• 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.

Sin & The Sodomites

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
F

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
73
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives

According to God, he says that marriage betweeen a woman and a man is good, and that is the place wherein sexual relations occur and nowhere else. Monogamous intimacy takes place ONLY between one man and one woman. Anything else is a perversion of God's design and is the sin of fornication at the very least.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain was manifold. They were godless and evil through and through.
 
Upvote 0
E

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
God never says marriage is only between a man and a woman. Nor does the Bible.

The sins of the cities of the plan may very well have been manifold. That doesn't mean you get to accuse them of crimes that aren't specifically mentioned, the best you can do is conjectural.

All we KNOW, is that some of Sodom's citizens allegedly wanted to rape some angels. Therefore, the only specific sin of which they are specifically accused is homosexual rape (or maybe only angelic rape, since I am not convinced that the story makes it clear that raping angels is the same as raping same sex victims)

So, if you want to use the Sodom story as a basis for condemning homosexual rape, be my guest. To base any other condemnation on this story is to build on a false premis.
 
Reactions: MsVicki
Upvote 0
F

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
73
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives


Yes, God says so, and Jesus reiterates the fact that one man and one woman make a marriage.

It matters not what I believe that the cities of the plain were guilty of. Many of their sins are very evident. Homosexuality is one of them. They were godless people and acting out of that lack of the knowledge of God.

Matthew 19:4-54
"Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’
 
Upvote 0
E

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
One man and one woman make a marriage. The Bible also refers to several examples of one man and several women making a marriage. The Bible NEVER says that either or both of these paradigms are the ONLY ones acceptible to God. You put the word ONLY in there, not the Bible.

How is it evident that homosexuality is one of the sins of the cities of the plain when ther isn't any... you know... evidence? I get that you want to believe it, really I do, but where's the evidence? Biblical OR archaeological?
 
Upvote 0
F

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
73
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives

God's plan for man and woman is to be married to each other: one man and one woman. That has not changed. Nor will it. Just becasue there are instances of men keeping concubines in the ancient world and it is recorded in Scriptures doesn't mean that God had changed his design. It merely means that man has stepped out of God's will, and instituted his own little design into it. That is pollution, sin. (It's like peeing in the pool...you no longer have clean water.)

One man and one woman united in marriage is the only basis for family in God's design for us.

Knowing God through Jesus Christ means that He lives in us--therefore we can know His Word and what it means. It's a no-brainer in this matter.
 
Upvote 0
E

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You are making claims that aren't in the Bible. There is nothing wrong with homosexual intimacy conducted within a consenting, supportive, loving framework. God approves of this. I see nothing anywhere to suggest that a loving, giving God would disaprove of this.

Again, any factual evidence that homosexuality was part of the sinful behaviour of Soddom? Anywhere?
 
Upvote 0
M

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟72,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private

Actually, the Bible does talk of multiple wives being created and approved by God, 2 Samuel 12:8 is a good example. After David had Uriah killed so that he could take Bathsheba, Nathan the prophet came to David to deliver the Lord's message. Nathan started by explaining how the Lord had given David his wives and that if it had not been enough that the Lord would have given him more. In essence, God told David that rather than commit murder to add a wife that David merely needed to ask God and another wife would have been provided to him. The Lord approved of David's first seven wives and would have given him more, a clear indication the Lord has never stated (despite from how you attempt to interpret Genesis 2) that marriage is solely one woman and one man.


Sorry, but this is simply a straw man. We aren't trying to talk about every single sin that may have been committed in Sodom. We are discussing the sins for which Sodom was destroyed, which the Bible clearly lays out. As such, whether or not homosexual sex is a sin is irrelevant.


Again, the Old Testament shows your assertion not to be true. Also, if the Lord's goal was to populate the Earth, then one man many women is much more efficient -- which may partially explain part of why it was so common in the Old Testament.


I'm not imply any such thing. I'm merely stating that nowhere is homosexual sex listed as the reason for Sodom being destroyed. You keep trying to argue from silence that it was one of the reasons.


You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You previously brought up the use of the word abomination in Deuteronomy 29. I pointed out, in fact, that the use of abomination there was actually a different Hebrew word than the one you say is used for homosexual sex, and that in fact that entire chapter instead talks of idol worship and that is why Sodom was destroyed.

Now, Ezekiel uses the other word that means abomination. The problem for you however, is that the word simply means "detestable" and implies that the detestable thing is tied to idol worship. And beyond that, there are a whole laundry list of items in the Bible that are called "abominations". So, it makes sense -- and fits other verses of the Bible better -- to understand the abominations Ezekiel mentions are the same idol worshiping abominations that Moses mentions in Deuteronomy. Either way, to claim that "abominations" in Ezekiel includes homosexual sex is an argument from silence -- it cannot be supported from the Bible that it was one of the abominations mentioned.


This would only be true if the Bible never mentioned the reasons why Sodom was destroyed. Since the Bible clearly states the reasons why Sodom was destroyed, it is not an argument from silence.


You're saying you aren't trying to argue that same-sex sex is a sin? I could swear that is exactly what you said, "I'm saying same-sex sex is a sin."

I'm merely saying it isn't pertinent to our discussion whether homosexual sex is a sin. Unless you are claiming that Sodom was destroyed because of every sin -- though again, the Bible does not support that claim.


Sorry, you are making an assumption here that you don't have the evidence for. You act as if the men of the city merely wanted to rape any man, yet the evidence does not support that. They specifically wanted the angels and only the angels. If someone they knew would have been acceptable, they just would have raped each other. More to the point, if they just wanted homosexual sex, as you have seemed to claim multiple times, they would have simply had sex with each other. Since they didn't, it becomes clear they didn't want men to rape, or homosexual sex, or that they didn't want women; rather it was they specifically wanted the angels, the strangers in town.


So we agree the men wanting to "know" the angels is not the reason the city was destroyed.
 
Upvote 0
M

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟72,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Zecryphon said:
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
Fine, but for a man to rape another man, he must engage in homosexual sex and that is a sin.
​
So basically, any rape is a sin, but same-sex sex isn't a sin? Does that about sum up your position here?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that rape is a different sin than having consensual sex. I'm not making any claims about whether homosexual sex is a sin.


Yet there is no evidence that lust was a factor in the men wanting to "know" the angels. Just like in Judges, it is doubtful that the men of Jebus lusted after the elderly Levite. Instead, they appeared to have different motivations; the evidence supports it was to exert their dominance over the visitors.


Well, to start with I'm working from the believe of most Christians that angels are genderless (often supported by Matthew 22:30). But even if you don't believe that, it doesn't matter.

You pointed out that angels don't require food and water; so you do recognize that angels aren't human. But then you try to argue that having sex with one would be the same sin as having sex with human males. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the angels were not human males and so having sex with them is not homosexuality. If you want to argue that the men of Sodom believed them to be men, then all of my arguments fit. If you want to argue the men of Sodom knew they were something other than men, it changes the motivations of the men of Sodom completely. In fact, then to "know" the angels may have been nothing more than to figure out exactly what the angels were.


And I'm stating that historically, the reasons for raping a man in this period of history was to show power and control and not for lust. It was to show the men they were little better than property -- and they were often made property (a slave) after the rape.


But again, you are the one that argued that they did not need food or water. So you seem to recognize they are not men (human).


And I answered the question. It appears from Genesis 19 that the men of Sodom became wearied and that eventually they slept -- if so "Up!" to both Lot and the son-in-laws could have been to wake them up. The fact is, however, we can't be sure of which was meant, the Hebrew is not clear, and it doesn't matter either way. What we do know is that the sons-in-law were "men of Sodom" and so, per Genesis 19, were clearly part of the mob wanting to "know" the angels.



And that fits with the Bible, where authoritative figures (which these angels of destruction were) are always referred to as male, just like God is. Yet it is typically accepted that angels, like God, do not have a gender.

Zecryphon said:
Well since that's my position, it would seem that you and I should have no further need to post to each other. It's been fun. See ya around.
Click to expand...

And hopefully you understand my position. There is no evidence that homosexual acts were a sin for which Sodom was destroyed. The only way to claim it is to argue from silence.
 
Upvote 0
M

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟72,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Zecryphon said:
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
Fine, but for a man to rape another man, he must engage in homosexual sex and that is a sin.
​
So basically, any rape is a sin, but same-sex sex isn't a sin? Does that about sum up your position here?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that rape is a different sin than having consensual sex. I'm not making any claims about whether homosexual sex is a sin.


Yet there is no evidence that lust was a factor in the men wanting to "know" the angels. Just like in Judges, it is doubtful that the men of Jebus lusted after the elderly Levite. Instead, they appeared to have different motivations; the evidence supports it was to exert their dominance over the visitors.


Well, to start with I'm working from the believe of most Christians that angels are genderless (often supported by Matthew 22:30). But even if you don't believe that, it doesn't matter.

You pointed out that angels don't require food and water; so you do recognize that angels aren't human. But then you try to argue that having sex with one would be the same sin as having sex with human males. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the angels were not human males and so having sex with them is not homosexuality. If you want to argue that the men of Sodom believed them to be men, then all of my arguments fit. If you want to argue the men of Sodom knew they were something other than men, it changes the motivations of the men of Sodom completely. In fact, then to "know" the angels may have been nothing more than to figure out exactly what the angels were.


And I'm stating that historically, the reasons for raping a man in this period of history was to show power and control and not for lust. It was to show the men they were little better than property -- and they were often made property (a slave) after the rape.


But again, you are the one that argued that they did not need food or water. So you seem to recognize they are not men (human).


And I answered the question. It appears from Genesis 19 that the men of Sodom became wearied and that eventually they slept -- if so "Up!" to both Lot and the son-in-laws could have been to wake them up. The fact is, however, we can't be sure of which was meant, the Hebrew is not clear, and it doesn't matter either way. What we do know is that the sons-in-law were "men of Sodom" and so, per Genesis 19, were clearly part of the mob wanting to "know" the angels.



And that fits with the Bible, where authoritative figures (which these angels of destruction were) are always referred to as male, just like God is. Yet it is typically accepted that angels, like God, do not have a gender.

Zecryphon said:
Well since that's my position, it would seem that you and I should have no further need to post to each other. It's been fun. See ya around.
Click to expand...

And hopefully you understand my position. There is no evidence that homosexual acts were a sin for which Sodom was destroyed. The only way to claim it is to argue from silence.
 
Upvote 0
K

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I feel a mix of amusement and bemusement over this issue concerning the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah. With all of this accumulated knowledge, intelligence, and reasoning skills on the forum has no one even considered that this entire account is merely a fable? I mean, come on! Are we to actually believe that thousands (?) of men thronged outside Lot's home to have sexual relations with Lot's visitors? I don't intend to get graphic but you can picture all by yourselves just how unfeasible and unlikely such a scenereo would be, can't you? I mean ...surely!?

And, of course, later in the story during the upheaval and the destruction of the cities Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt by God. A pillar of salt, no less! No one questions this? Not even a teensy-weensy bit? "Hey, did you hear that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed the command of an angel?" "REALLY?! Oh wow! When did that happen? . . .was it on the 6 O'Clock News? POOR Mrs Lot!" In all seriousness, how CAN we put a 21st-century slant on this ancient story? And yet, most of you - of either side of the homosexual debate - appear to be doing this.

Perhaps there IS a helpful message within the fable (if it is indeed a fable) of Sodom and Gomorrah but it surely has nothing to do with homosexuality in any way, shape, or form. THAT is a fallacy! Perhaps the message is little more than that God is quite capable of destroying evil and will do so again if need be. If so, I wonder how WE have managed to escape the wrath of God thus far?

Questions, questions.
 
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0
F

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
73
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives


There is everything wrong with consenting same-sex arrangements. It is sin and both people are guilty of it before the Lord God Almighty. There is no whitewashing what God has already stated clearly is an abomination to Him.

God does not approve. Be careful of what you approve.

Romans 1:32
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
 
Upvote 0
Z

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
52
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

There's absolutely no reason to consider that it's a fable. The biggest argument against that stance is that it's not written in the literary style of a fable. Why is it that every story you have a problem with in the Bible has to be a fable?

I mean, come on! Are we to actually believe that thousands (?) of men thronged outside Lot's home to have sexual relations with Lot's visitors?
Click to expand...

You're assuming it was thousands of men, that number is never mentioned in the text. In fact, no exact number is mentioned in the text. The text says that "all the people, to the last man surrounded the house." It's not so hard to believe that all people of the city, with the exception of Lot, his family and guests, were outside Lot's door. We see the same situation in Judges 19, with the Levite and the concubine.

I don't intend to get graphic but you can picture all by yourselves just how unfeasible and unlikely such a scenereo would be, can't you? I mean ...surely!?
Click to expand...

Your intentions are clear, to cast as much doubt as you can upon all the parts of the Bible you don't like. There's no mystery as to what's going on here.



Why do you need any kind of a slant on this story? Obviously you don't believe God can turn a person into a pillar of salt. What else can't God do, according to your 21st-century mind?


You seriously don't know? I'll give you a hint, it's called grace. You won't escape forever though, and when I say you, I'm speaking of a general collective you, not you specifically. Remember, there is a day of judgment to come, when God will judge both the wicked and the righteous and punish the wicked for their sins and reward the righteous.
 
Upvote 0
E

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Other than some people don't approve for reasons they continue to be unable to clearly explain, OTHER than that... there is nothing wrong with consentual homosexual relationships, and God approves of them.

Why wouldn't he? He loves us. He loves us the way he made us, he wants us to be happy, and if he made us homosexual, and having normal relationships makes us happy, it follows he approves of our relationships
 
Upvote 0
K

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Zecryphon said:
There's absolutely no reason to consider that it's a fable. The biggest argument against that stance is that it's not written in the literary style of a fable. Why is it that every story you have a problem with in the Bible has to be a fable?
Click to expand...

There is EVERY reason to believe that it's a fable. Furthermore, other than the biblical account there is no evidence that these cities even existed. Yes, I DO believe that there are many fables in the Bible. Does that make me evil?

And, of course, ALL the people could be simply figurative for 'quite a few' people couldn't it? Hanging on to every single word as if being literal is foolhardy. The Bible doesn't read that way. In any event even 'quite a few' men would surely have problems raping the angels. What would they do, take it in turns? Wouldn't that take several days, depending on how many there were? We also need to bear in mind that it (the rape) didn't happen so everything is speculation anyway.
Zecryphon said:
Your intentions are clear, to cast as much doubt as you can upon all the parts of the Bible you don't like.
Click to expand...

My intentions are to get to the facts. All I've heard from Christianity on this issue for as many years as I can remember are lies, lies, lies. And, just for your information, I am not gay and have no cause to rid the Bible of any verses pertaining to homosexuality. I just don't believe that the Bible addresses AT ALL the issue of homosexuality that we're discussing on this forum. Savvy?

Zecryphon said:
There's no mystery as to what's going on here.
Click to expand...
You're right, there is no mystery at all. It's almost an every day occurrence that we hear about hoardes of males surrounding houses to rape angels. Not to mention, of course, disobedient wives being turned into salt.
Zecryphon said:
Why do you need any kind of a slant on this story? Obviously you don't believe God can turn a person into a pillar of salt. What else can't God do, according to your 21st-century mind?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't MAKE SENSE, Zecryphon!! Or, perhaps I'm simply being too logical. Logic is something that I have to learn to suspend in issues such as this. My bad.
Could be. But this has nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah and homosexuality - I mean, the homosexuality that we're discussing on the subforum - right?
 
Upvote 0
Z

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
52
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
there is nothing wrong with consentual homosexual relationships, and God approves of them.
Click to expand...

I've previously asked you for scriptural support for this statement. Do you have any? If you do, could you kindly point me to the post where you have posted it?

Why wouldn't he? He loves us. He loves us the way he made us, he wants us to be happy, and if he made us homosexual, and having normal relationships makes us happy, it follows he approves of our relationships
Click to expand...

Just because He loves you does not mean he approves of your sin and if you want to argue that same-sex sex is not a sin, fine, you're still guilty of adultery. Does God approve of that sin? It seems that the litmus test for whether or not an action is a sin or not, is not what God has said on the matter, but what makes you happy. God is just, and as such, He cannot tolerate sin from anyone, whether they're gay or straight is irrelevant. If you sin, you've incurred God's wrath.
 
Upvote 0
E

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I've previously asked you for scriptural support for this statement. Do you have any? If you do, could you kindly point me to the post where you have posted it?
Click to expand...
Sermon on the Mount lays the framework for the full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals.

David and Jonathon and the Centurian and his servant also strongly suggest that homosexuals could be considered persons of utmost righteousness I agree that sexual intimacy should not be entered into lightly, and is suitable for married people, OR people in marriage like relationships. Since the Bible never explicitly defines what a marriage is in terms of ceremonies or recognition, any two people who consider themselves in a long term, monogomous, loving, intimate relationship, for my purposes, and I believe for God's purposes, are married. thus monogomously partnered homosexual people are not contravening God's law against sex outside marriage.

See, the thing is, you need to try to understand WHY the Bible says what it says, not just parrot it blindly
 
Upvote 0
Z

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
52
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There is EVERY reason to believe that it's a fable. Furthermore, other than the biblical account there is no evidence that these cities even existed. Yes, I DO believe that there are many fables in the Bible. Does that make me evil?
Click to expand...

Okay, why don't you list some reasons why you think this is a fable, other than you don't get it? There is archaeological evidence that these cities did exist, I've already posted that elsewhere. Since you think there are many fables in the Bible, is the story concerning your salvation in Christ also a fable? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Zecryphon
You're assuming it was thousands of men, that number is never mentioned in the text. In fact, no exact number is mentioned in the text. The text says that "all the people, to the last man surrounded the house." It's not so hard to believe that all people of the city, with the exception of Lot, his family and guests, were outside Lot's door. We see the same situation in Judges 19, with the Levite and the concubine.
​


And, of course, ALL the people could be simply figurative for 'quite a few' people couldn't it? Hanging on to every single word as if being literal is foolhardy.
Click to expand...

Hardly. It's dealing with the text as it is presented. You're the one being foolhardy here, inserting numbers of people at will and not dealing with what the text clearly says.

The Bible doesn't read that way.
Click to expand...

Um, actually it does, until a literal reading doesn't make sense, like where a metaphor or a symbol is used.

In any event even 'quite a few' men would surely have problems raping the angels. What would they do, take it in turns?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not?

Wouldn't that take several days, depending on how many there were? We also need to bear in mind that it (the rape) didn't happen so everything is speculation anyway.
Click to expand...

The rape didn't happen because the angels struck the mob blind. There's no reason to conclude that anything in that story is speculation, unless you're talking about the conjecture you're asking for in your previous statement about how the rape would occur. I don't know how it would occur, I don't rape angels or men or women. Is there a rapist in the house, who could clear this up for KC?


Originally Posted by Zecryphon
Your intentions are clear, to cast as much doubt as you can upon all the parts of the Bible you don't like.
​


My intentions are to get to the facts.
Click to expand...

Yeah right and I've got some oceanfront property I'd like to sell you in Arizona.


Ooooh! Where have you been? I've been telling everybody to stop using the word "homosexuality" and start using "same-sex sex" instead, as that is clearly dealt with in the Bible. As long as people continue to use the word "homosexuality" the pro-gay side of this debate will keep uttering the same tired line that you do about homosexuality never being mentioned in the Bible, since that's a sexual orientation, and these debates will continue to go nowhere.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon
There's no mystery as to what's going on here.
​

You're right, there is no mystery at all. It's almost an every day occurrence that we hear about hoardes of males surrounding houses to rape angels. Not to mention, of course, disobedient wives being turned into salt.
Click to expand...

Mockery? Is this the best you've got? Why am I not surprised.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Why do you need any kind of a slant on this story? Obviously you don't believe God can turn a person into a pillar of salt. What else can't God do, according to your 21st-century mind?
​
Because it doesn't MAKE SENSE, Zecryphon!! Or, perhaps I'm simply being too logical. Logic is something that I have to learn to suspend in issues such as this. My bad.
Click to expand...

Oh, so since YOU don't get it, the Bible can't possibly be true. How post-modern of you.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon
You seriously don't know? I'll give you a hint, it's called grace. You won't escape forever though, and when I say you, I'm speaking of a general collective you, not you specifically. Remember, there is a day of judgment to come, when God will judge both the wicked and the righteous and punish the wicked for their sins and reward the righteous.
​

Could be. But this has nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah and homosexuality - I mean, the homosexuality that we're discussing on the subforum - right?
Click to expand...

You asked why hasn't God dealt with sinners yet in your previous post and my answer above goes to that question. Your question was not about Sodom and Gomorrah, but about God's wrath. Don't blame me for answering questions you ask that are not on topic for this subforum. And will you PLEASE make up your mind. Up above you're complaining about people discussing homosexuality in this forum, when the Bible never mentions it, and here you are saying that the very topic of this subforum is homosexuality, which you define as a sexual orientaiton. This subforum is set up to discuss all things related to homosexuality, that includes both activity and the sexual orientation, from a Christian perspective.
 
Upvote 0
Z

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
52
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Sermon on the Mount lays the framework for the full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have no problem posting the relevant scriptures. And if I recall correctly, the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus' most condemning sermon ever. Exactly where in there do you see full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals?

David and Jonathon and the Centurian and his servant also strongly suggest that homosexuals could be considered persons of utmost righteousness
Click to expand...

We've been through the "David and Jonathan are gay" scenario already and your case fell flat on its face.
Just because He loves you does not mean he approves of your sin and if you want to argue that same-sex sex is not a sin, fine, you're still guilty of adultery. Does God approve of that sin? It seems that the litmus test for whether or not an action is a sin or not, is not what God has said on the matter, but what makes you happy. God is just, and as such, He cannot tolerate sin from anyone, whether they're gay or straight is irrelevant. If you sin, you've incurred God's wrath.
​
I agree that sexual intimacy should not be entered into lightly, and is suitable for married people, OR people in marriage like relationships.
Click to expand...

Nope, the standard is marriage, not your best attempt at a marriage, which woudl be a marriage like relationship.


Yeah, but what you believe to be a marriage is not binding upon God. It's what God says that matters and He has said that a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh. One man, one woman. Not two men, two women in a marriage like relationship.

thus monogomously partnered homosexual people are not contravening God's law against sex outside marriage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are. Marriage is one man and one woman. Show me an example in scripture of any other marriage that did not involve one person of each sex. And before you bring up the guys who had many wives, remember that those marriages too, started out as one man and one woman.
 
Upvote 0

Archer93

Regular Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,208
124
49
✟24,601.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married

Must be a very crowded back row, if it's the only place where sinners can sit....
If 'to know' is to be read as having a sexual connotation, then either the mob intended to have sex with the angels against the angels' wills (making it rape) or they had reason to believe that the angels were up for it. Which I think, personally, is unlikely- they were there to pass on a message, not for a bit of R&R.
And it's fairly safe to say that rape is a sin, in both the Old and the New Testaments, as it in the first instance robs a father of the full value of his property and in the second does not demonstrate love.
 
Upvote 0
E

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then you'll have no problem posting the relevant scriptures. And if I recall correctly, the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus' most condemning sermon ever. Exactly where in there do you see full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals?
Click to expand...
That whole blessed are the meek, blessed are the persecuted, do unto others, love one another as i have loved you bits.
We've been through the "David and Jonathan are gay" scenario already and your case fell flat on its face.
Click to expand...
It did? I must have missed it. Why is it that these are the only two men in the history of the planet who can be known to have kissed cuddled, snuck around each other's tents at night, loved one another more than any woman, kissed on the lips, been naked together, and NOT be considered homosexual? Methinks me hears special pleading.
Nope, the standard is marriage, not your best attempt at a marriage, which woudl be a marriage like relationship.
Click to expand...
Says you.

The Bible never really defines marriage, and historically its a shifting norm... what we consider marriage today is not the same institution as what was considered marriage a thousand years ago. Indeed, once upon a time, say, for commoners any time greater than 500 years ago, all it took to be considered married was for the couple to consider themselves married and be accepted in the community as a couple. Just like homosexuals and common law/ de facto couples today. Sadly for the side trying to justify irational hatreds and condemnation, nowhere does God make any comment on his thoughts on the matter. Such descriptions are normative, not proscriptive.

Same way that I could say to you "show me one person in the bible who is Chinese, they aren't they're all Middle Eastern/African". That does NOT mean that the Bible is only applicable to those groups, or that God somehow dislikes Chinese people. The scriptures were written within the normative framework of the time. Just because they do not explicetly condone something does NOT automatically mean they are condemned. Although I'm sure you will respond shortly to tell me why homosexuality is a special case, its lacking of an accepted example in the Bible demands it be condemned, while the lack of an accepted example of computer use in the Biblke doesn't mean that what you are doing right now is a sin.

special pleading for the win.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What Did God Hate About Sodom?
Replies
1
Views
149
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Chrystal-J
Blessed Are Those Who
Replies
1
Views
132
Poetry & Prose
Hoping2
H
I Rejoice at Your Word
Replies
2
Views
193
Daily Devotionals
Christsfreeservant
Behold, the Lamb of God!
Replies
0
Views
195
Daily Devotionals
Christsfreeservant
Scriptural Baptism
Replies
35
Views
1K
Soteriology DEBATE
WordSword
Menu
Log in
Register