The Gross and Creepy Story of Lot

I love creepy bible stories.

http%3A//recoveredbaptist.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/the-gross-and-creepy-story-of-lot/

Look, God is against homosexuality. I don't understand why people keep wanting to dispell it. Believe in yourself.
I am actually an atheist, R1. There is no sky fairy to feel one way or another. I just love pointing out biblical inconsistencies to KKKristians who have never actually cracked open he bible themselves.
PPSM
God is not against homosexuality, which, by the way, does not appear in the Lot story. What does appear are false and degraded ethics. Lot's daughters drug and rape their father and are supported for it; but Lot's wife is killed for looking in the wrong direction. That is not a just God.
God IS against homosexuality. Christians are not the only ones who think so either. As I stated, I think all religions should be held accountable. Why that doesn't happen I'll never understand.
Oh sure, the daughters were the rapists! There's nothing that teenaged virgins who've just lost their mother want more than to have sex with their father. The old testament is full of unmitigated evil. Genocide, slavery, and excusing a father for raping his daughters.
God LOVES homsexuals and homosexuality. He created homosexuality. God, as a rule, doesn't hate anybody, but he does dislike intensely the lunatic Christians who spread hate in His name, and presume to speak for Him.
Earl%2C%20God%27s%20Social%20Media%20Director
Whatever your personal opinion on same sex relationships; there is no god, so it's your opinion. Your opinion, not god, yours.
Opinion
I kept telling my wife to cut down on the salt, but she just wouldn't listen.
Lot
R4, the moron, has not read the Bible. Daniel 1:9 "Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs." John 13:23 "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom, one his disciples, whom Jesus loved." John 19:26-27. Jesus gives his mother to John's care
I have read it. And God does not want man lying with man. He is clear about it. I don't get why people want to see something that isn't there. It's like you want something that doesn't feel the same. I'm not the moron here.
R10. Just curious... Do you play football, eat pork, eat shellfish, or wear clothes made of blended fabric? Do you plant different kinds of seed in the same field? All of those are listed as abominations in the bible. The bible also commands women to cover their hair in public and not to speak in church. Do the women in your life stick to these rules? The bible also is perfectly fine with owning slaves, having multiple wives, fathering countless children with said wives and with "handmaidens." Thebible gives you permission to kill said slaves, wives, and children if they disobey you. Do you believe that applies to you? Hmmm? And don't even get me started if you are divorced or remarried. Jesus himself was pretty harsh on that subject, and said nothing about gays at all. This all comes from the New Testament as well as the old, by the way. So you can't weasel your way out that way. So listen up, asshole. Your hatred of gays comes directly from you. It's all you. There is no God in the mix telling people where to stick their dicks and validating your hatred behind the scenes. Like many bigots, you twist the words of your holy book to bend to the ideas already in your head. Don't try to turn this around and accuse liberals of "picking and choosing" when--if you have read the bible (which I doubt)--you know damn well there are countless things in there you completely ignore in your own life. Don't get into a biblical debate with me, either. You. Will. Lose. I was raised by an extremely conservative southern baptist minister and spent an insane amount of time in church, sunday school, prayer meetings, bible studies, revivals, youth camps, etc. I even spent two years at Okkklahoma Baptist University. I know the scriptures better than you could ever hope to. So don't even bother. Go crawl back under your rock. Let the grownups talk.
Pollyanna%20Prisspot%2C%20School%20Marm
R10's a liar, you have not read the Bible. If you had you would know that the way they sealed business deals in ancient times was to give each other hand jobs, euphemistically translated "put his hand under his thigh" in the King James.
I forgot another golden nugget for R10. The bible describes a woman's menstrual cycle as her "sickness" and declares her unclean while in this "sickness." It orders you to kick her out of the house and not touch her during this period. If you do, you will both be "unclean" and should be cast out of the city. Don't forget that one as you claim to have read and follow this book of fairy tales to the letter. The bible is "clear" about a lot of things. Just own that you choose to disregard most of it but love to use it to validate your hatred for gays. Moron.
PPSM
I don't own or choose any of it. Never have. I said God does not accept homosexuality. I said it and meant it. I accept only what accepts me. You raging on changes nothing.
R10
Wha...?
I bet you're wearing a poly-cottong blend, R10. ANATHEMA!!!
I notice r10 couldn't deal with answering any of r11's questions.
[quote] I said God does not accept homosexuality. How do you know? Did he speak to you?
[quote]The bible describes a woman's menstrual cycle as her "sickness" and declares her unclean while in this "sickness." It orders you to kick her out of the house and not touch her during this period. If you do, you will both be "unclean" and should be cast out of the city. No argument there.
Why would I R17? I know whats in the bible. I don't follow it. None of it. I don't get why people do. If you don't believe God see's homosexuality as wrong then I don't know what to tell you. It makes no sense at all to me.
R10
R10 is a raging liar. The whole "bible" case against gays is a fraud. There is a cogent bible case for slavery, and against women. But there is NO CASE against gays. None whatsoever. It's just more bullshit that they made up.
I guess I grew up in the church, so all of these "arguments" both for and against gayness are silly and juvenile. The bible is a contradictory collections of fictions that make no linear sense. What is good in one "story" isn't in another. This is shown countless times in hundreds of passages. So, if one part of the bible forbids gayness, it doesn't mean other parts do. Just like sometimes rape is okay, other times its not. Sometimes god is vengeful, other times he's benevolent. The real issue comes down to whether or not, and despite its rampant and, frankly, embarrassing, inconsistencies (it makes the Golden Girls seem ironclad) the "Word" is infallible and sacred. If it is, the inconsistencies don't matter. They are perfect, though inherently indecipherable. Gays are horrible. If the book isn't sacred and IS fallible, it's rendered silly and moot and who gives a flying fuck what some ancient book, rewritten countless times over the centuries, says about anything. I vote for the latter.
Mrs Lot: A case study of severe electrolyte imbalance.
Dr%20Anomynous
R21,You sound like a Christian, Jew, or some other religious person trying to justify some earthy PC way of thinking. It doesn't wash.
Since there are 7 antigay passages and hundreds of pro-gay passages, your boring rationalization falls to the ground R22. The Bible is not antigay and there is NO Christian theology that can make it antigay. EVERY SINGLE argument that the Christians have advanced against gays based on the Bible has been fraudulent. That's the bottom line. IT shouldn't matter, we should be able to have our religious freedom and not worry about what the public thinks. But we don't. So we have to get our hands dirty and argue the Bible. Not because we are believers but because THEY ARE LYING but until the dumbass public realizes it they will continue to get away with it because the public WILL NOT VOTE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ANY PERSON OTHER THAN HIM oR HERSELF.
•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 •Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" •1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [childish epithet posted by a bigoted tool], nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
R10
R10 from this thread is advocating the taxing of fat people on another thread. Typical.
Yes that would be me. Now put the donut down and go take a walk around the block.
1 Corinthians 6:9 has been deliberately falsified and mistranslated. At no time did it refer to homosexuals, but only to temple prostitutes. It does say howerver in 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak." While some denominations forbid women from preaching, none in modern America forbid women from speaking. Not one. There is a similar allegedly antigay passage in Romans, also mistranslated, and that Romans is not antigay is made clear in the following passages: Chapter 12:9 "Let love be without dissimulation" (no closet!) Chapter 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Meaning that love invalidates your Levitical rules. Taking on debt, however, is evil. Chapter 13:10 "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." If you had actually read the Bible, you would have known all this. As Jesus said in Matthew 15:11 "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." And in Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Around this one line Catholics have built their monastic custom, assuming that was being promoted here was celibacy. But eunochos in ancient Greek actually had a fairly broad meaning and referred, according to Strong's, in general to childless men, not to celibates. The ancient world did not think of celibacy as we do today.
As for Leviticus "Thou shalt not lie with manking, as with womankind: it is an abomination." Abominations were things that the gentiles did that the Jews weren't supposed to do. They were not desperate evils but marks of tribal distinctiveness like not eating pork and shellfish. The wording is also unclear. Lesbianism is not being prohibited, and it's possible that it refers only to certain sex acts and not male sexual coupling in general. Leviticus 20:13 is the more serious. It says "If a man ALSO lie with manking, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Not if a man lieth with another man but if he ALSO lieth with a man as he does with woman. It's a type of adultery being prohibited here, not homosexuality. Notably when the lists of the dos and don't are repeated in Deuteronomy, these are conspicuously left off.
R25 you might find my reasoning boring. Fine. I wasn't rationalizing anything. I grew up with born agains. My father was a pastor. I know their language and I know their rhetoric. And I know there is NO point arguing logic with them. They don't use it in their own lives, they use magical thinking at best. Any person who believes that the bible is without flaw -- and that's EXACTLY what they believe -- will not care to dissect contradictory passages. They will explain it away with words like "faith". I've tried to rally against these people my whole life using compassion, anger, pleas, good deeds and better behavior. It makes no difference. But carry on brother! I wish you the best of luck trying to pursue that lofty goal. I've moved on.
R22
[quote]If you don't believe God see's homosexuality as wrong then I don't know what to tell you r20, when you've learned how to use an apostrophe, then get back to us.
I'm glad you've moved on. I also hope you never support what doesn't support you.
But that's the whole point R31. They say they are against gays because it's in the Bible, but they don't actually read the Bible or know what is in it.
You only say that because you don't like what's being said. You have no idea what people do or do not read. Let the fairytails go and support what supports you.
It's spelled "fairytale", just so you know. And as you seem to have missed the point about knowing what's in the Bible, I'll explain it. If you aren't following all the biblical rules about wearing mixed-blend fabric, shellfish, and beating your slaves, you have no credibility when you tell other people what bible passages to follow.
Yes I do know what is and is not being read R35, because they do not have any case against gays. One cannot be inferred from the Bible. It is an impossibility.
I never told anyone what Bible passages to follow. Why would I do that? I only support what supports me.
R35, the overwhelming majority of Americans say they believe in the Bible. Yet these people read an average of 2 books per year and don't know what half of the English words in the Bible mean. They aren't reading the Bible, and their preachers aren't either. There is some ritual murmuring of phrases which they don't understand, but they don't derive ANY lessons from them.
R36 and others I do not support christians. I'm a avowed atheist. I don't support anything remotely christian. I just don't try to argue with them anymore. Of course anybody with a brain can see the flaws in the bible. They can see that the if you choose to believe one part of the Levitical Code you need to believe all parts (thus the famous shellfish and pigskin arguments). I've used all those counterpoints and more. It doesn't matter. They see what they want to see. This isn't me approving their logic or behavior, it's me realizing I can't fight against it anymore. They don't care. They can't be swayed. They ones that can be swayed, have. I would rather spend time and energy on different battles at this point in my life.
R22
But you don't know what's in the Bible R10 or else you would know it does not support anti-gay interpretations. What does it say in Ecclesiastes, for example Ch. r:9-11 "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: But woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?" Right there. Support for gay marriage and rejection of gay celibacy. Unless you contend that "lie" means something different here than in Leviticus, in which case you are dishonestly picking and choosing.
Blah blah blah. Well somebody has to challenge these people, because they won't vote on principle, so they need to be shown that they are ignorant of the Bible and their pastors and priests are lying to them.
That's ch. 4 in Ecclesiastes.
R42 get to it! Challenge away! I wish you great and far reaching success. Seriously. We're on the same team here. I'm just retired.
R22
R10 is clearly drunk.
Bump.
The angels were not men, so to rape them would not have been gay. Furthermore in a similar story at Gibeah in the book of Judges, it is death (sacrificed to Belial) not rape that the visitor fears. Furthermore, for Lot to offer his virgin daughters to the mob instead of the sojourners is not a moral act.
More creepy bible stories!
I'm just being obvious now.
"John 13:23 "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom, one his disciples, whom Jesus loved." John 19:26-27. Jesus gives his mother to John's care" What do those Bible verses have to do with God being ok with homosexuality? John was a beloved disciple of Jesus. Jesus loved him, he didn't FUCK him. And "leaning on Jesus' bosom" simply meant that Jesus was HUGGING him. And Jesus giving his mother to John's care meant that after his death he left it up to John to take care of his mother and be like a son to her: "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!'. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!"
Funny, people can turn any verse into whatever opinion they want to push. The omission of certain verses, yet adherence to others is comical. If people were more ethical towards everyone and everything we wouldn't have to deal with these moral hypocrites. Religion is less than believable than astrology, yet mankind has used religion to destroy and control for centuries. Sickening.
I'll tell you what it has to do with it R50. Gay people aren't just about sex are they? In fact, many gay people have families and don't have sex. But they are discriminated against. There were well-defined laws in Jesus' time about what would happen to him mother after he died. Instead, he put responsibility on a same sex partner to care for her. Jesus had a same sex family. Yet gay people are not allowed to have families involving responsibility towards children, caring for the elderly, and so on, because of false right wing teaching about homosexuality in the Bible. As for Jesus "not having sex" with the man lying on his breast, well you're right that it's anachronism. You know what else was an anachronism? In the old testament, the normal way to seal a business deal was with a handjob, euphemistically translated in King James as "he put his hand under his thigh" when the word for "thigh" usually meant "genitals" in Hebrew. That was normal and there were a number of examples in the Bible, but today that would be considered sexual assault. The truth is the Bible was not antigay at all in the sense that we understand. And your attempt to redefine gays as sex acts and not lovers marks you out for a bigot. When Paul said "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour" he was saying homosexuality - as it is understood today - is not wrong.
Bump.
Guess.
[quote]When Paul said "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour" he was saying homosexuality - as it is understood today - is not wrong. You people who contort the words in that silly, old book to fit a pro-gay agenda are almost as foolish as those who twist it to fit an anti-gay agenda.
That's not true R54. You obviously have never read the Bible. It cannot be honestly interpreted as antigay. Furthermore, you don't know how to argue a position or advocate. It's not our job to psychoanalyze Paul to try to get at his reality and support it with two thousand year old barley spores. It's our job to show that the general public have been lied to by a religious "institution" that doesn't believe in its own holy book, and whose "theology" is a laughable mishmash of political and financial imperatives utterly divorced from questions of morality and ethics. And that's easy. Just read the fucking book.
If only Lot's daughters had access to Twitter, this would have never happened.
"Funny, people can turn any verse into whatever opinion they want to push. " There's an old saying - "The Devil knows his scripture". People have been using the Bible to justify slavery and all kinds of horrors, ever since it was written down. (Really, in the latter days of the Roman empire, Roman Christians went to great lengths to prove that the Bible approved of their brand of commercial slavery.) These days, the Atheists are the ones who know the Bible backwards and forwards.
What Lot's daughters needed was Grindr, to get all the hot fertile sperm in the neighborhood. It's not like it was nuclear winter out there, there were met in nearby towns. But no, they were so keen to have children, they had to do their daddy. Actually, they were probably punishing him for offering them to the crowd for rape. They must have been some ugly bitches that nobody wanted a piece of them.
[quote]These days, the Atheists are the ones who know the Bible backwards and forwards. True. And not just the Bible, but they know more about all religions than your average believer. There was study that confirmed as much. It makes sense as many atheists (my self included)explore lots of different faiths before finally calling the whole thing quits. I cant tell you the number of times I have outraged Christians by telling them the Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious
I am wondering why people like R10 are on a gay website to denounce homosexuals and also tell us what the will of God is. "For who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been his counselor". I don't know where that comes in in the Bible but I always remembered it from school because it pretty much makes more sense than most of what is in it.
Anonymous
R59 - yes, I went to Catholic School and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was a "Mary" feast day. She was supposedly conceived without sin since she was earmarked as the mother of Jesus. A lot of people get that mixed up
Anonymous
Why do we care dog or anyone else's attitude towards gay? If they just think it's wrong for no good reason at all, there's nothing to talk about then.
Hi webbie!
PP%2C%20The%20Unbannable
Still here, posting from Budapest! Read about it soon on my blog! Hi webbie!