It’s not about what you consider an insult, it’s about what the people you’re talking about consider an insult. If I said you were delusional for being a Christian, would you be insulted? If I said I didn’t mean it as an insult, would that make you stop feeling insulted?
Your comparison to someone suffering from MS is inaccurate, because someone suffering from MS is suffering from it. It’s a painful, debilitating disease, and there’s not a person with it who doesn’t wish to be free from it. Homosexuality is none of those things. The only people who wish they didn’t have it are those who have been poisoned by more virulent strains of your own philosophy. Comparing MS victims to homosexuals is demeaning to both groups.
The comparison itself is insulting, regardless of the intent behind it. If you honestly thought there was evidence that homosexuality was an illness, that makes the insult easier to forgive, but it doesn’t stop it from being insulting. But even then, in this day and age, you really ought to know better, or at least take the time to do some basic research before making uneducated pronouncements about the mental health of millions and millions of people. Homosexuality has not been recognized as a mental disorder by the APA since 1973. This is recent news, it’s been recognized to be a normal part of human sexuality for over thirty years. There is really no excuse for that sort of ignorance.
A brick isn’t intended to be a weapon, but it still hurts to be hit by one.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. If you learn to read the original Greek, then obviously you’ll have a better understanding of the text. Why wouldn’t you?
That’s exactly what you said. You said that those who cite the original Greek are “shifting the text.” That’s ridiculous. It’s the translation- any translation- that shifts the text and sometimes the translations are wrong.
No there aren’t. You’re thinking of Sodom, but that story has nothing to do with homosexuality.
You came into this thread tossing out nothing but insults and incredibly offensive moral judgements against many of your fellow Dopers. You really are in no position to complain about being called a “dipshit” (which is the only insult or use of profanity in my entire post to you).
You know, I’m starting to sympathize with the Taliban. This Christian shit makes me want to fucking puke.
But thanks, Martin, for so clearly demonstrating the point of this thread. Reggie White was exactly like Martin Hyde. In other words, a fucking scumbag more worthy of scorn and derision than praise.
Yes, there is. He is thinking of Sodom, and he is right to do so.
Bolding mine. These men weren’t wanting to just meet the men. This is the same Hebrew word yada used in Genesis 4:1 (“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.”) They wanted to commit homosexual acts.
Lot recognized their sin for what it was. I can’t agree with his solution of giving up his daughters to these men (the man was a sinner like all of us), but at least the sexual acts they would have performed on them would have been natural.
But to come out and say that homosexuality isn’t discouraged in Genesis is just ignorant. I mean, where do you think the terms ‘sodomite’ and ‘sodomy’ come from?
And to sum up my beliefs on this thread, I have seen what I have always seen on threads like this. The Christian is unwilling to compromise his beliefs solely because a majority finds them to be unpopular. The Christian professes love, tolerance, and understanding for homosexuals, but refuses to tow the party line that his beliefs are wrong or ignorant. The “tolerant” majority viciously attacks the Christian and insults his beliefs, character, etc.
Oh, by the way: I feel the same way as Martin, so feel free to hate me too. Just don’t expect me to hate you back.
Uh, careful there. Aren’t you fighting fire with fire?
As far as the OP. I’m a Packer fan and a ‘Reggie on the field’ fan. I am impressed with some of his off the field accomplishments, but there are others that have my head spinning. IIRC, there was several hundred thousand dollars missing that was supposed to be earmarked for rebuilding one of Reggie’s churches down South that mysteriously burned down. He hit up the folks of Green Bay (and WI) for tons of money and the money just sort of disappeared… From here.
…and then some of the things he’s been quoted as saying… :rolleyes:
In Hebrew, the word “Know” did not have a sexual meaning. Sorry, but the Bible itself says that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality:
Ezekiel 16:49-49: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
In the Bible, “Sodomite” just means a person from Sodom.
The story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality. I know that’s gravely disappointing to you. Too bad.
The Packers and the NFL were celebrating White’s off-field life. At the request of his family it was a celebration of his whole life when they had the halftime ceremony, not just his football playing, but his hate as well.
Martin, just because your head is so far up your own ass that you cannot understand why you’re hateful, condescending, and insulting, that don’t mean you aren’t. (I, at least, am man enough to admit when I insult someone.)
This may be the stupidest thing you’ve ever written. Yes, Reggie White (and you) have every right to spew hatred and bigotry. The First Amendment protected White’s right to spout any inane and vile shit he wanted. It did not protect him from being told that his shit is inane and vile, which it was.
Then explain Genesis 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…”, or 4:17 “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch…”, or 4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth…”. Seems like “knowing” someone immediately precedes a birth. Tell me, what non-sexual meaning did “And Adam knew his wife again” have? It certainly couldn’t be that he knew of her, he already did that. What about Genesis 19:8 that I quoted earlier “Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man…”. These girls were virgins. Do you have another explanation of what “known” meant in these passages? I’m on the edge of my metaphorical seat…
I fear you might be being disingenuous. For whatever reason, you left out verse 50.
Ezekiel 16:50 “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”
Bolding mine. Lack of hospitality is not abomination to God.
That’s true. However, it doesn’t carry that same meaning today. When someobody is described as a sodomite, it no longer means that they are from Sodom. In my dictionary, a sodomite is defined as “someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)”. So where, praytell, did the “sodom” portion of this noun come from? Methinks it is obvious. I can’t believe I am having to spell this out in such a basic manner.
It’s not disappointing to me, because your explanation is false (and a little absurd). The truth might be disappointing to you (though I’m not sure why, since it’s the truth). Too bad.
Isn’t it a pit idiotic to point to the angels visiting Lot as proof that “God” destroyed Sodom because of homos? God had supposedly already decided to destroy the city before they showed up to warn Lot. The city’s treatment of the angels is irrelevant.
Besides that fact that it’s a MYTHOLOGICAL STORY and not HISTORY, didn’t really happen and is moronic to base modern mores, laws and beliefs upon.
You are right in that God (no quotation marks necessary) had already decided to destroy the city of Sodom. But he sent the angel to rescue Lot and his family because, though they were sinners in their own right, they were not participants nor were they complicit in the sin of Sodom (note verse 8 where Lot recognizes the sin and asks the men of Sodom “I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.”.
As for this account being a mythological story and not history, I disagree.
Ya’da primarily means “to know a fact.” In a very few cases in the Bible it carries a figurative sexual meaning, but that context is always made clear and it’s always with heterosexuals. I was typing fast this morning because I had to go out for a while and I unintentionally made my meaning unclear. When I said that the Hebrew word translated as “know” did not have a sexual meaning, I meant that it did not have a sexual meaning in that verse. The people of Sodom (and the Hebrew can be translated as either “all the people,” or “all the men”), wanted to interrogate the angels, not fuck them.
Even if you want to insist that they wanted to fuck them, the crime would still be rape, not homosexuality, * per se*, and the reason its bad is because they are guests in the city. Apparently, it would have been just fine for Lot to let them gang rape his daughters (who would have had to have been quite young if they were virgins…probably under 14). The fact that the angels were guests is what matters, not the particuar brand of hostility which was visited on them. ANY hostility was bad.
More importantly, the angel incident was not why Sodom was destroyed. That decision had already ben made. The story about the angels had nothing to do with it.
I can’t seem to find anything in there about homosexuality, so why are you quoting it?
Yes it is.
What it means today is completely irrelevant to what it means in the Bible.
I’m sure it would make you feel better to think that people hate you. I for one don’t, so sorry to disappoint you. I feel quite a bit of contempt for you, if that makes you feel any better.
I never said gay sex was worse than rape. I don’t condone rape – it’s vicious, disgusting, and horrible. Also, I’m thinking that the angels would not have willingly submitted to sex with the men of Sodom, and that the men of Sodom were looking for some men to rape. Thus, rape was on their mind regardless. So let’s not say that I am implying that anything is “better” or “worse” than rape.
I just said that at least with Lot’s daughers, though they would have been raped, the sex acts would have been natural. My definition of natural is that the male genitalia is designed for use with the female genitalia. This is natural, and the way they were intended to be used. Again, I can’t believe I am having to explain this in such simple terms. This isn’t rocket science…this is basic biology. To put it simply, tab A goes into slot B.
I agree that you have correctly identified the primary definition of Ya’da, but you are incorrect in that it is only used in terms of heterosexuals.
I can see how one could come to that conclusion, but it seems to me that one would have to torture the reading quite a bit to come away with that conclusion. With this definition, the men of Sodom came to Lot’s door, pressing against it hard enough to almost break the door down, just so that they could get in and interrogate them? Following this train of thought, Lot offers his daughters and says (with your translation) “Oh men of Sodom. Do not this wicked thing of showing bad hospitality. Here are my daughters. They haven’t been interrogated by man before. Interrogate them all you want.” I just don’t see it.
I agree that it would be rape, but since the angels appeared as men, this would not have been male/female rape, but male/male rape, or “sodomy”. This, to me, is the large problem. That is to say, I completely disagree with your characterization as “a lack of hospitality” being the sin of Sodom. I’ve never heard this before. But I will do some independent study on the off chance that I might be wrong. I encourage you to do some study of your own.
To finish the beginning of the description of Sodom’s sins that began in the previous verse. However, it doesn’t come right out and say “they committed sodomy” so feel free to strike that portion, ignore it, whatever you wish.
I completely disagree. Are you honestly saying that when people think of “sodomy”, they do not think of anal sex? When somebody is referred to as a sodomite, you honestly think “Hmm…that person must be quite inhospitable…”? I didn’t just make up these definitions, you know. They are common.