[Paradigm]

And you reject this bias when it doesn't suit you, Donald?

I'm sure Saudi Arabia would love to hear about which parts of their culture you conveniently choose not follow. In fact, why don't you go visit them to tell them in person?

[QatzelOk]

I'm sure Saudi Arabia would love to hear about which parts of their culture you conveniently choose not follow.

We're not talking about local culture in this thread, Para.

We're talking about which texts we follow and what biases they contain.

To not be able to distinguish between theoretical text and conventional culture is a potential disaster.

[ninurta]

Sorry for the late response, I have been real busy. Yeah I am aware that the real story was about hospitality. But if someone came and tried to take my land from me because their god said they can have it, don´t expect hospitality from me

[Donna]

And you reject this bias when it doesn't suit you, Donald?

Of course. Is there something wrong with this? How I regard the historicity of the Bible renders my approach fair and not hypocritical in the slightest.

[Potemkin]

If they accepted Lots daughters to rape instead of the male angels, then they in no way could possibly be homosexual. They are bisexual or something along those lines.

In the ancient world (and in fact in the modern world too until the late 19th century), homosexuality was not regarded as an identity, but as an action. The ancients believed that almost anyone was theoretically capable of committing homosexual acts, which were usually regarded as sinful or antisocial, and religious proscriptions were therefore placed upon such acts. To say that the Sodomites 'were' homosexual or 'were' bisexual is therefore inaccurate and is based on a projection of our modern Western ideas onto the ancient world. They were neither; they were simply capable of committing antisocial and sinful acts, such as violating the rules of hospitality or committing acts of homosexual rape.

[ninurta]

In the ancient world (and in fact in the modern world too until the late 19th century), homosexuality was not regarded as an identity, but as an action.

No, they didn't have a word for it back then.

That is why they often used metaphorical and other words like gay, fag, and what not to call someone gay. Because they didnt actually have a word for it.

The ancients believed that almost anyone was theoretically capable of committing homosexual acts, which were usually regarded as sinful or antisocial,

The ancients were not monolithic, and you definitely aren't talking about the classical world of greece and rome, so what ancients are you talking about? Not mesopotamia either. Ancient israel? Ancient arabia? China? Persia? Where?

Actually homosexual acts were acceptable in much of the ancient mediterraenean and in mesopotamia it wasn't exceptable unless you were a male hooker in a temple or having sex with one. And in egypt it was acceptable.

and religious proscriptions were therefore placed upon such acts. To say that the Sodomites 'were' homosexual or 'were' bisexual is therefore inaccurate and is based on a projection of our modern Western ideas onto the ancient world. They were neither; they were simply capable of committing antisocial and sinful acts, such as violating the rules of hospitality or committing acts of homosexual rape.

No, they were just violating the israelite rules of hospitality, but possibly because they just didn't like people invading their land. So I think the sodomites did a good thing and Lot was an idiot handing over his daughters like that, just hand over them dumb evil spirits that came to destroy the city alongwith the god who was doing evil.

[Nets]

No, they didn't have a word for it back then.

That is why they often used metaphorical and other words like gay, fag, and what not to call someone gay. Because they didnt actually have a word for it.

No, Potemkin's historical analysis was the correct one (as is usually the case ).

No, they were just violating the Israelite rules of hospitality, but possibly because they just didn't like people invading their land. So I think the sodomites did a good thing and Lot was an idiot handing over his daughters like that, just hand over them dumb evil spirits that came to destroy the city along with the god who was doing evil.

Ninurta, your time-line and/or reading of scripture is very messed up.

The story of Sodom and Amorah is in Genesis, at the time of Abraham. Israelites, at least biblically, did not exist yet, and the Israelite descent into Canaan is not until several hundred years later in Deuteronomy/Joshua/Judges.

I am not sure what political point you are trying to make but you seem to be confused about these narratives.

How was God doing evil?

[ninurta]

Ninurta, your time-line and/or reading of scripture is very messed up.

How is my timeline and/or reading of bible mythology messed up?

The story of Sodom and Amorah is in Genesis, at the time of Abraham.

Yeah I am aware that the story takes place before the Israelites came about, Abraham was seen as the ancestor of them though, that is what i meant.

Israelites, at least biblically, did not exist yet, and the Israelite descent into Canaan is not until several hundred years later in Deuteronomy/Joshua/Judges.

I am aware of how the myth goes.

I am not sure what political point you are trying to make but you seem to be confused about these narratives.

No political point, this is in the religion section/agora section. Just a point that if they went with women willingly, then at least by modern standards, they werent homosexual, and therefore we can't say they were.

How was God doing evil?

I don't know, destroying 2 cities for a percieved wrong.....And then ordering all out genocide against the canaanites. That is evil, at least I believe genocide is evil.

Hey don't think I am attacking the religion, my gods do evil sometimes too.

[Nets]

I don't know, destroying 2 cities for a perceived wrong.

Well, it wasn't a "perceived" wrong, Sodom and Amora were evil cities. You can't leave out the debate in which Abraham tries to get God to avert his decree on the cities, the the counting of righteous people in the cities.

And then ordering all out genocide against the canaanites. That is evil, at least I believe genocide is evil.

Yes, it is startling to modern eyes, but one must remember that this is happening in the near east three thousand years ago. While this does not exculpate Israelite actions, it does give it a historical context in which basically every other nation was also doing it to each other. It is important to note that oral law forbids actions like these, and has very sophisticated laws of war.

Secondly, it cannot really be considered genocide so much as ideology-cide, as the call for destruction applied to both Canaanite, as well as Israelite, cities that engaged in idolatry; and the commandment was limited to within the (biblical) borders of Israel as not neighboring countries.

Thirdly, it does not happen out of nowhere, the moral iniquities and sinfulness of the Canaanites are described throughout the five books leading up to the war, it does not happen in a vacuum. Furthermore, this story is distinguishable from modern conceptions of genocide in that God is rendering a diving ruling; it is not man who is making the decree. So nothing in the text legitimizes genocide in general, this is a specific case.

Yeah I am aware that the story takes place before the Israelites came about, Abraham was seen as the ancestor of them though, that is what i meant.

What does this have to do with the story of Sodom and Amora?

[ninurta]

[]I don't know, destroying 2 cities for a perceived wrong.[]
Well, it wasn't a "perceived" wrong, Sodom and Amora were evil cities. You can't leave out the debate in which Abraham tries to get God to avert his decree on the cities, the the counting of righteous people in the cities.

So we should kill god for being evil? O wait no, he is a tyrant immune to justice. They may have been evil, but it was never stated what that evil was if there was any. Was it their lifestyle, then they were far more good than the god involved.

[]And then ordering all out genocide against the canaanites. That is evil, at least I believe genocide is evil.[]
Yes, it is startling to modern eyes, but one must remember that this is happening in the near east three thousand years ago. While this does not exculpate Israelite actions, it does give it a historical context in which basically every other nation was also doing it to each other. It is important to note that oral law forbids actions like these, and has very sophisticated laws of war.

Just because of the time it happened, doesn't make it any more justifyable. I know the myth reflects moral views of the time the book was written in about 200-300 BCE, but by the standards that we use to call Adolf Hitler evil, that god is evil. If hitler commited genocide against the jews in 10,000 BCE, would that make it any less evil? Absolutely not. At least in my view.

Secondly, it cannot really be considered genocide so much as ideology-cide, as the call for destruction applied to both Canaanite, as well as Israelite, cities that engaged in idolatry; and the commandment was limited to within the (biblical) borders of Israel as not neighboring countries.

No, it was genocide, and what happened applied to every man, woman and child, and they were to not be spared but to be killed. That my friend is genocide, not ideology-cide, which is killing an ideology. The myth talks about the genocide of the canaanites.

It talks more about mass murder of the canaanites than their religion in the book of Joshua.

Thirdly, it does not happen out of nowhere, the moral iniquities and sinfulness of the Canaanites are described throughout the five books leading up to the war, it does not happen in a vacuum.

And what exactly were they? From the way I understand it, Ham mistakenly saw his father nude so Noah cursed his son Canaan for it, and declared him to be the lowest of slaves. Then ElShaddai sent Abraham to take the land from them, but never fulfilled his promises, not to abram/abraham, his son Isaac, nor his son Jacob. And yeah the canaanites and early isrealites (or whatever you want to call them) in the myth had some struggles, not like that was uncommon. As for taking Abrahams wife, well abraham told her to say she was his sister, and not his wife. He was at fault then, so was his son when he did the same stupid crap.

Eventually Josephs brothers sold him into slavery, where he eventually became pharaoh in the myth over time. And from there eventually they were enslaved in egypt. Then left egypt to go on their genocidal mission into Canaan.

Furthermore, this story is distinguishable from modern conceptions of genocide in that God is rendering a diving ruling; it is not man who is making the decree. So nothing in the text legitimizes genocide in general, this is a specific case.

So we should let out those mass murderers that said,"God told me to do it", because what if god actually told them to do it? What if it was a divine ruling? Then what the Taliban did to nonbelievers in Afghanistan was okay? By your definitions yeah, because it was gods ruling in the koran, sunna/and hadith to kill unbelievers, especially if they dont pay you to believe something else. Right.........

[]Yeah I am aware that the story takes place before the Israelites came about, Abraham was seen as the ancestor of them though, that is what i meant.[]

What does this have to do with the story of Sodom and Amora?

What you said about them not being Israelites.

[Potemkin]

Eventually Josephs brothers sold him into slavery, where he eventually became pharaoh in the myth over time.

You really need to read your copy of the Bible more attentively, ninurta.

[ninurta]

You really need to read your copy of the Bible more attentively, ninurta.

I've read it and the real Tanakh over and over. The Bible is just the bastardization of the Tanakh plus a thrown together new testament.

[Potemkin]

Then you should know that Joseph did not become pharaoh of Egypt.

[DanDaMan]

If you're interested in homosexual cultures, check these out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... th_Pacific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marind-anim

This is why modern Liberals want to teach our children that sodomy between men is "normal" and not unnatural.
They want a generation of children to be educated enough to have sex with. Just as they do in the societies described above.
This is how perversions become normal and pedophila becomes mainstream.
You see... equal rights for all forms of deviants is why our courts and judges no longer punish pedophiles harshly. One can not give one sexual deviant, born that way, more rights than a different type of sexual deviant.

[Shadow Dragon]

Dan, there is a huge difference between homosexuality and pedophillia. Gay and bi people like adults of the same sex. Besides, most child molesters are married men (as in married to a woman).

[DanDaMan]

Dan, there is a huge difference between homosexuality and pedophillia. Gay and bi people like adults of the same sex. Besides, most child molesters are married men (as in married to a woman).

The only reason groups like NAMBLA are no longer associated with natioanl/global gay organizations is because Anita Bryant made a stink.
Barring that they would more than likely still be accepted partners.

And there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophiles when homosexuals argue for rights based on a platform that they were "born that way".
Telling me pedophilia is illegal doesn't mean much when sodomy was illegal too 30 years ago.

And to clarify... child molesters can also be homosexual.
Case in point.. the priests were homosexual pedophiles.

[Potemkin]

Actually, there has been a process recently by which pedophilia has been separated from homosexuality both ideologically (in the Althusserian sense of ideology) and institutionally. The increased public acceptance of homosexuality has been accompanied by an increased demonisation of pedophilia. These two trends are of course linked; homosexuality has become more acceptable to most people because it is not perceived as part of the same continuum as pedophilia. This is one of the reasons for the increasing tendency of gay rights activists to distance themselves from organisations like NAMBLA. This was not always the case, of course - back in the 70s, pedophilia was much less demonised than it is now, and was associated in most people's minds as being a form of homosexuality. Both were regarded as being equally despicable and contemptible. Before homosexuality could achieve acceptance in mainstream society, this process of separating it from other forms of paraphilia, specifically pedophilia, had to occur, and is occurring.

[Shadow Dragon]

And there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophiles when homosexuals argue for rights based on a platform that they were "born that way".

The difference is that adults can give consent, children can't. That's why one is alright and the other isn't.

[Godstud]

Sodomy also includes anal AND oral sex so you could have almost any sexual orientation called Sodomites in the bible.

Consenting sex between adults is a good thing, regardless of sexual orientation. Whether you agree with their sexual orientation or not doesn't change the fact that it's consensual and between adults who wish to do it. Homosexuality is only still demonized by the religious right who, while condemning it in the name of the bible are OK with committing sodomy themselves. (No BJs? What were they thinking!)

Case in point.. the priests were homosexual pedophiles.

Yes, and some priests were heterosexual pedophiles.

Pedophilia is wrong regardless of sexual orientation.

[DanDaMan]

I agree Potemkin.
This is why American schools are adopting "Zero Tolerance" rules.
IE you have a Scout pocket knife locked in your car on campus you get expelled.
No judge. No Jury. Just execution of the punishment.
This Zero Tolerance teaches children not to judge others.
(The school system fails to teach judgment and discrimination via example)
Because if you start judging and discriminating one must compare arguments.
And to do so would mean pedophiles "born that way" are equals to homosexuals.

The difference is that adults can give consent, children can't. That's why one is alright and the other isn't.

For arguments sake..OK.
Aside from that infraction of the law can pedophiles have access to existing child pornography?