comments on the "mere comment"
One of the more interesting comments following "Mere Comment" The Gospel of Mark (Driscoll) & His Critics by Justin D. Barnard. The comment below is NOT part of J.D. Barnard's text, it is a comment by BENIGHTED SAVAGE following a host of other comments (page down).
I am not a church historian. I would be interested in any sort of substantive discussion of the points made above concerning Church teaching and traditions prior to the 20th century.
POSTED BY: BENIGHTED SAVAGE | JUN 29, 2009 8:19:45 PM
First, I have read Driscoll's sermon on the Song of Solomon delivered in Scotland and have read some of his other writings which included his views on what are appropriate sexual acts between married couples. Put simply, what Driscoll teaches as acceptable and, indeed, commanded by our Lord is nothing else than sodomy as that term as been understood by the Church universal throughout the two millennia of our Faith. Indeed, all traditions, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, so held until the 20th century. The acts which he declares that God commands wives to perform or allowed to be performed on them were crimes in many states of the United States as late as the last century. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing and following his teaching is extremely dangerous.
Second, in teaching that God commands women to perform sodomitic acts on their husbands, he is using God's Word to demand women to commit acts which many of them might find demeaning or even abusive. He perverts the teaching that wives must submit to their husbands to demand that they must submit to committing acts of sodomy and to be victims of such acts.
Third, in ridiculing the traditional interpretation of the Song of Solomon as being a metaphor of Christ and His Church, he resorts to words which I find blasphemous. ... [snip - blasphemy deleted] ...
Flee from this man and his false teachings.
I am not a church historian. I would be interested in any sort of substantive discussion of the points made above concerning Church teaching and traditions prior to the 20th century.
posted by C. Stirling Bartholomew | 8:01 PM
2 Comments:
Well the venerable Anglo-Saxon "Saint Bede" certainly scandalized a millenium later Victorian England commentators with his various unblushingly stated penance lists for various infractions such as hetero anal sex, hetero oral sex, hetero interfemoral sex etc. The Apostle Paul being both a Jew & a Roman and familiar with and being partly a product of their cultures in stating "Let there be no uncleanness named among you" (or spoken of to be found among you) was well aware of the emphasis of oral hygiene and cleanliness of the mouth among the pagan Zeus worshipping upper middle class to Patrician elite free Roman citizens. Oral genital contact was something considered to be more debasing than even the debasement in Roman eyes of the receptive effeminate partner in anal intercourse and thus fellatio was considered something that no husband of the Citizen elite classes could dare request of his wife, a Matron of Rome. Evidenced by the extreme rarity of oral sex portrayed in pornographic Roman and Greek art of the time.
The socialist, atheist "homosexual" left in such online works as Debbie Nathan’s Sodomy for the Masses & George Painter’s The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers - The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States document that it was near universal Judeo-Christianity mores-"Natural Law" that dictated to society "what is appropriate" on this matter and not the other way around.
The world's major "religions" Christendom, Judaism, Hinduism, half of Islam, Buhddism (just ask the Dalai Lama) all believe that the behavior in question is outright sin or "bad kharma" inducing.
Some claiming that Paul coined the term arsenkoites in 1 Cor 6:9, and one cannot be certain what it means are beyond not seeing the forest for the trees. As the Greek and Latin vocabulary become absorbed in the native people group dialects resulting in the development of English (for one example), the core definitions of original Greek words conveyed without too much variance their original meaning. So you have the use of the direct Greek coitus (koites) universally used by the medical/scientific professions to describe sexual intercourse (the conveying of seed into the vagina - without the modifier) and Greek arse carried through the development of the English language as a somewhat slang expression used in contemporary British pornography to describe male on female sodomy/buggery. At the risk of offending with a Jack Chick "Tractism"/ Peter Ruckmann "plainspokeness"; @%$# up her arse as they would vulgarly say... - definitely showing throughout history that arsenkoites was not limited to male homoseuality or pederasty by any means. With long running historical Hebrew & Phoenician "Tarshish" merchant and mining commerce operations in Spain & the British Isles one could well read arsenkoites reverse "Hebrew style" as coitus-(i)n-arse.
Oh, I might add in connection to the previous that the "marriage bed undefiled" passage of Hebrews 13:4 uses similarly translated as "bed" the root Greek word koite - which means the conveyence of seed up the vagina when used without a modifying word before or following.
Some very recent "modern" commentators have personally read into Romans chapter 1 "lesbianism" or female homosexuality, although this is contrary to the near universal opinion of "Christendom" for 2000 years that it is specifically refering to heterosexual anal intercourse - as evidenced by Babylonian and ancient early Greek prostitution texts and widespread Hetaera courtesan Attica artwork and pottery. Lesbianism being a rare phenomena in contrast to male homosexuality in ancient times; even when mythicized by the ancient Greeks "Lesbianism" was put in a partially heterosexual phallic envy context. Contemporary Lesbianism is prominently fueled by political Feminism in hatred of men and "culturally hip" promiscuity, menage a trois and pornography and "bar scene" - "Lipstick Lesbianism" once they get bored of their whoredom with men. thereafter the rampant sodomy with women in the earlier Babylonian & early Greek empires would later manifest in the greater next step up in abomination of male homosexual anal sodomy practices by the later Greek, even more so the Romans and the almost completely given over to adult male sodomy the violent facistic Spartans.
The Hittites (Patriarch Abraham's friends) had harsh penal laws against "heterosexual" anal and "heterosexual" oral sex so called. One of the famous 1st century writings (the Epistle of Barnabas? or other) though uninspired, has a condemnation against "oral sex" refering to the legend of the copulation of the weasel, thus indicating a long standing tradition in Christendom. Martin Luther & John Calvin both wrote against masturbation/onanism one going so far as to call it sodomy, therefore it is a Reformed point of view.
Not to forget God’s displeasure at Baal Peor (which was the worship of "the opening"/defecation) by the priestesses and priests of Baal which was appeased by a zealous Israelite spearing and pinning a couple together shish-kabob style while they were likely engaged in "sacred anal sex". Perhaps some of the plague which quickly struck down the Israelites who fornicated with those particular female worshippers of Baal may have been related to Ecoli food poisoning/flesh eating disease which the Isrealites had no immunity against since it (anal/feces sex) wasn’t normative Israelite practice.
… a couple of liberal rabbis opinions in the Talmud regarding a wife’s submission to "the overturned table" is contradicted by top rabbi Judah the Prince’s claim a century after Jesus’ ministry on earth that the angel "Gabriel" told him why some children are born deaf, or mute etc., echoing the Jewish cultural tradition of earlier when the disciples asked Jesus if this man’s parents sinned (in anal sodomy, or oral sex, or in this case pornographic voyeurism - believed in the later instance to cause blindness in children) that he was born blind.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home