Sin & The Sodomites

[Maren]

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.

You mean like eating shrimp and lobster?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You mean like eating shrimp and lobster?

Are you putting facts in the story again?

 

[Maren]

Are you putting facts in the story again?

Not sure what you mean?

I'm just responding to the comment by Floatingaxe, "There is no whitewashing what God has already stated clearly is an abomination to Him." So I guess there is no whitewashing shellfish, since that was stated clearly by God as an abomination to Him.

 

[OllieFranz]

Whitewashing shellfish would fall into the same category as painting the lily and guilding fine gold. Whitewash is made from seashells,

 

[KCKID]

Are you putting facts in the story again?

Not sure what you mean?

I'm just responding to the comment by Floatingaxe, "There is no whitewashing what God has already stated clearly is an abomination to Him." So I guess there is no whitewashing shellfish, since that was stated clearly by God as an abomination to Him.

EnemyParty11 is on your side. EP11 was just using a touch of irony. You need to lighten up a tad, Maren.

 

[Zecryphon]

That whole blessed are the meek, blessed are the persecuted, do unto others, love one another as i have loved you bits.

Do you have an allergy to posting scriptures? Where in any of those bits are homosexuals mentioned as being accepted?

We've been through the "David and Jonathan are gay" scenario already and your case fell flat on its face.
​

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.

Methinks you're just ignorant of the culture at that time. Kissing is a common form of greeting in that part of the world, both at that time and still today. Getting naked in front of another man doesn't make you gay. If it did all of our professional athletes would be gay, wouldn't they? I mean they even shower together. I don't remember Jonathan and David cuddling though.

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

Says you.

Oh there's a convincing counter-argument.

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

The Bible does define marriage, you just don't accept that definition. It's a man and a woman, that's the standard. It's true today, it was true when Genesis was penned and it was true a thousand years ago. I'd ask you for proof about your statement regarding what it took to be married 500 years ago, but we both know that supporting what you say, isn't your style. You just say something and consider that to be a supported statement.

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.
​

Sadly for the side trying to justify irational hatreds and condemnation, nowhere does God make any comment on his thoughts on the matter.

And you guys always cry and complain when other people spread misinformation about you, but I see you have no problem doing it when it suits your fancy. There is no side trying justify irrational hatreds and condemantion. This is the knid of lie you guys have to resort to telling when you can't effectively counter our arguments.

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.
​

Such descriptions are normative, not proscriptive.

Ah, so you can't do it. Yet again.

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.

Nobody is trying to redefine what it means to be Chinese. No one is saying that being Chinese is a sin. Yet the homosexuals are trying desperately to redefine marriage and to say that their sexual activities are not sin. But it's funny how you can't come up with any scriptures that support not only those statements but the statement you always make that God approves of homosexual sex.

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.

It depends how you use a computer. A computer can be used for good or for evil. It's how the person uses it and their intent for using it that makes the difference. Just like with sexual relations. It's how a person uses sex that matters, and whether or not their use of sex conforms to God's standard for proper sexual relations, which is within the context of a marriage, which is one man and one woman.

Any sex outside of marriage is adultery. This goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The Bible and Jesus are very clear on this. In fact, Jesus takes it even further and says that all a man has to do to commit adultery is to look upon a woman with lust in his heart. This reinforces the one woman, one man design for sexual relations, in case you didn't know. Therefore, just thinking about sex with someone you're not married to is the same as having sex in the eyes of God.

special pleading for the win.

Yeah whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[Floatingaxe]

You mean like eating shrimp and lobster?

That is a spiritually juvenile response.

 

[Maren]

That is a spiritually juvenile response.

Wow, an ad hominem for a response.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Hey, everyone?

Let's all take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard for a few.

I feel a mod hat coming on...

 

[KCKID]

Hey, everyone?

Let's all take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard for a few.

I feel a mod hat coming on...

Yes, You're probably right.

Back to the OP ...does anyone believe that the article has merit, i.e. could the article interpretation of the story of Lot and the angels be the correct interpretation?

How many believe - as I do - that the story is possibly, even probably, JUST that ...a fable?

Whether fact or fable, how many believe that the story has little or nothing to do with the homosexuality that we're pretty well discussing on this subforum ...that is, committed relationships between same-sex couples?

How many would be willing to concede that the traditional translation of the story just might have holes in it?

How many don't know - or even care - WHAT the story is about?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Of course it is not a fable. Excavations have revealed literal balls of brimstone.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes, You're probably right.

Back to the OP ...does anyone believe that the article has merit, i.e. could the article interpretation of the story of Lot and the angels be the correct interpretation?

How many believe - as I do - that the story is possibly, even probably, JUST that ...a fable?

Whether fact or fable, how many believe that the story has little or nothing to do with the homosexuality that we're pretty well discussing on this subforum ...that is, committed relationships between same-sex couples?

How many would be willing to concede that the traditional translation of the story just might have holes in it?

How many don't know - or even care - WHAT the story is about?

I believe it is the written down account of an oral story that was toild and retold for generations as an explanation of unexplainable events.

The theory I like and that holds the most merit is that there are some ruins in the Israeli desert alongside a road which predate Judean settlement, which are believed to have been destroyed and abandoned as a result of natural disasters. The whole Lot story was built up around a kernel of factual truth and an attempt to explain the presence of said ruins.

As we all know, some people will always choose "God did it" as the preferable explanation over complex natural processes.

I look forward to the forthcoming barage of claims of Biblical inerancy, how its all 100% accurate history and the direct word of God

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course it is not a fable. Excavations have revealed literal balls of brimstone.

Citation needed...

Do literal balls of brimstone somehow prove anything other than the presence of brimstone? Do they somehow prove the existance of Lot, the angels, or of their actions?

 

[Floatingaxe]

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

~also~


http://www.wyattmuseum.com/cities-of-the-plain.htm

Then click on "More than Geological Layers"

 

[katautumn]

Lot sure knew what the mob of perverts wanted. That is why he offered his daughters...maybe they would settle! It was for sexual gratification only that those hundreds of men besieged Lot's house. They weren't satisfied with the prospect of young female flesh, becasue they were so steeped in perversion. the angels of the Lord struck them blind for their own reasons, one of them probably included was the fact that they did not perceove them as holy angels, but saw them as objects to be violated.

They were lucky to not have been killed on the spot, but they were spared for incineration later.


The context is more than telling. To argue this point simply reveals profound imperception.

Nice dad. "Here, rape my virgin daughter, just so long as you leave these super powerful angels, who could call upon God to smite the mob, alone."

 

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, Lot was not perfect. After all, he selfishly chose the fertile plain to live in when Abraham offered him the choice. That area was rich and abundant, but godless and hedonistic. Surely Lot was heavily influenced.

 

[katautumn]

Surely Lot was heavily influenced.

So what excuse did the other men used as focal points of Bible stories have when they did "bad things"? King David had an abundance of positive influences in his life. He was considered a man after God's own heart. So what drove him to engage in some rather unsavory behavior?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Lot, although influenced in some ways, was still a godly man. God favoured him. He was of Abraham's family. Lot was not cut from the same cloth as those idol worshiping citizens. He had most likely by studying scripture, been elevated to civic leadership, but he was considered one of the very few righteous of all the cities there.

For the sake of Abraham, I believe God spared Lot.

 

[Floatingaxe]

So what excuse did the other men used as focal points of Bible stories have when they did "bad things"? King David had an abundance of positive influences in his life. He was considered a man after God's own heart. So what drove him to engage in some rather unsavory behavior?

What drove David was sinful thoughts, just like anyone else.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

~also~


http://www.wyattmuseum.com/cities-of-the-plain.htm

Then click on "More than Geological Layers"

Thats great... how does it confirm the account of events involving Lot and the angels? All I see is evidence of a city that was destroyed that fits the description of the location of the towns,