alanorei #fundie

alanorei #fundie leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com

[On homosexuals]

They are described in Genesis 19 as violent, vicious, depraved and unreasoning (where they can get away with it), with only the KJB telling the truth about the child-molester association in Genesis 18:20. The new bibles all cover up for the paedophiles.

They have not changed in 4,000 years of recorded history and as one KJB Baptist pastor in the US said some years ago, their lives are as filthy as a backed-up sewer and an abhorrence to 95%+ of the population in any country.

The original sodomites were Hamites, btw, which has non-pc racial implications as well.

49 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

[On homosexuals]

"They are described in Genesis 19 as violent, vicious, depraved and unreasoning (where they can get away with it), with only the KJB telling the truth about the child-molester association in Genesis 18:20. The new bibles all cover up for the paedophiles.

The original sodomites were Hamites, btw, which has non-pc racial implications as well."

*Ahem*:

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/republican-list-of-paedophiles-shocking/

I love the smell of destroyed arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.

old comment by John

The Lot story has never made sense to me.

If Lot was such a righteous man, why did he offer to let the townspeople of Sodom gang-rape his daughters? If the townspeople were, as some claim, homosexuals, why didn’t he offer himself instead of his daughters? Wouldn’t they have preferred Lot to his daughters? If the townspeople had accepted Lot’s offer, would the angels have just stood by and let the girls be raped? Why did they wait until after the townspeople refused the girls to suddenly show that they had the ability to defend themselves all along? If Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, who reported the story? How was it that Lot was so drunk he couldn’t tell he was having sex with his daughters but sober enough to perform the act? Why did a righteous man get that drunk in the first place?

old comment by breakerslion

@ skyknight:

That's the problem with a unique handle. Makes it easy to get tracked down.

I was not aware of the significance of those names, but having waded through the "begats", the allegorical nature does not surprise me. People often neglect to consider that this material was oral tradition, held by the shaman/cleric class and not for general distribution. As such, it is full of mnemonic shortcuts similar in type to the one used to tie a bowline knot. Identifying two enemy tribal villages as tracing their lineage from two sinful harlots fits the general theme.

Unfortunately, most of the dipstick pundits quoted here are biblical literalists. They believe it happened exactly as described. This is how we get YEC and other nonsense competing with reality. This also makes it pretty simple to explode their delusion from within.

Lot gets a pass on his behavior because he's drunk. Try that defense in any civilized court of law and see where it gets you.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

@ Headache:

So even when Americans are not in any way involved, you somehow manage to blame us for another country's shortcomings. The mindset behind British Nationalism existed before the 21st century; it has been around since at least the nineteenth century. That is why Britain was involved in the Age of Imperialism; they thought that Anglo-Saxons were "racially superior" and that it was okay to exploit the natives and take their land. The British also did that to the Irish, which is where the Americans got the idea. Also, the BNP dates all the way back to before World War II: surely you are aware of Oswald Mosely? Creator of the Daily Mail? Known fascist? That guy? In other words, this particular type of fundie existed in the UK long before fundies in the US came to prominence. You are a liar. Are you seriously suggesting that we do not think that it needs to be stopped? None of us want to deal with fundamentalism, especially over here in America. I still cannot believe that you cannot conceive of fundamentalists originating from anywhere except the United States. Have you ever been there? It is nothing like the Third World hellhole that you claim it to be. Visit the liberal parts of the country, like the North, before you make sweeping generalizations about Americans. The blue states not only recognize how unnacceptable fundamentalism is, but they oppose it at every turn, and ultimately, when taken to court, always win. If America as a whole really saw no problem with fundamentalism whatsoever, then how come court cases invariably favor the non-fundamentalists? When you can answer that, we can have a discussion.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@John

"The Lot story has never made sense to me.

If Lot was such a righteous man, why did he offer to let the townspeople of Sodom gang-rape his daughters?"

Because God is clearly a paedophile, and he wanted something to fap to.

Care to prove me wrong, fundies? After all, how do you account for the fact he allows paedophilia to exist to this day? He did after all have sex with an underage girl - Mary - and in the process break his own 7th Commandment.

And the fundies wonder why we Atheists don't want to worship their 'God'?!

@Liz

"@Brendan

Cant disagree with most of your post, except that Mosley didn't create the Daily Mail. Was supported by it, yes, but didn't create it."

The CEO of said newspaper at the time, Lord Rothermere, supported not only Mosley, but Mussolini and Hitler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_for_fascism_under_Rothermere

Thus not for nothing do we Left-wingers (and readers of the Guardian & Independent like yours truly) refer to it as the Daily Fail.*. Oh, and as for Oswald Mosley, the people of London's East End certainly made him & his Blackshi(r)ts welcome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

>:D

'They Shall Not Pass' indeed.

*- If I were as rich as Bill Gates, I'd take over this paper, and force it's editor, writers etc to be hyper-left-wing.

old comment by Angua

Wow. You know, when you quote a Bible verse at me, my first instinct is to look it up. In the age of the internet this is so easy I don't even have to bother to walk over to my bookshelf and find an actual Bible. Hey, alanorei, did you look up that Bible verse before you posted it? Because it's got absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

Also, you do realize many Christians will say that homosexuality was not the sin of Sodom, but inhospitality. And they can find Bible verses that are actually relevant to back it up.

And are you saying that 95% of the population in any country is homophobic and all countries have the same percentage of homophobes? Because there are plenty of straight people who do not view homosexuals as an abhorrence. You're 95% just doesn't work. When Proposition 8 passed in California, it passed with 52% voting in favor of amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. It seems that during that election, only 52% of voters in California saw homosexuality as an abhorrence.

Also -- as for the original Sodomites being Hamites, Sodom and Gomorrah were Canaanite cities. But if you are going to bring up the Curse of Ham, racial implications and all, I have to ask, why? Does the Bible say that he cursed the Canaanites by making them black? If it does, I have yet to find that verse. Are most homosexuals black? No. Is there any evidence that all black people are descended from one person in Palestine at the same time as all Jews and Arabs? DNA testing is not going to back you up here.

alanorei #fundie leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com

49 comments

Confused?