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.
I'm sure you do.
tulc(is having some great coffee right now, thanks Mrs.tulc!)
Mr. Tulc!!! Why is the missus making your coffee? Don't you read your Bible? It plainly states He-brews. Get up and make your own coffee and stop shunning the Biblical teaching on this matter! Don't make me get the fisk!!!
uhmmm none of which has to do with this thread.
tulc(just sayn')
Yes and no. The mob wanted to have sex with the strangers, which Lot deemed wicked; that much we agree on. However, you take Lot's condemnation as one of any and all same-sex sex, despite the fact that he could have been condemning any number of things:
Yes, it does say that. I cant debate with you unless you accept what is written is written.
No we don’t, it says the men wanted sex with the men, which Lot said was wicked that’s why we know men wanting sex with men is wicked..
On what grounds could you assume it didn’t? When I look at the Bible as a whole I see other blanket condemnations so I know it is.
Of course they might have merely wanted sex with men as it says.
No, Christians look to the word of God for God’s revelation and to seek to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, homosexuals are what people identify themselves as, which self identifies as desiring sexual activity that God detests.
They have to be, thats the whole point. if someone is a Christian there is no distinction, Colossians 3, Galatians 3, their identity is in Christ, their old life is dead their new life in Christ. If they are gay their identity is in their sexual desires. Christians may still have same sex desires and attractions, but their identity is in Christ.
I would agree.
And so do many who know homosexual practice is error. However Jesus Christ’s NT teaching is about both living the new life free from bondage in sin, and well as preaching the gospel and helping the poor. See James 1:27 for example. In fact whilst faith without works is dead, works without faith is too. And when we give to the poor do we give the water and bread of life that will never leave them thirsty and hungry, eternal life, as well as the bread and water to keep them alive for another day?
I would say not, there will be no more charity in heaven as there are no needs.
in defence of another poster I do not see where Polycarp fan has called tulc names. Could you show me please.
Agreed. What we disagree on, however, is just what Lot is condemning.
Depends. I accept the Hebrew as it is written, but there is no single way to translate the text into modern English. The description of the mob, for instance, is ambiguous.
It said nothing of the sort. It said a mob (of unknown gender) wanted 'to know' the strangers (who were under the protection of Lot). Lot condemned this as wicked. What was he condemning? Consensual same-sex sex? Or the inhospitable gang rape of strangers?
Because it didn't! No matter how many times you claim Lot was condemning male-male sex, you are still making a leap from what the text states.
And I do not. I see yet more mistranslations and out-of-context quotes. Romans 1? A condemnation of Christians returning to Paganism. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13? Condemnations of defiling a woman's bed with male-male sex.
Indeed. But why were the four cities destroyed? The Bible only alludes to sexual immorality, and the mob's behaviour only describes explicit inhospitality. It is never explicitly stated that consensual sex between two adult males, is a sin. You are making that leap. It's also worth pointing out that the mob's actions occurred after God made his decision to level the cities, and the angels themselves were partly to blame ().
Well of course you do. The fact that the Hebrew could be translated and interpreted to condemn any number of things, and you cling fastidiously to the unsubstantiated, unchristian, and unbiblical homophobic one is most telling indeed. You reject any and all translations if they do not support your presupposed morality. Heaven forbid that you, a lowly human, have misunderstood the mind of God. What is it 1 Corinthians 2:11 says?
That is not what I said and you know it. The most likely thing Lot was condemning was (drum roll) inhospitality. Given that Sodom had just survived a war, the mob may indeed have been suspicious of the
Except the text doesn't say this. You are leaping from ambiguous Hebrew to ambiguous old English ('to know') to modern English ('to have sex with'), each of which is unsubstantiated.
we disagree on what Lot is condemning because you don’t recognise he condemns what text says the condemns, the men wanting to carnally know the men. Once you have accepted this is what he pronounces whatever one thinks he meant, you will realise why sodomy came to be the word for homosexual practice.
No I can’t debate with what the Bible texts say if you don’t agree with them. What we would need to do first is establish what you believed the texts say. I hope you are an expert in Hebrew or are you challenging the translation from ignorance.
No it doesn’t say mob or strangers, I have cited the passages. Here they are again and more.
I don’t have to claim it the Bible states exactly that and most people can see that and sodomy is in the dictionary. You seem in denial of reality.
I hope so, I am a believer after all.
As I have shown your accusation is unfounded and wrong. Can I suggest l tell you what Christian is, as its my testimony, you can tell me about Wicca.
Millions of Christians read and see what the Bible passages I have quoted say, they like me don’t need my view attributed to God’s.
The word 'sodomy' refers to penetrative anal intercourse between two males, since this is what scholars mistakenly thought the 'sin of Sodom' was. In any case, the text merely states that: a mob[sup]1[/sup] wanted 'to know'[sup]2[/sup] the strangers[sup]3[/sup], and Lot deemed this[sup]4[/sup] wicked. However, you make a number of assumptions on top of this:
Ok so you believe it was mistaken and I don’t.
No it does not. The text references I have provided do not say mob or strangers, Again please provide an example. Until you can support what you are claiming we cant continue.
For Rigs, very well said
