Comments on: Miss’sippi Logic

By: Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:19:31 +0000

Well, yeah, Tom. I wasn’t even getting into the whole “most acts of God in the Bible are now easily explained without resorting to the intellectually lazy crutch of Divine Intervention” thing. I was just arguing the text as it is, rather than as the Religious Right wishes it were. But you’re right — “God” didn’t destroy sh*t.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:00:51 +0000

S & G were destroyed by the K??fels asteroid impact, not the wrath of god.

http://realitybong.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/sodom-and-gomorrah-the-kofels-asteroid-impact/

By: Vegasguy

Vegasguy — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:55:07 +0000

Hate too say this, but most American’s are fucking stupid!!

By: Buffy

Buffy — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:52:47 +0000

“But he’ just fine with Lot, the “hero” of the S&G story, offering up his virgin daughters to be gang raped.”

Of course he is. You know how big those RW types are on property rights.

By: Patrick Fitzgerald

Patrick Fitzgerald — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:36:00 +0000

"Not to mention Lot himself having sex with those same virgin daughters of his after they'd fled from Sodom. (Genesis 19:30-38)" He didn't just have sex with them, he impregnated them. Both of them…and on the first try. Clearly demonstrating, at least in this case, that the incest was blessed--Just like with Adam and Eve' children in Genesis. If you're not familiar with it, take a look at this Iian Kutz article (PDF). It"s a must read for anyone who debates the S&G story.

Revisiting the lot of the first incestuous family: the biblical origins of shifting the blame on to female family members Who seduced whom in the biblical incest story of Lot and his daughters? The answer reveals an ancient cover-up ploy that is in use to this day

Apparently there' A LOT more going on with this story than even what you, I, and Evan have brought up.

By: Gary (NJ)

Gary (NJ) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:55:56 +0000

“Why can liberals not accept that a man does not wear a dress and that a woman does not wear a tuxedo”–apparently Bubba never saw a Scottsman in a kilt (fierce warriors all), or Christ and the Apostles who all wore what could be called dresses and of course all male priests and monks wear ‘dresses’. But monks don’t count, because, ‘we don’t like them Booodist and Catlick monks’. Women in a tuxedo?!, hmmmm, I guess he doesn’t know who Marlene Dietrich was or that she was quite the sex symbol in the 20s and 30s. Plenty of the good ol’ boys back then enjoyed a Fr?§ulein who dressed up like she had a ‘pecker’.
BTW–rob1 just reinforced every negative stereotype that northerners have about the rural south. (And I know not *all* southerners are like rob1, I went to grad school at Vanderbilt U in Nashville).

By: Miss‚Äôsippi Logic « Hindgrindr

Miss‚Äôsippi Logic « Hindgrindr — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:30:30 +0000

[...] Miss’ippi Logic [...]

By: William

William — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:15:43 +0000

“But he’ just fine with Lot, the “hero” of the S&G story, offering up his virgin daughters to be gang raped.”

Not to mention Lot himself having sex with those same virgin daughters of his after they’d fled from Sodom. (Genesis 19:30-38)

By: Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:22:47 +0000

Um, because fundamentalist Christians hate women.

It’s intricately tied up in their worldview. It’s the root of the anti-choice movement.

By: Patrick Fitzgerald

Patrick Fitzgerald — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:29:30 +0000

Homoseuality was wrong 6000 years ago after Adam sinned. It was wrong 3500 years ago when God wiped Sodom and Gomorrah from the face of the Earth for their homosexual satanic lusts.

But he' just fine with Lot, the "hero" of the S&G story, offering up his virgin daughters to be gang raped.