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.

(The Week UK)   Minister suggests raping schoolgirls is preferable to consensual gay relationships. Which minister? The Minister for Ethics and Integrity, of course   (theweek.co.uk) divider line 344
    More: Ironic, morals, interpersonal relationship, David Furnish, ministers  
•       •       •

12574 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 10:24:40 PM

spamdog: Farkers really like talking about sodomy.


Keep up Farkers be talking about Sodom not sodomy.
 
2013-10-15 10:25:41 PM

brandent: aagrajag: brandent: Marcus Aurelius: jaytkay: grumpfuff: And people were just defending Uganda's laws as "not so bad or violent." Farking scum.

"An early draft of the [2012] Republican platform published by Politico accuses the Obama administration of "attempting to impose" on the "peoples of Africa...legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda." Since 2006, with the urging and influence of US conservative Christian groups, several African countries have considered or passed laws outlawing homosexuality. The most infamous of them, proposed in Uganda, would impose the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."

WOW
I was not aware of that.

History will be very harsh indeed.

That presumes policies which reflect your opinion and not theirs win.

Have you not noticed the trend? They're losing. Rapidly. shiatholes like Uganda are their last refuge. They are already an embarrassed minority in every first-world country. In the United States, too.

You underestimate evangelicals in the US


Please note that the terms first-world country and United States appear in seperate sentences.

I cannot underestimate them; that would require thinking myself into the mind of an insane person. As a sane person, that I cannot do.
 
2013-10-15 10:26:42 PM

grumpfuff: Here ya go, for the curious.

Ezekial 49-50(NIV)

49"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.


Hmmm, nothing here that unambiguously identifies the sin of Sodom as mistreatment of guests.  "Did detestable things" is pretty broad.  Can anyone comment on the Hebrew text of this verse?
 
2013-10-15 10:27:41 PM

Schmegicky: [i33.tinypic.com image 500x375]
/without comment


What comment could possibly be made? The jokes are already in the headline.

//christ-on-a-stick-with-a-side-of-fries...
 
2013-10-15 10:28:16 PM

flondrix: grumpfuff: Here ya go, for the curious.

Ezekial 49-50(NIV)

49"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Hmmm, nothing here that unambiguously identifies the sin of Sodom as mistreatment of guests.  "Did detestable things" is pretty broad.  Can anyone comment on the Hebrew text of this verse?


There are some farkers who can, but I haven't seen them in this thread, yet.
 
2013-10-15 10:28:21 PM

aagrajag: brandent: aagrajag: brandent: Marcus Aurelius: jaytkay: grumpfuff: And people were just defending Uganda's laws as "not so bad or violent." Farking scum.

"An early draft of the [2012] Republican platform published by Politico accuses the Obama administration of "attempting to impose" on the "peoples of Africa...legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda." Since 2006, with the urging and influence of US conservative Christian groups, several African countries have considered or passed laws outlawing homosexuality. The most infamous of them, proposed in Uganda, would impose the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."

WOW
I was not aware of that.

History will be very harsh indeed.

That presumes policies which reflect your opinion and not theirs win.

Have you not noticed the trend? They're losing. Rapidly. shiatholes like Uganda are their last refuge. They are already an embarrassed minority in every first-world country. In the United States, too.

You underestimate evangelicals in the US

Please note that the terms first-world country and United States appear in seperate sentences.

I cannot underestimate them; that would require thinking myself into the mind of an insane person. As a sane person, that I cannot do.


Actually one of the reasons the Evangelicals are losing younger members is because of their stance on homosexuality.  Kind of funny.
 
2013-10-15 10:31:44 PM

spongeboob: spamdog: Farkers really like talking about sodomy.

Keep up Farkers be talking about Sodom not sodomy.


And even if we were taking about sodomy whats so bad about oral ; )
/Me thinks someone has a fixation on anal.
 
2013-10-15 10:34:13 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: spongeboob: spamdog: Farkers really like talking about sodomy.

Keep up Farkers be talking about Sodom not sodomy.

And even if we were taking about sodomy whats so bad about oral ; )
/Me thinks someone has a fixation on anal.


Great. Now it'll degenerate into the onanism misconception (snicker).

/coitus interruptus and lack of fulfilling a leverite (I may have that misspelled) marriage, not a prohibition against masturbation.
 
2013-10-15 10:34:31 PM

aagrajag: TheMysticS: anfrind: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

I don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.

B-i-n-g-o

Why is it that I make the first such observation in this thread, yet everyone replies to him?

I should rape the lot of you; then you'll respect me!


You'll get over it.
 
2013-10-15 10:34:35 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.


In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.
 
2013-10-15 10:36:02 PM

wxboy: Huh, I was half-expecting it to be this minister:


He wishes.
 
2013-10-15 10:36:43 PM

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.


This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."
 
2013-10-15 10:38:27 PM

anfrind: aagrajag: TheMysticS: anfrind: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

I don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.

B-i-n-g-o

Why is it that I make the first such observation in this thread, yet everyone replies to him?

I should rape the lot of you; then you'll respect me!

You'll get over it.


Ok, that's it!

aagrajag 8===> (_!_) anfrind

'spec' me now, biatch?
 
2013-10-15 10:38:33 PM

Peki: tinfoil-hat maggie: spongeboob: spamdog: Farkers really like talking about sodomy.

Keep up Farkers be talking about Sodom not sodomy.

And even if we were taking about sodomy whats so bad about oral ; )
/Me thinks someone has a fixation on anal.

Great. Now it'll degenerate into the onanism misconception (snicker).

/coitus interruptus and lack of fulfilling a leverite (I may have that misspelled) marriage, not a prohibition against masturbation.


Glad to help out, I do what I can ; )
 
2013-10-15 10:38:38 PM

flondrix: grumpfuff: Here ya go, for the curious.

Ezekial 49-50(NIV)

49"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Hmmm, nothing here that unambiguously identifies the sin of Sodom as mistreatment of guests.  "Did detestable things" is pretty broad.  Can anyone comment on the Hebrew text of this verse?


There are other more direct ones, but I don't remember the exact ones, and to be blunt, am too lazy to go looking. Like someone else said, there are people who are *much* more fluent in Jewish interpretations than I am(probably because they're Jewish and I'm not), but I do know they say the same thing I've been saying.

Much of the commentary on the story is from the Midrash, which I admit, I am not very familiar with.

Here's what Wiki has to say on it, but it is Wiki, so I don't blame you if you don't take it for granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish
 
2013-10-15 10:40:52 PM

aagrajag: TheMysticS: anfrind: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

I don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.

B-i-n-g-o

Why is it that I make the first such observation in this thread, yet everyone replies to him?

I should rape the lot of you; then you'll respect me!


Did he state it more plainly, or more elaborately, or maybe he/she has better grammerz?
Or are you a whining attention whore? That could be part of it. Hahaha.

Ok, I'm sorry. Just kidding, really.
You win on this topic.
No corrective rape required!
 
2013-10-15 10:40:59 PM

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.


Difficulty: Jude is from the NT(Christian). The story of Sodom, and the passages dealing with it, are from the OT(Jewish).

Would you accept a Christian interpretation of a Hindu holy book?
 
2013-10-15 10:44:17 PM

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.


Oh sure if that's how you wanna go. The Southern Baptist church constantly degrades homosexuality and does lot's of nasty things it's one of the largest churches in the US, but it doesn't make them right. Also the way you used liberal well I'm done with you.
 
2013-10-15 10:44:44 PM
I don't think that's a fair question. The Hindu holy books have not been incorporated into the Christian holy book. At least, not in the same way the Jewish holy books have been.
 
2013-10-15 10:46:01 PM

Peki: This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."


We're not talking about the US, or other small pockets of the civilized world.

This is an article about a country where I would wager my life's savings that the percentage of people who hold the soft "hospitality" interpretation over the "sexual immorality" interpretation doesn't go beyond single digits. Similar strands of social conservatism and hard stances against what is perceived to be deviant sexual behaviour run through places like Russia, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America, Christian communities in countries like India, and (obviously) the remainder of Africa's Christians.

Even in America, I'm not sure whether people who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah as being about hospitality actually outnumber the people who interpret it as being about sexual immorality. I've tried to find poll numbers but can't seem to locate any for this specific issue. I'll tell you right now that I would very much want all of the world's Christians to interpret their religion in the most humane manner possible, no matter how many mental gymnastics they have to go through in order to get there. However, what I want and what actually is look to be two very different things.
 
2013-10-15 10:47:07 PM

TheMysticS: aagrajag: TheMysticS: anfrind: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

I don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.

B-i-n-g-o

Why is it that I make the first such observation in this thread, yet everyone replies to him?

I should rape the lot of you; then you'll respect me!

Did he state it more plainly, or more elaborately, or maybe he/she has better grammerz?
Or are you a whining attention whore? That could be part of it. Hahaha.

Ok, I'm sorry. Just kidding, really.
You win on this topic.
No corrective rape required!


TheMysticS: aagrajag: TheMysticS: anfrind: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

I don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.

B-i-n-g-o

Why is it that I make the first such observation in this thread, yet everyone replies to him?

I should rape the lot of you; then you'll respect me!

Did he state it more plainly, or more elaborately, or maybe he/she has better grammerz?
Or are you a whining attention whore? That could be part of it. Hahaha.

Ok, I'm sorry. Just kidding, really.
You win on this topic.
No corrective rape required!


THAT'S IT! RAPE FOR YOU TOO!

IN FACT,

olivethepeople.files.wordpress.com

RAPE FOR EVERYBODY!
 
2013-10-15 10:47:54 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.

Oh sure if that's how you wanna go. The Southern Baptist church constantly degrades homosexuality and does lot's of nasty things it's one of the largest churches in the US, but it doesn't make them right. Also the way you used liberal well I'm done with you.


Don't write him off too quickly. I'm still of the opinion that someone else is using his login.

Give it a couple of weeks.
 
2013-10-15 10:48:30 PM

aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.


upload.wikimedia.org

Never could believe daytime TV myself.
 
2013-10-15 10:51:15 PM
Hasa diga ebowai!
 
2013-10-15 10:54:07 PM

mgshamster: tinfoil-hat maggie: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.

Oh sure if that's how you wanna go. The Southern Baptist church constantly degrades homosexuality and does lot's of nasty things it's one of the largest churches in the US, but it doesn't make them right. Also the way you used liberal well I'm done with you.

Don't write him off too quickly. I'm still of the opinion that someone else is using his login.

Give it a couple of weeks.


I'll red farky but I'm not engaging further. I don't need an Admiral Akbar picture to point out the obvious.
 
2013-10-15 10:54:15 PM

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.


Oh and you of course remember this thread is not about Sodom but some "christian" minister advocating rape to cure homosexuality, right?
/Do you really wanna side with the majority?
 
2013-10-15 10:54:39 PM

Biological Ali: Peki: This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."

We're not talking about the US, or other small pockets of the civilized world.

This is an article about a country where I would wager my life's savings that the percentage of people who hold the soft "hospitality" interpretation over the "sexual immorality" interpretation doesn't go beyond single digits. Similar strands of social conservatism and hard stances against what is perceived to be deviant sexual behaviour run through places like Russia, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America, Christian communities in countries like India, and (obviously) the remainder of Africa's Christians.

Even in America, I'm not sure whether people who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah as being about hospitality actually outnumber the people who interpret it as being about sexual immorality. I've tried to find poll numbers but can't seem to locate any for this specific issue. I'll tell you right now that I would very much want all of the world's Christians to interpret their religion in the most humane manner possible, no matter how many mental gymnastics they have to go through in order to get there. However, what I want and what actually is look to be two very different things.


Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.
 
2013-10-15 10:55:26 PM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 265x350]

Never could believe daytime TV myself.


I had to look that up.

You watch that stuff?
 
2013-10-15 10:55:44 PM
Sounds like someone has been reading the Bible.
 
2013-10-15 10:56:06 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh sure if that's how you wanna go. The Southern Baptist church constantly degrades homosexuality and does lot's of nasty things it's one of the largest churches in the US, but it doesn't make them right. Also the way you used liberal well I'm done with you.


I'm not talking about what's "right"; I'm talking about what the prevailing view is. There are Islamic sects which hold the final prophet to be somebody other than Muhammad - however, the prevailing view is very solidly that Muhammad is the last one. That doesn't make either of them "right" (indeed, their both wrong, just like every religious claim) - it's just an observation about what the mainstream interpretation is.
 
2013-10-15 11:01:36 PM

mgshamster: Don't write him off too quickly. I'm still of the opinion that someone else is using his login.

Give it a couple of weeks.


A bipolar manic event that would explain the religious overtones. Right now I'm leaning towards some dumb devils advocate attempt but I haven't decided.
 
2013-10-15 11:01:48 PM

grumpfuff: Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.


What "actual" interpretation? There is no correct interpretation, since obviously the things in question didn't actually happen. All we have is what people believe happened, and I'm just pointing out that the particular interpretation that some have talked about in this thread isn't a mainstream one when it comes to global Christianity (though, anecdotally, my impression is that it's gaining ground and may well be the mainstream view in a few centuries or so).
 
2013-10-15 11:02:49 PM
Even if you took a couple of dozen shots to the head with a nuclear rod and thought that you could "correct" a lesbian with hetero sex, how in the hell do you think that raping her would do it?  That's like thinking you could get a vegan to like meat by recreating the first murder in Se7en with beef.

/hetero, but never could talk anybody else away from trim.
 
2013-10-15 11:04:10 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: mgshamster: Don't write him off too quickly. I'm still of the opinion that someone else is using his login.

Give it a couple of weeks.

A bipolar manic event that would explain the religious overtones. Right now I'm leaning towards some dumb devils advocate attempt but I haven't decided.


"Religious overtones"? Seriously? Is there some secret filter that's translating my posts into completely different comments that I can't see?
 
2013-10-15 11:06:10 PM

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.

What "actual" interpretation? There is no correct interpretation, since obviously the things in question didn't actually happen. All we have is what people believe happened, and I'm just pointing out that the particular interpretation that some have talked about in this thread isn't a mainstream one when it comes to global Christianity (though, anecdotally, my impression is that it's gaining ground and may well be the mainstream view in a few centuries or so).


We have, several times in this thread, pointed out interpretations of the story of Sodom directly from the Old Testament. There is a long history of Jewish interpretation of the story, as it is a Jewish story. It WAS the main stream view that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality, until Augustine came and changed the interpretation because he hated sex, especially the gay kind. That is the revisionism of the moral of the story, not "modern day liberal theologians" like you claimed.

Again. It is a Jewish story, and therefore we should accept the Jewish interpretation of it.

By your logic, we should accept a Christian interpretation of a Hindu story, simply because there are more Christians.
 
2013-10-15 11:06:16 PM

namatad: I didnt think it was possible.
This guy tied hitler.
I hate them equally.

/this is not to say that one is more evil than the other, nor to minimize the holocaust. Just that .... I cant think of a higher level of hate.


You get the feeling that if this piece of shiat had the power, he'd be just as bad.
 
2013-10-15 11:07:20 PM
Well, I thought it might be and it seems it is. I hope it's worth it to you losing the respect of so many farkers.
 
2013-10-15 11:08:09 PM

grumpfuff: Biological Ali: Peki: This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."

We're not talking about the US, or other small pockets of the civilized world.

This is an article about a country where I would wager my life's savings that the percentage of people who hold the soft "hospitality" interpretation over the "sexual immorality" interpretation doesn't go beyond single digits. Similar strands of social conservatism and hard stances against what is perceived to be deviant sexual behaviour run through places like Russia, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America, Christian communities in countries like India, and (obviously) the remainder of Africa's Christians.

Even in America, I'm not sure whether people who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah as being about hospitality actually outnumber the people who interpret it as being about sexual immorality. I've tried to find poll numbers but can't seem to locate any for this specific issue. I'll tell you right now that I would very much want all of the world's Christians to interpret their religion in the most humane manner possible, no matter how many mental gymnastics they have to go through in order to get there. However, what I want and what actually is look to be two very different things.

Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.


Uh, exactly why do I give a shiat about the interpretation of a mythical tale in a book full of contradictions as an excuse to rape people into being straight?
 
2013-10-15 11:10:32 PM
Time to send these girls in
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-15 11:10:35 PM

pueblonative: grumpfuff: Biological Ali: Peki: This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."

We're not talking about the US, or other small pockets of the civilized world.

This is an article about a country where I would wager my life's savings that the percentage of people who hold the soft "hospitality" interpretation over the "sexual immorality" interpretation doesn't go beyond single digits. Similar strands of social conservatism and hard stances against what is perceived to be deviant sexual behaviour run through places like Russia, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America, Christian communities in countries like India, and (obviously) the remainder of Africa's Christians.

Even in America, I'm not sure whether people who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah as being about hospitality actually outnumber the people who interpret it as being about sexual immorality. I've tried to find poll numbers but can't seem to locate any for this specific issue. I'll tell you right now that I would very much want all of the world's Christians to interpret their religion in the most humane manner possible, no matter how many mental gymnastics they have to go through in order to get there. However, what I want and what actually is look to be two very different things.

Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.

Uh, exactly why do I give a shiat about the interpretation of a mythical tale in a book full of contradictions as an excuse to rape people into being straight?


I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of intellectual honesty. If you want to criticize something, criticize it for what it actually it, not what you think it is.

Also, one of my degrees is in comparative religion, so at least in my case, it's a pet peeve.
 
2013-10-15 11:11:14 PM

pueblonative: grumpfuff: Biological Ali: Peki: This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."

We're not talking about the US, or other small pockets of the civilized world.

This is an article about a country where I would wager my life's savings that the percentage of people who hold the soft "hospitality" interpretation over the "sexual immorality" interpretation doesn't go beyond single digits. Similar strands of social conservatism and hard stances against what is perceived to be deviant sexual behaviour run through places like Russia, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America, Christian communities in countries like India, and (obviously) the remainder of Africa's Christians.

Even in America, I'm not sure whether people who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah as being about hospitality actually outnumber the people who interpret it as being about sexual immorality. I've tried to find poll numbers but can't seem to locate any for this specific issue. I'll tell you right now that I would very much want all of the world's Christians to interpret their religion in the most humane manner possible, no matter how many mental gymnastics they have to go through in order to get there. However, what I want and what actually is look to be two very different things.

Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.

Uh, exactly why do I give a shiat about the interpretation of a mythical tale in a book full of contradictions as an excuse to rape people into being straight?


Even if it were true, there is no interpretation which does not depict Lot throwing his daughters out to the mob.

Their motives for their violence matter little.

Christian "morality".
 
2013-10-15 11:12:30 PM

grumpfuff: I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of intellectual honesty. If you want to criticize something, criticize it for what it actually it, not what you think it is.


A story invented by a bunch of goat herders as to why all them thar queer city folk are evil while the good upright people get drunk and commit incest in a cave.  Yeah, I think I can criticize that without giving a shiat about "interpretation".
 
2013-10-15 11:12:40 PM

grumpfuff: Again. It is a Jewish story, and therefore we should accept the Jewish interpretation of it.

By your logic, we should accept a Christian interpretation of a Hindu story, simply because there are more Christians.


It's also a Christian story. And a Muslim story, for that matter. Same with things like Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, and so on. There are no Christian interpretations of Hindu stories, because none of those stories figure into Christianity to begin with, unlike this one.

I'm talking here about the Christian interpretation (since, given TFA, I figured that's what would be most relevant to the thread). I'm not talking about how a different iteration of the story is interpreted in a completely different religion.
 
2013-10-15 11:16:03 PM

mgshamster: The Hindu holy books have not been incorporated into the Christian holy book.


You might be surprised.
 
2013-10-15 11:18:09 PM

aagrajag: Even if it were true, there is no interpretation which does not depict Lot throwing his daughters out to the mob.


Technically (err, I'm sorry, intellectually honestly), Lot only offered to throw his daughters out to the mob.  But maybe he thought they'd prefer them to extra terrestrials.  He knew he did.
 
2013-10-15 11:19:51 PM
i44.tinypic.com

If none of us here have had our 'whoppers' shattered by the act of bum-shafting, I don't think our views are valid.

/bum = arse = ass = fanny
 
2013-10-15 11:20:37 PM

pueblonative: grumpfuff: I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of intellectual honesty. If you want to criticize something, criticize it for what it actually it, not what you think it is.

A story invented by a bunch of goat herders as to why all them thar queer city folk are evil while the good upright people get drunk and commit incest in a cave.  Yeah, I think I can criticize that without giving a shiat about "interpretation".


Hey now, the genocide and rape are one thing, but I will not tolerate your abasement of drunkness and incest!

Hell, I'm pretty sure that shiat-talking the former on the site is a bannable offense.

And the website is based in Kentucky, so about the latter, let us not speak.
 
2013-10-15 11:21:10 PM

pueblonative: grumpfuff: I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of intellectual honesty. If you want to criticize something, criticize it for what it actually it, not what you think it is.

A story invented by a bunch of goat herders as to why all them thar queer city folk are evil while the good upright people get drunk and commit incest in a cave.  Yeah, I think I can criticize that without giving a shiat about "interpretation".


That's not what the story is about. Think of how annoying it is when Young Earth people say "Evolution is just a theory, so there's no proof." Their starting premise is wrong, and so their conclusion is invalid. You're doing the same thing - your starting premise is invalid, so your conclusion is invalid. Call them stupid, by all means. I'm not stopping you from doing that. All I'm arguing for is calling them stupid for the right reasons. Example in this case: Thinking offering your daughters for your neighbors to rape is a good example of hospitality. The daughters thinking they were the last people on earth, and so had to get daddy drunk and rape him. God saying he'd save Sodom if 10 righteous people were found, and when they were, he destroyed it anyway. There's plenty to chose from without making shiat up.

/did I mention my other degree is in Philosophy?

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Again. It is a Jewish story, and therefore we should accept the Jewish interpretation of it.

By your logic, we should accept a Christian interpretation of a Hindu story, simply because there are more Christians.

It's also a Christian story. And a Muslim story, for that matter. Same with things like Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, and so on. There are no Christian interpretations of Hindu stories, because none of those stories figure into Christianity to begin with, unlike this one.


Difficulty: They were Jewish stories before Christianity or Islam even existed.

I'm talking here about the Christian interpretation (since, given TFA, I figured that's what would be most relevant to the thread). I'm not talking about how a different iteration of the story is interpreted in a completely different religion.

If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.
 
2013-10-15 11:22:00 PM

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: mgshamster: Don't write him off too quickly. I'm still of the opinion that someone else is using his login.

Give it a couple of weeks.

A bipolar manic event that would explain the religious overtones. Right now I'm leaning towards some dumb devils advocate attempt but I haven't decided.

"Religious overtones"? Seriously? Is there some secret filter that's translating my posts into completely different comments that I can't see?


Must be because from what I read you're supporting religious fundies. Oh wait others are worried about you as well.
 
2013-10-15 11:27:41 PM
Rapping. He meant rapping schoolgirls.

http://youtu.be/wusGIl3v044
 
Displayed 50 of 344 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report