Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (5)
Will this hurtful preaching never cease? Another example has popped up from the sewers of discrimination and intolerance.
Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you…ye come with lust unto men instead of women…ye are wanton.
People who quote this kind of stuff should be ostracised from civil society, pilloried, denied their livelihoods, drummed out of the public square. Those employing them have a choice. Be virtuous and sack them or be shamed into compliance by the Twitterati and denied succour by those among the top fifty companies whose largesse is matched only by their newly-discovered piety and social responsibility.
Really, though, while the ‘holy book’ containing this hateful stuff is in bookstores and on open display on bookshelves in libraries, in homes, the problem will lurk ever ready to emerge and pollute public discourse. We don’t live in the Dark Ages. It is time surely to cleanse this book. By the way I do not name this holy book for fear of my filthy infidel words besmirching its holiness, thus earning the wrath of its adherents whose sanity, let’s face it, is questionable. Bravery is not my strong suit.
Gay people have a right to be protected from hate speech, wherever and however it is sourced. Hate speech, remember, is whatever offends minority groups. If you’re black or brown, or LGBTQI, or more still if you are black or brown and LGBTQI.
Lest you be confused about specifics, there is nothing wrong, to put it delicately, with male-to-male connectivity. After all, it is now not just tolerated but celebrated through marriage. We know it is more than okay because I have even heard a noted conservative stalwart on the TV say that he doesn’t think it is sinful. Well, he didn’t exactly pinpoint the act, so to speak, but the import was clear. So, the holy book is clearly wrong and hateful to boot. That is settled social science.
Vandalism should not be encouraged but a book burning might be in order to symbolically start the cleansing process. Gay Mardi Gras wherever and whenever held provide ideal opportunities. Mind you, other canonical holy books are derivative of the holy book and would need also to be cleansed. I mean just concentrate on this bilge for a moment, and this is but a taste, and you will see what I mean.
If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done…If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be stoned to death.
True, it will be difficult to thoroughly cleanse the holy book and its offshoots. It will take time. Needed is a religious purity commissariat (RPC), headed by someone with a freewheeling moral compass and no outdated attachment to freedom of speech (bravery or foolhardiness also required).
The mission of the RPC might read: “A sin isn’t a sin unless we say it is.” Its goal would be to rid all religious texts of all slights on any contemporary licentious norm. As to its priorities, it clearly must start with the aforementioned holy book and its offshoots; hence the requirement for bravery / foolhardiness. So far as is known, no other religious texts inspire the tossing of homosexuals from tall buildings. Which, when you think about it, is at the extreme end of discrimination and intolerance.
A day at the RPC:
“What about these bits about beheading infidels and killing Jews hiding behind stones, boss?”
“Nah! Nothing amiss there.”
fsdfsfs
You need to look at the act of sodomy from the standpoint of reason, or the Natural Law, as well as faith. Faith and reason do not contradict each other but come to the same conclusions from different perspectives. Faith is the supernatural ie it comes from God. Natural Law comes from our reason or the intellect.
Modernism has almost done away with the Natural Law or reason. This is something to be worried about because when societies turn their back on the Natural Law, chaos ensues. Think WWII, Stalinism, Hitler etc. These are examples of secular humanism which are opposed to the Natural Law.
For the last 50-70 years we have been going through a sexual revolution where any sexual act has been promoted. The end result is the destruction of marriage, abortion and the decoupling of sex with the procreation of children. We are already in a period of chaos except we are being told otherwise.
I wonder how different Western countries are now to the people who lived under a communist regime: being constantly told how fantastic it is to satisfy every sexual desire at the cost of marriage to being told how fantastic it is to have no private property? We are surrounded by propaganda as to how we should divorce whenever we want and have children with how many people we like.
This is despite knowing this is irrational and in the end brings unhappiness. These are not good signs of a functioning society. Rather they are signs of a breakdown of society.
From a Natural Law perspective sodomy is an unnatural act. It has nothing to do with the person. However the gay agenda wants us to believe that it is genetic. Well there is no scientific evidence of this. Scientific evidence remains strongly in the corner that it is psychological.
Why is it unnatural? Well anyone who has a 101 in sex education can work that out. Sodomy distorts the sexual act. It loses its purpose. It is disordered. You cannot equate sodomy with sex. From sex comes new life. Hence we have marriage.
From a Faith perspective sodomy it is a serious mortal sin. Sex is a gift from God from which comes new life. We are now in an era which abuses this gift. Fewer children. More regard for ourselves. Sodomy is not sex. Sodomy vandalizes the act of sex and hence is considered worse than adultery. And is only one up from bestiality. And that is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I will stick to the biology and a little history, and leave the theology and law to theologians and philosophers.
Sex was invented by bacteria two billion years ago. It is the ideal way to keep up with a changing Earth. In bacteria, the male erects a tube through which he transfers all his genes to the female, and geneless then dies. The female inspects her now double set of genes, keeps what she judges the best combination, and discards the remainder; she is then no longer a female, but the founding member of a new clone, which will come to number millions of trillions of members, until becoming senile and dying out. Meanwhile maybe one cell in a billion will become a germ cell, male or female, and available for sexual conjugation, and thus the founding of a new clone.
Now the same sexual process occurs in normal humans. Male and female cells combine to form a zygote, the founding member of a new human clone which grows up and walks and talks. In this human maybe one cell in a billion becomes a germ cell eg an ovum, available to engage in real sex and repeat the process. All this was discovered by Lederberg and Tatum in 1946, but it still does not seem to have permeated into high school sex education. Maybe it is because there are no homosexual bacteria. Why would there be?
Now it is an epidemiological fact that sodomites caused the AIDS epidemic with their up to one thousand random conjugations per annum! Sodomy is indeed against the order of nature and was so described in the old Queensland Criminal Code, authored by Sir Samuel Griffith, of happy memory.
Moo: “You need to look at the act of sodomy from the standpoint of reason,”
Nietzsche did: http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/daybreak/aphorism-109-quote_948db8297.html
“Self-mastery and moderation and their ultimate motive. I find no more than six essentially different methods of combating the vehemence of a drive. [Summary]: avoiding opportunities for gratification, implanting regularity into the drive,* engendering satiety and disgust with it and associating it with a painful idea (such as that of disgrace, evil consequences or offended pride), then dislocation of forces and finally a general weakening and exhaustion. These are the six methods. That one desires to combat the vehemence of a drive at all, however, does not stand within our own power; nor does the choice of any particular method; nor does the success or failure of this method. What is clearly the case is that in this entire procedure our intellect is only the blind instrument of another drive which is a rival of the drive whose vehemence is tormenting us: whether it be the drive to restfulness, or the fear of disgrace and other evil consequences, or love. While ‘we’ believe we are complaining about the vehemence of a drive, at bottom it is one drive which is complaining about another; that is to say: for us to become aware that we are suffering from the vehemence of a drive presupposes the existence of another equally vehement or even more vehement drive, and that a struggle is in prospect in which our intellect is going to have to take sides.”
“*Thirdly, one can deliberately give oneself over to the wild and unrestrained gratification of a drive in order to generate disgust with it and with disgust to acquire a power over the drive: always supposing one does not do like the rider who rode his horse to death and broke his own neck in the process which, unfortunately, is the rule when this method is attempted.”
Great parody, Peter, and I thought you were an economist. Then it dawned on me: complementary art forms! Congratulations!