Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Ironic, morals, interpersonal relationship, David Furnish, ministers  
•       •       •

12647 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



344 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-15 07:34:27 PM  
Forget it Steve, it's Africa.
 
2013-10-15 07:39:22 PM  
But do the eat da poo poo?
 
2013-10-15 07:47:05 PM  
Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia
 
2013-10-15 08:02:37 PM  
I'd love to be a highly trained people farkerupper female undercover remover of manhood like the bear-jew or some thing. Tarantino! I have a treatment for the origins of Vernita Green.
You takin' notes?
 
2013-10-15 08:14:16 PM  
Some folks want to make this sort of thing the future of the U.S..
 
2013-10-15 08:16:21 PM  
Uganda_get_raped.jpg
 
2013-10-15 08:16:51 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.


PSH! Sound the alarm, here comes the PC POLICE!!!

Nah, I'm just kidding, that sounds truly horrible.
 
2013-10-15 08:17:22 PM  

2wolves: Some folks want to make this sort of thing the future of the U.S..


Like in NW Missouri?

/you know what, forget the consensual gay relationships!
//ah, screw the whole thing
 
2013-10-15 08:17:30 PM  
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.
 
2013-10-15 08:18:52 PM  
I can't imagine why anyone would actually believe that having a man rape a lesbian would make the woman want future sexual contact with males.

So I tend to think "corrective rape" supporters just like raping people.

s.mcstatic.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 08:19:10 PM  
And people were just defending Uganda's laws as "not so bad or violent." Farking scum.
 
2013-10-15 08:20:04 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia


To be fair, I've told a couple of lesbian friends that the option was available. The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.
 
2013-10-15 08:22:17 PM  
Both sides are bad so vote Ugandan
 
2013-10-15 08:24:13 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:  The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.

Usually that means "loser".
 
2013-10-15 08:26:32 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

To be fair, I've told a couple of lesbian friends that the option was available. The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.


I'm on the short list with a few of my lesbian friends as a surrogate penis for when they decide to have kids.

Not holding my breath, though.
 
2013-10-15 08:28:26 PM  
Is the Sick tag out raping schoolgirls?
 
2013-10-15 08:29:09 PM  
Why not corrective slow romancing with dinner and a movie?
 
2013-10-15 08:29:20 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia


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.

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.

Quasi-mammalian filth.
 
2013-10-15 08:30:00 PM  
 
2013-10-15 08:31:13 PM  
i1.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 08:31:53 PM  
 
2013-10-15 08:33:39 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

To be fair, I've told a couple of lesbian friends that the option was available. The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.


The difference is that in your case, it would be consensual.
 
2013-10-15 08:34:35 PM  
I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.
 
2013-10-15 08:34:43 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-15 08:34:55 PM  
 
2013-10-15 08:38:17 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia


Yea, look at Brandon Teena's story it wasn't really so long ago. What I'm saying is it can and does happen here, it's sad but true.
 
2013-10-15 08:39:03 PM  

aagrajag: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

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.

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.

Quasi-mammalian filth.


I think it's more of "How can you say you don't like it until you've tried it" thing.  Like how I force my kids to eat cauliflower when they declare their hate for it without even trying it.  Of course, I don't cram it down their throats either.  Still doesn't work however.
 
2013-10-15 08:39:30 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.


That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.
 
2013-10-15 08:40:41 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".


...holy fark. I really, really hope those assholes got slammed in jail.

/they didn't, I know, but I can dream...
 
2013-10-15 08:41:05 PM  

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."


Christians. . .still at it after all these years. . . And we're supposed to believe that they're not like the ones in the Dark Ages. . .
 
2013-10-15 08:42:13 PM  

EvilEgg: aagrajag: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

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.

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.

Quasi-mammalian filth.

I think it's more of "How can you say you don't like it until you've tried it" thing.  Like how I force my kids to eat cauliflower when they declare their hate for it without even trying it.  Of course, I don't cram it down their throats either.  Still doesn't work however.


I think you need to hold them down and threaten to cut their throats if they do not pretend to like it. These mammals seem to think that a more effective approach.
 
2013-10-15 08:42:31 PM  
d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.netView Full Size

What rape might look like.
 
2013-10-15 08:43:58 PM  

vudukungfu: I'd love to be a highly trained people farkerupper female undercover remover of manhood like the bear-jew or some thing. Tarantino! I have a treatment for the origins of Vernita Green.
You takin' notes?


The... bear-dyke? I think I like it.
 
2013-10-15 08:45:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-10-15 08:45:50 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But do the eat da poo poo?


My first thought was "I bet this is the same country that video came from".
 
2013-10-15 08:49:17 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-15 08:52:54 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.


I don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.
 
2013-10-15 08:53:05 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.


Could you read the comments at least if you aren't going to read the full article, the rape of school girls isn't to keep guys from turning gay, it is to force lesbians to become straight.
 
2013-10-15 08:54:15 PM  
*scans headline in disbelief*


img.pandawhale.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 08:54:29 PM  

Rhino_man: [d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net image 500x524]
What rape might look like.


Laughin' so hard! lolz!
 
2013-10-15 08:55:05 PM  
EvilEgg: Of course, I don't cram it down their throats either. Still doesn't work however.

Have you tried cramming it in any other orifice? You won't know if it works until you've tried it.
 
2013-10-15 08:55:49 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.


That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.
 
2013-10-15 08:55:55 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.


I think it's typically more for punishment. Like, a woman turns you down and says she prefers girls? BETTER TEACH THAT BIATCH A LESSON!
 
2013-10-15 08:56:02 PM  

Nappy Imus: Rhino_man: [d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net image 500x524]
What rape might look like.

Laughin' so hard! lolz!


Sadly, those are actually the words to a Ying Yang Twins song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX3dXiS3mtw
 
2013-10-15 08:56:45 PM  
Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.
 
2013-10-15 08:56:49 PM  
These people, and their supporters, aren't at all hateful though, nope! I was repeatedly told this in the previous thread.
 
2013-10-15 08:57:00 PM  

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.


I agree; this was the last line in my Boobies:

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.
 
2013-10-15 08:57:11 PM  

PsiChick: I really, really hope those assholes got slammed in jail.


Phrasing!
 
2013-10-15 08:57:28 PM  

aagrajag: EvilEgg: aagrajag: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

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.

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.

Quasi-mammalian filth.

I think it's more of "How can you say you don't like it until you've tried it" thing.  Like how I force my kids to eat cauliflower when they declare their hate for it without even trying it.  Of course, I don't cram it down their throats either.  Still doesn't work however.

I think you need to hold them down and threaten to cut their throats if they do not pretend to like it. These mammals seem to think that a more effective approach.


It's not so much "how can you say you don't want a man unless you've had sex with one?" as it is, "being queer is a sin and it's abnormal and deviant, and you need to be taught a lesson about acceptable behaviour." It's the same mentality as parents who beat their kids. The only difference is that the "crime" is sexual, so the punishment is as well. Then there's the whole daddy/daughter thing.

And of course, it's rape. A powerless and sexually inadequate man exercising physical power over a woman who rejects him.
 
2013-10-15 08:57:57 PM  

spamdog: PsiChick: I really, really hope those assholes got slammed in jail.

Winning Phrasing!


FTFY
 
2013-10-15 08:58:00 PM  

Zik-Zak: 2wolves: Some folks want to make this sort of thing the future of the U.S..

Like in NW Missouri?

/you know what, forget the consensual gay relationships!
//ah, screw the whole thing


Anywhere there are groups of people that need to look down on someone else to make themselves feel superior.
 
2013-10-15 08:58:31 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.


It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.
 
2013-10-15 08:58:32 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.


Lot.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:25 PM  

Felgraf: These people, and their supporters, aren't at all hateful though, nope! I was repeatedly told this in the previous thread.


Who are you to tell them their beliefs are wrong?

/hello again, I feel like I just saw you
 
2013-10-15 09:00:48 PM  

Chinchillazilla: 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 think it's typically more for punishment. Like, a woman turns you down and says she prefers girls? BETTER TEACH THAT BIATCH A LESSON!


I'm sure there's a healthly helping of that shiat too. It's both a salve to one's ego and a service to better society.

It costs only a complete devalueing of another person's bodily autonomy, and a violent assault.

Loathsome swine.

Wait; scratch that; bacon comes from swine; things things serve no purpose.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:48 PM  
Hassa deega ebowei indeed.
 
2013-10-15 09:03:20 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.


Still overthinking.

Corrective rape == Woohoo!  Free rape!
 
2013-10-15 09:03:49 PM  

spamdog: PsiChick: I really, really hope those assholes got slammed in jail.

Phrasing!


...Wow, that is  not what I meant, and yet it totally works.
 
2013-10-15 09:04:11 PM  

Chinchillazilla: It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.


Peki: Lot.


Thanks, yea the bible is full of moral authority.
 
2013-10-15 09:04:43 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: aagrajag: EvilEgg: aagrajag: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

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.

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.

Quasi-mammalian filth.

I think it's more of "How can you say you don't like it until you've tried it" thing.  Like how I force my kids to eat cauliflower when they declare their hate for it without even trying it.  Of course, I don't cram it down their throats either.  Still doesn't work however.

I think you need to hold them down and threaten to cut their throats if they do not pretend to like it. These mammals seem to think that a more effective approach.

It's not so much "how can you say you don't want a man unless you've had sex with one?" as it is, "being queer is a sin and it's abnormal and deviant, and you need to be taught a lesson about acceptable behaviour." It's the same mentality as parents who beat their kids. The only difference is that the "crime" is sexual, so the punishment is as well. Then there's the whole daddy/daughter thing.

And of course, it's rape. A powerless ...


There is the punitive aspect, of course.

The daddy-daughter thing... I'm unsure what you're referring to there.

As for suggesting that rape is necessarily the act of a powerless man, I disagree; many powerful men feel perfectly entitled to sexually take what they wish, as in other aspects of their lives.
 
2013-10-15 09:05:09 PM  

Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.


If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.
 
2013-10-15 09:06:15 PM  

Peki: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Lot.


So Neil Gaiman once wrote a portion of a graphic novel that was very dirty and sexually explicit. I have a copy of it in my office.  The book was almost banned in England and the publisher was being charged with a prison sentence over it. It violated decency laws or something.  It was overturned in the courts when they realized that despite the lewd nature of the book and the sexually explicit graphics, it was word-for-word right out of the King James Bible.

Here's Gaiman talking about it: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-spee c h.html

/Very good read. I strongly recommend it
//I may have some details off because I haven't read that article in a few years and I'm posting on limited time; didn't have time to reread the article before posting
 
2013-10-15 09:06:40 PM  

Rambino: 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.

Still overthinking.

Corrective rape == Woohoo!  Free rape!


You seem to still be missing this last line of my primary post:

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.
 
2013-10-15 09:08:03 PM  

anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.


Yes, you do.
 
2013-10-15 09:09:02 PM  
I learned in a thread over the weekend that straight men looking at photos of shirtless men, even if you clicked it accidentally expecting nude women, it makes you gay.  Maybe we should just post a bunch of photos of shirtless men in this thread and share the link with lesbians to turn them straight.
 
2013-10-15 09:11:19 PM  

grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.


But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.
 
2013-10-15 09:11:42 PM  
Africa?  Yep, not really relevant to most countries.  Sorry feminists if you thought you'd see Europe or North America.  Concentrate your efforts there, oh wait...you won't...because you actually believe you're oppressed in the first world.
 
2013-10-15 09:11:51 PM  
Africa, the birthplace of humanity, now the shiarthole of humanity.
/What the hell is neo-colonialism?
 
2013-10-15 09:16:09 PM  
So instead of "Gee I thought she was 18"
Now it will be "Gee I thought she was a lesbian"
 
2013-10-15 09:17:12 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.


No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.
 
2013-10-15 09:18:45 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.


Err, to elaborate, I don't consider Augustine as a serious scholar. I consider him to have interpreted the story in a way most beneficial to the message he wanted to portray.
 
2013-10-15 09:18:58 PM  
1-media-cdn.foolz.usView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 09:20:42 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.


The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.
 
2013-10-15 09:20:44 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.


Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.
 
2013-10-15 09:20:48 PM  

Felgraf: These people, and their supporters, aren't at all hateful though, nope! I was repeatedly told this in the previous thread.


If you condemn them then you're the real bigot.
 
2013-10-15 09:21:17 PM  
Politician, rope, tree, some assembly required.
 
2013-10-15 09:22:20 PM  

Peki: Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.


Are you going to cherry pick some verses from it to justify the bigotry christians are rightfully associated with?
 
2013-10-15 09:23:51 PM  
Man... I was having a pretty good day. Daughter was relatively mellow, (6 months old), and I got a good walk in.

Now I am trying to filter all of this anger out. WTF Uganda? Seriously? No cognitive dissonance going on with something like 'corrective rape'?

I'm off to donate some money. There's gotta be someone out there fighting the good fight.

..... Just went for a looksee. It's really hard to do anything.

I'm just so mad right now.
 
2013-10-15 09:24:22 PM  

anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.


Ya and Sodom never saw any visitors and their dad never disabused them of this idea.

Riiiight.
 
2013-10-15 09:24:36 PM  

grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.


Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?
 
2013-10-15 09:24:40 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Africa, the birthplace of humanity, now the shiarthole of humanity.
/What the hell is neo-colonialism?


I've always interpreted it as post-colonial influence over developing nations.

I never thought of it as being quite as kinky as the pic here, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
 
2013-10-15 09:25:00 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>


Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.


I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.
 
2013-10-15 09:25:14 PM  
Is there an elected position for this kind of thing?  I can only imagine the contested election campaign for County Corrective Rapist.
 
2013-10-15 09:25:21 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Peki: Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.

Are you going to cherry pick some verses from it to justify the bigotry christians are rightfully associated with?


Assume much? I'm an atheist UU. I use Bible verses to beat Christians upside the head, not justify bigotry.

There are no verses that justify the bigotry. There are plenty of verses against bigotry.
 
2013-10-15 09:25:33 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.


Yep.

Considering that the hagiography (yes, I know the root of the word; it seems somehow appropriate, though) of the revolting god of the Christians paints it as the most viscious, petty, cruel, genocidal monster to ever exist, one has to wonder:

This is his own *promotional literature*; imagine what the muckracking looks like.
 
2013-10-15 09:26:36 PM  

theotherles: Politician, rope, tree, some assembly required.


If you can't find any rope, I've heard the entrails of a priest make a good substitute...

/better not be obscure
 
2013-10-15 09:27:25 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Peki: Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.

Are you going to cherry pick some verses from it to justify the bigotry christians are rightfully associated with?


Heh, you don't know Peki very well do you : )
 
2013-10-15 09:27:30 PM  
iamkio.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 09:28:02 PM  

grumpfuff: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>

Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.

I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.


I know; I'm not attacking you, here.

There *is* no flattering interpretation.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:13 PM  

grumpfuff: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>

Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.

I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.


Why not post the verses in question?

I'm on the cellphone so I can't. But I used the audio book reading of it for my radio show so I remember it.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:20 PM  

The Why Not Guy: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?


For the same reason you mock Christians who say "evolution is just a theory." If you want to point out the error or problem with a particular stance, make sure you're getting the right stance.

And I'm just as quick to point out their interpretation is wrong. Also, it's not their fairy tale. It's a Jewish fairy tale.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:30 PM  

ramblinwreck: Africa?  Yep, not really relevant to most countries.  Sorry feminists if you thought you'd see Europe or North America.  Concentrate your efforts there, oh wait...you won't...because you actually believe you're oppressed in the first world.


WTF does feminism have to do with this story?
 
2013-10-15 09:28:44 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.


Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.
 
2013-10-15 09:29:08 PM  

PunGent: theotherles: Politician, rope, tree, some assembly required.

If you can't find any rope, I've heard the entrails of a priest make a good substitute...

/better not be obscure


I'm afraid it is; but it shall become known soon.
 
2013-10-15 09:30:25 PM  
Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!
 
2013-10-15 09:30:36 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>

Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.

I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.

Why not post the verses in question?

I'm on the cellphone so I can't. But I used the audio book reading of it for my radio show so I remember it.


genesis 19-21 (roughly
judges 19-21 is also relevant
Anyone know the Ezekiel verses that say "This is what the sin of sister Sodom was..."???

Those are the only ones I don't have memorized.
 
2013-10-15 09:32:01 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.

Ya and Sodom never saw any visitors and their dad never disabused them of this idea.

Riiiight.


Well, women weren't exactly thought of as people during that time period, so it's not inconceivable that they might have grown up with little or no knowledge of life outside Lot's home, even with the occasional visitor.

In any case, it's a weird story no matter how you look at it.
 
2013-10-15 09:32:18 PM  
Suckmaster Burstingfoam:

Why not post the verses in question?

I'm on the cellphone so I can't. But I used the audio book reading of it for my radio show so I remember it.


For what purpose? So you can tell me your interpretation and we can argue about it? To be blunt, I don't care what your interpretation is. When dealing with the interpretation of a religious book, I generally look to the scholars/leaders of that religion. Hence why I do not accept the Christian interpretation of Old Testament stories - it's not their book.
 
2013-10-15 09:33:36 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-15 09:34:49 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: I can't imagine why anyone would actually believe that having a man rape a lesbian would make the woman want future sexual contact with males.

So I tend to think "corrective rape" supporters just like raping people.

[s.mcstatic.com image 640x360]


Give anyone any amount of power and they will think their penis is magic.
 
2013-10-15 09:36:32 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!


It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.
 
2013-10-15 09:36:36 PM  
Huh, I was half-expecting it to be this minister:

islamophobiatoday.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 09:37:35 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-15 09:38:18 PM  

anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.


Someone needs to look up this guy and see if he's the same moron as the "eat the poo poo" guy.
 
2013-10-15 09:38:44 PM  

Shadowtag: Sock Ruh Tease: I can't imagine why anyone would actually believe that having a man rape a lesbian would make the woman want future sexual contact with males.

So I tend to think "corrective rape" supporters just like raping people.

[s.mcstatic.com image 640x360]

Give anyone any amount of power and they will think their penis is magic.


The magic is not inherent; it's what I do with it, baby.

//ok, it's also inherent
 
2013-10-15 09:39:04 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.


Is this the bit where Lot's wife turns around and looks back, and is transformed into a pillar of salt?

/I realize I could look it up myself, but conversation is so much more meaningful.
 
2013-10-15 09:41:13 PM  

menschenfresser: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.

Is this the bit where Lot's wife turns around and looks back, and is transformed into a pillar of salt?

/I realize I could look it up myself, but conversation is so m ...


Yup.
 
2013-10-15 09:41:49 PM  

grumpfuff: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Someone needs to look up this guy and see if he's the same moron as the "eat the poo poo" guy.


Ah, I love the "Eatta da poo-poo" guy.

And to anyone who thinks that that's just a gay thing, I have some very heterosexual Brazilian films to show you.
 
2013-10-15 09:42:21 PM  

menschenfresser: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.

Is this the bit where Lot's wife turns around and looks back, and is transformed into a pillar of salt?

/I realize I could look it up myself, but conversation is so much more meaningful.


Yeah, pillar of salt, that's what Lot wants you to believe.
 
2013-10-15 09:42:44 PM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.


Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.
 
2013-10-15 09:44:32 PM  

menschenfresser: Is this the bit where Lot's wife turns around and looks back, and is transformed into a pillar of salt?


Yes, that's part of the same story.  And that part is a blatant ripoff of the Greek myth about the bard who made a deal where he could enter the underworld to bring back his dead lover, as long as he didn't look back.
 
2013-10-15 09:45:29 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.

Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.


Yeah, maggie. It's Judges 19-21, which is a sister story to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and the Ezekiel verses which seal the deal on the hospitality interpretation. Hard to argue when the Bible interprets itself.
 
2013-10-15 09:45:42 PM  
oii.org.auView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 09:47:19 PM  

anfrind: menschenfresser: Is this the bit where Lot's wife turns around and looks back, and is transformed into a pillar of salt?

Yes, that's part of the same story.  And that part is a blatant ripoff of the Greek myth about the bard who made a deal where he could enter the underworld to bring back his dead lover, as long as he didn't look back.


Orpheus.

/I read. A lot.
 
2013-10-15 09:47:48 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.

Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study memorise the stuff.


FTFY
 
2013-10-15 09:47:51 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But do the eat da poo poo?


Lol, classic ToshO episode!

tosh.mtvnimages.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 09:48:21 PM  

grumpfuff: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Someone needs to look up this guy and see if he's the same moron as the "eat the poo poo" guy.


Eat the poo poo guy - Martin Sempa.
Asshole FTA - Simon Lokodo

So apparently not.
 
2013-10-15 09:48:49 PM  

jaytkay: KAMPALA, Uganda - Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about "curing" homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda's capital to give a series of talks...
 ...For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight


Thanks for the links and for pointing this out. Disgusting excuses for humans. Slime of the earth. 'I can't hurt people in my own country, so I'm going to go live out my fantasies where no one will question me. They might even let me kill a bunch of people! This is gonna be awesome!'
 
2013-10-15 09:49:40 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Yeah, pillar of salt, that's what Lot wants you to believe.


There you go again, assuming Lot actually existed.

Remember what I said about interpreting a story to fit your narrative?
 
2013-10-15 09:50:20 PM  

Peki: Yeah, maggie. It's Judges 19-21, which is a sister story to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and the Ezekiel verses which seal the deal on the hospitality interpretation. Hard to argue when the Bible interprets itself.


One more reason I love you : )
 
2013-10-15 09:50:54 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Peki: Yeah, maggie. It's Judges 19-21, which is a sister story to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, and the Ezekiel verses which seal the deal on the hospitality interpretation. Hard to argue when the Bible interprets itself.

One more reason I love you : )


Aw shucks. *blush, kicks dirt*
 
2013-10-15 09:51:13 PM  

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
 
2013-10-15 09:52:18 PM  

anfrind: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.

Ya and Sodom never saw any visitors and their dad never disabused them of this idea.

Riiiight.

Well, women weren't exactly thought of as people during that time period, so it's not inconceivable that they might have grown up with little or no knowledge of life outside Lot's home, even with the occasional visitor.

In any case, it's a weird story no matter how you look at it.


I had never though of that story that way before.  But the daughter's actions, as depicted by the Bible, don't even begin to make sense.

The sisters see their city smote, mom turned into a pillar of salt, and are left alone with pops.  At this point they figure they must have been the only people left in the world, because apparently they've never heard of other cities, or even of people who weren't from Sodom.  Except that just a few days earlier they met two guys from out-of-town, who they would probably remember quite clearly seeing as how their dad tried to save the strangers from rape by offering up their hymens to a bloodthirsty mob.
 
2013-10-15 09:52:45 PM  

aagrajag: 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.


I read fark, and farkers tell me that this type of thing is just around the corner if we don't hold the party line.

They wouldn't lie to me.
 
2013-10-15 09:53:40 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.


You know what else was Lot's to send out? His own body. But he doesn't even try to say "Take me instead" - he just offers up his daughters to be raped instead, and it's obvious why that happened. The whole thing was basically nothing more than a sting operation to get these people to solicit gay sex, and then use that as an excuse to commit genocide.

I'll give modern liberal theologians some credit; they've tried extremely hard to try and spin the story into something slightly less reprehensible than its standard interpretation, but it just doesn't hold up very well against the actual texts.
 
2013-10-15 09:54:58 PM  

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!
 
2013-10-15 09:56:53 PM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.

You know what else was Lot's to send out? His own body. But he doesn't even try to say "Take me instead" - he just offers up his daughters to be raped instead, and it's obvious why that happened. The whole thing was basically nothing more than a sting operation to get these people to solicit gay sex, and then use that as an excuse to commit genocide.

I'll give modern liberal theologians some credit; they've tried extremely hard to try and spin the story into something slightly less reprehensible than its standard interpretation, but it just doesn't hold up very well against the actual texts.


And, of course, the angels are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. I guess they just wanted to see them some rape.

//I only said rape once
///aw, crap...
 
2013-10-15 10:00:10 PM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.

You know what else was Lot's to send out? His own body. But he doesn't even try to say "Take me instead" - he just offers up his daughters to be raped instead, and it's obvious why that happened. The whole thing was basically nothing more than a sting operation to get these people to solicit gay sex, and then use that as an excuse to commit genocide.

I'll give modern liberal theologians some credit; they've tried extremely hard to try and spin the story into something slightly less reprehensible than its standard interpretation, but it just doesn't hold up very well against the actual texts.


Wow. That's just wow. There is no spin to change the interpretation of the story. The interpretation of the sin of Sodom as hospitality goes back a long time, to the first Jewish interpretations. There is even a  verse in the Bible(Ezekial, i believe) that specifically says the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.

But yea, keep blaming "modern liberal theologians."
 
2013-10-15 10:00:43 PM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.

You know what else was Lot's to send out? His own body. But he doesn't even try to say "Take me instead" - he just offers up his daughters to be raped instead, and it's obvious why that happened. The whole thing was basically nothing more than a sting operation to get these people to solicit gay sex, and then use that as an excuse to commit genocide.

I'll give modern liberal theologians some credit; they've tried extremely hard to try and spin the story into something slightly less reprehensible than its standard interpretation, but it just doesn't hold up very well against the actual texts.


Wow, I had you tagged as pro-reason but I guess I was wrong. You've definitely gone of into cray-cray land.
 
2013-10-15 10:03:50 PM  
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.
 
2013-10-15 10:04:46 PM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.

You know what else was Lot's to send out? His own body. But he doesn't even try to say "Take me instead" - he just offers up his daughters to be raped instead, and it's obvious why that happened. The whole thing was basically nothing more than a sting operation to get these people to solicit gay sex, and then use that as an excuse to commit genocide.

I'll give modern liberal theologians some credit; they've tried extremely hard to try and spin the story into something slightly less reprehensible than its standard interpretation, but it just doesn't hold up very well against the actual texts.


Have you bothered reading any part of the Bible other than what your pastor does? Judges 19-21 is very clearly  not about homosexuality, and yet it's damn near the exact same story.
 
2013-10-15 10:06:11 PM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except it can't be the 2 persons were angels everyone says they don't actually have a sex. The crime was hospitality, Lot's daughters were his to send out, the two visitors he had to protect. I've been told this by religious people that study the stuff.

You know what else was Lot's to send out? His own body. But he doesn't even try to say "Take me instead" - he just offers up his daughters to be raped instead, and it's obvious why that happened. The whole thing was basically nothing more than a sting operation to get these people to solicit gay sex, and then use that as an excuse to commit genocide.

I'll give modern liberal theologians some credit; they've tried extremely hard to try and spin the story into something slightly less reprehensible than its standard interpretation, but it just doesn't hold up very well against the actual texts.


This reads like someone else is using your login.
 
2013-10-15 10:06:51 PM  
Just like a catholic pedo-priest at a kindergarten festival: FABULOUS!
 
2013-10-15 10:07:22 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.


Bad people=genocide the city.

That we are all here is the surest sign the Christian god is jacking himself off somewhere.
 
2013-10-15 10:08:56 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.


okay, little note about quoting Bible passages. If you see "Judges 19", it means Judges chapter 19. You're quoting verses, but that's almost useless without the chapter.

I quit being lazy: Ezekial 16:49-50.
 
2013-10-15 10:09:57 PM  
And Ezekiel. I swear I changed that before I posted.
 
2013-10-15 10:10:09 PM  
 
2013-10-15 10:11:14 PM  

aagrajag: 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.

Bad people=genocide the city.

That we are all here is the surest sign the Christian god is jacking himself off somewhere.


No argument here. He probably decided to take a break, else he'd genocide the world again.

Peki: okay, little note about quoting Bible passages. If you see "Judges 19", it means Judges chapter 19. You're quoting verses, but that's almost useless without the chapter.


I'm a terrible person and should feel bad. I have a degree in comparative religion, I should know better.

/goes to the shame corner
 
2013-10-15 10:12:13 PM  

Peki: And Ezekiel. I swear I changed that before I posted.


Blame the fark gnomes.

Did you see my last reply to you? I would have figured you would have found the link interesting.
 
2013-10-15 10:13:47 PM  

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
 
2013-10-15 10:14:10 PM  
Apparently Stephen Fry attempted suicide while filming this program.

Fry revealed yesterday that during the making of this film last year he took an overdose of pills of and alcohol while alone in a hotel room.

The TV personality, actor and author was saved when his producer on the film found him unconscious and got him appropriate medical help.

Fry, who said he broke four ribs and was unconscious after convulsions related to the overdose incident, said: "It was a close-run thing. And, fortunately, the producer I was filming with at the time came into the hotel room and I was found in a sort of unconscious state and taken back to England and looked after."


I'm glad he didn't succeed, I really like that guy. I don't think this was his first attempt; I know he struggles with bipolar disorder.
 
2013-10-15 10:14:16 PM  

aagrajag: 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.

Bad people=genocide the city.

That we are all here is the surest sign the Christian god is jacking himself off somewhere.


Bonus: God destroyed Sodom after Abraham had "negotiated" to save the city if ten good people could be found. Abraham found the good people, God said, fark it, destroy the city anyway! God of the OT definitely had a GOP sense of negotiating.

Also, the story of Sodom is nestled in the middle of the story where Sarah sends Hagar away for having Abraham's son Ishmael--at SARAH'S insistence. There is a more modern interpretation that suggests the placement of the story of Sodom is a subtle criticism at Abraham's treatment of Hagar. To get here you have to know a bit more about the authors, historical record, and literary traditions of the Jewish culture of the time.
 
2013-10-15 10:15:10 PM  

mgshamster: This reads like someone else is using your login.


I know right it's weird, maybe he has gone of the farm or reservation, whatever and decided to troll but it's weird .
 
2013-10-15 10:15:36 PM  

grumpfuff: Wow. That's just wow. There is no spin to change the interpretation of the story. The interpretation of the sin of Sodom as hospitality goes back a long time, to the first Jewish interpretations. There is even a verse in the Bible(Ezekial, i believe) that specifically says the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.

But yea, keep blaming "modern liberal theologians."


One of the main reasons the cities had been marked for destruction was because of their sexual immorality. I mean, this stuff is in the Bible - I thought this would be common knowledge. Even if you grant that the "hospitality" thing was in fact a thing, you have to strain really, really hard to see the bit with the angels as having been about a lack of hospitality rather than sexual immorality. Which is probably why the former is a minority viewpoint within Christianity.
 
2013-10-15 10:18:11 PM  
Farkers really like talking about sodomy.
 
2013-10-15 10:18:42 PM  

grumpfuff: aagrajag: 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.

Bad people=genocide the city.

That we are all here is the surest sign the Christian god is jacking himself off somewhere.

No argument here. He probably decided to take a break, else he'd genocide the world again.

Peki: okay, little note about quoting Bible passages. If you see "Judges 19", it means Judges chapter 19. You're quoting verses, but that's almost useless without the chapter.

I'm a terrible person and should feel bad. I have a degree in comparative religion, I should know better.

/goes to the shame corner


Okay, I really didn't think you didn't know better, and felt bad typing that. Lol.

And mghamster, I scrolled back through about half the thread but didn't see a link, sorry!

/also, I'm from the chat room generation. We learned quick not to click links. :)
 
2013-10-15 10:19:50 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Wow. That's just wow. There is no spin to change the interpretation of the story. The interpretation of the sin of Sodom as hospitality goes back a long time, to the first Jewish interpretations. There is even a verse in the Bible(Ezekial, i believe) that specifically says the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.

But yea, keep blaming "modern liberal theologians."

One of the main reasons the cities had been marked for destruction was because of their sexual immorality. I mean, this stuff is in the Bible - I thought this would be common knowledge. Even if you grant that the "hospitality" thing was in fact a thing, you have to strain really, really hard to see the bit with the angels as having been about a lack of hospitality rather than sexual immorality. Which is probably why the former is a minority viewpoint within Christianity.


Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.
 
2013-10-15 10:21:29 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Wow. That's just wow. There is no spin to change the interpretation of the story. The interpretation of the sin of Sodom as hospitality goes back a long time, to the first Jewish interpretations. There is even a verse in the Bible(Ezekial, i believe) that specifically says the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.

But yea, keep blaming "modern liberal theologians."

One of the main reasons the cities had been marked for destruction was because of their sexual immorality. I mean, this stuff is in the Bible - I thought this would be common knowledge. Even if you grant that the "hospitality" thing was in fact a thing, you have to strain really, really hard to see the bit with the angels as having been about a lack of hospitality rather than sexual immorality. Which is probably why the former is a minority viewpoint within Christianity.


Might want to read the rest of the thread after that post of mine you quoted. Here's a hint. Ezekiel 16:49-50.

C'mon dude, like people have been saying in the thread. You're smarter than this.
 
2013-10-15 10:23:26 PM  
i33.tinypic.comView Full Size

/without comment
 
2013-10-15 10:23:53 PM  

Peki: grumpfuff: aagrajag: 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.

Bad people=genocide the city.

That we are all here is the surest sign the Christian god is jacking himself off somewhere.

No argument here. He probably decided to take a break, else he'd genocide the world again.

Peki: okay, little note about quoting Bible passages. If you see "Judges 19", it means Judges chapter 19. You're quoting verses, but that's almost useless without the chapter.

I'm a terrible person and should feel bad. I have a degree in comparative religion, I should know better.

/goes to the shame corner

Okay, I really didn't think you didn't know better, and felt bad typing that. Lol.

And mghamster, I scrolled back through about half the thread but didn't see a link, sorry!

/also, I'm from the chat room generation. We learned quick not to click links. :)


It was a link to a Neil Gaiman article about defending the indefensable when it comes to free speech, writing, and art.
 
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.comView Full Size


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.orgView Full Size


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.orgView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


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
 
2013-10-15 11:28:30 PM  

GungFu: [i44.tinypic.com image 779x695]

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


um in England isn't fanny the front butt
 
2013-10-15 11:29:26 PM  

GungFu: [i44.tinypic.com image 779x695]

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


"Bum shafting shattered my whopper"

It'd be funny is people weren't being lynched at headlines like this.
 
2013-10-15 11:29:46 PM  

GungFu: 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


ass = fanny?

Not in a British show, it isn't.
 
2013-10-15 11:30:35 PM  

grumpfuff: 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.


Naw dude keep it up anytime people wanna talk bible it gets crazy Worst part is no one can decide what it says..
 
2013-10-15 11:30:41 PM  

grumpfuff: 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.



The story is about how the people in the cities were all evil and the rural farmers were the good pure guys who adhered to Gawd's word.  And in any case, I really don't give a good god damn about what story this knuckle-dragger uses to justify rape.  He could use Dora the Explorer and it wouldn't really matter to me.
 
2013-10-15 11:33:11 PM  

jaytkay: Rick Warren has repeatedly affirmed that he doesn't support the bill, but he also has a history of telling Ugandans that homosexuality is not a human right, and that it's comparable to pedophilia. Pastor Warren may sincerely be horrified by the thought of the government rounding up and executing homosexuals, but he's the one whose organization and African mission were and are deeply involved in training the anti-gay religious leaders leading the charge for this bill. It's his allies in Africa who are directly responsible for this.


This is of a piece with the Inquisitors who handed "heretics" and "witches" over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake, piously explaining that the Holy Mother Church® doesn't spill blood, and with george w. bush and crew who handed taxi drivers "terrorists" over to Syria on a pinky-swear that they wouldn't be tortured.
 
2013-10-15 11:39:14 PM  

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


Which has no bearing on Islamic and Christian traditions, because they have their own variants of each story. It's like with Greek and Roman deities - it's not as though the Greek interpretation of the gods is more "proper" than the Roman interpretation just because it came first. They're two separate mythologies.

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.

As far as I can tell, the people arguing with me aren't even Christian, nor are they disputing the nature of beliefs in mainstream Christianity. My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.
 
2013-10-15 11:44:45 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: grumpfuff: 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.

Naw dude keep it up anytime people wanna talk bible it gets crazy Worst part is no one can decideagree what it says..



Lots of people have decided what the Bible means they just almost never agree.

When should someone be Baptized, how should they be Baptized, what should the Pastor say: you would think that something this important to Christianity would be agreed on by Christians
 
2013-10-15 11:45:29 PM  

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

You might be surprised.


I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious
 
2013-10-15 11:45:32 PM  

pueblonative: The story is about how the people in the cities were all evil and the rural farmers were the good pure guys who adhered to Gawd's word.


Well, at least you're getting close.

And in any case, I really don't give a good god damn about what story this knuckle-dragger uses to justify rape.


I didn't see that story mentioned in TFA.I don't know where he's getting that justification, but I do know that rape is never used as punishment in the Bible.

He could use Dora the Explorer and it wouldn't really matter to me.


....what Dora are you watching?

/yes, I know it was sarcasm
 
2013-10-15 11:48:35 PM  

Biological Ali: My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.


Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."
 
2013-10-15 11:49:08 PM  

grumpfuff: I didn't see that story mentioned in TFA.I don't know where he's getting that justification, but I do know that rape is never used as punishment in the Bible.


Uh, David's concubines would like to have a word with you about that. . .

2 Samuel 12:11for the cross reference
 
2013-10-15 11:49:26 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Must be because from what I read you're supporting religious fundies. Oh wait others are worried about you as well.


As far as I can see, you're the only one who's made this particular accusation.
 
2013-10-15 11:51:52 PM  

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

You might be surprised.

I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious


I do know there are some who believe that Jesus spent at least part of his time during the missing years that are unaccounted for in the Bible(ages 12-30 or something like that) studying with Hindu scholars in India, and there are stories of a holy man in India at around the time Jesus was supposedly alive named something like "Iasas" or some such.

I don't know if that's what he was referring to, but the idea is generally dismissed by scholars.
 
2013-10-15 11:53:45 PM  

anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.


Reminds me of this historical gem:
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2013-10-15 11:56:49 PM  

grumpfuff: Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey.


Sure, and most Christians would disagree with people who try and whitewash the sexual immorality aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."


Okay, sure - let's start with that story. Now, imagine that a later author took that story, and added another part, writing about (for instance) how the tortoise won because drugged the hare without his knowledge. The story would now have a completely different moral, and from an empirical standpoint would not be any less correct than the former (since they're both ultimately works of fiction).
 
2013-10-15 11:57:45 PM  

pueblonative: grumpfuff: I didn't see that story mentioned in TFA.I don't know where he's getting that justification, but I do know that rape is never used as punishment in the Bible.

Uh, David's concubines would like to have a word with you about that. . .

2 Samuel 12:11for the cross reference


11"This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"


God makes this threat, yes. But David repents, and if you read the rest of the chapter, God doesn't actually follow through with it. (He does kill David's son though, so there's that)

2 Samuel 12: 24-25

24Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; 25and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.
 
2013-10-15 11:57:54 PM  

tjassen: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Reminds me of this historical gem:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x595]


Looks so professionallistic and scientifical, don't it?
 
2013-10-15 11:58:03 PM  

tjassen: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Reminds me of this historical gem:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x595]


vas ist das
 
2013-10-15 11:58:22 PM  

grumpfuff: God makes this threat, yes. But David repents, and if you read the rest of the chapter, God doesn't actually follow through with it. (He does kill David's son though, so there's that)


Sure he doesn't....
 
2013-10-16 12:01:21 AM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey.

Sure, and most Christians would disagree with people who try and whitewash the sexual immorality aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.


Not their story, so I don't particularly care. Just like I wouldn't accept someone re-interpretting the Tortoise and the Hare to make the moral..idk.."Greed is good!", no matter how many people accepted the re-write.


Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."

Okay, sure - let's start with that story. Now, imagine that a later author took that story, and added another part, writing about (for instance) how the tortoise won because drugged the hare without his knowledge. The story would now have a completely different moral, and from an empirical standpoint would not be any less correct than the former (since they're both ultimately works of fiction).


You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.
 
2013-10-16 12:01:32 AM  
This thread has somehow devolved degenerated into a discussion about whether the horns of the unicorns are black or white.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:00 AM  

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

Which has no bearing on Islamic and Christian traditions, because they have their own variants of each story. It's like with Greek and Roman deities - it's not as though the Greek interpretation of the gods is more "proper" than the Roman interpretation just because it came first. They're two separate mythologies.

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.

As far as I can tell, the people arguing with me aren't even Christian, nor are they disputing the nature of beliefs in mainstream Christianity. My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.


Right so you are claiming devils advocate you still look like a dick. And well I was a christian and I was baptized by immersion even though my church didn't believe in that. A baptist church had to do it. Anyway you're so far off topic it's sad but let's go on. Do you believe whatever the mainstream believes is the truth?.Yea I siad I was done with you but now I maybe am.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:35 AM  

pueblonative: grumpfuff: God makes this threat, yes. But David repents, and if you read the rest of the chapter, God doesn't actually follow through with it. (He does kill David's son though, so there's that)

Sure he doesn't....


Read the whole chapter if you don't believe me. It makes no mention of God doing it. Jewish people were big on the whole punishment thing, if God had carried through, they would have mentioned it. (yea yea, difficulty: story probably never happened)

Plus there's the whole couple verses later part I mentioned where it specifically says David still has his wife.
 
2013-10-16 12:05:06 AM  

spongeboob: tinfoil-hat maggie: grumpfuff: 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.

Naw dude keep it up anytime people wanna talk bible it gets crazy Worst part is no one can decideagree what it says..


Lots of people have decided what the Bible means they just almost never agree.

When should someone be Baptized, how should they be Baptized, what should the Pastor say: you would think that something this important to Christianity would be agreed on by Christians


Yea, no clue it was 13-14 for me?
 
2013-10-16 12:10:07 AM  

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.

The

angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.
 
2013-10-16 12:11:29 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.

The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.


Why would you rape an angel?

/kidding
//hello again
 
2013-10-16 12:12:18 AM  
fark this shiat.

/UFP can't get here fast enough.
 
2013-10-16 12:15:23 AM  

grumpfuff: You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.


I posted a link earlier to a verse from a Christian text, which said plainly that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality. This, roughly, is what most Christians believe (especially those in the parts of the world TFA talks about).

Now, I don't know if you're trying to question the authenticity of that text or what, but it doesn't look like this conversation's going anywhere. I've gotten into similar arguments with people who argue that the death penalty for apostates isn't a part of "true" Islam, and it always ends with me pointing out that the way they personally choose to interpret that particular hadith doesn't have any bearing on what the plurality of Muslims actually believe, and it's the latter which presents a more meaningful of what "Islam" stands for.
 
2013-10-16 12:19:35 AM  
Heya grumpfuff. (I'm just popping in ferra sec.)

I think we can all agree that this Ugandan "minister" is an unchristian dangerous whackjob and is not representative of the typical American Christian.

Also, let's not forget that this is the continent that still does genital mutilation of young women and is riddled with rampant rape with or without some back bush preacher condoning it. I don't know where they get their violent and extreme sexual handgups, but it ain't from the good book.
 
2013-10-16 12:22:10 AM  

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

You might be surprised.

I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious


The trinity is straight up Hinduism, and some other things which would take more explaining. Christ and Krisha also have essentially the same teachings, with even some similarities in their lives.
 
2013-10-16 12:22:41 AM  
0-media-cdn.foolz.usView Full Size


/wanted for questioning
 
2013-10-16 12:25:00 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.


The angels themselves were never in any danger (even assuming they can be referred to as sentient beings like humans - I'm not sure how they're classified in Christian mythology).

In fact, the angles themselves wanted to "sleep" out in the open, and it was Lot himself who insisted that they go inside his house, which precipitated that standoff. I don't think the angels themselves ever had any contact with the crowd, either to consent to or rebuff their advances, right up till the point where they blinded everyone.
 
2013-10-16 12:26:39 AM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.

I posted a link earlier to a verse from a Christian text, which said plainly that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality. This, roughly, is what most Christians believe (especially those in the parts of the world TFA talks about).


That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation. Using our earlier example of the Tortoise and the Hare, I can write a book right now that says "No, actually, the moral of the story is that turtles are faster than rabbits" (yea, I'm getting tired, can you tell?) That doesn't make my interpretation of the story right.
 

Now, I don't know if you're trying to question the authenticity of that text or what, but it doesn't look like this conversation's going anywhere.

I'm not questioning it's authenticity, I'm saying it's not relevant to the interpretation. In other words, I'm not doubting that Christians believe this interpretation given in Jude. I'm just saying they're wrong. There's a Lewis Black quote I'm fond of using in this situation. "They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've gotten into similar arguments with people who argue that the death penalty for apostates isn't a part of "true" Islam, and it always ends with me pointing out that the way they personally choose to interpret that particular hadith doesn't have any bearing on what the plurality of Muslims actually believe, and it's the latter which presents a more meaningful of what "Islam" stands for.

I really don't know enough of Islam to even try to comment on this, so I won't.
 
2013-10-16 12:40:31 AM  
Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.
 
2013-10-16 12:40:38 AM  

aagrajag: 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?


No, but apparently a lot of people did, and thought of it as romantic.
 
2013-10-16 12:42:37 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Heya grumpfuff. (I'm just popping in ferra sec.)

I think we can all agree that this Ugandan "minister" is an unchristian dangerous whackjob and is not representative of the typical American Christian.

Also, let's not forget that this is the continent that still does genital mutilation of young women and is riddled with rampant rape with or without some back bush preacher condoning it. I don't know where they get their violent and extreme sexual handgups, but it ain't from the good book.


4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-10-16 12:42:54 AM  

grumpfuff: That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation.


Sure, and this is the original Batman:

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


But that doesn't mean that the Dark Knight movies are "wrong". They're different stories and the only thing they have in common is that they trace back to the same inspiration.

"They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've seen that Lewis Black bit. It's funny, but he misses the point - they're not "interpreting" somebody else's stories. The term is "co-opted". They've co-opted these stories, which means they now have their own versions, just like the Jews (before they became Jews) would've co-opted elements from various proto-Judaic cults/mythologies on the way to creating Judaism.
 
2013-10-16 12:43:23 AM  

Biological Ali: BojanglesPaladin: The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.

The angels themselves were never in any danger (even assuming they can be referred to as sentient beings like humans - I'm not sure how they're classified in Christian mythology).

In fact, the angles themselves wanted to "sleep" out in the open, and it was Lot himself who insisted that they go inside his house, which precipitated that standoff. I don't think the angels themselves ever had any contact with the crowd, either to consent to or rebuff their advances, right up till the point where they blinded everyone.


Biological Ali: BojanglesPaladin: The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.

The angels themselves were never in any danger (even assuming they can be referred to as sentient beings like humans - I'm not sure how they're classified in Christian mythology).

In fact, the angles themselves wanted to "sleep" out in the open, and it was Lot himself who insisted that they go inside his house, which precipitated that standoff. I don't think the angels themselves ever had any contact with the crowd, either to consent to or rebuff their advances, right up till the point where they blinded everyone.



I don't know about danger to the angels, the problem was that the townspeople wanted to rape them. Lot knew what kind of city he lived in, even if the angels didn't (being from out of town and all)  he was hoping to avoid the whole problem by keeping them out of site, but they were seem and the rapey townspeople wouldn't take no for an answer. What the angels 'thought about it' is not the point, although I think we can surmise that the townspeople's actions and list were frowned on what with the blinding and the whole destroying the entire city and killing everyone for their lustful ways and sins of the flesh.
 
2013-10-16 12:47:11 AM  

Smackledorfer: Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.


No one was arguing that god exists or that these stories were divine truths(at least not that I'm aware of). We kind of all agreed the minister is an asshole and then moved on to debating interpretation.

For example, in my eyes, I view them as morality tales, just like Aesop's Fables(hence my example from there) that are intended to convey a lesson. I also feel since they are Jewish morality tales, we should go with the Jewish interpretation of them.

But I'm also exhausted, so now I'm going to bed.

/with a special thank you to those I was debating, they showed civility isn't quite dead on Fark yet
 
2013-10-16 12:51:42 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: aagrajag: 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?

No, but apparently a lot of people did, and thought of it as romantic.


Strange romance, indeed.

I will not deny people their sexual fantasies, but let's leave the unwilling out of it, shall we? (I know you're not advocating this)

Stockholm Syndrome: now in paperback.
 
2013-10-16 12:53:51 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia


[citation needed]

That reeks of the "it totally happened to a friend of a friend" thing, like prima noctae and shiat.
 
2013-10-16 12:56:41 AM  

grumpfuff: Biological Ali: My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.

Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."


Earlier you said only jews can decide what their jewish folklore meant. Now you include non-jewish scholars' opinions as valuable too?

And honestly, wtf defines 'scholar' when we are talking about a book that is a collection of stories? Even if you feel one simply must pore over every scrap of written historical interpretations closer to the time period to claim the right to a valid interpretation, what makes the people of the past right in the first place?

We have one version ostensibly written as close to the time as possible, and all other additions are merely the musings of those who later read it.

With your analogy, if we knew someone wrote the tortoise and the hair in year x, then your accepted scholars would be people claiming their interpretations were correct based on the extra information of other sources from year x+y. As long as y is over a generation away from the event, those additions are worthless to me.

You might as well take the tea party's version of the founding fathers and use that to flesh out their own writings.
 
2013-10-16 12:56:50 AM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation.

Sure, and this is the original Batman:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x419]

But that doesn't mean that the Dark Knight movies are "wrong". They're different stories and the only thing they have in common is that they trace back to the same inspiration.


HEATHEN!

/comic book purist. ESPECIALLY with the old Batman movies

"They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've seen that Lewis Black bit. It's funny, but he misses the point - they're not "interpreting" somebody else's stories. The term is "co-opted". They've co-opted these stories, which means they now have their own versions, just like the Jews (before they became Jews) would've co-opted elements from various proto-Judaic cults/mythologies on the way to creating Judaism.


And this is where we have to agree to disagree. Like I pointed out in another thread. Jesus was a Jew, and he specifically said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. By Jesus's own words, and in Christianity's own texts, Christians should be following Jewish law and tradition(including interpretation of their stories).

Bonus: Next time someone quotes Leviticus against gay people, especially if they have polyester on, a tattoo, or are eating a cheeseburger, or any number of any Leviticus laws that Christians don't follow, use this quote. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."(Matthew 5:17)

Either way, I'm tired and going to bed. It has been enjoyable though, and I have to give you a tip of the hat for keeping it civil.
 
2013-10-16 01:04:05 AM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.


About as blatantly wrong as reading the story as condemning homosexuality, yes.  But that doesn't seem to stop millions of Christians.
 
2013-10-16 01:08:44 AM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.

No one was arguing that god exists or that these stories were divine truths(at least not that I'm aware of). We kind of all agreed the minister is an asshole and then moved on to debating interpretation.

For example, in my eyes, I view them as morality tales, just like Aesop's Fables(hence my example from there) that are intended to convey a lesson. I also feel since they are Jewish morality tales, we should go with the Jewish interpretation of them.

But I'm also exhausted, so now I'm going to bed.

/with a special thank you to those I was debating, they showed civility isn't quite dead on Fark yet


People aren't arguimg god exists, no.

What they are doing is applying a special layer of interpretive magic that wouldn't fly if applied to any other book.

The bible is a collection of works. ANYONE who reads that collection is equally allowed to interpret what they read. In some cases the text may be clear as day and some alternative viewpoints should accordingly be laughed at. In others it is clear as mud and I see no reason to give one reader extra respect by the simple fact that he is jewish and/or read other works at the time.

You claim it isn't about the existence of god, yet you place a value judgement on opinions based directly on the god-belief of an individual interpreter. That is nonsensical. That special distinction would only be appropriate IF AND ONLY IF god exists and the bible is true AND still doesn't account for human error in the worshipper making the interpretation.
 
2013-10-16 01:14:31 AM  

grumpfuff: And this is where we have to agree to disagree. Like I pointed out in another thread. Jesus was a Jew, and he specifically said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. By Jesus's own words, and in Christianity's own texts, Christians should be following Jewish law and tradition(including interpretation of their stories).


Let me just ask one question, and I think this should get to the heart of what I've been trying to say. You seem like someone who can look at religion as an organic sociological phenomenon - you'd know that the most likely origin for any piece of religious fiction (even if our own historical record doesn't go that far) is that it was adapted and pieced together from earlier versions of the story.

Would these earlier versions (which might have different details and morals) be the more "proper" versions, with the Jewish myths being merely poor "interpretations" of them?
 
2013-10-16 01:17:27 AM  
Thanks for the context, jaytkay. It was sorely lacking in the thread.
 
2013-10-16 01:19:50 AM  
I love it when assorted yokels argue about what the Bible "means".
A Sears catalogue has more real meaning.
The Bible means, kiddies, whatever the lying, scumsucking con artist trying to rape you with it at the moment wants it to mean.
It's never "meant" anything else.
 
2013-10-16 01:32:55 AM  

aagrajag: Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality government is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse government shutdown is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D Ayn Rand?


FTFY
 
2013-10-16 01:38:06 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.


"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."

So, no, not really.
 
2013-10-16 01:47:28 AM  

grumpfuff: The Why Not Guy: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?

For the same reason you mock Christians who say "evolution is just a theory." If you want to point out the error or problem with a particular stance, make sure you're getting the right stance.

And I'm just as quick to point out their interpretation is wrong. Also, it's not their fairy tale. It's a Jewish fairy tale.


It's not their fault, because it's not their book.
 
2013-10-16 01:56:23 AM  

aagrajag: 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.


That WAS how I ate broccoli and cauliflower as a kid... cheeks squeezed until they opened.  Still don't like them.
 
2013-10-16 02:17:34 AM  

grumpfuff: The Why Not Guy: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?

For the same reason you mock Christians who say "evolution is just a theory." If you want to point out the error or problem with a particular stance, make sure you're getting the right stance.

And I'm just as quick to point out their interpretation is wrong. Also, it's not their fairy tale. It's a Jewish fairy tale.


I remember Lewis Black making fun of Creationists.  'It's not their fault, because it's not their Book.'