The homophobic verses

[Craig B]

Okay, is Jesus attributed with bringing up the subject of sexuality at all?

Yes, including:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9.

 

[Navigator]

Much the same story is told in Judges 19:12-30. In this case the rapists do indeed settle for the woman offered to them, a Levite's concubine. The tale proceeds: As one would, of course.

One wonders at the state of mind of those who created such stories, or the state of mind of those who believe the same stories.

Let alone the state of a nations mind which attributes such stories to their god-lore...perhaps a scattered nation for very obvious reasons.

 

[Navigator]

They were. Wait till you meet the bad guys!

Who are the bad guys?

 

[I Ratant]

Much if not most religious traditions are variations on "just so stories."

...

"Daddy, why are there rainbows?"

"They are a sign God will never again drown the Earth."

...

.
"Daddy, rainbows are formed by sunlight diffracting through a spherical raindrop. What shape were raindrops before the Flood?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
????

 

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, is Jesus attributed with bringing up the subject of sexuality at all?

He was pretty clear about not divorcing.

Edit: I see Craig B already addressed this in more detail.

 

[Navigator]

It was your first encounter with "homosexuality" (not "a homosexual"), yet you already knew the term "homo" and could accurately apply it as an insult? Really?

Yes really. I had heard the term but did not know what it meant. The boy told me he was a homosexual while he was showing me his penis and insisting that I show him mine.

Some people hit on others who aren't receptive to their advances and won't take no for an answer. No kidding. Women have been complaining about that from straight men years, so it's just as valid to say that heterosexuality "could do with looking at itself and the way it also presents itself."

No doubt. Shall we start another thread on that or just accept that everyone could do with taking a good look at their expressions?

If all gay people should take responsibility or feel guilt because some act like that boy, then heterosexual males should do the same for every man who makes women uncomfortable with sexual advances.

No doubt. Shall we start another thread on that or just accept that everyone - yes even misandrists - could do with taking a good look at their expressions?

Personally, I think women should be treated as equals, not sex objects, but there's little I can do to prevent it from happening if some heterosexual decides to be a jerk when I'm nowhere around.

Why pick on men only? Do you think somehow women are innocent victims? Your bigotry bias is showing that lean toward...

Also, in relation to sexuality, what are you suggesting when you say 'women should be treated as equals?' and how would you go suppressing women who actually make a living from portraying themselves sexually, as objects of sexual desire?

Should women too learn to understand how heterosexual men are generally wired and adjust accordingly so as not to put out mixed messages?

 

[Navigator]

Yes, including: Matthew 19:9.
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

So there is a clause.

 

[Pup]

Why pick on men only? Do you think somehow women are innocent victims? Your bigotry bias is showing that lean toward...

Because you were talking about things that men do. Your anecdote didn't mention lesbians and I'm presuming you're male yourself, so there was no need to bring up women, but for the record, I also don't think it's okay for lesbians or straight women to force their attentions on people who don't want it. I'm against rude cab drivers, murder, abandoning children and a lot of other things too, but there's not room to fit everything in one post.

My point is that you were criticizing homosexual men in general for something that a few homosexual men do. Heterosexual men, collectively, also have the same problem with some of their group.

If you are a heterosexual male (presumably), how do you personally deal with the poor reputation that heterosexual men have among some women, who complain they make unwanted advances?

Your solution to that problem would be an example of how homosexual men could deal with what you perceive as their problem.

Also, in relation to sexuality, what are you suggesting when you say 'women should be treated as equals?' and how would you go suppressing women who actually make a living from portraying themselves sexually, as objects of sexual desire?

Well, that's the difficulty, and I don't know the answer. People need to make sexual overtures to others or they'll never find a mate, but at the same time they have to judge when those overtures are unwanted. Meanwhile, some people enjoy portraying objects of sexual desire while others enjoy playing hard to get.

Society is improving, in my opinion, and we've come a long way from the days when the male boss could leer at his female secretary with no repercussions.

But it's not an easy problem for society in general to solve, regardless whether the people involved are hetero/homo/something else, because we certainly can't eliminate all sexual advances. That's why I'm asking how you as a heterosexual address the problem, to see how you'd suggest homosexuals address it.

 

[Dessi]

Should women too learn to understand how heterosexual men are generally wired and adjust accordingly so as not to put out mixed messages?

Errrm, what the hell? Seriously? This thread became a trainwreck quickly.

 

[Navigator]

Because you were talking about things that men do. Your anecdote didn't mention lesbians and I'm presuming you're male yourself, so there was no need to bring up women, but for the record, I also don't think it's okay for lesbians or straight women to force their attentions on people who don't want it. I'm against rude cab drivers, murder, abandoning children and a lot of other things too, but there's not room to fit everything in one post.

It sounds to me then that you against any form of bigotry and hypocrisy. If so, we are on the same page.

My point is that you were criticizing homosexual men in general for something that a few homosexual men do. Heterosexual men, collectively, also have the same problem with some of their group.

I was sharing a true happening I experienced and my reaction to it. I prefer to try to keep to thread subject.

If you are a heterosexual male (presumably), how do you personally deal with the poor reputation that heterosexual men have among some women, who complain they make unwanted advances?

The same as I deal with everything. I don't do that myself. Therefore I don't take the heat for those who do simply due to my gender, sexual preference, skin color, race etc...I make sure that those who complain to me about such things are not guilty of the same type bigotry motivated behavior. If they are I call them on their hypocrisy.

Your solution to that problem would be an example of how homosexual men could deal with what you perceive as their problem.

I don't perceive anyone's problem. If they have a problem and express it, then I can begin to understand what their problem is, and depending on their receptivity, how they might deal with their problem.

Well, that's the difficulty, and I don't know the answer. People need to make sexual overtures to others or they'll never find a mate, but at the same time they have to judge when those overtures are unwanted. Meanwhile, some people enjoy portraying objects of sexual desire while others enjoy playing hard to get.

This is correct. So in relation to unwanted sexual overtures, all parties need to educate themselves, develop and apply appropriate solutions.

Society is improving, in my opinion, and we've come a long way from the days when the male boss could leer at his female secretary with no repercussions.

Sure we have. Now there is the issue of advertising which portrays men as sexual objects or silly slaves to their female partners whims. The attitude seems to shift rather than be erased.

But it's not an easy problem for society in general to solve, regardless whether the people involved are hetero/homo/something else, because we certainly can't eliminate all sexual advances. That's why I'm asking how you as a heterosexual address the problem, to see how you'd suggest homosexuals address it.

As I have said. It is an attitude. The sexual preference or gender based platforms are not the issue. The attitude is the issue.
I look for hypocrisy.

For example, I do not fall for the female poor me victim position in relation to her demands that heterosexual males look away and stop leering while she wears outfits design to evoke sexual response. It is a game I find distasteful.

Neither do I fall for the 'I raped her because she was putting out and dressed provocatively and was thus asking for it' position. As far as I am concerned the male has allowed stupidity and inability to restrain himself - a lack of control and discipline to override his sensibilities and regard for consequence. He has failed to fear the consequence.

Not all men need to fear any consequence because they have the tendency to see and to understand what is going on and have control of and respect for themselves.
I am one such man.
Also I enjoy the fact that I can get an eyeful without having to pay any price for it. I particularly enjoy the female form and the less they want to wear, the more I get to enjoy.

I don't apologize at all for this. I am not forcing women to dress scantily. I respect their right to dress as they want to. My advantage. They seem happy enough with my position...I smile about it, I don't leer or fall into some lame brained fantasy that they are doing it all for my benefit.
Nor do I pretend not to notice.

On another related note to rape and homosexuality

I do not regard the attitude I see and hear about those who 'deserve prison' and comments to the effect that 'I hope he gets plugged in the shower because he deserves it' as being anything better in attitude. One is hoping another gets raped. That is insane, hypocritical, no better than the rapists one desires to be raped.

What is being hoped for is homosexual rape - that some tough guy is going to rape him and he deserves to be raped...see how it feels to be the victim.

I do not like that men in teaching positions of trust use their homosexual tendency to molest and rape boys.

 

[Navigator]

Errrm, what the hell? Seriously? This thread became a trainwreck quickly.

It was a question dessi. Do you have an answer?

 

[Aepervius]

I recall the story. Firstly I would question why you would think it was 'an even worse solution to the problem' Surely sending out the two strangers to satisfy the demands of the towns-people was not any better a solution?

Actually sending the stranger is indeed a better solution. You see normal psychological persons would protect people so direct family/son/daughter>extended family>tribe>nation>specie>other specie. Giving your daughter instead of a stranger show an atypical trend, more psychotic than anything.

Lot had two problems. He was obviously heterosexual and obviously not 'world-wise' so may not have understood that the men making the demands would have no interest in his daughter.

Or you are adding your own interpretation. MY interpretation is that the two city were having inhabitant having all sort opf depravation, not only homosexual.

That he considered the two strangers to be more value than his own daughter would have to do with their being 'Angels' (if he understood them as so) and for him to even think of suggesting the Angels (or strangers who he had given refuge to) should volunteer themselves to the demands of the homosexuals is probably coming from a lack of understanding as to protocol of the times and culture Lot was part of.

And.... angel could not defend themselves ? as opposed to the daughter which would have been raped , tortured for the sake of revenge on lot not giving their stranger?

Lot was 'between a rock and a hard place' but I am assuming that he was not 'world wise' and could just as likely be incorrect - he may well have known that there was no danger to the men taking up his offer of his daughter, therefore there was no danger to her.

Or he could have told teh "angel" : look guys can you help me there ? any solution you can propose ? But then it would not have made for a good story, hey ?

and don't get me started on the woman egtting the salt treatment, and teh daughter havign lot drunk and having sex with him. Apparently icnest is OK (lot of instance) but homosexuality not.

 

[Brian-M]

And.... angel could not defend themselves ? as opposed to the daughter which would have been raped , tortured for the sake of revenge on lot not giving their stranger?

Or he could have told teh "angel" : look guys can you help me there ? any solution you can propose ? But then it would not have made for a good story, hey ?

Well, the two angels did defend themselves by blinding the men after they turned down the offer of Lot's daughters. Although, going on to destroy the city and slaughtering everyone within it does seem to be something of an overreaction.

 

[Anerystos]

We start with the story of Sodom. God wanted to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah unless a single virtuous man could be found within.

You miss out the entertaining part. Abraham asks god if he will destroy the city if 50 righteous men could be found. Then if he could only find 45 – and so on down to 10. Eventually god says in effect “Sod it, they're getting it anyway”.

Question: how did Abraham trick god into this game?

 

[Navigator]

Did these cities even actually exist? It seems more likely that bigots themselves made the story up and elaborated thereafter.

While it is obviously great fun to poke and prod at illusions, (although I don't see the point myself...seems childish and unfocused which coincidentally is what bigotry is too) I think my question is worth repeating.

 

[lobosrul]

You miss out the entertaining part. Abraham asks god if he will destroy the city if 50 righteous men could be found. Then if he could only find 45 – and so on down to 10. Eventually god says in effect “Sod it, they're getting it anyway”.

I've always wondered, but was too afraid to ask in the past, by what mechanism exactly did biblical characters communicate with God?

Was he just a voice in their head, was it a voice that everyone nearby could hear, did he appear in human form, or was he an old bearded guy in the skies (Monty Python style)?

 

[Brainache]

I've always wondered, but was too afraid to ask in the past, by what mechanism exactly did biblical characters communicate with God?

Was he just a voice in their head, was it a voice that everyone nearby could hear, did he appear in human form, or was he an old bearded guy in the skies (Monty Python style)?

Flaming shrubbery.


ETA: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3&version=NIV

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”

4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”

And Moses said, “Here I am.”
...etc

 

[Frozenwolf150]

No. Not for the sake of a single virtuous man. According to Genesis 18:32 it's for the sake of ten righteous men that he would not destroy it.

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”​

No. They didn't want to spend the night in his house. They only agreed to stay with him because he insisted.

From Genesis 19:2-3...

“My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house.​

You're right, I missed those details.

No. There's nothing in the story that supports this interpretation. It could (probably should) be interpreted as meaning that their evil was sexual assault in general.

However, since it involves a crowd of men wanting commit homosexual rape upon two men from out of town, and who show no interest in having sex with the women that are offered to them, it's often interpreted as being that their evil was, at least in part, that of homosexuality.

Like I said though, you can't remove the story from its cultural context, which I tried to explain in my OP. The story doesn't directly state the rules of hospitality, but any Jewish listeners living at the time would already know about them. Also, sexual assault is not the same as sexual attraction; it's an act of violence, dominance, and control. It would have made no difference if the men of Sodom had wanted to beat and rob the angels, or if the angels were female.

 

[Pup]

The same as I deal with everything. I don't do that myself. Therefore I don't take the heat for those who do simply due to my gender, sexual preference, skin color, race etc...I make sure that those who complain to me about such things are not guilty of the same type bigotry motivated behavior. If they are I call them on their hypocrisy.

Sounds reasonable, and pretty much what I do as well.

I don't perceive anyone's problem. If they have a problem and express it, then I can begin to understand what their problem is, and depending on their receptivity, how they might deal with their problem.

What I was referring to--and it's my fault for not expressing it more clearly--was the issue you were suggesting that "homosexuality" address here:

I think homosexuality isn't all the victim of heterosexual misunderstanding and could do with looking at itself and the way it also presents itself.

It is not the platform used so much as the attitude using the platform.

 

[Navigator]

Sounds reasonable, and pretty much what I do as well.



What I was referring to--and it's my fault for not expressing it more clearly--was the issue you were suggesting that "homosexuality" address here:

I think homosexuality isn't all the victim of heterosexual misunderstanding and could do with looking at itself and the way it also presents itself.

It is not the platform used so much as the attitude using the platform.​

What would you like me to explain then?

Also, why "homosexuality"? Am I referring to it incorrectly?