Sodomites!!!!

[Gusoceros]

That isn't what is addressed in Scripture. It is RAPING sex acts of the angelic hosts, let's keep this on topic here...Sodom and Gomorrah was about promiscuity, prostitution, rape, etc. NOT what you claim about the act itself, that is preposterous.

claiming it is so- does not make it so. please cite source that shows this to be true

 

[davedjy]

claiming it is so- does not make it so. please cite source that shows this to be true

You claim things and demand me to cite sources? that is the pot calling the kettle black, but nonetheless, here you go:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm

 

[Myriah]

Big Chris,

I understand your like for the KJV, as I like it too. But I also like the NIV as well.

I'd like to point out that the KJV says "abusers of themselves with mankind", and notice the word "abusers"? Abusers of the themselves with mankind sounds like "abuse", which is equal to rape. At one point in history, all rape used to be called "sodomy". Sodomy as rape should always be condemned.

I am a heterosexual and even though I feel anal sex is dirty and I don't like it as a heterosexual, I still can see the liberal viewpoint that some of these phrases regarding "homosexuality" are ambiguous. We have ambiguous words like "abusers" (?)... "strange" flesh (?) And homosexual "offenders" (?) Offenders and abusers sounds like it could be rapists to me.

And also, why weren't women condemned of lesbianism in Leviticus, and yet women are condemned of many, many sex acts in Leviticus, yet not "lying with womankind as one lies with mankind. (?) This was not written? It seems oral sex is never discussed?

Sorry if this is a bit frank.

 

[Gusoceros]

You claim things and demand me to cite sources? that is the pot calling the kettle black, but nonetheless, here you go:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm

Dave- this is commentary. I gave you the actual greek word defined showing otherwise.

• The phrase translated as "strange flesh" in the original Greek reads: "sarkos heteras." Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" is derived from "heteras." "Strange flesh" has been variously translated in other versions as "perverted sensuality," "unnatural lust," "unnatural sex," "lust of men for other men," "pursued unnatural desire," "sexual sin, even perversion," and (in the NIV) "perversion."

 

[davedjy]

Dave- this is commentary. I gave you the actual greek word defined showing otherwise.

• The phrase translated as "strange flesh" in the original Greek reads: "sarkos heteras." Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" is derived from "heteras." "Strange flesh" has been variously translated in other versions as "perverted sensuality," "unnatural lust," "unnatural sex," "lust of men for other men," "pursued unnatural desire," "sexual sin, even perversion," and (in the NIV) "perversion."

That interpretation IS NOT commentary! the angelic beings came to earth, and it was said to be of a "strange flesh" since they weren't human.

 

[Gusoceros]

That interpretation IS NOT commentary! the angelic beings came to earth, and it was said to be of a "strange flesh" since they weren't human.

It is commentary. The fact that they raped angels, does not mean that this line was speaking about angels being raped- that could easily be fornication. I already showed you the definition of the word heteras, and its primary use was to identify the other of a set- homosexual act. Its use throughout the Bible was almost always used in this fashion- the other of a set. This interpretation is consistent- not apologetic for a fringe permissive interpretation.

G

 

[davedjy]

It is commentary. The fact that they raped angels, does not mean that this line was speaking about angels being raped- that could easily be fornication. I already showed you the definition of the word heteras, and its primary use was to identify the other of a set- homosexual act. Its use throughout the Bible was almost always used in this fashion- the other of a set. This interpretation is consistent- not apologetic for a fringe permissive interpretation.

G

No, it is not commentary, it is INTERPRETATION, big difference. You aren't even debatable because you don't understand the difference. This is backed by Scripture.

 

[Gusoceros]

No, it is not commentary, it is INTERPRETATION, big difference. You aren't even debatable because you don't understand the difference. This is backed by Scripture.

When someone gives an unsupported interpretation- that is commentary.

Quoting Scripture, and then making commentary that misses the mark- is not backing your interpretation with scripture.

G

 

[davedjy]

When someone gives an unsupported interpretation- that is commentary.

Quoting Scripture, and then making commentary that misses the mark- is not backing your interpretation with scripture.

G

That interpretation IS supported...in fact, it is backed in Genesis about the angelic hosts coming to earth, and the raping of them. You clearly do not know the Bible here.

 

[Gusoceros]

That interpretation IS supported...in fact, it is backed in Genesis about the angelic hosts coming to earth, and the raping of them. You clearly do not know the Bible here.

Im not debating the angels were raped.

Now can you see past that sign, and on to my point please?

G

 

[davedjy]

Im not debating the angels were raped.

Now can you see past that sign, and on to my point please?

G

You don't have a point? If a man has sex w/an angelic being, that is a "strange flesh" (another flesh).

 

[Gusoceros]

You don't have a point? If a man has sex w/an angelic being, that is a "strange flesh" (another flesh).

It is also fornication.

You are relying on the english word strange to make your point. The greek word is heteras- meaning- the other of the set of 2 as the primary meaning- which is consistent. I have already showed you the definition. When your interpretation is inconsistent- that should send up flags for you.

G

 

[intricatic]

Another example of heteros used;

24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

One of these words is heteros....

The Strong's search I did pulled up a number of different references of the same word in the NT. Let's not forget that the people of Sodom did not know they were going after angels.

 

[intricatic]

Although, the context of Jude 1 is revealing.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
(Jude 1)


Is this referring to the apostates lusting after Michael?

 

[davedjy]

It is also fornication.

You are relying on the english word strange to make your point. The greek word is heteras- meaning- the other of the set of 2 as the primary meaning- which is consistent. I have already showed you the definition. When your interpretation is inconsistent- that should send up flags for you.

G

Fornication only carried 3 meanings back in Biblical times, so you are not holding your debate points up. Fornication = adultery, prostitution and incest.

 

[davedjy]

Although, the context of Jude 1 is revealing.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
(Jude 1)


Is this referring to the apostates lusting after Michael?

Well no, but there were Angelic beings that came to earth, but that probably somehow correlates in with them talking about Michael the archangel.

 

[Polycarp1]

I don't suppose, in pursuing what the Bible says about the sin for which Sodom was destroyed, we might consider actually using the Bible, instead of dragging in our own or historical opinions? Specifically Ezekiel 16:49-50.

It's very easy to turn homosexual people into scapegoats -- but read the Scripture. God was angry about quite different things.

 

[davedjy]

I don't suppose, in pursuing what the Bible says about the sin for which Sodom was destroyed, we might consider actually using the Bible, instead of dragging in our own or historical opinions? Specifically Ezekiel 16:49-50.

It's very easy to turn homosexual people into scapegoats -- but read the Scripture. God was angry about quite different things.

That is what my thread is about, isn't it? I'm not ex-gay agenda, trust me on that! I AM gay!

 

[Gusoceros]

Fornication only carried 3 meanings back in Biblical times, so you are not holding your debate points up. Fornication = adultery, prostitution and incest.

You will need to cite source- every time you claim something that is not consistent, please just go ahead and cite source.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

I don't suppose, in pursuing what the Bible says about the sin for which Sodom was destroyed, we might consider actually using the Bible, instead of dragging in our own or historical opinions? Specifically Ezekiel 16:49-50.

It's very easy to turn homosexual people into scapegoats -- but read the Scripture. God was angry about quite different things.

Relevant Biblical Scripture is always agreeable. I understand there were other sins, in addition to the homosexual act, for the reasons why Sodom was destroyed.

G