NationStates Jolt Archive

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

I think the original biblical injunction against Sodom and Gemorrah was a lot wider than our modern term "sodomy." I don't think the sin of Sodom was limited to, or even specified as, homosexuality. It's been a long time since I've read The Book, however. ;)

I think it has more to do with the violation of the respect and hospitality accorded guests by Hebrew customs as well as a violation of Lot's own responsibility to protect and care for them than either homosexuality or rape. Those are more tangentially related to the matter than the bigger violations of hospitality to guests and respect.

I think the original biblical injunction against Sodom and Gemorrah was a lot wider than our modern term "sodomy." I don't think the sin of Sodom was limited to, or even specified as, homosexuality. It's been a long time since I've read The Book, however. ;)

I'd always heard it had more to do with

A: Wanting to rape angels
and
B: Breaching the customs of hospitality that existed at the time.

Apparently, it's considered bad manners to rape your guests. Especially if they're angels. God is notoriously picky about matters of etiquette. *nod*

I'd always heard it had more to do with

A: Wanting to rape angels
and
B: Breaching the customs of hospitality that existed at the time.

That sounds a lot closer to what I learned as a kid - hermeneutics is rarely cut-and-dry, but I remember something a lot more complex than "gay=bad" being the lesson of that story. :p

So is there a biblical condmnation of homosexuality?

Apparently, it's considered bad manners to rape your guests. Especially if they're angels. God is notoriously picky about matters of etiquette. *nod*

http://cache.bordom.net/images/1426a9d5b60513c556cf275db8b5c8cc.jpg

So is there a biblical condmnation of homosexuality?

Yes. It calls for our deaths, make no mistake about it. The Abrahamic religions are not about being nice - they're all about doing the bidding of a jealous and petty deity who happens to think fags are yucky. The Phelpses are right.

So is there a biblical condmnation of homosexuality?

Deuteronomy, if I'm not mistaken. On the same page, if I'm also not mistaken, where it tells you to stone to death anyone who shaves the hair around their temples (on their heads).

Funny little book, that one.

Yes. It calls for our deaths, make no mistake about it. The Abrahamic religions are not about being nice - they're all about doing the bidding of a jealous and petty deity who happens to think fags are yucky. The Phelpses are right.

Ugh. Cut it out. Anyone who gets what you're doing has already had enough amusement from it, and anyone who doesn't is just going to get unnecessarily riled.

Deuteronomy, if I'm not mistaken.

There are several more places, including the New Testament, that urge the killing of faggots.

So is there a biblical condmnation of homosexuality?

Yes, but I don't think it's explicit in Sodom and Gemorrah. There's a few other instances though, alongside prohibitions on dozens of other things that we somehow don't choose to enforce on the basis of our Judeo-Christian heritage. ;) Though to be fair, I don't think even the most devout Christian activists walk into the Courthouse waving the Bible in the air when denouncing gay marriage - there's usually some or other sociological pretext, of some kind.

Ugh. Cut it out.

Nope. They're not my religions, not my holy books.

So is there a biblical condmnation of homosexuality?

Well, in this old book called Leviticus(which was a manual for training young priests) there is mention of something that could be interpreted as 'homosexuality is a sin'. It's right near the same part that says that seafood is a sin I believe. :p

That, however, is in the Old Testament. Which the Jews wrote. Dissatisfied, the Christians were hungry for a sequel starring their new Hero, Jesus. :)

Not too long after Jesus' death, one of his apostles, Paul wrote a letter that expressed, among other things, his dislike of homosexuality. For some reason, this was included in the New Testament. But I suspect the letter was included for it's remarkable grammar and use of flowery prose and not for the actual content.

That's about it. Jesus never mentioned it. No mention of God blasting gay couples with fiery doom or lightning out of a clear sky. Lesbians have never been swallowed by chasms or struck blind.

The Bible is such a fun read. :)

http://cache.bordom.net/images/1426a9d5b60513c556cf275db8b5c8cc.jpg

YAY! :D

Nope. They're not my religions, not my holy books.

Fair enough.

...it's too late in the evening to give a shit about Judeo-Christian doctrine. I'm going to bed.

...it's too late in the evening to give a shit about Judeo-Christian doctrine.

2000 years down the line you'd think it would always be "too late" to give a shit about Judeo-Christian doctrine, but, alas, despite all the outer accoutrements of modernity, large segments of humanity have not progressed further.

YAY! :D
The runner up
http://austin.coolserver.net/images/surprise_buttsecks.png

2000 years down the line you'd think it would always be "too late" to give a shit about Judeo-Christian doctrine, but, alas, despite all the outer accoutrements of modernity, large segments of humanity have not progressed further.

I could say the same about the billions who adhere to Hindu scripture, outdated now for more than twice Christianity's age, but I'm also entirely too tired to once again point out that evils exist in all religions, not just the Abrahmic 3.

Edit: I meant billion.

The runner up
http://austin.coolserver.net/images/surprise_buttsecks.png

Cut it out with the image spam. It's getting really old.

Cut it out with the image spam. It's getting really old.

A thread this shitty really needs a sugary coating. :p

I could say the same about the billions who adhere to Hindu scripture, outdated now for more than twice Christianity's age, but I'm also entirely too tired to once again point out that evils exist in all religions, not just the Abrahmic 3.

Indeed, but this thread is not about the other silly religions (they're all silly, actually), but about a specific one.

Cut it out with the image spam. It's getting really old.

Ehhh not really older then the tripe you have been spewing already ... at least mine makes people giggle

A thread this shitty really needs a sugary coating. :p

Agreed :)

A thread this shitty really needs a sugary coating. :p

No one is forcing you to participate in it, and if you can't stay on topic, go elsewhere to peddle your oh, so "amusing" little images any idiot can google.

http://cache.bordom.net/images/1426a9d5b60513c556cf275db8b5c8cc.jpg

ROFL

No one is forcing you to participate in it, and if you can't stay on topic, go elsewhere to peddle your oh, so "amusing" little images any idiot can google.

Yup but this idiot took the time to do just that :)

A thread this shitty really needs a sugary coating. :p

:(

Lunatic Goofballs dissaproves. My life has become worthless.





Ow! My scrotum!

No one is forcing you to participate in it, and if you can't stay on topic, go elsewhere to peddle your oh, so "amusing" little images any idiot can google.

I think you greatly overestimate the number of opportunities that exist to slip them into a conversation. One has to take what one can get. *nod*

Indeed, but this thread is not about the other silly religions (they're all silly, actually), but about a specific one.

I can agree with you there.

I wish NSG wasn't this addictive. I've been trying to log for 5 minutes.

:(

Lunatic Goofballs dissaproves. My life has become worthless.





Ow! My scrotum!

It's not entirely your fault. It's mostly your fault for starting it, but as I have proven time and again, the original post doesn't always set the tone of the thread.

Which is what I'm here to rectify. :)

It's not entirely your fault. It's mostly your fault for starting it, but as I have proven time and again, the original post doesn't always set the tone of the thread.

Which is what I'm here to rectify. :)

Can you stand the weasels down?

Can you stand the weasels down?

That was just a random patrol. *calls off the weasels* :)

That was just a random patrol. *calls off the weasels* :)

Thank God. Wait, I'm missing one!

Thank God. Wait, I'm missing one!

It was missing when they got there.

<_<

>_>

It was missing when they got there.

<_<

>_>

So who can I sue for malpractice?

Wait a minute, wasn't my penis longer than this?

So who can I sue for malpractice?

Wait a minute, wasn't my penis longer than this?

See? This is what happens when you question God. *nod*

See? This is what happens when you question God. *nod*

Or when you don't, in some traditions. :p Couldn't resist.

See? This is what happens when you question God. *nod*

That would be an interesting prayer "Please Merciful Lord Jesus... can I have my penis back?"

That would be an interesting prayer "Please Merciful Lord Jesus... can I have my penis back?" -John Wayne Bobbitt

fixed. :)

fixed. :)

I do not understand.

I do not understand.

Ugh. You sure you want to know? :p

I'd always heard it had more to do with

A: Wanting to rape angels
How, exactly? Find a hole?
Or find a fold and f*ck it?
Use the cornstarch and look for the wetspot?

THEY DON'T PROCREATE.
Has to be a mouth thing.

Bumper sticker:
If you're gonna ride my face, at least have the decency to pull on my wings.
...

Ugh. You sure you want to know? :p

come to think of it, no.

come to think of it, no.

Good choice. You'll only be missing out on a few awful jokes from early-90s comics and Saturday Night Live reruns - nothing valuable.

Good choice. You'll only be missing out on a few awful jokes from early-90s comics and Saturday Night Live reruns - nothing valuable.

:(


Ah, it's okay. I've had opportunities before. There will be opportunities again. :)

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

Yeah, and this is the same OT that says a woman must marry her rapist.

Can you stand the weasels down?

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/75/20050219022132!Ferrets_at_play.jpg
http://furo.astro.umd.edu/images/CharlieButtercup1/img.jpg
http://media.rawcode.net/images/animals/ferrets/DCP_1061.JPG
http://www.mtnvet.com/images/ferrets.gif

!
Take that!
And there's more where that came from!

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/75/20050219022132!Ferrets_at_play.jpg
http://furo.astro.umd.edu/images/CharlieButtercup1/img.jpg
http://media.rawcode.net/images/animals/ferrets/DCP_1061.JPG
http://www.mtnvet.com/images/ferrets.gif

!
Take that!
And there's more where that came from!

ferrets are not weasels

Mustela family includes both weasels and ferrets.
Potayto, potahto.

It doesnt matter. They are not the same thing. I said potayto, not potahto.

ferrets are not weasels

Mustela family includes both weasels and ferrets.
Potayto, potahto.

http://i17.tinypic.com/4p2ayoj.jpg

I think my job here is done...

See? This is what happens when you question God. *nod*

Or when you let a doctor get near your wang *imitates an LG nod*.

Yeah, and this is the same OT that says a woman must marry her rapist.

Actually, it says that if she does marry him (perhaps she becomes enamored with him somehow), he cannot divorce her.

As for the sins of Sodom, I'd say that the raping was the big sin. The homosexual part was just making it worse. Other sins include random promiscuity, and a law forbidding you to give assistance to a stranger - even food to a starving beggar.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

I fear so. Might I redirect you to the Leviticus or the Deuteronomy (cannot remember), the parts about what to do with conquered cities.

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

I seem to recall that god saved Loth, who offered his two young daughters to be raped so that some strangers could be spared.

I conclude that god hates women more than rapists and gays.

The blessed antiquity of our holy thread,The city of Sodom, together with its devoted scribes who have faithfully reproduced and preserved its venerable text throughout the ages have rendered its pronouncements inviolate. The ancient prophet's scripture decrees that we shall spell the words "marraige" and homosexulality" using those forms, and no other, and that any scribe who attempts variations (such as the damned "marriage" or "homosexuality") shall be regarded as apostate and struck from the chronicles of the aforesaid holy thread.

Other sins include random promiscuity, and a law forbidding you to give assistance to a stranger - even food to a starving beggar.

What the fuck? What was that one?

As for the sins of Sodom, I'd say that the raping was the big sin. The homosexual part was just making it worse. Other sins include random promiscuity, and a law forbidding you to give assistance to a stranger - even food to a starving beggar.

Right... but offering your daughters to strangers is perfectly ok in the eyes of god....

Right... but offering your daughters to strangers is perfectly ok in the eyes of god....

As long as they will only have genital to genital contact for the express purpose of having children after they have been married its perfectly ok in the eyes of god. Anything else = sodomy.

As long as they will only have genital to genital contact for the express purpose of having children after they have been married its perfectly ok in the eyes of god. Anything else = sodomy.

Erm... I don't think that was the likely outcome of this particular situation. Look up what Lot offered his daughters for before the city was destroyed.

nah

No one is forcing you to participate in it, and if you can't stay on topic, go elsewhere to peddle your oh, so "amusing" little images any idiot can google.

:rolleyes:

No one is forcing you to participate in it, and if you can't stay off topic, go elsewhere to peddle your oh, so "amusing" little "facts" any idiot can google.

:rolleyes: Fixed

wiki (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality)

Knock yourself out. Apparently some verses explicitly condemn it but may have been revoked later on. In short, grey area.:)

Lesbians have never been swallowed by chasms or struck blind.

Yet another example of discrimination. I demand that an equal number of lesbians be swallowed by chasms and struck blind. For too long has chasm-swallowing been the prerogative of men.

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

There's also the matter of angels not being male (nor female) and thus not really a potential object of homosexual lust from men. Perhaps it's not a matter of rape or homosexuality. Perhaps God opposes sex with genderless spirits.

and here i was hoping this might have been about some actual archiological site that the mythical places might have been inspired by, perpetual optomistic ingenue that i am.

=^^=
.../\...

There's also the matter of angels not being male (nor female) and thus not really a potential object of homosexual lust from men. Perhaps it's not a matter of rape or homosexuality. Perhaps God opposes sex with genderless spirits.

...

They're genderless? I was under the impression that they were male. Or at least the archangels mentioned...

...

They're genderless? I was under the impression that they were male. Or at least the archangels mentioned...

One wonders at that, and how a transcendental, omnipotent, and eternal deity can be a "Him" when there is no corresponding "Her," and when the concept of gender wouldn't therefore exist until the world's been created. More silliness.

Yes. It calls for our deaths, make no mistake about it. The Abrahamic religions are not about being nice - they're all about doing the bidding of a jealous and petty deity who happens to think fags are yucky. The Phelpses are right.

Cut it out with the image spam. It's getting really old.

*chuckles due to the irony*

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

Given that God explicitly encourages and condones rape in many other places in the Bible, it's logical to conclude that God is fine with rape.

Indeed, in the story of Sodom, a father helpfully offers up his young daughters to be raped. God saves him, though, because he's a good guy. Then he gets drunk and rapes his daughters, but the (male) writers of the story helpfully spin things so that the young girls are clearly the ones seducing their poor father. It's straight out of a child rapist's play book: but the CHILD seduced ME! I couldn't help but rape my kid, she was such a temptress!!

Yet another great reason to quit worshipping the Biblical God.

Given that God explicitly encourages and condones rape in many other places in the Bible, it's logical to conclude that God is fine with rape.

Yet another great reason to quit worshipping the Biblical God.

What, we need reasons now? :confused:

There was a question pointing at logic. Hence, let me forget religion at this point. Then the Bible is a story book telling good from bad. As it is thousands of years old - which attributes should the "bad ones" have either tha being homosexual? Internet crime?? For me it is just a metapher. Those who do not the best (consequently they do not follow God) were sucked. And what was the best after settling in a dry landscape full of other peoples fighting for the few resouces? Population growth! That is, indeed, quite difficult for homos, isn't it? And, as history repeats itself too often, when times getting hard, the big leader is welcome. And, when mixing political leadership with God, it is comfortable, even today.

Actually, it says that if she does marry him (perhaps she becomes enamored with him somehow), he cannot divorce her.

No, it says "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Also, if a betrothed girl is raped within a city, you should kill her because she didn't cry out and therefore was obviously a slut (which is punishable by death).
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Also, women are "plunder." God thinks you deserve to rape them, provided you do some killing first. "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
-Deuteronomy 20:10-14

In 2 Samuel 12:11-14, God specifically threatens to have women raped as punishment for their husband. "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."

Judges 5:30 identifies women as "spoils of war," much like dyed cloth. "They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil."

Exodus 21:7-11 details the selling of one's daughter as a sex slave.

Zechariah 14:1-2 also emphasizes how God will help provide rape victims for his people, and further reminds us that female human beings are spoils of war. "Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city."

Many christians oppose gay marraige on religious grounds. Ignoring the obvious violations of separation of church and state, I wonder about the oft-cited story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexulality. However, I would question the logic behind this.

1. There is a city full of gay rapists.

2. God destroys the city for immorality.

3. Two conclusions may be drawn from this. God hates homosexuals, or god hates rapists. Which one is more logical?

If there is something in the scripture explaining this that I missed, kindly correct me.

Allow me to interject the Orthodox Jewish interpretation.
We believe that G-d does not "hate" people - this is illogical, it also implies that G-d is tethered by mere human qualities - we believe g-d to be omniscient, omnipresent, and beyond all human inadequicies, we believe that the Torah uses the words "hate" wrath" and such, because it is written "b'lashon adam" in in the language of Man, for man to understand it in those primitive terms. The implication that Christianity holds the trademark when it comes to biblical interpretation must end now. The Jewish people were the first to receive the Old testament(which the story of s'dom is found in), therefore, our opinions must be taken into consideration. We believe that s'dom was destroyed not only because of homosexuality and rape, but also because they flat out banned the performance of, and adherence to the commandments. This idea of "separation of church and state" is a man-maade construct, with agnostic implications - that is to say, that in a given country, it is not right to incorporate religion into the govt, however, we Jews believe that Torah should be incorporated into every aspect of life, be it sleeping, eating, etc..how much more so, a government? This is why we believe that when the Moshiach(Messiah - NOT savior, it means annointed one) comes, we will have, basically a theocratic monarchy in the land of Israel, and we also believe that when he comes, there will be universal knowledge of G-d(as in, atheists and agnostics will realize what we consider to be the truth).

Furthermore, your scope is grossly limited. To say that there are only two conclusions that can be drawn from this story is ridiculous. G-d does not hate homosexuals, he does however, prohibit the acting upon of homosexual urges. ivil rights only goes so far, freedom of expression only goes so far, for example, if a person mkaes a phone call to the police, and reports a crime that ddi not happen, he is incarcerated. is this not breaking his rights to freedom of speech? Is the same not true for the classic case of a person yelling "fire!" in a movie theater? We must understand that we need a moral compass, we cannot do what is best for ourselves without knowing what is best for ourselves, and this can only be known by a moral compass that is not man-made, for man is fallible - we believe that the Torah was made as a book of life or people of all pursuasions, to carry out and to abide by(if thye are jewish of course), except non-jews, under torah law, are subjected to the 7 Laws of Noach(Noah), homosexuality is included in one of these laws, as a prohibition.
Let us consider another aspect.
You neglected to mention the fact that Abraham pleaded with G-d to save s'dom, he even "bargained" so to speak. He asked hashem, after bargaining down from a highee number "if there are but 10 righteous people in this city, save it", however there were not even 10, out of a densely populated city, there could not be found, even 10 good people. Yes, we can define what is good and what is bad, yes, we are even charged with this ever-lasting task, and no, we don't care if civil rights activists, and civil liberties organizations are upset over it.

What, we need reasons now? :confused:
Some people appear to, yes.

I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard salad-bar Christianity crap, about how it's okay to worship their rapist-God because, um, His Son came down and died for us and threw out all the old rules and whatever.

No, it says "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Also, if a betrothed girl is raped within a city, you should kill her because she didn't cry out and therefore was obviously a slut (which is punishable by death).
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Also, women are "plunder." God thinks you deserve to rape them, provided you do some killing first. "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
-Deuteronomy 20:10-14

In 2 Samuel 12:11-14, God specifically threatens to have women raped as punishment for their husband. "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."

Judges 5:30 identifies women as "spoils of war," much like dyed cloth. "They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil."

Exodus 21:7-11 details the selling of one's daughter as a sex slave.

Zechariah 14:1-2 also emphasizes how God will help provide rape victims for his people, and further reminds us that female human beings are spoils of war. "Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city."

What kind of book do you read? I think this is cruel and "godless". Burn that book - its only value is : it's calories :-)

Some people appear to, yes.

I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard salad-bar Christianity crap, about how it's okay to worship their rapist-God because, um, His Son came down and died for us and threw out all the old rules and whatever.

To which some clever guy once replied : "How did HE die so OUR sins are forgiven? I don't kick my dog so I can forgive my cat!"

Yet another example of discrimination. I demand that an equal number of lesbians be swallowed by chasms and struck blind. For too long has chasm-swallowing been the prerogative of men.

That's because God is OBVIOUSLY a guy who has lesbian fantasies and is a voyeur... ;) and he gets a free show everytime two sisters scissor it.

Deuteronomy, if I'm not mistaken. On the same page, if I'm also not mistaken, where it tells you to stone to death anyone who shaves the hair around their temples (on their heads).

Funny little book, that one.

Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.

Leviticus 18 is a good chapter, lots of fun stuff in there like instructions how to ritually sacrifice a bull on Sunday.

I think Bottle has clearly shown (with plenty of ref. to the text) something about the "jewish-christian values" many Solons of the right-wing banter about in the EU. We're lucky that the Western culture was founded on Greek philosophy, Roman codes of law, Renaissance, Humanism and Enlightenment, instead of the Bible.

To sum it up; Bible (O.T.): "You are the chosen, so kill, rape, destroy and plunder because you are allowed to!"

I'd rather have Voltaire, Kant, Sokrates and Galileo, thank you.

Ugh. Cut it out. Anyone who gets what you're doing has already had enough amusement from it, and anyone who doesn't is just going to get unnecessarily riled.

He's right. The bible explicitly says men who have sex with other men should be stoned. And not the fun stoned, either.

Interestingly, the bible offers no condemnation of two woman. I'm guessing this is for a similar reason that that one queen of england gave for not making a two female age of consent (If I remember, she made it 15 for straight, 18 for two men, and didn't make one for two woman because she couldn't believe that two woman would ever want to have sex with each other. I'm guessing this law has changed somewhat in modern times.)

where in the title of this thread, does it say ANYTHING about bibles, christians, gays, or anything two or more people do in bed with each other?

i want to hear something about actual ancient cities, not all this self serving crap about religous mythologies.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, like with just about everything told in this particular book of mythology, archaeology supporting the stories is very scarce indeed, despite centuries of digging.
So people debate the literature instead...

where in the title of this thread, does it say ANYTHING about bibles, christians, gays, or anything two or more people do in bed with each other?

i want to hear something about actual ancient cities, not all this self serving crap about religous mythologies.

=^^=
.../\...

The Bible is unclear as to what the sin of Sodom actually was:


The men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

This is the one most often used to show that homosexuality was the sin, though this behaviour could also be defined as rape or inhospitability.

Other mentions of Sodom in the Bible give us this:


Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This reads like sex and adultery to me...


This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Lazy, proud, bastards...And what the fuck does fulness of bread mean?


I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

Adultery, lies, and general immorality in this verse.

For a list of references to homosexuality in the Bible, please go here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Lazy, proud, bastards...And what the fuck does fulness of bread mean?]

They didn't have any of that sissy bread.

Xtians who trot out Sodom as a justification for their homophobia always manage to conveniently skim over the coda to that story - the bit where Lot's daughters - thinking they're the last humans on Earth - get Daddy drunk and fuck him. No condemnations of incest from the peanut gallery - no siree.

Actually I've always thought that the Sodom and Gomorrah story was the earliest documentation of the seemingly universal divide between urban and rural value systems. It's the classic example of "country folk" spinning tales of the evil "city folk" and their decadent ways and it's still with us today. The liberal/conservative divide tends overwhelmingly to be an urban/rural divide as well.

The pick and choose moral barking is a dead giveaway. To decent countryfolk homosexuality = bad, but who cares about a little incest here and there?

Originally Posted by Cameroi View Post
where in the title of this thread, does it say ANYTHING about bibles, christians, gays, or anything two or more people do in bed with each other?

i want to hear something about actual ancient cities, not all this self serving crap about religous mythologies.

=^^=
.../\...
Well, like with just about everything told in this particular book of mythology, archaeology supporting the stories is very scarce indeed, despite centuries of digging.
So people debate the literature instead...

how did you manage to post this BEFORE the person you quote? Unless, of course they are also you and you mis-timed posting the messages.

how did you manage to post this BEFORE the person you quote? Unless, of course they are also you and you mis-timed posting the messages.
Actually, there's a well-known forum bug we call the "time warp." Sometimes your replies show up before the post you quoted. It's really weird, but it's a legit bug and not necessarily evidence of somebody trolling with an alternate nation.

how did you manage to post this BEFORE the person you quote? Unless, of course they are also you and you mis-timed posting the messages.

Spend enough time on General and you learn to warp space time.

No one is forcing you to participate in it, and if you can't stay on topic, go elsewhere...e.

Look who's talking :rolleyes:

how did you manage to post this BEFORE the person you quote? Unless, of course they are also you and you mis-timed posting the messages.

Welcome to the NS timewarps. Every time one happens, we all have to dress up in drag and dance.

how did you manage to post this BEFORE the person you quote? Unless, of course they are also you and you mis-timed posting the messages.

wait till you meet the stolen OP post

ssshhh.....don't let the Christian fundies hear you....logic angers them...

how did you manage to post this BEFORE the person you quote? Unless, of course they are also you and you mis-timed posting the messages.

Thus you meet the problems of poorly maintained distributive databasing

It is very hard to read the Old Testament and say that it is pro-Gay. Fortunately for most of the women out there, the prohibition is only for the men. Ever since the biblical period lesbos were at most seen as naughty but never as doing something sinful.

The moral lesson here is that if you are a gay man you should be doing a lot of whacking it or just imagine that your girlfriend or wife is a dude.

All that being said, the city of Sodom was a pretty evil place. It was so bad that folks were trying to gang gay rape a guest. The guest was even like hey if you are so damn horny why dont you just rape my daughter and they were still like "No way man, we want to rape your male guests." Yikes!

I do not know why but sometimes when I think about Sodom I am reminded of the father rapers sitting on the Group W bench in Arlo Guthrie's song "Alice's Restaraunt."

Nope. They're not my religions, not my holy books.

I realize this is gonna bust your bubble, but get the hell off your high horse and stop being an ass.

God didn't destroy Sodom because of the homosexuality, because there's actually a part before the destruction where he thinks about it but doesn't. Then his angels get raped, and, well...
There is probably something in Leviticus that condemns it, but Christians don't follow it that closely anyway.
The only other time I've seen it mentioned was in Paul's Letter to the Romans, but even then it's in passing. He says something to the effect of, "This city was evil; they had murder, and theft, and lying, and bestiality, and sodomy, etc." It's not highlighted, I doubt many people who did not already dislike homosexuality saw that and changed their minds.

There is little indication that sexual practices were ever an issue in Sodom. It is not even clear that the crowd wanted to rape the strangers - they wanted to do violent things to them, but not necessarily rape them.

The term sodomy does not even mean homosexuality, just 'unnatural' sexual practices. This includes bestiality, fellatio, or whatever.

The sins of Sodom were that of being wealthy and not caring enough about the poor - in other words, here is just another example of people getting jealous of those who manage to generate wealth. That they were full of bread does not seem to be such a bad thing - far better than the people starving to death. However, these stories were passed on by the poor people in the surrounding areas who resented people with money and thus complained that those from Sodom did not give them what the Sodomites worked so hard to create.

Poor farmers bitching about rich city folk having more stuff.
Thats all it comes down to.

The homosexuality thing came up in the middle ages - obviously sex was not an issue, especially given that the good and righteous man should throw his young daughters out to be gang-raped instead of strangers. Of course then there was the whole sleeping with them himself when he was drunk... thats ok too.

I doubt many people who did not already dislike homosexuality saw that and changed their minds.

Most people's homophobia has nothing to do with religion, they would feel the same way whether the Bible had anything to say about it or not, but it's their convenient excuse.