Euphoric atheists

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Chuck Gruden said:
Somewhat related is the Atheist page on Encyclopedia Dramatica caused the most seething edits on any of the articles relating to religion on that site.
Click to expand...
For people who pride themselves on "rationality," euphorics sure seethe almost Islamically when their religious beliefs are mocked.
 
marisa # said:
At least by my reading, I'm willing to concede that it isn't about gay people explicitly (Leviticus has enough to say about it anyway). But anyone that tries to argue it's only about a specific kind of sex act ("bottom role") is a retard.

In broad strokes, the story's about whether Sodom and Gomorrah has at least 1 upstanding person. Upon having visitors from Heaven itself, they not only show inhospitality toward their guests, but want to actively fuck them. It's supposed to show how beyond hope they are, and that it's understandable why God nukes them from orbit.

I'm willing to (partially) agree with his interpretation that it's more about inhospitality and being sex pests, but how on earth do you turn around and say it's a specific sex act?
Click to expand...
TIL that sodomy means axenia.
 
marisa # said:
At least by my reading, I'm willing to concede that it isn't about gay people explicitly (Leviticus has enough to say about it anyway). But anyone that tries to argue it's only about a specific kind of sex act ("bottom role") is a retard.

In broad strokes, the story's about whether Sodom and Gomorrah has at least 1 upstanding person. Upon having visitors from Heaven itself, they not only show inhospitality toward their guests, but want to actively fuck them. It's supposed to show how beyond hope they are, and that it's understandable why God nukes them from orbit.

I'm willing to (partially) agree with his interpretation that it's more about inhospitality and being sex pests, but how on earth do you turn around and say it's a specific sex act?
Click to expand...
Because for sure, they wanted that specific act. Lot offered them his daughters so that they won't fuck men but they still decided they NEED gay sex.
 
Sparkling Yuzu said:
He's an LGBT apologist though. He says that Sodom and Gomorrah is about inhospitality and people attempting to gang-rape an angel, not about homosexuality and that people in the Greco-Roman time of Early Christianity did not have the concept of gay and straight, so that text is saying that a man being in a receptive/bottom role specifically is bad/an abomination.
Click to expand...

Somehow they've reduced down the many condemnations of homosexuality as though it were just Sodom and Gomorrah, ignoring 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, among many others. Gay revisionists of this sort don't have any real evidence of early Christians tolerating homosexuality either.
 
Sparkling Yuzu said:
He says that Sodom and Gomorrah is about inhospitality and people attempting to gang-rape an angel, not about homosexuality and that people in the Greco-Roman time of Early Christianity did not have the concept of gay and straight, so that text is saying that a man being in a receptive/bottom role specifically is bad/an abomination.
Click to expand...
Technically yes because it is about inhospitality and general sexual perversion. Whenever it comes up again in the prophets section of the OT that's what the reference is, so that's it. There's literally nothing specific about homosexuality in the text or in the references.

The concept of a man taking the bottom role in sex comes from the neverending slapfight about Paul's use of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9. This is a neologism that references the terms arsen and keitei in the Septuagint version of Leviticus. Which Paul's audience immediately would have known and understood, but apparently is now really complicated.

There's just no evidence to support that Paul meant anything other than all sexual contact between men. Like...sorry, that's just what it is.
 
BootlegPopeye said:
Somehow they've reduced down the many condemnations of homosexuality as though it were just Sodom and Gomorrah, ignoring 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, among many others. Gay revisionists of this sort don't have any real evidence of early Christians tolerating homosexuality either.
Click to expand...
And even if it weren't expressly condemned, marriage is explicitly defined as being between man and woman. Therefore ALL homosexuality falls under "adultery" since it's all sex outside of marriage.
 
BootlegPopeye said:
Somehow they've reduced down the many condemnations of homosexuality as though it were just Sodom and Gomorrah, ignoring 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, among many others. Gay revisionists of this sort don't have any real evidence of early Christians tolerating homosexuality either.
Click to expand...
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22

Progressive "Christians", Atheists, and other leftists: "What did they mean by this?"
 
Amerikaner Teddybär said:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22

Progressive "Christians", Atheists, and other leftists: "What did they mean by this?"
Click to expand...
Uhm but ackshually sweaty, these other verses I took out of context says pork and shellfish are also forbidden. What's that? Acts of the Apostles? Never heard of it.
 
ABE LINN COHN said:
Uhm but ackshually sweaty, these other verses I took out of context says pork and shellfish are also forbidden. What's that? Acts of the Apostles? Never heard of it.
Click to expand...
It's great when people conflate all Levitical laws together to try to make a gotcha about traditional social doctrine, ignoring the distinction between ritual law and moral law and pretending that the Apostles did not make clear that most of the moral law remained in place even as the laws relating to ritual and ethnic distinction were lifted.
 
Flaming Insignias said:
It's great when people conflate all Levitical laws together to try to make a gotcha about traditional social doctrine, ignoring the distinction between ritual law and moral law and pretending that the Apostles did not make clear that most of the moral law remained in place even as the laws relating to ritual and ethnic distinction were lifted.
Click to expand...
I think you're drifting off topic a bit. That's an intra-faith dispute.
 
LoverofPi said:
I think you're drifting off topic a bit. That's an intra-faith dispute.
Click to expand...
The point was that some euphorics (and progressive "christians") like to use dietary laws and other points of Israelite ritual to deboonk the idea that Christian doctrine is opposed to homosexuality. I feel that this fits well within the purview of the topic in Euphoric Atheists using "gotcha" narratives to "le ebin troll those fundies"
 
Flaming Insignias said:
The point was that some euphorics (and progressive "christians") like to use dietary laws and other points of Israelite ritual to deboonk the idea that Christian doctrine is opposed to homosexuality. I feel that this fits well within the purview of the topic in Euphoric Atheists using "gotcha" narratives to "le ebin troll those fundies"
Click to expand...
You can't just slip "and progressive christians" in there like they're an afterhtought - especially when adding scare quotes to try and dismiss them as christians- when they are the people who are coming up with these arguments in the first place.
 
ABE LINN COHN said:
And even if it weren't expressly condemned, marriage is explicitly defined as being between man and woman. Therefore ALL homosexuality falls under "adultery" since it's all sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
Ackshually it falls under "abomination", along with sodomy, oral sex, masturbation, necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other rabbinical pastimes
 
LoverofPi said:
I think you're drifting off topic a bit. That's an intra-faith dispute.
Click to expand...
Picking and chosing the tenants of the faith, setting oneself up as an authority to self-ID as faithful (and thus engage in "intra-faith dispute") is the definition of heresy. The greek αἵρεσις (hæresis) literally means choice. Religion is not a buffet, but I suppose I'm joining you both in the drift off-topic.

 
Flaming Insignias said:
It's great when people conflate all Levitical laws together to try to make a gotcha about traditional social doctrine, ignoring the distinction between ritual law and moral law and pretending that the Apostles did not make clear that most of the moral law remained in place even as the laws relating to ritual and ethnic distinction were lifted.
Click to expand...
It only proves Christians were cherry-picking Jewish laws since the first century. The argument still stands correctly.
 
Flaming Insignias said:
The point was that some euphorics (and progressive "christians") like to use dietary laws and other points of Israelite ritual to deboonk the idea that Christian doctrine is opposed to homosexuality. I feel that this fits well within the purview of the topic in Euphoric Atheists using "gotcha" narratives to "le ebin troll those fundies"
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder if Progressive "Christians" and atheists are working together. Definitely seeing some strange connections.
 
Amerikaner Teddybär said:
Sometimes I wonder if Progressive "Christians" and atheists are working together. Definitely seeing some strange connections.
Click to expand...
It is known that Liberation Theology traces much of its spread to KGB-backed religious leaders trying to convert highly religious minority populations to "the Revolution," so I wouldn't be shocked if at least some of the progressive denominations are under the control of left-wing atheists trying to use faith to shape culture in ways that pure secularism can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom