Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
snip

I respectfully and unequivocally disagree with everything you just said.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
What you see as mocking, I saw as honest questions.

An honest question based on the prejudice that Catholics are stupid enough to believe that their stomachs contain chunks of human meat after the reception of communion. Your "honest question" was merely a jibe, a delivery mechanism for hateful content. The Neanderthal question is similarly a pre-loaded insult. It seems you aren't used to bullying people who understand rhetoric.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
That I was initially given "jargon" ... served to prolong my partial ignorance on the matter.

Ignorance becomes invincible by an act of will. And, in this case, there is nothing partial about it.

 Manchu wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
What you see as mocking, I saw as honest questions.

An honest question based on the prejudice that Catholics are stupid enough to believe that their stomachs contain chunks of human meat after the reception of communion. Your "honest question" was merely a jibe, a delivery mechanism for hateful content.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that it's hateful to question the veracity of mystical claims, and ask for proof for those claims. I asked a question that, based on my partial understanding of the Catholic ceremony, would have proven Catholism to be a true or false religion instantly, and said I'd happily convert to Catholism if I saw chunks of meat pumped back up.

As to my "prejudice" toward catholic beliefs, honestly I don't see how the explanation of what "transubstantiation" that we've heard is any more or less stupid than my initial impression of what transubtiation was. The actual Catholic rite just happens to be immune to scientific analysis... That doesn't make it any more or less realistic to my mind - it is still a claim that a carpenter who has been dead for 2000 years imbues millions of pieces of bread with his physical prescence every week, an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence does not feel more or less "stupid" than hundreds of other similar mystical claims I know of.

The Qur'an claims that Allah has made it so that salt water and fresh water in the sea do not mix - is that a stupid claim?

The Neanderthal question is similarly a pre-loaded insult. It seems you aren't used to bullying people who understand rhetoric.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
That I was initially given "jargon" ... served to prolong my partial ignorance on the matter.

Ignorance becomes invincible by an act of will. And, in this case, there is nothing partial about it.

I'm ignorant as to what my insult is supposed to be.

I'm asking a valid question, and I'm being met with calumny.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
I'm asking a valid question, and I'm being met with calumny.

Methinks he doth protest too much:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Pretty easy to prove your faith is real, if you're willing to endure some minor discomfort [via stomach pump]. Just think of all the souls you'd save when lumps of flesh come back up and billions of people convert to Catholicism (heck, I would).

So what do you say, are you willing to do it?

And let me just check the old irony meter here:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
As to my "prejudice" toward catholic beliefs, honestly I don't see how the explanation of what "transubstantiation" that we've heard is any more or less stupid than my initial impression of what transubtiation was.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
The actual Catholic rite just happens to be immune to scientific analysis... That doesn't make it any more or less realistic to my mind

Wait did you think it's my job to convert you or otherwise prove my beliefs to you? No, not interested. If you have a question about what Catholics believe and can manage to ask it while following Rule Number One, I'll be happy to answer. But I have no interest in trying to convince you that you should also believe what I believe.

Well, glad to see Dakka try to take on something that no-one has well.

Having a "rational" discussion on religion.
It is like trying to rationalize your feelings.

Symbolism is heavy in most beliefs and looking at "communion" in a literal way is like reading poetry at the face meaning of the words.

All groups have something to give and at least respect.

Buddhism looks at trying not to become too attached to physical items. The exorcise of making beautiful murals of colored sand and then sweeping it away is a hard lesson: it is reason enough to make something of beauty.

The Koran speaks of "A Muslim is prohibited to judge people and their intentions but can judge acts and deeds. Only God Almighty knows the intentions of every person and his/her final destination in the Hereafter. ". Yes there are some extremists (like in any group) but this is a great element.

Sikh: #1 belief: all human races are equal. Sexes are equal in status. Period.

There are many more good examples.

I prefer science as my primary religion with the backing of a more sympathetic God with a sense of humor.

I feel faith in a higher power is very comforting but it should not alleviate your responsibility for being accountable for your actions.

But science can't be a religion as it has no attachment to the supernatural or a doctrine that talks about theses supernatural events.

 Talizvar wrote:

I prefer science as my primary religion with the backing of a more sympathetic God with a sense of humor.

that doesn't work. Science is not a religion, science is an approach to exploring, interpreting, understanding, exploiting and explaining the natural universe. Science may lead to spiritual experiences, like the wonder of realizing that in the grand scheme of things you are tiny speck and meaningless, yet somehow a part of the greater cosmos since your makeup is identical to that of the universe....... but science is in and of itself not a religion. Any attempt to include science in a religious paradigm is ridiculous. The very nature of science demands you leave your faith or lack thereof at the door! Science has nothing whatsoever at all to do with religion or questions of faith.

That's the problem with a lot of these threads.

If everybody plays nice we get people who disagree asking "what do you believe" and "why do you believe that", and those are the good threads.

It's the "what do you believe" followed by "well, this is why you are wrong" and "this is why that is stupid" threads that derail.

I think this thread has somewhat recovered though.

As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.

Wait did you think it's my job to convert you or otherwise prove my beliefs to you? No, not interested.

I don't think it's your "job". I do think that Jesus tells Christians to try as hard as they can to convert everyone who's not one of his followers into being one of his followers though.

But that's besides the point. I'm asking a valid theological question : According to Catholic theology, did Neanderthals go to Hell?
And what about the Neanderthal-Human hybrids?
Did they have souls?
What about the Neanderthal-Human hybrids that are alive today? Do they have souls?

If you have a question about what Catholics believe and can manage to ask it while following Rule Number One

Interesting, I feel I'm being more polite than you are. I'm not reciprocating your calumnies, for one thing.

I'll be happy to answer. But I have no interest in trying to convince you that you should also believe what I believe.

I'm right about that thing where Jesus commands anyone who follows him to try and convert others into following him, aren't I?


Anyways, back on transubstantiation, since you invite further polite discourse (I forgive you for your outburst of insults, by the way - I understand that you misinterpreted my ignorance as being trolling, and responded with nasty comments from a position of misunderstanding), there are essentially two versions of that "miracle" that have been discussed in this thread, one being the version I thought Catholics believed in, the other being the version they do believe in:

Version A - Each week, millions of chunks of bread turn into chunks of meat, specifically the flesh of Jesus the Nazarene, as part of a mystic ceremony performed by Catholic Priests.

Version B - Each week, the flesh of Jesus the Nazarene manifests itself in in millions of different pieces of bread. The bread remains physically and chemically identical to the way it was before the miracle, but it is nevertheless (once swallowed) the literal physical embodiment of the iron age man-god Jesus' flesh.

Originally, I thought Catholics believed in #A. Now, after some wrangling, I understand that Catholics believe in #B.

Please understand, neither of these sounds particularly more or less likely to me than the other. They both sound equally unlikely.
The only difference to my mind is that #A could be proven by the application of science, whilst #B can never be tested for.

Plenty of religions have claims that are equally "silly" to an outside observer as either #A or #B.
The Qur'an says that the sun (perhaps only sometimes) sets in the evening in a pool of mud at the bottom of a well - are Muslims who believe that "stupid"?


=====

As an aside, I have a particular interest in the Eucharist because I was raised in a Jewish household.
Most of the Eucharist comes straight out of a standard Jewish Friday night / Sabbath dinner meal - the bread, the wine, the ceremonial consumption & prayer in praise of god, it's all there.
It's interesting to see how the Jewish ceremony evolved into something else at the hands of a fulcrum figure, just as I see bits of Judaism in Islam too.

One of the main things that drove me to existentialism was looking at how religion had evolved. IMO if there is a god or gods, and they are eternal, then their religion should be eternal too, and should not evolve.



======

I have been officially warned via PM for making impolite posts by Manchu, in his capacity as a moderator.
.
He has ordered me to, amongst other things : "...you are required to make every effort to go above and beyond, and ensure that your posts, pictures, etc, are perhaps even a bit overly polite,"

I shall certainly make no posts containing exploding irony meters as my sole response to Manchu's considered words, calling Manchu's opinions stupid, etc.
.
.

I am under no religious obligation to be trolled on the internet. You are under an obligation according to the terms you agreed to by creating an account on this site to be polite, which includes not trolling other users, and to abide by moderation.

I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell. In advance of your punchline, I can tell you that my understanding is that human persons have souls. If a Neanderthal can be considered a human person then it stands to reason that a Neanderthal also has a soul.

Whether you personally find transubstantiation convincing is not relevant to the question of what Catholics believe. Also, I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply. The claims at stake, at least as far as the Eucharist goes, are not materialist. I understand that you initially thought they were; but now it seems you understand that it's not the case.

Yes, the Eucharist is straight out of Jewish tradition -- its prototypical occurrence was at least modeled on the Passover Seder.

I am under no religious obligation to be trolled on the internet.

Could you abide by rule #1 and stop calling me a troll, perhaps?
I think you'd find our chat much more fun if you did.

I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell.

Because they didn't believe in Jesus, or act in a Christian way in life, we have every reason to believe them to be brutal bestial savages.

Catholic dogma is that one must believe in Jesus to enter Heaven, no?

I mean, I know the Pope announced that even Atheists can get into Heaven a few months ago, but he walked that back a few days later saying that he misspoke, and what he meant to say was that even Atheists can get into Heaven, just so long as they renounce Atheism and accept Jesus as their savior.

In advance of your punchline, I can tell you that my understanding is that human persons have souls. If a Neanderthal can be considered a human person than it stands to reason that a neanderthal also has a soul.

How about Homo Rhodesiensis? Late H.R.'s will have interbred with early H.S.'s.
Homo Heidelbergensis?

Where is the line drawn?

, I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply.

The Aztecs cut the bloody hearts out of still-living virgins atop their Ziggurats to ensure their gods granted a good harvest.

Would you like to change your opinion?

it's prototypical occurrence was at least modeled on the Passover Seder.

Definitely, Jesus is supposed to have died around that time of year so it totally makes sense.
There's even sacrificial (lamb's) meat at the passover ceremony, it's really interesting how it all got "remixed".

Evil & Chaos wrote:
IMO if there is a god or gods, and they are eternal, then their religion should be eternal too, and should not evolve.

On the other hand, if religion is understood to be the means by which humans access the divine, and given that humans change constantly and over the course of time by significant degrees, then religion, too, would change as a reflection of human change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Could you abide by rule #1 and stop calling me a troll, perhaps?

To clarify, I am not insulting you -- I am giving you a public warning. It is your last one.

If you have issues with moderation then hit the triangle or PM another MOD or admin.

Considering that many OT and Jewish rituals were considered foreshadowing of the Messiah it's really not that surprising that things in the Jewish faith are represented in Jesus and his actions. Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jews. It's not really surprising that they did Jewish things and followed Jewish traditions and customs.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell.

Because they didn't believe in Jesus, or act in a Christian way in life, we have every reason to believe them to be brutal bestial savages.

There is the idea,which I have alluded to here, of invincible ignorance. It was invented by theologians to account for the destiny of people who have no opportunity to believe. Traditionally, this refers to people who lived before the time of Jesus death, life, and resurrection or people who lived afterward but never heard the Gospel. It was taken up by rhetoricians to describe a fallacy where someone simply refuses to believe the argument. I would argue that the older concept, given the circumstances of modern culture, should be expanded to include the newer one. But in any case, the Neanderthals -- like any being -- cannot be morally condemned based on something beyond their own control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
The Aztecs cut the bloody hearts out of still-living virgins atop their Ziggurats to ensure their gods granted a good harvest.

Would you like to change your opinion?

Are you now asking whether I think Aztec human sacrifice is morally equivalent to the Eucharist?

 Manchu wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
IMO if there is a god or gods, and they are eternal, then their religion should be eternal too, and should not evolve.

On the other hand, if religion is understood to be the means by which humans access the divine, and given that humans change constantly and over the course of time by significant degrees, then religion, too, would change as a reflection of human change.

If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?

If you don't drag your unruly children to the edge of town and stone them when they disobey you because you recognize that's awful behavior, how can you say that some of the other "divine" commandments are still valid?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If you have issues with moderation then hit the triangle or PM another MOD or admin.

Oh I think we're getting along much better now.

Considering that many OT and Jewish rituals were considered foreshadowing of the Messiah it's really not that surprising that things in the Jewish faith are represented in Jesus and his actions. Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jews. It's not really surprising that they did Jewish things and followed Jewish traditions and customs.

Aye, not surprising at all. You see the same thing in Islam, as I noted this obvious evolutionary relationship between religions and within schismatic religions like Christianity is what killed my faith as a child.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?

This is where, at least as near as I can tell, Christianity stands in sharp contrast to Judaism and especially Islam. The Muslim idea of God is very textual. He speaks Arabic and the Qu'ran is His word-for-word message to Muhammed. There is something similar at stake for the Jews in the Mosaic Law.

For Christians, however, God is not a text or a philosophy or a set of dogmas -- even as all these things are important to Christian religion. Rather, God is a human person. A human person can grow and change and learn -- this is the Living God of Christianity. Now to be sure, Jesus is also divine but, at least in the Catholic understanding, his divine nature in no way contradicts or otherwise inhibits his truly human nature. That is to say, God is not the law but the fulfillment of the law. God is not a system of rules and regulations but rather the source of actual justice, which is best understood in the course of mortal life even from age to age as forgiveness, mercy, and love.

 d-usa wrote:
As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.

I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.

 Manchu wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I can't think of any reason why Neanderthals would be in hell.

Because they didn't believe in Jesus, or act in a Christian way in life, we have every reason to believe them to be brutal bestial savages.

There is the idea,which I have alluded to here, of invincible ignorance. It was invented by theologians to account for the destiny of people who have no opportunity to believe.

The key point there being "invented"?

I guess this is where we get the "angels dancing on a pin head" thing, theologians inventing theories to fill gaps, and those theories are all subject to change.

For 1900 years the Jews (and their descendants to the last generation) are all guilty of the murder of Jesus as a matter of Church dogma, and then in 1967 the Pope says "Sorry, the Jews aren't guilty of killing Jesus after all. Definitely not the ones alive today at any rate!".

Evil & Chaos wrote:
The Aztecs cut the bloody hearts out of still-living virgins atop their Ziggurats to ensure their gods granted a good harvest.

Would you like to change your opinion?

Are you now asking whether I think Aztec human sacrifice is morally equivalent to the Eucharist?

Edit: lots of posts showed up, I need to catch up.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
The key point there being "invented"?

Yes, understanding is the invention of reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
But you said " I'm not sure why any aspect of religious belief should require "testing" in the materialist sense you imply."

Any Aspect Of Religious Belief.

I concede the point insofar as there is no important distinction in what the Aztecs believed as a matter of religion and what they practiced as a matter of, for example, politics. I can only provisionally concede because I don't know enough about them to do otherwise. I would not, however, say that the Albigensian Crusade, for example, accurately reflects the Gospel despite being perpetrated by Christians for explicitly religious reasons.

 Manchu wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?

This is where, at least as near as I can tell, Christianity stands in sharp contrast to Judaism and especially Islam. The Muslim idea of God is very textual. He speaks Arabic and the Qu'ran is His word-for-word message to Muhammed. There is something similar at stake for the Jews in the Mosaic Law.

For Christians, however, God is not a text or a philosophy or a set of dogmas -- even as all these things are important to Christian religion. Rather, God is a human person. A human person can grow and change and learn -- this is the Living God of Christianity. Now to be sure, Jesus is also divine but, at least in the Catholic understanding, his divine nature in no way contradicts or otherwise inhibits his truly human nature. That is to say, God is not the law but the fulfillment of the law. God is not a system of rules and regulations but rather the source of actual justice, which is best understood in the course of mortal life even from age to age as forgiveness, mercy, and love.

So readers of the Bible have no right to tell gay people they shouldn't be gay. Right?

It is a plank of the Catholic religion that gay people shouldn't be gay, no?
And they base that opinion on the Old Testament book of Leviticus, where it says gay people are abominations in the eyes of God, no?

The current Pope called gay rights "spawned by the prince of lies", after all.
It does seem like the Church is telling people they know how God wants people to behave, based on the words in the Bible.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.

I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.

True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.

 d-usa wrote:
Edit: lots of posts showed up, I need to catch up.

yeah, I didn't even get to comment on the science vs. god thing yet!

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
If the rules as written in the Bible (or Qur'an, or Torah, etc) are transient and can evolve, then what right does religion have to decry any human behaviour as sinful or praise any human behavior as good?

This is where, at least as near as I can tell, Christianity stands in sharp contrast to Judaism and especially Islam. The Muslim idea of God is very textual. He speaks Arabic and the Qu'ran is His word-for-word message to Muhammed. There is something similar at stake for the Jews in the Mosaic Law.

For Christians, however, God is not a text or a philosophy or a set of dogmas -- even as all these things are important to Christian religion. Rather, God is a human person. A human person can grow and change and learn -- this is the Living God of Christianity. Now to be sure, Jesus is also divine but, at least in the Catholic understanding, his divine nature in no way contradicts or otherwise inhibits his truly human nature. That is to say, God is not the law but the fulfillment of the law. God is not a system of rules and regulations but rather the source of actual justice, which is best understood in the course of mortal life even from age to age as forgiveness, mercy, and love.

So readers of the Bible have no right to tell gay people they shouldn't be gay. Right?

It is a plank of the Catholic religion that gay people shouldn't be gay, no?
And they base that opinion on the Old Testament book of Leviticus, where it says gay people are abominations in the eyes of God, no?

The current Pope called gay rights "spawned by the prince of lies", after all.
It does seem like the Church is telling people they know how God wants people to behave, based on the words in the Bible.

There is a difference between "something is a sin" and "people should not be allowed to do something". In my non-Catholic opinion at least.

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.

I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.

True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.

I like the Neil deGrasse Tyson view of it : Science is not the enemy of god, it is the enemy of ignorance.
As long as religions aren't preaching obviously daft, ignorant things, then there's no reason they can't coexist - and due to the (IMO probably carefully constructed) unfalsifiable nature of most religious claims, they'll probably keep coexisting for a long long time.

But if a religion preaches something science says is wrong, like creationism for example, then the religion should be the one to bend the knee, and science the master.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
So readers of the Bible have no right to tell gay people they shouldn't be gay. Right?

Right. Simply reading the Bible does not convey any moral authority on anyone. That's actually a very Catholic point.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
It is a plank of the Catholic religion that gay people shouldn't be gay, no?

No, opposition to homosexuality is not a plank of Catholic faith. I wouldn't even say Catholics hold that people shouldn't be gay. I think it's more that people who are gay should avoid gay sex acts because it's a kind of fornication. Although any sex act between non-married persons is considered to be fornication so ... gay Catholics should, like the rest of us, simply avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation as their conscience requires.

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.

I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.

True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.

Yeah unless it can create observable and reproducible results science has no opinion on religion, although it may have certain opinions on some aspects of religion like the scientific community rejects the idea that the earth was about 4000 years old based on many forms of evidence such

as radio-carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, fossils, geological records, etc.

 d-usa wrote:
There is a difference between "something is a sin" and "people should not be allowed to do something". In my non-Catholic opinion at least.

I agree, and didn't (I don't think) imply that the Catholic Church actively tries to prevent people being gay (it has recently campaigned against gay rights issues such as equal marriage, but it has not (recently) campaigned to have being gay made illegal, as far as I know).
It does however, say to gay people: "you should not be gay".

My question is by what authority does the Church get to say that, if as Manchu says all religious laws are mutable and subject to evolution.

How can it hold up one law from Leviticus (don't be gay) as still valid, yet say another law from Leviticus (don't eat shellfish) is no longer valid?


Very relevant article I read recently: http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108

In a nutshell, the Church used to carry out gay marriages in the era of the Roman Empire.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
As for science: I don't think science explains God for me. But it does remind me how complicated everything is and how delicate of a dance it is for everything to exist the way it does.

I don't think science can explain god at all for as far as I'm aware god is an immaterial being and science deals with things that are material.

True. I was just speaking in a sense of a faith not being threatened by science and that both can coexist without any issues. I think there are opposite camps of "religion is the enemy of reason" and " science is the enemy of faith", which are both stupid opinions IMO.

Yeah unless it can create observable and reproducible results science has no opinion on religion, although it may have certain opinions on some aspects of religion like the scientific community rejects the idea that the earth was about 4000 years old based on many forms of evidence such

as radio-carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, fossils, geological records, etc.

I never understood how "age of earth" has any theological relevance. That is something that has always confused me about young earth creationists. To me, the Bible is the guidebook for our relationship with God. It's not an explanation for everything that ever happened or how it happened.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
In a nutshell, the Church used to carry out gay marriages in the era of the Roman Empire.

That requires some very heavy qualification. For example, according to the link you posted:

Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.

That last bit is why this guy's work (or at least how it has been popularly deployed) is criticized as wishful thinking; there is some pretty intense desire to sublimate onto the past the values and politcal agenda of today. To be fair, I think this is also silly when bishops do it: claiming there has never been a such thing as gay marriage as advocated today is ... true but kind of silly. It's not like the current conception of heterosexual marriage has been around for thousands of years, either.