Daughters, sir, he had 2. Also, I've read this part of the bible a lot. Nothing suggesting that they wanted to murder the angels, but it is implied they wanted to rape them.No, they wanted sex. Murdering sex. They refused the daughter of Lot, and wanted the good looking men.
-_- would it have really been better for them to want to rape female angels? These are the direct messengers of a deity, raping them should be a huge no-no regardless of genitalia... if angels even have them.Great even though the men of Sodom could have had 2 gals to abuse, they opted for the men.
Kinda makes the whole flood thing pointless, doesn't it? Complete failure to rid the world of human sin, what a waste of animal life.True. Indirectly we could look at other places in the bible, where the days of Lot were compared with the days of Noah, The days of Noah were noted for violence.
If she was, she wouldn't have been offered salvation. Plus, she just looked back after the angels told her not to. That doesn't mean she wanted to go back at all; you try running away from destruction and not looking behind you. Additionally, it's pretty generic advice to tell someone to not look back as they are fleeing, since it slows you down to do that. None of them were told that there would be a divine punishment if they did it. Though, I have to wonder how anyone knew she turned into salt if they never looked back, and why Lot and his daughters don't bother to mourn her.That is curious. I often wondered if his wife was gay also, since she wanted to go back...what was the draw?
-_- did you forget that they were married to straight men? Lot's two sons in laws were offered safety as well, but they didn't believe Lot when he said that god was going to destroy the city. As a result, they get destroyed along with the sinners. The baby thing is pretty nutty, though. Hence the view that it's a smear campaign.I guess it is one thing to be happy they were away from the gay environment, but they went nuts on the baby thing.
If the main gist were the wickedness and judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah, then Gomorrah would have been more fully described, and the nature of the sins both populations were committing would have more details. Heck, we likely would see statements such as "even the children were filled with malice and unholy doings". But, only the men of Sodom are even depicted committing immoral acts.One could derive that I guess, but the main gist of the story seems to be the wickedness and judgment of Sodom.
Great even though the men of Sodom could have had 2 gals to abuse, they opted for the men.
That is curious. I often wondered if his wife was gay also, since she wanted to go back...what was the draw?
No. The event showed the way the men of Sodom were.
No. First they defy, then fall into various evils.
Could be, why else would she love the city in her heart?
My guess is a lesbo.
God set the clear test of not looking back, or that would show they should not have left.
That reminds me, since most evo believers seem to embrace things like Sodom lifestyles, they would have been left in the city.
dad, do you know what it implies when one is excessively homophobic?Could be, why else would she love the city in her heart? My guess is a lesbo.
God set the clear test of not looking back, or that would show they should not have left.
That reminds me, since most evo believers seem to embrace things like Sodom lifestyles, they would have been left in the city.
No, what you are doing is name calling. I was pointing out a trait of yours.Are a goodaphobeName calling now myth man?
I believe in creation and a creator that destroyed cities with fury and power partly to warn man against Homosins. If you advocate evil, you are a goodaphobe, Truthaphobe, and bibleaphobe. Sorry myth man, you don't get to set morals here.
So you apparently agree with point 1 and 2 in the poll. Myths about morals or God are not needed. OK myth man?
At best it is merely a veiled attack against those that do not agree with dad.Is the point of this poll to help solidify confirmation biases and selective thinking?
Is that what's going on?
At best it is merely a veiled attack against those that do not agree with dad.
Good for you myth man. You thought I would ask you anything about right or wrong? You don't seem to know what end is up, and think universes pop out from nothing.
Sure myth man.
It is to confirm creation deniers biases and selective thinking. Also to note commonalities in those that are of that persuasion.
LOL!! Oh dad, you do make me laugh at times.I like when people have a good science case and can discuss it. They are worth straightening out. Some other folks are myth mongers who cannot do anything but blaspheme, insult God, accuse God and show contempt for His word, and a demonic love for blind plunge into deep delusion and lies....with no demonstrated ability to either be honest or discuss issues of science in detail.
It is to confirm creation deniers biases and selective thinking. Also to note commonalities in those that are of that persuasion.
Are a goodaphobeName calling now myth man?
I believe in creation and a creator that destroyed cities with fury and power partly to warn man against Homosins. If you advocate evil, you are a goodaphobe, Truthaphobe, and bibleaphobe. Sorry myth man, you don't get to set morals here.
No, what you are doing is name calling. I was pointing out a trait of yours.
And why can't I point out your bad morals?
Do evos usually believe these things?How about you? Answer the poll questions, maybe you are an exception? Ha. You guys say we have commonalities with apes and flatworms. It's about time we look at some of your traits now. Come out of the closet.
I tend to agree partially with evos, they often do share commonalities with monkeys and worms!
So you apparently agree with point 1 and 2 in the poll. Myths about morals or God are not needed. OK myth man?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?