• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What's your definition of Sodomite behavior?

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'd like to thank fundamentalists for the word 'fornication' too...most of us just have sex, but fornication makes it sound so much more exciting. ;)

Ooh yes, I might consider starting to text my boyfriend with offers of fornication tonight rather than plain old sex ;)
 
Upvote 0

Athene

Grammatically incorrect
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
14,036
1,319
✟87,546.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
At the risk of sounding prudish and lacking in humour. Please reacquaint yourselves with this FSG which can be found here.


Vulgarity

Discussions in Ethics and Morality may sometimes lead to discussion on sexuality and sexual practices, this is acceptable, what is not acceptable are any posts which are vulgar and/or sexually explicit. Such posts will be removed.

Remember to keep it PG13 folks.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
It is usually a term used incorrectly by Christians to imply those who have consensual anal or oral sex. Since heterosexuals can and some do have this kind of sex, the Christians must further distort it by claiming that it is specifically male/male anal sex (and since their men think girl-on-girl is hot, and they can't have anal sex, they look the other way, and continue hiding their Hustler under the bed.)

Nowhere in the bible does it say that the reason that God destroyed S&G was because of gay sex. They weren't asking the visitors if they could come out and get their freak on. They were banging on the door. It wasn't a choice. They were going to gang-rape them.

Can such people, who need to spend most of their life serving the Lord by pointing to others and saying, "Thank you Lord, that I'm not like THAT!", unable to tell the difference between rape and consensual sex?

If a woman is raped, do they shrug, and say, "Well, at least it was heterosexual? Or do they realize that the violation is more about the soul than the body? It's a violation to one's core, even when it is heterosexual sex.

Lot offers his daughters. A) That's REALLY disturbing. B) If he believed that the men had a homosexual orientation, a concept only understood within the last 50 years, he wouldn't have offered his daughters to be brutally gangraped by a bunch of gay dudes.
Rather, he was trying to offer his daughters to be raped (Father of the Year award) to that they would be satisfied with them instead of the visitors (angels.) If the gender mattered, he wouldn't even have suggested it. He would have offered himself. He didn't. He offered his daughters - females.

As was pointed out, the bible talks about what the sins of Sodom are. Anyone who really loves God, really wants to know what he says, will read it, and understand that a Sodomite was guilty of a lot of things - arrogance, cruelty to others, having plenty and ignoring the poor, the young, and the elderly, being hostile to visitors, being sexually immoral (again, I thought the attempted rape made that obvious). They weren't living in peace. They were looking for victims.

However, if one's point is to simply exhalt oneself, to claim that God destroyed Sodom solely for gay sex, and implying that it was consensual gay sex, which is says nowhere in the bible, it is clear that the person saying such cares more about what they say than what the Bible says. They have to ignore Ezekial. They have to ignore that it was rape, and gang rape at that. They have to ignore that Lot would have no understanding of what "gay" meant, because it was thousands of years prior to the understanding.

And then, you will claim that the bible says exactly what you believe. You can stand proudly in condemnation, ignoring the mercy, understanding, and compassion given to you by God, which you refuse to extend to others. The bible talks about that, too, and it doesn't turn well.

When people start threads like this, claim all of this true, only to easily be proven to be trying to disguise their lack of love as God's hatred, I can't only pray for mercy on their soul when they have to answer to God why they would so grossly misrepresent Him, claiming their hatred was God's hatred, while also claiming to serve him. They have no idea how many gay people they turn away from God, portraying God to be equal in their lack of mercy, lack of honesty, lack of truthful concern, lack of kindness, lack of humility, and then pat themselves on the back, thinking that they are God's favorite.

If you are responsible for turning people away from God because you portray him to be the darkness of your own heart, rather than the mercy, hope, love, compassion, and light that he has shown you, what do you think his response is going to be?

It doesn't make one a Child of God! It makes one a Child of Satan! The fact that the worshipper can't even recognize the difference between their own arrogance and that of God, whose claims, beliefs, actions are in clear violation of that of Christ, is one's first clue. It is the antithesis of what Christ taught - the anti-christ.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It is usually a term used incorrectly by Christians to imply those who have consensual anal or oral sex. Since heterosexuals can and some do have this kind of sex, the Christians must further distort it by claiming that it is specifically male/male anal sex (and since their men think girl-on-girl is hot, and they can't have anal sex, they look the other way, and continue hiding their Hustler under the bed.)

Nowhere in the bible does it say that the reason that God destroyed S&G was because of gay sex. They weren't asking the visitors if they could come out and get their freak on. They were banging on the door. It wasn't a choice. They were going to gang-rape them.

Can such people, who need to spend most of their life serving the Lord by pointing to others and saying, "Thank you Lord, that I'm not like THAT!", unable to tell the difference between rape and consensual sex?

If a woman is raped, do they shrug, and say, "Well, at least it was heterosexual? Or do they realize that the violation is more about the soul than the body? It's a violation to one's core, even when it is heterosexual sex.

Lot offers his daughters. A) That's REALLY disturbing. B) If he believed that the men had a homosexual orientation, a concept only understood within the last 50 years, he wouldn't have offered his daughters to be brutally gangraped by a bunch of gay dudes.
Rather, he was trying to offer his daughters to be raped (Father of the Year award) to that they would be satisfied with them instead of the visitors (angels.) If the gender mattered, he wouldn't even have suggested it. He would have offered himself. He didn't. He offered his daughters - females.

As was pointed out, the bible talks about what the sins of Sodom are. Anyone who really loves God, really wants to know what he says, will read it, and understand that a Sodomite was guilty of a lot of things - arrogance, cruelty to others, having plenty and ignoring the poor, the young, and the elderly, being hostile to visitors, being sexually immoral (again, I thought the attempted rape made that obvious). They weren't living in peace. They were looking for victims.

However, if one's point is to simply exhalt oneself, to claim that God destroyed Sodom solely for gay sex, and implying that it was consensual gay sex, which is says nowhere in the bible, it is clear that the person saying such cares more about what they say than what the Bible says. They have to ignore Ezekial. They have to ignore that it was rape, and gang rape at that. They have to ignore that Lot would have no understanding of what "gay" meant, because it was thousands of years prior to the understanding.

And then, you will claim that the bible says exactly what you believe. You can stand proudly in condemnation, ignoring the mercy, understanding, and compassion given to you by God, which you refuse to extend to others. The bible talks about that, too, and it doesn't turn well.

When people start threads like this, claim all of this true, only to easily be proven to be trying to disguise their lack of love as God's hatred, I can't only pray for mercy on their soul when they have to answer to God why they would so grossly misrepresent Him, claiming their hatred was God's hatred, while also claiming to serve him. They have no idea how many gay people they turn away from God, portraying God to be equal in their lack of mercy, lack of honesty, lack of truthful concern, lack of kindness, lack of humility, and then pat themselves on the back, thinking that they are God's favorite.

If you are responsible for turning people away from God because you portray him to be the darkness of your own heart, rather than the mercy, hope, love, compassion, and light that he has shown you, what do you think his response is going to be?

It doesn't make one a Child of God! It makes one a Child of Satan! The fact that the worshipper can't even recognize the difference between their own arrogance and that of God, whose claims, beliefs, actions are in clear violation of that of Christ, is one's first clue. It is the antithesis of what Christ taught - the anti-christ.

Brothers and sisters, read Beanieboy's post prayerfully -- it is one of the clearest statements of the problem to date, and I wish to associate myself with what he has to say.

As for the fact that the writer no longer considers himself a Christian, well, God hasn't finished with him yet. And Jesus had this to say about him and people like him:

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said:
The Parable of the Two Sons
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered. (Matthew 21:28-31, NIV)
 
Upvote 0

ReverendDG

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET
Sep 3, 2006
2,548
124
45
✟18,401.00
Faith
Pantheist
Politics
US-Others
Liberal or conservative, promiscuous or devoted, what is your definition of "Sodomite," as it refers to behavior?
sodomite= a person of sodom.
now if you want a more modern usage, sodomite=someone who does anything other than the prescribed missionary position in sex and/or does anything sexual in nature the person calling another person a sodomite, doesn't like e.g: masturbation

i personally find it nothing more than an insult, considering you have to twist scripture to make it out to be anything other than what eza says, or as gen 9 says, gang rape after being beaten
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
As for the fact that the writer no longer considers himself a Christian, well, God hasn't finished with him yet. And Jesus had this to say about him and people like him:

He isn't finished with any of us yet.

To clarify, and give the Reader's Digest version, I left Christianity in the 1980s, when Christians began claiming that one cannot be gay and christian. Even if one were to agree that homosexuality is sin, to then claim that another cannot sin and be Christian is to ignore one's own sin that they still are guilty of and yet, forgive themselves, and call themselves Christian. Some churches even forbid gay members. It was exclusively gay people. Everyone else was welcome. So, I began to question whether it was God or man that they followed.

After researching many religions, I was led to Buddhism, and Buddhism teaches a lot of what Christ taught in terms of being thankful in all things, being humble, to love wastefully, without expecting return, etc.

And now, some 20 years later, I feel like the path has returned to Christianity, only I'm looking at it from the other side. I no longer see the callous God that demands that you love him or burn, but the God who loves you whether you love him or not. I don't see a God making a laundry list of petty sin, but a God that is more concerned with how you treat others in love, because that makes the love in you grow stronger, and God's voice more clear.

Some Christians will adamantly say, "Jesus said, NO ONE comes to the Father but by me! You have to be a Christian to get into heaven!" However, they don't seem concerned about it. In fact, they seem to act like it is a membership to a Whites Only Golf Course that they show to their black neighbors who won't be accepted. They say it with self pride.

However, "No one comes to the Father but by me" is something I agree with. Jesus said it while he was living. One who does not become Christ-like, who was willing to humble himself to serve man, and demonstrate his love, won't enter "heaven", the state of being love, as God is love. There's no place in "heaven" to exhalt yourself by condemning others. One cannot speak of how great your God is for his mercy, and then be merciless to others, and truly know God. One must be Christ-like.

I don't believe any one religion has a monopoly on God. There are more than one way up the path. Why this is a threat to Christians, I don't know. Maybe they want people to burn in hell, while God doesn't want that anyone should parish.

I don't believe that it was God who demanded Christ's death, but man, who exalted themselves, and were humbled, and so, angered by God. They were angry that when they accused the woman of adultery, and trying to trap Jesus, he in turn illustrated that none of them were qualified to judge another because they were also sinners, and that Jesus with no sin, did not condemn her. Ironic. In history, this repeats itself. JFK and MLK fought against the injustice of racism, and were killed because of it. However, rather than quieting the voice, their deaths made their points even stronger.

I believe in a very different God, one who is compassionate, has endless mercy, forgiveness and we forgive, takes joy in our lives, and isn't focused on sin or law, but simply that we love our neighbor as ourselves. I believe that if Jesus took away the sins of the world, then no one perishes, and that really is Good News. I pray to God. I pray in tongues. I simply don't call myself Christian because I don't want to argue theology, and be judged whether or not I'm a True Christian (TM), when I don't have to answer to man. And that seems to upset them even more.

So, I am a theist, a Buddhist, a heretical Christian. It's simply a name to me, while the traditional use of the word is the starting point of my journey, a long way from it's end.

But don't assume I'm lost. On the contrary, as many people will attest to (back me up on this), many people find that they often grow closer to God by leaving the church.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Liberal or conservative, promiscuous or devoted, what is your definition of "Sodomite," as it refers to behavior?
"Sodomite", as far as I can tell, is a word - used mainly by religious persons - as a universal signifier for all things sexual that the persons speaking disapprove of.
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
My personal working definition varies somewhat from the common or dictionary definition cited above. I consider "sodomite" behavior to be extreme, violent hostility towards outsiders. See Genesis 19 for details.


^^^^ Denial



Sodomy is unnatural intercourse(anything outside hetero for the intent on procreation). So pretty much any sexual act that is not intended and closed to the openess to procreation could b termed as sodomy.



Sodomites mostly are gay men, lesbians or bisexuals. It comes from the words "Sodom" from the city Sodom and Gommorah where God rained down fire and brimstone on the Sodomites and other sinners. Since sexual immorality was so common in Sodom that "Sodomite" came to be known as a term for someone who practices sexual immorality. Even many of the old jewish scholars like Josepheus and writers of the Midrash knew about Sodoms sexual immorality without even having to read the bible.
 
Upvote 0

Axioma

Eccentric, Culture Ulterior (Absconded)
Aug 10, 2008
1,272
171
39
✟24,776.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
^^^^ Denial



Sodomy is unnatural intercourse(anything outside hetero for the intent on procreation). So pretty much any sexual act that is not intended and closed to the openess to procreation could b termed as sodomy.



Sodomites mostly are gay men, lesbians or bisexuals. It comes from the words "Sodom" from the city Sodom and Gommorah where God rained down fire and brimstone on the Sodomites and other sinners. Since sexual immorality was so common in Sodom that "Sodomite" came to be known as a term for someone who practices sexual immorality. Even many of the old jewish scholars like Josepheus and writers of the Midrash knew about Sodoms sexual immorality without even having to read the bible.
Right, so that's why the word sodomite only came to exist in the 11th century, right after God blew up Sodom.
And why the Bible cites the sins of Sodom as being pride and inhospitality, rather than anything sexual.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟39,231.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Right, so that's why the word sodomite only came to exist in the 11th century, right after God blew up Sodom.
And why the Bible cites the sins of Sodom as being pride and inhospitality, rather than anything sexual.
Actually, the Bible does state that the sins of Sodom included sexual immorality, going after strange flesh, and all that. The problem, of course, is that it never explains just what sexual practices were deemed immoral, nor what flesh was strange.
 
Upvote 0

Axioma

Eccentric, Culture Ulterior (Absconded)
Aug 10, 2008
1,272
171
39
✟24,776.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Is it not the duty of a Christian to love the sinner and hate the sin? I am quite conservative in this particular issue.
That has always sounded like a lie to me, like some claiming they don't hate Jews, just Jewishness. In other words, I'd love to see you do one without the other.
 
Upvote 0

jcook922

Defender of Liberty, against the Left or Right.
Aug 5, 2008
1,427
129
United States
✟24,746.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
That has always sounded like a lie to me, like some claiming they don't hate Jews, just Jewishness. In other words, I'd love to see you do one without the other.

Like telling gays they can't get married, but it's ok for them to be gay in their mind as long as they don't do anything? That one always cracks me up, telling people to ignore their nature.
 
Upvote 0

TeutonKnight

Crusading Knight
Sep 21, 2008
135
8
Belfast
Visit site
✟15,306.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
That has always sounded like a lie to me, like some claiming they don't hate Jews, just Jewishness. In other words, I'd love to see you do one without the other.

I have never hated a Jew in my life. As regards to marriage I am afraid I cant accept that because marriage by defination is twixed man and women.

Although I have heard the other side of the argument as well. Espically from Bishop Gene Robinson (but again I dont agree with him)

A Christian should not have any hatred at least that is my view sin is the most repugnant thing to a Christian not personalities.:preach:
 
Upvote 0