SAINT BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX was the saint's name (He used a modification of the Rules of St Benedict), and in St Bernard's rules, the Temples were to burn candles 24 hours seven days a week to make sure no would would have homosexual sex, he then he made another rule that if one of the Templers would be caught have sex, either with a woman or a man, the punishment was the same, they had to eat their meals away form the common table that the rest of the Templers ate on, until they did something to redeem themselves for whatever sin they had done.
As to the bible itself, four stories relate to homosexuality. The oldest is Noah, after he had landed his arc, he discovered hoe to make wine. One day after drinking his wine, his sons saw him and raped him. The assault is generally viewed as an attack on homosexuals, but the rear attack is on the RAPE OF THEIR OWN FATHER.
The next story is Sodom, in that story some angels come to Lot to tell him to leave Sodom. The men of Sodom demand that Lot leave them have they way with the Angels, Lot refuses, This is a two fold attacks, first it is a story on how a person MUST protect guest in their home (in this story of being Raped) even at the cost of injury to their family members (He offered his two daughters to the rapists). It is also clear Lot would NOT have stool in the way of the messengers of God having sex. Thus again NOT an attack on homosexuals per se, but an attack on involuntary sex.
The third story of the bible in the order to kill anyone you see have homosexual sex. While on its face appears to be an attack on homosexuals, you have to understand the terms and context. Ancient Egyptian and Canaan religions seems to have a huge homosexual component, but done in public to show your support for those pagan gods. The vast majority of people had sex, even then, in the privacy of their homes, thus if you saw someone having sex it was a rejection of Judaism and an embrace of the pagan religions. Thus the visual homosexual act was NOT even a real sex act, but an act showing that person support for an enemy tribe of Judaism. The ancient jews were NOT going to tolerate that attack on both their religion AND ethnicity, thus it became a clear rule if you SAW someone having homosexual sex, both people had to be killed. On the other hand, only the persons in the house had the right to enter the house and thus unless the homosexual act was done in public (And that does NOT include Kissing or hugging, things heterosexuals men do in the Middle East to this day) no one other then a family member would ever see such an act (and even then it can be kept private).
The fourth situation was St Paul's Attack on Homosexuals as a "Abomination". To under stand this you have to realized that St Paul was writing in the Greek of his time period, and that Greek has several words for Homosexuals. The word St Paul used is restricted to that situation where ground men would go to a temple and have sex with 12-14 year old boys. The Boys had NO choice in this sex, for they were slaves, and as long as their owners were paid, they had to let the older men rape them. That is the abomination St Paul is attacking in his letter, but it is a concept Fundamentalists do not like, they prefer the broader English term for Homosexuals to include ALL Homosexual conduct.
Just a comment on why the Saint who wrote the rules of Conduct for the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Jerusalem wrote the rules he did. As one Catholic Theology told me years ago, under Catholic, Orthodox and most main line Protestant theology, you have the "Hierarchy of Sins". Under the Hierarchy of Sins the only severe sins (the sins that gets you condemned to hell) are a violation of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments only list on sex crime and that is Adultery (And that is to make sure men only had to support their own children, by the nature of Child Birth the mother of all children are known, the Father has to be determined, if the mother only had sex with one man, the father of that child had to be him, thus the rule of Adultery was adopted and it was a harsh rule but tied in with paternity and support of children and until the introduction of Blood tests and later on DNA Tests the most reliable way to ensure fathers they were supporting their own children not the children of anther man,).
The Primitive Rule of the Knights Templers:
http://www.templiers.org/regle1-eng.phphttp://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/comprule.htmlRules of St Benedict, which the tempeler's rules were based on:
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/rule_st_benedict_e.htm#_Toc74181905Side Note: A lot of junk has been released about the Knights Templars, anything to do with the Masons probably is a repeat of something made since about 1800 (WHen the first reports of the Masons tracing themselves back to the Knights Templar appear, 500 years after the order was suppressed, probably has no basis is fact but a good story in the early 1800s among European Masons).
Thus it is NOT traditional Christian teaching to say Homosexual is a severe sins (It is a sin, but so is any sex outside of marriage). For non sever sins (or venial sins) you will be punished, but it will be just a delay in getting into heaven NOT a denial of Heaven. Severe Sins (Or Mortal Sins, using older terminology) gets one damned to hell, but that requires a clear violation of one of the ten Commandments AND no pray for forgiveness while you are alive.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
