Praise Jesus

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always considered sodomy limited to anal sex but that's not my area of expertise so you could easily be right.

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a person interprets something which results in harm, regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, we should banish that thing and everything to do with it? In this case you seem to be implying that because someone interpreted the Bible in such a way that causes harm, Jesus is bad and all religion is bad.

So, by this same line of reasoning if someone interprets Nietzche as saying "it is okay to kill other people" (regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not -- this part is important in your argument), we should banish the teachings of Nietzche? It also follows that we should banish all philosophy, as your post seemed to imply that all religion is bad because of one person's interpretation of one specific religious document.

This is awesome.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a person interprets something which results in harm, regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, we should banish that thing and everything to do with it? In this case you seem to be implying that because someone interpreted the Bible in such a way that causes harm, Jesus is bad and all religion is bad.

So, by this same line of reasoning if someone interprets Nietzche as saying "it is okay to kill other people" (regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not -- this part is important in your argument), we should banish the teachings of Nietzche? It also follows that we should banish all philosophy, as your post seemed to imply that all religion is bad because of one person's interpretation of one specific religious document.

This is awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see how this is flawed? Especially since my entire point is that this was an example where basing laws and practices on a personal, biased and EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE CORRECT intepretation of scripture (by the way, this is the only type of interpretation that exists) led to disastrous results.

The issue isn't whether the lawmakers correctly interpreted scripture or not. Especially when the phrase 'correctly interpreted scripture' is almost a non-sequitur. The point is, these lawmakers were allowed to make an absurdly unfair law simply because they happened to understand that God hates sodomites, and quite a lot. Actually, the reason they were able to make the law was probably because their constituents agreed with them....but for the same reason. They were not required to support their reasoning because it was an obvious, religious viewpoint. Sodomy is bad, sex for pleasure is bad, no need to justify it.

This case was obviously an extreme example of this type of thinking run amok. Of course this doesn't normally happen. And of course something like this COULD happen in a secular society....I guess. The point is simply that this happened because of the sheltering of beliefs that are rooted in faith or religion.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a person interprets something which results in harm, regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, we should banish that thing and everything to do with it? In this case you seem to be implying that because someone interpreted the Bible in such a way that causes harm, Jesus is bad and all religion is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

he didn't say that

That ANY interpretation of the Bible is considered when making laws is ridiculous.

this case is very disturbing to me

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This has to do with religion because of Sodom. There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex, and this taboo was enacted into law because of the God-fearing folk of Georgia. There is no other reason for the disparity in penalties. Sex for procreation = good, sex for fun = bad.

And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

People ask all of the time, sure, this heinous act was perpetrated nominally for religious reasons, but wouldn't it have occurred anyway, even without religion? The answer in this case is a firm no.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no religion would the laws ever end up so out of sync? Seems very unlikely, but not impossible. Historically throughout europe sodomy laws were directly religion based. Is it reasonable to expect that christian myths are behind the Georgia laws?

Apparently not, judged by some posters, those laws were created by native americans who never heard of sodom and adopted unquestioningly by the later citizens of georgia, or some such.
cheeesh, I'm embarrassed for my species at times.

luckyme

[Xhad]

Irony of ironies, I clicked on the video and it started with an anti-marijuana commercial.

[Duals21]

[ QUOTE ]

I've always considered sodomy limited to anal sex but that's not my area of expertise so you could easily be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, in Georgia:

16-6-2, Sodomy

(a) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE CORRECT intepretation of scripture (by the way, this is the only type of interpretation that exists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when the phrase 'correctly interpreted scripture' is almost a non-sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements don't make any sense. Some interpretations are clearly more correct than others. Or are you saying that from the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" one can interpret this to mean "Killing is good stuff" and this is equally valid as the alternative interpretation "killing is bad"? Do you really think that the authors of ancient works really had no intent behind their writings? That they just chose their words at random? Clearly, not every interpretation is a valid one. And some interpretations are very likely to be correct or valid, despite your claims to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, these lawmakers were allowed to make an absurdly unfair law simply because they happened to understand that God hates sodomites, and quite a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sodomites refers to residents of the city of Sodom. The phrase was not altered to mean anal sex (or whatever context the Georgia law uses it as) until much later. It was COINED From the Biblical story. The story itself does not mean "thou shalt throw a 17 year old in jail for 10 years for having oral sex in the 21st century". It is ludicrous to have such a law in this day and age based on that Biblical story, this much I agree with. This, again, is the fault of the legislators and that idiot prosecutor. It has nothing to do with the Bible, religion, and especially Jesus (I have NO idea how the thread title "Praise Jesus" could relate to this story in any way).

The problem is allowing lawmakers to interpret scripture as they see fit and apply it to today's age however they want. It is NOT a problem with religion itself, it is a problem with how some people use and/or follow religion. It has nothing to do with Jesus at all, as your thread title suggests. It has nothing to do with the Bible itself either. Unless you want to claim that simply interpreting something in a ridiculous way means that the original object of interpretation is automatically "bad" and is the thing at fault. If this is the case, then we better get rid of all philosophy because I'm pretty sure someone has used a bad interpretation of some philospher at some point in history [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img].

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently not, judged by some posters, those laws were created by native americans who never heard of sodom and adopted unquestioningly by the later citizens of georgia, or some such.
cheeesh, I'm embarrassed for my species at times.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't seem to find where anyone in the thread said this. Reading for comprehension is fun AND even useful sometimes!

The chain of events likely went something like this. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written and later incorporated into the Bible. Because the residents of Sodom (Sodomites) were said to commit "unspeakable unholy acts and sinful behavior" (paraphrase), the word Sodomy was later coined to mean extremely sinful behavior. Somewhere along the line it got morphed into meaning simply anal sex (and perhaps oral in the case of the Georgia law). Some legislator or group of legislators thought the more modern definition of Sodomy was "wrong", and it should even be wrong in a legal sense. Thus he/they passed a law to make sodomy illegal. Apparently the higher-ups in Georgia responsible for the law and not overturning it are all idiots, and now we have this boy in jail for a 10 year sentence. Which is why bills and I are making the claim it is the fault of the members of the government who allowed this sentence to take place, and are allowing it to continue to take place.

So yeah, the lawmakers probably had heard of Sodom at some point. Which is why the word "Sodomy" appears in the law. And then it follows that since the word Sodomy has its origins in a Biblical story, that Jesus and the Bible are at fault for this young man being in jail in the year 2007 (or something like that?) [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]. After all, context isn't important when you want to attack religion, is it?

[revots33]

There's zero doubt in my mind that sodomy laws are on the books because people think it's immoral. Why else would there be such laws regarding consensual sexual behavior?

We can quibble about what certain passages in the bible say, and possible misinterpretations of scripture. But the bottom line is that the idea of anal/oral sex as immoral/unnatural has been part of most Christian religious teachings. It is naive to think religious belief has nothing to do with these laws existing in the first place. I cannot think of a possible rational reason for anti-sodomy laws that is not based on religious beliefs.