• 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.

Sodomites!!!!

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
And I guess none were loving or being monogamous, correct?

Why would you assume something that ISN'T in the Bible??!? why would you dare? esp. since the examples are so far on the other side, talking about raping of the angels, and the guests! Is that an example to be used here? Please pray and think about that, is all I ask..

Well, as long as I'm not keeping this forum active in another way, if ya know what I mean? ;)

HisKid1973 said:
We'll Dave, I have to admit, you do keep this forum active..

As long as I don't keep it active in another way, if ya know what I mean! :D
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hey if your going to hang with this guy you need to follow all his advice correct..Or do you cherry pick from him?

So what do expect of homosexuals in the church? Campolo agrees with Justin and says that they must be called to celibacy. But not just call them to it, but for the church to become their family.
Justin does not believe in celibacy, he is what you would call "side A". Tony Campolo's wife agrees with the side A. Side B is celibacy...so you must've misinterpreted something.

Tony agrees there is no way to change this, and he fights for Gay rights because he believes it is better morally for gays to be in monogamous relationships, than just plain promiscuous. Sort of a double standard, which is why he even says he is starting to cave in more and more with this.

We don't go by man, we go by God, and I know He doesn't have a problem with me. I've already had confirmations from other elders and people I have informed that have prayed to God, besides my own confirmations from God. :)
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian


Nope not seeing that at all, sorry.
article said:
The Jewish historian Josephus used the term “Sodomites” summarizing the Genesis narrative: “About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” (Antiquities 1.11.1 [2] — circa A.D. 96).

The historical backings is that when they hated strangers...they would rape them! do you believe that is a great example of a loving, monogamous, relationship? that is only for you to decide for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

HisKid1973

Thank You Jesus For Interceding For Me
Mar 29, 2005
5,887
365
Chocolate Town USA
✟22,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Dave..There was just a guy on Michael Medved show arguing against the general's stand against homosexuality..He said some of the things you say..His name was Dave...

I am just curious about us that disagree with you...Do you feel we hate you or do you see us just as being against the sin?
thanks..Kim

BTW .. T. Compolo is being distanced by conservative believers
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Dave..There was just a guy on Michael Medved show arguing against the general's stand against homosexuality..He said some of the things you say..His name was Dave...

I am just curious about us that disagree with you...Do you feel we hate you or do you see us just as being against the sin?
thanks..Kim

BTW .. T. Compolo is being distanced by conservative believers
I don't see you as hating, but it is disheartening, it's the doctrine that is hating, it's just really sad to me, because gays are persecuted enough as it is, and we fall in a minority, and I believe we are misunderstood in society. It's not like I don't know the perspective or relate, because I used to feel the way you do on the subject. Debating against Enemyparty, before we had this forum, it was just in ethics, convicted me to stop arguing against homosexuality, as I did hundreds (and now thousands) of hours of research.

Tony is accused of things he never says, because of a certain way of presenting his arguments. He is also bashed by respected Conservatives for his wife's opinion, since she has a sexually active stance on the subject (SIDE A). They will tell him "you need to keep your wife in submssion". I like his answer: "I still need to respect my wife's opinion, and allow her to believe what she does".
 
Upvote 0

HisKid1973

Thank You Jesus For Interceding For Me
Mar 29, 2005
5,887
365
Chocolate Town USA
✟22,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I don't see you as hating, but it is disheartening, it's the doctrine that is hating

Dave years ago when I was younger someone pointed out something in my life that wasn't pleasing to the Lord..I was very disheartened and didn't have nice thoughts toward this brother...Now that I am older and look back I see where it got me on the right path..He wanted God's best for me although I didn't see it at that moment..pax..Kim
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Dave years ago when I was younger someone pointed out something in my life that wasn't pleasing to the Lord..I was very disheartened and didn't have nice thoughts toward this brother...Now that I am older and look back I see where it got me on the right path..He wanted God's best for me although I didn't see it at that moment..pax..Kim
Yes, I understand that...but that isn't this situation, and it isn't to be used as an example here. The Holy Spirit has already revealed His Peace and His truth to me. There is no turning back...I have had too many things be confirmed, and then to have unbiased elders and other people such as my father (a Christian for over 40 years, and elder at a respected Church), tell me that God confirmed the interpretations to him...it's settled. It's over.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟22,953.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, I understand that...but that isn't this situation, and it isn't to be used as an example here. The Holy Spirit has already revealed His Peace and His truth to me. There is no turning back...I have had too many things be confirmed, and then to have unbiased elders and other people such as my father (a Christian for over 40 years, and elder at a respected Church), tell me that God confirmed the interpretations to him...it's settled. It's over.
Wrong. It's not over, because you have no idea if that's the Holy Spirit or not. You explain to me why the Holy Spirit tells you it's ok, and tells me it's an abomination, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The Holy Spirit is not Double minded, and he's not the author of confussion. He doesn't make mistakes. He doesn't CHANGE HIS MIND. He said it was an abomination, and that's what he meant. You say they were un biased, but how unbiased were they? You are actually unwilling to listen to unbiased material. You are biased. You are Pro Gay, and that makes you biased, and gives you a personal agenda. Therefor, your are not non biased, nor are those that promote, and encourage your sinful lifestyle.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Wrong. It's not over, because you have no idea if that's the Holy Spirit or not. You explain to me why the Holy Spirit tells you it's ok, and tells me it's an abomination, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The Holy Spirit is not Double minded, and he's not the author of confussion. He doesn't make mistakes. He doesn't CHANGE HIS MIND. He said it was an abomination, and that's what he meant. You say they were un biased, but how unbiased were they? You are actually unwilling to listen to unbiased material. You are biased. You are Pro Gay, and that makes you biased, and gives you a personal agenda. Therefor, your are not non biased, nor are those that promote, and encourage your sinful lifestyle.
NO, I used to argue against this all the time till I got personally convicted from arguing against homosexuality. You operate out of anti-gay doctrine, covering yourself up with biased translations of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟22,953.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
NO, I used to argue against this all the time till I got personally convicted from arguing against homosexuality. You operate out of anti-gay doctrine, covering yourself up with biased translations of Scripture.

You operate out of pro-gay doctrine, covering yourself up with biased translations of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You operate out of pro-gay doctrine, covering yourself up with biased translations of Scripture.
Please show me again where Jesus said that homosexuality was the greatest sin or where He personally wrote that it was a sin?
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The historical backings is that when they hated strangers...they would rape them! do you believe that is a great example of a loving, monogamous, relationship? that is only for you to decide for yourself.

Frankly, for you to believe that they couldn't have loving, monogamous relationships back then is what confuses me.

It isn't like one day in the 19th Century suddenly a person with SSA had a lightbulb go off above their head, and they slapped their forhead saying man I could have had a V8. LOL

Sorry it's late, and I'm tired so I just had to do that. Anyhow you know what I mean.

 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian


Frankly, for you to believe that they couldn't have loving, monogamous relationships back then is what confuses me.

It isn't like one day in the 19th Century suddenly a person with SSA had a lightbulb go off above their head, and they slapped their forhead saying man I could have had a V8. LOL

Sorry it's late, and I'm tired so I just had to do that. Anyhow you know what I mean.

I agree, but that isn't what the Bible is condemning. The Bible is not condemning homosexuality here, it is condemning the raping behavior. We cannot use Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of loving, monogamous relationships.

I have no doubt that people had SSA, but these were straight people who would welcome the visitors by raping them. Some might've been gay, but even you know that rape is usually not about some lustful carnal drive usually, it's about control.

The Bible does not address SSA or people born with an orientation, nor does it even address how to go from gay to straight. These are not concepts to be handled till the 19th Century so my guess is that a same sex relationship went unnoticed till then, or people just didn't care to mention them.

Do you see a monogamous, romantic, same sex relationship talked about in Scripture? they weren't of any importance to the authors/Apostles or Jesus, clearly.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did you see how it said "abused themselves w/sodomitical practices"? The practices they did went WAY beyond some sex practice, it was clearly rape.

If, as I believe they are given up to vile affections, to uncleanliness, etc. then the sodomitical practices is the abuse.

Sodom and all the cities that were destroyed, were going to be destroyed before the angels went there to take Lot and his family out. What the town was going to do to the angels was just one more thing against them, not the reason they were going to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by article
The Jewish historian Josephus used the term “Sodomites” summarizing the Genesis narrative: “About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” (Antiquities 1.11.1 [2] — circa A.D. 96).
The historical backings is that when they hated strangers...they would rape them! do you believe that is a great example of a loving, monogamous, relationship? that is only for you to decide for yourself.


1. Sodomites grew proud on account of their riches and great wealth

2. they became unjust towards men

3. they became impious towards God

4. they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him/God

5. they hated strangers

6. they abused themselves with Sodomitical practices

It appears like you are trying to make this say something it doesn't. Each thing listed is just that, one more thing they did that was wrong.

I don't read this as saying they hated strangers so they raped them. I see they hated strangers. They abused themselves with sodomitical practices. Two different things, not because of one thing they did the other.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Bible does not address SSA or people born with an orientation, nor does it even address how to go from gay to straight. These are not concepts to be handled till the 19th Century so my guess is that a same sex relationship went unnoticed till then, or people just didn't care to mention them.​


Do you see a monogamous, romantic, same sex relationship talked about in Scripture? they weren't of any importance to the authors/Apostles or Jesus, clearly.​


You could look at it that way or you could see that it wasn't mentioned because enough was said about how and what relationships were scripturially ok.​


Man leaves his parents and takes a wife, for example. If you can't control yourself then it is better to marry then commit adultery, fornication, etc. as another example. God created them male and female, another. Man needs a help mate, so God created woman, yet another. Mans body is not his own but his wives, and his wives is not hers but her husbands. I could probably go on but it is late.​


Nothing was said about SSA being a loving, romantic, monogamous relationships because they weren't to be, not that they weren't important.​


God and Jesus made it clear what was to be, so why should they say what isn't? (Even tho I believe they did say what not to do.) Anything that goes against what they said was/is known to be wrong.​
 
Upvote 0

HisKid1973

Thank You Jesus For Interceding For Me
Mar 29, 2005
5,887
365
Chocolate Town USA
✟22,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You could look at it that way or you could see that it wasn't mentioned because enough was said about how and what relationships were scripturially ok.

Your whole post was going through my mind..Thanks for saving me the typing..
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian


You could look at it that way or you could see that it wasn't mentioned because enough was said about how and what relationships were scripturially ok.

Man leaves his parents and takes a wife, for example. If you can't control yourself then it is better to marry then commit adultery, fornication, etc. as another example. God created them male and female, another. Man needs a help mate, so God created woman, yet another. Mans body is not his own but his wives, and his wives is not hers but her husbands. I could probably go on but it is late.

Nothing was said about SSA because loving, romantic, monogamous relationships because they weren't to be, not that they weren't important.

God and Jesus made it clear what was to be, so why should they say what isn't? (Even tho I believe they did say what not to do.) Anything that goes against what they said was/is known to be wrong.

Why should we say what "isn't?" You contradicted yourself there...God never said it was wrong for two gay people to be together, so you ARE saying what marriage isn't. The reason is PAINFULLY obvious...the writers/Apostles, had absolutely no clear knowledge of an orientation...the Scriptures make it clear. If it was so bad to for homosexual couples to be together, it should've been mentioned, but it wasn't because this wasn't really a relationship at the time.

You have to take historical context into account, and we know slavery was promoted all throughout the Bible. "Well, that is historical context". YES...so is this!
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian


If, as I believe they are given up to vile affections, to uncleanliness, etc. then the sodomitical practices is the abuse.

Sodom and all the cities that were destroyed, were going to be destroyed before the angels went there to take Lot and his family out. What the town was going to do to the angels was just one more thing against them, not the reason they were going to be destroyed.




1. Sodomites grew proud on account of their riches and great wealth

2. they became unjust towards men

3. they became impious towards God

4. they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him/God

5. they hated strangers

6. they abused themselves with Sodomitical practices

It appears like you are trying to make this say something it doesn't. Each thing listed is just that, one more thing they did that was wrong.

I don't read this as saying they hated strangers so they raped them. I see they hated strangers. They abused themselves with sodomitical practices. Two different things, not because of one thing they did the other.
Sodomy is not condemned in and of itself in Scripture, so I don't know what you are reading into that. "Strange flesh" was the raping of the angels mentioned w/the assault on Lot's house in Genesis (19?) I believe. Sodomy is a made up, contrived word formed from the inhabitors of Sodom, but they never had sex w/the other guests or inhabitants, the only thing shown in Scripture is the rape.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why should we say what "isn't?" You contradicted yourself there...God never said it was wrong for two gay people to be together, so you ARE saying what marriage isn't. The reason is PAINFULLY obvious...the writers/Apostles, had absolutely no clear knowledge of an orientation...the Scriptures make it clear. If it was so bad to for homosexual couples to be together, it should've been mentioned, but it wasn't because this wasn't really a relationship at the time.

You have to take historical context into account, and we know slavery was promoted all throughout the Bible. "Well, that is historical context". YES...so is this!

No contradiction, a man and woman are to marry to avoid sin. There is no where that it says a man and a man or woman and a woman must marry to avoid sin.

History says that the number of homosexuals has always been about the same, and to believe as I have stated before, that suddenly in the 19th Century someone woke up and realized that they could have a loving, monogamous relationshp is just not logical.

To believe that if the Bible doesn't say it is not ok, it is, is a far reach for anyone. Even tho, as I have said before, I don't believe the Bible is silent on this issue. I won't go through all the scriptures again, because you have already seen them and drawn a conclusion, that as you know I don't agree with. The Bible is the living Word, and it covers everything from the past, present and futher. It can do this because Christ is ALIVE:clap: , and because the scriptures tell us in the OT and NT that neither God or His Son change. They are the same then, now and forever.

You can pull up red herrings with the shellfish scriptures, which scriptures in the NT, show why that isn't so anymore. You can pull up the mixed fabric, but I have already posted how that was because the priest were the ones to wear the mixed fabrics.

You can say I cherry pick the scriptures to get to where I am today, but when taking the scriptures as a whole, well you know I don't agree. All the scriptures in the 18 chapter of Leviticus speak of sexual sins, and I see no scriptures anywhere else in the Bible that show that these things have been changed as the shellfish example given from Lev. 11.

You speak of purity codes, and in my research we see they were also called holiness codes. In both the OT and the NT we are told to be Holy because God/Christ is Holy, so to say that was just for the Jews/culture and time.........can't be since we are still to be holy because God/Christ are.

You can tell me how God is a God of Love so as long as you are in a loving relationship it is great with God. The carnal man and his flesh love alot of things that are not ok with God. There are alot of things that make us feel good and give us pleasures, like foods, drugs, etc. These are things of the flesh and until we get our new bodies we will be tempted by this weak corrupt flesh.

Don't get me wrong God is a God of Love, thank goodness, because if he wasn't we all would probably be involved in something like the great flood. Yet, the OT and the NT tell us how He is also a jealous God, a God of wrath, a God of judgements, and most importantly a God who cannot be in the presence of sin/unrighteousness.

The scriptures don't speak of any orientation in my opinion, because there is no orientation to talk about. We are created male and female by God's design, and in His plan we are told how males and females are to act.

You have stated that you believe that homosexuality came about because of the fall, and that you believe that God's original plan was for things to be heterosexual until then. Well frankly any action that comes about because of sin is sin, don't you think?:scratch:

God's origianl plan was for the Jews to be His chosen people, but because they rejected Him/sinned they have been made blind of the truth until the end. They will be given back their sight, and those that believe and except Him will again be His chosen people. Looking at this I guess we could believe that since it wasn't meant for there to be anything but heterosexuals, that at the end they will no longer be blind and be heterosexual again?:confused:

2 Cor 11:13-15

13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

The scriptures tell us that satan can transform himself into an angel of light and that his ministers also can be trasformed. They also tell us how he perverts the scriptures working lies and wonders as he plays his role as the father of lies. He is the prince and god of this world, and opposes the work of God.

We are told that God is not the God of confusion, but yet the church/body of God is being confused and divided by this issue and other issues. That wouldn't be from God, but that deceitful transformed angel of light doing what he does best.

I remember when Jesus was accused of being of the devil, and how he said that if the devil cast out devils it would be a house divided and it will fall. Well I see devils transforming themselves into angels of righteousness to cast out righteousness.

I have been over this, as you have, many times. :sigh: I may not be back today to respond to any responses to my post, because I feel like I have neglected the other sections of this forum.(like the prayer section).

We should be lifting our brothers and sister, and most of all the lost, up to the throne of our Lord and Saviour. I feel I have gotten to..............well I feel I have not been keeping up with the things that the Lord wants me to do on this forum. I have let 1 thing take up to much of my time. I feel all we can do is plant the seeds which has been done, and I should not forsake other things that should be addressed.

If I would be honest, I would probably have to say that my fleshly desire to win on this issue(meaning save those from a sin that I believe is going to send some to hell) has kept me from the other things the Lord would have me doing. Those fleshly desires don't take away from what I feel is the truth of the scriptures on this issue, but gives the appearance of it being more important than other things of the Lord. So I prayerfully leave this section for awhile, and move on to other things of importance. I will check back, and if the Lord leads return for more discussions.

God Bless You All!!!!:hug:
 
Upvote 0