Hello everybody

[MRT144]

So women are evil? Interesting hypothesis.

You'd think that being the woman hating pedophile that you are.

[Ben Kenobi]

God did make them male and male. You interpret it incorrectly.

Ah, I see. So when Jesus clearly said 'women', he meant 'men'. Right. I see how that could happen. Easy mixup.

[Ben Kenobi]

You'd think that being the woman hating pedophile that you are.

I already said they are good. You're the one who said that being a woman is like having cancer or AIDS.

[Aeson]

[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6112296]That's because there's no evidence for it. If you read the account, the mob got angry and were trying to break his door down. He was very frightened.

There's thousands of years of evidence that daughters were treated like property. You have to be colossally stupid to try to refute this historical context.

You said it was about rape. Either it is or it isn't, since you clearly mentioned it.

You asked me what I thought. I told you I thought rape is bad. I told you the OT was was ambiguous on that point. I am not the Bible you dunce!

It's clearly not a moral tale about rape. Rape is something that plays into the story, but is not the point of it.

Sokath, his eyes uncovered. Indeed, it's about homosexuality. That's the point.

No, you are back to ignoring the historical context again. Women were property to be done with however... they were lesser beings than the guests. You are confused as to how gender affects the story.

And my actions are?

You take the story of Lot use it in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Your actions couldn't be more clear BK.

What did I say I based my opinion on earlier in the thread? I specifically cited Romans and Corinthians. Is Lot's story in either Romans or Corinthians? No? Then I suppose your argument has no merit.

You are basing your opinion on the tale of Lot. It's very clear. You keep desperately clinging to your misinterpretation of the tale because the simple fact is it's the only way you can get the Bible twisted to a condemnation of homosexuality.

All of your attempts to do so are of course in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus.

You just said, this story doesn't concern rape at all, because if it did, it would condemn the rape of his daughters, just as much as it would the men. Yet, it doesn't, does it? It clearly makes a distinction between the two. Why? The story clearly teaches that homosexuality is sinful, even more so than raping his daughters.

It doesn't condemn the rape of the daughters at all. The reason is because they are women who aren't deserving of rights. They are property to be done with by their owners as they please.

So you've already admitted that the OT does in fact condemn rape, and uses the condemnation of rape to drive it's point home here in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, by condemning sexual sin even worse than rape - homosexuality.

Nope. That's just your ignorance at work BK. That you think two guys choosing to have sex with each other is worse than your daughter being raped shows clearly how ****ed up stupid you are.

[Aeson]

Then why are you frothing at the mouth about misogyny if you do not?

It's misogynist because as you just said... you think two guys having sex with each other consensually is worse than if your daughter was raped.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, God had to make male and female to reproduce as mammalian reproduction is unfeasible any other way. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THE BIBLE IS AN INVALID SOURCE ON BIOLOGY.

So homosexuality is unnatural? Interesting hypothesis.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's misogynist because as you just said... you think two guys having sex with each other consensually is worse than if your daughter was raped.

Misogyny would be if I believed that raping a man were worse than raping a woman.

If someone chooses to kill someone, we punish them more than if they act without thinking, correct?

[Aeson]

Misogyny would be if I believed that raping a man were worse than raping a woman.

Which you clearly do by your acceptance of the story of Lot as a valid basis for your moral condemnation of homosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's thousands of years of evidence that daughters were treated like property. You have to be colossally stupid to try to refute this historical context.

The context is having a mob beating down your door wanting to have sex with your household. Do you believe that had this not been the case that Lot would have made the same decisions that he did? I think it's pretty clear that he was coerced.

No, you are back to ignoring the historical context again. Women were property to be done with however... they were lesser beings than the guests. You are confused as to how gender affects the story.

Does the story actually say, "Lot considered his daughters to be property". No? Well, then I guess we shouldn't be reading into the text something that the text does not say.

You take the story of Lot use it in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus.

Where does Jesus affirm homosexuality?

You are basing your opinion on the tale of Lot.

Again, I stated prior to our discussion that I based my opinion on Corinthians and Romans. The evidence in this thread is clear. You can believe whatever you want but the evidence shows that you are wrong.

Also, arguing with me about the source of my beliefs? Really, Aeson? You believe you know me better than I know myself?

It doesn't condemn the rape of the daughters at all.

So you're arguing from silence? Good to know.

[Elok]

Gay sex is just one of those irrational activities that some strange organisms feel compelled to do despite the clear lack of any point to it. Another example would be prolonged arguments with BK. Note that both are often described as "a pain in the ass" by those who choose not to do it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson:

"If someone chooses to kill someone, we punish them more than if they act without thinking, correct?"

[giblets]

Gay sex is just one of those irrational activities that some strange organisms feel compelled to do despite the clear lack of any point to it. Another example would be prolonged arguments with BK. Note that both are often described as "a pain in the ass" by those who choose not to do it.

Are you suggesting that anything an organism does that doesn't increase their reproductive success is irrational?

[Elok]

No, I'm making a lame joke. If we get into questions of whether personal actions are rational we'll run into the good ol' is-ought problem, and that's not even gay, it's masturbatory.

[MRT144]

So homosexuality is unnatural? Interesting hypothesis.

It's not unnatural given the preponderance of it we see IN NATURE. And regardless of natural or not has no bearing on morality.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not unnatural given the preponderance of it we see IN NATURE. And regardless of natural or not has no bearing on morality.

Given that it is contrary to reproductive success, there is no such preponderance in nature. Preponderance would imply that there is more homosexuality than heterosexuality.

And regardless of natural or not has no bearing on morality.

So it's possible for chastity to be moral despite it being 'unnatural'?