I think you all need to lighten up and watch the TV show Lucifer. One of my favorite TV shows ever.
(Not for the easily offended. Go watch that old TV series starring Robert Powell as Jesus instead.)
I would read the whole document. I got through most of it and it does not seem to be demeaning to women. Even in your except he says, ābest beloved sisters.ā That paired with how he describes his wife leads me to think that he does not think less of women but perhaps less of unrepentant sinful women (and men).
I am not sure though, you could be right about him. I will try to read some more of his works this week.
Itās not a cheap shot, religious scripture dictates homosexuality is a sinful act. That being said, many take this out of proportion. Itās sinful in a way akin to how eating pork is designated as an unholy act within the torah (at least this is my interpretation). I donāt believe the Torah at any place states homosexuals are doomed to eternal damnation.
Agreed, particularly the college/university demographic. They preach acceptance, forgiveness and inclusion yet cast you out and/or rail on you if youāre harboured ideology is against the status quo (and university politics is a separate realm in comparison toā¦ realityā¦)
The same can be said for the religious crowd though. There are outdated and/or questionable lines within the bible, torah and coran. VERY few people interpret every single word literally; rather the scripture stems to install a generalised sense of morality. For the most part it does a pretty good job at doing so. Christian communities (aside from the negative elements and more extreme examples) tend to consist of very friendly people.
I donāt agree with organised religion, this doesāt mean I think itās all bad.
If you donāt think misandry is acceptable youāre a misogynistic incelā¦ how DARE you!
I just wanted to point out something Iāve seen. At parties Iāve seen girls full on slap/deck guys in the face when drunk and pissed off. This is purportedly appropriate behaviour. Iāve also seen women continually try to grab and/or kiss guys who rebuff their advances (and vice versa with shitty men). It appears when women initiate this kind of behaviour itās swept under the rug because the āguy wanted itā. I canāt understand this rationale. Sexual assault is sexual assault, assault is assault. Punishment should be equatable regardless of gender (in this case, the woman/man needs to get kicked out of the party/venue and depending on how distasteful the behaviour was perhaps law enforcement ought to get involved)
Iād argue the majority (90%+) of sexual assaults are committed by men, however I also believe men are less likely to report this kind of behaviour if they fall victim to it.
1 Like
I believe itās a cheap shot because it is politically incorrect to oppose homosexual sex and so the person who opposes it has to keep a lid on this view. The person poking at this opposition knows this and thereby has the verbal Arsenal to attack and possibly slander the person and make him or her out to be bigoted/backwards/crazy/homophobic/etc., even if the person has no ill will towards homosexuals.
1 Like
[quote=āunreal24278, post:2033, topic:268570ā] I donāt believe the Torah at any place states homosexuals are doomed to eternal damnation
[/quote]
Maybe not but if I recall correctly Judaism in its truest form had a horrible Penalty, as did most groups a long time ago.
Lots of things are politically incorrect nowdays. Opposing homosexuality is politically incorrect as there is, in my opinion no legitimate reason to dislike someone on the basis of their sexuality. Homosexuality within medical literature is no longer considered a mental health disorder, nor is it considered a choice
Disliking homosexuality is one thing, everyone is amenable to their own opinions. Pressing on to oppress a certain otherwise law abaiding demographic is another aspect altogether.
To dislike someone on the basis of a trait that isnāt a choice and doesnāt intrinsically harm anyone else seems illogical to me. Status quo be damned, if youāre holding up signs protesting āgod hates (insert slur here)ā youāll be getting backlash from me
They most certainly did. Male/male attraction and sexual relations has been recognised/highlighted within the Torah. It is considered taboo, abhorrent etc, though it never states homosexuality is a choice. The Sanhedrin back within biblical times had the ability to assign a penalty of capitol punishment towards those caught engaging in homosexual acts (particular male/male anal intercourse). It should be noted male/female anal sex is also considered unholy/sacreligious as it involves the spilling of ones seed in vain (i.e sexual intercourse absent of the intent to procreate). That being said, judaism is unique in that it harbours the belief sex is a holy/godly act as opposed to a sinful, shameful, lustrous one. It preaches one certainly shouldnāt be ashamed of sexual intercourse under certain constructs.
The Sanhredrin no longer exist, if you believe homosexuality is sinful (the act associated with male/male intercourse)ā¦ who cares, thatās your prerogative. But Iād have an issue if you started petitioning to re-instate the Sanhedrin/re-instate barbaric, capitol punishment towards homosexuals. At this point youād be forcing an unjust, discriminatory and extreme punishment towards an otherwise innocent demographic based upon your own individualistic sense of morality (of which is a construct open to interpretation when it comes to subject matter such as homosexuality, abortion etc).
That being said, the torah also calls for capitol punishment if one disrespects his/her parents, or if one drinks excessively on inappropriate occasions, if one uses gods name in vein repeatedly. To fixate on the stance regarding homosexuality would be an example of āpicking and choosingā. As Iāve specified, the goal is to instate a baseline of moral fundamentals; NOT to take every single word literallyā¦ thatās how you have groups like the Taliban popping up.
What Iām curious about is why youāve chosen to convert to catholicism. Catholics historically havenāt been friendly towards jews (the Spanish Inquisition). Does this not matter?
For those who do believe homosexuality is a choice. Think about it, women/men arouse you. Arousal is generally required to achieve an erection and copulate. Would you be able to garner an adequate amount of arousal to achieve an erection with a member of the same sex? Probably notā¦
The same goes for hooking up. The thought of kissing your wife, your girlfriend (or boyfriend if you are female) is nice. Is the thought of kissing a member of the same sex āniceā, does it elicit the same amount of excitation? Noā¦ then why on gods green earth would someone āchooseā to be homosexual? Particularly in theocratic societies wherein homosexuality is frowned uponā¦ why?
I suppose the erection argument doesnāt relate to homosexual women. Though the same rhetoric applies. If the thought of same sex sexual interaction repulses you, is it really possible for you to simply pick and choose, to state āwell, today Iām gayā. Thatās not how it works.
Speaking of misandry.
Went to watch a Netflix show as Iāve recently come into a lot of down time.
Was very intrigued by this western titled Godless. Within 25 minutes it was very clear it was yet another āwokeā show vilifying men. Its like every show has the same agenda. I donāt know how anyone can watch this garbage.
I see the same thing in advertisements as well. Wether its on youtube or the television.
Your posts are always way too long mate.
Objective truth/morality does not exist. Moral relativist here.
So sinful or not is irrelevant. Maybe these Sanhredrin and the authors of the Torah knew this as well.
Regardless of its morality though it may have a negative effect on society. So if you believe it has a negative effect on society then having consequence for homosexual activity would be to the benefit of that society.
You know sacrificing the rights of a few individuals for the greater good of the group. You young folks love that stuff.
Naturally you might ask: āBut oglebee howās it bad for the group?ā
Honestly. I am not properly equipped to tell you how men f**ing each other in the a * is bad for the group. But I could probably take a guess.
As a disclaimer. I think people should do what they want. I donāt care. I certainly donāt condone throwing people off of the tops of buildings like ISIS did in Syria.
Cheers.
2 Likes
Hereās the problem: homosexuality has existed for most, if not all of human existence. The fact the Bible mentions it means it existed in Biblical times. Yet, which society has collapsed due to homosexuality? Western civilization was created by the Ancient Greeks and we know homosexuality existed in Ancient Greece. It didnāt stop them from being more advanced intellectually than we are today.
2 Likes
Oh for sure. No doubt. Reminds me of the clip from Mel Brookās History of the World. Cave man hits women on head drags her into cave. First marriage. Man hits man on head drags into cave. First gay marriage. Classic.
Iāve stated before earlier in this thread that cultural shift towards androgyny (including increase in same sex relations) has been associated, by some people, with the demise of several civilisations. Off the top of my head Camille Paglia has spoken on it. Sheās hardly an expert in the field but she did provide interesting commentary. Iāll have to see if I can find the title to the books on this subject.
Yeah but what brand of homosexuality was it?
Did the Greeks embrace it the way it is currently embraced in the west?
Even in pederasty penetration was not commonly done.
Also, I am all for giving credit where credit is due. But letās not downplay Christianityās role in forming modern western society.
2 Likes
But did she provide evidence? Iāve heard her speak on this topic and havenāt heard any evidence. The Roman Empire? It fell after successive barbarian invasions, internal political intrigue as well as being split into two halves. It was also Christian when it fell.
I like Paglia but I think she overstates transgenderismās influence on society.
Iām sure it came in many forms. It was certainly tolerated. And in the case of the Sacred Band of Thebes, encouraged or at the very least, appreciated. Imagine the Spartans being defeated by an army of homosexuals.
Letās not downplay Platoās and Aristotleās influence on Christianity.
1 Like
I wasnāt aware that teenage boys today are being assigned to older men for mandatory penetration (as was the case in Sparta). Or that there is a very detailed, specific tier system of attractiveness for teenage boys that served as a guide for adult men (Athens).
No to mention Thebes:
Edit: Missed @zecarlo reference to the Sacred Band.
Speaking of Spartans and their attitude towards homosexuality I think this peculiarity from their wedding night speaks volumes:
On the night of the wedding, the bride would have her hair cut short and be dressed in a manās cloak and sandals.
It reminds me of a story that my brother told me from his deployment to Afghanistan - how Pashtun tribesmen refuse to believe that infidels are so depraved as to have sex with women for pleasure, when they could hook up with men and boys as is expected.
1 Like
Which ones that āhonoredā it, human sacrifice, or child sacrifice (whether in fire or the abortion of today) are of any significance or even existence today?
Are you asking about a culture that tolerated all three? Or are you looking at those three things individually? In Ancient Greece human sacrifice, if it was practiced, was seen by the ancient Greeks as a relic of their past. The same with the ancient Romans who even created a law against human sacrifice.
With that said, as long as western culture exists, the ancient Greeks will be significant. And letās not forget that the Catholic Church still uses Latin. A pagan language.
It should also be noted that Christians burned heretics. Is Christianity still relevant?
To say a contribution that survived is not the same as a continual and consequential people group though. Hebrews and Chinese are moving and shaking the world today, while being traced back through history.
Inca, Aztec, Canaanites, Mesopotamia, Carthage gone. Greece, Egypt, Rome barely move the dial today in world other than Romeās influence of Christianity. Which itself stands with Judaism against homosexuality and human sacrifice.
The Bible does not say base acts from a society cause his displeasure. Rather he gives us over to them, as we turn away from him. In other words, we choose degradation (and even murder), so he letās us have what we want. Witness the unrest in the US. We donāt follow Godās morality, we get manās immorality.
1 Like
Whatās peculiar is the support of many men for social forces and policies that make them hated, womanless, humiliated, and taken to the cleaners. Active misandryāthat is, actual misandric actions, rather than a sentimentācan only exist so long as men allow it.
Also, as you likely noticed, someone who speaks of this and homosexuality in more than one preferred context, he will reliably all of the sudden be gaslighted and in a conversation about a islam. If one makes a slightly critical comment about women as a groupāpoof!ā heās in a conversation about Islam!
Perhaps. But it is an interesting idea.
Had never heard of this. But their size is estimated at 300 per wiki. Population of ancient Greece. 10-13 million per wiki.
I am not making any argument that Greece wasnāt more permissive towards homosexuality. But maybe it was not this gay utopia that a lot of people like to consider it as having been.
Also just to go back to this:
They also were more permissive of slave owner-ship and all the fantastic things that went along with that. Like sexual exploitation, abuse, murder.
Were you trying to say society of Old Testament has collapsed but society of Ancient Greece continues today?
I am not sure.
I never was. But you did forget to mention it when you were talking about who created Western Civilisation.
Without the influence of Plato and Aristotle you donāt have western civilisation as we know.
Without Christianity you donāt have western civilisation as we know it.
You can argue over the significance of these influences but I think you and I would agree that would be foolish.
So I just wanted to acknowledge credit where credit is due.
I could be wrong.
But are you sure it was mandatory penetration.
I am only faintly familiarly with pederasty. If that is what you are referring to. And to my knowledge penetrative sex in those relations was frowned upon because they were fearful it would feminize the boys as they transitioned into manhood.
From Wiki again:
āAs a cultural norm considered apart from personal preference, anal penetration was most often seen as dishonorable to the one penetrated, or shameful,[79] because of āits potential appearance of being turned into a womanā and because it was feared that it may distract the erĆ“menos from playing the active, penetrative role later in life.[80]A fable attributed to Aesop tells how Aeschyne (Shame) consented to enter the human body from behind only as long as Eros did not follow the same path, and would fly away at once if he did. A man who acted as the receiver during anal intercourse may have been the recipient of the insult ākinaidosā, meaning effeminate.[81] No shame was associated with intercrural penetration or any other act that did not involve anal penetration.[82] Oral sex is likewise not depicted,[83] or directly suggested; anal or oral penetration seems to have been reserved for prostitutes or slaves.[84]ā
Depends on why you think they did that.
Yeah. No comment on the Bacha bazi pedophilia the Pashtuns indulge in.
Either way. To come full circle. I didnāt mean to bring Ancient Greece into this.
Neat little phenomena there. Donāt you think?
I have some ideas. And I have no evidence or anything to really substantiate.
My idea:
Being a man is hard. No I do not mean simply by virtue of the little bits dangling between your legs.
But being a successful man. Many definitions of that but a few things that are nearly unanimously viewed as success in men: money, power, wife, family, children.
It is hard to get those things.
To get these things we have to compete against each other. It is cut throat. Most men fail. As JP as said before. 50 % of men have all the children and women on average have one child each.
So 50 % of men are more or less a disgruntled group of childless, penniless men.
Only natural for them to be resentful. So perhaps theyāve cultivated another strategy for success. Pander to women. How downtrodden they are. How exploitative and abusive the 50 % of successful men are.
And so only naturally misandry grows as well as all the other isms associated with progressivism. Its because 50 % of men might actually be advocating for it. Because in a weird way it benefits them.
Probably no merit in it. But just a thought that popped into my head one day that I never really chased up.
1 Like
Iāve been on the other side of the coin as in having to defend homosexuality and Islam(not the extremists), which is why I think this is a temporary overcorrection. People overreacted to them in the past. This overcorrection was expected. I just didnāt think it would come so soon.
Just donāt let this happen:
Itās stupid and men just need to man up. Women can do whatever the fuck they want. The government needs to keep out of this.
And to be clear, Iām anti-abortion and pro gay marriage so I donāt even know what I am politically.
And youāre telling me my posts are too long?
Potā¦ meet kettle
Are you referring to āsimpingā? This is a recognised, yet hardly successful strategy some men use. Itās akin to being extremely nice and expecting something in return, unfortunately this generally isnāt how the world works and it opens one up to being extensively manipulated for the personal gain of others.
Look at the statistics for autistic people. Only 5ish percent of us ever get married. We need to throw a COUP! Why wonāt people marry those who have no social skills dammit.