Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

[InfidelRiot]

Correction: The writers assert that God is disgusted by it. Which makes the writers -- and not God -- bigoted in the eyes of modern culture.

Most fundamentalists believe that these men were divinely inspired, heard god's word in their heads, and subsequently are of the belief that god considers homosexuality an abomination. I agree, however, that men did write the book. I also believe that those men were in no way divinely inspired to write what they did.

 

[Shermana]

Most fundamentalists believe that these men were divinely inspired, heard god's word in their heads, and subsequently are of the belief that god considers homosexuality an abomination. I agree, however, that men did write the book. I also believe that those men were in no way divinely inspired to write what they did.

Now they get to weasel out by saying it shouldn't be in the text to begin with?

Like I said, it's interesting that the Man-happy Romans considered the "receiver" of the relationship in the lowest of terms, a position fit for slaves.

 

[sojourner]

I think you're the only person who will argue that they wanted to rape them because they viewed them as some kind of threat. Any commentary or is that purely your own idea?

I think that's part of it. The act of rape is the taking of power. If their designs had been sexual in nature, then, according to biblical precedent, the designs would have resulted from a condition of "overstimulation" sexually. If they viewed homosexuality as unnatural (also according to biblical precedent, apparently), they would have taken the girls and been done with it. However, with Lot's statement that the visitors were under his protection, that alludes to the hospitality codes of the day, thus showing the indiscretion to be one of inhospitality and not one of homosexuality.

Translation: You can't prove your claim. Not like this is the first time you make a claim and then get hostile and refuse to back it when challenged. As if the custom of walking on the left side of the lady was something I mentioned. Maybe one day you'll learn that your cred takes a dive (not like you have much more to go) each time you make a bold assertion as the basis of your argument.....and then totally refuse to defend it.

See this link:
HOSPITALITY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

You are aware that it's not written in English hopefully. Strong's Hebrew: 6153. ?????? (ereb) -- evening

The word Evening in Hebrew is used for "Evening and Morning", can you prove that Evening cannot apply to late at night? Especially when it's used as "Twilight" 11 times? You may want to consider looking up the word before defending your baseless assertion, so that element of your point is dissolved.

Even the page you linked speaks of sunset, twilight, the time between sunset and dark. I didn't see one reference to "late at night."

he shoots...
Denied!

Translation: You can't prove your claim. Thanks. Can you think of an example of an expert in ancient Hebrew Custom? Would you be honorable enough to admit that you can't prove your own claim? I don't think you would. But let's see....

See above. As I opined earlier, and you have now proven, rampant skepticism is a poor argument.

Great. Thanks for repeating yourself and ignoring the counter-argument without providing one.

Thank you for not actually reading the counter-argument I've presented time and again.

Does that relate to what I asked? Let me see.

If anyone here agrees with anything Sojourner says and can back him up on it, I would appreciate it, he could use some help backing his own claims. Otherwise, what can we conclude about scrappy "Apologetics" like the above that try to say the crime was merely "inhospitality" as if that's all the text implies they did?

**gets bag of popcorn. Sits back and waits.**

 

[sojourner]

Most fundamentalists believe that these men were divinely inspired, heard god's word in their heads, and subsequently are of the belief that god considers homosexuality an abomination. I agree, however, that men did write the book. I also believe that those men were in no way divinely inspired to write what they did.

Further, I insist that what is written does not in any way refer to consensual love between two people of the same sex.

 

[Shermana]

Substitute the term "black," "Hispanic," "Asian," or "Jew" for "homosexual" here and you'll have the answers to your questions. They are (in order): Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

Most Black people I've noticed get really angry when I tell them that people compare the actions of homosexuals to being Black. They don't appreciate the comparison one bit. I find it interesting how people will compare a lust-based orientation to being a Skin Color. That logic would work if you associated Blackness with a fondness for White women or some kind of orientation issue. But I suppose that's a whole debate in itself if Sexual identity is the same level as Ethnicity. For the record, I will bet dollars to donuts that most members of most Minority races do NOT like to be associated in the same category of gays and do not agree with it, so I"ll let them speak for themselves on the issue, especially based on experience.

And it's interesting that you think its immoral to be disgusted by their behavior.................So apparently it's wrong to find various sexual practices disgusting. Is this just projection on your part by chance?

 

[sojourner]

Now they get to weasel out by saying it shouldn't be in the text to begin with?

Like I said, it's interesting that the Man-happy Romans considered the "receiver" of the relationship in the lowest of terms, a position fit for slaves.

Are you saying that you think men ought always to dominate women and that women ought always to submit to men -- as in ancient cultures?

 

[Shermana]

I think that's part of it. The act of rape is the taking of power. If their designs had been sexual in nature, then, according to biblical precedent, the designs would have resulted from a condition of "overstimulation" sexually. If they viewed homosexuality as unnatural (also according to biblical precedent, apparently), they would have taken the girls and been done with it. However, with Lot's statement that the visitors were under his protection, that alludes to the hospitality codes of the day, thus showing the indiscretion to be one of inhospitality and not one of homosexuality.

Ummmm, why would the Sodomites necessarily view it as unnatural? Back then it was quite common.

See this link:
HOSPITALITY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Okay, I'll take a look and see if I can find anything objective that relates. Hmmmm. I don't see anything about Town Elders. Looks like you missed your free throw.

Even the page you linked speaks of sunset, twilight, the time between sunset and dark. I didn't see one reference to "late at night."

I went back and edited before you replied since its vague, in Genesis, Night is called Evening. I don't think it exclusively refers to Sunset in all the 100+ references. It can though.

he shoots...
Denied!

The amount of shots you've missed would get you benched at every game, and I have to still look up the 100+ references to see if NONE of them relate to Late at night specifically. Even the specific word for "Night" can apply to early evening.

See above. As I opined earlier, and you have now proven, rampant skepticism is a poor argument.

I don't understand how it's a poor argument or how you proved it.

Thank you for not actually reading the counter-argument I've presented time and again.

I invite anyone to quote where you actually presented a valid counter-argument especially that is based on the text.

**gets bag of popcorn. Sits back and waits.**[/

I recommend Trader Joe's Organic Popcorn.

 

[Shermana]

Are you saying that you think men ought always to dominate women and that women ought always to submit to men -- as in ancient cultures?

Gender relations is a subject I will debate on another appropriate thread and only in objective terms. Many modern feminists agree with my assessment, and view forms of modern Feminism as a Burgeois invention that emasculates men. I've met plenty of women who love to be dominated by their men. And the idea wasn't to brutalize the women or treat them badly. Many women LOVE a man who directs them and sets the rules. If you're on a date, the girl usually wants you to make all the decisions and you look weak if you don't. Most women who are "independent" seem to have heavy financial support from daddy or sugar daddy(ies). But yeah, another thread.

 

[sojourner]

And it's interesting that you think its immoral to be disgusted by their behavior.................So apparently it's wrong to find various sexual practices disgusting.

I think it's immature to find any normal sexual practice so disgusting that a whole group of people are vilified because of it.

 

[sojourner]

Ummmm, why would the Sodomites necessarily view it as unnatural? Back then it was quite common.

Misdirection won't get you anywhere. It's not the Sodomites who are either the writers or the intended audience of the text.

Okay, I'll take a look and see if I can find anything objective that relates. Hmmmm. I don't see anything about Town Elders. Looks like you missed your free throw.

Doesn't matter. The town elders are one small piece of the pericope. Far greater is the culpability for the citizens to show hospitality, as the article suggests.

I don't understand how it's a poor argument or how you proved it.

I don't disagree.

 

[sojourner]

Gender relations is a subject I will debate on another appropriate thread and only in objective terms. Many modern feminists agree with my assessment, and view forms of modern Feminism as a Burgeois invention that emasculates men. I've met plenty of women who love to be dominated by their men. And the idea wasn't to brutalize the women or treat them badly. Many women LOVE a man who directs them and sets the rules. If you're on a date, the girl usually wants you to make all the decisions and you look weak if you don't. Most women who are "independent" seem to have heavy financial support from daddy or sugar daddy(ies). But yeah, another thread.

"I've met plenty of women who..." isn't cogent to my question. Sexual games aren't at issue here. Cultural norms are the issue.

 

[Shermana]

Misdirection won't get you anywhere. It's not the Sodomites who are either the writers or the intended audience of the text.

I must have missed something you said, I thought you were implying that the Sodomites would have considered it unnatural.

Doesn't matter. The town elders are one small piece of the pericope. Far greater is the culpability for the citizens to show hospitality, as the article suggests.

Is that your way of admitting that your own link doesn't prove your claim?

I don't disagree

I don't disagree that you didn't actually offer a rebuttal either.

 

[Shermana]

"I've met plenty of women who..." isn't cogent to my question. Sexual games aren't at issue here. Cultural norms are the issue.

Sexual games? How did anything I say relate to that? I'm saying that even in today, the attempt to break these cultural norms is artificial and clashes with what is the facts on the ground. Note that I clearly said that men dominating their women does NOT translate to beating them and treating them badly. I would bet that the grand majority of modern women prefer a strong, dominating man who knows what he wants but treats them well at the same time. You're aware the implication is to "love your wife" in said so-called "Domination".

Like I said, if you want a full breakdown on my beliefs on gender relations, make an appropriate thread where everyone can chime in and share their views, I'm sure you'll be quite surprised at the actual result.

 

[sojourner]

Sexual games? How did anything I say relate to that? I'm saying that even in today, the attempt to break these cultural norms is artificial and clashes with what is the facts on the ground. Note that I clearly said that men dominating their women does NOT translate to beating them and treating them badly. I would bet that the grand majority of modern women prefer a strong, dominating man who knows what he wants but treats them well at the same time. You're aware the implication is to "love your wife" in said so-called "Domination".

Like I said, if you want a full breakdown on my beliefs on gender relations, make an appropriate thread where everyone can chime in and share their views, I'm sure you'll be quite surprised at the actual result.

Sooo...
Your answer to my question would be... ?

 

[sojourner]

Is that your way of admitting that your own link doesn't prove your claim?

No.
In case you missed it:
The town elders are one small piece of the pericope. Far greater is the culpability for the citizens to show hospitality, as the article suggests.

 

[Shermana]

Sooo...
Your answer to my question would be... ?

The answer is yes, and I've qualified that yes in case you try distorting what my "yes" implies.

 

[Shermana]

No.
In case you missed it:
The town elders are one small piece of the pericope. Far greater is the culpability for the citizens to show hospitality, as the article suggests.

Okay, but you admit at least it says nothing about Town Elders like you claimed.

Lot showed him hospitality. Who else was supposed to? Was the entire town supposed to all rush out to meet him? Isn't Lot enough?

 

[sojourner]

The answer is yes, and I've qualified that yes in case you try distorting what my "yes" implies.

So, yes. Men ought always to dominate women and that women ought always to submit to men -- as in ancient cultures.

Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, but you admit at least it says nothing about Town Elders like you claimed.

Lot showed him hospitality. Who else was supposed to? Was the entire town supposed to all rush out to meet him? Isn't Lot enough?

Lot wasn't a member of the town. He was a sojourner there. That one visitor greeted another was anathema, when it should have been the town elders. likewise, the only person coming to protect the angels was ... a visitor. Who was doing the harm? The members of the town.

Ya just don't get it -- or else you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Shermana]

Lot wasn't a member of the town. He was a sojourner there. That one visitor greeted another was anathema, when it should have been the town elders. likewise, the only person coming to protect the angels was ... a visitor. Who was doing the harm? The members of the town.

Ya just don't get it -- or else you're being intentionally obtuse.

I must have forgotten where it says that Lot wasn't a citizen/member but just a Sojourner. Can you remind me?

Something like "And Lot was just renting his house for a short time period" will do.