Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course, if the entire town was homosexual, there was little reason for God to destroy them, since they would not have survived to the next generation anyway....
The charges against Sodom & the surrounding cities wasn't just
homosexuality - they were doing plenty of other things that
God was hearing complaints against and finally acted.

They couldn't even find 10 righteous people left in the entire area.
Homosexuality was definitely a serious charge against them - but
as I see it, if gangs of men were roaming around to violently demand that
they be given people to rape, these people were clearly way out
of control and deviant.
Homosexuality was a part of the whole picture - not all of the picture.
It's still sin - but they were engaged in many others.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The charges against Sodom & the surrounding cities wasn't just
homosexuality - they were doing plenty of other things that
God was hearing complaints against and finally acted.

They couldn't even find 10 righteous people left in the entire area.
Homosexuality was definitely a serious charge against them - but
as I see it, if gangs of men were roaming around to violently demand that
they be given people to rape, these people were clearly way out
of control and deviant.
Homosexuality was a part of the whole picture - not all of the picture.
It's still sin - but they were engaged in many others.

This is exceptionally well said. I might differ that the only evidence we have of sodomistic practices in Sodom is the mob seeking to rape the two 'young men' (actually angels), and that such behavior is typically for dominance rather than gratifying homosexual lust, as may be exemplified by prison rapes. But overall your point is solid.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is exceptionally well said. I might differ that the only evidence we have of sodomistic practices in Sodom is the mob seeking to rape the two 'young men' (actually angels), and that such behavior is typically for dominance rather than gratifying homosexual lust, as may be exemplified by prison rapes. But overall your point is solid.
But Polycarp, I think what you note is the KEY point - why didn't
God find it important to highlight the other sins they were guilty of?

I think that's why we find the homosexuality the central focus in
S&G. If that wasn't in the spotlight, then we'd of most likely
found the other sins the more significant and Sodom wouldn't be
so closely related to homosexuality as it is.

I think it's a key point to proving that it is sin - a grave sin.
But overall, we have to keep the sins in perspective as Ezekiel
gives them, and the fact that gangs of men conspire together
to go gang rape others proves the state of overall depravity
of the people.
(My concern was, where was everybody else? They had such
apathy that they didn't bother to stop these violent criminals).
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Going by Scripture -- as opposed to what some preachers and writers focus on from Scripture, we find that Sodom had a reputation for selfiish uncaring behavior, including amassing of luxury, lack of care for the poor, inhospitality (a much greater sin in the ancient Middle East, where it could literally be a matter of life and death for the traveler), and unspecifiied sexual immorality. The latter two come together in the specific example chosen to exemplify the men of Sodom.

I personally have a real issue in equating the sort of behavior typical of committed gay couples with the mob of men in Sodom set on homosexual rape. I ccan understand others seeing them as different expressions of the same sort of immorality, but I disagree. Even if you take Scripture to condemn all gay sex under any circumstances, hat the men of Sodom were out to commit was not primarily homosexual act but rwther an assault, with sexual component present, on strangers to whom under God's law they should have instead extended hospitality.

I am in no way defending them, nor trying to promote some agenda; I'm looking specifically at what we can learn from Scripture itself. People who tke the Sodom story to condemn homosexuality -- and nothing else -- are missing the whole point which Nadiine noted above that there was a whole congeries of sinful behavior for which Sodom was condemned.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Homosexual acts/unions/marriage is an abomination according to scripture.

If scripture is required let me know. It's been posted already dozens of times. This topic goes round and round.
This topic goes round and round becaue the verses you think are slam dunks on homosexuality do not mean what you think they mean.

If one doesn't take scripture as the inerrant Word of God then it means nothing. We have no guide as Christians as to right or wrong.
Only Christ is the inerrant Word of God. Your comment is idolatry.
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,460
819
Freezing, America
✟26,728.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If you don't believe my post, like I already said you wouldn't, then you won't believe the evidence either because you only believe what you want to believe.
So now you're calling me a liar, an ad hominem attack. What's the point of those? Do you have no evidence and only assumptions?
So you can teach your children to act out on their lust if it suits their own desires if you want, but Jesus, who has shown the world that he has more authority than you do to know the truth, warns you about doing so in Luke 17:2
Physician, heal yourself.
"It would be better for him to be throw into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. "
Physician, heal yourself.

It's better to understand that sooner than when it's too late. :( But, if you want to gamble your lives and the lives of your children that you're right and Jesus is wrong, then I'm afraid you'll have to wait until you die to understand what Jesus means.
The only gamble I'm taking is of logic prevailing over an emotional response.
 
Upvote 0

Fade to Gray

I think.
May 7, 2009
64
6
✟15,209.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
My, this is some fancy footwork you're doing here ^_^
I was using your own logic.

Now you're claiming to know their motive in wanting these men too?
Oh it CAN'T be what the BIBLE portrays clearly as they're HOMOSEXUALS, it's just GOT to be something else!
Are you not claiming motive? You're claiming that their attempt to rape the angels came from their lust which stemmed from homosexual desire, and I claim that their attempt to rape stems from the usual motives behind rape. Could some of them have actually been homosexual? Sure. All of them? Really, really doubtful.

Yet Jude also confirms this with their lust for "strange flesh".
And Ezekiel confirms it by the "abominations" in the charge against
them by God.
Lev. 18 and 20 both call it abomination specifically.
"Strange flesh" is hardly a conclusive reference to homosexuality, and Leviticus calls a lot of things abominations. You're proving nothing.

At the very least, they're clearly BIsexual in that they had free
pickins in the city and went for MALES to take down.
They rejected the female offered them.
Would a totally straight male who needed to rape (4 control)
someone, go after a male when he has free choice of either sex?
They went after the strangers in the town--and this was probably a regular occurrence, this attack on strangers, considering Lot was so insistent on getting them off the street.

Am I to assume that a male who rapes a female is ONLY doing it becuz
it's about violence/domination - so why did he pick a FEMALE?
Why do pedophiles pick male or female children to molest?
Could it possibly be that they have a sexual bent towards a
particular sex maybe??
I found a site that is run by survivors of sexual abuse (aest.org.uk). Based in the UK. Here's a quote from them:

"The vast majority of men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual. Many rapists will attack either males or females, while in their consensual will only have sex with females. Some target males more than females as it gives them even a greater sense of power and control. This fact helps to highlight another reality, that is, that sexual assault is usually more about violence, anger, domination and control over another person, than it is about lust or sexual attraction."

Here's another from the Rape Victim Advocacy Program (rvap.org):

"Myth: Rape is an expression of passion and lust.
Reality: Rape is not a crime of passion – it’s a crime of power and control. It is sexualized violence, not violent sex. The major motive for sexual assault is power – to overpower and control another person, using sex as the weapon.

Myth: Rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification.
Reality: Most rapes are planned and motivated by aggression, dominance and hatred, not sex. In fact, most offenders have access to consensual sex, and many report being sexually dysfunctional during the assault. Rapists look for availability, vulnerability and accessibility in a potential victim. There is some planning that precedes each assault in which the offender makes choices."

If it's about control, then they would seek to control whichever SEX
turns them on. (men cant' just fake arousal you know) ;)
Obviously, but considering that heterosexual men in prisons seem to have no trouble raping other men, your point falls short.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This topic goes round and round becaue the verses you think are slam dunks on homosexuality do not mean what you think they mean.

Only Christ is the inerrant Word of God. Your comment is idolatry.
Ya, you're right, "is" doesn't really mean "is" these days in the
world of biblical interpretation.

The problem is people are making all kinds of excuses as to why
a passage doesn't mean what it means when it says it clearly.
It condemns ALL acts of sexual activity btwn. the same sex.

And the proof that you're wrong in your interpretation is that you
completely lack any and all homosexual Christian examples in
the NT if this is so acceptable and normal for Christianity.
There's NO examples becuz it was abomination then as it is
today.
God's moral laws haven't changed and I've proven that thru
Jesus' own words in Matt. 19 (definition of marriage BASED UPON
gender at Creation), and thru Romans 13 with the 2 highest
laws of love.
They spell out that obediance to the moral law IS LOVE and
fulfillment of the law that we ARE under.

Instead you like to try to use loopholes & excuses as to the
audience or "which gays" are not ok & which are.
NEVER are they specified in any categories - yet you seem
to want to categorize them.
More adding in to scripture and biased interpretation.

Either way, false interpretation never supports sin - it's sin and
God will deal with it at judgment. Opinions don't change standing
moral laws from God.
 
Upvote 0

JustAsIam77

Veritas Liberabit Vos
Dec 26, 2006
2,551
248
South Florida
✟30,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Only Christ is the inerrant Word of God. Your comment is idolatry.


"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

I'll side with the apostle Pauls statement in his letter to Timothy. This letter by Paul represents, basically, his last will & testament. If ever there was a time to set the record straight it was then. He was at the end of his life.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

I'll side with the apostle Pauls statement in his letter to Timothy. This letter by Paul represents, basically, his last will & testament. If ever there was a time to set the record straight it was then. He was at the end of his life.

Then perhaps you might care to work with the words of the Apostle Paul, and not with Tudor-era translators that turned II Tim 3:16 into a complete sentence that Paul never wrote, making i6t say something that he never intended (as is clear from the Greek context).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was using your own logic.
No, you weren't - if you did I'm pretty sure we'd of been in agreement.


Are you not claiming motive?
I'm claiming NO motive, I'm watching their actions.
Let's say Donald Trump has 4 women in a line - 3 of them are utterly
homely and obese, 1 is a size 3 beauty queen that's HOT.
Now you tell me out of the 4, based on what excites him, which
would he pick to date?

These men had a whole city, AND a virgin daughter of Lot's to have.
Instead, they go for the .............. 2 MALES?
They aren't going to pick people out who don't first excite them
sexually.
It's not like men can fake excitement. Otherwise, we wouldn't see
rapists who rape ONLY females and ONLY males even today.
They go after who they have an attraction towards -
a preference towards. (anger or no anger).
& if they're hetero & go for the same sex, it's called bisexuality.

You're claiming that their attempt to rape the angels came from their lust which stemmed from homosexual desire, and I claim that their attempt to rape stems from the usual motives behind rape. Could some of them have actually been homosexual? Sure. All of them? Really, really doubtful.
If ALL of them weren't, wouldn't the ones who weren't take up
Lot's offer on his virgin daughter?

This is about preference and what they're comfortable with.
Even in rape, men choose a preference of sex and age -
and some are bisexual and either will suffice.

They weren't in prison, they had a whole city to pick from and
I highly doubt that Sodom only had 2 guests in the entire city.

"Strange flesh" is hardly a conclusive reference to homosexuality, and Leviticus calls a lot of things abominations. You're proving nothing.
Do the study on it, yes it is evidence becuz right ahead of it
is 'sexual immorality' which is one of their listed sins.
Ezek. 16 lends the other half as "abominations" which homosexuality
is called in Lev. 18 & 20.
We can't forget that they were being judged for thier PAST sins,
not the sin of this rape they were trying to commit. Fornication is
a general term that covers all sexual impropriety - sensuality,
lewdness, perversion, lasciviousness, impurity, etc.
But the fact that they had no qualms about going after males
is key evidence in the story of Sodom as to their depravity in
homosexuality.

They went after the strangers in the town--and this was probably a regular occurrence, this attack on strangers, considering Lot was so insistent on getting them off the street.
Again, their fate was sealed BEFORE the angels arrived.
God judged them BEFORE they tried to rape these 2 and they
were only there to remove Lot's family to save them from
destruction.
The sins listed for Sodom's judgment were the sins God acted on
PRIOR to that attempted gang rape incident - they were gay long
before those angels arrived; and brazen enough to try to take
them forcibly.

The STRANGERS in the town wasn't the sin. The sexual immorality
was - which God is clearly pointing out their homosexuality here
by them forcibly demanding MALES to rape.
Not females - they didn't want the daughter.

I'm not going to major on this, the fact that they chose MALES
isn't going to invalidate the homosexuality aspect.
:doh:

I found a site that is run by survivors of sexual abuse (aest.org.uk). Based in the UK. Here's a quote from them:

"The vast majority of men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual.
Then they're BIsexual and perverted and have demonic issues.
Am I going to believe them as to their real sexual status?
That sounds like "don't believe what you SEE, believe what I tell you
instead".

Many rapists will attack either males or females, while in their consensual will only have sex with females. Some target males more than females as it gives them even a greater sense of power and control. This fact helps to highlight another reality, that is, that sexual assault is usually more about violence, anger, domination and control over another person, than it is about lust or sexual attraction."

Here's another from the Rape Victim Advocacy Program (rvap.org):

"Myth: Rape is an expression of passion and lust.
Reality: Rape is not a crime of passion – it’s a crime of power and control. It is sexualized violence, not violent sex. The major motive for sexual assault is power – to overpower and control another person, using sex as the weapon.

Myth: Rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification.
Reality: Most rapes are planned and motivated by aggression, dominance and hatred, not sex. In fact, most offenders have access to consensual sex, and many report being sexually dysfunctional during the assault. Rapists look for availability, vulnerability and accessibility in a potential victim. There is some planning that precedes each assault in which the offender makes choices."
This changes nothing - and further, this is from our 'advanced'
medical experts - who label everything as a "disease" -
it's called SIN and it's demonic when it gets into rape of this sort.

Further, Let's look at the biblical account and then take in ALL
other ancient civilizations - even up to the late 1800's.
When THEY read Lev. 18 & 20 moral laws condemning men
laying with other men as with women,
then see the men of Sodom demanding to have sex with MALES....
are they going to take into account that God MUST NOT mean
to relay that they're homosexual?
And have this 'clinical' excuse instead?

What do you think civilizations before our postmodern excuse
system evolved for evil were going to understand from Lot's
story, and Lev. 18 & 20, and Romans 1? and Matt. 19, and
1 Cor 6:9-11 and Galations 5 and 1 Tim 1:8-11?

That's why I call this fancy footwork. This is YOUR logic, not
mine.

Obviously, but considering that heterosexual men in prisons seem to have no trouble raping other men, your point falls short.
Men in prison have no other option - did you ever stop to think
they're bisexual? Or ...... just plain perverted?
I can assure you, if I were stuck in prison, I wouldn't go after
other females. That's becuz I'm not a lesbian or bi.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JustAsIam77

Veritas Liberabit Vos
Dec 26, 2006
2,551
248
South Florida
✟30,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Then perhaps you might care to work with the words of the Apostle Paul, and not with Tudor-era translators that turned II Tim 3:16 into a complete sentence that Paul never wrote, making i6t say something that he never intended (as is clear from the Greek context).

If your assertion is correct then I can indeed question everything in my bible.

No thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If your assertion is correct then I can indeed question everything in my bible.

No thanks.

My assertion is that one verse, the one you quoted, has been erroneously translated and hence held up to say something Paul did not intend it to say. Period. And you can verify that by use of the Greek text or a literal translation -- or even reference to a good KJV that italicizes words supplied by the translators, if you want a low-effort proof.
 
Upvote 0

JustAsIam77

Veritas Liberabit Vos
Dec 26, 2006
2,551
248
South Florida
✟30,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
My assertion is that one verse, the one you quoted, has been erroneously translated and hence held up to say something Paul did not intend it to say. Period. And you can verify that by use of the Greek text or a literal translation -- or even reference to a good KJV that italicizes words supplied by the translators, if you want a low-effort proof.

Thanks for the info. I prefer to take it at face value. Would you be so kind as to state what Paul intended to say? Thanks.

Everyone has an opinion and yours is duly noted. I happen to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nadine--

Three small points:

1) Sexual lust is not the only emotion that results in "arousal." Rage and fear are two other emotions that can produce that reaction. Both of these emotions also release adrenaline into the body, so that may be a factor. Other chemicals in the blood, such as steroids and testosterone (which is itself a steroid, albeit one naturally occuring in the body) can affect both the emotion, and the physical reaction.

2) Not all the parties in a gang rape necessarily participate in the act itself. Many just egg on the active particpants.

3) Violent gay-bashing attacks often include gang rape. A one-on-one gay-bashing rapist might be, in some cases, a self-loathing homosexual, but why would such a person risk exposing his orientation to his gay-hating friends in the middle of an angry mob?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

buzzini

Newbie
May 25, 2009
88
6
✟15,240.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Again, it's very simple to discern between false and true teaching; If someone makes a statement than cannot be back up by scripture, then that person is not speaking for God, nor is anyone who interprets scripture to contradict other scripture because God doesn't contradict Himself. It's that simple.:)

pharisees and sadducees were the best at backing themselves with scripture. But becasue of their lack of charity and right understanding, they twist God's word into burden on people.

So the point is, how do you know you are rightly using the words and not asking others to bear the burden that you want? Meanwhile, you are doing all this in the name of God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: herev
Upvote 0

Fade to Gray

I think.
May 7, 2009
64
6
✟15,209.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, you weren't - if you did I'm pretty sure we'd of been in agreement.
Using the same method of logic in no way implies agreement.

I'm claiming NO motive, I'm watching their actions.
Let's say Donald Trump has 4 women in a line - 3 of them are utterly
homely and obese, 1 is a size 3 beauty queen that's HOT.
Now you tell me out of the 4, based on what excites him, which
would he pick to date?
You're still claiming motive. Sorry. Trying to talk your way around that fact will get you nowhere.

These men had a whole city, AND a virgin daughter of Lot's to have.
Instead, they go for the .............. 2 MALES?
They aren't going to pick people out who don't first excite them
sexually.
The same tired argument isn't going to be any more true no matter how many times you restate it.

It's not like men can fake excitement. Otherwise, we wouldn't see
rapists who rape ONLY females and ONLY males even today.
They go after who they have an attraction towards -
a preference towards. (anger or no anger).
& if they're hetero & go for the same sex, it's called bisexuality.
Take a look at what OllieFranze posted.


If ALL of them weren't, wouldn't the ones who weren't take up
Lot's offer on his virgin daughter?
Why? This wasn't about Lot's daughters or anyone else in his family--this was about the two strangers who had the audaciousness to come into their town.

This is about preference and what they're comfortable with.
Even in rape, men choose a preference of sex and age -
and some are bisexual and either will suffice.
Only if you discount the fact that heterosexual men rape other men. You can discount that evidence, but that's your problem, not mine.

They weren't in prison, they had a whole city to pick from
And according to you, they were all homosexual or bisexual, so why--according to you logic--weren't they having sex with one another?

and I highly doubt that Sodom only had 2 guests in the entire city.
Oh, probably not, but those other guests didn't have Lot taking them in off the street, now did they?

Do the study on it, yes it is evidence becuz right ahead of it
is 'sexual immorality' which is one of their listed sins.
Ezek. 16 lends the other half as "abominations" which homosexuality
is called in Lev. 18 & 20.
As are many other things in Leviticus. It's still not evidence. And I have studied the passage. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I've looked at the issue any less than you have.

We can't forget that they were being judged for thier PAST sins,
not the sin of this rape they were trying to commit. Fornication is
a general term that covers all sexual impropriety - sensuality,
lewdness, perversion, lasciviousness, impurity, etc.
But the fact that they had no qualms about going after males
is key evidence in the story of Sodom as to their depravity in
homosexuality.
I realize that they were condemned for past sins.

Again, their fate was sealed BEFORE the angels arrived.
God judged them BEFORE they tried to rape these 2 and they
were only there to remove Lot's family to save them from
destruction.
Again, I realize this. I don't know what you think I'm trying to argue here, but it certainly isn't that they were judged and condemned only for their actions within Genesis. My reference to the fact that they went after the strangers of the town is just showing that the issue is not what gender they were, but the fact that they were strangers.

The sins listed for Sodom's judgment were the sins God acted on
PRIOR to that attempted gang rape incident - they were gay long
before those angels arrived; and brazen enough to try to take
them forcibly.
Except the only supposed proof that you have that they were gay is the attempted rape, and that's hardly proof, as has been demonstrated.

The STRANGERS in the town wasn't the sin. The sexual immorality
was - which God is clearly pointing out their homosexuality here
by them forcibly demanding MALES to rape.
Not females - they didn't want the daughter.
Um...an attempt to rape strangers in the town certainly was the sin. Sorry. I don't see how you can ignore that. Once again, if their desire was simply for homsexual sex and all these men were homosexual (or bisexual, as you say), then why did they not simply have sex with one another?

Oh, also, if they were bisexual (again, your claim), then by your own logic, they still should have accepted Lot's daughters, not just if they were heterosexual. And since they didn't, your own logic concludes that they must have all been homosexual. So...as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, the town would have died out.

I'm not going to major on this, the fact that they chose MALES
isn't going to invalidate the homosexuality aspect.
The fact that they chose males doesn't prove the homosexuality aspect--it proves an attempted gang rape against men. That's all. Everything else is subjective.

Then they're BIsexual and perverted and have demonic issues.
Am I going to believe them as to their real sexual status?
That sounds like "don't believe what you SEE, believe what I tell you
instead".
You're still ignoring the motives behind rape. Just because you think that engaging in homosexual sex automatically makes a person homosexual, that doesn't make it true.

This changes nothing - and further, this is from our 'advanced'
medical experts - who label everything as a "disease" -
it's called SIN and it's demonic when it gets into rape of this sort.
I...think I'll trust the advanced medical experts about the motives behind rape, thanks. I'm quite a bit sure they'd know a bit more about it than you. They certainly know more about it than me.

Further, Let's look at the biblical account and then take in ALL
other ancient civilizations - even up to the late 1800's.
When THEY read Lev. 18 & 20 moral laws condemning men
laying with other men as with women,
then see the men of Sodom demanding to have sex with MALES....
are they going to take into account that God MUST NOT mean
to relay that they're homosexual?
And have this 'clinical' excuse instead?
So, we're supposed to go with what ancient civilizations have to say about rape rather than modern society?

What do you think civilizations before our postmodern excuse
system evolved for evil were going to understand from Lot's
story, and Lev. 18 & 20, and Romans 1? and Matt. 19, and
1 Cor 6:9-11 and Galations 5 and 1 Tim 1:8-11?
The same civilizations that used the bible to promote slavery and the subjucation of women? Really?

That's why I call this fancy footwork. This is YOUR logic, not
mine.
I used the same method of logic as you did--you said the men could have slept with anyone else in the town, so why the male angels (your emphasis being on the fact that they appeared as male), and I said the men could have slept with anyone else in town, so why the strangers (my emphasis being on the fact that they were not welcome in the town).

Men in prison have no other option - did you ever stop to think
they're bisexual? Or ...... just plain perverted?
I can assure you, if I were stuck in prison, I wouldn't go after
other females. That's becuz I'm not a lesbian or bi.
I'm aware that men in prison have no other option. I was merely pointing out that heterosexual men (and yes, I agree rapists are perverted) can be aroused by homosexual rape.

And I should hope that you wouldn't rape other females--not because you're not lesbian or bi, but because decent people don't participate in such atrocities. Do you really think that every perpetrator of rape within prisons must be gay or bi?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think the point of this thread was completely missed.
The point was obscure tho - KC pointed it out in a later post that
I think many haven't read way back there.
Otherwise, I wouldn't of picked it out either I don't think.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Thanks for the info. I prefer to take it at face value. Would you be so kind as to state what Paul intended to say? Thanks.

Everyone has an opinion and yours is duly noted. I happen to disagree.

As Paul often does, the whole of verses 15-18 is one long sentence. And to grasp it fully requires remembering what else we know about Timothy and his family and their relationship to Paul. Timothy and his grandmother and mother Eunice and Lois were Jewish converts to Christianity (I think but am not sure through Paul's own ministry; that's irrelevant to the point here).

Paul advises Timothy to continue in what he has learned and become convinced of, because he know well those from whom he learned (this is an allusion to his mother and grandmother) who taught him from a small child "the Scriptures" -- by which Paul can only mean the Law and the Prophets, the Jewish Bible; when Timothy was a baby, no part of the New Testament was yet written -- which are valuable in making one wise for salvation in Christ [I understand this to mean, provide the knowledge and 'intellectual climate' in which salvation may find fertile soil] -- all written, "theopneustos" (Greek word literally rendered 'God-breathed-out' and probably best translated 'inspired'), and valuable (to Timothy in his ministry) for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that [those whom Timothy is sent to evangelize and teach] may be equipped for all good works. It's the same principle as has often been voiced by people like Hentenza here -- teach from, and found your arguments in, Scripture; it furnishes common ground. There is no verb in verse 16; it's one long set of appositives describing the value of the Torah and the Prophets, noted in the previous verse, to Timothy's impending ministry.

As can be seen, it's one long sentence reminding the younger man, setting out on a ministry the older man who loves him like a son has long been doing, of what he's learned and known and founded his life on since he was first able to think for himself, and to use this knowledge for effective ministry, since knowledge of the Law and the Prophets would be widespread among those to whom Timothy was being sent.

Beautiful and valuable guidance that, divorced of Timothy's particular circumstances, is useful to evry Christian worker. But with a standalone sentence inside it where Paul endorses the (not yet collected) Christian Bible, including his own letters, as divinely inspired, inerrant, etc.? I don't think so -- this is a conclusion drawn from the English translators' distaste for the long sentnces Paul was fond of writing.

And if anybody was divinely inspired in that set of verses, it would be Paul, not his (mis-)translators.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.