Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 04:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Leviticus 20:13, the ol' anti-gay verse that everyone knows and loves.

For those that don't know it it reads:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Now, theists interpret this as gayness being a bad thing and go to all sorts of lengths to hammer home that God hates fags and shit.
Now, I'm not too familiar with scripture because I would rather gouge out my eye balls with a spoon than read the bible, but it is somewhat frustrating that theists cherry pick some verses but completely ignore the others. Atheists know this too well.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Back to Levitidicks 20:13.
Now, theists really enjoy interpreting things to suit them and so I shall do the same.
If you read the verse above it doesn't actually say gay sex is bad. It says if "a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" the key point being bolded. Now I'm no expert but I was subjected to sex ed at school so I'm familiar with the theory of heterosexual sex and it usually involves penis entering vagina (yes children, they really do do that. Heteros are so disgusting). Now, I'm not sure if you people are familiar or not with the male anatomy so I will give you a quick overview. Men do not have vagina's. THUS how can a man have sex with a man like he does with a female if men do not have vagina's?? They can't, it's impossible. If you're having sex with a man that has a vagina I'm sorry to tell you this but that's a women, not a man.

Conclusion? Levitidicks 20:13 is totally irreverent and in no way says anything about gayness or even gay butt sex.

Check and mate theists. Drinking Beverage

Muffs: 1
Theists: 0

The whole verse is ridiculous.

After all, how the fuck can a man have sex with a man like he would a woman? A man has no cunt or tits, so wtf is this bullshit?

Popcorn

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Muffsy - weren't you tasked with writing a history of the forum? hmmm???

Why are you wasting time rewriting the Bibble? Dodgy

Chop, chop - I have been waiting for that for quite some time now and I ain't gettin' any younger.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
24-01-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 04:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Leviticus 20:13, the ol' anti-gay verse that everyone knows and loves.

For those that don't know it it reads:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Now, theists interpret this as gayness being a bad thing and go to all sorts of lengths to hammer home that God hates fags and shit.
Now, I'm not too familiar with scripture because I would rather gouge out my eye balls with a spoon than read the bible, but it is somewhat frustrating that theists cherry pick some verses but completely ignore the others. Atheists know this too well.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Back to Levitidicks 20:13.
Now, theists really enjoy interpreting things to suit them and so I shall do the same.
If you read the verse above it doesn't actually say gay sex is bad. It says if "a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" the key point being bolded. Now I'm no expert but I was subjected to sex ed at school so I'm familiar with the theory of heterosexual sex and it usually involves penis entering vagina (yes children, they really do do that. Heteros are so disgusting). Now, I'm not sure if you people are familiar or not with the male anatomy so I will give you a quick overview. Men do not have vagina's. THUS how can a man have sex with a man like he does with a female if men do not have vagina's?? They can't, it's impossible. If you're having sex with a man that has a vagina I'm sorry to tell you this but that's a women, not a man.

Conclusion? Levitidicks 20:13 is totally irreverent and in no way says anything about gayness or even gay butt sex.

Check and mate theists. Drinking Beverage

Muffs: 1
Theists: 0

Yeah but.... Women have buttholes. Just sayin. Oh and mouths too..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
24-01-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:36 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 04:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Leviticus 20:13, the ol' anti-gay verse that everyone knows and loves.

For those that don't know it it reads:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Now, theists interpret this as gayness being a bad thing and go to all sorts of lengths to hammer home that God hates fags and shit.
Now, I'm not too familiar with scripture because I would rather gouge out my eye balls with a spoon than read the bible, but it is somewhat frustrating that theists cherry pick some verses but completely ignore the others. Atheists know this too well.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Back to Levitidicks 20:13.
Now, theists really enjoy interpreting things to suit them and so I shall do the same.
If you read the verse above it doesn't actually say gay sex is bad. It says if "a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" the key point being bolded. Now I'm no expert but I was subjected to sex ed at school so I'm familiar with the theory of heterosexual sex and it usually involves penis entering vagina (yes children, they really do do that. Heteros are so disgusting). Now, I'm not sure if you people are familiar or not with the male anatomy so I will give you a quick overview. Men do not have vagina's. THUS how can a man have sex with a man like he does with a female if men do not have vagina's?? They can't, it's impossible. If you're having sex with a man that has a vagina I'm sorry to tell you this but that's a women, not a man.

Conclusion? Levitidicks 20:13 is totally irreverent and in no way says anything about gayness or even gay butt sex.

Check and mate theists. Drinking Beverage

Muffs: 1
Theists: 0

Yeah but.... Women have buttholes. Just sayin.

Gasp

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
24-01-2015, 05:51 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Muffsy,

Right conclusion but wrong reason.

In ancient days, when the gay sex was perfectly normal in both Hellenistic societies and Arabic tribal societies, pride and status were a big thing.

How you had sex with your own property (slaves, women, goats etc.) was entirely up to you but no ... what are those peculiar words I'm looking for ... ah, yes ... respect, empathy and/or tenderness was required. Just do the job and get on with your day.

But that was no way to treat an equal. One should not be all superior and powerful when having sex with another man.

That is what was seriously frowned upon.

Do not, repeat not, have sex when an equal (a man) as you would with an inferior (womenz and other low-life).

Quite unthinkable!

Yet, someone must have gone and treated a woman as an equal or they would not have needed a law to prevent it.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like DLJ's post
24-01-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 05:04 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've argued with enough fundies to tell you what they'd say ---

"Leviticus does not apply to modern Christians - as it's a covenant between God and the Levites"......

Yeah -- so why don't they toss the damned thing out????

Cuz like you said -- they like to cherry pick their dogma at will.........

Considering the fact that men have never had vaginas, as far as I'm aware, it's a pretty timeless argument.

What about a sex change? Trannies?

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 06:02 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Something about this God fellow seems fishy to me ...

Dodgy

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
24-01-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Muffsy,

Right conclusion but wrong reason.

In ancient days, when the gay sex was perfectly normal in both Hellenistic societies and Arabic tribal societies, pride and status were a big thing.

How you had sex with your own property (slaves, women, goats etc.) was entirely up to you but no ... what are those peculiar words I'm looking for ... ah, yes ... respect, empathy and/or tenderness was required. Just do the job and get on with your day.

But that was no way to treat an equal. One should not be all superior and powerful when having sex with another man.

That is what was seriously frowned upon.

Do not, repeat not, have sex when an equal (a man) as you would with an inferior (womenz and other low-life).

Quite unthinkable!

Yet, someone must have gone and treated a woman as an equal or they would not have needed a law to prevent it.

Dodgy

Are you and Muffsy taking a Talmudic scholar correspondence course? Consider

I haven't seen such fine slicing and dicing in quite a while.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-01-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 06:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
I haven't seen such fine slicing and dicing in quite a while.

That's nothing! Since you mention it, you should read his thesis on circumcision Yes

And ask him to show you his foreskin collection.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
24-01-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
I still don't get it. Sodomy isn't really ever banned by any laws in the bible is it? All I know of is people say so because they gave it the same name as the city God destroyed in Lots story... but even that wasn't "sodomy" they just had orgys wanted to bang angels

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: