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  
•       •       •

12634 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.net
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.com
 
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.us
 
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.com
 
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:

www.islamophobiatoday.com
 
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.au
 
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.com
 
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.com
/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.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

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

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

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


upload.wikimedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give it a couple of weeks.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

BolshyGreatYarblocks: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

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

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

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

[upload.wikimedia.org image 265x350]

Never could believe daytime TV myself.


I had to look that up.

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

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


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

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

Give it a couple of weeks.


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

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


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

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

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

Give it a couple of weeks.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Their motives for their violence matter little.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

/did I mention my other degree is in Philosophy?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Give it a couple of weeks.

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

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


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

http://youtu.be/wusGIl3v044
 
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.org
 
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.us

/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.com
 
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.org

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.'
 
2013-10-16 02:19:03 AM  

grumpfuff: 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.


Dang, didn't see this bit from your post. Good talking to you too; it was fun.
 
2013-10-16 02:21:15 AM  
Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?
 
2013-10-16 02:48:58 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.


Ezekiel called.  He said to tell you that it isn't a "reinterpretation."
 
2013-10-16 02:57:54 AM  

pueblonative: 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.


Not gonna GIS that, nope.
 
2013-10-16 03:02:34 AM  

ciberido: 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.

Ezekiel called.  He said to tell you that it isn't a "reinterpretation."


I knew you would show up in this mess. Anyway even though I like arguing with you I still love you I just wanted you to know.
 
2013-10-16 03:26:49 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.


It's essentially irrelevant whether or not the people you're arguing with are Christian.  We're arguing over what a book SAYS, not whether or not we AGREE with the book.  But if it matters to you, I am a Christian, albeit a rather liberal one.  So I submit to you that it's time to retire this particular point.
 
2013-10-16 03:28:35 AM  

aagrajag: This thread has somehow devolved degenerated into a discussion about whether the horns of the unicorns are black or white.


They're only black in the mirror universe where Vulcans grow goatees.  Duh.
 
2013-10-16 03:32:58 AM  

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.


You can't rape the willing.
 
2013-10-16 03:48:35 AM  

spongeboob: 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


Racial Policy of Nazi Germany
 
2013-10-16 03:52:45 AM  
In this thread alone I've read more about the Bible than I have actually read of the actual Bible but I suppose the reason why is that I don't read fiction.
 
2013-10-16 04:10:17 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?


I heard somebody say that.... but then atheists interpreting either book couldn't be taken seriously either and fark religion threads would be totally different. Like my aunt having a penis and being my uncle or something
 
2013-10-16 04:20:16 AM  

ciberido: It's essentially irrelevant whether or not the people you're arguing with are Christian. We're arguing over what a book SAYS, not whether or not we AGREE with the book. But if it matters to you, I am a Christian, albeit a rather liberal one. So I submit to you that it's time to retire this particular point.


I'm glad you're liberal, and if you want to personally interpret your religious texts to support your political positions, that's up to you. But the prevailing Christian belief is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due mainly to their supposed sexual immorality. I'm not sure what you want me to say beyond that.
 
2013-10-16 05:07:15 AM  

Biological Ali: ciberido: It's essentially irrelevant whether or not the people you're arguing with are Christian. We're arguing over what a book SAYS, not whether or not we AGREE with the book. But if it matters to you, I am a Christian, albeit a rather liberal one. So I submit to you that it's time to retire this particular point.

I'm glad you're liberal, and if you want to personally interpret your religious texts to support your political positions, that's up to you. But the prevailing Christian belief is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due mainly to their supposed sexual immorality. I'm not sure what you want me to say beyond that.


I want you to say "I admit it's irrelevant whether or not the people I'm arguing with about this point are Christian."
 
2013-10-16 05:31:21 AM  

ghostfacekillahrabbit: aNihilV10L8tr: Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?

I heard somebody say that.... but then atheists interpreting either book couldn't be taken seriously either and fark religion threads would be totally different. Like my aunt having a penis and being my uncle or something


Your aunt has a penis? That sounds like the type of sexual deviancy that would get her whole city destroyed. Or maybe not, as long as she/he was hospitable with said penis.
 
2013-10-16 05:49:04 AM  
This is the worst thread.
 
2013-10-16 07:05:13 AM  
*ahem*

appropriately enough, 15 years ago, my mother basically dragged me out of the closet.  she said she and dad were worried about me and wanted to be sure that i was safe at college, because they'd heard about matthew shepard.

*PSA for parents:  DO NOT HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOUR CHILD WHILE THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF AN AUTOMOBILE GOING 65 ON THE INTERSTATE*

so, back on topic, even though this was on the other side of fly-over land, they knew good and hell well it could end up here too...

ok, before i start in here, i was raised lutheran, german/norwegian on one side, swedish on the other...

so when my mother, bless her heart told me she almost walked out of a service she was assisting for, i didn't believe it. then she tells me that during the sermon, the new pastor (at the church i'd grown up in) had said lesbians and gays deserved the same treatment as rapists and serial murderers.

yup.  although i would've liked to have had a webcam in church that night because when mom told me about it, it seriously sounded like she would have willingly beaten his face in WITH the cross ON the altar...

so yeah, you were saying?
 
2013-10-16 07:10:10 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-16 07:40:07 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: ghostfacekillahrabbit: aNihilV10L8tr: Hey didja know there is some Lewis Black quote about it not being their book so you can't take their interpretation literally?

I heard somebody say that.... but then atheists interpreting either book couldn't be taken seriously either and fark religion threads would be totally different. Like my aunt having a penis and being my uncle or something

Your aunt has a penis? That sounds like the type of sexual deviancy that would get her whole city destroyed. Or maybe not, as long as she/he was hospitable with said penis.


Maybe he/she/shklee is from Detroit and nobody noticed.
 
2013-10-16 08:33:04 AM  

Smackledorfer: 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?


Oh ffs. That's what I get for being lazy. What I meant is that if you are going to examine a story, tradition, etc, you must do so within the context of the religion/culture that gave rise to it. This is a basic principle in most disciplines that deal with people and their culture/beliefs(comparative religion, anthropology, etc). If you want to interpret a Jewish story, you must do so from within a Jewish context.


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?

Err, no. I was going along the lines of people who have a degree from a respected college or program(Bob Jones doesn't count) and submits their works for review by other people in the field. Just like, say, chemistry. And in this specific case, there are quotes in the Old Testament(and other Jewish works from the time) that specifically describe Sodom and it's sin.


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.

Yes, and the earliest written versions all agree that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality.

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.

I am arguing for using the primary sources of the time. It's other people who are adding later sources, ie Jude.

You might as well take the tea party's version of the founding fathers and use that to flesh out their own writings.

Errr, no, that's not what I'm doing at all. That would be stupid.
 
2013-10-16 08:37:39 AM  

Biological Ali: 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?


That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.
 
2013-10-16 08:42:50 AM  

Smackledorfer:

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.


Are you farking kidding me? I'm saying it's a Jewish story, so interpret it in a Jewish context. There's no "special layer" that I'm adding. If we were interpreting an 18th century satire, we would be interpreting it within the context of whatever was happening at that point in the 18th century, not whatever we think the story means in the 21st century.


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.

Sure, they can interpret it however they want. That doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation. Again, I could read Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare as being that tortoises are better. That doesn't mean I'm right. Again, other works of the same time period specifically address Sodom.

Smackledorfer: 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.


See above. I was in a rush and spoke poorly. It's not about what god they believe in. It's about what context they base their interpretation on.
 
2013-10-16 08:47:33 AM  
chaosweaver:

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.


Bad idea. In pretty much all jurisdictions you're 100% on the hook for 18 years of child support if you go through with that. Depending on where you are you might even end up on the hook even if the mother doesn't want you there.
 
2013-10-16 08:54:27 AM  

jso2897: 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.


And they say Christians are the bigots.

Look, genius. No one here is arguing the Bible is real, so do try to keep up.

Just because it's a work of fiction, doesn't mean it can't have a meaning. No one argues that Aesop's Fables are true stories, but people do agree the stories have morals. Do you really wanna argue that just because something is fiction, it can't have a lesson or moral or meaning or whatever? Because it that's your stance, then you might as well just destroy most books(and TV shows and movies) because they're all fiction.
 
2013-10-16 09:53:36 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: 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.


Oh wow. I knew many of the stories about Christ were taken from other religions of the time, but I didn't know they were borrowed from that far east.
 
2013-10-16 09:57:12 AM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

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.

Are you farking kidding me? I'm saying it's a Jewish story, so interpret it in a Jewish context. There's no "special layer" that I'm adding. If we were interpreting an 18th century satire, we would be interpreting it within the context of whatever was happening at that point in the 18th century, not whatever we think the story means in the 21st century.


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.

Sure, they can interpret it however they want. That doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation. Again, I could read Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare as being that tortoises are better. That doesn't mean I'm right. Again, other works of the same time period specifically address Sodom.

Smackledorfer: 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.

See above. I was in a rush and spoke poorly. It's not about what god they believe in. It's about what context they base their interpretation on.


Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).
 
2013-10-16 10:37:58 AM  
Smackledorfer:
Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).



If a Christian reads the Big Bang Theory and interprets it as proving the creation story told in Genesis, would that be a valid interpretation?

Is the Tea Party claiming the founders were Christian a valid interpretation of the founder's writings?

Is a Christian's interpretation of the Hindu trinity (Shiva/Vishnu/Brama) means that Hindus believe in the Christian trinity correct?

If someone interprets quantum physics as proof of new age woo, is that valid?

As to your last point, if someone watches the first 20 minutes of V for Vendetta, and then interprets the movie to be painting V as the bad guy, is that a correct interpretation?

According to your logic, all these are valid interpretations.

We're not talking about "magical" anything. We're talking about interpreting a writing in the context of the time and culture it was written in. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
 
2013-10-16 10:59:51 AM  

grumpfuff: Yes, and the earliest written versions all agree that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality.


Cite?
 
2013-10-16 11:10:27 AM  

ciberido: I want you to say "I admit it's irrelevant whether or not the people I'm arguing with about this point are Christian."


Of course it's relevant. When you're talking about how you prefer some interpretation for any given passage, I at least know that it corresponds to your personal beliefs. I'm not going to tell you that your interpretations are more or less empirically "proper" than that of any other member of your religion, but nonetheless your own statement counts as an individual data point when determining what Christianity as a whole represents (even if it does belong to an unorthodox school of thought within that religion).

When people who aren't even Christians start talking about the supposedly "proper" interpretation for a passage, that just makes no sense.
 
2013-10-16 11:16:57 AM  

grumpfuff: That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.


The story has changed. The motivations of the protagonist (in this case, the psychopath deity that destroys the cities) are a big part of any story, and the New Testament changes that when they say that the cities' sexual immorality was what doomed them.
 
2013-10-16 12:03:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: Yes, and the earliest written versions all agree that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality.

Cite?


Ezekiel 16:49-50

Judges also has the exact same story with the names changed, and specifically calls the sin a lack of hospitality(I can't remember the exact chapter/verse off hand, I apologize)

Both of these are Old Testament books, written around the same time as Genesis(and definitely before Jude)


Also, various midrashs(midrashes? midrashi? whatever the plural of midrash is). Avot 5:10 for example:

"There are four types of character in people: 1) One that says, "Mine is mine, and yours is yours." This is a neutral type; some say this is a Sodom-type of character. 2) One that says, "Mine is yours and yours is mine," is an unlearned person. 3) One that says, "Mine is yours and yours is yours," is a pious person. 4) One that says, "Mine is mine, and yours is mine," is a wicked person.  "

There are plenty more midrashs/es/i that discuss it, this is just the only one I could think of off the top of my head.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:50 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:
Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).


If a Christian reads the Big Bang Theory and interprets it as proving the creation story told in Genesis, would that be a valid interpretation?

Is the Tea Party claiming the founders were Christian a valid interpretation of the founder's writings?

Is a Christian's interpretation of the Hindu trinity (Shiva/Vishnu/Brama) means that Hindus believe in the Christian trinity correct?

If someone interprets quantum physics as proof of new age woo, is that valid?

As to your last point, if someone watches the first 20 minutes of V for Vendetta, and then interprets the movie to be painting V as the bad guy, is that a correct interpretation?

According to your logic, all these are valid interpretations.

We're not talking about "magical" anything. We're talking about interpreting a writing in the context of the time and culture it was written in. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.


quote: "(within reason of course)"

Did you miss me saying this, choose to ignore it, or was I unclear?

There are things that have room for multiple interpretations, and there are always going to be a variety of possible yet clearly unreasonable ones which either fail at application of critical thinking skills or assume facts not in evidence.

All of your example counterpoints are, imo, clearly the latter.
 
2013-10-16 12:06:41 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.

The story has changed. The motivations of the protagonist (in this case, the psychopath deity that destroys the cities) are a big part of any story, and the New Testament changes that when they say that the cities' sexual immorality was what doomed them.


No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.
 
2013-10-16 12:09:36 PM  

Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:
Then if I read the bible my interpretation is as valid as theirs. We each have equal access to source material.

Stop making the bible a magical book. It is a work of fiction and nobody needs to read the collective works of all stories to weigh in on a single one.

The bible is as clear as mud. I don't get upset at some people having the wrong interpretation, because there is no such thing (within reason of course).


If a Christian reads the Big Bang Theory and interprets it as proving the creation story told in Genesis, would that be a valid interpretation?

Is the Tea Party claiming the founders were Christian a valid interpretation of the founder's writings?

Is a Christian's interpretation of the Hindu trinity (Shiva/Vishnu/Brama) means that Hindus believe in the Christian trinity correct?

If someone interprets quantum physics as proof of new age woo, is that valid?

As to your last point, if someone watches the first 20 minutes of V for Vendetta, and then interprets the movie to be painting V as the bad guy, is that a correct interpretation?

According to your logic, all these are valid interpretations.

We're not talking about "magical" anything. We're talking about interpreting a writing in the context of the time and culture it was written in. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

quote: "(within reason of course)"

Did you miss me saying this, choose to ignore it, or was I unclear?

There are things that have room for multiple interpretations, and there are always going to be a variety of possible yet clearly unreasonable ones which either fail at application of critical thinking skills or assume facts not in evidence.

All of your example counterpoints are, imo, clearly the latter.


Of course they are unreasonable. That was the entire point of offering them. Similarly, biblical scholars find the interpretation of the sin of Sodom being teh ghey is a "clearly unreasonable one which either fail at application of critical thinking skills or assume facts not in evidence" (in this case on the part of Christians).
 
2013-10-16 12:12:43 PM  

grumpfuff: Biological Ali: grumpfuff: That's the key there. It depends. If the earlier story is, say, A B C D, and the adapted story is A B F Z, then a new interpretation is fine, because the story has changed. If the story is exactly the same, like it is in the case of Sodom, then no. The original interpretation is the correct one.

The story has changed. The motivations of the protagonist (in this case, the psychopath deity that destroys the cities) are a big part of any story, and the New Testament changes that when they say that the cities' sexual immorality was what doomed them.

No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.


And yet despite you claiming you aren't adding mysticism to the discussion, anyone can read tortoise and the hare and be allowed to form an interpretation, yet you dismiss any interpretation not done by lifelong scholars when it comes to the bible.

Answer me this: translation issues notwithstanding, if I read a religious book, are my interpretations valid (assuming some level of reason and logic are involved)? Because if your answer is no, then you are absolutely applying a layer of special magic rules to the mix.

Which, from this atheist's perspective, is silly and yields nothing more than some no true scotsman deflections to the discussion.

Christian beliefs, which include the old testament, are defined by what christians believe. EVERYONE adds their own interpretation to their religion.
 
2013-10-16 12:18:46 PM  
And I will repeat this again: the old testament is not a jews-only book. Ffs, christianity includes baptists, lutherins, and catholics. Maybe mormons too (i think so, but I don't feel like arguing on that one). Amish as well. Eastern european orthodoxy.

Judaism has fundamentalists with vastly different interpretations and lifestyles from others.

Yet you sit here insisting there is a correct interpretation based on an uncited 'all scholars agree' and get all pissy at people who say there is a possibility of other views. It is ridiculous.
 
2013-10-16 12:27:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: And yet despite you claiming you aren't adding mysticism to the discussion, anyone can read tortoise and the hare and be allowed to form an interpretation, yet you dismiss any interpretation not done by lifelong scholars when it comes to the bible.


So I assume you would consider someone's interpretation that the moral is the tortoise is better than the hare to be correct? Also, I said nothing about lifelong scholars. I said A) authors writing in the same period the original story was written and b) scholars who have their work published in peer-reviewed journal.


Answer me this: translation issues notwithstanding, if I read a religious book, are my interpretations valid (assuming some level of reason and logic are involved)? Because if your answer is no, then you are absolutely applying a layer of special magic rules to the mix.

Of course they are. I just don't think you are using logic and reason. Again, you are failing to consider the context and culture of the story at the time in which it was written. Is it proper for us to assign modern Western motives to an ancient Egyptian story? No, of course not, because it fails to take into account the culture that wrote it.


Which, from this atheist's perspective, is silly and yields nothing more than some no true scotsman deflections to the discussion.


You seem to keep forgetting I've said several times that I'm an atheist as well. I'm simply asking you to apply the same standards to this as you would to any other thing.

Christian beliefs, which include the old testament, are defined by what christians believe. EVERYONE adds their own interpretation to their religion.

Christians can believe whatever they want. That doesn't make them right(I think we can both agree on this part).
 
2013-10-16 12:30:42 PM  

Smackledorfer: And I will repeat this again: the old testament is not a jews-only book. Ffs, christianity includes baptists, lutherins, and catholics. Maybe mormons too (i think so, but I don't feel like arguing on that one). Amish as well. Eastern european orthodoxy.


I never claimed it was a Jews-only book. I said it's a Jewish-written book, and that needs to be taken into account when interpreting it.

Judaism has fundamentalists with vastly different interpretations and lifestyles from others.

Yet you sit here insisting there is a correct interpretation based on an uncited 'all scholars agree' and get all pissy at people who say there is a possibility of other views. It is ridiculous.


I've provided numerous sources in this thread(most of which are directly from the OT) which back my opinion. You've backed your opinion with "But Christians don't believe that!" and no sources. You'll have to forgive me for not bothering to spend my time looking for any papers on it that I can link to for free, because at this point I don't think it'll change your mind.
 
2013-10-16 12:46:18 PM  

grumpfuff: No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.


What you're saying is incoherent from a basic literary criticism standpoint. The story in the Christian Bible isn't "exactly the same" as the one in the Torah, since it features a primary character with different motivations. It's a different story.

You've brought up the tortoise and hare story again, and I'll point out again that if there's hypothetical version in which the characters have different motivations than the characters in Aesop's fable, then that story would be a different story altogether. Calling one "right" and the other "wrong" is just plain incoherent.
 
2013-10-16 12:49:25 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: And I will repeat this again: the old testament is not a jews-only book. Ffs, christianity includes baptists, lutherins, and catholics. Maybe mormons too (i think so, but I don't feel like arguing on that one). Amish as well. Eastern european orthodoxy.

I never claimed it was a Jews-only book. I said it's a Jewish-written book, and that needs to be taken into account when interpreting it.

Judaism has fundamentalists with vastly different interpretations and lifestyles from others.

Yet you sit here insisting there is a correct interpretation based on an uncited 'all scholars agree' and get all pissy at people who say there is a possibility of other views. It is ridiculous.

I've provided numerous sources in this thread(most of which are directly from the OT) which back my opinion. You've backed your opinion with "But Christians don't believe that!" and no sources. You'll have to forgive me for not bothering to spend my time looking for any papers on it that I can link to for free, because at this point I don't think it'll change your mind.


Which is it? Is it scholars (which I addressed and you claimed you didn't mean scholars only), authors of the time period (which you told me I was wrong for asking why a scholar a generation removed from the incident in question would be any more right or less open to poor interpretation - telling me that wasn't what you meant), or direct lines from the OT, which you have insisted has no room for interpretation at all, and that you go to the source over?

You are all over the road in your logic here.

"writers of the time period" only add anything if the biblical stories are true. But you insist nobody is making the argument that god is real in this discussion.

Quotes from the old testament are no citation at all, since you dismiss any christain's, or farker's, ability to read them on their own.

And I don't even know what you mean by scholars anymore, since you aren't citing them anyways and tell me I am misunderstanding you every time you use the term. You say jewish scholars only at first. Then you deny that is what you meant. Then you say peer-reviewed scholars, but you still insist christian interpretations of the OT don't count. Then you claim my reading of the OT could validly produce an opinion, but then later fall back on scholars again.

This is crazy.
 
2013-10-16 12:59:51 PM  
Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.
 
2013-10-16 01:01:35 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: No, it hasn't. The story as presented in the Christian Bible is basically exactly the same as the story presented in the Torah.

Again, your justification relies on a later (Christian) book re-interpreting the story. Like I said earlier. I can say the moral of the "Tortoise and the Hare" is that tortoises are better than hares. That doesn't make me right.

What you're saying is incoherent from a basic literary criticism standpoint. The story in the Christian Bible isn't "exactly the same" as the one in the Torah, since it features a primary character with different motivations. It's a different story.


How do you know the motivations have changed if the text of the story is the same?

You've brought up the tortoise and hare story again, and I'll point out again that if there's hypothetical version in which the characters have different motivations than the characters in Aesop's fable, then that story would be a different story altogether. Calling one "right" and the other "wrong" is just plain incoherent.

See above.
 
2013-10-16 01:05:27 PM  

Smackledorfer: Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.


Fark no I'm not saying that. No cites needed for that. Fark the AFA and groups like them

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.

Ctrl+F: Sodom

Huh. Only one instance("sodomy"), and it's used by the author of the article to describe the crime they are being charged with, not the minister in question justifying his stance. How do you know he doesn't base his belief on Leviticus? That's usually the justification for anti-gay sentiments.
 
2013-10-16 01:15:51 PM  

grumpfuff: How do you know the motivations have changed if the text of the story is the same?


Because even the text of the story isn't the same. This:

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.

...represents an addition to the story that did not previously exist.
 
2013-10-16 01:21:45 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.

Fark no I'm not saying that. No cites needed for that. Fark the AFA and groups like them

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.

Ctrl+F: Sodom

Huh. Only one instance("sodomy"), and it's used by the author of the article to describe the crime they are being charged with, not the minister in question justifying his stance. How do you know he doesn't base his belief on Leviticus? That's usually the justification for anti-gay sentiments.


Before I go looking, I want to be clear.

You require a citation that there are christians who believe sodom is a tale with a message that sodomy, specifically the gay sex kind, is sinful?
 
2013-10-16 01:22:57 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: How do you know the motivations have changed if the text of the story is the same?

Because even the text of the story isn't the same. This:

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.

...represents an addition to the story that did not previously exist.


So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?
 
2013-10-16 01:24:50 PM  

Smackledorfer: grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: Oh and if you are really challenging me to provide sources that some christian groups hate gays and use the OT to support their views, you must have been locked in a tower all your life.

Fark no I'm not saying that. No cites needed for that. Fark the AFA and groups like them

As my first citation: TFA about which we are discussing and the links contained within. There, that was pretty easy.

Ctrl+F: Sodom

Huh. Only one instance("sodomy"), and it's used by the author of the article to describe the crime they are being charged with, not the minister in question justifying his stance. How do you know he doesn't base his belief on Leviticus? That's usually the justification for anti-gay sentiments.

Before I go looking, I want to be clear.

You require a citation that there are christians who believe sodom is a tale with a message that sodomy, specifically the gay sex kind, is sinful?


No. That is never what I claimed. I claimed the early Christians forced their views on the story to get it to say what they want it to, and then pretend that their interpretation is the original one.
 
2013-10-16 01:30:23 PM  
You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?
 
2013-10-16 01:36:06 PM  

grumpfuff: So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?


Yeah, they have their own version of the story, just like the Muslims have their own entirely separate version. I wouldn't single either of them out for changing the story, since even the Jews would have adapted their own myths from stories that came before. That's kind of how religion works - all religion.
 
2013-10-16 01:41:40 PM  

grumpfuff: Ezekiel 16:49-50

Judges also has the exact same story with the names changed, and specifically calls the sin a lack of hospitality(I can't remember the exact chapter/verse off hand, I apologize)
Both of these are Old Testament books, written around the same time as Genesis(and definitely before Jude)
Also, various midrashs(midrashes? midrashi? whatever the plural of midrash is). Avot 5:10 for example:
"There are four types of character in people: 1) One that says, "Mine is mine, and yours is yours." This is a neutral type; some say this is a Sodom-type of character. 2) One that says, "Mine is yours and yours is mine," is an unlearned person. 3) One that says, "Mine is yours and yours is yours," is a pious person. 4) One that says, "Mine is mine, and yours is mine," is a wicked person. "


Let me clarify: It was not ONLY a lack of hospitality.

There is no question that among the many sins of Sodom, inhospitability was one. Others included lustfulness, and being generally giant assholes. Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category, alongside adultery, forcible rape, etc. Further, since the text identifies the "visitors" as male, and the townspeople were male there is a further implication of homosexual sex. But REALLY, the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah was that these assholes were running around sticking their dicks in anything they could find and were being complete, wicked assholes. Gender crossmatching was incidental to the root problem of a town full of wicked and sinful people. God may well have smote some wicked gays, but he ALSO struck down wicked heterosexual adulterers, wicked heterosexual and homosexual rapists, wicked heterosexual or homosexual innkeepers, wicked heterosexual or homosexual PEOPLE.

The punishment of Sodom was not exclusively for being all gay and shiat. But neither was gay excluded from being punished. Homosexuality, alongside adultery and promiscuity was punished as being sinful because they are all sins of lust.

Also, they were being general assholes when people needed a place to sleep.

Would you say that is a fair interpretation in keeping with both early Jewish thinking and Christian thinking?

(also note that while I take your point of the importance of understanding the scripture in the context of the people from which it originated, Christians purposely ignore the rabbinical teachings of Judaism. It was, after all, Jesus' position and apparently what he got in trouble for.)
 
2013-10-16 01:43:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?


That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.

I will state my opinion one last time.

The original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is lack of hospitality, and poor treatment of strangers. That is why god destroyed it. It had nothing to do with gay sex. The idea that the sin of Sodom was gay sex was a later addition, added by Christians to get the story to say what they wanted it to say. This does not mean they are correct. The story of Sodom was written by Jewish authors at a specific time, and therefore the interpretation of the story must be grounded in the context and society of the time and culture in which it was written.

I am NOT saying Christians don't interpret the story to mean the sin of Sodom was gay sex. I am saying they are wrong in doing so, and are co-opting a story to serve their own purposes, similar to how they sometimes say the Big Bang theory is proof that creation happened like it says in Genesis.

That is all I have been saying in this thread. You are free to argue against it, but like I said, please provide citations, either from primary sources, appropriate secondary sources(ie other Jewish writings from the time period), or a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal.
 
2013-10-16 01:45:37 PM  

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?

Yeah, they have their own version of the story, just like the Muslims have their own entirely separate version. I wouldn't single either of them out for changing the story, since even the Jews would have adapted their own myths from stories that came before. That's kind of how religion works - all religion.


I would like to add: they are made up stories. They are not really, angels do not exist and a sky wizard never leveled a city.

As such there are no 'writers around the time it happened' that grumpfuff claims are a source of additional clarity. Which means scholars have no sources beyond the biblical writings themselves to give them a validly superior interpretation. Which means a christian whose bible mentions sins of the flesh or whatever when the new testament folks write passages about it are perfectly valid and reasonable in assuming sodomy played a significant role. Or at least as reasonable as any jew and his version of the ancestral myths that were compiled when judaism came together as a religion out of past belief systems.
 
2013-10-16 01:50:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Let me clarify: It was not ONLY a lack of hospitality.

There is no question that among the many sins of Sodom, inhospitability was one. Others included lustfulness, and being generally giant assholes. Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category, alongside adultery, forcible rape, etc. Further, since the text identifies the "visitors" as male, and the townspeople were male there is a further implication of homosexual sex. But REALLY, the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah was that these assholes were running around sticking their dicks in anything they could find and were being complete, wicked assholes. Gender crossmatching was incidental to the root problem of a town full of wicked and sinful people. God may well have smote some wicked gays, but he ALSO struck down wicked heterosexual adulterers, wicked heterosexual and homosexual rapists, wicked heterosexual or homosexual innkeepers, wicked heterosexual or homosexual PEOPLE.


Most of this is later additions to the story from early Christians, though I will agree in general with the bolded part.

The punishment of Sodom was not exclusively for being all gay and shiat. But neither was gay excluded from being punished. Homosexuality, alongside adultery and promiscuity was punished as being sinful because they are all sins of lust.

Yes, but the gays were punished not for being gay, but for being wicked in general.

Also, they were being general assholes when people needed a place to sleep.

No argument here.

Would you say that is a fair interpretation in keeping with both early Jewish thinking and Christian thinking?

Jewish thinking? No. Christian thinking? Yes.

(also note that while I take your point of the importance of understanding the scripture in the context of the people from which it originated, Christians purposely ignore the rabbinical teachings of Judaism. It was, after all, Jesus' position and apparently what he got in trouble for.)

Matthew 5:17 wants a word with you. The idea that Christians could ignore the laws of the OT is specifically Paul's idea. Other early Christians argued against him, but were squashed as heretics.
 
2013-10-16 01:53:21 PM  

Smackledorfer: Biological Ali: grumpfuff: So then you admit early Christians changed the story to get the story to have the interpretation they wanted it to have?

Yeah, they have their own version of the story, just like the Muslims have their own entirely separate version. I wouldn't single either of them out for changing the story, since even the Jews would have adapted their own myths from stories that came before. That's kind of how religion works - all religion.

I would like to add: they are made up stories. They are not really, angels do not exist and a sky wizard never leveled a city.


As I said earlier. I do not think these stories literally happened. I think they are morality tales, ala Aesop's Fables.

As such there are no 'writers around the time it happened' that grumpfuff claims are a source of additional clarity.

By "writers of the time", I meant Jewish writers of the time the story was written down.

Which means scholars have no sources beyond the biblical writings themselves to give them a validly superior interpretation.

The Midrash and various other Jewish writings would like a word with you.
 
2013-10-16 01:53:54 PM  

fusillade762: 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?


I'm guessing in his eyes, only feminists would complain about rape, says a lot about his mentality.
 
2013-10-16 01:56:00 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.

I will state my opinion one last time.

The original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is lack of hospitality, and poor treatment of strangers. That is why god destroyed it. It had nothing to do with gay sex. The idea that the sin of Sodom was gay sex was a later addition, added by Christians to get the story to say what they wanted it to say. This does not mean they are correct. The story of Sodom was written by Jewish authors at a specific time, and therefore the interpretation of the story must be grounded in the context and society of the time and culture in which it was written.

I am NOT saying Christians don't interpret the story to mean the sin of Sodom was gay sex. I am saying they are wrong in doing so, and are co-opting a story to serve their own purposes, similar to how they sometimes say the Big Bang theory is proof that creation happened like it says in Genesis.

That is all I have been saying in this thread. You are free to argue against it, but like I said, please provide citations, either from primary sources, appropriate secondary sources(ie other Jewish writings from the time period), or a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected journal.


That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite. Or why you called me out for a lack of citation earlier. I know I called you out for lack of them, but that is because you are claiming an appeal to scholar-based superiority in your position. My position is that scholars and writings of the time add NOTHING to interpreting the meanings contained within, but if they do you surely cannot be throwing out the views and teachings of the new testament believers.


On that note, why would other jewish writings 'from the time period' matter? In what year do you believe god sent angels to sodom?

If you do not believe he did this, and I know you don't, then writings of one time about a passed down religious myth surely are no more valuable than writings of another time?
Yet you so quickly put up the jewish scholars as infallable and all christian teachings as wrong and dismiss their interpretations.
 
2013-10-16 01:58:11 PM  
In case I am still unclear: what is it I have said that you want me to provide a citation for? If you cannot answer this, please walk back your earlier accusation that I provide no cites and the implication that my posts are less/not valid as a result.
 
2013-10-16 01:59:21 PM  

grumpfuff: Matthew 5:17 wants a word with you. The idea that Christians could ignore the laws of the OT is specifically Paul's idea. Other early Christians argued against him, but were squashed as heretics.


I am not saying that they ignore the Old Testament. I am saying that Christianity as a matter of theology does not accept the authority of the Rabbinical works, though they accept the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures.

When Christ says "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." He is saying that the scriptures and the words of the prophets are sound, and he stands by them. But what human interpreters of the books and the law thought about them? Not so much. It is PRECISELY because he disputed the rabbinical teachings of the jews at the time that he was crucified. SURELY you aren't arguing that Jesus of Nazareth did not come into conflict with the Jewish priest's for their take on the scriptures?

In much the same way that Protestants do not accept the authority of Catholic Church doctrine, though they accept the bible scripture (and even then they pick and choose). Martin Luther did not call for the abolition of Christianity, he said "Let's just stick to the books, because some of these interpretations are getting off course".
 
2013-10-16 02:00:54 PM  
"Matthew 5:17 wants a word with you. The idea that Christians could ignore the laws of the OT is specifically Paul's idea. Other early Christians argued against him, but were squashed as heretics."

Depends on the sect. See pentecostals.
 
2013-10-16 02:06:20 PM  

Smackledorfer:

That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.


Or why you called me out for a lack of citation earlier.


Because you haven't provided any to justify your opinion?

I know I called you out for lack of them, but that is because you are claiming an appeal to scholar-based superiority in your position.

I provided several citations, some of which are from the very same place as the story in question and tell you how it should be interpreted.

My position is that scholars and writings of the time add NOTHING to interpreting the meanings contained within, but if they do you surely cannot be throwing out the views and teachings of the new testament believers.

Why should I care what a bunch of Christians say about the meaning of a Jewish story?

On that note, why would other jewish writings 'from the time period' matter?

Because they explain the story in greater detail, and explain why Jewish people interpret the story the way they do?

In what year do you believe god sent angels to sodom?

Seeing as how I have repeatedly said I don't think the story is literally true, never.

If you do not believe he did this, and I know you don't, then writings of one time about a passed down religious myth surely are no more valuable than writings of another time?


Again, see what I've said about context. If you want to figure out the meaning of a story, morality tale, etc, you must look at the context and society around which the story was written. Can we use modern Egyptian society to explain the meanings of the ancient Egyptian stories? No, of course not, because context matters.

Yet you so quickly put up the jewish scholars as infallable and all christian teachings as wrong and dismiss their interpretations.

I'm not saying they are infallible. What I'm saying is that if it's a Jewish story, I'll go with the Jewish interpretation. In a similar vein, I wouldn't accept a Jewish interpretation of Revelations, as it is a Christian story.
 
2013-10-16 02:11:12 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

I am not saying that they ignore the Old Testament. I am saying that Christianity as a matter of theology does not accept the authority of the Rabbinical works, though they accept the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Maybe not, but for the umpteenth time, Ezekiel(an Old Testament book, and therefore authoritative by your definition), specifically calls the sin of Sodom lack of hospitality.


When Christ says "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." He is saying that the scriptures and the words of the prophets are sound, and he stands by them. But what human interpreters of the books and the law thought about them? Not so much. It is PRECISELY because he disputed the rabbinical teachings of the jews at the time that he was crucified.

Difficulty: Jesus was executed by the Romans, who did not take orders from Jewish authorities. Why would the Romans care what Jesus said about Jewish authorities, and why would they care if Jesus did not follow Jewish law?


SURELY you aren't arguing that Jesus of Nazareth did not come into conflict with the Jewish priest's for their take on the scriptures?

Of course he came into conflict with them. He accused them of no longer following the Law, and putting themselves above God. That doesn't mean they had the authority to kill him. The punishment for breaking Jewish law is stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment.
 
2013-10-16 02:15:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category


I always took that "strange flesh" bit to be a reference to wanting to fark the non-human angels... I'm not sure what's so "strange" about the flesh of another human who happens to have the same sexual organs as you do...
 
2013-10-16 02:31:05 PM  

grumpfuff: I am saying they are wrong in doing so, and are co-opting a story to serve their own purposes, similar to how they sometimes say the Big Bang theory is proof that creation happened like it says in Genesis.


Well, it was proposed by a Catholic priest, after all... So, it's arguably theirs initially, not really co-opted...

Though, I don't seem to recall the bits in Genesis that talk about the universe suddenly and rapidly expanding out of a singularity around 14 billion years ago...
 
2013-10-16 02:35:09 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.


Lot offering his daughters up to be raped is not a defense of rape?
 
2013-10-16 02:36:22 PM  

grumpfuff: Of course he came into conflict with them. He accused them of no longer following the Law, and putting themselves above God. That doesn't mean they had the authority to kill him. The punishment for breaking Jewish law is stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment.


ummm.. yeah.

The point has been missed. I'm not even discussing the authority of the rabbis over Jesus.

You keep saying that we need to understand the story of Sodom from the perspective of the peoples from which the story originated. You reference non-scriptural jewish and rabbinical writings to explore what was meant.

I pointed out that, as a matter of policy, Christians did not consider the extra-scriptural jewish writings, or the rabbinical body of writings as a whole to have any moral weight, or authority when interpreting scripture. That, in effect, what the jews thought or continue to think about what the old testament MEANS has no real relevance from a theological standpoint. The words of the scriptures do, but not the words of the jewish priests. Now that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, just that it is not an authority.

And Christians believe this , because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.

That's it.
 
2013-10-16 02:39:22 PM  

RobSeace: Though, I don't seem to recall the bits in Genesis that talk about the universe suddenly and rapidly expanding out of a singularity around 14 billion years ago...


Sure you do.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light:  and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 
2013-10-16 02:42:32 PM  

Latinwolf: 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.

Lot offering his daughters up to be raped is not a defense of rape?


Within the cultural context of the time, giving hospitality to strangers(in this case, protecting them from being raped) was the utmost . There's also the whole "daughters were their fathers property", so by their definition, it wasn't exactly rape, because the daughters didn't have the right to say "no". Of course, by our definition, it's totally rape.

Mind you, I'm not trying to defend it. It's a horrific story no matter how you interpret it.
 
2013-10-16 02:43:21 PM  

RobSeace: BojanglesPaladin: Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category

I always took that "strange flesh" bit to be a reference to wanting to fark the non-human angels... I'm not sure what's so "strange" about the flesh of another human who happens to have the same sexual organs as you do...


I've heard that as well, but there are a couple issues with that. First, in every version of the story that I've come across, the townspeople have no idea the two men are angels. While the Abrahamic god certainly is a capricious psychopath, punishing people for a sin they don't even know they're committing would be a bit silly even by his standards.

Second, I believe the "strange flesh" thing is referenced as a sin that the people of the towns had been engaging in on an ongoing basis prior to their destruction, so the implication of this version would be that those people had been routinely having sex with angels - again, that seems exceedingly silly even within the context of this already silly story.
 
2013-10-16 02:44:06 PM  

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


nope, we dont all agree
it's your typical christian that influenced and continues to implicitly support these policies in other countries
want me to believe otherwise? then prove your "moral high-ground"
 
2013-10-16 02:48:05 PM  
So you ask for a citation of my opinion? Which opinion? The last one I thought you wanted you said you didn't.

Be specific please.

As for whose story it is? It is as much a christian one as a jewish one.
 
2013-10-16 02:50:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: Of course he came into conflict with them. He accused them of no longer following the Law, and putting themselves above God. That doesn't mean they had the authority to kill him. The punishment for breaking Jewish law is stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman punishment.

ummm.. yeah.

The point has been missed. I'm not even discussing the authority of the rabbis over Jesus.

You keep saying that we need to understand the story of Sodom from the perspective of the peoples from which the story originated. You reference non-scriptural jewish and rabbinical writings to explore what was meant.


Because it's a Jewish story. While the Midrash(as an example) isn't entirely scriptural, it's still authoritative(to Jews).


I pointed out that, as a matter of policy, Christians did not consider the extra-scriptural jewish writings, or the rabbinical body of writings as a whole to have any moral weight, or authority when interpreting scripture. That, in effect, what the jews thought or continue to think about what the old testament MEANS has no real relevance from a theological standpoint. The words of the scriptures do, but not the words of the jewish priests. Now that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, just that it is not an authority.

As I've repeatedly said. The Christians took a Jewish story, ignored the Jewish interpretation of it, and twisted it to say what they(the Christians) wanted it to say. How they treat rabbinical writings, such as the Midrash, reinforces this point. They are not interested in what the story meant. They are interested in what they want it to mean.


And Christians believe this , because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.

I missed the part where Jesus said "Don't worry about Jewish interpretations." You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was a Jew. I would argue his intent(granting the assumption that he existed) was as a sort of "reformist," to purge the corruption from the Jewish elite, similar to various prophets before him.

You also still haven't explained why the Romans crucified him for disagreeing with the Jewish authorities.
 Why do the Romans care if he challenged Jewish authorities? Romans basically cared about one thing: "Did you pay your taxes?" And Jesus specifically said that his followers should pay their taxes.
 
2013-10-16 02:51:51 PM  
I am sorry but if you keep calling for citations of 'my opnions' but refuse to specify then you are going on ignore as a troll. There is no point to such behavior beyond adding confusion and wasting my time, which is exactly the purpose of a troll.
 
2013-10-16 02:54:40 PM  

Smackledorfer: So you ask for a citation of my opinion? Which opinion? The last one I thought you wanted you said you didn't.

Be specific please.

As for whose story it is? It is as much a christian one as a jewish one.


I have pointed out twice what I want you to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.


grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.



If you don't agree with that opinion, that's fine. Just say so.
 
2013-10-16 03:03:54 PM  

Smackledorfer: I am sorry but if you keep calling for citations of 'my opnions' but refuse to specify then you are going on ignore as a troll. There is no point to such behavior beyond adding confusion and wasting my time, which is exactly the purpose of a troll.


I like how you ignore the two times(three now, but third was after you posted this) where I told you what I want you to cite(or state you do not agree, which means no citation needed), and then accuse me of trolling.
 
2013-10-16 03:11:56 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: So you ask for a citation of my opinion? Which opinion? The last one I thought you wanted you said you didn't.

Be specific please.

As for whose story it is? It is as much a christian one as a jewish one.

I have pointed out twice what I want you to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

That was an awful lot of diatribe without specifying what you want me to cite.

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: You accused me of saying things and providing no sources.

For what then would you like a source?

That the original interpretation of the sin of Sodom is gay sex, as some people seem to be claiming.


If you don't agree with that opinion, that's fine. Just say so.


I never said that. Why would I have a citation for it?

That is ridiculous.have I been unclear in my disagreement about your entire argument that there is some original version of the story that is the jewish one or that only jews have a voice about it? I don't think I have, but you seem to be really straining to be as obtuse as possible here.

Are there non-strawmen that you would like to have me cite? This time I guess I will have to ask that you quote me actually saying the words you try to put in my mouth.
 
2013-10-16 03:17:23 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: I am sorry but if you keep calling for citations of 'my opnions' but refuse to specify then you are going on ignore as a troll. There is no point to such behavior beyond adding confusion and wasting my time, which is exactly the purpose of a troll.

I like how you ignore the two times(three now, but third was after you posted this) where I told you what I want you to cite(or state you do not agree, which means no citation needed), and then accuse me of trolling.


Yes, I asked you to tell me which opinion that I have presented you want me to cite.nt which opinions you make up and attribute to me. And yes, that kind of nonsense is exactly what trolls do.

Perhaps you mistook another poster's comment for one of mine?
 
2013-10-16 03:27:30 PM  
Smackledorfer:

I never said that. Why would I have a citation for it?

Which is why I said "If that's not your argument, then just say so". It was, however,part of the discussion before you arrived. Since you continued the debate, I assumed you agreed with it. My apologies.

That is ridiculous.have I been unclear in my disagreement about your entire argument that there is some original version of the story that is the jewish one or that only jews have a voice about it? I don't think I have, but you seem to be really straining to be as obtuse as possible here.

Well, I'd argue that the original story is Jewish because the first known instance of the story is found in Jewish writings. If you know of an earlier, non-Jewish, example of the story, then provide a cite for that and I will concede the point.

As to the interpretation of it. Again, since (as far as we know) it is a Jewish story, why should we take non-Jewish interpretations of it? Should we accept a Hindu interpretation of a Christian story because hey, it's a religion, who cares if they actually understand what the Christian authors meant to convey with the story? Should we interpret ancient Egyptian beliefs in the framework of modern Egyptian beliefs?

I don't see what is so controversial about "Interpret the story within the context and culture within which it was written." It's standard practice in far more than comparative religion - anthropology comes to mind.

Are there non-strawmen that you would like to have me cite? This time I guess I will have to ask that you quote me actually saying the words you try to put in my mouth.

Calm down dude. It's just the internet. You're starting to sound like the Neckbeard Internet Atheist Brigade. Remember, I'm an atheist, too.
 
2013-10-16 03:30:18 PM  

Panatheist: it's your typical christian that influenced and continues to implicitly support these policies in other countries


I can't even fathom the reality that you live in where the "typical American" Christian or otherwise, can even find Uganda on a map, much less receive spiritual guidance from some particular nutjob. But I'm sure in your magical land, you can grab any 8 out of 10 people you meet and they will tell you they know this guy.

Panatheist: want me to believe otherwise? then prove your "moral high-ground"


I don't recall ever saying I had a moral high-ground, but YOU certainly seem to be atop an awfully high horse.

grumpfuff: I missed the part where Jesus said "Don't worry about Jewish interpretations." You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was a Jew.


Yes. I think we are all perfectly aware that Jesus was a jew. And I am SURE you know good and well that Jesus has quite a history of explicitly challenging jewish law as interpreted by the priesthood. For goodness sake, as far as I remember the ONLY time Jesus raised a hand to another human being was to kick the money lenders out of the temple. And we all know that the jewish priesthood saw this as a challenge and arranged to have him taken out of the picture for it. There should not be a disagreement there.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make, you what point you mistakenly believe I am making, but you leep missing the target, or you re just trying to find qibbles to quibble over.

Unless you disagree with something here: "And Christians believe this, because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.That's it."

We're good. And no I'm not going to follow you down some irrelevant rabbit trail about the legal nuances of the interplay between the jewish priesthood and the occupying Roman authority, so stop asking. It's beside the point.
 
2013-10-16 03:39:57 PM  

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer:

I never said that. Why would I have a citation for it?

Which is why I said "If that's not your argument, then just say so". It was, however,part of the discussion before you arrived. Since you continued the debate, I assumed you agreed with it. My apologies.

That is ridiculous.have I been unclear in my disagreement about your entire argument that there is some original version of the story that is the jewish one or that only jews have a voice about it? I don't think I have, but you seem to be really straining to be as obtuse as possible here.

Well, I'd argue that the original story is Jewish because the first known instance of the story is found in Jewish writings. If you know of an earlier, non-Jewish, example of the story, then provide a cite for that and I will concede the point.

As to the interpretation of it. Again, since (as far as we know) it is a Jewish story, why should we take non-Jewish interpretations of it? Should we accept a Hindu interpretation of a Christian story because hey, it's a religion, who cares if they actually understand what the Christian authors meant to convey with the story? Should we interpret ancient Egyptian beliefs in the framework of modern Egyptian beliefs?

I don't see what is so controversial about "Interpret the story within the context and culture within which it was written." It's standard practice in far more than comparative religion - anthropology comes to mind.

Are there non-strawmen that you would like to have me cite? This time I guess I will have to ask that you quote me actually saying the words you try to put in my mouth.

Calm down dude. It's just the internet. You're starting to sound like the Neckbeard Internet Atheist Brigade. Remember, I'm an atheist, too.


I am sounding like the wrong type of atheist because I don't hold an opinion you thought I did? That makes no sense.

As for anthropology, that supports my points as much or more than yours. No anthropologist would claim society B was wrong about a story they co-opted from society A. They would say the story means something different to the two groups. Beyond that, I haven't been claiming you are not an atheist, but that you are treating religious works as different from nonreligious. Which you are. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to define a story, original to jews or not, as having a different meaning when co-opted by another culture.
 
2013-10-16 03:49:10 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

grumpfuff: I missed the part where Jesus said "Don't worry about Jewish interpretations." You seem to be forgetting that Jesus was a Jew.

Yes. I think we are all perfectly aware that Jesus was a jew. And I am SURE you know good and well that Jesus has quite a history of explicitly challenging jewish law as interpreted by the priesthood. For goodness sake, as far as I remember the ONLY time Jesus raised a hand to another human being was to kick the money lenders out of the temple. And we all know that the jewish priesthood saw this as a challenge and arranged to have him taken out of the picture for it. There should not be a disagreement there.


Jesus did not challenge Jewish law. He explicitly said it had to be followed. What he did challenge, however, was what he viewed as the corruption of the priesthood. Again, I do not see why the Romans would give two shiats about a doctrinal struggle between a religious group. Nor do I think they would crucify someone just because the Jewish priests told them to.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make, you what point you mistakenly believe I am making, but you leep missing the target, or you re just trying to find qibbles to quibble over.

Unless you disagree with something here: "And Christians believe this, because that's what Jesus himself did. He said follow the scriptures and the words of the prophets. But beyond that, *HE* is the correct answer on interpretation. And it was this teaching that put him at odds with the priesthood as a challenge to their authority and which ultimately got him crucified.That's it."


I do disagree with this, because, afaik, Jesus never claimed he was the authority on interpretation, and he never really offered any different interpretation of Jewish law. Again, his problem was the corruption of the priests(like your example of moneylenders in the temple - Leviticus explicitly forbids this, and usuary), not the law.

We're good. And no I'm not going to follow you down some irrelevant rabbit trail about the legal nuances of the interplay between the jewish priesthood and the occupying Roman authority, so stop asking. It's beside the point.
 
I think it's entirely relevant. You're claiming that the Jewish priests had the Romans execute Jesus, but have failed to provide a reason why the Romans would care what the Jewish priests wanted.
 
2013-10-16 04:00:35 PM  

Smackledorfer: I am sounding like the wrong type of atheist because I don't hold an opinion you thought I did? That makes no sense.


No, you're sounding like the wrong type of atheist because you keep jumping down my throat, calling me a troll, etc. I am trying to be civil here. It does not seem to me that you are.


As for anthropology, that supports my points as much or more than yours. No anthropologist would claim society B was wrong about a story they co-opted from society A. They would say the story means something different to the two groups.

I never said the story can't have a different meaning to Christians. Again, I am saying they took the story and changed the interpretation to mean what they wanted it to mean.

Beyond that, I haven't been claiming you are not an atheist, but that you are treating religious works as different from nonreligious. Which you are. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to define a story, original to jews or not, as having a different meaning when co-opted by another culture.

It has nothing to do with it being a religious book. I would assume(my apologies if I'm wrong) that you do not consider Aesop's Fables a religious book. I would reject the tortoise/hare example from before just as firmly as I reject this. To pick something I'm positive you do not take to be religious, I would reject someone trying to argue that the moral of V for Vendetta is about how awesome fascism is. I also reject Teatards trying to argue that the founders intended this to be a Christian nation. Is this clear enough? It has nothing to do with the religion(or lack there of) of the story in question. It has everything to do with the culture that produced the story.

Again, my point is that you can co-opt a story and change the interpretation to suit your needs if you want. It doesn't mean you're right about what the moral of the story is.
 
2013-10-16 04:02:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: RobSeace: Though, I don't seem to recall the bits in Genesis that talk about the universe suddenly and rapidly expanding out of a singularity around 14 billion years ago...

Sure you do.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light:  and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Seems a bit of a stretch to read Big Bang universal expansion out of that bit of flowery language, I think... It covers the basic of "First there was nothing (well, other than God or the singularity, I guess), then *poof* now there's something!", but hardly seems to fit any actual details of the theory otherwise...

Not to mention, it talks about creating the Earth before creating farking light! (Which is presumably really just referring to the creation of the Sun anyway, and not actual photons, since it then goes on to talk about the light being "day" and the darkness being "night"...) Genesis seems to really just be covering the creation of our solar system, not the universe as a whole... Maybe the opening line covers that very, very vaguely with no details: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"... No real details on the means of that creation "the heaven", though... The rest of the details are just about when and how he made various things appear here on "the earth"...

Biological Ali: I've heard that as well, but there are a couple issues with that. First, in every version of the story that I've come across, the townspeople have no idea the two men are angels. While the Abrahamic god certainly is a capricious psychopath, punishing people for a sin they don't even know they're committing would be a bit silly even by his standards.

Second, I believe the "strange flesh" thing is referenced as a sin that the people of the towns had been engaging in on an ongoing basis prior to their destruction, so the implication of this version would be that those people had been routinely having sex with angels - again, that seems exceedingly silly even within the context of this already silly story.


Hmmm, I suppose that's true... (Though, I think there is some other reference in the Bible about regular sex with angels taking place... Hmmm, oh yeah, Genesis 6... Though, the big-G seems to have no problem with angel-on-hot-daughter sex there, at least... Maybe it was ok for the Nephilim but not the Seraphim, or something?)

The "strange flesh" thing could also just mean they were slutting it up and screwing anyone and everyone they could... Ie: "strange" as in "getting some strange"... Not being monogamous and faithful...

Or, maybe they were all farking goats and sheep, or something... *shrug* In any case, I still don't see how flesh that's just like your own is "strange"...
 
2013-10-16 04:12:09 PM  

Smackledorfer: you are treating religious works as different from nonreligious. Which you are. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to define a story, original to jews or not, as having a different meaning when co-opted by another culture.


I don't see how that follows.

The story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table meant different things to the French than it did to the English, and they changed a number key elements. Asserting that interpretations of the oldest, Anglo-Saxon version of the Pendragon stories are the only valid ones may be silly, but it has nothing to do with treating a text differently because of religion.
 
2013-10-16 04:17:44 PM  

grumpfuff: afaik, Jesus never claimed he was the authority on interpretation, and he never really offered any different interpretation of Jewish law.


Headpalm.

I believe that he offered a radically different interpretation of the law allowing for money lending in the temples. I believe he used a whip. It seems very clear that the jewish priesthood believed he was offering a different interpretation of the law, or there would have been no need to haul him in and have him answer questions of theology. It's really starting to feel like you have nothing better to do than quibble.

grumpfuff: I think it's entirely relevant. You're claiming that the Jewish priests had the Romans execute Jesus, but have failed to provide a reason why the Romans would care what the Jewish priests wanted.


Then you are mistaken. It is not relevant to the question of whether Jesus deviated from, or disputed the authority of rabbinical teachings. Again, I'm not going down that rabbit trail. Stop asking. Google it if you want to know more about the legal nuances of the interplay between the jewish priesthood and the occupying Roman authority.
 
2013-10-16 04:22:49 PM  

RobSeace: Seems a bit of a stretch to read Big Bang universal expansion out of that bit of flowery language, I think... It covers the basic of "First there was nothing (well, other than God or the singularity, I guess), then *poof* now there's something!", but hardly seems to fit any actual details of the theory otherwise...


Well. light is energy. Before there was nothing, and then WHAMMO! a bunch of energy.

It might help to know that the dude who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit scientist. And that the Pope asked him to turn it down a notch because too many people were saying "See! Just like in Genesis". The pope (correctly) did not want theiology confused with physics, nor did he (correctly) wan the Catholic Church seen as advocating ANY particular scientific theory.

Anywho, I prefer to phrase it like this:

"The Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Biblical account of the origin Creation of the universe. Nor does the origin of the universe as described in the Bible conflict with the Big Bang Theory."

Genesis has no real details.
 
2013-10-16 04:42:26 PM  
I'm a bisexual guy, if any hot women want to give me some corrective rape action to cure me, have at it!
 
2013-10-16 04:44:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: afaik, Jesus never claimed he was the authority on interpretation, and he never really offered any different interpretation of Jewish law.

Headpalm.

I believe that he offered a radically different interpretation of the law allowing for money lending in the temples. I believe he used a whip. It seems very clear that the jewish priesthood believed he was offering a different interpretation of the law, or there would have been no need to haul him in and have him answer questions of theology. It's really starting to feel like you have nothing better to do than quibble.


Exodus 22:25 "If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him."

Deuteronomy 23:19 "You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.  "

Leviticus 25:35-37 "If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. "

Jesus was angry because they turned the temple into a house of greed, and distracted from the idea of the temple being a place of worship. Furthermore, these money-changers and bankers were violating Jewish law. To me, it sounds like the priests were the ones with a radically different interpretation.
 
2013-10-16 04:58:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Well. light is energy. Before there was nothing, and then WHAMMO! a bunch of energy.


Yeah, but like I said, since it goes on to talk about the light being "day" and the darkness being "night", it seems clear they're not talking about "light" as in electromagnetic energy carried via photons so much as they're simply talking about the Sun shining on the Earth... It's not really talking about the creation of the universe itself but merely our little corner of it, since that's probably all they figured existed at the time aside from "the heavens", which one could interpret to mean the universe as a whole I suppose, but it doesn't really go into detail on how that was created...

BojanglesPaladin: It might help to know that the dude who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit scientist.


Well, yes, I did realize that, since I linked to his Wikipedia page that said so in my original post that you first replied to... I didn't know about the Pope telling him to modify the theory, however...

BojanglesPaladin: Anywho, I prefer to phrase it like this:

"The Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Biblical account of the origin Creation of the universe. Nor does the origin of the universe as described in the Bible conflict with the Big Bang Theory."

Genesis has no real details.


That much I can certainly agree with... (Though, I still hesitate to even say that what's in Genesis can even be considered to be any kind of description of "the origin of the universe", aside from maybe the opening line about creating "the heaven", without giving even the slightest details of how... So, yeah, I suppose since it gives no description at all, it can't possibly conflict with any other description of the event...)
 
2013-10-16 05:23:22 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!


I know of a bicurious man who was raped, and extorted for gay sex/homosexual sex acts by a sociopath.

Said bicurious man was in the military and the extortion led to his becoming AWOL.

When he finally reported and asked for psychiatric help, they tried to kick him out because of "don't ask, don't tell" being around at the time. Now they're keeping him for overtime, despite him trying to get out into the civilian populace.
He hasn't really been able to explore that curiosity ever since. :( Lucky for him he found a girl. Yay!
 
2013-10-16 06:54:35 PM  

RobSeace: BojanglesPaladin: Well. light is energy. Before there was nothing, and then WHAMMO! a bunch of energy.

Yeah, but like I said, since it goes on to talk about the light being "day" and the darkness being "night", it seems clear they're not talking about "light" as in electromagnetic energy carried via photons so much as they're simply talking about the Sun shining on the Earth... It's not really talking about the creation of the universe itself but merely our little corner of it, since that's probably all they figured existed at the time aside from "the heavens", which one could interpret to mean the universe as a whole I suppose, but it doesn't really go into detail on how that was created...

BojanglesPaladin: It might help to know that the dude who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit scientist.

Well, yes, I did realize that, since I linked to his Wikipedia page that said so in my original post that you first replied to... I didn't know about the Pope telling him to modify the theory, however...

BojanglesPaladin: Anywho, I prefer to phrase it like this:

"The Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Biblical account of the origin Creation of the universe. Nor does the origin of the universe as described in the Bible conflict with the Big Bang Theory."

Genesis has no real details.

That much I can certainly agree with... (Though, I still hesitate to even say that what's in Genesis can even be considered to be any kind of description of "the origin of the universe", aside from maybe the opening line about creating "the heaven", without giving even the slightest details of how... So, yeah, I suppose since it gives no description at all, it can't possibly conflict with any other description of the event...)


OK. now you are applying your own criteria not previously disclosed. if you find it to be insufficient by your standards, then it is insufficient by your standards. but I don't think "the light" would logically mean sunlight on the earth before the earth has actually been created.

also, I did not say the pope asked him to 'modify the theory". nothing of the sort. the pope was concerned that the language being used to describe the theory too closely associated it to the first lines of Genesis and asked them to stop associating them for reasons I outlined above.

and of course there is no "How" in Genesis. Because God, that's why. God does not need to provide his proofs when he turns in his math homework. we probably couldn't understand it anyway.

if you believe that sort of thing. but even if you don't it's silly to expect scripture to meet your modern empirical mindset. that's not what it's for. You don't expect the concept of love to include a "how to", you wouldn't expect Kierkegaard to adhere to provable experimental processes. it's like being made that music doesn't have a color chart.

science and religion are not in conflict. You only think that because the humanists and the fundamentalists tell you that so you will help advance their agenda.
 
2013-10-17 06:19:16 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: but I don't think "the light" would logically mean sunlight on the earth before the earth has actually been created.


What? The very first line is: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Earth was created right up front... The light came next... And, it's obvious it's talking about the sun rising and setting on Earth, since it says God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. You don't get days and nights, mornings and evenings, with generic photons floating through space; it requires a revolving planet orbiting a star...

BojanglesPaladin: science and religion are not in conflict. You only think that because the humanists and the fundamentalists tell you that so you will help advance their agenda.


I think that, do I? Even though I specifically said that I agreed with you that they weren't in this particular case? Please tell me what else I think... Because I obviously don't know!

There are specific areas where they come into conflict... But, it's less religion than religious people pushing an agenda, generally... But, I have no problem with someone believing a deity caused the Big Bang if they like... I don't see the need for it, but whatever... There's no real harm in it, either...
 
Displayed 344 of 344 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report