Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaineShark]

What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

Actually, you may want to read that in more detail.  In Genesis 19:8, Lot defends these two angels by offering to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters, if they'll leave the men alone.

And Lot was, apparently, so righteous that divine intervention was exercised to save him.

That's not the only place where rape is divinely condoned.

Joe

[MaineShark]

As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.

“For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Of course, the Old Testament is also full of stories of the Patriarchs having multiple wives or concubines. 

Um, that defines "one woman - one man" as the minimum necessary for a marriage.  It sets no upper bound.

Joe

[Uncle Walt]

As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.

“For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Of course, the Old Testament is also full of stories of the Patriarchs having multiple wives or concubines. 

Um, that defines "one woman - one man" as the minimum necessary for a marriage.  It sets no upper bound.

Joe

That was my point.

[Uncle Walt]

What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

Actually, you may want to read that in more detail.  In Genesis 19:8, Lot defends these two angels by offering to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters, if they'll leave the men alone.

And Lot was, apparently, so righteous that divine intervention was exercised to save him.

That's not the only place where rape is divinely condoned.

Joe

Since his daughters were his property (under the mores of the time), I don't think that would be viewed as rape the same way the attack on the angels would be.  But that's just MY opinion.

Though, later in the story, his daughters get him drunk to have sex with him ... so rape & incest. 

[dalebert]

Since his daughters were his property (under the mores of the time), I don't think that would be viewed as rape the same way the attack on the angels would be.  But that's just MY opinion.

Though, later in the story, his daughters get him drunk to have sex with him ... so rape & incest. 

I suppose in a world where women aren't real people and are just property, only men can be raped.  But we digress...

[Uncle Walt]

Since his daughters were his property (under the mores of the time), I don't think that would be viewed as rape the same way the attack on the angels would be.  But that's just MY opinion.

Though, later in the story, his daughters get him drunk to have sex with him ... so rape & incest. 

I suppose in a world where women aren't real people and are just property, only men can be raped.  But we digress...

Right you are.  So, then ...

I don't believe the FSP cares about anything.  FSP is not a living entity - thus it can't have feelings - thus it can't care.
Individuals within the FSP may care.  There may even be an official guidelines telling them what to care about while working as representatives of the FSP organization.
Of course, then it really becomes a question of whether or not individuals are following guidelines they agreed to.

Personally, I'd encourage people to display their bigotry.  I'd rather know an outspoken racist, than one who pretended not to be. 
Makes it so much less surprising when they act on their bigotry.

[dalebert]

I don't believe the FSP cares about anything.  FSP is not a living entity - thus it can't have feelings - thus it can't care.
Individuals within the FSP may care.

If you read some earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that this has been discussed at length.

[HRearden]

I can't even remember a quote attributed to Christ on homosexual behaviour.

What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

You should read Lev 20:13.

[The Rising Populist]

This is why I dislike "conserva-tarianism" because they're just bigots hiding under more consistent clothing than the standard neoconitis

Bigoted people make me uncomfortable, which is why I'm not involved in Ron Paul or Tea Party initiatives anymore.

[dalebert]

Bigoted people make me uncomfortable, which is why I'm not involved in Ron Paul or Tea Party initiatives anymore.

Ah, you should listen to tomorrow's show because we'll be discussing this article.

[dalebert]

Bigoted people make me uncomfortable, which is why I'm not involved in Ron Paul or Tea Party initiatives anymore.

Ah, you should listen to tomorrow's show because we'll be discussing this article.

And so we did.  We discussed an article about "the ugly side of Dr. No."

[10stateswithnh]

Charming article  , with, in my opinion, a very loose definition of the word "bigotry". Apparently believing in popular misconceptions, in an era when you don't have the technology to easily check your facts, about a group you don't know or understand, makes one a bigot according to some people. I just call it, ignorance, and ignorance which has been corrected by the passage of time, such that he doesn't say this stuff anymore. By this definition, I guess everyone was bigoted before about the 1960's, so it hardly makes sense to judge people based on stuff they said a long time ago before the facts got out. In the early 1800's all white Americans were racist according to this kind of definition, which is a logical fallacy whose name I can't think of, but it's something to do with judging past cultures based on current standards of morality and ethics. If you do that than everyone in the distant past was evil.

For example in the early 1800's it was common for 50-year-old men to marry 15 or 16-year-old girls, maybe even a little younger. Nowadays we call it statutory rape or child abuse, but it was accepted then. Calling all those people perverted based on our current standards seems ludicrous, but that's about how this article seems to me (obviously with different timeframe and different issues).

[John Edward Mercier]

Older men can still marry teenage girls in NH...
Its statutory rape when they are not married.

[dalebert]

For example in the early 1800's it was common for 50-year-old men to marry 15 or 16-year-old girls, maybe even a little younger. Nowadays we call it statutory rape or child abuse, but it was accepted then. Calling all those people perverted based on our current standards seems ludicrous, but that's about how this article seems to me (obviously with different timeframe and different issues).

We're talking mid to late 90s here, but fair enough.  You're saying the same thing as Neal in his defense, that he seems to have changed.  I think it's serious enough he should own up to it and say as much himself instead of trying to claim he had no idea it was even being said.  If he were to become a contender in the race, this will most assuredly come back to bite him and the direct approach is probably better.

Then again, maybe he's got the strategy that that bridge isn't worth crossing until after the primaries as it's the Dems most likely to attack him with it.

[swamp_yankee]

Bigoted against who?  Mormon? Catholics? Traditionalists? The rich?

Its a relative term, but some wish to claim ownership of the term for their pet demographic. Awful lot of bigoted attitudes towards religious folks in the FSP and no one seems to care.