Just wanted to note, I think it's funny that while it is an abomination for two men to hot loving sex together, it was perfectly fine for godfearing Lot's daughters to have incestuous sex with him and bear him children.
Oh, those crazy YHVH worshipers... :horrormirth:
Don't forget that being devoured by bears is the only proper punishment for little children who make fun of the prophet Elisha. Prophets are serious business!
And God Bob help you if you wear clothing made of mixed fibers.
Somewhat ironically, given the OP, in Islam Lot's name is used as a nickname for homosexuals because while, according to the Koran, he didn't sleep with his daughters, he did give the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah a Fred Phelps type sermon on their wicked and carnal ways.
Also, Lot's daughters weren't even that hot. Well, compared to angels at least, which may be somewhat unfair. But still, a crowd of lusting men refused to do them. So double ew.
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2010, 08:14:27 PM
Somewhat ironically, given the OP, in Islam Lot's name is used as a nickname for homosexuals because while, according to the Koran, he didn't sleep with his daughters, he did give the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah a Fred Phelps type sermon on their wicked and carnal ways.
Also, Lot's daughters weren't even that hot. Well, compared to angels at least, which may be somewhat unfair. But still, a crowd of lusting men refused to do them. So double ew.
Hey, I wouldn't do girls who lusted after their father either.
Also, I think I'm getting the meaning of Sodom and Gomorrah.
1) Angels are HAWT. Holy shit, fucking I want to fuck you now hawt.
2)Angels turn men gay.
3) Rejection by said gay men makes teenage girls lust after their fathers.
Moral of the story: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FUCK ANGELS, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2010, 08:33:18 PM
Moral of the story: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FUCK ANGELS, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
Well yeah, it will turn you gay and get your city destroyed by fire and brimstone.
That, and people turned into pillars of salt.
The Lot story is in line with what I know about ancient values, though. Similar to the Greek concept of xenia, duty to your guest was paramount. It's the same reason why Zeus came down hard on Troy because Paris seduced Helen while he was a guest of the Spartans (although it's the inverse I suppose). I suppose to moral of the story, in a way that completely escapes modern sensibilities, is that you owe a greater duty to male travelers that you welcome into your home than your own daughters.
Quote from: Remington on February 21, 2010, 08:08:10 PM
And God Bob help you if you wear clothing made of mixed fibers.
Except that was in Leviticus with Moses, long after the Sodom and Gommorah incident, after the death of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the fathers of the 12 tribes. Hell, I have no idea how many years after the death of Joseph that the regime even changed in Egypt leading to Exodus.
Quote from: Guy Incognito on February 21, 2010, 08:04:18 PM
Don't forget that being devoured by bears is the only proper punishment for little children who make fun of the prophet Elisha. Prophets are serious business!
That's hardly the most ridiculous thing that YHVH has ever done. I'd say the whole impregnating a married virgin with his supernatural sperm takes the cake.
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2010, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: Guy Incognito on February 21, 2010, 08:04:18 PM
Don't forget that being devoured by bears is the only proper punishment for little children who make fun of the prophet Elisha. Prophets are serious business!
That's hardly the most ridiculous thing that YHVH has ever done. I'd say the whole impregnating a married virgin with his supernatural sperm takes the cake.
:lulz: Yeah that was a bizarre episode.
FUCK YOU, IMMA GOD! I'M TRIPPING BALLS ALL THE TIME CUZ IMMA GOD!
\
(http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/07/god_universe.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2010, 08:55:11 PM
FUCK YOU, IMMA GOD! I'M TRIPPING BALLS ALL THE TIME CUZ IMMA GOD!
\
(http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/07/god_universe.jpg)
I heard the son of Chronos was easy, and that he fucks girls while transformed into bulls. Is that true?
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2010, 08:14:27 PM
Somewhat ironically, given the OP, in Islam Lot's name is used as a nickname for homosexuals because while, according to the Koran, he didn't sleep with his daughters, he did give the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah a Fred Phelps type sermon on their wicked and carnal ways.
Also, Lot's daughters weren't even that hot. Well, compared to angels at least, which may be somewhat unfair. But still, a crowd of lusting men refused to do them. So double ew.
Yeah, I think that as a straight man given a choice between a couple of virginal young women or a couple of angels, I'd choose the angels, even if they were currently in male form. After all, they're angels.
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2010, 08:40:21 PM
Quote from: Remington on February 21, 2010, 08:08:10 PM
And God Bob help you if you wear clothing made of mixed fibers.
Except that was in Leviticus with Moses, long after the Sodom and Gommorah incident, after the death of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the fathers of the 12 tribes. Hell, I have no idea how many years after the death of Joseph that the regime even changed in Egypt leading to Exodus.
It appears likely that the correct answer is "NEVER". If it's based on any actual historical events, they would have been before 1200 BC. Joseph supposedly died somewhere in the neighborhood of 1450 or so. So in the mythical story, we're talking a couple centuries... In reality, it seems unlikely that the Hebrews were ever slaves, let alone slaves in Egypt or that Jacob/Joseph/Abraham/Moses etc were actual people.
highly related and extremely lulzy:
"Genesis 19: Total Insanity"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2010, 08:33:18 PM
Moral of the story: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FUCK ANGELS, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
Hey, there was nothing wrong with asking. Just insisting...
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2010, 06:57:13 PM
highly related and extremely lulzy:
"Genesis 19: Total Insanity"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg
:lulz:
I love those.
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
1) Angels are HAWT. Holy shit, fucking I want to fuck you now hawt.
After seeing Metatron in "Dogma," I'd have to agree with you there.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 22, 2010, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2010, 08:40:21 PM
Quote from: Remington on February 21, 2010, 08:08:10 PM
And God Bob help you if you wear clothing made of mixed fibers.
Except that was in Leviticus with Moses, long after the Sodom and Gommorah incident, after the death of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the fathers of the 12 tribes. Hell, I have no idea how many years after the death of Joseph that the regime even changed in Egypt leading to Exodus.
It appears likely that the correct answer is "NEVER". If it's based on any actual historical events, they would have been before 1200 BC. Joseph supposedly died somewhere in the neighborhood of 1450 or so. So in the mythical story, we're talking a couple centuries... In reality, it seems unlikely that the Hebrews were ever slaves, let alone slaves in Egypt or that Jacob/Joseph/Abraham/Moses etc were actual people.
JESUS CHRIST JUST LET ME TAKE MY TORAH AS LITERAL TRUTH AND LEAVE ME ALONE! :argh!:
The Hebrews weren't slaves. They were paid contract workers and mercenaries. They got fed up with Egypt not living up to their end of the deal and went "up in arms" out of Egypt. Because I don't know about you, but no way in hell would the entire population of Goshen allow a bunch of "slaves" to own weapons or raid places where they could get to enough of them to leave "up in arms".
There's also very little Egyptian evidence supporting anything regarding the Exodus. There's only one papyrus that may even hint of the plagues.
Suu's right,
The very word "Hebrew" is a modernization of the ancient word "Ha-bay-roo" (phonetic), which was a tribe of mercenaries employed first by the ancient syrians and later proven to have been hired on as a private military force by the Egyptians. Exodus says how the Hebrews "went up armed" out of the land of Canaan. If they were slaves, why would they have been given weapons in their escape?
Or at least that's one theory... still light on actual evidence.
Everything is light on actual evidence, especially when you're focused on written word in a holy book telling only one side of the story, and the other side doesn't really seem to exist.
Quote from: Suu on February 23, 2010, 03:31:39 PM
Everything is light on actual evidence, especially when you're focused on written word in a holy book telling only one side of the story, and the other side doesn't really seem to exist.
THIS.
Also, Kai, it's very interesting reading the Old Testament portions of the Bible form the Torah and Qu'uran. I've done both awhile back, and it's kind of a mindblow in several ways.
I should get into reading up on the fr rly rls history of the Hebrews...seeing as how I have read the Bible several times over it would be interesting to compare.
They HAVE found evidence on the Egyptian side for the invasion of Israel in 925 BC, which is post-Exodus, but not for anything substantial regarding the Exodus, and the one papyrus that may refer to the plagues was written in the 19th Dynasty, which was 600 years prior to the reign of Ramesses II, the probable Exodus pharaoh according to Biblical readings. This can mean one of two things.
A: The Egyptians erased it from their history. As they HAVE been known to do this.
B: The story is bullshit.
Quote from: dontblameyoko on February 23, 2010, 02:27:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
1) Angels are HAWT. Holy shit, fucking I want to fuck you now hawt.
After seeing Metatron in "Dogma," I'd have to agree with you there.
Oh my god, Alan Rickman is so fucking hot in that movie. Can you believe he was in his 50s then?
Quote from: Suu on February 23, 2010, 05:03:22 PM
They HAVE found evidence on the Egyptian side for the invasion of Israel in 925 BC, which is post-Exodus, but not for anything substantial regarding the Exodus, and the one papyrus that may refer to the plagues was written in the 19th Dynasty, which was 600 years prior to the reign of Ramesses II, the probable Exodus pharaoh according to Biblical readings. This can mean one of two things.
A: The Egyptians erased it from their history. As they HAVE been known to do this.
B: The story is bullshit.
That is the correct motorcycle. It seems possible that the Egyptians have wiped their history... but the screamingly loud lack of any physical evidence for proto-hebrews in Egypt circa 1400-1200 seems pretty damning. If we add to that the lack of eviddence for the existence of a Nation with its capital in Jerusalem (the 12 tribe kingdom) under Saul or David's lineage, it seems reasonable to think that maybe the first several books of the Bible are fraudlent. There were tribal groups living in Palestine and the area claimed as Israel, but the idea that they had a single King, that they were a large Nation of people bound together by a Law Covenant etc etc all seems to be AWOL.
I think the first archeological evidence of a Judea like the one in the Bible comes after the fall of Babylon, when Cyrus the King of Persia gets involved.. so from a biblical perspective that's Ezra and afterward. Everything before that is still in the realm of myth until something useful gets dug up ;-)
On the other hand... the Bible did correctly identify the guy in charge of Babylon at the time it fell as 'Belshazzar'... Historically, the name was unknown until archeologists figured out that it was a grandson that was acting as Regent while Nabonidus ran like a bitch. So it would seem that 'at least', some aspects of the book of Daniel were possibly correct. However, that still leaves a huge gap between the fall of Babylon and the 'historical' books of the Kings, Chronicles, Judges, etc etc