Don Homuth wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:14:39 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >A good word for male "gays" is "sodomites".
>
> Not that good. The root term is not limited only to gay males.
Irrelevant.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Nev wrote:
> Changing the subject heading. That silly "LA" thread has nothing to do with
> this discussion now.
>
> > > Biblical euphemisms] isn't mentioned in any references/verses about
> Sodom...
> > > though if you're able to cite such, please do so.
> >
> > Leviticus 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind,
> > as with womankind, both of them have committed
> > abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
> > their blood shall be upon them.
>
> It says nothing about the city/society of Sodom.
To imply that the proscription excludes the social mores
of societies such as Sodom is the sodomizing of context.
>
>
> More importantly, it has to be understood/read in it's original context.
> When the letters and documents comprising the Bible were written, it was
> very much a male dominated society, at least in the Palestine/Israel area
> where most of these stories took place. Women & girls were essentially men's
> property. The vast majority of females were little more than uneducated
> 'baby-makers' with few if any rights; second-class citizens almost like
> slaves. So from that perspective, a man found having sex with a man [note:
> female homosexuality is mentioned only once in the entire Bible] was
> 'officially' considered demeaning then because one of them had to
> necessarily take the mere, lowly, subservient 'womans position'. Eros was
> not the issue: he-man, masculine dominance was. It was a "guy thing" in the
> highly egotistic traditional male sense.
Even if this were not a far stretch of the imagination, it is still
however, irrelevant.
>
>
> > De 23:17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters
> > of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the
> > sons of Israel.
>
> See above.
>
> > Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of
> > the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the
> > house round, both young and old, all the people from
> > every quarter. 5 And they called unto Lot, and said
> > unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this
> > night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'
>
> A popular misinterpretation. Not "know" as in "carnal knowledge" [legalese
> for sex] but in the non-sexual sense "to understand"... to get a better idea
> of who these strangers in the city were. Hospitality and safety were of
> practical importance in those societies. They were reasonably trying to find
> out if the strangers in Lot's house were possibly spies checking out the
> city for an invasion or for robbery.
>
> Additionally, the quote [which I too have read in my KJSV Bible] says
> nothing at all about sex: directly or indirectly.
The apologia you offer is off track.
It might be helpful for you to read the context to get a
handle on what "to know them" means in biblical terms.
Pay particular attention to Lot's pleading against the
wickedness of the deed the sodomites would perform
on the hapless visitors. So despicably hateful to the
concept of humane treatment of one's guests was the
degenerate desire of the sodomites that Lot in
desperation, went so far as to offer up his virgin
daughters in place of the men the mob wanted to
analy ravage.
Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city,
even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round,
both young and old, all the people from every quarter.
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: ‘Where
are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them
out unto us, that we may know them.’
6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the
door after him.
7 And he said: ‘I pray you, my brethren, do not so
wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known
man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do
ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men
do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the
shadow of my roof.’
>
> > > Also, regardless of sexual
> > > orientation and... uh... 'methods', anal intercourse is not a
> > > gender-specific act.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> It's completely relevant. Anal sex/intercourse, regardless of what's done
> with whom using what, is not gender-specific. So the assertion it's
> [exclusively] done by male homosexuals is incorrect.
No such assertion did I make.
I don't think any sane individual would consider sticking a
broom handle, etc. into an anus is "sexual intercourse".
>
>
> Assuming you're an adult [and regardless of your sexual orientation] what
> you do "in your bedroom" with other consenting adults is your business: it's
> not mine, not The Community's, not The Church's... yes?
Only so long as not discovered. Still, abomination having
been done, it is usually paid for in one way or another.
>
>
> But if you're NOT an adult... look dude, we gotta know right now what you
> been doing in there, so good upstanding citizens that we are, we can call
> the police pronto!... or at least your minister. You know, 'community
> standards' and all that.
Its better to not have community standards?
>
>
> > It matters when sodomy is murder.
>
> What?? How do you come up with anal sex/intercourse "is murder"? Murder is
> not sex, but violence... duh.
I suppose murder is not violent? What of the "he-man, masculine
dominance" argument you used back up the page? In any event,
willfully spreading deadly plague is murder.
> Sex between consenting adults, obviously
> unless it leads to violence or murder, is not.
Above.
> You're mixing topics.
Hardly.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > > Oh, nonsense. The fossil record is repleat with transitional forms.
>
> > > www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> > > > For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part
> > > > feet has been found.
>
> > > No, but then one would not expect such a thing - quite obviously
> > > -legs- must predate feet. One must, after all, have something to
> > > attach the feet to and the fins of spiney-finned fishes would make
> > > a damn poor anchor for feet. We would expect the progression to
> > > be: fins -> legs with fins -> legs without fins -> legs with feet.
>
> > > Which is exactly what we find.
>
> > > And, it's hardly necessary to look to fossils for examples of
> > > creatures with legs with fins. Both the currently existing
> > > lungfish and coelacanths satisfy that criterium although for various
> > > reasons, the now extinct rhipidistian fishes are generally considered
> > > the more likely ancestors of amphibians than are lungfish or coelacanths.
> > > Like lungfish and coelacanths, rhipidistians were lobe-finned creatures
> > > with their fins attached to the ends of lobes or proto-legs but their
> > > skeletal structure more closely resembles that of amphibians than do
> > > the other two lobed-fin fish orders.
>
> > Utter nonsense. None of your examples show their being
> > intermediate steps in one species changing into another.
>
> Well, they demonstrate an entire -order- or -family- changing into
> another. Certainly if the evolutionary changes encompass entire
> orders and families, speciation is necessarily involved.
So far the findings in the entertaining "speciation" distraction
argue against the slow transformation required in "evolution
theory". If anything, speciation sides with the notion of
"punctuated equilibrium"
>
>
> > Grasping at straws has always been the evolutionist's forte.
>
> Blithe dismissals without attempting to present any counter facts
> at all is the forte of the ignorant, misinformed, and unreasoning.
Apparently you missed or ignored the material I provided. Or
is your denial simply a matter of dishonesty on your part?
>
>
> > > Fie. You must really familiarize yerself with the actual facts before
> > > jumping into this particular pool.
>
> > Fo fum. Whose "facts", yours? LOL
>
> Oh, just -any- facts you might wish to contribute would be
> a start. So far, you've provided just none.
Above.
>
>
> When you've got one or two, come on back, ya'll hear?
Above.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > > Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> > > > Hilarious that atheists hate a God
> > > > they ostensibly have no belief in
>
> > > Well, I guess many do. Many others know that there's
> > > nothing there to hate, so we hate the fact that so
> > > many people want to restrict themselves, and others,
> > > because of any number of imaginary creations. Why
> > > do you need to believe in a god in order to make
> > > you a moral person? Why are you better than
> > > someone who's just as moral but w/o needing
> > > a god to be that way?
>
> > I state my beliefs openly. I do not suggest that people
> > should believe as I do... that would be foolish. Now, if
> > people wish to imagine I'm preaching, that's their problem.
>
> It's not a problem at all. Just an observation.
>
> I don't particularly care that you
> personally believe in that stuff
> so long as you curb any urges to push
> for legislation that might be more
> compatible with your outlook, i.e.
> closing stores on Sundays, placing
> the Ten C's in courthouses and
> government skools, criminalizing
> pornography, prayer in government skools,
> and so on.
In other words, as long as those who disagree with
your views take it upon themselves to deny their
rights as citizens, you'll tolerate them.
>
>
> If you don't so that you might be amazed
> at how easily we can all get along in
> this regard.
LOL
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
