Faggots are the scum of the earth... OBAMAnation!!!

So, now I got your attention let me break down the bible for you and tell you how dumb people are who use the bible to promote prejudice against gays.

For those who have gotten to know me (ERAUPRCWA) you obviously know, I'm not a hateful person...well:-) and that the title of this blog was to gain attention.

Genesis 19:5:
"Bring them out to us that we may know them."

Genesis 19:5 simply suggest "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual. A "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

the two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals. The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature.  And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Romans 1:26-27 All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul. Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been, where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed! Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on.  Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand.  A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate.  Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation.  We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.  As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.

I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
Author's Note:  The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!

I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."

I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-10 well to break that down the Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual! These two verses contain completely wrong translations to create "homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts may not hurt you, but they can make you hurt yourself! The homosexual ghosts in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created by the inaccurate and intentionally misleading translation of two Greek words. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"! The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis , "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

you should really take a lesson from Matthews 7:1-5 and Leviticus 19:18... I'm agnostic because well people use the bible to promote prejudice and inequality. Context doesn't mean anything to people now-a-days. I highly doubt Jesus if he exist that he and God would promote his children to pass judgment on your neighbor. Bible is like the constitution of the United States, it's all interpretation. "...that all men are created equal..." well when they wrote the constitution the US still had slaves and women didn't have rights... Women didn't have the right to vote until 1920 and African Americans/minorities didn't get civil rights until the 1960s, over time society progresses and the things we once believed of the past, change- for the better.

It was once believed and some people might still believe this, the story of Adam and Eve is well, different. The serpent is actually a phallic form of a black man's penis that Eve was tempted to have intercourse with... The first sin was intercourse, Eve was weak and loosed the raven on the world and that raven was called sin. Eve was weak and God punished her and punished the black man and banished him to "Africa" for his sins. this was a justification to many for slavery. Sounds crazy, yes, but people actually believed it and used it to justify racism, prejudice and inequality.

I've read the bible and studied it... what can I say to you... The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world. -Georgia Harkness

< short poll! do you love it when they cant get video's up?! | Sarah Palin, Great American, Woman, Politician >

Poll

has the gay rights movement/civil rights movement advance in the past 30 years?
yes 94%
no 0%
no opinion 5%

Votes: 18
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
actually i think that quote from genesis with "know" they imply that they mean they want to rape the 2 angels. that's why lot doesn't give them the angels. he instead offers up his wife and daughter whom he claims are pretty. if i'm not mistaken the next morning his wife and daughter were raped almost to death and lot steps over them to continue to accommodate the angels. it's an extremely disturbing story, i mean it advocates rape, and then ignoring the raped victims. but instead the fundies just focus on the part where the sodomites want to rape the angels. they ignore that lot gives up his daughters and wife to get raped instead.

by kingbane on 07/04/2009 01:40:57 PM EST

I mean there are so many things in the bible that is disturbing and 100% wrong but people push out what they don't want to hear.  They deny that ever happened and go with the other stuff because they themselves don't agree.

Matthews 7:1-5...  I follow that dearly, even though I'm agnostic, there are certain things in the bible that I guess I choose to follow, or it could be just me as a person but some if not most people don't seem to get it.

by Erauprcwa on 07/04/2009 07:53:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The term "Know" can be used in a sexual sense, and is in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the sin was not  sodomy, it was rape, which was a violation of the laws of hospitality held by virtually every ancient civilization (including the Israelites - see Abraham eating with salt on the table).  There's a reason that Dante reserved the ninth circle of Hell for traitors (traitors to family, traitors to country, and traitors to guests or hosts), and that attitude was ancient even in his day.

Do you actually have the translation that shows what the original words translated as "effeminate" and "homosexual" actually mean?  While I agree you're probably right, the argument loses water if you don't include the real meaning.  I'd be interested in having the real translation.

by thain1982 on 07/06/2009 10:57:08 AM EST

I did some looking, and it looks like both terms can be used to imply what they have been translated to imply, but that their meaning is likely somewhat different.

"Malakos," translated as effeminate, also means soft, and was the word used when speaking about a rich man in the verse which says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, but it was also in common usage as a sexually wanton person and an effeminate male prostitute, so the thinking is that it COULD have been used to imply the "catcher" in a homosexual relationship, although it is more likely by far that it is making reference to the same rich people referenced in the "eye of a needle" passage.

"Arenokoitai," translated as homosexual, can refer to being the active partner in intercourse, male prostitution, or raping little boys (well, pederasty, since the Greeks didn't really call it rape).  This one has a stronger case for being an outright reference to homosexuality, but there is still enough ambiguity that it could simply be referring to general sexual wantonness, or it could even be referring to statutory same-gender rape.

by thain1982 on 07/06/2009 11:38:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me just say that i am indifferent to Homosexuallity. To each his own (or her own). And as for the bible. Just stories, not to be taken literally.......However the 2 verses you read that call out homosexuals are very cut and dry. :"if you do this, you are this"....period end of story....Where as your bible verses could of had several meanings....My point is your not doing yourself any favors by quoting the bible. The people who use the bible to condemn you are just religious wack jobs anyway. -elove

by elove20202003 on 07/06/2009 12:15:42 PM EST

Erauprcwa and all those who have authored replies to this thread, know far more about the Bible (and other biblical-type texts) than I ever wish to know. But that isn't to say I have never read the Bible. Or at least, I have read parts of the Old and New Testiments and a Paraphrased Bible.

But what I can tell you from what I have learned during the course of my life, and that which I have come to firmly believe, is that while many (but not all) of the stories held within the Bible are useful to illsutrate "the golden rule(s)" and/or other similar Civilized Morals, these writings should not be used for anything but that (if to be used at all). Especially when so many translations and mis-interpretations have been developed over the millenia.

It is my opinion that Religions are the Scourge of the Earth. Too many people have died and continue to die or otherwise be wronged, in the name of some faith/religion or another. And none of those who have quoted "their" religion as justification for ANY death or wrong-doing, ever really understood the decent morals that were surely the intended of their religion. Lets not forget that there were many civilizations that existed long before any bible was ever written (that we know of). Christianity and the Catholic Church forced "their beliefs" down the throats of Millions of people over thousands of years, and were used to eliminate and erase all those beliefs before their's. This was done solely for Political Power.

Furthermore, I refuse to lead my life in "the fear of God or Allah" (let alone believe in him/her/it/them etc). Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can live their life based on a bunch of Fairy Tales that were written 2000 years ago (give or take a few hundred years). Especially, when historical studies have proven all present-day religions to be decendents or modifications (or both) of beliefs that were held by those probably as early as 5000 years before Christ (if even he existed).

To live in peace with respect for all other men, women and children of the world and for the world itself, should be the only goal in any one's life. Anything else is simply arrogance and ignorance. Furthermore, it shouldn't take any moldy book to understand or enforce humanitarion rights.

The day the earth has any chance for peace and global cooperation, will be the day that ALL Religions are Forever Banned.

by SnowTiger on 07/06/2009 04:02:29 PM EST

The purpose of life or "God's will" mind you, in my eyes, is for us to live life and enjoy it.  He would never have created life and the environment that we live in if he didn't want us to see it and enjoy it.

I've always said (if he exist) that God created us all unequal to live in this world equally.  God made whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, homosexuals, heterosexuals, handicapped, etc... for us to know what it's like to be "different" and to live in a world where being "different" is okay.  Nobody can come up with a REAL definition of what "normal" means because there is no such thing as "normal" or "natural" because everything on this Earth is normal and natural.

People can quote what they want from the bible to condemn people but they forget the verse at which Jesus tells us not to judge and not to be hypocrites (Matthews 7:1-5) and to treat your neighbors like brothers and sisters.  People forget that.

When all is said and done, what we all should do from our first breathes to our last, is to be a good person, help those in need, be a mentor, live life, love thy neighbor and always have hope.  I'm agnostic myself because people just don't seem to live up to what they preach and if God happens to be what the radical religious people preach, then I don't want to go to heaven with a God that wants me to persecute people for being themselves.

You can be a good person without religion.  

by Erauprcwa on 07/06/2009 07:58:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I got most of my knowledge of the Bible growing up as a fundamentalist Christian (the kind of idiot who would have voted for Sarah Palin without thinking twice).  I grew out of that belief system, but I've come to realize that the thought that religion is the scourge of the earth is a religious view in and of itself (Mao Tse Tung made a very similar statement to the Dalai Lama when China annexed Tibet).  

Living in peace with respect for all others includes respecting their religious choices.  I feel that it also means pointing out inconsistencies between a person's beliefs and their holy texts in an effort to bring about reformation (after all, Martin Luther's split from the Catholic Church eventually lead to drastic reforms in Catholic theology), but that's me.

 It is easy to blame religion for life's problems, but religion is just an excuse.  As I said, Chairman Mao decided he needed to PURGE Tibet of religion, making enforced atheism a religion to itself, and the eradication of other beliefs a holy crusade.  No, these things are all just excuses for the truth - humans hold within them both the power of great good and the power of great evil, and they may use their religion as an excuse for their evil or an explanation for their good, but they are ultimately simply acting upon their own nature (or nurture, as the case may be).

by thain1982 on 07/06/2009 11:49:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would argue that living in peace is either just necessity or a truce of some sort when different religions are on the scene (if they are all still powerful). Look anywhere on the planet and then tell me where religion succesfully promoted sustainable peace.

When you say Tibet was purged of religion be aware that the Dalai Lama Buddism, also called "rock hard penis Buddism" (paraphrasing) or officially yellow-hat sect is one of the most belligerent and oppressive kinds of Buddism that has ever ermerged. Some might say China has occupied Tibet, but I think (and many Tibetians who remember the cruel rule of the Lamas might agree) Tibet was relieved of that harsh theocracy of the yellow hats. As an example: in the 700 year history of the Lamas the monks managed to completely obliterate the word for woman in the Tibetian language, the word they now use translates to "of lower provenience" and that is how they treat women. And did I mention that they also forbid (among other things) oral sex, gay sex and masturbation? Never trust people with funny hats!

Next time you see the Dalai Lama please keep in mind that he used his "divine" power to rid one of the poorest people on Earth of their limited ressources and now uses the money he robbed from the treasury (or just took, as he was the autocrat it belonged to him, right?) to travel around the world to spread his hateful religion in neat fortune cookie scroll pieces of wisdom. [/rant]. Buddism may be considered by many as the most peaceful religion there is but that is not the case with the Tibetian variety. I do not know if the Dalai Lama is genuinely influenced by Western (read democratic and secular) culture or if he just kisses up to the power structures and those organizations in the West who may help him to regain power. But given that China has made substantial progress towards democracy and civil liberty, I would say, reinstalling the theocracy is the wrong direction for the Tibetian people.

 No, these things are all just excuses for the truth - humans hold within them both the power of great good and the power of great evil, and they may use their religion as an excuse for their evil or an explanation for their good, but they are ultimately simply acting upon their own nature (or nurture, as the case may be).

Even if I firmly believe that good and evil are only human constructs (religious themes to be more specific) you are right that religion is just a means to achieve and maintain power structures, but it is a very vicious and sanguinary one. And to strip religion of its power and influence is to disestablish a potent agent to exploit, channel and divert human (=aggressive) nature.

Also, I like to disagree with you that the viewpoint that "religion is the scourge of the Earth" was a religion in itself. First of all, if you think religion is something good, wouldn't it then be also considered good? No, religion is in and of itself a very dangerous thing. Secondly, I think you can (and arguably must) reach that position if you thoroughly study human history. Every atrocious act was divinely vindicated. So the anti-religious stance can be attained by reason and empirical evidence and does not need blind faith - in contrast to religion. IMHO, you can even have a personal religion and still be anti-religion in the grand scheme.

And don't mix the apparent atheism displayed by so called communist regimes with genuine philosophical atheism. What all totalitarian systems did was to replace religion with state worship or (even worse:) personal idolatry and as such tried to extinguish religion as a competitor. They used the religious mechanisms that proved of value for utilizing gullible humans for a greater goal.

by eborujion on 07/07/2009 07:40:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Granted, you gave yourself some wiggle room by calling communism state worship, but I would hardly call the Tiananmen Square massacre something done with divine vindication, and recusing philosophical atheism from state-enforced atheism is the same kind of argument that moderate Christians use when people mention the Crusades to them.  Of course they are different, but they are largely different sects of the same thing.

Granted, that's just one example.  We can point to so many religious excuses for atrocities because the idea of atheism is still relatively new in the scheme of things, and it is considered threatening by most major religions because they have grown accustomed to exercising control over people, but I find it very unlikely that oppression and atrocities would cease or even decrease if religion vanished from the world (and banning religion would be a form of oppression in and of itself).

by thain1982 on 07/07/2009 12:40:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
good conversation...

by Erauprcwa on 07/07/2009 05:47:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When I said every atrocity can be retraced to divine vindication I excluded those perpetrated by pseudo-religious systems like Maoism or Kim-Jong-Illness. But the mechanisms are basically the same. Like in religion there is (mostly economic but also social) rigid dogma that overrules rationalism and pragmatism to perpetuate the power structures.

There is a major difference between totalitarian atheism which is just an instrument to supplant the strong religious bonds by putting the state or a dear (divine) leader in their place, often even potentiating them and personal (philosophical) atheism which is just a lack of belief in gods and has not an agenda in itself and is not automatically replaced by something else.

I will not take a bet, but I doubt that there were many crimes committed in the name of atheism where it was not an excuse (apart from lone mad men). You can say that for religion to some extent but there were clearly many instances where the religious memes are not just used as subterfuges but are themselves responsible for the (then often more gruesome) atrocities, e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, Muslim honor killings, many other quarrels over minor dogmatic discrepancies (the Crusades, maybe, too). They often added to or even induced the cruelty in warfare because all they had to do is to attach spiritual or moral evil to an adversary: all psychological restrictions fell and the enemies could be treated as non-human.

I can't say for certain that oppression or atrocities would decrease if religion suddenly vanishes, but I firmly believe that would be the case. Just look at the stats concerning religiosity and crime, like the religious affiliation of the prison population. And the crime rates in generally less religious countries. Of course those correlations are counteracted by superseding nationalistic, chauvinistic, racial and other tendencies which are IMHO partly responsible for the belligerence of the U.S. as of lately.

I am a little torn on banning religion. Of course I don't advocate dictating what people think and interfering what people do in their homes or even congregations (that latter can be argued about though) but I am certainly against any religous influence in politics and in public in general as well as any kind of special treatment or pleading of religion like tax-exempt status, priests as moral authorities, public repression of women and other groups etc.

I would not call that oppression or infringement of any basic laws or human laws, but assigning to religion the role it deserves: as a petty sideshow.

by eborujion on 07/07/2009 08:25:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: