Anybody of a meek nature look away now.
This aint gonna be pretty.
And I ain’t gonna be nice about it either.
CelticRose, on this subject I am afraid you are a peddlar of the utmost drivel. It is offensive in its nature. It is offensive in its assumption that your readers are too simple to be able to see the inherent inconsistencies in it. It is offensive because it seems to actually support a man offering his (female) children to be gang raped so that his adult male guests may be spared. And it is offensive just because it is offensive, but is presented as some well thought out tract on a history.
So. Now I am going to call your guff.
Okay, I'll call your bluff.
Normal, patronising drivel from those who choose only to believe what they believe and to hellfire and damnation for the rest of us lesser mortals and second class humans. Construct an argument, ... or just keep quiet.
But since you are going to use that sort of patronising tone, I feel perfectly at liberty to do so now myself. You asked for it.
The Bible never says that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. It says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of "wickedness" -- it doesn't specify what type of wickedness. The only mention of homosexuality in connection with Sodom is the scene where the men of town asked Lot to hand over his guests so that they could have sex with them. Lot referred to this as "wicked" because a) the guests were under his protection and they took the laws of hospitality very seriously in those days (seriously enough that Lot was willing to offer them his daughters rather than endanger his guests), and b) gang rape is a bad thing no matter which gender it's being performed on.
Let me paraphrase this for you so that you might see the important parts close together since you are so obviously unable to keep several things in your closeminded head at one time.
Bible never says Sodom destroyed because of homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed because of "wickedness" ... men asked Lot to hand over his [male] guests so they could have sex with them. Lot referred to this as "wicked".
Bible says wickedness in story, Lot defines wickedness in story, somehow or other the two wickednesses in the one story are not linked, despite absence of other wickedness. Talk about selective interpretation! I think I’ll need to get a picture of me naked from behind so you can see I don’t zip up the back! First mark of bigotted zealotry is when the brain departs through the hole in the wall where the light comes in.
a) the guests were under his protection and they took the laws of hospitality very seriously in those days (seriously enough that Lot was willing to offer them his daughters rather than endanger his guests)
Paragon of virtue this Lot guy, then, eh! I suppose, then, that you are advocating that it’s a lesser sentence for raping a woman than for raping a man in this bible thingy you want us all to understand better. What planet do you live on?
and b) gang rape is a bad thing no matter which gender it's being performed on.
It’s just less bad on your daughters whom you are responsible for than for male guests who have more ability to look after themselves, in this bible thingy you want us all to understand better.
The connection between Sodom and homosexuality is derived from the depicted attempt of a mob of city people to rape Lot's male guests; the sinfulness of that, for the original writers of the Biblical account, might have consisted mainly in the rape and the violation of the obligations of hospitality rather than the homosexuality as such.
Ah. OK. I see. NOT! The connection is established, (albeit with a huge big massive ‘might’ fired in there which I see you choose to ignore) but the sinfullness lies only in the derivation from the action and not in the action itself. Somehow there is a connection and there is also no connection at the same time. Whit? And no. I didn’t come up the clyde in a banana skin either.
This is parallel universe stuff. While parallel universes may be possible, they are still at the Dr. Who stage in our technology. And please please please don’t suggest that the good doctor’s tardis might have actually been the bright star in the heavens which the wise men followed.
In The Book of Judges, 19, there is an account, similar in many ways, where a city is destroyed in punishment for a mob of its inhabitants raping a woman.
Oh well, that disproves the ancient and the current link between the word sodom, or Sodom, and homosexuality. NOT
Many times in the Pentateuch and Prophets, ... Peter 4:3; Jude 1:4, or wantonness: (Romans 13:13; 2 Peter 2:18).
Which proves precisely what exactly? That the Bible is written by a whole load of men with a whole load of interpretations which are unique to each of them? And we are supposed to give this book any credence at all. I think I am beginning to understand this bible thingy very well. thanks for your help. I now know to completely and utterly ignore it.
The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 500s AD. Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them.
Oh yes, and I came down in the last shower too! How can you justify saying that there is no proper connection between the bible and its interpreters (otherwise known as Christians), and sodomy as a sin, and then tell us that it is exactly the case, and has been for the past 1500 years, and expect us to pay any attention to you at all, except to tell you that you are a person of the most simplistic silliness.
To say that the inclusion of one word in that quote is an attack on all gay people is an overreaction to say the least.
Oh well, that disproves it, then. You’ll clearly not be very gay then! You’ll not have had your head kicked in as I have because someone tells you that you have no place on the planet. You’ll not have had people stand outside your work and wait for you so they can kick the living sh1t out of you as my mate did. You’ll not have had to bury your son because he was murdered for his inbuilt and undenable sexuality.
Are you too s*****d (I’m not allowed to use the actual word even though you are allowed to insult me beyond belief) to understand that; a) there is a connection in the bible, and; b) even if there wasn’t an actual one, the religious right tell us often enough that there is, and call for our destruction on that basis ... which is what fuels the fires in the hearts of the idiots who try to prosecute our removal from the planet.
And can you not get that your own admission that you don’t believe much of it any more means that you should not be trying to defend its abberations which you acknowledge wholeheartedly. Any defence or seeking to foster a better knoweldge of something as it is written and which you do not accept on that basis, is ethically fraudulent and morally bankrupt.
The law of hospitality was a really big deal in those days. If someone was a guest under your roof, and therefore under your protection, it was unthinkable to knowingly allow them to come to any harm. To Lot, handing over his daughters was the lesser of two evils. Sounds weird to us, but that was the culture at the time.
So, wait a minute. He was prepared to hand over his daughters so that his guests didn’t get buggered? And you admit that that was the culture of the time. But you don’t admit that buggery was a leading cause of the ascription of sinfulness (otherwise known as wickedness) to Sodom, and therefore the leading cultural value which rendered the city to have been deemed wicked and sinful? Do you have any sense of logic? Or is logic just an inconvenient and mutable trifle in the bible? It is very logical for Lot to prioritise his guests over his daughters, but the logic of the interpretation of sinfulness is not valid when it comes to anal sexual activity between men?
Exactly when did I say I believed that the Bible was inspired by God? buckthesystem was reacting to a particular word in a quote from that text, so I discussed the text and the historical use of the word. For the record, I do not believe that the Bible is the true word of God. It has become distorted over the centuries, parts of it were written and/or edited by committee, and it is inaccurate. God only knows how much truth is left in that text.
Tis true. You didn’t. Neat that. The way you step back from the argument having caused a whole load of offence. Bit like the sort of tactic Fnord uses. And for your information, as explained in the later exchange with ZodRau, I reacted to a universe of semantic propositions encapsulated in the word, which, granted, might be a little to much for you to comprehend.
So again, while I don't think it was Fnord's intent to trigger this reaction from Buck, it's not too unsurprising that this happened.
And it’s all too apparent thus far that Fnord, despite having been invited to, and despite having posted since, has not yet seen fit to confirm or deny this. Which in my opinion makes him as much of a stirrer.
Doubtless Gareth will pm me now (again) and tell me to calm down. But when it comes to a fight for my right to be, I will neither calm down, nor shut up. I will stand on the line and repel all the repellant nonsense that is thrown at me and those like me. Hitler eugenecists, queerbashers etc alike, beware. Funny how that sounds like the underpinning values of AFF!