Is it possible that conservatives really don't know much about the Bible...

[tulc]

this is truly amazing talk about a mixed up perception! first of all you are talking about "conservatives" as being these rich evil people thats just not true! First of all part of understanding and knowing the bible is to know which rules apply which ones are tradition and which are applicable to our lives today! Thats old testament! i mean come on this is basic bible stuff!

did you see this?

Now, I have a question for you.

How do you feel after having the Scriptures presented to you in exactly the same way that fundamentalists present the Scriptures to us -- with exactly the same arrogance, the same self-righteousness, the same self-justifications, the same lack of empathy, the same unwillingness to listen and/or reason, and the same low-level but overt level of hostility that we have to deal with, daily, from conservatives?

Uber was pointing out how some of the more Conservative members of CF "share" their thoughts with us.

I look at "liberals" and see people who are out to help themselves

Maybe you should stop at

I look at "liberals" and see people...

?
Just a thought.
tulc(Welcome to CF by the way!! )

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

this is truly amazing talk about a mixed up perception! first of all you are talking about "conservatives" as being these rich evil people thats just not true! First of all part of understanding and knowing the bible is to know which rules apply which ones are tradition and which are applicable to our lives today! Thats old testament! i mean come on this is basic bible stuff! And your argument that God made evil whats your point? its hard to tell whether you are just quoting the scripture or actually making an argument! I look at "liberals" and see people who are out to help themselves now come off your ideas that conservatives are all rich people who dont care about the poor! isn't it interesting that the "Liberal" party is the one caring about the "little people" but not the unborn babies that they condone the slaughtering of?? Lets talk truthfully your quoting the bible for your purposes trying to make Conservatives appear evil now both parties have their downfalls but to say that conservative christians are evil is horrible! i would like to ask you a question how can anyone be a Christian Democrat i mean christian who is pro-abortion talk about hipocrasy o wait John Kerry a catholic who is pro-Abortion!!

I think you are confusing the political and the religious senses of those terms.

 

[- DRA -]

What is with Christians and saying that the Laws of Moses have been nailed to the Cross with Christ?

It is based on Col. 2:14.

The only think that Christ abolished was the sacrificial laws, the cermonial laws, and the dietary laws (which I never believed were literal anyway, because of what Christ had to say about the dietary laws).

We are STILL expected to hold up every other part of the Law. The only reason why we don't still make sacrifice and hold those cermonies, is because they were all symbolic of the atonment of Christ, and Christ actually carried them out. (Read the Epistle to the Hebrews, it shows how the Jewish cermonies were all symbolic of Christ's death).

How do you know that only the specific parts of the law of Moses that you listed are the ones that were nailed to the cross? The impression is given from Col. 2:14 & Heb. 8:6-13 that the law of Moses ended . . . period. Rom. 15:4 teaches that we are to learn from the O.T. writings, not practice them today. Gal. 5:1-4 teaches about the consequences of those who strive to follow the O.T. writings as law.

The New Testament did not topple over the Old Testament. The New Testament is nothing more than Old Testament Redux, or Old Testament: Part II. Paul said that Christ renewed the Law, not replaced it. People misunderstand what Paul meant about the Law being "nailed to the Cross". You are still expected to uphold the Ten Commandments and such.

You alluded to the book of Hebrews. I encourage you to read and take note of the language of 8:6-13. I am not convinced that the new covenant is part II of the old covenant.

Jesus incorporated 9 of the 10 commandments into his covenant or testament. The Sabbath Day is the one that was not carried over. I am not sure what you mean by, "You are still expected to uphold the Ten Commandments and such ." What do you mean by "and such?"

Nothing that Christ said was in conflict with the Old Testament. In fact, Christ did NOTHING BUT QUOTE THE OT! Over 300 times! Jesus only clarified what the Law meant all along, not changed it really. Jesus teaching about "turn the other cheek", "Love thy neighbor", "Gentiles are not inherently evil" and such can all be found in the OT as well. Not to mention that Christ has the EXACT same personality as God in the Old Tesament. The Son has wrath as well (such as in His Second Coming).

I agree. Both Jesus and the inspired writers quoted frequently from the O.T. Scriptures.

Consider the sermon on the mount (Matthew chapters 5-7). Jesus says several times during his teaching that "you have heard it said of old . . . , but I say to you (or a similar statement). He was contrasting the teaching under the law of Moses with what He expected under His law. His law went into effect after He died (Heb. 9:15-17). In fact, using the language of that passage in Hebrews, you can think of the Peter's sermon in Acts chapter 2 as the reading of Jesus' testament or will.

Star,

I am very happy to see that you have turned from being an atheist to embracing Christ. Continue with your Bible studies. There is so much to learn. I continue to be amazed at the depth of knowledge and wisdom that God's word contains.

. . . DRA

 

[- DRA -]

How do you feel after having the Scriptures presented to you in exactly the same way that fundamentalists present the Scriptures to us -- with exactly the same arrogance, the same self-righteousness, the same self-justifications, the same lack of empathy, the same unwillingness to listen and/or reason, and the same low-level but overt level of hostility that we have to deal with, daily, from conservatives?

I don't believe even a tenth of the stuff I just wrote in this post -- but I wanted to present conservatives a little taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this kind of "debate".

I am reminded of Jesus' words in the latter part of Matt. 11:19 - - "Wisdom is justified by her children." I'll let you read the context yourself and decide what this means.

I am not into playing "games." Until you can decide what you truly believe, and present what you believe is the truth, we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Rather than change the story, why not accept the story as it is - - including what Gen. 19:5 and Jude 7 says about the nature of the people there? Isn't men desiring men characteristic of homosexuality? Isn't men desiring men to the point that they refuse women a characteristic of homosexuality?

I think you missed the point of my question. If Lot's guests had been women and the men had acted in the same way, would have God destroyed the city? To put it another way, is the homosexual element of the situation the most heinous aspect of the situation?

In light of James 2:1-12, I am not really interested in trying to categorize sin. I fully realize that homosexuality wasn't the only sin of Sodom (Ezek. 16:49-50. But I also accept that sins of a sexual nature were also characteristic of those people (Jude 7). Considering both the events of Genesis chapter 19 and mindset described in Romans 1:18-32, I am left with the distinct impression that homosexuality is a characteristic of a society that has turned away from God.

The story of the men of Gibeah may answer whatever it is that you're looking for (Judges chapters 19-21). Like the men of Sodom, the men of Gibeah wanted to "know" the male stranger. Unlike the men of Sodom, the men of Gibeah accepted the woman. The men of Sodom were destroyed directly by God. The men of Gibeah, and their brethren from the tribe of Benjamin that backed them, were destroyed by the armies of Israel - - as directed by God.

 

[UberLutheran]

I am reminded of Jesus' words in the latter part of Matt. 11:19 - - "Wisdom is justified by her children." I'll let you read the context yourself and decide what this means.

I am not into playing "games." Until you can decide what you truly believe, and present what you believe is the truth, we have nothing further to discuss.

It is my considered opinion after so much "debating" with conservatives which has gone on around here that there is really very little to discuss; and precious little actual "discussion" occurs on CF.

I also know (from experience) that I can express what I believe to the "the truth", and back it up with Biblical references and exegesis on the given texts -- and conservatives will use the same sets of texts they continue to misuse, in exactly the same way they've misused those texts before -- which gives me the distinct impression that few people bother to read posts before they respond, and whatever it is that drives peoples' need to "respond" seems to be much more important than any OP or any real need for discussion.

One can't lose what one has never had -- in this case, "discussion". If this sounds like disillusionment -- well, it is.

 

[- DRA -]

How about you look at the thread on Sodom we already have going?

Assuming that you are talking about the thread started by Leecapella, I visited the link he provided right after he posted it. I have discussed this very issue with Lee before, and, although I didn't spend a great deal of time studying the article at the link he provided, I recognized basically the same points that he and I have previously discussed.

Or, tell ya what. Start a new thread, and if you promise to actually study the Bible, instead of reciting what you've always believed, I'll show you all the Scripture. Hint: Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Christ. Three people whose words you ought to already be at least a little familiar with.

This is an interesting proposition - - if I promise to "actually study" the Bible, then you will show me "all the Scripture." I am really interested just how you can show me "all the Scripture", but will not answer whether or not all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16a). Hmmm. Unless I'm badly mistaken, I see a bit of a problem here. Don't you more accurately mean that you would like to show me the passages that you have selected that discuss Sodom, but not "all" that the Scriptures say about the city and its people?

Thanks . . . but NO THANKS. I am not interested in a partial study of Sodom. I want to know "all" that God's word says about the city and its people. A new thread won't overcome poor or deficient study skills.

No. Rape is not about sex, it's about power. If the men desired men, they had an entire crowd of, by your estimation, horny men they could have picked from. What they wanted wasn't men, it was strangers. Foreigners. People to humiliate and degrade.

Men desiring men is about homosexuality. That is what Gen. 19:5 describes.

I don't deny that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the two male strangers. But I don't accept that rape is totally about power. There is a sexual aspect also. Frankly, if a heterosexual man solely wanted to show his power over another man, then he would have to find an alternative method to humiliate him than having sex with him. I know that I would have to find another means.

Men desiring men is what is expressed in Gen. 19:5. I could speculate about why they look to each other, but I won't (1 Pet. 4:11a). But I will point out two more things the text reveals to us. The men of Sodom turned down Lot's offer of his daughters in verse 8. Instead, the men of Sodom decided to turn their attention to Lot (verse 9). Hmmm. This doesn't sound like heterosexual men to me. This definitely sounds like men that were solely focused on "knowing" other men (or a man). I personally believe such action is an indicator of homosexuality.

As ones who went after HETEROS SARX, or "alien flesh".

Men are not strange, or alien.

Jude 7 describes them as "having given themselves over to sexual immorality" and they had "gone after strange flesh." They not only committed fornication, but gave themselves over to it. They also went after strange flesh. In what sense? The two angels were indeed strangers . . . but the men of Sodom thought they were men. And they desired to "know them." Is there a sense in which this behavior is strange? Yes. Romans 1:27 portrays this behavior as unnatural. Let's see . . . men desiring men . . . is strange considering the natural way that sexual desires are fulfilled.

I feel that it's the most abused and proof-texted verse in the entire Bible, and I don't feel like answering a loaded question.

Whether or not you accept that "all Scripture is inspired of God" in 2 Tim. 3:16a should not be a loaded question, assuming that you believe this direct statement. If you don't, then explaining how one determines which ones are inspired and which ones are not inspired presents quite a problem, doesn't it?

Sure... And indeed, it is suggested that Jude's opinion was that the men of Sodom lusted specifically after angels.

It seems that this you missed the part of Jude 7 that says that they gave themselves over to sexual immorality. Gen. 19:5 tells me what the men of Sodom desired. They desired the strange men. They didn't know the men were angels. They saw them as men. Hmmm . . . men desiring men rather than women. It is not hard for me to see at all how this unnatural behavior is strange.

But you're still ignoring a plain old statement. "And these were the sins of thy sister Sodom, ...".

Complete that quote.

Not ignoring it at all. I just refuse to accept that this is the ONLY inspired commentary on Sodom that is found in the Scriptures.

By the way, did you happen to notice the word "abomination" in Ezek. 16:50? This same word is used to describe sins of a sexual nature - - including homosexuality in Lev. 18:22,26,29,30.

You claim to believe the entire book to be inspired, why haven't you read it?

Isn't your question really why I don't accept the passages you want me to accept, rather than accepting all that God says about Sodom?

The answer lies in 2 Tim. 3:16a. I openly admit that I believe what it says.

 

[seebs]

Even if we were to grant that homosexuality was some tiny fraction of the Sodom thing, it is not the primary thing. When we ask Jews what the passage refers to, they do not mention homosexuality. What we see there is not men desiring men, as I already pointed out; it is men desiring power over strangers. If they wanted men, there was an entire crowd of them already there.

That, simply, is the ultimate point: The story makes no sense at all if it was gay men out looking to get laid. It only makes sense if it was angry men looking to humiliate strangers, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Rather than change the story, why not accept the story as it is - - including what Gen. 19:5 and Jude 7 says about the nature of the people there? Isn't men desiring men characteristic of homosexuality? Isn't men desiring men to the point that they refuse women a characteristic of homosexuality?



In light of James 2:1-12, I am not really interested in trying to categorize sin. I fully realize that homosexuality wasn't the only sin of Sodom (Ezek. 16:49-50. But I also accept that sins of a sexual nature were also characteristic of those people (Jude 7). Considering both the events of Genesis chapter 19 and mindset described in Romans 1:18-32, I am left with the distinct impression that homosexuality is a characteristic of a society that has turned away from God.

The story of the men of Gibeah may answer whatever it is that you're looking for (Judges chapters 19-21). Like the men of Sodom, the men of Gibeah wanted to "know" the male stranger. Unlike the men of Sodom, the men of Gibeah accepted the woman. The men of Sodom were destroyed directly by God. The men of Gibeah, and their brethren from the tribe of Benjamin that backed them, were destroyed by the armies of Israel - - as directed by God.

The problem mainly comes up when people (not you) try to push the homosexual aspect of Sodom so much that all other aspects are ignored. In fact, many seem to be unaware that there even are other aspects.

 

[- DRA -]

The problem mainly comes up when people (not you) try to push the homosexual aspect of Sodom so much that all other aspects are ignored. In fact, many seem to be unaware that there even are other aspects.

Good. I'm glad we've reached some of the same conclusions.

 

[- DRA -]

Even if we were to grant that homosexuality was some tiny fraction of the Sodom thing, it is not the primary thing. When we ask Jews what the passage refers to, they do not mention homosexuality. What we see there is not men desiring men, as I already pointed out; it is men desiring power over strangers. If they wanted men, there was an entire crowd of them already there.

That, simply, is the ultimate point: The story makes no sense at all if it was gay men out looking to get laid. It only makes sense if it was angry men looking to humiliate strangers, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

It has a lot to do with sexual orientation. Men desiring men is what is described in Gen. 19:5. That is a characteristic of homosexuality - - NOT HETEROSEXUALITY. The men of Sodom desired the two male strangers, rejected Lot's daughters, and were going to force themselves upon Lot when the angels intervened. Those are not actions of heterosexual men. You seem to be in denial of this point. Rape was their intent, but their sexual orientation is clearly revealed in the text of Genesis chapter 19.

Rather than ask Jews what they think the Sodomites were guilty of, why not just consider "all" that God said they were guilty of?

 

[Gish]

the "Liberal" party is the one caring about the "little people" but not the unborn babies that they condone the slaughtering of?

Anyone genuinely right-wing, would not only support abortion, but support forced abortions where the mother is likely unable to raise the child well.

your the liberal my friend.

 

[tulc]

Anyone genuinely right-wing, would not only support abortion, but support forced abortions where the mother is likely unable to raise the child well.

I'm confused why you would think this, people on the right wing aren't monsters, and to suggest this is the logical conclusion to their beliefs is...well just wrong.
tulc(and a little inflammatory) (IMHO)

 

[seebs]

It has a lot to do with sexual orientation. Men desiring men is what is described in Gen. 19:5.

No, it isn't.

If they desired men, they had men right there, and could have done whatever they wanted with this large crowd of horny men you are presupposing.

Whatever they wanted, no one in the crowd could provide it. Since there were men in the crowd, whatever they wanted wasn't men.

Until you can explain this, you're just missing the point, to say nothing of contradicting the bulk of what Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jesus said on the topic.

Ultimately, this is an excellent example of eisegesis. You have a committed position in advance on what the text must say. If you can find a shred of possibility that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom, you will insist over and over that it was THE sin of Sodom, no matter how much text has to be ignored to make that work.

Could homosexual sex have been one of the things the people of Sodom did wrong? Sure. Who cares? It's ultimately irrelevant, unless you're going to claim that, had they been planning to rape women, their behavior would have been right with God.

There is very little evidence that sexuality was a major component of the sins of Sodom. There's three thousand years of consistent interpretation on this topic, and the idea that it's about sex is not part of that interpretation. If you want to argue for changing the story from the way every good Jew understood it, including Jesus, you will have to make a much stronger case.

 

[- DRA -]

No, it isn't.

If they desired men, they had men right there, and could have done whatever they wanted with this large crowd of horny men you are presupposing.

Whatever they wanted, no one in the crowd could provide it. Since there were men in the crowd, whatever they wanted wasn't men.

Until you can explain this, you're just missing the point, to say nothing of contradicting the bulk of what Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jesus said on the topic.

Ultimately, this is an excellent example of eisegesis. You have a committed position in advance on what the text must say. If you can find a shred of possibility that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom, you will insist over and over that it was THE sin of Sodom, no matter how much text has to be ignored to make that work.

Could homosexual sex have been one of the things the people of Sodom did wrong? Sure. Who cares? It's ultimately irrelevant, unless you're going to claim that, had they been planning to rape women, their behavior would have been right with God.

There is very little evidence that sexuality was a major component of the sins of Sodom. There's three thousand years of consistent interpretation on this topic, and the idea that it's about sex is not part of that interpretation. If you want to argue for changing the story from the way every good Jew understood it, including Jesus, you will have to make a much stronger case.

Gen. 19:4-5 . . .
"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they [the men of Sodom described in verse 4] called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (emphasis mine)

The text is my evidence. The text clearly is describing men that sexually desired other men. That, my friend, whether you admit it or not, is homosexuality. Whether or not they chose sexual relations with each other or strangers is irrelevant - - men desiring men is homosexuality. Rather than harmonizing this passage of Scripture with others that comment on Sodom, you are trying to use other passages to undermine what Gen. 19:5 is describing. The passages don't conflict. Nor do they cancel out what Gen. 19:5 says. Obviously, you do have a problem acknowledging that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16a). Nevertheless, the truth stands.

I usually use a simple illustration such as found in Matthew chapter 2 to illustrate how we should gather "all" the evidence on a subject before drawing conclusions. Consider Jesus. Matthew chapter 2 describes Him as being born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, and called a Nazarene. Which aspect is true? Likewise, which aspect describing Sodom is true? You balked at answering whether or not you believe 2 Tim. 3:16a. It will be interesting to see if you can answer these two simple questions.

Actually, this study is becoming very profitable for me. I am learning more and more just how the liberal mindset thinks and reasons - - if you choose to call it that. Ever studied 2 Thess. 2:10-12? While it doesn't specifically deal with the liberal mindset, it does deal with those who don't have a love for truth.

 

[seebs]

Gen. 19:4-5 . . .
"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they [the men of Sodom described in verse 4] called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (emphasis mine)

The text is my evidence.

This is a beautiful example of prooftexting; you are taking two verses, and ignoring the verses RIGHT NEXT TO THEM.

The text clearly is describing men that sexually desired other men. That, my friend, whether you admit it or not, is homosexuality.

You have read something into the text. The text never indicates that there is any sexual desire. Rape is not generally a question of sexual desire.

Whether or not they chose sexual relations with each other or strangers is irrelevant - - men desiring men is homosexuality.

Men desiring men is homosexuality.

Men desiring strangers is xenophobia.

Men desiring "male strangers" could be either, and you must study it to find out which.

Your blatent eisegesis is a stunning condemnation of your supposed respect for the Bible. What you say is, quite simply, not the position that Christians or Jews held on this passage for three thousand years; it is the position that would be useful to you if it were true, and Truth be damned.

So be it. You may believe whatever you want, but what you believe is achieved only by reading additional thoughts and ideas into the Bible in contradiction of the ones already there. You may believe what you want, but I will trust Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Christ to interpret this passage for me, and believe the truth. You may cling to your lies.

 

[seebs]

To put it in a simpler perspective:

In Judges 19, a similar event happens. Men gang-rape some women.

By your argument, "Men desiring women is heterosexuality." So, is heterosexuality thus condemned?

 

[Starstreak M86]

DRA,
Hey bro!

I know that some of the Law has been nailed to the Cross with Christ, I was just saying that not all of it has been. Only the parts that needed to have the Messiah fulfill them (the cermonial laws, the sacrificial rituals, the rites of purification [with the exception of Baptism]).

I mean Ten Commandment "and such" as in the moral and ethical codes. We are still expected to stay away from sin, and excommunicate unrepentant sinners (I always took "stone to death" as a euphamism for excommunicate or banish).

I agree with you about the Sermon on the Mount and the OT. I am glad to have another Christian realize this!

My previous post was only to point out to other Christians that we should not think of the Old Testament as an invalid book, we should see it as a foundation on which the New Testament was built.

P.S.
Thanks for your comment! I turned away from Atheism 3 years ago after being a hard-hearted Atheist for 4 1/2 years. It took alot of prayer, church-going, Bible reading, and being proselytized to, but it worked!

 

[USincognito]

I don't deny that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the two male strangers. But I don't accept that rape is totally about power. There is a sexual aspect also. Frankly, if a heterosexual man solely wanted to show his power over another man, then he would have to find an alternative method to humiliate him than having sex with him. I know that I would have to find another means.

I guess you're unfamiliar with the phrase "prison b****?"

Male on male rape is exclusively about power and humiliation. The fact that you think rape isn't totally about having power over someone disturbs me. That's a scary mentality for someone to have.

 

[artybloke]

It has a lot to do with sexual orientation

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Maybe in that crowd there were a few "gay men"; but the vast majority would have been straight. Male on male rape is a form of subjugation often practised by an occupying force or an oppressive regime against a dissident minority. In short, it's on a continuum with the kind of sexual humiliation activity American troops recently perpertrated on Iraqi prisoners in AlGhiraib prison. Roman soldiers used it to humiliate the "barbarians" they'd just defeated. Rape is always about power; it is never about "sexual orientation."