Originally posted by Robtard
You can interpret the Bible many a way, so technically yes.Jesus did away with the old laws, the laws of the Jews, eg stoning your insolent daughter, eye for an eye, not shaving beards, owning slaves from foreign lands, eating kosher etc., but apparently, he didn't do away with the likes of Leviticus 18:22, the one about one man sticking it to another man's passage.
I probably should read that damn thing.
I'm pretty sure people shaved before Jesus, mainly because having a long beard on the battlefield is just stupid.
Regardless, where does it say in the bible, "though shalt threaten the men that lay with other men and brandish thine repeating semi-automatic instruments of fire and fury at the duly elected leader if his skin be ashen and find any damn excuse to cling to so thine peers doth not see thee as a wearer of white pointy hoods and terrorize thy fellow man thusly who come to chant approvals or just for free teriyaki chicken from thine local Thai establishment be it whom it is commanded to cater festivities"?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Technically it says "If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman" which is very difficult unless the ancient Hebrews were totally obsessed with anal.
So maybe God looks down upon men blowing each other?
Even older text adds "in the bed of a woman" at the end, which could be interpreted as 'men are allowed to **** other men, as long as they don't bring it to their wife's bed/home', which would make sense in a male-dominate society.
Are you saying they weren't, though!?
The original Hebrew in the context of the times uses a slang word for one of the two instances of "man" which was misinterpreted when reread and the first word became misinterpreted and was further misinterpeted when translated into the septuagent.
Original meaning in Hebrew: When a male rapist/deviant lays with a man it is a sin
first misinterpretation in Hebrew due to dialectical and slang changes:
When a male homosexual/deviant lays with a man, it is a sin
Translation into Greek in the Septuagent: When a man lays with another man, it is a sin.
It's why when you translate from old hebrew, to later hebrew, to greek, to other languages, you get a whole bunch of bullshit that was never there in the first place.
I'll give an example.
Say the Bible was originally written in Greek and contained a passage saying-
Taketh the Idiot and his peers and enlighten them to bring them salvation.
Now the term idiot originally meant a private citizen with no defined skills and the term enlighten of course means to educate.
Say this was translated by the british in the 16th century and is now translated as Take the idiot and show him the light of salvation. Now it's meaning is to show a fool the grace of god.
Translate that into modern English and you could come up with quarentine the fools in a church.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm well aware of the etymology of the word and it does make perfect sense, still, it could have been used after the fact, when the changing happened.Yeah, as I was typing, it all seemed too familiar.
Indeed. Just a testament of how rehashed the GDF discussions are becoming, as of late.
Originally posted by Robtard
The most accepted is that Sodom was full of sexual sin, male-on-male anal, unfaithful wives, orgies, bestiality etc. The final straw in God's eye was the gang of males who wanted to anal gang-rape the two angels in disguise in Lot's house.Neither in DDM's house, ohh, see what I did there?
😆 😆
WTF?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yup.
I don't think that's a bad thing, bro.
Way to go. 👆
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The original Hebrew in the context of the times uses a slang word for one of the two instances of "man" which was misinterpreted when reread and the first word became misinterpreted and was further misinterpeted when translated into the septuagent.Original meaning in Hebrew: When a male rapist/deviant lays with a man it is a sin
first misinterpretation in Hebrew due to dialectical and slang changes:
When a male homosexual/deviant lays with a man, it is a sin
Translation into Greek in the Septuagent: When a man lays with another man, it is a sin.
It's why when you translate from old hebrew, to later hebrew, to greek, to other languages, you get a whole bunch of bullshit that was never there in the first place.
Wow. That sounded very Mormon of you.
My personal take on this whole hate on gays from Christians:
Did you people learn nothing from the adulterous lady who was almost stoned to death? He told them "he who is sinless, let him cast the first stone."
DUH! None are sinless. IMO, that was both literal and metaphorical. The metaphor is DON'T judge your brothers and sisters. Don't persecute them. The very last thing you should do to a person you believe is sinning, is alienate them. You should welcome them into your church with open arms. Do people only go to the doctor when they are well? No. The best place for what one perceives as a sinner, which the shouldn't be doing anyway, is for that "sinner" to be at church, trying to better themselves.
Of course, that's just my interpretation of the sinful hate against gays.
On another note, but still on topic, Chrisitans and the like should stop forcing their religion on the secular world. Of course, not killing, not stealing...etc. Those are good laws. But other things that are not had in other religions or atheists (and the like) should not be forced on the secular world. I know that one of the US's founding principles was religious freedom. Where did that go? Even if that "religion" is the lack, thereof, where did our freedom go to? If you guys can't tell, I don't like many things that religious people do. It just so happens that today, it's Christians.
/diatribe
Originally posted by dadudemon
On another note, but still on topic, Chrisitans and the like should stop forcing their religion on the secular world. Of course, not killing, not stealing...etc. Those are good laws. But other things that are not had in other religions or atheists (and the like) should not be forced on the secular world. I know that one of the US's founding principles was religious freedom. Where did that go? Even if that "religion" is the lack, thereof, where did our freedom go to? If you guys can't tell, I don't like many things that religious people do. It just so happens that today, it's Christians./diatribe
How are Christians forcing their religion on anyone? You're making it sound like Christianity is being injected into your body on a weekly basis. Do people force other people to go to Church or read the Bible in the US? I wasn't aware of this practice...
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~Nah they don't....unless it is children, those are brainwashed way scary.
How are Christians forcing their religion on anyone? You're making it sound like Christianity is being injected into your body on a weekly basis. Do people force other people to go to Church or read the Bible in the US? I wasn't aware of this practice...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah they don't....unless it is children, those are brainwashed way scary.
Yeah, but as legal guardians of a child, the parents can teach it whatever the hell they want till the kid is 18. So I still don't get dadudemon's point of Christianity being forced on people.
Don't think it's any better here in East Europe with Orthodoxism, I've personally been called a satanist back when I had long hair, had my sister asked to leave during a service because she was wearing pants instead of an ankle long dress and something to cover her head (cause God wants his btches obedient dammit !!! ). But every time something like that happened my response (and my sister's) was always "f*ck off", and then went about our business ignoring the jackasses.
So I still don't understand how it can be "forced" on anyone.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~I think he probably means by using democratic means to put their religios ideas in a place of power forcing it on others.
Yeah, but as legal guardians of a child, the parents can teach it whatever the hell they want till the kid is 18. So I still don't get dadudemon's point of Christianity being forced on people.Don't think it's any better here in East Europe with Orthodoxism, I've personally been called a satanist back when I had long hair, had my sister asked to leave during a service because she was wearing pants instead of an ankle long dress and something to cover her head (cause God wants his btches obedient dammit !!! ). But every time something like that happened my response (and my sister's) was always "f*ck off", and then went about our business ignoring the jackasses.
So I still don't understand how it can be "forced" on anyone.
You may say that that is also legal, but I'd argue that just because something is legal it doesn't mean it isn't oppressive or "forced on" someone.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he probably means by using democratic means to put their religios ideas in a place of power forcing it on others.You may say that that is also legal, but I'd argue that just because something is legal it doesn't mean it isn't oppressive or "forced on" someone.
Long as you have free will you can ignore crap like that. Just because something's thrown in your face all the time doesn't mean you need to adhere to it or even acknowledge it. Just because there was a huge metrosexual fad a few years ago and everywhere I'd look I'd see dudes in pink with a ton of hair gel on didn't mean I'd suddenly start questioning myself, adhering to their principles, or even caring about what the hell they decide to wear or such.
If I walked out on the street tomorrow and every single building had a cross on it, and 1 out of 3 people was dressed as a preacher, doesn't mean I'd suddenly give a crap about religion. Sure, it'd creep me out a bit, but meh... Perhaps I have this attitude because where I live and grew up there's basically a minimum of 1 church per street, so I'm used to stuff being ostentatiously thrown in my face and just ignoring it completely.
Long as you don't have a gun to your head and someone telling you to do something, you have free will and don't need to give a crap.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~Odd, cause that's not related to what I said. My point was that some religion gets forced on you with a gun to your head, in the way of laws, i.e. your children have to learn about reigious creation stories, you can't have an abortion based on some people's religious believes, etc.
Long as you have free will you can ignore crap like that. Just because something's thrown in your face all the time doesn't mean you need to adhere to it or even acknowledge it. Just because there was a huge metrosexual fad a few years ago and everywhere I'd look I'd see dudes in pink with a ton of hair gel on didn't mean I'd suddenly start questioning myself, adhering to their principles, or even caring about what the hell they decide to wear or such.If I walked out on the street tomorrow and every single building had a cross on it, and 1 out of 3 people was dressed as a preacher, doesn't mean I'd suddenly give a crap about religion. Sure, it'd creep me out a bit, but meh... Perhaps I have this attitude because where I live and grew up there's basically a minimum of 1 church per street, so I'm used to stuff being ostentatiously thrown in my face and just ignoring it completely.
Long as you don't have a gun to your head and someone telling you to do something, you have free will and don't need to give a crap.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Odd, cause that's not related to what I said. My point was that some religion gets forced on you with a gun to your head, in the way of laws, i.e. your children have to learn about reigious creation stories, you can't have an abortion based on some people's religious believes, etc.
They do? I didn't know Creationism was a mandatory subject in German schools. I wonder if it is in the US as well.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
They do? I didn't know Creationism was a mandatory subject in German schools. I wonder if it is in the US as well.
Oh I misphrased I think, I am not trying to argue dadudemon's point, I want to illuminate what he might be saying to you.
There is mandatory religious education though, you can usually choose though between protestant, catholic, or ethics (which would be general stuff, muslims tend to do that, and atheist pigs), so it's not really forced. In bavarian schools until a while ago it was mandatory to have a crucifix in the classroom though, I believe so that might count as that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Technically it says "If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman" which is very difficult unless the ancient Hebrews were totally obsessed with anal.
this is actually pretty true. in this time, sex was about complete domination, and so the man would doggie-style the woman. when love-matches were made [very, very rarely] then the man and woman might think about a more intimate approach, but as far as the more common position, it was anal. pre-teen and teen boys were often given the jobs of shepherding until they could manage larger responsibilities. sheep were pretty much practice targets until a man could marry, at which time he owned his wife owned what his wife owned.
a good example of this is when jacob married rachel and leah, two sisters, who were given handmaidens as part of their dowry. therefore, jacob made his twelve sons and one daughter with not only the daughters of the house, but with zilphah and bilhah, who were the ladies' servants. a man was considered a good husband if he gave you children and didn't beat you. and then there was the whole thing about women having their periods, how they had to be set apart from the tribe and spend a week in "the red tent."
[going off subject]
but in leviticus, there are also laws that say, 'you may sell your daughter into slavery,' 'you may not wear a blend of fabric,' and also tells what we can and can't eat. like nothing with a cloven hoof, which puts pork and beef out of the equation. that's why i tend to laugh at people who say that being gay isn't right by god, and then mention leviticus or deuteronomy as their source - because then i get to ask things like, "do you wear cotton?" and since they are, well, "that's just as bad as being gay."
one last point. sodom and gomorrah - yeah, that's why it's called SODOMy. and one of my favorite parts of that story was that lot send his daughters out into the street to be raped so that he could protect those angels in disguise.
*makes derogatory noise* you can't take the bible literally. that's it. end of story.
Originally posted by siriuswriter
this is actually pretty true. in this time, sex was about complete domination, and so the man would doggie-style the woman. when love-matches were made [very, very rarely] then the man and woman might think about a more intimate approach, but as far as the more common position, it was anal.
What?