just wanting conversation atm. any topic. im 23, male, gay, christian (ecumenical baptist) - right leaning. theology is cool (i can prove the church blessed same sex covenants for 1.7k yrs lol) - i can prove muhammad denied being a prophet - go over philosophy, poltiics, XD theres alot ive learned and taken from my time debating in discord of all places, and here lol
(id hope they didnt delete it bc yall cant discuss in good faith what i found? ;( )
(my full msg below so i can get ppls take on it. sent in good faith, i understand eveyrone has their opinions)
side note. found this practice from 300 AD. called adelphopoiesis. EO tradition - same sex covenant. not a marriage replacement. but a spiritual covenant. that makes the most sense to me. there is a true form of it. and the issue is one side goes a tad too far - well the other - goes too far the other way. i think denying everything and pretending some of us dont have the attraction is a lie. but so is thinking you should do anything and everything humanly or physically possible.
but anytime i say anything like this - those on the farther right are as triggered as the liberals are.
hey guys - david and jonathan had this covenant. and a love they had surpassed women. those were his words. so did ruth and naomi. bc it wasnt sexual no - but spiritual. there were a number of saints who did this too. ppl even AUGUSTINE wrote to - and affirmed.
ppl who did this covenant said 'til death do us part' - 'in sickness and in health' - had a shared cup or smth like they did for marriage too - even shared a kiss on an alter.
quite interesting. give me your thoughts. (no im not saying every liberal idea is suddenly okay - im just arguing for a specific - 1200 year old covenant they still do in some places - arguing some friendships can be so deep - they deserve a specific celebrated covenant- david still had wives - ruth had another husband - but jesus had the church - not a physical wife - paul was celibate tho - how can they push a celibacy when in genesis it still said 'it is not good for man to be alone?' - bc there WAS a practice to bring again - lifelong friends together in a bound covenant)
and the fact no one mentions it now - especially in protestant circles is sad. im protestant XD but sometimes we forget church history and thats a shame. instead of shaming a gay person - who thinks theres no world for them you explain its a perversion - of a true practice. JUSt like tr@ns thing - "there were those who made themselves eunichs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" - again not the same thing, im not arguing that - but someone less connected to their physical body, wanting god - could perhaps be talked into a more moral aim is all im arguing (as compared to them cutting off their body part if theyre aimed at that - for the sake of trying to be the other sex)
--
also found chrystosom affirm im not crazy here - primary source included
proof? PG 62, Column 140, Middle of the Column. "Μὴ τοίνυν σώματος ζήτει κάλλος, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς ἀρετήν... μένει ἡ ἀγάπη ἰσχυρὰ, ὅτι ψυχικὴ φιλία ἐστὶν αὕτη, καὶ τῶν δεσμῶν ἰσχυρότατος οὗτος." "Seek not for the beauty of the body, but for the virtue of the soul... the love remains strong, because this is a friendship of the soul, and this bond is the most powerful of all." (this was a commandment he said of men about their women)
PG 62, Column 140, Lower-Middle of the Column (immediately following the text above). "Σκόπει γοῦν ἐπὶ τοῦ Δαυῒδ καὶ τοῦ Σαοὺλ... ὁ δὲ Ἰωνάθαν οὕτως αὐτὸν ἐφίλει, ὡς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν. Εἰπέ μοι, ἆρα σώματος κάλλος ἦν τὸ συνδέον αὐτούς; Οὐχὶ, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς ἀρετή." "Look, for example, at David and Saul... but Jonathan so loved him, even as his own soul. Tell me then, was it the beauty of the body that bound them? Not at all, but the virtue of the soul." i proved a church father - a WELL known one - told men to treat their women - how david treated jonathan
chrystosom said marriage is bound - desmōn then said david and jonathan (in an adelphopoesis covenant) - were bound - syndeon its the same root word btw.
In the bible -
2 Samuel 1:26 (like 1000 BC or smth)
"Your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women."
jonathan and david - had a literal soul bond. covenant together - david had many wives- yet the love with the same sex was nothing like them
In a culture obsessed with lineage and polygamy, the bible preserves a testimony of a same-sex bond being the "extraordinary" peak of davids emotional life
ruth and naomi (ruth 1:16-17): ruth uses a formal marriage vow to bind herself to naomi ("Where you go I will go... your God shall be my God"). the bible celebrates this lifelong, same-sex devotion as an act of "hesed" (covenant loyalty).
-----------
The Romans 1 Audit
(1:26): paul says they "exchanged" (metēllaxan) natural relations for unnatural ones. you cannot "exchange" a straight life if you never had one. paul is describing heterosexuals who, out of boredom or pagan ritual, tried to level up their lust by doing things that were "unnatural" to their design.
(1:27): He says they were "inflamed with lust" (exekauthēsan). this describes chaos, not commitment. paul is looking at the roman sex trade and the wild festivals of the time- places where sex was a tool for power or a thrill, not a way to care for a partner in "sickness and in health"
pauls goal in romans 1-3 is to prove everyone is a sinner so he can offer grace to everyone. he uses the most "extreme" examples of roman excess to make his point. he isnt writing a manual on orientation; hes writing an indictment of decadence
Leviticus 18 and 20
these laws are part of the law designed to make Israel different from the canaanites. the toevah (abomination): this word almost always refers to idolatry. the nations around Israel used male-to-male sex in fertility cults to "please the gods" - many early bibles (and even some modern scholars) believe the hebrew zakar here refers to a boy/youth (the bible is banning pagan ritual and pederasty. It is not addressing two adult men building a home together in the name of YHWH)
-----------
In the eastern orthodox (EO) and early byzantine tradition, the church had a specific "security protocol" for these bonds - adelphopoiesis (greek: ἀδελφοποίησις), literally "brother-making."
It was a formal church service.tThe two men stood at the altar, a priest placed his stole over their joined hands, and they shared the eucharist. while modern critics call it "just friendship," the prayers in the rite explicitly ask god to unite the two men just as He united saints sergius and bacchus. It functioned as a "covenant" that bound two souls together for eternity, often including shared property and burial.
Sergius and Bacchus (c. 300 AD)
- the passio (their official story) calls them erastai (passionate partners).
- when Bacchus died, he appeared to sergius to remind him that the "union (synecheia) of our love" would wait for them in heaven
- the church didnt hide them; they built a major basilica for them in rome. they were held up as the gold standard for how two men could love each other so much that it gave them the courage to die for christ
Pedro and Muño’s recorded - 1061 AD
It specifies they will have "one home, one food and drink, and one purse." * the vow: They swore to stay together in health and sickness, faithful until death.
this is "same-sex marriage" in everything but name. It was legal, ecclesiastical, and public. it proves that a thousand years ago, the church was willing to witness and protect the domestic and spiritual union of two men.
--
