplites.[4] During their early engagements, they were dispersed by Gorgidas throughout the front ranks of the Theban army in an attempt to bolster morale. As for [Sparta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Education), 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge). Whether each boy did indeed have sex with the elder or just a very very very close relationship is a matter of opinon. > [@](#): > > At around age 12 the boys would enter into an institutionalized relationship with a young adult male Spartan. Plutarch described this form of Spartan pederasty wherein somewhat older warriors would engage promising youths in a long-lasting relationship with a pedagogic motive. The boy was expected to request the relationship, which was seen as a method to pass on knowledge and maintain loyalty on the battlefield. > [@](#): > > Sparta, is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, and one of the first to formalize pederasty.[68] The Spartans believed that the love of an older, accomplished aristocrat for an adolescent was essential to his formation as a free citizen. The agoge, the education of the ruling class, was thus founded on pederastic relationships required of each citizen.[69] The lover was responsible for the boy’s training. Pederasty and military training were intimately connected in Sparta, as in many other cities. The Spartans, claims Athenaeus[70] sacrificed to Eros before every battle. When the men [had to marry](http://www.cracked.com/article_18420_5-cultures-with-most-wtf-wedding-rituals.html) for procreation, the women were made to resemble men as much possible, apparently to ease the shock of sleeping with them. > [@](#): > > For starters, they began the big day by shaving their heads. Second, they donned men’s clothes and sandals. Then, instead of participating in a ridiculously expensive ceremony with family and friends, prospective brides laid alone in the dark on a pallet, waiting for their grooms to come and steal them away in the night. Once a groom had his way with his new bride, he deposited her shaved, man-clothed self back at her parent’s home. Done. Married. Que romantico! > > snip > > The problem was that when the time came to do their duty to their species, Spartan men didn’t even know where to stick their bits. So to facilitate the soldier’s transition from gay love to straight love, brides shaved away their femininity and threw on some man clothes. > > As for the sneaking around stuff, Spartan men were required to live in military barracks until the age of 30, but the average age of marriage for men was 25. So most couples married, did the hanky-panky in the woods or whatever, made some babies, and didn’t even live in the same household for the first few years of their marriages. Hey, we wonder how the Spartan men comforted each other over the absence of the women in their lives? Eh, we’ll probably never know. > > Read more: 5 Cultures With the Most WTF Wedding Rituals | [Cracked.com](http://Cracked.com) [http://www.cracked.com/article\_18420\_5-cultures-with-most-wtf-wedding-rituals.html#ixzz1k0ZzM9YO](http://www.cracked.com/article_18420_5-cultures-with-most-wtf-wedding-rituals.html#ixzz1k0ZzM9YO) Or take the philosopher Plato - his[ideal of love](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_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. > [@](#): > > For Diotima, and for Plato generally, the most correct use of love of other human beings is to direct one’s mind to love of divinity. In short, with genuine platonic love, the beautiful or lovely other person inspires the mind and the soul and directs one’s attention to spiritual things. It was thought that Greek male and boy lovers were one of the noblest examples of this type of spiritual love. For it is a true love if you love a male because you love them for spiritual reasons, loving women was seen as only for sexual greed. Cecil also[discussed](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2627/why-does-so-much-ancient-greek-art-feature-males-with-small-genitalia) [Greek](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2635/did-the-ancient-greeks-routinely-practice-incest-as-well-as-homosexuality) homosexuality > [@](#): > > Kenneth Dover’s Greek Homosexuality (1978, revisited 1989), for now the definitive work on the subject > [@](#): > > A common practice in ancient times, at least among those men rich enough to have the time for such things, was to chase boys until you were 30 or so, then settle down with a woman and have kids. Dover cites an Athenian jury trial involving an allegation of male prostitution on the part of one Timarchus in which the prosecutor in effect argues: Look, we’ve all had the hots for young studs; I’ve gone after a few myself. But selling yourself to another man–now that’s low. Granted, the prosecutor doesn’t say he’s actually had sex with another man, but we’ve plenty of evidence from other sources seeming to indicate that many prominent Athenians (e.g., the lawgiver Solon) did just that. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/14 "2012-01-20T14:45:20Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Now, my question is this: why did the early Christians have a distaste for pleasurable sex? When you’re following someone who endured crucifixion to save your soul, forgoing unnecessary pleasure seems a small token of suffering in solidarity. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/15 "2012-01-20T15:06:39Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > When you’re following someone who endured crucifixion to save your soul, forgoing unnecessary pleasure seems a small token of suffering in solidarity. So, are you suggesting that Christians want to make their people suffer in honor of Jesus Christ who suffered for them? :dubious: The following question may be a bit stupid and uninformed, but what did Jesus Christ do that made the Romans nail him to the crucifix? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/16 "2012-01-20T15:17:44Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > 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? 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. > [@](#): > > 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? No. In general it is a very bad idea to appeal to “Nature” for morals and ethical rules, for two reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. > [@](#): > > 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: 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. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/17 "2012-01-20T15:26:16Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > 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”. Try re-reading the article again. That’s not at all what the article says. It says that > [@](#): > > Having no legal means of avoiding his brotherly duty, Onan flatly refuses to do it. He doesn’t object to sex with his brother’s wife; he just doesn’t want to get her with child. We don’t know why except that the child “would not count as his.” Perhaps he lacked a sense of responsibility to the dead. Perhaps he realized that, with Er dead, he would get half his father’s estate, but if Er had an heir, he would only get one-third. So he spilled his seed on the ground. 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. > [@](#): > > 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: 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.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigense) and some centuries later the Puritans as prominent examples. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/18 "2012-01-20T15:28:35Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Um, a cite for what everybody who starts studying ancient greek language or history knows? … I’m humbled by your extensive knowledge, sir. Thank you, for taking the time to educate me. 🆒 (I sincerely mean all of that.) 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/19 "2012-01-20T15:30:43Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > The following question may be a bit stupid and uninformed, but what did Jesus Christ do that made the Romans nail him to the crucifix? 😕 1. Read Cecil’s colum “[Who killed Jesus](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2011/who-killed-jesus)” until you understand it. > [@](#): > > First, who killed Jesus is irrelevant. If you’re a devout Christian, Jesus would tell you not to blame but to forgive. If Jesus hadn’t died on the cross, you’d have no route to salvation. So in a way you should be thanking those who executed him, not blaming them. 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 ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086/20 "2012-01-20T15:36:43Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > So, are you suggesting that Christians want to make their people suffer in honor of Jesus Christ who suffered for them? :dubious He is being snarky. This is not a widespread belief among normal Christians any longer. In the Middle Ages, it was popular to[flagellate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant) 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-ancient-times-why-was-sodomy-considered-bad-for-society/610086.md?page=2)