If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicus USA)   Fundamentalist pastor says that refrigeration removes sin, tells gays to go from the closet to the meat locker   (politicususa.com) divider line 91
    More: Dumbass, Bryan Fischer, gender identity disorder, refrigerators, fundamentalists, lesbians, gays  
•       •       •

5979 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-26 12:56:40 PM
Sounds like this pastor has seen fire AND rain.
 
2013-01-26 12:59:49 PM
I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.
 
2013-01-26 01:21:56 PM

Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.


I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.
 
2013-01-26 01:24:38 PM
Somebody needs to go see God, pronto.
 
2013-01-26 01:34:43 PM
So, he's saying gay people need to go into the meat locker?
 
2013-01-26 01:51:07 PM
What, no leeches? Obviously gay people are too sanguine and need their humors balanced.
 
2013-01-26 03:12:20 PM

bgddy24601: Sounds like this pastor has seen fire AND rain.


Hey ain't it good to know that you've got a friend
in Jesus.

I find these religious nuts to be scary and comical.
 
2013-01-26 03:16:35 PM

bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.


What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands.  With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases
 
2013-01-26 03:54:51 PM
por-img.cimcontent.net
Agrees.
 
2013-01-26 03:57:37 PM
I'm filing this story away for the day when this dude is caught sucking dick in a bus station bathroom.

Well, I mean, maybe I'm being unfair, and that won't happen.  I mean, it might be an airport bathroom or the bathroom at a Denny's, or maybe a park.  It could be a public restroom anywhere.  It doesn't have to be a bus station's bathroom.
 
2013-01-26 04:05:28 PM

Chariset: What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands. With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases


But now that we have condoms, birth control, antibiotics and vaccines, shouldn't the same standards apply to restrictions on sexual activities?
 
2013-01-26 04:20:33 PM
Who is stupid enough to listen to a fundamentalist. Just knowing he is a fundamentalist should be enough to ignore him like a coughing man with the flu.
 
2013-01-26 04:31:44 PM
The Meat Locker. Is that a gay club members of the clergy hang out in?
 
2013-01-26 04:34:10 PM

Chariset: bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.

What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands.  With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases


Not to mention other hygiene issues. That is a big reason for circumcision. Reminds me about the Chris Rock skit on eating a pork chop.
 
2013-01-26 05:01:45 PM

Mugato: The Meat Locker. Is that a gay club members of the clergy hang out in?


farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-26 05:04:31 PM
My locker is open. Anyone is welcome to use it.
 
2013-01-26 05:06:27 PM

jake_lex: I'm filing this story away for the day when this dude is caught sucking dick in a bus station bathroom.


If that's right, I don't wanna be wrong.
 
2013-01-26 05:14:59 PM
So, live in the north, be homosexual anyway?
 
2013-01-26 05:15:31 PM
Oh, freeze a jolly good fellow, freeze a jolly good fellow...
 
2013-01-26 05:16:57 PM
Pretty sure most cities have a gay bar called "The Meat Locker"

Interesting comment about refrigeration, which does have some basis in fact. Many of the dietary restrictions did have to do with inability to preserve foods and disease from some foods. That being said there are many many verses in the Bible that have to be taken in context. If you pick in choose any argument can be made.

Be wary of those that base their position on one or two verses
 
2013-01-26 05:19:46 PM

Mentat: Chariset: What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands. With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases

But now that we have condoms, birth control, antibiotics and vaccines, shouldn't the same standards apply to restrictions on sexual activities?


img42.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-26 05:22:40 PM
At least there is some semblance of twisted logic to his argument.  Reading the headline, I was assuming he wanted to put gays in freezers to freeze the gay out of them.
 
2013-01-26 05:26:39 PM

Mentat: Chariset: What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands. With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases

But now that we have condoms, birth control, antibiotics and vaccines, shouldn't the same standards apply to restrictions on sexual activities?


But only if those methods are effective, which they are not. To prove they are not effective ask any gay person with HIV, anyone with the antibiotic resistant clap or the two kids running around my house.
 
2013-01-26 05:28:20 PM
I love that his argument is "Well, we've fixed a lot of those other things. But God said homosexuality is bad, so that's what matters!"
 
2013-01-26 05:30:25 PM
No wonder it's been so cold here lately
 
2013-01-26 05:31:49 PM
Fundamental pastor says that refrigeration removes sin. . .*

*This sentiment is not represented by any statement in the traditional protestant Bible, nor by any books of the Apocrypha and Latin Codex
 
2013-01-26 05:35:25 PM
... Because nothing discourages gays more than uncovered, hanging meat.
 
2013-01-26 05:41:49 PM
It's been ~2000 years since Jesus, so who knows what modern day things we might be doing completely wrong? Maybe it's a sin to wear glasses, or driving a bicycle is a route straight to hell.

Since the Bible hasn't been updated to cover the last two millenia, its essentially worthless.
 
2013-01-26 05:43:38 PM
TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.

Scholars have also speculated it might mean pedophiles, male rapists, men who have anal sex with their wives, incestuous relationships, pagan fertility cultists. But it would NOT seem to mean "homosexual", because there's a specific word used for that, "androkoitai"/"androkoites". And there's other known words which could be used, too.

The declaration that it meant "homosexual", the " man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman" phrase, and the word "abomination" come from King James translation, early 1600's.
 
2013-01-26 05:44:03 PM

Godscrack: Somebody needs to go see God, pronto.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-26 05:45:13 PM

Thisbymaster: But only if those methods are effective, which they are not. To prove they are not effective ask any gay person with HIV, anyone with the antibiotic resistant clap or the two kids running around my house.


The condom doesn't go on your finger.
 
2013-01-26 05:48:31 PM

MrEricSir: Since the Bible hasn't been updated to cover the last two millenia, its essentially worthless.


A very good and popular question, for which a good reference is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, which is a classic exposition on the humble tenets of the Christian faith, and the moral values of human society which have persisted throughout time.
 
2013-01-26 05:50:03 PM
If you don't know Acts 10:11 you're really not much of a fundamentalist pastor.
 
2013-01-26 05:53:32 PM

Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

HIstorical whatnot


That's fantastic. I'd never heard any of that before. Amazing the things you learn on Fark.
 
2013-01-26 05:55:20 PM

bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.


Here is where he gets it from the New Testament:

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

New International Version (NIV)

So because they were wicked and foolish, God made them more wicked and foolish, then punished them for their wickedness and foolishness. According to Paul, anyway.
 
2013-01-26 05:56:56 PM

Mugato: The Meat Locker. Is that a gay club members of the clergy hang out in?


It's called the Mudd Club. That's where they hang out (and all the rest of whom for which to when-so-never of partially indeterminate biochemical degradation seek 'the path' to the sudsy yellow nozzle of their foaming nocturnal parametric-digital wheat/inter-faith geo-thermal terpsichorean ejectamenta)

In serious leather! in serious chains!
 
2013-01-26 05:59:30 PM
Uber Christain logic drains me mentally and emotionally.
Thus I am convinced that all fundamentalist Christians are really vampires and should be staked through the heart.


/makes about as much sense as they do.
 
2013-01-26 06:02:12 PM

Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.

Scholars have also speculated it might mean pedophiles, male rapists, men who have anal sex with their wives, incestuous relationships, pagan fertility cultists. But it would NOT seem to mean "homosexual", because there's a specific word used for that, "androkoitai"/"androkoites". And there's other known words which could be used, too.

The declaration that it meant "homosexual", the " man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman" phrase, and the word "abomination" come from King James translation, early 1600's.


I remember reading in more than a few sources that James I was gay. A quick Google search shows that is a prevalent theory. However I also remember being told that the reason the KJV Bible exists was to make the Bible more appealing to him as he wasn't too enthused w/the idea and since they were still big on the whole "divine right" of kings back then that would have really farked up the narrative. I have always concluded that the reason for the interpretation showing up then was to try to convince James to stop with the gay already because God made you king.

There is a good chance that some or all of that is malarkey. I cannot say I have ever felt the need to invest myself in deep research on the topic. Anyone who knows differently please feel free to correct / admonish me.
 
2013-01-26 06:15:12 PM

bgddy24601: Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.

Scholars have also speculated it might mean pedophiles, male rapists, men who have anal sex with their wives, incestuous relationships, pagan fertility cultists. But it would NOT seem to mean "homosexual", because there's a specific word used for that, "androkoitai"/"androkoites". And there's other known words which could be used, too.

The declaration that it meant "homosexual", the " man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman" phrase, and the word "abomination" come from King James translation, early 1600's.

bgddy24601 I remember reading in more than a few sources that James I was gay. A quick Google search shows that is a prevalent theory. However I also remember being told that the reason the KJV Bible exists was to make the Bible more appealing to him as he wasn't too enthused w/the idea and since they were still big on the whole "divine right" of kings back then that would have really farked up the narrative. I have always concluded that the reason for the interpretation showing up then was to try to convince James to stop with the gay already because God made you king.

There is a good chance that some or all of that is malarkey. I cannot say I have ever felt the need to invest myself in deep research on the topic. Anyone who knows differently please feel free to correct / admonish me.


There's a fair amount of rationale to the concept that Jesus was gay. Hanging around town with a band of close menfolk, no women in sight. Unless you go for the Mary Magdalene being his lover or wife theory. If you dismiss MM's relationship, then a question of Jesus' preference should logically come up.
 
2013-01-26 06:27:08 PM
Is he referring to shrinkage?
i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-26 06:28:59 PM
If cold kills the ghey, then your homophobes ought to:

Come to Canada! Gay free since ... well, to be honest, never.

Not as long as humans and other mammals have been here at any rate. The "people of two spirits" were known to the natives well before the priests showed up and declared human nature to be an abomination before the Lord.

One of the first executions in Canada was an eighteen year old French soldier named Baby (The Baby family is an old French Canadian family, fairly distinguished, actually.) who was charged with sodomy (I believe he was a "catcher" and not a "pitcher" but I don't recall if the other soldier was also hung, I mean hanged.)

Speaking of gay, I just read an article which says the likely winner of the Ontario Liberal Leadership race is an openly gay woman (the other leading candidate is also a woman, but not openly gay). The party hopes that she will be able to steal votes away from the real left wing party in their fight against the real right wing party after open spats with the unions have made reelection chances a little shaky. On the first ballot, she (Wynne) came second but there will definitely be movement on the second ballot.

This election will follow old precedents in Canadian politics: electing a woman to clean up the mess after some idiot man leaves office. It happened with Mulroney (PM Campbell) and Richard Hatfield (the entire conservative party caucus in the Provincial Legislature was wiped out and the leaders of both Opposition parties were replaced by women). For a while there, the provincial Liberals had the Legislature all to themselves.

Yup. Putting men in the cooler really cures the ghey. Except when you are using the word "cooler" in the figurative sense, of course.

I recommend putting all Hater clergy on ice, regardless of religion, denomination or sects. Let them cool their heels in Limbo for a while.
 
2013-01-26 06:36:11 PM
How is this any less stupid than anything else a fundie pastor says?
 
2013-01-26 06:37:54 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

I was looking for a more reverent picture, but I guess this one will do.
Oh, and this one too:
i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-26 06:39:33 PM

brantgoose: If cold kills the ghey, then your homophobes ought to:

Come to Canada!


Uh yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and rescind that invitation. Why would we want to import homophobes? No one needs more homophobes.
 
2013-01-26 06:48:14 PM

Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.



The word "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)" is more than just rare. So far as we can tell, it didn't even exist until Paul MADE IT UP. And it's entirely possible (though not certain) that Paul was unable to read Hebrew or Aramaic and relied on a Greek translation of Leviticus. when he made it up --- probably a bad translation.

As you say, exactly what Arsenokoitai" means is debated, and it comes two roots "man" and "bed", but one more possibility is that it really says specifically that men should not have sex with men IN A WOMAN's BED. That's the "-koitai" in "Arsenokoitai": "marriage bed," "bed belonging to a woman."

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. The concept of separate beds for men and women (or for sex with men and sex with women) is consistent with that notion of "purity."

At the very least, it can be said with some certainty that the word "arsenokoitai" refers to men only ("arsen" means "man" in Greek), so even if Paul meant to use the word to condemn same-sex activity, he was giving lesbians a pass.
 
2013-01-26 06:51:26 PM

Oznog: There's a fair amount of rationale to the concept that Jesus was gay. Hanging around town with a band of close menfolk, no women in sight. Unless you go for the Mary Magdalene being his lover or wife theory. If you dismiss MM's relationship, then a question of Jesus' preference should logically come up.


Either you missed my point or I am missing yours. I mentioned James I and was only talking about him. I made no mention of Jesus (other than mentioning the Bible, which is kind of like Jesus' Baby Book). James I was gay and the KJV of the Bible was written to keep him in line is basically what I was getting at.
 
2013-01-26 06:56:12 PM
i'm all for gays to get hardcore militant and begin systematically raping clergy coast to coast. it's way over due. it will take some real devoted and able men to flog those pasty white out of shape hogs but someone has to do it, and it's for their own good. there's also the little matter of dooshbags hiding behind the good book so they can molest youngsters so pay back is a biatch.

i'll gladly contribute to the cause. Go Gay For God will get my support. even better if a little of the old ultra violence comes into play. let the old farters go meet their maker sweat soaked, sore and feeling kind of confused about having to finally face some hard truths.

sure there are some good souls who mean well and perform kind acts of charity. they are over shadowed by self righteous dooshbags who have done horrible things mentally and physically to millions of people over thousands of years. the higher you go on the food chain the more corrupt and immoral they are; there are many good books one can read on these subjects. Go Gay For God and the truth will set you free.
 
2013-01-26 07:02:39 PM
But ... wait ... if this were true.... then why do we have all these lesbians in Russia?
 
2013-01-26 07:02:44 PM
One of the biggest problems with the KJV of the bible, particularly the OT, was that the best experts on Hebrew were by law prohibited to set foot in England. Jews were not allowed back into England until several decades after James' death, under the Cromwell protectorate.
 
2013-01-26 07:07:33 PM

bgddy24601: I remember reading in more than a few sources that James I was gay. A quick Google search shows that is a prevalent theory. However I also remember being told that the reason the KJV Bible exists was to make the Bible more appealing to him as he wasn't too enthused w/the idea and since they were still big on the whole "divine right" of kings back then that would have really farked up the narrative. I have always concluded that the reason for the interpretation showing up then was to try to convince James to stop with the gay already because God made you king.

There is a good chance that some or all of that is malarkey. I cannot say I have ever felt the need to invest myself in deep research on the topic. Anyone who knows differently please feel free to correct / admonish me.


I was interested in the language of King James bible, that so many recognize as "bible speech" and many DIRECTLY associate that form of speech, the "thee, thou, of, shall, art, upon" with the Word of God. It's of course hardly the only translation out there, but it's the most common and strongly emphasized one. The New International Version uses modern formal English, and it totally lacks "flavor" IMHO.

The language structures used in KJV have NOTHING to do with the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts. That is, translating as "thee" is no more direct that "you". Nothing in the original text style dictated the KJV writing style.

The style was not common speech at the time KJV was written, either. It was more common in the prior generation, and by then was considered stuffy, formal, perhaps even pompous by many. Even at that time, people didn't say "thou" much anymore, even in formal writing. It was controversial, basically. But it was not done casually, the edit copies exist and they worked and argued both meaning and language quite extensively in a very cooperative committee.

NIV for Leviticus 20:13:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Well "Their blood will be on their own heads" is a bit more poetic liberty than objective statement. It's symbolic metaphor, their liquid blood doesn't end up on their heads.
The "Easy-to-Read" Bible used a more basic structure:
"If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."

In fact the "original" of Leviticus 20:13 is:
ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם

Translated into our phonetics, the text would be represented by:
"V'ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

Direct, objective translation without context is impossible. Some literals:
"And with a male not you male shall lie down beds of a woman abomination she".
"'And with mankind you shall not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun).'"
"And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them. "
Or

It may be saying that a woman's BED was unclean and a male should not sleep there. The oddity is that, as I understand it, contextually Leviticus doesn't use "lie" as the modern euphemism for sex, it seems to literally be laying down.

I was a bit confused before, lemme fix this. "arseno koites" was not in Leviticus, it was said by Paul in Corinthians/Timothy. His usage was important because modern Christians consider the early Jewish law (and its restrictions on ham, shellfish, blended fabric) to be deprecated by Jesus' "new law". Except Paul IS New Testament and in these two places asserts that that homosexuality is bad, and some say he's specifically citing THIS ONE PART of Leviticus and saying it's still relevant, which is why Christians still cite this part of Leviticus with such fervor.

Paul's text says "arseno koites"... "man-beds" and nobody knows WTF that meant to Paul. Paul's NOT citing Leviticus, unless he really cited it badly. Like I said, there's no extant use of the word prior to Paul, Philo was a contemporary (lived at the same time as Paul, but did not KNOW Paul) said it meant "temple prostitution". The mere fact that someone had to ask Philo suggests people were confused at the meaning even then, so Philo's word isn't definitive either. And still true that in Paul's time, "andro koites" was the word for "male homosexual" or "male homosexual acts".
 
2013-01-26 07:41:44 PM
There is only one prophet and his name is Henry Jr. for lo, we named the dog Indiana
 
2013-01-26 07:46:01 PM
So...

... bartfarking on your knees is ok then?

I mean, if you leave the refrigerator door open when you're doing it?

// am in North Dakota, where Hell froze over about a month ago

farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2013-01-26 07:59:43 PM

ciberido: The word "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)" is more than just rare. So far as we can tell, it didn't even exist until Paul MADE IT UP. And it's entirely possible (though not certain) that Paul was unable to read Hebrew or Aramaic and relied on a Greek translation of Leviticus. when he made it up --- probably a bad translation.

As you say, exactly what Arsenokoitai" means is debated, and it comes two roots "man" and "bed", but one more possibility is that it really says specifically that men should not have sex with men IN A WOMAN's BED. That's the "-koitai" in "Arsenokoitai": "marriage bed," "bed belonging to a woman."

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. The concept of separate beds for men and women (or for sex with men and sex with women) is consistent with that notion of "purity."

At the very least, it can be said with some certainty that the word "arsenokoitai" refers to men only ("arsen" means "man" in Greek), so even if Paul meant to use the word to condemn same-sex activity, he was giving lesbians a pass.


"koitEs" can be either a literal bed, OR a euphemism for sex:
THIS has some interesting examples:

• doulo·koitEs consorter with slaves (slave-bedder)
• deuteron·koite to have a bed-fellow (two-bedder)
• polu·koitos promiscuity (many-bedder)
• homo·koitos
• enOto·koitEs bedfellow (same-bedder)
with ears large enough to sleep in (ears·bed)
• andro·koitEs having intercourse with a man
enOto·koitEs. A logical meaning for this word, if the key were analogy to the others in the set, would be something like 'a person with a (sexual) ear fetish.'
arseno + koites = man + bed, ≈ man sleeping → couch potato.

Paul COULD simply be disenfranchising lazy people from Heaven there. That makes more sense.
 
2013-01-26 08:06:24 PM

Oznog: enOto·koitEs. A logical meaning for this word, if the key were analogy to the others in the set, would be something like 'a person with a (sexual) ear fetish.'


So Paul was banning aural sex?

Makes sense, you might get hearing AIDS.
 
2013-01-26 08:13:21 PM
So eating shrimp out of my boyfriend's ass -- will this condemn me to Hell or not. I need to know, like RIGHT NOW.
 
2013-01-26 08:30:13 PM
If eating pork in the Mid-East, circa 1000 BCE, was so damned dangerous that they incorporated a prohibition against it into their religion, why did just about every other culture not do the same. North Americans, Northern Europeans, Asians... they all ate pork. What was it about pigs in the Mid-East?

And eating shellfish today is OK because of refrigeration... well, what about eating shellfish just after you catch it, before it needs to be refrigerated? Why wouldn't that be OK with god? And just how long does shellfish stay sin-free in a fridge? Somehow, I think 2 month old clams in a fridge would be chock-full of sin. Wouldn't the sinitudenousness depend on the particular shellfish? Oysters: no sin until day 4. Shrimp turns sinny on day 5. How does canning figure into all of this? Is an unrefrigerated can of clams sinful if you haven't opened it? What if you ate a lobster that had just eaten an unrefrigerated oyster? Are you going to hell, or is the lobster? What about that fake Krab stuff? Is that fake sin? Personally, I think Krab is a crime, but I don't know about sin. What if you don't have a refrigerator? What if your refrigerator breaks? Shouldn't refrigerator repairmen be held in as high a regard as clergy, given that they are so important in keeping your shrimp-eating ass out of hell?

I am the Aquapope and i should have answers to these questions. Take, eat, this oyster po-boy is my flesh. Take, drink, this clamata beer is my blood.
 
2013-01-26 08:32:55 PM

jake_lex: I'm filing this story away for the day when this dude is caught sucking dick in a bus station bathroom.

.


You'd never find a fundie preacher in a bus station, they're always flying first class on the donations of their flock to do "God's work."
 
2013-01-26 08:33:27 PM

BMFPitt: How is this any less stupid than anything else a fundie pastor says?


It's not, but it's on tape, so we can rewind it more.
 
2013-01-26 08:41:15 PM
So there are no gay people in places where it's cold?
 
2013-01-26 08:43:43 PM

Chariset: bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.

What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands.  With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases


Doubly hilarious--there's actually a very good argument that the whole Levitican "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" bit is now technically useless--because (according to a number of Biblical scholars):

a) The ancient Near East tended to have a different concept of sexuality that doesn't mesh up entirely neatly with modern heteronormative viewpoints (among other things, there does seem to have been a concept of a "third sex" or "between sexes" that has analogues in Indian (naan and frybread) and Thai cultures that seems to have been common in the ancient Near East but not in the modern West).

b) More to the point, there's some evidence to suggest this may have been a prohibition on pre-Abrahamic religious practices (some of which involved sex with what amounted to temple prostitutes and gigolos)--the evidence is even better on this re Paul's prohibition on same-sex relations in the New Testament, but there is evidence that ritual temple sex relations did occur in the pre-Abrahamic faith that eventually spawned Judaism. (In fact, there's a rather famous example of where an Israeli male and his Midianite wife (who came from a territory that still worshipped the "Old Religion") were speared to death by Phinehas for "desecrating the temple" with what was essentially a pre-Abrahamic fertility rite of having sex in temple. Of course, this example of zealotry has since been misused by Christian Identity idiots (in calling for "racial holy war") and their sister movement in the New Apostolic Reformation (in particular, the NAR-linked Army of God domestic terrorist movement regularly declares terrorist acts as "Phineas (sic) actions")...)

Also, as others have noted, there IS the possibility that it could have been instituted as a public health measure of sorts--more as a method of population increase, but possibly as an anti-STD measure (though I have my doubts on that, for reasons I'll note below). In this case, it was probably meant as an explicit measure of preventing "remission" into the old polytheistic practices combined with population control (in increasing it, rather than decreasing it).

(As for STD control--probably not all that likely. The two STDs around that tend to kill people either hadn't jumped species yet (HIV, wouldn't speciate from SIV till around 1700 CE) or hadn't arrived yet from elsewhere (syphilis, which didn't arrive in the Old World until around the mid-1500s CE and was initially a far worse and more fulminant illness than it is now--"1500s Syphilis" in the Old World tended to behave a lot more like an especially nasty variant of yaws in that it was transmissible by touch and would go into tertiary syphilis in a matter of months)--even HepB has only been documented since the late 1800s (it's actually an even newer virus than HIV is--probably again speciated from similar chimp viruses). Hell, measles had not yet speciated from rinderpest at the point Leviticus was written (and wouldn't do so until shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire); it's possible that even herpes hadn't yet leapt into the human population (and that's about the only one that's plausible--if only because herpesviruses tend to be rather species-specific, and tend to either be non-infective in a foreign species or causative of fulminant encephalitis (cref. Herpes B virus for an example of the latter--and yes, our herpes viruses can kill macaques too). It's not entirely out of the question that a now-extinct STD could have been the cause of the "no male same-sex sexual contact"--there's still some active debate on what caused the Great Plague of Athens calling up everything from haemorrhagic smallpox to the first widescale human measles epidemic (with high lethality) to filoviral haemorrhagic fevers like Marburg or Ebola--but it's far more likely it was a social restriction.)

Another thing pointing to this, of note--the same sections in Leviticus do NOT prohibit same-sex contact between women, only between men--which seems to point more to a prohibition on a ritual "third sex" role. (I haven't even gotten into some of the more interesting interpretations of passages of the Book of David where the phrasings of the relations between David and Jonathan often sound more like the Bronze Age equivalent of a same-sex marriage than a close friendship. :D)
 
2013-01-26 08:50:32 PM

Great Porn Dragon: (I haven't even gotten into some of the more interesting interpretations of passages of the Book of David where the phrasings of the relations between David and Jonathan often sound more like the Bronze Age equivalent of a same-sex marriage than a close friendship. :D)


I know a gay couple (in Topeka, of all places!) Named Jonathan and David. Not John and Dave... Jonathan! and David!, thankyouverymuch! [snap]
 
2013-01-26 08:58:39 PM

MrHappyRotter: So eating shrimp out of my boyfriend's ass -- will this condemn me to Hell or not. I need to know, like RIGHT NOW.


Let's see the hierarchy:

a) If you are either Orthodox (and especially ultra-Orthodox) Jewish or a "Messianic Jew" from one of those groups that are essentially neopentecostals who keep kosher (i.e. you aren't a Maronite)...you get to go to the Extra Special Hell (now with more Hell).

b) If you are of an Abrahamic faith that is anti-LGBT but allows shellfish consumption, well, probably still going to Hell according to their religious claims. Unless you repent, of course, or are Ted Haggard.

c) Whether you follow an Abrahamic faith at all or are heathen or atheist, you probably WILL get some lovely foodborne illness like rotavirus that will have you positively wishing, nay, praying for Hell because it cannot POSSIBLY be worse than what you're experiencing with the hurting and squirting. (Doubly so if poison oak tea is involved at any stage of the process.)
 
2013-01-26 09:08:34 PM

Great Porn Dragon:  Of course, this example of zealotry has since been misused by Christian Identity idiots (in calling for "racial holy war") and their sister movement in the New Apostolic Reformation (in particular, the NAR-linked Army of God domestic terrorist movement regularly declares terrorist acts as "Phineas (sic) actions")...)


I think you're the first person I've ever come across who's heard of the Army of God. When I started reading in more detail about them, it suddenly dawned on me that back in my teen years I'd had more than a few contacts with people connected to Army of God. And when I dug up the parts of the Army of God Manual that are available on the Internet, I started realizing that I'd heard pieces of it before from family friends--family friends who'd always insisted they believed in non-violence, something I have to wonder about now given that they had to have had a copy of the Army of God Manual. They're a bunch of nutcases.
 
2013-01-26 09:18:49 PM

Aquapope: If eating pork in the Mid-East, circa 1000 BCE, was so damned dangerous that they incorporated a prohibition against it into their religion, why did just about every other culture not do the same. North Americans, Northern Europeans, Asians... they all ate pork. What was it about pigs in the Mid-East?

And eating shellfish today is OK because of refrigeration... well, what about eating shellfish just after you catch it, before it needs to be refrigerated? Why wouldn't that be OK with god? And just how long does shellfish stay sin-free in a fridge? Somehow, I think 2 month old clams in a fridge would be chock-full of sin. Wouldn't the sinitudenousness depend on the particular shellfish? Oysters: no sin until day 4. Shrimp turns sinny on day 5. How does canning figure into all of this? Is an unrefrigerated can of clams sinful if you haven't opened it? What if you ate a lobster that had just eaten an unrefrigerated oyster? Are you going to hell, or is the lobster? What about that fake Krab stuff? Is that fake sin? Personally, I think Krab is a crime, but I don't know about sin. What if you don't have a refrigerator? What if your refrigerator breaks? Shouldn't refrigerator repairmen be held in as high a regard as clergy, given that they are so important in keeping your shrimp-eating ass out of hell?

I am the Aquapope and i should have answers to these questions. Take, eat, this oyster po-boy is my flesh. Take, drink, this clamata beer is my blood.


In all seriousness:

a) Trichinosis has been cited re pigs, but more probable (and also cited) are diseases like rinderpest and Rift Valley fever and West Nile virus--basically diseases that historically have been restricted to the Middle East until (at least) the Middle Ages, and which tend to be transmissible to humans. (For that matter, influenza could well have been linked as well.)

It also doesn't hurt that pigs (generally speaking) aren't native to the Middle East and most animal agriculture in the Middle East has typically centered around ruminants (which, of note to Leviticus, also tend to chew cud and have cloven hooves). It could have been a bit of "disease" and a bit of "weird creatures from Greece that really don't do well in the typical climate of the Levant and Saudi Arabia and require a hell of a lot more water than even cows and sheep do". (And yes, pre-modern-irrigation, the Middle East would not have been a healthy place for piggies to live.)

(Interestingly, this would also explain how Christianity was the one Abrahamic faith to do away with an equivalent to kosher or halal food, save for some groups like Dewahedo Orthodox and Maronites; the "kashrut no longer required" bit seems to have come about after the time of Jesus at the point the religion was starting to become Hellenicised.)

Also, as a minor correctional note--pork isn't native to the Americas, and actual wild pigs (as opposed to peccaries or javelinas, which are native to the Americas and are about as related to domestic pigs as, say, tigers are to pumas) did not have a major history until recently of being bred as food animals--they are too cantankerous to be easily domesticated (quite frankly, even before the Clovis people entered the Americas there weren't too many critters in the Americas larger than turkey-sized that were capable of domestication--the one exception being horses, and the Clovis people tended to like their Belmont steaks). "Wild hogs" outside of the Southwestern US are in fact feral domesticated pigs or feral crossbreeds between domesticated pigs and European wild boars (who escaped game farms in the late 1800s and early 1900s where early "canned hunts" took place) and are actually a pretty damned serious environmental threat as well as a source for trichinosis and other pig diseases largely eliminated in US swine herds.

b) Re the "shellfish" prohibition--most folks who have noted it was a public health concern (rather than as an attempt at either cultural uniqueness or as a method of cultural separation from pre-Abrahamic parent faiths) actually don't claim it was because seafood couldn't be preserved (the AFTAH talking-head is wrong on this one, but AFTAH is pretty much a walking talking cancer of dominionist hatespeech wrongness so this isn't surprising).

Rather, it's theorised that these cultures had a prohibition on consuming shellfish due to severe foodborne illnesses linked to shellfish consumption that couldn't even be eliminated by cooking--stuff like red tide poisoning and shellfish not getting sick themselves but poisoning people who ate them. (Doesn't have to be specifically red tide either--there's a fair number of toxic algal blooms capable of causing severe or even fatal poisoning in humans if they eat shellfish who've consumed those algae.) It would also explain why there's a general prohibition on non-scaled fish in Leviticus (which would also eliminate eels, which in some cases can be toxic if prepared incorrectly, and also rule out consumption of fish species most likely to accumulate biotoxins like shark).
 
2013-01-26 09:19:09 PM

rynthetyn: I think you're the first person I've ever come across who's heard of the Army of God. When I started reading in more detail about them, it suddenly dawned on me that back in my teen years I'd had more than a few contacts with people connected to Army of God. And when I dug up the parts of the Army of God Manual that are available on the Internet, I started realizing that I'd heard pieces of it before from family friends--family friends who'd always insisted they believed in non-violence, something I have to wonder about now given that they had to have had a copy of the Army of God Manual. They're a bunch of nutcases.


I think I had a similar experience. Way back in the 70s my Uncle's family took me and my siblings to a "fun" water-park type of place. Yay! Swimming and playing in the water and too much fun! Nope. We had to sit through about 3 hours of indoctrination that consisted of "The war is coming, which side are you on?" and "God protects those who can protect themselves" and "We know the homos and niggras is gonna start a war, unless we start one first". That kind of thing. Then we got to swim for an hour. My brother (7 at the time) and sister (4) hated it more than I did because they didn't understand anything and just wanted to swim. I hated it because it was diametrically opposed to what I was taught Christianity was supposed to be. When I told my mom what the day was all about, she just about crawled through the phone and killed her brother. I found out decades later that he was part of a pseudo-survivalist religious nutjob group. Probably Army of God.

4 years later I was an atheist. Go figger.
 
2013-01-26 09:24:10 PM
img99.imageshack.us
 
151
2013-01-26 09:27:33 PM

Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.

Scholars have also speculated it might mean pedophiles, male rapists, men who have anal sex with their wives, incestuous relationships, pagan fertility cultists. But it would NOT seem to mean "homosexual", because there's a specific word used for that, "androkoitai"/"androkoites". And there's other known words which could be used, too.

The declaration that it meant "homosexual", the " man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman" phrase, and the word "abomination" come from King James translation, early 1600's.


Rational and intelligent discussion on fark? GTFO!

//cool information, I'm oddly fascinated by this sort of thing.
 
2013-01-26 09:27:47 PM

Great Porn Dragon: In all seriousness:


[snip lots of learned interesting stuff]

Well, damn! You actually make it sound like it all makes sense. I just thought dietary proscriptions were mostly capricious, handed down generation to generation due to social inertia. You know, one big-time rabbi was allergic to shrimp, so he said: "No shrimp, ever, for anybody" and the injunction stuck. Still, wrap a piece of bacon around a large prawn and deep fry until the bacon is done. You'll go to hell, but you will LOVE it. With horseradish sauce.
 
2013-01-26 09:38:08 PM

Aquapope: Great Porn Dragon: In all seriousness:

[snip lots of learned interesting stuff]

Well, damn! You actually make it sound like it all makes sense. I just thought dietary proscriptions were mostly capricious, handed down generation to generation due to social inertia. You know, one big-time rabbi was allergic to shrimp, so he said: "No shrimp, ever, for anybody" and the injunction stuck. Still, wrap a piece of bacon around a large prawn and deep fry until the bacon is done. You'll go to hell, but you will LOVE it. With horseradish sauce.


Oh, I'm a friggin' apatheist and that sounds friggin' YUMMY (would probably have to figure out where to get proper prawn, but could work nicely for some tiger shrimp :D...kind of like Filet Decidedly Anti-Kosher :D

Then again, I'm also the sort of person whom (although I don't exactly follow any religious text in a RELIGIOUS sense) do like sussing out the ancient sociology of groups--and IMHO it's kind of a shame that the very folks who DO treat the Bible as a religious guide seem to not get a "jot or a tittle" of the context behind that (and yes, there's context behind Jesus' commentary on that, as any observant Jew will tell you--specifically regarding the VERY specific conditions where a Torah scroll in Temple must be written (by hand, with every jot and tittle and cantillation mark absolutely PERFECT or they have to destroy it and start over)).

Hell, the stuff about people getting smited over and over again for Golden Calf Incidents throughout the Old Testament makes a hell of a lot more sense if you realise the "golden calf" was in fact a religious icon/idol of Ba'al Hadad (the god of sky and storms and mountains in the Old Religion before Judaism forked off, and pretty much the main symbol of the old parent faith they were trying to abandon). Apparently they had a LOT of cases of people going back to the Old Time Religion Of Marduk Et Al...

(We won't even get into Revelation, which is basically a massive political cartoon slagging off Nero Domitian with the general message of "This too will pass and the Roman Empire will collapse on itself just like the Babylonian Empire did", or Job (which, seriously, is basically "Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney" with God as the Judge and Satan as Miles Edgeworth--it's a story of what happens when all of humanity is put on trial for being bastard-flavoured bastards filled with bastard pudding and Job basically has to simultaneously be the evidence AND the defendant in what amounts to a parody of an Israeli courtroom of the period). I find it more ENTERTAINING when knowing the "colour text" which few people seem to pay attention to...unless they're apatheists like me or heathens or whatnot :D)
 
2013-01-26 09:39:34 PM

Great Porn Dragon: MrHappyRotter: So eating shrimp out of my boyfriend's ass -- will this condemn me to Hell or not. I need to know, like RIGHT NOW.

Let's see the hierarchy:

a) If you are either Orthodox (and especially ultra-Orthodox) Jewish or a "Messianic Jew" from one of those groups that are essentially neopentecostals who keep kosher (i.e. you aren't a Maronite)...you get to go to the Extra Special Hell (now with more Hell).

b) If you are of an Abrahamic faith that is anti-LGBT but allows shellfish consumption, well, probably still going to Hell according to their religious claims. Unless you repent, of course, or are Ted Haggard.

c) Whether you follow an Abrahamic faith at all or are heathen or atheist, you probably WILL get some lovely foodborne illness like rotavirus that will have you positively wishing, nay, praying for Hell because it cannot POSSIBLY be worse than what you're experiencing with the hurting and squirting. (Doubly so if poison oak tea is involved at any stage of the process.)


Clear as mustard.
 
2013-01-26 09:56:12 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Oh, I'm a friggin' apatheist and that sounds friggin' YUMMY (would probably have to figure out where to get proper prawn, but could work nicely for some tiger shrimp :D...kind of like Filet Decidedly Anti-Kosher :D


I had it as an appetizer at a restaurant here in KC (J.Js on the Plaza). The "vein" of the giant shrimp (prawn?) was filled with horseradish, and the whole baconny/shrimpy thing was deep fried. 3 shrimps per order. I didn't order an entree, just ordered 2 more of the shrimpy mana appetizers. Time spent eating shrimp is not deducted from your lifespan.

Great Porn Dragon: (by hand, with every jot and tittle and cantillation mark absolutely PERFECT or they have to destroy it and start over)).


And I'll bet the destruction process is meticulously described and ritualistically performed.

Great Porn Dragon: (We won't even get into Revelation, which is basically a massive political cartoon slagging off Nero Domitian


I saw a thing on the Discovery Channel way back before they became the Fat People and Midget Hoarding Channel that described the Council of Nicaea or Trent (whichever one finalized the contents of what we call the bible). One guy wanted to put the book of Revelations into the bible, but everybody thought he was a nutjob. It took him over a year of politicking and promises and whatnot to get enough people on board to include Revelations. If you read Rev in context with the preceding books, it does kind of stick out as not belonging.
 
2013-01-26 10:05:48 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Chariset: bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.

What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands.  With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases

Doubly hilarious--there's actually a very good argument that the whole Levitican "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" bit is now technically useless--because (according to a number of Biblical scholars):

a) The ancient Near East tended to have a different concept of sexuality that doesn't mesh up entirely neatly with modern heteronormative viewpoints (among other things, there does seem to have been a concept of a "third sex" or "between sexes" that has analogues in Indian (naan and frybread) and Thai cultures that seems to have been common in the ancient Near East but not in the modern West).

b) More to the point, there's some evidence to suggest this may have been a prohibition on pre-Abrahamic religious practices (some of which involved sex with what amounted to temple prostitutes and gigolos)--the evidence is even better on this re Paul's prohibition on same-sex relations in the New Testament, but there is evidence that ritual temple sex relations did occur in the pre-Abrahamic faith that eventually spawned Judaism. (In fact, there's a rather famous example of where an Israeli male and his Midianite wife (who came from a territory that still worshipped the "Old Religion") were speared ...


I would go with the health and wellness interpretation for old testament law as STD transmission rate is higher for unlubed butt sex than vaginal sex. Keeping diseases from crossing species is also why you weren't supposed to fark or be farked by animals, but now that we have condoms if an animal is willing...
 
2013-01-26 10:09:54 PM
So gays in cold climates aren't sinful then, GOTCHYA
 
2013-01-26 10:18:19 PM
As a kid I learned the refrigerator is where AIDS is kept. As I recall the joke went....

First person: Did you hear Walter Payton died form AIDS?

Second Person: Why no, I didn't hear that.

First Person: He left his meat in the refrigerator too long.
 
2013-01-26 10:19:06 PM
That explains why there aren't any gay people where it's cold. Oh wait...
 
2013-01-26 10:20:17 PM

Vegetative reproduction: ...but now that we have condoms if an animal is willing...


Buttsex!! BUTTSEX!!!!
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-26 10:25:29 PM

Vegetative reproduction: I would go with the health and wellness interpretation for old testament law as STD transmission rate is higher for unlubed butt sex than vaginal sex. Keeping diseases from crossing species is also why you weren't supposed to fark or be farked by animals, but now that we have condoms if an animal is willing...


I've only fished for brown trout with two women and I can't imagine either going for it with no lube. I'm not sure I'd be so interested either.

I agree with the anti-gay part of Leviticus. It is an abomination for one man to lie with another. One should be standing up,on his knee,s or bent over the arm of the couch or something so that it is not an abomination.
 
2013-01-26 10:26:19 PM

MrHappyRotter: Great Porn Dragon: MrHappyRotter: So eating shrimp out of my boyfriend's ass -- will this condemn me to Hell or not. I need to know, like RIGHT NOW.

Let's see the hierarchy:

a) If you are either Orthodox (and especially ultra-Orthodox) Jewish or a "Messianic Jew" from one of those groups that are essentially neopentecostals who keep kosher (i.e. you aren't a Maronite)...you get to go to the Extra Special Hell (now with more Hell).

b) If you are of an Abrahamic faith that is anti-LGBT but allows shellfish consumption, well, probably still going to Hell according to their religious claims. Unless you repent, of course, or are Ted Haggard.

c) Whether you follow an Abrahamic faith at all or are heathen or atheist, you probably WILL get some lovely foodborne illness like rotavirus that will have you positively wishing, nay, praying for Hell because it cannot POSSIBLY be worse than what you're experiencing with the hurting and squirting. (Doubly so if poison oak tea is involved at any stage of the process.)

Clear as mustard.


My personal suggestion (being an apatheist who frankly doesn't believe in Extraplanar Superjails, and would go on to say that the fact religionationalists have not been smited en masse is proof that if Deity exists they have bigger things to worry about than humanity) would be not to worry about the eternal damnation and worry more on the (actual, existing-very-much-in-the-physical) risks of analingus-via-crustacean :D

(Seriously, ass-to-mouth without something like a dental dam is something that squicks the hell out of anyone who is a microbiology geek--just because it's a very easy way to get some of the nastier foodborne illnesses. And I've heard quite enough from Farkers who were unlucky enough to contract norovirus via the more CONVENTIONAL routes of fomites and contaminated food that I wouldn't wish it on ANYONE.

(OK, I'd wish it on the Army of God and Al Qaeda and NARasite, dominionist, and religionationalist asshats. But nobody else. :D)
 
2013-01-26 10:30:32 PM

Aquapope: Great Porn Dragon: Oh, I'm a friggin' apatheist and that sounds friggin' YUMMY (would probably have to figure out where to get proper prawn, but could work nicely for some tiger shrimp :D...kind of like Filet Decidedly Anti-Kosher :D

I had it as an appetizer at a restaurant here in KC (J.Js on the Plaza). The "vein" of the giant shrimp (prawn?) was filled with horseradish, and the whole baconny/shrimpy thing was deep fried. 3 shrimps per order. I didn't order an entree, just ordered 2 more of the shrimpy mana appetizers. Time spent eating shrimp is not deducted from your lifespan.

Great Porn Dragon: (by hand, with every jot and tittle and cantillation mark absolutely PERFECT or they have to destroy it and start over)).

And I'll bet the destruction process is meticulously described and ritualistically performed.

Great Porn Dragon: (We won't even get into Revelation, which is basically a massive political cartoon slagging off Nero Domitian

I saw a thing on the Discovery Channel way back before they became the Fat People and Midget Hoarding Channel that described the Council of Nicaea or Trent (whichever one finalized the contents of what we call the bible). One guy wanted to put the book of Revelations into the bible, but everybody thought he was a nutjob. It took him over a year of politicking and promises and whatnot to get enough people on board to include Revelations. If you read Rev in context with the preceding books, it does kind of stick out as not belonging.


The rantings of a dehydrated, starving hermit. Somehow, there are people who take this story literally.
 
2013-01-26 11:01:53 PM
TL/DR, but..
If cold removes sin, then only Eskimos go to heaven.
 
2013-01-26 11:20:31 PM

El Dudereno: Aquapope: Great Porn Dragon: Oh, I'm a friggin' apatheist and that sounds friggin' YUMMY (would probably have to figure out where to get proper prawn, but could work nicely for some tiger shrimp :D...kind of like Filet Decidedly Anti-Kosher :D

I had it as an appetizer at a restaurant here in KC (J.Js on the Plaza). The "vein" of the giant shrimp (prawn?) was filled with horseradish, and the whole baconny/shrimpy thing was deep fried. 3 shrimps per order. I didn't order an entree, just ordered 2 more of the shrimpy mana appetizers. Time spent eating shrimp is not deducted from your lifespan.

Great Porn Dragon: (by hand, with every jot and tittle and cantillation mark absolutely PERFECT or they have to destroy it and start over)).

And I'll bet the destruction process is meticulously described and ritualistically performed.

Great Porn Dragon: (We won't even get into Revelation, which is basically a massive political cartoon slagging off Nero Domitian

I saw a thing on the Discovery Channel way back before they became the Fat People and Midget Hoarding Channel that described the Council of Nicaea or Trent (whichever one finalized the contents of what we call the bible). One guy wanted to put the book of Revelations into the bible, but everybody thought he was a nutjob. It took him over a year of politicking and promises and whatnot to get enough people on board to include Revelations. If you read Rev in context with the preceding books, it does kind of stick out as not belonging.

The rantings of a dehydrated, starving hermit. Somehow, there are people who take this story literally.


No, the Discovery Channel is pretty reliable.
 
2013-01-26 11:52:07 PM
The meat locker? That sounds like a good name for a gay bar, not that there is anything wrong with that.
 
2013-01-26 11:56:37 PM

nucular bum: Oh, freeze a jolly good fellow, freeze a jolly good fellow...


I see what you did there. :-)
 
2013-01-27 12:13:53 AM

yarllib: bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.

Here is where he gets it from the New Testament:

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

New International Version (NIV)

So because they were wicked and foolish, God made them more wicked and foolish, then punished them for their wickedness and foolishness. According to Paul, anyway.


Well, that settles it.  God created homosexuality, so it must be good.
 
2013-01-27 01:27:53 AM
After reading the many scholarly and informed comments in this atypical Fark thread, and not reading the original article, I can logically conclude that the appropriate course of action regarding sin on earth is to remove the primary source of heat warming our planet, thus ensuring we will all eventually reach a temperature equal to the ambient temperature of the universe, about 3 kelvin.

My logic is confirmed by the effects of doing so. Once we reach this temperature we will have completely stopped sinning... there will be no more murder, rape, beating of children or spouses, warfare, deviant sexual behavior, public drunkenness, harsh language, or chemical reactions of any kind.

In addition, all our computers would run faster and the coming global warming crisis would be completely nullified.

I think we can all get behind this idea. You first.
 
2013-01-27 02:19:20 AM

AccuJack: After reading the many scholarly and informed comments in this atypical Fark thread, and not reading the original article, I can logically conclude that the appropriate course of action regarding sin on earth is to remove the primary source of heat warming our planet, thus ensuring we will all eventually reach a temperature equal to the ambient temperature of the universe, about 3 kelvin.

My logic is confirmed by the effects of doing so. Once we reach this temperature we will have completely stopped sinning... there will be no more murder, rape, beating of children or spouses, warfare, deviant sexual behavior, public drunkenness, harsh language, or chemical reactions of any kind.

In addition, all our computers would run faster and the coming global warming crisis would be completely nullified.

I think we can all get behind this idea. You first.


What's a quorum on Fark? I second this idea, mostly because I like the idea of supercooled video processors, but forgetting about supercooled fingers and eyeballs. Plus, I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I only have jean shorts and that's not good. Unless you're Matthew McConahooey (or whatever) and it's 1979. Dammit, now I have his voice in my head.
 
2013-01-27 08:32:12 AM
Ugh, "Fundamentalist" != wackjob. Strictly speaking, a fundamentalist is one who adheres to the fundamentals of the faith, i.e. what's actually written in the Bible. Folks who go off the deep end and just make up crap like this are not fundamentalists.

A true fundamentalist would be nice to the gays and share the Gospel with them, as Jesus commanded.
 
2013-01-27 09:25:32 AM
To oznog & great porn dragon: thanks for the cool info.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:39 AM
I went to a meat locker last night, and it was FABULOUS!

//got nothin'
 
2013-01-27 01:02:35 PM
Obviously we need Government -Sanctioned preachers so this kind of thing doesn't happen
 
2013-01-27 04:09:28 PM

SpacemanSpoof: A true fundamentalist would be nice to the gays and share the Gospel with them, as Jesus commanded.


It is academically logical to analyze all posts herein from a dubious perspective, until evidence for or against is garnered, regardless of whether the information supports or opposes one's own knowledge, beliefs, or opinions; therefore, please hold the information I shall post as dubious until proven otherwise. This quoted statement is correct, insofar as Mark 12 supports it, and if one is not a Christian, then Christian values do not apply. This is evinced by several Old Covenant passages, which encourage people to make an informed decision whether or not to accept Jehovah God as the one true God, and by logic. Further, since the primary teachings of Christ concern love and compassion for humanity, it is illogical for people claiming to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ to show malice against people for possessing any immorality, moreso if the person is an atheist, in which case it is not immorality. As Jesus dined and chatted with 'tax gatherers and other sinners', so too should the modern Christian be friends with 'drug dealers and other sinners', IMHO.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report