There really isn't and can't be a conclusive right answer, but I read those books long ago and totally thought he was gay....
Have you considered the cultural aspect? In Ancient Greece, "doing it" with men didn't make you gay.
I think that whole gay/nongay dichotomy is much more recent, labels that are just inventions.
[Just sorta looks at you for a second].
No... No it's not. See, we humans (including me) are arrogant little things. We think what we call some natural process matters. Whatever you call it, sexual orientation has existed on a continual scale since there was sex. This is why it is still present in nature and many animals are gay. None of those gay animals have "cultures" that shift over time like ours do. The fact that sometimes there are beings who like the same sex only and those who like the opposite sex only and those who exist somewhere in between on a sliding continuum is a natural fact that existed long before us and will continue to exist long after us.
That said, a portion of what you said may be valid. We simply don't know what Achilles was: gay straight, somewhere in between, or asexual. It is entirely possible he was any of these things. That is, he could be anywhere on the scale or simply not on the scale (asexual) The objective truth of what Achilles was is unknowable, even what he called himself may not matter (I continually called myself straight for many years [chuckle]), because we can't know what was inside his mind and heart....
Thus even if he "did it," with men, that would mean he was either gay, or bi.
Again, this is what I think based upon what I have before me, which is all anyone else can say whatever their view is on topic given that we can't know objectively.
I sincerely doubt the word "sodomy" appears in translations of the Old Testament when it comes to laws against homosexual activity.
That is my point: there's no "law" against homosexual activity in the bible AFAIK.
However, there is against sodomy. The word originates from the OT.
I seem to be the "worst kind of sinner," in this regard. I know the bible better than most people ever will. I know exactly what it says, consciously disregard it, do exactly what it says not to, and declare the book itself wrongful in a great many respects. I frankly don't care what it says because I don't subscribe to this religion. I am GLBT, namely I'm trans and could never picture myself with a woman like that at all.... I don't think I could do it and would probably just cry and sob if I was forced to.
Unfortunately, there is exactly such a law by the text as written: Leviticus 18:22. Its translated differently but its always more or less the same:New International Version (©1984)
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
English Standard Version (©2001)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting."
King James Bible
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
American King James Version, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation and American Standard Version
"You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Bible in Basic English
"You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing."
Douay-Rheims Bible
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination."
Darby Bible Translation
"And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination."
World English Bible
"'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable.
Young's Literal Translation
And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.
Romans 1:27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Timothy 1:10 "[death?]for adulterers and perverts and abominations, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."
Genesis 19:5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Sadly, there are a lot of parts to the bible that by as written translation are against being gay. Leviticus particularly is a cranky guy who lays down laws against lots of things we don't follow. I don't really want to post them all here, but suffice it to say, I don't care about any of them personally.
______________________________________________
I didn't read that article because I was more concerned about your claim that "sodomy" is mentioned as a thing in the Bible, which it isn't. Yeah, the word "sodomy" comes from "sodom"/"sodomite", but that has little to do with the Bible itself.
It's pretty damn hard to tell what the exact authorial intent regarding homosexual behavior is in the Bible, since we're so removed from that time and culture, and often the words used are ones that nobody even knows the exact meaning of.
Meh.... I don't know that the exact word "Sodomy" appears in the bible per se, at least not in the "originals." However, depending on the translation I'm sure it appears in one of the interpretations/translations. Who put it there and if their interpretation/translation is "accurate" is another question. I honestly don't feel like looking for it.
The act itself is referred to. See above.
Also you quoting
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm was a pretty good source
______________________________________________
Virex, that works if money were just one thing. It's not. If you buy stocks, you can borrow money based on the value of that stock, using it as collateral and buy more with that. Everyone does this. The problem arises when your stock crashes, your collateral is worth less than your loans, and you have to pay more money than you have. If everyone just invested the money they had, there'd be no problem, it's just that we're inventing "money" (value might be a better word but it's used as money) left and right, based on speculation on the value of goods, and if that fails, the invented money fails. And that can go fast, and the amount of invented money outweighs the "real" money more and more each year.
It's like borrowing money from the future, based on the projection of current growth. Here's something more on the amount and types of amounts of money.
This is called a "Margin Call." A Margin Call is when you borrow money on stock you own to buy more stock, but that already owned stock went down in value, so your broker makes a "Margin Call" demanding you pay up the difference.... It sucks.
The problem with the current valuation of stocks and commodities is that it's largely based on opinion. I know all the arguments about how owner's equity, supply/demand and that are computed and here's why they all fail. The stock price just dropped straight down.... Yesterday, the stock was worth a lot; now it is certainly not.... What happened? What is this Atlantis, lost in a single day and night of misfortune? I think a lot of people are wondering where exactly all that money goes when something "magically" loses value overnight. It's a fair question but we really don't have an answer....
If the value of goods plummets, nothing happens to the money. The amount of money in the world is, seen on the scale of say a few days, roughly constant (it grows slowly and the effect is IIRC only noticeable on a scale of months unless some country fires up the presses). This means that if you buy stocks and then the stocks plummet, your assets lost value, but you didn't lose any money, because you already spent the money at some prior point to get the stocks. What this ultimately means is that if the value of money remains roughly constant (no hyperinflation), yet a significant portion of the population experiences a drop in purchasing power, then the only possible explanation is that there's a buildup of money somewhere else, for example at the bank account of clever stock brokers.
Ok see, here's where I'm not sure we're seeing eye to eye. I'm not talking about the purchasing power of money, inflation, overall (aggregate) money supply or anything like that.
If you're one of those people lucky enough to have a 401K or other retirement fund to complain about, you've noticed it has probably lost a lot of value. You can call it "money" or "value" but the point is you lost a lot of it.... It's kind of insane that people could lose so much in a single day. I think this is evidence of some kind of flaw in valuation. The massive risk and actuality of loss specifically is the issue.
It is the same product or company (means of making a product) that it was yesterday. A person is reasonable to ask why it is worth so much less (or more) one day than the next. Valuation.... Same thing with houses, it's the same house it was when a person bought it for lots of money, except now... it just isn't "worth," lots of money. Something is fundamentally screwy.
for example at the bank account of clever stock brokers.
Yup, that's one possibly valid interpretation of where it went....
This is actually surprisingly well done and says a lot: (especially the opening scene):
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e03-margaritaville
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 877768 times)