What's with the Goat and sheep?

[TÐöer]

Sorry for my ignorance.

I noticed that alot of Goats and sheeps were used in the forums. May I know what they represent? Satan? :confused:

[SchizoDeluxe]

The atheist angle is just a cover for it's real identitiy - Australian Farming Foundation :D

[davo]

Sorry for my ignorance.

I noticed that alot of Goats and sheeps were used in the forums. May I know what they represent? Satan? :confused:

probably because the symbology of sheep is in reference to people acting like them, being followers of religion.

Indeed the bible has their god refer to them as sheep, and those that fail their gods test as goats:

Matthew 25:31-34
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels

[davo]

http://www.goatonapole.com

http://www.goatonapole.com/goatonapole.jpg

[Elbert]

a goat avatar is telling us the poster is rough randy. the sheep tells us he/she is cuddly randy.

[Elbert]

And thou, o Rotty one?
Roarin' randy!:D

[Elbert]

Okay, Elbert, you win a Bible Story.
Goody..... I bet it's "The Rape of the Sabine Women".

[TÐöer]

oh, that's an eye opener. It figures that the goat was some form of an insult.

Ah thanks guys, I have been following up, but didn't reply hoping I'll get more feedback. keep em coming.


I can't believe, that in the day of God (god talks back days), he would instruct people to do such atrocities.

I don't even get it, why did they write it into the book? What moral are we to have from such a story? That god condones it?

Most of this are in the old Testiment. Are there such stuff in the New Testiment as well?

[Elbert]

You're right, this is a much better story!
I think I understood it all: -- a Levite is attacked by some Benjaminites, so offers his wife/concubine to them instead to do with as they please. It pleases them to shag her to death, so he cuts her into bits and send them off to all the other tribes of Israel. They ask god what to do. He says go get the B’s. On the first try they lose 18,000 men. God says have another go. They lose 22,000 men to the sword. God says have another go, but this time he helps them and they put about 50,000 B’s to the slaughter, despite the Benjaminites having 700 left handed accurate stone throwers. They then kill every Benjaminite woman and child.
After the party, they realise their brothers, the Benjaminites, haven’t anyone left to shag! So god tells them to kill everyone of another tribe who isn't a female virgin, and take the virgins for shagging. But that isn't enough, so god tells them to ambush a bunch of virgins on their way to the well or something. They do and it’s all good again. They can all shag and get kids and god loves them for doing his bidding.

[Elbert]

The Benjos want to shag some men,
What, TIMB, is the source of that bizarre assumption? The traditional reading of both Genesis 19 and Judges 19-21 hinges on the crucial verb ‘to know’. The Sodomites demand to know who is staying with Lot – a fair question in those dangerous times! In the Hebrew text the word is yadha. Yadha appears some 900 times in the Old Testament, almost always referring to men, and in all cases except these two it is translated to mean to become acquainted with. In a handful of cases, when it says a woman knew that man, it implies sexual activity [a result of the seclusion in which women have always been kept]. And on these few occasions when yadha refers to sex, it is always heterosexual sex. Why has yadha been construed by Christian translators as homosexual sex in these two instances? Many commentators point out that no text in Genesis 19 supports the homosexual interpretation, and none suggest it is an unnatural act, and, in fact, no homosexual activity took place! So god’s punishment wasn’t for such activity. The Judges text is probably derived from Genesis 19, and uses yadha in a similar context. In the NEB the translation is...the men of Gilbeah rose against me that night, surrounded the house where I was, intending to kill me, and they raped my concubine and she died. The Levite clearly understands the intention was to kill him, not to carnally abuse him. The story targets their inhospitality and murderous brutality to strangers – the greatest ‘crime’ at that time. Indeed, as I experienced in North Africa and the Middle East over a long period in the 1960’s, there was still at that time a tradition of incredible and embarrassingly generous hospitality to strangers among Arabs and Semites. Not including Israel, where western customs of disregard for strangers prevail. But that is unsurprising considering that most Jews are not Semitic. [Contrary to popular belief, fewer than 5% of Jews are Semitic. 95% are Ashkenazy Jews derived from states in eastern Europe where they converted to Judaism in an attempt to prevent being invaded by Christians and Muslims.]
To a rational person it seems bizarre indeed to justify homophobia on the probable mistranslation of a single verb in a book that all Atheists dismiss as a compilation of myths of a displaced desert people cobbled together a few thousand years ago. :cool:

[TÐöer]

Blame God for the tower of babel incident when he varied our language.

He obviously, did not want us to be able to understand the bible.

[Elbert]

If the Benjies wanted to merely "meet and greet", why did old mate send out his porcupine, sorry, concubine? The situational evidence is one thing.............
Buggered if I know.
Asi I wrote: In the NEB, the translation is...the men of Gilbeah rose against me that night, surrounded the house where I was, intending to kill me... in order to prevent being killed, he traded in his concubine as payment.
Interestingly, the Torah does not take a homosexual meaning from that word in that place.
You might be buggered if you know, but the Levite certainly wasn't, and neither were Lot's 'angels'. Nothing happened. That's the point! in those days god didn't destroy people for their intentions, only their acts, that's a christian twist of the screw.

[Elbert]

You may like to try working from the Hebrew instead of the New English Bible.


That Hebrew excerpt doesn't say anything about homosexuality. I don't understand your point. As I mentioned, the Torah does not take a homosexual meaning from that word in that place, so why should the Old Testament and modern christians? It is interesting, though, that atheists are happy to rubbish most of the biblical tales and notions, while clinging to this particular furphy. It matters not to you, nor to me personally, but it does matter to the millions of men persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered all over the world today, solely on the basis of this unjustified translationof one word.

[Kid]

Apparently, "know" means "know" if the other party is saying "yes".

Isn't that what Matthew Johns said?:D

[Kid]

It matters not to you, nor to me personally, but it does matter to the millions of men persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered all over the world today, solely on the basis of this unjustified translationof one word.

yeah, exactly right; the same way women were persecuted as 'witches' by Xians from the biblical justification 'thou shall suffer not a witch to live'...
as the original meaning of the word was relative to both males and females, but evolved to mean just women. But what was the original Hebrew, and how was this word translated to mean just women? either way, whatever the original meaning, it was used by xians as their main means of persecution.

[westic]

Elbert, the "you are doing the decadence" and "to man the this you shall not do thing of the decadence" (hope I got that close!) to which the householder objects, and the fact he offers the unfortunate women up as substitutes, are saying to me that the men encamped outside did not have rough handshakes and backslapping in mind.

What else could "the decadence" be?

Hebrew is very circumspect about a number of things. "With uncovered arm" for what we would call "naked", "covering his feet" for what we might call "having a crap".

There is also other evidence to indicate that in those times people did not look favourably on homosexuality. Remember those jolly books of Moses?

I am not basing my view on the translation of one word. You are basing your view of my view on the misconception that I am basing my view on the translation of one word.


The story involving the Levite does in fact say of the Levite and his Concubine "While they were eating their supper, the men of the city came and beat upon the door, demanding tht the old man should hand over his male guest 'so that we may know him' (bible speak for have sexual intercourse or sodomy with). The old man instead begs they not harm is guest and instead promptly offers his own daughter and the Levites concubine for gang rape.

The story of Lot and the Sodomites (Genesis 19:5) is almost identical barring the Levite is replaced by two male angels sent from God and he offers the gathered throng, who again seek to "know" the angels, his two virgin daughters in rough trade for the angels anal integrity.
For this righteous act Lot is spared from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, although his wife seemly commits an atrocity in merely looking back and is turned to a Pillar of salt. Fairly unique values this God, but none the less a forgiving God allegedly.:eek: Really respects his women.

[Elbert]

There is also other evidence to indicate that in those times people did not look favourably on homosexuality. Remember those jolly books of Moses?

I am not basing my view on the translation of one word. You are basing your view of my view on the misconception that I am basing my view on the translation of one word.
TIMB, the only word in that tale that can possibly be construed as meaning to have homosexual sex, is 'know'. Yes, Leviticus says a few things, but that is beside the point and has nothing to do with this story. In fact, Leviticus never uses the word to 'know' to mean queer sex. We are discussing this story, and you are basing your interpretation on that word, when it is far more likely that the townspeople reasonably wanted to know who he was sheltering, because they were living in extremely dangerous times .

The story involving the Levite does in fact say of the Levite and his Concubine "While they were eating their supper, the men of the city came and beat upon the door, demanding tht the old man should hand over his male guest 'so that we may know him' (bible speak for have sexual intercourse or sodomy with).
The story of Lot and the Sodomites (Genesis 19:5) is almost identical barring the Levite is replaced by two male angels sent from God and he offers the gathered throng, who again seek to "know" the angels, his two virgin daughters in rough trade for the angels anal integrity.

There is no consensus whatever that the word 'to know' means anal sex. that is your wishful thinking. The traditional reading of both Genesis 19 and Judges 19-21 hinges on the crucial verb ‘to know’. The Sodomites demand to know who is staying with Lot – a fair question in those dangerous times! In the Hebrew text the word is yadha. Yadha appears some 900 times in the Old Testament, almost always referring to men, and in all cases except these two it has been translated to mean to become acquainted with. In only a handful of cases, when it says a woman knew that man, it implies sexual activity [a result of the seclusion in which women have always been kept]. And on these few occasions when yadha refers to sex, it is always heterosexual sex. It is unclear why yadha has been construed by Christian translators as homosexual sex in these two instances. Many commentators point out that no text in Genesis 19 supports the homosexual interpretation, and none suggest it is an unnatural act, and, in fact, no homosexual activity took place! So god’s punishment wasn’t for such activity. The Judges text is almost certainly derived from Genesis 19, and uses yadha in a similar context. The Levite clearly understands the intention was to kill him, not to carnally abuse him. The story targets their lack of hospitality and murderous brutality to strangers – the greatest ‘crime’ at that time.
[I know I'm repeating bits of what I wrote earlier, and dont know why I bother - people will always believe what they wish to believe.]:cool:

[Elbert]

Elbert, READ the Hebrew extract this time and tell me what the other possible interpretation of "thing of the decadance" is. If, after that, you still believe I am saying what you think I am saying, then we are obviously at such odds it is pointless discussing it with you anyhow.

Late Add: For that matter, why do both Lot and this chappie offer women for sexual purposes, in order to save their visitors from what you are claiming is merely a rough meet 'n' greet?

I am not maligning homosexual people here: this buggery of newcomers is more akin to prison dominance rituals or football club hazing by "straight" men.
I read it the first time, thanks. Decadence in society means the decay of current morality, actions such as being inhospitable, getting drunk and disorderly, picking a fight with strangers, the sin of Onan, public prostitution, infidelity... . Yes, of course I know you're not getting at queers, it never occurred to me that you were. My point is usually the same in things I argue about; if we laugh at christians for believing things in the bible for which there is scant, if any proof, then it behoves us to be more circumspect in checking the validity of things we hold to be true. Considering the 900 examples of 'know', when referring to men , meaning to become acquainted, then it is drawing a very long bow indeed to jump to buggery. There is the same evidence for the virgin birth, a mistranslation of the word for spinster/unmarried woman. but christians base their religion on that belief, just as you choose to believe another mistranslation. the silliest thing is, as I mentioned, that no homosexual activity took place, therefore god's punishment was not for homosexuality. Are the xians suggesting the town was destroyed because a few men desired buggery?
You have decided to believe this is the biblical condemnation of queerness, while I have my doubts. It matters not a jot, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I hope it doesnt jeopardise our relationship:D.:D

[Elbert]

.......I would like to know what you think the decadence was.
Disobeying the laws of hospitality.
If you havce lived in places like the Middle East, in desolate and desert type areas, sparsely populated, rife with bandits and other natural obstacles to life, you will know that hospitality is the greatest good; the thing that kept many people alive. It remains the case in some places on earth, and certainly, as I indicated in an earlier post, was very much alive in the '60s, before the invasion of European, Australasian and North American, teenage, 'godless' tourism.

[westic]

There is no consensus.


You can argue the point. I would contend that it is generally accepted that "to know someone", man or woman, in the time the bible was written means to have sex with them.
I am merely pointing out what is in the text.

As an athiest I don't even begin to contend I have a "theological" understanding of what is or is not "meant" literally in something which has been translated many times from totally different languages and culture which all had totally different standards and after said multiple, "
suitable" translations was then subjected to a total re-write to suit the audience.

As a matter of fact I don't give rats what is written in the Bible as I do not believe even the first line "in the beginning".

I have only read the bible because 99% of those who believe it is factual and a true story have not.

[youngmoigle]

Christians agree that when people "know" each other, they are having sex...but as soon as they realise this information is going to be used against them in a debate, they immediately start redefining the terms.

They've been doing it for thousands of years. You'll never be able to pin them down - and they'll never be embarrassed because they can read a text one way, and ten minutes later read it another way, without ever seeing the contradiction. That's how faith works.

[Elbert]

Elbert is welcome to his interpretation.
That's very generous of you, Your Irreverence. May you be blessed with ten wives and a hundred sons, and may your flocks of sheep and goats increase tenfold. [I thought it about time we returned to the original topic] Although how you can read the reference you gave, and still insist on buggery, beats me. I imagine it is an unsavoury remnant of your religious past.

[Elbert]

Elbert, I can give you more:but if you cannot understand my take on the story by now, you may surely award yourself the Aswan High Dam Bronze Lifesaving Medal.
Of course I understand your 'take' on the tale, Mr Black... Christians have done wonders in convincing the world that the sole meaning of decadence is sexual excess... It would be uncharitable of me to expect someone in your position to have escaped such brainwashing. :D
Thanks for the offer of a bronze medal. I believe the Aswan High Dam is now so silted up one can almost walk across. Interesting you should mention it, because in 1965 I was asked politely by an Egyptian Suez Canal Pilot who, like me, was visiting the construction site, if I fancied a little buggery to pass the time. But it was far too hot -- 48 degrees in the shade. If you picked up an iron bar it stuck to your hand causing blisters! Yet the barefoot workers, some as young as five, carrying heavy basketloads of excavated soil and rocks from the site on their heads, carried on working their ten hour shifts. It was like watching the pyramids being built.
I must say I am very impressed at the range of references you can trot out for every eventuality. are they all filed somewhere? It is astonishing. I have to rely on what's stored in my head as I can never find anything I want. something to do with laziness and priorities and such like I suppose. Seriously, thanks again for your erudition, and humour, it is a valuable commodity -- especially to a humourless old fart like me.

[Elbert]

Elbert,

You have conveniently omitted the matter of explaining how women were sent out to be substitute rape victims if there was no initial rape intended................you are claiming impossibility: out with it. I want to see how it is not possible...
Mr. Black,
Thanks for all that work. I have read and digested and even copied and filed somewhere the articles that most interested me.
Yes, I agree that conflict has had, and still has at times, quite a genital focus. I think I read that Australian aborigines also made pacts while holding each others’ testicles. It indicates, among other things that they weren’t as up tight about their bodies as modern Australian males.
As for sending out the women; as they were considered to be little more than useful chattels, I always imagined it was the same as offering the bullies a crate of stubbies and a handful of dollars to back off. We don’t normally bribe people with the same currency for which we’re being extorted.

I don’t recall stating rape was an impossibility, if I did it was an overstatement for which I stand corrected. Of course it is possible they wanted to rape the men – it makes no sense, but it is possible.
My sole concern is religion’s use of such obscure texts from a book of ancient myths to justify the persecution of same-sex-oriented people. I am mildly misanthropic at the best of times, but this stupid cruelty really sets me off. The Knights Templar were burned at the stake and all their enormous wealth confiscated and shared between the bankrupt king and the church, on the rumour that they practised sodomy! Sodomy was the preferred charge to make against any wealthy person whose estates the pope and other rulers coveted... just as it was used to get rid of the opposition leader in Malaysia. If these biblical tales are edicts against male/male rape, then they cannot be interpreted as against homosexuality in general.

I agree completely with Stanley Harris, that the judeo/Christian/Muslim religions have horribly perverted natural human sexuality, and caused the schism between heterosexual and homo. There was no such distinction made as recently as Roman times... sex was simply sex.
The bizarre thing is that in an informal survey I conducted several years ago, fewer than half of the gays said they practised anal sex – finding it unpleasant. Thus the proscription of homosexuality and gay relationships is just another religious insanity taken up by our pig-ignorant politicians. Even more bizarre, for a majority of the heterosexual males I spoke to,sodomy was their preferred method of contraception and intercourse. And in the last five years, three women told me they enjoyed anal sex. :confused:

[cheree]

The atheist angle is just a cover for it's real identitiy - Australian Farming Foundation :D
LMAO!!

[TÐöer]

Hahaha...

I think I'm in the right place then. It's a start for a patting zoo.

[Seamus]

A free goat? A great idea,as long as I get to pick out the prettiest one.:p

[SchizoDeluxe]

Is this pretty enough?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80652020/

[davo]

http://dl.ziza.ru/other/042008/29/podborka/036_podborka.jpg