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')
I would think that someone being recruited out of a Sodom or Gomorrah life and into a Christain life would be a good thing and quite on topic.
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:To tulc,
? The question was what is says. Its says the men wanted to have sex with the men and it says Lots said it was wicked.
I would think that someone being recruited out of a Sodom or Gomorrah life and into a Christain life would be a good thing and quite on topic.
Sit down. Let me talk to you a bit.
See that guy tulc over there? Y'know, the guy with the funny parentheticals in every post? You know, the guy you disdain for his views on tolerance?
Yeah, that guy. Tulc.
Do you know what tulc does when he's not posting here? I have some idea. He is serving the poorest of the poor in Chicago, driving them to their appointments. He is making sure kids have shoes and mittens in winter. He is making sure the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the thirsty have drink, and the homeless have shelter.
The very least of those in our society, the people the rest of us ignore on the street when they ask for spare change--these are the people invited to break bread with tulc's community. Those are the people who are fed first.
Now, sit down, shut up, and listen to me. I have a word to speak to you, Christian.
Our pretended erudition
Our exegesis
Our theories of sexual ethics
All these things will pass away.
Our hope
Even our faith
These will be burnt away like dross at the end of all things.
What will remain will be our charity.
Now, you can make a lot of noise and you can call our brother tulc names. He certainly won't mind. He is a tough and gentle and wise and brave man--those sorts of things are nothing to him when there are hungry kids to feed.
I mind it. I mind it very much. I am not as tough and gentle and wise and brave as tulc. I am a small man; he is a great one.
From one small man to another one, show some respect.
Sit down. Let me talk to you a bit.
See that guy tulc over there? Y'know, the guy with the funny parentheticals in every post? You know, the guy you disdain for his views on tolerance?
Yeah, that guy. Tulc.
Do you know what tulc does when he's not posting here? I have some idea. He is serving the poorest of the poor in Chicago, driving them to their appointments. He is making sure kids have shoes and mittens in winter. He is making sure the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the thirsty have drink, and the homeless have shelter.
The very least of those in our society, the people the rest of us ignore on the street when they ask for spare change--these are the people invited to break bread with tulc's community. Those are the people who are fed first.
Now, sit down, shut up, and listen to me. I have a word to speak to you, Christian.
Our pretended erudition
Our exegesis
Our theories of sexual ethics
All these things will pass away.
Our hope
Even our faith
These will be burnt away like dross at the end of all things.
What will remain will be our charity.
Now, you can make a lot of noise and you can call our brother tulc names. He certainly won't mind. He is a tough and gentle and wise and brave man--those sorts of things are nothing to him when there are hungry kids to feed.
I mind it. I mind it very much. I am not as tough and gentle and wise and brave as tulc. I am a small man; he is a great one.
From one small man to another one, show some respect.
Yes, it does say that. I cant debate with you unless you accept what is written is written.Yes and no.
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..The mob wanted to have sex with the strangers, which Lot deemed wicked; that much we agree on.
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.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:
Of course they might have merely wanted sex with men as it says.Or, they may have wanted to physically assault, gang rape, or even have consensual sex with, the angels. Only the latter would mean Lot's condemnation is what you say it is.
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.Ironically, the moral espoused by Genesis 19 is the very one Christians go against when they use the story of Sodom & Gomorrah to attack homosexuals.
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 won't view this anyway - because you imply that Christians and gays are somehow different, and cannot be one in the same, which is in error.
Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan
I would agree.I would think that someone being recruited out of a Sodom or Gomorrah life and into a Christain life would be a good thing and quite on topic.
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?Do you know what tulc does when he's not posting here? I have some idea. He is serving the poorest of the poor in Chicago, driving them to their appointments. He is making sure kids have shoes and mittens in winter. He is making sure the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the thirsty have drink, and the homeless have shelter.
Our pretended erudition
I would say not, there will be no more charity in heaven as there are no needs.Our exegesis
Our theories of sexual ethics
All these things will pass away.
Our hope
Even our faith
These will be burnt away like dross at the end of all things.
What will remain will be our charity.
in defence of another poster I do not see where Polycarp fan has called tulc names. Could you show me please.Now, you can make a lot of noise and you can call our brother tulc names. He certainly won't mind. He is a tough and gentle and wise and brave man--those sorts of things are nothing to him when there are hungry kids to feed.
The mob wanted to have sex with the strangers
[/color][/i]
We know the text says and means the men wanted sex with the men and not not the mob or the strangers from at least other usage of the words.
so Gen 6:1-2
And it came to pass, when strangers began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of the mob that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Or Genesis 4
And Adam interogated Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a stranger from the LORD.
Nah!
Agreed. What we disagree on, however, is just what Lot is condemning.Yes, it does say that.
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.I cant debate with you unless you accept what is written is written.
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?No we dont, it says the men wanted sex with the men, which Lot said was wicked thats why we know men wanting sex with men is wicked.
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.On what grounds could you assume it didnt?
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.When I look at the Bible as a whole I see other blanket condemnations so I know it is.
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 ().I am not denying Inhospitality was a sin at Sodom. But you seem to be denying men wanting sex with men is. All you are doing is making assumptions based
What the cultures thought, the Bible is the revelation of God, God destroyed Sodom and Lot was spared.
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?And dont bother with the translations all pro-gay arguments have all kinds of problems with every passage that condemns homosexual practice and seem quite happy quoting any other Biblical passage like there is some conspiriacy. No, I think the Bible is translated correctly I think your ideas are wrong.
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 theAnd we have been through all this. The word is yada which means to know rather than to interrogate, interrogate doesnt seem a possible translation here or at any other point in the Hebrew. So already you are off track and you go further oftrack by assuming interrogation is wicked.
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.Of course they might have merely wanted sex with men as it says.
No, Christians look to the word of God for Gods 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.
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.Agreed. What we disagree on, however, is just what Lot is condemning.
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.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.
No it doesn’t say mob or strangers, I have cited the passages. Here they are again and more.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?
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.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.
I hope so, I am a believer after all.Well of course you do.
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.and you cling fastidiously to the unsubstantiated, unchristian, and unbiblical homophobic one is most telling indeed.
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."for who of men hath known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? so also the things of God no one hath known, except the Spirit of God... and brightmorningstar"
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:
we disagree on what Lot is condemning because you dont 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.
Ok so you believe it was mistaken and I don’t.The word 'sodomy' refers to penetrative anal intercourse between two males, since this is what scholars mistakenly thought the 'sin of Sodom' was.
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.In any case, the text merely states that: a mob1 wanted 'to know'2 the strangers3, and Lot deemed this4 wicked. However, you make a number of assumptions on top of this:
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?