PDA

View Full Version : Where in the New Testament....



myke1072
09-30-2008, 10:43 PM
...does it say anything about gays ? I'm not gay. I was just wondering. I have read the whole New Testament, and I don't remember anything about it. (It has been a while since I read it all.) I know it mentions it in the Old Testament. Are we just going by the Old Testament on this topic ?


Why is it that people won't let their kids watch Harry Potter movies ? I've heard a few people say it is because of the witchcraft in the movies, but those same people get stumped when I ask them why it was okay for their kids to see The Wizard of Oz.



While we are at it, I have to mention a guy that I work with. He wouldn't go to Hooters because it "is a place of sin". <<His words. I asked him, "Who's sin ? Isn't that all based on the person ? If you go there with lustful thoughts, then it is your place of sin. If you go there for the hot wings, then it isn't. In that case, a beach, the mall, or anywhere else could serve in the same capacity. To a pedophile, a daycare could be a place of sin." He stopped arguing his point.


For the record, I feel that I am a Christian. I have a different understanding of the Bible than most, if not all of "Christians" I've encountered in my lifetime. Just looking for some conversation here. Let's not try to argue. That goes for the believers and the non-believers.

Wildbill3
10-01-2008, 10:10 AM
...does it say anything about gays ? I'm not gay. I was just wondering. I have read the whole New Testament, and I don't remember anything about it. (It has been a while since I read it all.) I know it mentions it in the Old Testament. Are we just going by the Old Testament on this topic ?


Why is it that people won't let their kids watch Harry Potter movies ? I've heard a few people say it is because of the witchcraft in the movies, but those same people get stumped when I ask them why it was okay for their kids to see The Wizard of Oz.



While we are at it, I have to mention a guy that I work with. He wouldn't go to Hooters because it "is a place of sin". <<His words. I asked him, "Who's sin ? Isn't that all based on the person ? If you go there with lustful thoughts, then it is your place of sin. If you go there for the hot wings, then it isn't. In that case, a beach, the mall, or anywhere else could serve in the same capacity. To a pedophile, a daycare could be a place of sin." He stopped arguing his point.


For the record, I feel that I am a Christian. I have a different understanding of the Bible than most, if not all of "Christians" I've encountered in my lifetime. Just looking for some conversation here. Let's not try to argue. That goes for the believers and the non-believers.I too consider myself a christian, but I don't look at somebody and think 'boy they should change thier ways or they'll go to hell.' In fact It isn't my place to judge it, and in the end that stuff is between them and God.

Dolphan7
10-01-2008, 03:01 PM
...does it say anything about gays ? I'm not gay. I was just wondering. I have read the whole New Testament, and I don't remember anything about it. (It has been a while since I read it all.) I know it mentions it in the Old Testament. Are we just going by the Old Testament on this topic ?


Why is it that people won't let their kids watch Harry Potter movies ? I've heard a few people say it is because of the witchcraft in the movies, but those same people get stumped when I ask them why it was okay for their kids to see The Wizard of Oz.



While we are at it, I have to mention a guy that I work with. He wouldn't go to Hooters because it "is a place of sin". <<His words. I asked him, "Who's sin ? Isn't that all based on the person ? If you go there with lustful thoughts, then it is your place of sin. If you go there for the hot wings, then it isn't. In that case, a beach, the mall, or anywhere else could serve in the same capacity. To a pedophile, a daycare could be a place of sin." He stopped arguing his point.


For the record, I feel that I am a Christian. I have a different understanding of the Bible than most, if not all of "Christians" I've encountered in my lifetime. Just looking for some conversation here. Let's not try to argue. That goes for the believers and the non-believers.Jesus says


MT 15:19 " For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
Fornications = any sex outside marriage.


MT 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

MT 19:5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

MT 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Jesus defines marriage, actually upholding God's definition of marriage from the OT.

The OT clearly denounces homosexuality. Jesus not only confirmed the OT, he fulfilled it.

The Apostle Paul mentions homosexuality as well.


1CO 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1CO 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

emeraldfin
10-02-2008, 04:53 PM
The Bible also says



Male and female created he them.
Gensis 1. 27


So if God created men and women does'nt it then mean God is responsible for creating homosexuals?

LouPhinFan
10-02-2008, 05:10 PM
The Bible also says



So if God created men and women does'nt it then mean God is responsible for creating homosexuals?

God created woman to be a companion to man, satisfying his carnal needs. What causes homosexuality, a spirit, physical or mental malfunction? I'm not sure. But the Bible makes it very clear in both testaments that he clearly meant for hetero to be his way.

Dolphan7
10-02-2008, 06:46 PM
The Bible also says



So if God created men and women does'nt it then mean God is responsible for creating homosexuals?No. God created Man with a brain that can reason and think and freely decide to obey or rebel against his creator. That rebellion manifests itself in many different shapes and form, including the act and practice of homosexuality.

No I am afraid it was Man's own invention. Created from boredom, lust, not enough women....I have no idea.

Blackocrates
10-02-2008, 07:14 PM
The Harry Potter thing doesn't make much sense to me. I think it's just the fundamentalist that believe in stuff like that.

As far as the gay question. I vaguely remember a verse which lists a few things man shouldn't do. I mentions man shouldn't lay with another mans wife, man shouldn't lay with man, man shouldn't lay with animals. I can't remember if it's new or old testament.

The Hooters thing is also silly. I agree with your reasoning, sin can take place anywhere or nowhere, it all depends on the persons mind.

emeraldfin
10-02-2008, 07:50 PM
God created woman to be a companion to man, satisfying his carnal needs. What causes homosexuality, a spirit, physical or mental malfunction? I'm not sure. But the Bible makes it very clear in both testaments that he clearly meant for hetero to be his way.

I dont think its as simple as that Lou Phin. Also I dont think its fair to say that homosexuality is a mental or physical malfunction. Its not as if these people are ill or sick. I dont know what its like to be homosexual but for some reason I dont think they can help being homosexual or have a choice in who they are. Now my question then is why is someone being punished for what they cant control?

Why is God punishing these people for something out of their control? Seems extremely immoral in my opinion

milldog
10-02-2008, 08:19 PM
I was talking about this the other day with my wife. We consider ourselves to be Christians and worship in our own ways. I've never been big on people telling us how to practice Chritianity. Morally I don't think being gay will get you into heaven because of what the Bible says. That being said I have gay friends who are really no different than me and you. Matter of fact one of our good friends has told us he has a tough time understanding why he is gay. He says he knew when he was young and said he wish he weren't but that he could not change who he is. I can't believe that God wouldn't let him in because he's gay because I don't think God works like that. It is a topic that has caused me to question the Bible. I have a hard time with that one.

Dolphan7
10-02-2008, 11:19 PM
I have heard this same argument against God and the bible before. If I am born gay, then why is God going to punish me for that? Instread of looking within themselves, they start to question the bible. Our society certainly doesn't help with that struggle.

I am not equating homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia. They are completely different things in our world and society. Heck in the US we are on the verge of allowing same sex marriage. I don't see that for child molestors or animal lovers any time soon, if at all. So I am not equating them. But the bible does. Sin is sin is sin. A white lie carries the same weight as murder. So.....

Take the word gay out of the italicized sentence above and replace it with ...let's say......beastiality, or pedophilia, or promiscuity, or lying, or stealing, or........pick your immorality.

Now ask the same question. Why is God going to punish me for being a child molestor. I was born this way. Why is God going to punish me for being promiscuous? I was born this way. Why is God going to punish me for being a liar. I was born this way.

With this reasoning, everyone could do anything they were born with and still get into heaven. Somehow I just don't think God would agree.

We are all born with sin. Nonne of us are perfect.

Whether you believe you were born a certain way or not, the bottom line is God has defined the rules already. He knows we are all sinners, even on the smallest of scale. A Gay person isn't a sinner because of his homosexuality. He could be straight tomorrow and still be a sinner. His gayness doesn't make him a sinner all by itself.

That is why we all need Jesus. Jesus allows us to escape from that sin without paying the price for that sin. It's a free get out of hell card. It really is a good deal. It is the best deal ever given to mankind.

For those who don't know Jesus in a personal way - take the deal!:up:

Wildbill3
10-03-2008, 12:34 AM
God created woman to be a companion to man, satisfying his carnal needs. What causes homosexuality, a spirit, physical or mental malfunction? I'm not sure. But the Bible makes it very clear in both testaments that he clearly meant for hetero to be his way.
damnit. I like to look at *ahem* lesbians *ahem* sigh... they shouldn't go to hell for making me happy. :(

emeraldfin
10-03-2008, 09:39 AM
I have heard this same argument against God and the bible before. If I am born gay, then why is God going to punish me for that? Instread of looking within themselves, they start to question the bible. Our society certainly doesn't help with that struggle.

I am not equating homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia. They are completely different things in our world and society. Heck in the US we are on the verge of allowing same sex marriage. I don't see that for child molestors or animal lovers any time soon, if at all. So I am not equating them. But the bible does. Sin is sin is sin. A white lie carries the same weight as murder. So.....

Take the word gay out of the italicized sentence above and replace it with ...let's say......beastiality, or pedophilia, or promiscuity, or lying, or stealing, or........pick your immorality.

Now ask the same question. Why is God going to punish me for being a child molestor. I was born this way. Why is God going to punish me for being promiscuous? I was born this way. Why is God going to punish me for being a liar. I was born this way.

With this reasoning, everyone could do anything they were born with and still get into heaven. Somehow I just don't think God would agree.

We are all born with sin. Nonne of us are perfect.

Whether you believe you were born a certain way or not, the bottom line is God has defined the rules already. He knows we are all sinners, even on the smallest of scale. A Gay person isn't a sinner because of his homosexuality. He could be straight tomorrow and still be a sinner. His gayness doesn't make him a sinner all by itself.

That is why we all need Jesus. Jesus allows us to escape from that sin without paying the price for that sin. It's a free get out of hell card. It really is a good deal. It is the best deal ever given to mankind.

For those who don't know Jesus in a personal way - take the deal!:up:


Let me ask you D7, in Christianity does a gay person have an immoral soul? If a gay person has a morally good conscience can they enter heaven?

Dolphan7
10-03-2008, 10:41 AM
Let me ask you D7, in Christianity does a gay person have an immoral soul? If a gay person has a morally good conscience can they enter heaven?No one has a good enough moral soul to enter heaven. No one. That is why we need Jesus.

Belief in Jesus Christ and acceptance of his free gift of salvation. Getting right with God and living right for God. Living a consistantly clean life, while inconsistantly sinning (we all sin, we can't escape that).

Anyone who is consistantly involved in what the bible considers sin, and not accepting Jesus and living their life like Jesus as best they can consistantly, won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, according to the bible.

emeraldfin
10-03-2008, 11:03 AM
No one has a good enough moral soul to enter heaven. No one. That is why we need Jesus.

Belief in Jesus Christ and acceptance of his free gift of salvation. Getting right with God and living right for God. Living a consistantly clean life, while inconsistantly sinning (we all sin, we can't escape that).

Anyone who is consistantly involved in what the bible considers sin, and not accepting Jesus and living their life like Jesus as best they can consistantly, won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, according to the bible.

Think you are putting too much emphasis on the importance of the Bible, after all whether you like it or not the Bible was written by humans, not God. Lets look at a subject like divorce where Moses said it was allowed and Jesus contradicts him.



Deuteronomy 24

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Yet Jesus says



1 Corinthians 7:10-11
But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away.
Point being made is that you simply cant use the Bible as a relieable source for every ethical issue. You have to be able to look outside of it so that you can discover what is the morally right path to choose.

MoFinz
10-03-2008, 11:12 AM
damnit. I like to look at *ahem* lesbians *ahem* sigh... they shouldn't go to hell for making me happy. :(

:sidelol:

sinner:lol:

MoFinz
10-03-2008, 11:16 AM
No one has a good enough moral soul to enter heaven. No one. That is why we need Jesus.

Belief in Jesus Christ and acceptance of his free gift of salvation. Getting right with God and living right for God. Living a consistantly clean life, while inconsistantly sinning (we all sin, we can't escape that).

Anyone who is consistantly involved in what the bible considers sin, and not accepting Jesus and living their life like Jesus as best they can consistantly, won't inherit the kingdom of heaven, according to the bible.


Think you are putting too much emphasis on the importance of the Bible, after all whether you like it or not the Bible was written by humans, not God. Lets look at a subject like divorce where Moses said it was allowed and Jesus contradicts him.



Yet Jesus says



Point being made is that you simply cant use the Bible as a relieable source for every ethical issue. You have to be able to look outside of it so that you can discover what is the morally right path to choose.

I don't really see any contradiction in that. Jesus did not say you could not divorce, but that it was more desirable that you stay together and work it out. Or am i reading your quotes wrong?

Dolphan7
10-03-2008, 12:13 PM
Think you are putting too much emphasis on the importance of the Bible, after all whether you like it or not the Bible was written by humans, not God. Lets look at a subject like divorce where Moses said it was allowed and Jesus contradicts him.

Yet Jesus says

Point being made is that you simply cant use the Bible as a relieable source for every ethical issue. You have to be able to look outside of it so that you can discover what is the morally right path to choose. Ah....Context is everything. Did you read the whole Sermon on the Mount? Jesus is laying out how impossible it is to obey God in everything we do, say, practice etc....


MT 5:31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;
MT 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.He isn't contradicting the OT. He is clarifying it for a lost and confused generation, and helping them understand why they need Him. Every time he says "But I say to you", he is telling them how hard it really is to actually follow the commandment. He is also trying to correct some false teachings by the religious rulers of his time, the Pharisees. They had figured out a way to get around some of the commandments, creating the Oral Law of the Pharisees. They had twisted the rules a bit to allow for divorce "as long as you do this and that". The bottom line is divorce is a sin except in the cases of death or infidelity, or in the case of a non-believer walking away from the marriage (Paul writes in I Cor 7). Jesus simply takes us back to the OT. And then in Matt 5:48, he makes it clear that we are to be perfect in all these things just as God is perfect. His point? We can't. That is why we need Him. Because without him we will never be perfect as the Law commands.


So if we can't rely on the bible to understand God's word and will, what are we to rely on? Does God talk to you directly? How do you know anything about Jesus except for what the bible says?

You believe that because the bible was written by men that it is somehow fallible, yet by believing this you limit the power of God to inspire and protect His word. I can't take that leap with you, it puts limitations on God. The bible was written by Godly inspired men, and it survives today because of God's protection of His word.

I believe I have had this discussion with you before, maybe not, but only God can set an absolute morality. Searching for morals outside His word will get you into a lot of trouble.

emeraldfin
10-06-2008, 11:26 AM
Ah....Context is everything. Did you read the whole Sermon on the Mount? Jesus is laying out how impossible it is to obey God in everything we do, say, practice etc....

He isn't contradicting the OT. He is clarifying it for a lost and confused generation, and helping them understand why they need Him. Every time he says "But I say to you", he is telling them how hard it really is to actually follow the commandment. He is also trying to correct some false teachings by the religious rulers of his time, the Pharisees. They had figured out a way to get around some of the commandments, creating the Oral Law of the Pharisees. They had twisted the rules a bit to allow for divorce "as long as you do this and that". The bottom line is divorce is a sin except in the cases of death or infidelity, or in the case of a non-believer walking away from the marriage (Paul writes in I Cor 7). Jesus simply takes us back to the OT. And then in Matt 5:48, he makes it clear that we are to be perfect in all these things just as God is perfect. His point? We can't. That is why we need Him. Because without him we will never be perfect as the Law commands.


So if we can't rely on the bible to understand God's word and will, what are we to rely on? Does God talk to you directly? How do you know anything about Jesus except for what the bible says?

You believe that because the bible was written by men that it is somehow fallible, yet by believing this you limit the power of God to inspire and protect His word. I can't take that leap with you, it puts limitations on God. The bible was written by Godly inspired men, and it survives today because of God's protection of His word.

I believe I have had this discussion with you before, maybe not, but only God can set an absolute morality. Searching for morals outside His word will get you into a lot of trouble.

Its a contensious issue, but having been down this road with other people also, its clear that we both have contrasting views on morality. As a devout Christian I would'nt expect you to have any other opinion than that the Bible is the source of all moral thought. Which is fair enough.

But what I will lastly say on this is that IMO the Bible can only go so far. Issues such as blood transfusion, transplantation of bodily organs, artifical insemination, genetic mapping, surrogate motherhood, etc are not discussed in the Bible. New technological advances by mankind are constantly streching the limitations of the Bible on modern society. There is no quick solution to these issues on what is the moral standpoint to take, you have to discover your own, which is what every single human is capable of doing.

Finally I draw attention to Romans 2:14 and what is said by Paul. No doubt your perception is different than mine, but I just find it interesting.

Dolphan7
10-06-2008, 03:16 PM
Its a contensious issue, but having been down this road with other people also, its clear that we both have contrasting views on morality. As a devout Christian I would'nt expect you to have any other opinion than that the Bible is the source of all moral thought. Which is fair enough.

But what I will lastly say on this is that IMO the Bible can only go so far. Issues such as blood transfusion, transplantation of bodily organs, artifical insemination, genetic mapping, surrogate motherhood, etc are not discussed in the Bible. New technological advances by mankind are constantly streching the limitations of the Bible on modern society. There is no quick solution to these issues on what is the moral standpoint to take, you have to discover your own, which is what every single human is capable of doing.

Finally I draw attention to Romans 2:14 and what is said by Paul. No doubt your perception is different than mine, but I just find it interesting.Well....again you are simply stating that the bible is outdated because new technologies are not mentioned in the bible. The bible provides the basic model for our morality. It covers those things that are important and need to be observed. They will always be true for eternity. But it certainly leaves open the freedom to decide on those non-essential issues, what we like to call "Matters of Conscience". What may be considered wrong by one, may be ok for another, as long as it isn't in direct conflict with what the bible says.

Regarding Romans 2:14, you didn't say what your perception is. What is it?

kevinator815
11-07-2008, 03:46 PM
Jesus says

Fornications = any sex outside marriage.

Jesus defines marriage, actually upholding God's definition of marriage from the OT.

The OT clearly denounces homosexuality. Jesus not only confirmed the OT, he fulfilled it.

The Apostle Paul mentions homosexuality as well.


Yes...who ever wrote this thread, needs to read a bible.

eomdtbtr
11-13-2008, 02:22 AM
i used to me Christian, catholic to be more specific, and when i hit about grade ten i completely changed my ideas and am now more spiritual that religious. when is comes to religion i tried to believe, but as i got older, im in grade eleven now, it just seems less and less plausible. the whole story is just ridiculous. the fact that "god" would send someone to hell for something they cant control is not something i want to associate myself with. the fact that god would tell people to kill another human being for sinning, is awful, people make mistakes. The fact that jesus said " i come with a sword" makes me wonder why he's so worshiped. i could rant on all night but i dont really want to, however i find the discussion fascinating. i dont have a problem with other people being christian as long as they dont force it on me or anyone else for that matter. but one quote i really like is...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Sir Stephen Henry Roberts

fin-atic
11-13-2008, 03:01 PM
My two cents:

The Bible represents a moral map created at a time that is vast different time than the time we live in. When mad wrote the Bible and he wanted to apply God's word to his world he did not transcribe it he interpreted it. Meaning they scribed what they could weave into the mindset of an ancient people that supported their moral beliefs of that time. To indentify any sin based on man's written version of God's word is to accept their social model today. That is not practical and it does not make sense.

I do know that when you compare homosexuality to anything like Pedohiles, or beastiality, it is not the same thing as it is a realtionship between two individuals who love and care for each other. There is no hurt, hate, or illness to it. I am a straight but I am not narrow. I can ascertain for myself that all people have the right to enter into a relationship that makes them and their partner happy. Who are we to judge that or deny that? I think if you want to see the best representation on this you need to watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

It pretty much sums up what I think about the gay issue. I leave you with this piece of gospel that applies to this:

"Judgement is mine thus saith the Lord"

deephin
11-14-2008, 12:34 PM
the bible cannot be used as the only source for moral issues in the world. the answer to moral questions come from human experience not from the bible.

emeraldfin
11-14-2008, 12:45 PM
the bible cannot be used as the only source for moral issues in the world. the answer to moral questions come from human experience not from the bible.

Sounds like somone is a fan of the Autonomist view on morality

ralphthedog
11-15-2008, 05:32 AM
after reading this thread, I have some comments:
1. First a gay person can enter into heaven. he or she must meet the condition mentioned above.
2. God doesn't make anyone gay. our environemnt does.
3. Being gay is not a sin. acting out in lust outside of marrige is.
4. Jesus was pretty clear about harming the young.
5. We should love everyone and treat them how we want to be treated. that means not going up to a gay person and tell them they are going to hell.

bottom line is that all people sin. it doesn't matter if you sin, it matters that you ask for forgiveness

deephin
11-18-2008, 03:13 PM
yes i am a fan of it, as it is the only explanation for it.

dolphindan1970
01-20-2009, 06:12 AM
First of all, man can believe and think all they want, it doesnt matter what you, I or anyone thinks, its what Gods word says and teaches. I am a minister and have been so for 20 plus years, and make no mistake, a person who is a homosexual can't and will not go to Heaven.

Now, a person who use to be a homosexual, ask God's forgiveness through his son, changes his ways...2CO 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. then that person can indeed go to heaven.

God sends no one to Hell, they go their of their own free will and choices. God will not put up with sin, and someone said earlier, if God created man and woman, he must have created a homosexual also. Beware my friend of what you accuse God of. A man and woman marry, have a child, that child grows up, rebels, becomes a murderer,a homosexual, a liar, I guess their mom and dad made him that way. Man makes his own choices, even about what and who they become, and whether they accept a loving God, or reject him.

Someone said they wanted no part in a God that tells other to kill, that person needs to really study the bible deeply an not just read a verse here and their. God is a loving God, but he is also a God of war ! He will not put up with vile filthiness. Gods in the OT told his people Isreal to go to war at different times, but it was against other places that was vile and filthy and hurting his people.

A man that lies with another man, or women with women, God will not tolerate it if they do not change their filthines and will even eventually give up on that person, and give them a reprobate mind that they will be damned because they would not change thier nasty ways.

You can say I'm hardcore if you want, because I am, Gods word is plain with no grey areas, accept it or reject it, to every man,woman they have their own choice, do not blame God !

Here are verses in the NT for you, and if I could continue to type for the next hour, I could give you plenty more.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

emeraldfin
01-23-2009, 08:50 AM
First of all, man can believe and think all they want, it doesnt matter what you, I or anyone thinks, its what Gods word says and teaches. I am a minister and have been so for 20 plus years, and make no mistake, a person who is a homosexual can't and will not go to Heaven.

Now, a person who use to be a homosexual, ask God's forgiveness through his son, changes his ways...2CO 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. then that person can indeed go to heaven.

God sends no one to Hell, they go their of their own free will and choices. God will not put up with sin, and someone said earlier, if God created man and woman, he must have created a homosexual also. Beware my friend of what you accuse God of. A man and woman marry, have a child, that child grows up, rebels, becomes a murderer,a homosexual, a liar, I guess their mom and dad made him that way. Man makes his own choices, even about what and who they become, and whether they accept a loving God, or reject him.

Someone said they wanted no part in a God that tells other to kill, that person needs to really study the bible deeply an not just read a verse here and their. God is a loving God, but he is also a God of war ! He will not put up with vile filthiness. Gods in the OT told his people Isreal to go to war at different times, but it was against other places that was vile and filthy and hurting his people.

A man that lies with another man, or women with women, God will not tolerate it if they do not change their filthines and will even eventually give up on that person, and give them a reprobate mind that they will be damned because they would not change thier nasty ways.

You can say I'm hardcore if you want, because I am, Gods word is plain with no grey areas, accept it or reject it, to every man,woman they have their own choice, do not blame God !

Here are verses in the NT for you, and if I could continue to type for the next hour, I could give you plenty more.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Hardcore? Just a bit...

The Bible also condemns usury. God, Jesus, ancient Roman and Greek thinkers, countless Christian conferences, Thomas Aquinus, Martin Luther, etc all spoke of the intrinsic evil of adding on interest rates to loans. Is'nt it strange that in the 16/17th century when the power of money was beginning to take a strangle hold over society that the Christian authorities did a dramatic U-turn? Going against all the big hitters teachings that it was wrong and "always and forever" sinful.

So tell me, if someone takes part in the act of usury are they commiting a sin?

dolphindan1970
01-27-2009, 07:57 PM
Been out of town, so sorry for the delay in answering.

First all, God says he is the same yesterday, today and tommorow, so no, I do not consider anything I said as hardhore, because Gods Word is, and always has been hardcore from the beginning about sin, whether it be murder, adultery, homosexuality, or what-ever the sin.

Homosexuality was wrong in Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot was their, it is wrong throughout the old testestament, it is wrong in the new testament, and it will be wrong tommorrow. I am not going to change, because God has not changed, as you can see from all the scripture I provided.

Gods word is not hard to understand, it is hard to accept because people want to live in the filth and nasty ways that they continue in. I tell everyone, argur and dsagree with me all you want, it is God's Word that condemns and tells someone they are wrong, and it will be that SAME WORD that in Judgement when they offer excuse that will condemn them to an eternal hell, not me.

Many will say, God but....... And God will say my WORD said..... !!! They will say, yeah but God.......And God will say, my WORD said..... !!! They will scream but God, I didnt know, and God will say, you were told by my word !!! Depart from me into eternal damnantion prepared for the devil and his angels, I never knew you.

Explanations will not fly with God as many try to use today with man for their sin's justification, God will judge in rightesnous, and his judgement will be eternal.

As for usuary, it is indeed a sin, a brother should not charge another brother in Christ usuary, and should they act in such, it is a sin. God say's homosexuality how-ever is not only a sin, it is an abomination in his eyes.

I , to my knowledge have never charged someone a dime more than they have borrowed from me personally, as again, I do not believe in doing so. Banks and so forth are peoples, corporations, etc.... I could never work for an institution like that either.

Anyway, I will be leaving this area soon, and wont have service, so if all of a sudden I cant answer any more, you know I have moved.

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 09:04 AM
Oh dear God. Now homosexuality is an act of rebellion? I could see being so pissed off at your folks, that you drink and drive, steal something, even beat someone up. But exactly HOW does a man find another man sexually attractive as an act of rebellion, or any OTHER conscious choice? Outside of instances of childhood sexual abuse, would someone PLEASE explain to me the method THEY would use to find another man attractive, because I just don't understand. If you held a gun to my sons head and told me to have sex with a man or you would kill him, I would do it. But if you held that gun to my childs head and told me to find another man sexually attractive, my son would die because I AM PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of doing so. So kindly explain it to me. Because I have gay friends who grew up in loving, supportive households. They had dads who spent time with them, played sports, the whole Ozzie and Harriet experience, and STILL wound up gay. So tell me good people, how one CHOOSES to find a person of the same sex attrtactive, because sexual orientation is NOT about the act, it's about the attraction. If I never had sex, I would still be heterosexual, that is my orientation. I couldn't change it if I wanted to. And for most homosexuals, even if they never have sex with a person of the same sex, they are STILL GAY.

PhinPhan1227
01-28-2009, 09:08 AM
the bible cannot be used as the only source for moral issues in the world. the answer to moral questions come from human experience not from the bible.


Only problem with that argument is that you basically excuse every immoral act ever commited. A person who grows up in a bad situation, winds up with a system of morals that most would find objectionable, does bad things. To others his acts are immoral, but to HIM they are moral. So how do we blame him for doing them? Our system of justice demands that people be able to understand that what they did was wrong. If we define morality by the individual, than what that person did can't be wrong.

dolphindan1970
01-29-2009, 02:41 AM
I am lost and have not read every post, as to whom you speak of that considers homosexuality rebellion, but I will answer in a very simple form and answer.

Homosexuality is a CHOICE by the individual, the same as someone who murders another, who rapes another, who uses drugs, and so forth. It's an easy escape for them to say, I was born this way, its not my fault. Society anymore even has helped alcoholics, saying it is not their fault, they were born that way.

Hmmm, I don't think Iv'e ever seen a baby born with a beer or wine glass in his hand, a gun in his hand, or a baby having sex with another baby of the same sex. God made man and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman only. God has set nature on a "natural course" from that man deviates on his own.

A child grows, he finds pleasure in drinking, he continues, God does not force him to do so, nor did God command and make him to start, but it easier for man to blame God and justify his actions with, "This is how God made me"

So, don't blame God for your choices in life. Just as we may have our own children, and I have two wonderful son's, I raise them with morals from the bible, I teach them that right from wrong, I do my very best to explain to them the plan of Salvation through God's plan and Christ. Ultimately how-ever, my children come to a point in their life they have to start choosing on their own. They know murder is wrong, will they pick up a gun and shoot another human being to death ? It has come to their choice, they are responsible once reaching a certain age for the choices they make, or dont make. Society didnt do it, God didn't make them that way, quit blaming a persons on decisions on everything else except where it should be, ones own self.

I was in law enforcement before becoming disabled, and I saw a lot, and I mean a LOT of things. I have saw assasins,been in rooms filled with blood, I have saw death way to often, and I have saw the bad side of life that many never see.

I will never forget 1 man in particular, 1 time that I had to deal with, that just sickened me to no ends. The man was mid 3's, and had a 2,3 year old little boy and girl, cant remember which was oldest, but that was his own children. His own children, 2, and 3 year old that he sexually molested. Everyone else has someone to blame for their sin, thinking back now, I wonder who he blamed for his ?

PhinPhan1227
01-29-2009, 08:27 AM
I am lost and have not read every post, as to whom you speak of that considers homosexuality rebellion, but I will answer in a very simple form and answer.

Homosexuality is a CHOICE by the individual, the same as someone who murders another, who rapes another, who uses drugs, and so forth. It's an easy escape for them to say, I was born this way, its not my fault. Society anymore even has helped alcoholics, saying it is not their fault, they were born that way.

Hmmm, I don't think Iv'e ever seen a baby born with a beer or wine glass in his hand, a gun in his hand, or a baby having sex with another baby of the same sex. God made man and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman only. God has set nature on a "natural course" from that man deviates on his own.

A child grows, he finds pleasure in drinking, he continues, God does not force him to do so, nor did God command and make him to start, but it easier for man to blame God and justify his actions with, "This is how God made me"

So, don't blame God for your choices in life. Just as we may have our own children, and I have two wonderful son's, I raise them with morals from the bible, I teach them that right from wrong, I do my very best to explain to them the plan of Salvation through God's plan and Christ. Ultimately how-ever, my children come to a point in their life they have to start choosing on their own. They know murder is wrong, will they pick up a gun and shoot another human being to death ? It has come to their choice, they are responsible once reaching a certain age for the choices they make, or dont make. Society didnt do it, God didn't make them that way, quit blaming a persons on decisions on everything else except where it should be, ones own self.

I was in law enforcement before becoming disabled, and I saw a lot, and I mean a LOT of things. I have saw assasins,been in rooms filled with blood, I have saw death way to often, and I have saw the bad side of life that many never see.

I will never forget 1 man in particular, 1 time that I had to deal with, that just sickened me to no ends. The man was mid 3's, and had a 2,3 year old little boy and girl, cant remember which was oldest, but that was his own children. His own children, 2, and 3 year old that he sexually molested. Everyone else has someone to blame for their sin, thinking back now, I wonder who he blamed for his ?


Once again, I'll ask this question. I ask it again and again, because nobody has ever been able to give me an answer. How exactly would you go about choosing to find another man sexually attractive? Tell me your method, because I have no way of fathoming how you would do that. I am physically incapable of doing so. Perhaps you are different, and if so, I would love to hear about it.

Because homosexuality is no more about the act itself than heterosexuality is. If you lived your life as a virgin, never having sex with anyone, would you not still be heterosexual? Likewise, if a gay man never has sex with another man, but only finds men attractive, does that make him any less gay?

So once again, I will ask, HOW would YOU go about choosing to find a man attractive? Because I am physically incapable of making that "choice".

emeraldfin
01-29-2009, 12:49 PM
Once again, I'll ask this question. I ask it again and again, because nobody has ever been able to give me an answer. How exactly would you go about choosing to find another man sexually attractive? Tell me your method, because I have no way of fathoming how you would do that. I am physically incapable of doing so. Perhaps you are different, and if so, I would love to hear about it.

Because homosexuality is no more about the act itself than heterosexuality is. If you lived your life as a virgin, never having sex with anyone, would you not still be heterosexual? Likewise, if a gay man never has sex with another man, but only finds men attractive, does that make him any less gay?

So once again, I will ask, HOW would YOU go about choosing to find a man attractive? Because I am physically incapable of making that "choice".

According to Christian believe there is a difference between the two. If you are homosexual and dont act on it then you have done noting wrong, because all human beings have faults and thats just another fault. However if you act out on those homosexual tendencies and urges with another man by having sexual relations then you have committed an intrinsic evil. Its really no different than sex before marrige. Sex before marrige, fornication and masterbation are always and forever evil in the eyes of God according to Christian believe.

Because as Dolphin Dan stated that homosexual acts are condemned by God and against God's will of as he created women to be man's partner, homosexuality is wrong. Also procreation should be the only purpose of sex. Because you can not re-create from homosexuality sex then it is wrongful. It is purly out of lust and desire why you have homosexual sex. I dont condone these believes, that is just the believe of most Christian groups.

Dolphan7
01-29-2009, 01:12 PM
According to Christian believe there is a difference between the two. If you are homosexual and dont act on it then you have done noting wrong, because all human beings have faults and thats just another fault. However if you act out on those homosexual tendencies and urges with another man by having sexual relations then you have committed an intrinsic evil. Its really no different than sex before marrige. Sex before marrige, fornication and masterbation are always and forever evil in the eyes of God according to Christian believe.

Because as Dolphin Dan stated that homosexual acts are condemned by God and against God's will of as he created women to be man's partner, homosexuality is wrong. Also procreation should be the only purpose of sex. Because you can not re-create from homosexuality sex then it is wrongful. It is purly out of lust and desire why you have homosexual sex. I dont condone these believes, that is just the believe of most Christian groups.Excellent explanation. I would just add that sex isn't simply for pro-creation. God also makes sex extremely enjoyable physically, and is one of the benefits to marriage, a gift so to speak. But only within the confines of a marriage, between man and woman.

Dolphan7
01-29-2009, 01:23 PM
Once again, I'll ask this question. I ask it again and again, because nobody has ever been able to give me an answer. How exactly would you go about choosing to find another man sexually attractive? Tell me your method, because I have no way of fathoming how you would do that. I am physically incapable of doing so. Perhaps you are different, and if so, I would love to hear about it.

Because homosexuality is no more about the act itself than heterosexuality is. If you lived your life as a virgin, never having sex with anyone, would you not still be heterosexual? Likewise, if a gay man never has sex with another man, but only finds men attractive, does that make him any less gay?

So once again, I will ask, HOW would YOU go about choosing to find a man attractive? Because I am physically incapable of making that "choice".In addition to emeraldfin's explanation.....

Why is one a conservative? Or a liberal? Did one just choose to be that way? To think like that? Were people born as conservatives or liberals?

No.

Those values, beliefs, traits, ideals, morals etc... are all learned and influenced by our surroundings and our environment and what we were exposed to in our lifetime.

People don't just choose to be conservative....they just simply grow up that way.

Homosexuals simply grow up that way. They aren't born that way, and they don't just wake up one day and say "Hey today I am going to be a homosexual".

Now one can have homosexual desires their whole life and never act on them, but as Emeraldfin states, once the "act" of homosexuality takes place, it becomes an issue with God as he condemns it, it is against his purpose and design that he created man and woman for.

But even if a homosexual never acts on their desires, they...as well as all the rest of us humans, are still sinful and therefore separated from God through that sin. That is why homosexuality doesn't make a person sinful in and of itself, all by itself....he or she is a sinner whether they are gay or not.

Does this help?

PhinPhan1227
01-29-2009, 01:52 PM
According to Christian believe there is a difference between the two. If you are homosexual and dont act on it then you have done noting wrong, because all human beings have faults and thats just another fault. However if you act out on those homosexual tendencies and urges with another man by having sexual relations then you have committed an intrinsic evil. Its really no different than sex before marrige. Sex before marrige, fornication and masterbation are always and forever evil in the eyes of God according to Christian believe.

Because as Dolphin Dan stated that homosexual acts are condemned by God and against God's will of as he created women to be man's partner, homosexuality is wrong. Also procreation should be the only purpose of sex. Because you can not re-create from homosexuality sex then it is wrongful. It is purly out of lust and desire why you have homosexual sex. I dont condone these believes, that is just the believe of most Christian groups.

The problem with that reasoning is that it makes God a pretty cruel being. In all other instances, there's a reasonable alternative to do what is "right". don't commit adultry, get married and have sex with your wife. Likewise, all the other sexual sins...except homosexuality. What is the alternative if you don't find women attractive? Sorry, but if someone told me that sex with women was a sin, I'm NOT going to have sex with a man because that's the only alternative I am allowed under that ethos. So what you are saying is that God is telling these people, you have urges, they are natural, but you can't do anything about them. You are doomed to a life of loneliness. Lovely.

PhinPhan1227
01-29-2009, 01:52 PM
Excellent explanation. I would just add that sex isn't simply for pro-creation. God also makes sex extremely enjoyable physically, and is one of the benefits to marriage, a gift so to speak. But only within the confines of a marriage, between man and woman.

and according to that definition, a pleasure/need which is denied to homosexuals, since they have no alternative.

PhinPhan1227
01-29-2009, 02:03 PM
In addition to emeraldfin's explanation.....

Why is one a conservative? Or a liberal? Did one just choose to be that way? To think like that? Were people born as conservatives or liberals?

No.

Those values, beliefs, traits, ideals, morals etc... are all learned and influenced by our surroundings and our environment and what we were exposed to in our lifetime.

People don't just choose to be conservative....they just simply grow up that way.

Homosexuals simply grow up that way. They aren't born that way, and they don't just wake up one day and say "Hey today I am going to be a homosexual".

Now one can have homosexual desires their whole life and never act on them, but as Emeraldfin states, once the "act" of homosexuality takes place, it becomes an issue with God as he condemns it, it is against his purpose and design that he created man and woman for.

But even if a homosexual never acts on their desires, they...as well as all the rest of us humans, are still sinful and therefore separated from God through that sin. That is why homosexuality doesn't make a person sinful in and of itself, all by itself....he or she is a sinner whether they are gay or not.

Does this help?

No, it doesn't help, because it isn't accurate. Liberal/Conservative is VERY rarely black and white. Almost every conservative has some liberal ideals, and vice versa. I don't know too many men that have a "little gay" in them. Outside of people who have been abused to some extent, people are either straight or gay. Further, you ignore the BLATANT examples of men who were raised in perfectly heterosexual environments, and wind up gay. You also ignore the examples of siblings who grew up in identical situations, one is straight, the other gay. Christ, there are even twins who wind up straight/gay. You ALSO ignore the fact that there are so many men who TRY to live straight. Do so for decades, and yet eventually come out as gay because it is just who they are. They didn't learn it, they did everything in their power to deny it, and yet there it is.

Again, I ask the question, and STILL wait for a response. HOW do you make the choice to be gay? Because it's not something I could even concieve.


And again, the action means nothing. And the Bible says the exact same thing.

Matthew 5:27-30
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."


So PLEASE don't give me this argument that what goes on in a persons head isn't what matters. Jesus said REPEATEDLY that what goes on in your heart is MORE important than what you actually DO.

Dolphan7
01-29-2009, 02:08 PM
the bible cannot be used as the only source for moral issues in the world. the answer to moral questions come from human experience not from the bible.Obviously if you look around the world you will see that there are hundreds of sources of morality, some agreeing, some in complete contradiction. This type of morality is relative to each person, nation, religion, culture etc.....Relative morality.

The limitations of relative morality are that there is no basis, or standard, to determine right or wrong outside ones own group. There are no absolutes.... it's all relative.

The other limitation is we can't set an absolute,,, even if we wanted to.

Case in point....we as Americans feel that the 911 attack was wrong. The 911 terrorists believe that what they did is right. By saying that they can't do that is invoking an absolute on them. Can't do that obviously. Without an objective, or absolute standard of morality to appeal to, we can't say they were wrong.

What it boils down to is people just need to agree to disagree and live with that, or go to war to determine who gets to enforce their morality on the loser.

Only God can set an absolute set of morality. So if you were to agree that we need to set an absolute morality, then the Bible would be first on my list.

Dolphan7
01-29-2009, 03:09 PM
No, it doesn't help, because it isn't accurate. Liberal/Conservative is VERY rarely black and white. Almost every conservative has some liberal ideals, and vice versa. I don't know too many men that have a "little gay" in them. Outside of people who have been abused to some extent, people are either straight or gay. Further, you ignore the BLATANT examples of men who were raised in perfectly heterosexual environments, and wind up gay. You also ignore the examples of siblings who grew up in identical situations, one is straight, the other gay. Christ, there are even twins who wind up straight/gay. You ALSO ignore the fact that there are so many men who TRY to live straight. Do so for decades, and yet eventually come out as gay because it is just who they are. They didn't learn it, they did everything in their power to deny it, and yet there it is.

Again, I ask the question, and STILL wait for a response. HOW do you make the choice to be gay? Because it's not something I could even concieve.


And again, the action means nothing. And the Bible says the exact same thing.

Matthew 5:27-30
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."


So PLEASE don't give me this argument that what goes on in a persons head isn't what matters. Jesus said REPEATEDLY that what goes on in your heart is MORE important than what you actually DO.I am not ignoring anything, I am very well aware of everything you said. I am simply trying to help answer your question.

The whole point is one doesn't simply wake up one day and say "Hey I am going to be gay". It is a process over time and is based on life's influences. You aren't born gay, and you don't just "snap" and become gay. It is a process.

I wouldn't say that there is a little gay in everyone, but I will say that there are many men and women who have experimented with it simply for sexual pleasure, ala the bisexual. And the more society tells people that there isn't anything wrong with it, the more that will happen.

And there have been many reformed or healed or converted homosexuals. Does it work in all cases?, no. Why? Who knows, maybe they really didn't want to change? All I know is that if a person seeks God's help to overcome sexual sin, or an addiction, or any other sin they are struggling with, God will help them and they will overcome it. So if it fails...I would tend to lay the failure on the person, not God. That is God's way of an out. God isn't going to tell you homosexuality is a sin, then turn around and then let you commit that sin because "I don't have an alternative". Who would put their faith and trust in a God like that. I wouldn't.

Jesus did indeed say that even if you lust after a women, you have committed adultery in your heart.

Why did he say that? What did he mean? What is the context?

The point he is trying to make is that we are all sinners. There is no way we can live right in a perfect way because there are always evil thoughts in our minds. We are sinners and therefore separated from God, and there isn't anything we can do about it. That is why we need Him. That was the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount, which you quoted from. That is why I stated in another post that homosexuality isn't in and of itself what separates a homosexual from God, it is his sinful nature, his imperfection, as with us all.

If you read Matt 5:48 you will see that Jesus is saying that we are to be perfect just like God is perfect, which is obviously impossible.

The whole point of Jesus ministry was to bring people back into a right relationship with God. The Pharisees of the day had created this oral tradition that allowed people to do all sorts of wrong things but still be considered ok with God. Jesus took several of these laws and basically up the ante. He reafirmed divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery. He said that hate is the same as murder. He said that we are to love our enemies - What? And on and on.

Brother I am just trying to help you answer the questions you have. I think that you are taking our human and flawed understanding, and trying to apply it to God. I think you should probably try to understand God's perspective and then apply it to your life.

I think that if unless you do this you may never answer your question. Jesus said to ask, seek and knock and basically the answers will be provided to you.

I suggest reading the bible more, you know that dusty thing on the shelf? And praying more.

PhinPhan1227
01-29-2009, 04:38 PM
I am not ignoring anything, I am very well aware of everything you said. I am simply trying to help answer your question.

The whole point is one doesn't simply wake up one day and say "Hey I am going to be gay". It is a process over time and is based on life's influences. You aren't born gay, and you don't just "snap" and become gay. It is a process.

I wouldn't say that there is a little gay in everyone, but I will say that there are many men and women who have experimented with it simply for sexual pleasure, ala the bisexual. And the more society tells people that there isn't anything wrong with it, the more that will happen.

And there have been many reformed or healed or converted homosexuals. Does it work in all cases?, no. Why? Who knows, maybe they really didn't want to change? All I know is that if a person seeks God's help to overcome sexual sin, or an addiction, or any other sin they are struggling with, God will help them and they will overcome it. So if it fails...I would tend to lay the failure on the person, not God. That is God's way of an out. God isn't going to tell you homosexuality is a sin, then turn around and then let you commit that sin because "I don't have an alternative". Who would put their faith and trust in a God like that. I wouldn't.

Jesus did indeed say that even if you lust after a women, you have committed adultery in your heart.

Why did he say that? What did he mean? What is the context?

The point he is trying to make is that we are all sinners. There is no way we can live right in a perfect way because there are always evil thoughts in our minds. We are sinners and therefore separated from God, and there isn't anything we can do about it. That is why we need Him. That was the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount, which you quoted from. That is why I stated in another post that homosexuality isn't in and of itself what separates a homosexual from God, it is his sinful nature, his imperfection, as with us all.

If you read Matt 5:48 you will see that Jesus is saying that we are to be perfect just like God is perfect, which is obviously impossible.

The whole point of Jesus ministry was to bring people back into a right relationship with God. The Pharisees of the day had created this oral tradition that allowed people to do all sorts of wrong things but still be considered ok with God. Jesus took several of these laws and basically up the ante. He reafirmed divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery. He said that hate is the same as murder. He said that we are to love our enemies - What? And on and on.

Brother I am just trying to help you answer the questions you have. I think that you are taking our human and flawed understanding, and trying to apply it to God. I think you should probably try to understand God's perspective and then apply it to your life.

I think that if unless you do this you may never answer your question. Jesus said to ask, seek and knock and basically the answers will be provided to you.

I suggest reading the bible more, you know that dusty thing on the shelf? And praying more.


Firstly, if you look at those "reformed" homosexuals, there is a LOT of recidivism among them. Because they are going against their nature. Further, most of those who stay "reformed" had suffered sexual abuse as children. The reform they went through was the repair of childhood damage. I have yet to read or meet anyone who was not a victim of such abuse that "switched".

Secondly, I am not applying anything to God. I am disputing mans interpretation of his will.

Thirdly, I will try not to take your last comment as condescending, even though it certainly came across as such.

And lastly, I will ask you to consider a few things D7. The brain/nervous system is the first organ to start developing in human beings, and it is the last to finish. It is thus by far the most complex organ in the human body. And sexual attraction is a function of the brain. It is governed by electrical impulses, and chemical reactions. And it is governed by instinct. We are wired as a species to focus on the opposite species, in order to promote propagation of the species. That is a function of brain chemistry. If you raise a male child in an all male environment, he is still going to be heterosexual in the overwhelming majority of cases. He might be taught that homosexuality is normal, and not be bothered by it, but he is still going to have a sexual attraction to women.

The proof of this is the fact that the vast majority of gay men aren't bisexual, they are ONLY attracted to other men. That is not learned. That is not indoctrinated. That is in fact counter to a few million years of evolution which wants to tell him to try to reproduce as often as possible, but somehow the signals aren't getting through. you might have an argument if most homosexuals were bisexual. But every study I have read shows that the overwhelming majority of bisexuals were abused at some time in their lives, thus resulting in their behavior.

See, that's a big part of why it bothers me so much when people look at homosexuals negatively JUST because of their orientation. It's the same way people used to look at those with handicaps. Marginalize them. Keep them out of decent society. Don't allow them to mix with "normal" people. We used to put deaf people in the same facilities as the criminaly insane. It insults my morals to see people called sinners just because of the way they were born. It insults my ethics to see people treated differently just because they were born differently. It insults my sense of right and wrong to tell people that what they do is evil, even though they are given no alternative, and what they do causes no harm. It PARTICULARLY insults my sense of right and wrong when our culture causes damage to children because we do these things to them at an early age. Kids rejected by their families because of how they were born. I have a friend who had a loving family. Very supportive. Very Christian. Never rejected him in any way. Despite being in what I can only imagine was the best environment possible, that guy told me he still prayed for years for God to just make him "normal". Tried to act straight. Dated women. And again, this guy is one of the most devoted Christians I have ever met. I used to work with him, and I doubt that he spent more than a few minutes of free time each day NOT thinking/talking/working for/about God. Despite that, he's not only gay, he's flamboyantly gay. Beleive me, there's nothing subtle about a 6'2" black man who wears coral colored suits to work. And no, he didn't "develop" his homosexuality. He quite simply was NEVER attracted to girls. I believe he has 2-3 brothers, all straight, all involved in sports. He was just "different". Nicest guy you will ever meet, just "different". I refuse to look negatively on him because of that, and I will dispute anyone who does.

Dolphan7
01-29-2009, 06:39 PM
Firstly, if you look at those "reformed" homosexuals, there is a LOT of recidivism among them. Because they are going against their nature. Further, most of those who stay "reformed" had suffered sexual abuse as children. The reform they went through was the repair of childhood damage. I have yet to read or meet anyone who was not a victim of such abuse that "switched".

Secondly, I am not applying anything to God. I am disputing mans interpretation of his will.

Thirdly, I will try not to take your last comment as condescending, even though it certainly came across as such.

And lastly, I will ask you to consider a few things D7. The brain/nervous system is the first organ to start developing in human beings, and it is the last to finish. It is thus by far the most complex organ in the human body. And sexual attraction is a function of the brain. It is governed by electrical impulses, and chemical reactions. And it is governed by instinct. We are wired as a species to focus on the opposite species, in order to promote propagation of the species. That is a function of brain chemistry. If you raise a male child in an all male environment, he is still going to be heterosexual in the overwhelming majority of cases. He might be taught that homosexuality is normal, and not be bothered by it, but he is still going to have a sexual attraction to women.

The proof of this is the fact that the vast majority of gay men aren't bisexual, they are ONLY attracted to other men. That is not learned. That is not indoctrinated. That is in fact counter to a few million years of evolution which wants to tell him to try to reproduce as often as possible, but somehow the signals aren't getting through. you might have an argument if most homosexuals were bisexual. But every study I have read shows that the overwhelming majority of bisexuals were abused at some time in their lives, thus resulting in their behavior.

See, that's a big part of why it bothers me so much when people look at homosexuals negatively JUST because of their orientation. It's the same way people used to look at those with handicaps. Marginalize them. Keep them out of decent society. Don't allow them to mix with "normal" people. We used to put deaf people in the same facilities as the criminaly insane. It insults my morals to see people called sinners just because of the way they were born. It insults my ethics to see people treated differently just because they were born differently. It insults my sense of right and wrong to tell people that what they do is evil, even though they are given no alternative, and what they do causes no harm. It PARTICULARLY insults my sense of right and wrong when our culture causes damage to children because we do these things to them at an early age. Kids rejected by their families because of how they were born. I have a friend who had a loving family. Very supportive. Very Christian. Never rejected him in any way. Despite being in what I can only imagine was the best environment possible, that guy told me he still prayed for years for God to just make him "normal". Tried to act straight. Dated women. And again, this guy is one of the most devoted Christians I have ever met. I used to work with him, and I doubt that he spent more than a few minutes of free time each day NOT thinking/talking/working for/about God. Despite that, he's not only gay, he's flamboyantly gay. Believe me, there's nothing subtle about a 6'2" black man who wears coral colored suits to work. And no, he didn't "develop" his homosexuality. He quite simply was NEVER attracted to girls. I believe he has 2-3 brothers, all straight, all involved in sports. He was just "different". Nicest guy you will ever meet, just "different". I refuse to look negatively on him because of that, and I will dispute anyone who does.The bottom line here 1227, we don't know how or why people become gay. You don't, I don't, science doesn't...no one. All I can tell you is that God didn't make them that way. If people want to think that they are born a certain way, and thus are absolved of their circumstance because of that, then that is between them and God. The bible is clear. Whether you or I like it, or agree with it, doesn't really matter. That's what it says.

And I am disputing your interpretation of God's will.

My comment was not meant to be condescending, but a tongue in cheek comment common among christians. If I offended I apologize. The advice remians the same though. Many times I have researched more and more of the bible and prayed for understanding. I learn something every time.

As for your friend, all I can say is what I have already said. We are all sinners no matter if we are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual etc.....Your friend is a sinner not simply because he is gay, but because he is human. Same with all of us. We don't get to connect to God unless it is through Jesus Christ. We must believe in Him, and then live right for Him as best we can. Continually living in a sinful situation that God says is a sin, regardless of how we came into that sin, will not be a good thing, according to the bible.

I can see a person who every now and then commits a sin in this area, repents, asks for forgiveness and continues in a right relationship with God ...as being much different than a person who ....openly and often is involved in a continual sin, does not repent or seek forgiveness and blatantly denies that it is wrong - they will be viewed by God in completely different ways I can assure you.

I know we have had this conversation many times before....I know you don't believe the bible as it is written. And I have explained to you that you can't pick and choose what you take from the bible as God's word - you either take it all, or nothing. There can be no in between. And if you choose nothing, then as a christian - how in the world do you even understand anything about God and Jesus, because everything we know, outside of our own experience, is in the bible.

For instance you quoted Jesus in a previous post, and I take that to mean that you agree with that quote, yet Jesus also said that "all" sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a sin, Mat 15:19.

Brother it is always a top notch debate with you and I enjoy our discussions immensely. I respect the heck out of you. I pray that you come to some resolution on this issue as I can see how it frustrates you. Please don't think that you are the only one posting that has friends and loved ones who are openly gay.

dolphindan1970
01-29-2009, 11:43 PM
Lets ask this question, just for the sake of argument....

If their IS an infinite,all knowing, all powerful God, who created the heavens,earth and all that their is......then, whose morals do you think would be those that are the ones we should accept as right....His ? or Mankind (yours) ? I'll stick with God's morals in his word, if mankind wants to argue with HIS standards.....good luck, its a losing battle before its even started.

Kinda like this. A man once told me he didnt believe in God, to which I responded. If I live my life, a good moral life, do good to others, be kind to others, ask Christ to forgive me of my sins and save me, and then I die, what then ?

Well, the worst is that I have lived a good life, was respected of others for that life, and if their were no God, thats it I guess. So if their was no God, and I died, thats it.

Now, what if you died, not believing in an Almighty God, not asking for forgivness of your sins, and continuing in those sins into death, and their IS an Almighty God ?
MT 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in HELL.

Personally, I like my chances......below is some more reading I hope everyone enjoys, that will add to the discussion...

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

emeraldfin
01-30-2009, 09:21 AM
I know we have had this conversation many times before....I know you don't believe the bible as it is written. And I have explained to you that you can't pick and choose what you take from the bible as God's word - you either take it all, or nothing. There can be no in between. And if you choose nothing, then as a christian - how in the world do you even understand anything about God and Jesus, because everything we know, outside of our own experience, is in the bible.

For instance you quoted Jesus in a previous post, and I take that to mean that you agree with that quote, yet Jesus also said that "all" sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a sin, Mat 15:19.

Brother it is always a top notch debate with you and I enjoy our discussions immensely. I respect the heck out of you. I pray that you come to some resolution on this issue as I can see how it frustrates you. Please don't think that you are the only one posting that has friends and loved ones who are openly gay.

And thats the key. Something I learned recently is that you cannot fight Christian teaching from the outside. You have to argue from inside Christianity. Its difficult to explain, but for example when I would have a conversation with a Christian on a controversial topic (such as homosexuality) I would have previously attacked the issue from my own personal morals and ethics. Problem with that is your fighting a losing battle because you can not appreciate their relationship with God. My argument would be you "well this is wrong because", and "I think this", etc.

I find now that when you actually know fully what the Bible says, what Christian thinking is, Bible verses, interpretations throughout the centuies, you will get alot more respect and instantly you argument streghtens.

To put it simply, to understand any religion you must become a devot member of that religion before you can appreciate or argue their teachings and beliefs.

Dolphan7
01-30-2009, 10:53 AM
And thats the key. Something I learned recently is that you cannot fight Christian teaching from the outside. You have to argue from inside Christianity. Its difficult to explain, but for example when I would have a conversation with a Christian on a controversial topic (such as homosexuality) I would have previously attacked the issue from my own personal morals and ethics. Problem with that is your fighting a losing battle because you can not appreciate their relationship with God. My argument would be you "well this is wrong because", and "I think this", etc.

I find now that when you actually know fully what the Bible says, what Christian thinking is, Bible verses, interpretations throughout the centuies, you will get alot more respect and instantly you argument streghtens.

To put it simply, to understand any religion you must become a devot member of that religion before you can appreciate or argue their teachings and beliefs.Excellent point.

There are lot's of people who knock Christianity....and have no idea what Christianity is about...and only argue based on what they have been told, never quite understanding what the Bible really says.

Also many times people reject the message because of the messenger....how many times have we seen christians acting badly?

All I know is that Satan has many ways of keeping people from knowing the truth. I fight every day against Satan and his schemes.

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2009, 01:26 PM
The bottom line here 1227, we don't know how or why people become gay. You don't, I don't, science doesn't...no one. All I can tell you is that God didn't make them that way. If people want to think that they are born a certain way, and thus are absolved of their circumstance because of that, then that is between them and God. The bible is clear. Whether you or I like it, or agree with it, doesn't really matter. That's what it says.

And I am disputing your interpretation of God's will.

My comment was not meant to be condescending, but a tongue in cheek comment common among christians. If I offended I apologize. The advice remians the same though. Many times I have researched more and more of the bible and prayed for understanding. I learn something every time.

As for your friend, all I can say is what I have already said. We are all sinners no matter if we are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual etc.....Your friend is a sinner not simply because he is gay, but because he is human. Same with all of us. We don't get to connect to God unless it is through Jesus Christ. We must believe in Him, and then live right for Him as best we can. Continually living in a sinful situation that God says is a sin, regardless of how we came into that sin, will not be a good thing, according to the bible.

I can see a person who every now and then commits a sin in this area, repents, asks for forgiveness and continues in a right relationship with God ...as being much different than a person who ....openly and often is involved in a continual sin, does not repent or seek forgiveness and blatantly denies that it is wrong - they will be viewed by God in completely different ways I can assure you.

I know we have had this conversation many times before....I know you don't believe the bible as it is written. And I have explained to you that you can't pick and choose what you take from the bible as God's word - you either take it all, or nothing. There can be no in between. And if you choose nothing, then as a christian - how in the world do you even understand anything about God and Jesus, because everything we know, outside of our own experience, is in the bible.

For instance you quoted Jesus in a previous post, and I take that to mean that you agree with that quote, yet Jesus also said that "all" sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a sin, Mat 15:19.

Brother it is always a top notch debate with you and I enjoy our discussions immensely. I respect the heck out of you. I pray that you come to some resolution on this issue as I can see how it frustrates you. Please don't think that you are the only one posting that has friends and loved ones who are openly gay.

I love being told that we don't know how something hapenned, but you know how it didn't. Nifty. Bottom line is that once again, you can't answer the question. People are people. If homosexuals weren't born that way, than they are no different from you and me. It's not environment. Twins prove that. So if you are right, than there is some way that you and I could choose to find a man sexually attractive. So tell me how it is done. If you can't, than your argument carries no wieght, because it makes no sense.

As for the bible, God gives us discernment. We are expected to understand right and wrong in the world. Sorry, but the Bible is of the world. You take a 100% view of it, I cannot. Eventually we will find out who is right. But when I see the Bible being used to mistreat people, I will fight it. That's what I feel God wants me to do.

Tetragrammaton
01-30-2009, 06:40 PM
To put it simply, to understand any religion you must become a devot member of that religion before you can appreciate or argue their teachings and beliefs.

Are you suggesting it is futile trying to argue aspects of a faith unless you are a part of it? I guess the Jews and the Muslims can never agree, and we should never expect them to. The Hindus and the Muslims can continue to war as well, because we cannot find middle ground.

The problem is not that the nonbeliever cannot accept the religious. It is that the religious are so steeped in their mostly incorrect certainty that they do not want to hear anything that might conflict what is in their favorite novel. The person who is most outside the belief is the one most likely to look at it rationally. This is why America has had some success in quelling the violence between the Hindus and Muslims in India.

We cannot allow any religious group to assume their certainty and leave it at that. We have to challenge their more fascist notions, and get them to modernize at the risk of conflict otherwise. Beliefs change over time, and the outside world has always helped in this regard. The Protestants forced the Catholic Church to reform, and the secular aspects of society have helped the Christian zealots in this country accept democratic means over time.

1227, I am on your side of the issue, but I found it odd that you used the term recidivism in regards to homosexuals. I found it a bit funny.

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2009, 07:20 PM
Are you suggesting it is futile trying to argue aspects of a faith unless you are a part of it? I guess the Jews and the Muslims can never agree, and we should never expect them to. The Hindus and the Muslims can continue to war as well, because we cannot find middle ground.

The problem is not that the nonbeliever cannot accept the religious. It is that the religious are so steeped in their mostly incorrect certainty that they do not want to hear anything that might conflict what is in their favorite novel. The person who is most outside the belief is the one most likely to look at it rationally. This is why America has had some success in quelling the violence between the Hindus and Muslims in India.

We cannot allow any religious group to assume their certainty and leave it at that. We have to challenge their more fascist notions, and get them to modernize at the risk of conflict otherwise. Beliefs change over time, and the outside world has always helped in this regard. The Protestants forced the Catholic Church to reform, and the secular aspects of society have helped the Christian zealots in this country accept democratic means over time.

1227, I am on your side of the issue, but I found it odd that you used the term recidivism in regards to homosexuals. I found it a bit funny.

Consider the audience. When talking to people who consider something evil/sinful/immoral, what other word could I use?

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2009, 07:23 PM
According to Christian believe there is a difference between the two. If you are homosexual and dont act on it then you have done noting wrong, because all human beings have faults and thats just another fault. However if you act out on those homosexual tendencies and urges with another man by having sexual relations then you have committed an intrinsic evil. Its really no different than sex before marrige. Sex before marrige, fornication and masterbation are always and forever evil in the eyes of God according to Christian believe.

Because as Dolphin Dan stated that homosexual acts are condemned by God and against God's will of as he created women to be man's partner, homosexuality is wrong. Also procreation should be the only purpose of sex. Because you can not re-create from homosexuality sex then it is wrongful. It is purly out of lust and desire why you have homosexual sex. I dont condone these believes, that is just the believe of most Christian groups.

Wrong.

Matthew 5:27-30
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

It's not the act, it's the attraction. Again, Jesus said that what is in your heart is more important than what you actually do.

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2009, 07:27 PM
To put it simply, to understand any religion you must become a devot member of that religion before you can appreciate or argue their teachings and beliefs.

:sidelol: I'm sorry, I'm going to need a moment to stop laughing. I LOVE that someone would say that the only way to understand a religion is to become a devout follower, while also professing to completely understand homosexuality.

Got something to tell us?

Dolphan7
01-30-2009, 07:27 PM
I love being told that we don't know how something happened, but you know how it didn't. Nifty. Bottom line is that once again, you can't answer the question. People are people. If homosexuals weren't born that way, than they are no different from you and me. It's not environment. Twins prove that. So if you are right, than there is some way that you and I could choose to find a man sexually attractive. So tell me how it is done. If you can't, than your argument carries no wieght, because it makes no sense. We don't know why people are gay, or straight, or why people lie, cheat, steal, practice beastiality or pedophilia, are dumb or smart. We know that people aren't born this way, and we know that people just don't snap and become any of these things overnight. It is a process of influence and environment and upbringing etc....I don't know how much more simpler it can be. We all start out the same, and from there we all develop into who and what we are. Twins prove that it isn't hereditary or in the genes or DNA, and therefore must be learned, so your own argument falls apart.


As for the bible, God gives us discernment. We are expected to understand right and wrong in the world. Sorry, but the Bible is of the world. You take a 100% view of it, I cannot. Eventually we will find out who is right. But when I see the Bible being used to mistreat people, I will fight it. That's what I feel God wants me to do. I agree that there are people who mistreat others, and for many different reasons. Please understand the difference between what people do, and what the Bible actualy says. I am in no way attempting to justify the mistreatment of people who are outside someone's moral compass, but human nature says that people who are viewed to be involved in immorality are not accepted nor treated the same as someone who falls into ones moral beliefs. How would you treat ex-cons, alcoholics, pedophiles, muslim extremists, far left liberals, wife beaters, gang bangers...etc? Other than the respectful hi and bye, would you socialize with them, have them work for your company, invite them into your home, let your kids play with or near them? Face it people who are viewed as different are treated differently. It isn't a matter of mistreatment, but of trust.

The bible tells us to speak the truth with love. Now some have misused that no doubt, but separate the person from the doctrine if you can. We are to love our brothers, yet we are also called to stand up for the truth, let the truth of the Gospel be known to mankind. Sometimes that truth is painful, and hurtful, sometimes we need to say "The King has no clothes". It is always better to try to save a drowning man than to sit idly by and do nothing.

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2009, 07:47 PM
We don't know why people are gay, or straight, or why people lie, cheat, steal, practice beastiality or pedophilia, are dumb or smart. We know that people aren't born this way, and we know that people just don't snap and become any of these things overnight. It is a process of influence and environment and upbringing etc....I don't know how much more simpler it can be. We all start out the same, and from there we all develop into who and what we are. Twins prove that it isn't hereditary or in the genes or DNA, and therefore must be learned, so your own argument falls apart.
I agree that there are people who mistreat others, and for many different reasons. Please understand the difference between what people do, and what the Bible actualy says. I am in no way attempting to justify the mistreatment of people who are outside someone's moral compass, but human nature says that people who are viewed to be involved in immorality are not accepted nor treated the same as someone who falls into ones moral beliefs. How would you treat ex-cons, alcoholics, pedophiles, muslim extremists, far left liberals, wife beaters, gang bangers...etc? Other than the respectful hi and bye, would you socialize with them, have them work for your company, invite them into your home, let your kids play with or near them? Face it people who are viewed as different are treated differently. It isn't a matter of mistreatment, but of trust.

The bible tells us to speak the truth with love. Now some have misused that no doubt, but separate the person from the doctrine if you can. We are to love our brothers, yet we are also called to stand up for the truth, let the truth of the Gospel be known to mankind. Sometimes that truth is painful, and hurtful, sometimes we need to say "The King has no clothes". It is always better to try to save a drowning man than to sit idly by and do nothing.

Did you take an anat/physiology class D7? Most birth defects are NOT genetic. They are developmental, not genetic. They occur because of an error during the devolopment of the brain. I thought I explained that to you. The fact that twins can be two seperate orientations proves that it isn't generally environmental. It also proves that it isn't generally genetic. What that leaves us is an error during development. Take a class in birth defects D7.

Now, you gave a string of examples of people who are immoral, and who society needs to find a way to "deal with". Can you tell me the common thread among those people? Take a moment. That's right, VICTIMS. Someone got HURT. Tell me who homosexuals vicitmize? Two consenting adults, no victim, so PLEASE don't bring criminals into this discussion again, it's beneath you.

As to the rest, if you don't want to associate with homosexuals, no problem. If you want to avoid a person because they are blind, or only have one leg, no problem. Your choice, and I would defend it to the death. But when the law gets influenced by that, I have a problem. When bigotry and fear cause families to disown their kids, I have a problem. Plain and simple, when religion is used to hurt people, I have a problem.

Tetragrammaton
01-30-2009, 07:56 PM
How would you treat ex-cons, alcoholics, pedophiles, muslim extremists, far left liberals, wife beaters, gang bangers...etc?

I am glad that you associate a portion of our political discourse with people that molest children and people that fly airplanes into buildings. Omitting the suggestion that far right conservatives are closer to Christianity despite being unapologetic capitalists.

Dolphan7
01-30-2009, 08:01 PM
Wrong.

Matthew 5:27-30
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

It's not the act, it's the attraction. Again, Jesus said that what is in your heart is more important than what you actually do.


Jesus is simply saying that we are sinners and even our thoughts have betrayed us to that sin. We need to filter what we put into our minds, so as not to polute our mind with the ways and deeds of the world, but instead take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

We are all going to have evil thoughts crossing our minds, every day, from the hoohas on that little philly at the mall, to hating and cursing that driver who just cut you off. It's a fact of life - it's going to happen. It is what we do afterwards that really matters.

God is very concerned about our heart, because out of the heart the mouth speaks. Out of our thoughts, the next step is the action, and that is what God doesn't want us to do. It is the old garbage in, garbage out. We can argue all day about if lustful thoughts for your neighbor is a sin, but once you actually commit that act you have entered into a point of no return - you have sealed the deal, it's a sin now.

It is interesting to me that in one post you disavow the bible, saying that it is man made, yet in this post you quote the bible as if you have this deep understanding and acceptance of it.

Dolphan7
01-30-2009, 08:04 PM
I am glad that you associate a portion of our political discourse with people that molest children and people that fly airplanes into buildings. Omitting the suggestion that far right conservatives are closer to Christianity despite being unapologetic capitalists.Well you are offended when no offense was meant. Look at the context of my post to 1227. I was simply trying to name a few groups that are completely different than him, out of his inner circle, so far left liberal fits in this context.

I don't equate liberalism with immorality and criminal behavior.

Dolphan7
01-30-2009, 08:24 PM
Did you take an anat/physiology class D7? Most birth defects are NOT genetic. They are developmental, not genetic. They occur because of an error during the devolopment of the brain. I thought I explained that to you. The fact that twins can be two seperate orientations proves that it isn't generally environmental. It also proves that it isn't generally genetic. What that leaves us is an error during development. Take a class in birth defects D7.Are you saying that homosexuality is a birth defect?


Now, you gave a string of examples of people who are immoral, and who society needs to find a way to "deal with". Can you tell me the common thread among those people? Take a moment. That's right, VICTIMS. Someone got HURT. Tell me who homosexuals vicitmize? Two consenting adults, no victim, so PLEASE don't bring criminals into this discussion again, it's beneath you. Well obviously you missed the point I was making. I understand the victim thing. What I was trying to tell you was that people are treated differently when they are indeed different. I gave you a few examples of types of people what you would more than likely treat differently. Go back and reread my post to understand what I was saying.





As to the rest, if you don't want to associate with homosexuals, no problem. If you want to avoid a person because they are blind, or only have one leg, no problem. Your choice, and I would defend it to the death. But when the law gets influenced by that, I have a problem. When bigotry and fear cause families to disown their kids, I have a problem. Plain and simple, when religion is used to hurt people, I have a problem.I agree. I don't like it when people are hurt either, especially if religion is used, and most often misused.

emeraldfin
01-30-2009, 10:29 PM
:sidelol: I'm sorry, I'm going to need a moment to stop laughing. I LOVE that someone would say that the only way to understand a religion is to become a devout follower, while also professing to completely understand homosexuality.

Got something to tell us?

I'm sorry where did I say I fully understood homosexuality?

If thats the sort of comments you are going to revert to then I'm not even going to bother dude. Actually find it amusing that throughout the thread you defend homosexuality and then you then try to insult me about being homosexual :sidelol:. .

PhinPhan1227
01-30-2009, 10:37 PM
Are you saying that homosexuality is a birth defect?

Well obviously you missed the point I was making. I understand the victim thing. What I was trying to tell you was that people are treated differently when they are indeed different. I gave you a few examples of types of people what you would more than likely treat differently. Go back and reread my post to understand what I was saying.



I agree. I don't like it when people are hurt either, especially if religion is used, and most often misused.

From a biology standpoint, anything that lowers your chances of reproduction is a birth defect. There have been some studies that say that nature allows it because it helps limit population during times of overpopulation.

The irony of all this is that if there IS a genetic component to homosexuality, attitudes like yours help keep it alive and well. You want people who are homosexual to pretend they are not, get married, and have kids(which plenty of them do thanks to societal pressure). Thus carrying on any genetic predisposition. I find it a horrible thing to do, because it so often ends with a family torn apart because Mom or Dad figure out when they are in their 40's that they can't take living the lie anymore and the spouse and kids have to deal with the aftermath.

Ironically, if homosexuals were more accepted, such events would be less likely, and they would actually reproduce less often.

Oh, and for the record, I do have friends who are hard Left wingers. I also have friends who are hard right wingers. Moderates like me are actually boring in groups. No conflict at all. ;)

emeraldfin
01-30-2009, 10:47 PM
Are you suggesting it is futile trying to argue aspects of a faith unless you are a part of it? I guess the Jews and the Muslims can never agree, and we should never expect them to. The Hindus and the Muslims can continue to war as well, because we cannot find middle ground.

The problem is not that the nonbeliever cannot accept the religious. It is that the religious are so steeped in their mostly incorrect certainty that they do not want to hear anything that might conflict what is in their favorite novel. The person who is most outside the belief is the one most likely to look at it rationally. This is why America has had some success in quelling the violence between the Hindus and Muslims in India.

We cannot allow any religious group to assume their certainty and leave it at that. We have to challenge their more fascist notions, and get them to modernize at the risk of conflict otherwise. Beliefs change over time, and the outside world has always helped in this regard. The Protestants forced the Catholic Church to reform, and the secular aspects of society have helped the Christian zealots in this country accept democratic means over time.

1227, I am on your side of the issue, but I found it odd that you used the term recidivism in regards to homosexuals. I found it a bit funny.

Think you mis-interpret what I was saying. Im not a devout Christian, nor am I Christian at all. What I am saying is that you must understand the key aspects of any religion on any given subject before you can really comment on them.

Put it like this. If I was legal moralist and started attacking the legal positivist position I would need very good and deep understanding of legal positivism to strenghten my argument against it. Basically I would have to look at why do people follow that belief and how has it developed through the years.

I did'nt mean that you must be a devout follower of a particular religion before you can understand what they are talking about. What I meant is that you must study the religion and understand like you are a follower of that religion.

I apologise if I did'nt make that clear in my post.

Dolphan7
01-31-2009, 01:09 AM
From a biology standpoint, anything that lowers your chances of reproduction is a birth defect. There have been some studies that say that nature allows it because it helps limit population during times of overpopulation.

The irony of all this is that if there IS a genetic component to homosexuality, attitudes like yours help keep it alive and well. You want people who are homosexual to pretend they are not, get married, and have kids(which plenty of them do thanks to societal pressure). Thus carrying on any genetic predisposition. I find it a horrible thing to do, because it so often ends with a family torn apart because Mom or Dad figure out when they are in their 40's that they can't take living the lie anymore and the spouse and kids have to deal with the aftermath.

Ironically, if homosexuals were more accepted, such events would be less likely, and they would actually reproduce less often.

Oh, and for the record, I do have friends who are hard Left wingers. I also have friends who are hard right wingers. Moderates like me are actually boring in groups. No conflict at all. ;)
I never thought I would see the day when the Christians get blamed for perpetuating the plight of the homosexual. That is funny stuff right there. :lol:

I stand for God first and foremost. I can't not stand for God and still be a Christian. You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything, the old saying goes. It doesn't matter what you or I think about homosexuality. The bible says it is wrong. The bible is God's word. I can't change God's word. I can't change their predicament. Everyone is a sinner. We all have stuff. We all have things that we want to do that our conscience tells us is wrong. We all have to fight that urge to act on those urges. The homosexual doesn't get a pass because he supposedly is born with a birth defect. If that were the case, what about the pedophile, the murderer, the animal lover, the thief, the addict, the adulterer, the man whores and the sluts? They should get a pass too huh? I mean if the homosexual claims that he is the result of a birth defect, and not of his environment, who is to say all these other things aren't defects as well. Aren't we starting down the slipper slope, I mean everything under the sun could be because of something out of ones control, and therefore no one is responsible for their actions anymore.

There is a huge agenda going on in this country specifically, and in the world in general, that tells people that sin really isn't sin at all. And that good morals and values and Christianity is a bad thing. Bad = good, and the good = bad. It's backwards. I never thought I would see a time when good Christian people were considered the bad guys. But that is the lie being told. And the father of lies is Satan. When people cave into the homosexual agenda and get duped into thinking it is a civil rights issue, or they are born with their "defect", Satan high fives his first lieutenant. Satan loves this stuff. He loves to see people cave into sin. He doesn't care what the sin is, or even about the sinner - the only thing he cares about is that the person has no relationship with God. When that happens, he wins, and he loves it. Homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you want to sugar coat it, make excuses for it, create these "woa is me" scenarios, attempt to remove the responsibility from it...it is a sin and it will always be a sin to God and those who believe in God. The God of the bible, not the God floating around in peoples heads that resembles more of their own relative morals than an all powerful, all knowing, all infinite God.

I have never advocated that the homosexual pretend they don't have these feelings, or pressure them to get married, or have kids. I really don't think society does either. Not these days. If the person isn't a Christian, live however the heck they want, they aren't bound by any Christian morals. However if they choose to accept Christ into their life, then that sin they are dealing with will be forgiven them, and then it is a lifetime of trying to deal with that sin and trying to overcome it, avoid it, rather than be a slave to it.

Blackocrates
01-31-2009, 02:53 AM
From a biology standpoint, anything that lowers your chances of reproduction is a birth defect. There have been some studies that say that nature allows it because it helps limit population during times of overpopulation.

The irony of all this is that if there IS a genetic component to homosexuality, attitudes like yours help keep it alive and well. You want people who are homosexual to pretend they are not, get married, and have kids(which plenty of them do thanks to societal pressure). Thus carrying on any genetic predisposition. I find it a horrible thing to do, because it so often ends with a family torn apart because Mom or Dad figure out when they are in their 40's that they can't take living the lie anymore and the spouse and kids have to deal with the aftermath.

Ironically, if homosexuals were more accepted, such events would be less likely, and they would actually reproduce less often.

Oh, and for the record, I do have friends who are hard Left wingers. I also have friends who are hard right wingers. Moderates like me are actually boring in groups. No conflict at all. ;)

I figured since I mostly disagree with the majority of your posts that I should take the time to give you a big ol' thumbs up. :up: I think you're analysis in this thread is spot on, especially the parts about homosexuals being equated with evil, etc. It sickens me when far right christians demean homosexuals to the point where they think of them as something less than human.

I like the question you pose. At what point did we decide or how did we decide to be heterosexual? I never thought of it that way. It's interesting that nobody can answer it. Even without an answer it won't take any wind out of anybody's sail. People that have their mind made up don't allow things like facts to get in the way.

On a side note with regards to this post. If there is a homosexual gene it would still be transferred without male homosexuals reproducing. Since the homosexual gene is recessive, the allele would be carried by a heterosexual female and possibly passed on to her children. A dormant recessive allele can be transferred through many generations before it pops back up again.

emeraldfin
01-31-2009, 07:44 AM
I never thought I would see the day when the Christians get blamed for perpetuating the plight of the homosexual. That is funny stuff right there. :lol:

I stand for God first and foremost. I can't not stand for God and still be a Christian. You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything, the old saying goes. It doesn't matter what you or I think about homosexuality. The bible says it is wrong. The bible is God's word. I can't change God's word. I can't change their predicament. Everyone is a sinner. We all have stuff. We all have things that we want to do that our conscience tells us is wrong. We all have to fight that urge to act on those urges. The homosexual doesn't get a pass because he supposedly is born with a birth defect. If that were the case, what about the pedophile, the murderer, the animal lover, the thief, the addict, the adulterer, the man whores and the sluts? They should get a pass too huh? I mean if the homosexual claims that he is the result of a birth defect, and not of his environment, who is to say all these other things aren't defects as well. Aren't we starting down the slipper slope, I mean everything under the sun could be because of something out of ones control, and therefore no one is responsible for their actions anymore.

There is a huge agenda going on in this country specifically, and in the world in general, that tells people that sin really isn't sin at all. And that good morals and values and Christianity is a bad thing. Bad = good, and the good = bad. It's backwards. I never thought I would see a time when good Christian people were considered the bad guys. But that is the lie being told. And the father of lies is Satan. When people cave into the homosexual agenda and get duped into thinking it is a civil rights issue, or they are born with their "defect", Satan high fives his first lieutenant. Satan loves this stuff. He loves to see people cave into sin. He doesn't care what the sin is, or even about the sinner - the only thing he cares about is that the person has no relationship with God. When that happens, he wins, and he loves it. Homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you want to sugar coat it, make excuses for it, create these "woa is me" scenarios, attempt to remove the responsibility from it...it is a sin and it will always be a sin to God and those who believe in God. The God of the bible, not the God floating around in peoples heads that resembles more of their own relative morals than an all powerful, all knowing, all infinite God.

I have never advocated that the homosexual pretend they don't have these feelings, or pressure them to get married, or have kids. I really don't think society does either. Not these days. If the person isn't a Christian, live however the heck they want, they aren't bound by any Christian morals. However if they choose to accept Christ into their life, then that sin they are dealing with will be forgiven them, and then it is a lifetime of trying to deal with that sin and trying to overcome it, avoid it, rather than be a slave to it.

What I will say lastly on this issue (because in the end they always end up going no-where) is that you cannot tackle homosexuality on its own. You have to go after the entire Christian teaching on sexuality. In Catholicism (I'm sure its not too different for Anglican/Protestants or Presbetarians either if you want to correct me on that D7) the issue is sex before marrige. All sex before the union between a man and a women is intrinsicly evil. Masterbation, fornication, adultry and homosexuality are all in the same boat. Any type of sexual stimulation before marrige is wrong and according to the Church, hetero-sexual sex before marrige is just as much of a sin as homosexual sex. This is the offical stance of the Roman Catholic church, not mine.

Now 1227 made the point that if your homosexual what do you do. Thats a good question. According to Church teaching of you stay celibate you will be grand. But how much more difficult would live be then? No sexual stimulation of any kind????? There is a group that tries the celibate way of life, which would be Roman Catholic priests. Now thats a whole new argument that I dont wish to get into, but if you any interest in currant affairs, you would have noticed that some of these priests dont react well to a life a celibacy.

So what to do? How can Christianity change its laws, even if they know that these laws are un-fair against homosexuals? Noting. If you accept homosexual marrige then you are going against what the Bible teaches and more than likely facing massive condemnation from your own members. So where does that then leave the Churrch? I have said this many a time that Christianity is falling apart because it has failed to adapt to an ever changeing world. I mean Christianity is still standing by a notion of sexuality that is now over 2000 years old. Ignoring all technological advances and cultural changes in the last 60 years. Its no surprise less and less people are turning up for Church during the week. They simply cannot adapt to today's world.


Its quite easy to attack Christian understanding of homosexuality. However its not easy to come up with a solution to it that would suit existing members of that religion and take into consideration the appeals of Christian homosexuals.

Dolphan7
01-31-2009, 05:06 PM
What I will say lastly on this issue (because in the end they always end up going no-where) is that you cannot tackle homosexuality on its own. You have to go after the entire Christian teaching on sexuality. In Catholicism (I'm sure its not too different for Anglican/Protestants or Presbetarians either if you want to correct me on that D7) the issue is sex before marrige. All sex before the union between a man and a women is intrinsicly evil. Masterbation, fornication, adultry and homosexuality are all in the same boat. Any type of sexual stimulation before marrige is wrong and according to the Church, hetero-sexual sex before marrige is just as much of a sin as homosexual sex. This is the offical stance of the Roman Catholic church, not mine.Any sex outside of marriage is considered a sin and is a very biblical concept. The Catholic Church added their own rules to the doctrine by mandating that priests not marry and that masterbation is a sin, and it is obvious what that caused. The bible doesn't really address masterbation, so the thought of it being a sin is debatable. I say that if it prevents one from committing a sexual sin, then ok. But it also brings into consideration other factors as well like lust.


Now 1227 made the point that if your homosexual what do you do. Thats a good question. According to Church teaching of you stay celibate you will be grand. But how much more difficult would live be then? No sexual stimulation of any kind????? There is a group that tries the celibate way of life, which would be Roman Catholic priests. Now thats a whole new argument that I dont wish to get into, but if you any interest in currant affairs, you would have noticed that some of these priests dont react well to a life a celibacy.If a homosexual is not a Christian, then it really is a moot point - they can do whatever they choose to do. It is only when a person chooses to believe in God and accept Jesus Christ that their sin becomes an issue. Once baptized all sins are immediately forgiven, and forgiveness of ongoing sins is given if repentance is present. The argument that a homosexual doesn't have any alternatives and therefore gets a free pass is preposterous. What about all the other temptations we are faced with? If a homosexual Christian really takes their faith seriously, they will find a way to deal with their desires, through prayer and seeking wise counsel, just like every other Christian who faces the sins in their lives - and God knowing their heart will answer those prayers. I have seen it happen - over and over and over again. Never underestimate the power of prayer - or God.


So what to do? How can Christianity change its laws, even if they know that these laws are un-fair against homosexuals? Noting. If you accept homosexual marrige then you are going against what the Bible teaches and more than likely facing massive condemnation from your own members. So where does that then leave the Churrch? I have said this many a time that Christianity is falling apart because it has failed to adapt to an ever changeing world. I mean Christianity is still standing by a notion of sexuality that is now over 2000 years old. Ignoring all technological advances and cultural changes in the last 60 years. Its no surprise less and less people are turning up for Church during the week. They simply cannot adapt to today's world.Christianity speaks about sexual issues that goes all the way back to Genesis, including the sin of homosexuality. It is very applicable to today's issues just as well as it was back then. It hasn't changed, and it doesn't need to change, nor is it required to change, nor can it change. The issue is the world is slowly becoming a world of relative morality where bad = good and good = bad - and the world will eventually throw out the church. It is a collision that has long been foreseen, and is unfolding before our very eyes. We just elected a POTUS who has promised as part of his agenda to expand employment discrimination to homosexuals, and also expand hate crime laws to include homosexuals. This will have a dramatic effect on the church, wait and see. It is my opinion that the homosexual agenda will only be satisfied when all Christians are silenced.



Its quite easy to attack Christian understanding of homosexuality. However its not easy to come up with a solution to it that would suit existing members of that religion and take into consideration the appeals of Christian homosexuals.There is nothing biblical about coming up with solutions for people to continue in their sinful ways. Period. The homosexual agenda has been very successful in getting huge biblical compromises in many mainstream denominations, but it won't ever include the whole church body. There will always be those who follow the bible, although they will continue to be marginalized and persecuted for doing so.

PhinPhan1227
01-31-2009, 09:50 PM
I never thought I would see the day when the Christians get blamed for perpetuating the plight of the homosexual. That is funny stuff right there. :lol:

I stand for God first and foremost. I can't not stand for God and still be a Christian. You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything, the old saying goes. It doesn't matter what you or I think about homosexuality. The bible says it is wrong. The bible is God's word. I can't change God's word. I can't change their predicament. Everyone is a sinner. We all have stuff. We all have things that we want to do that our conscience tells us is wrong. We all have to fight that urge to act on those urges. The homosexual doesn't get a pass because he supposedly is born with a birth defect. If that were the case, what about the pedophile, the murderer, the animal lover, the thief, the addict, the adulterer, the man whores and the sluts? They should get a pass too huh? I mean if the homosexual claims that he is the result of a birth defect, and not of his environment, who is to say all these other things aren't defects as well. Aren't we starting down the slipper slope, I mean everything under the sun could be because of something out of ones control, and therefore no one is responsible for their actions anymore.

There is a huge agenda going on in this country specifically, and in the world in general, that tells people that sin really isn't sin at all. And that good morals and values and Christianity is a bad thing. Bad = good, and the good = bad. It's backwards. I never thought I would see a time when good Christian people were considered the bad guys. But that is the lie being told. And the father of lies is Satan. When people cave into the homosexual agenda and get duped into thinking it is a civil rights issue, or they are born with their "defect", Satan high fives his first lieutenant. Satan loves this stuff. He loves to see people cave into sin. He doesn't care what the sin is, or even about the sinner - the only thing he cares about is that the person has no relationship with God. When that happens, he wins, and he loves it. Homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you want to sugar coat it, make excuses for it, create these "woa is me" scenarios, attempt to remove the responsibility from it...it is a sin and it will always be a sin to God and those who believe in God. The God of the bible, not the God floating around in peoples heads that resembles more of their own relative morals than an all powerful, all knowing, all infinite God.

I have never advocated that the homosexual pretend they don't have these feelings, or pressure them to get married, or have kids. I really don't think society does either. Not these days. If the person isn't a Christian, live however the heck they want, they aren't bound by any Christian morals. However if they choose to accept Christ into their life, then that sin they are dealing with will be forgiven them, and then it is a lifetime of trying to deal with that sin and trying to overcome it, avoid it, rather than be a slave to it.


Bottom line D7, I know I'll never convince you. You have the "because it says so" line too deeply ingrained. But at least I know that when some fifteen year old kid kills himself because his family and friends look at him like some freak who is going to hell, and completely turn away from him, it's not on my conscience. It's on the conscience of everyone who tells him he is evil because of the "choice" he made. A choice which he somehow was unable to "unmake", no matter how hard he tried. I also don't have the ruined lives of a mother and three kids who wake up one day to the declaration that "dad" can't keep living the lie that society made him feel forced into for the last twenty years on my conscience. Guess who does?

It seems simple to me D7. I can't find a victim when two homosexual adults get together. The only time there is a victim there is when the society your beliefs have engendered makes one.

PhinPhan1227
01-31-2009, 09:54 PM
Think you mis-interpret what I was saying. Im not a devout Christian, nor am I Christian at all. What I am saying is that you must understand the key aspects of any religion on any given subject before you can really comment on them.

Put it like this. If I was legal moralist and started attacking the legal positivist position I would need very good and deep understanding of legal positivism to strenghten my argument against it. Basically I would have to look at why do people follow that belief and how has it developed through the years.

I did'nt mean that you must be a devout follower of a particular religion before you can understand what they are talking about. What I meant is that you must study the religion and understand like you are a follower of that religion.

I apologise if I did'nt make that clear in my post.


No sweat. My apologies for misinterpreting your earlier post. I "mixed my metaphors" so to speak. Again, you have my abject apologies.

Dolphan7
02-01-2009, 12:16 AM
Bottom line D7, I know I'll never convince you. You have the "because it says so" line too deeply ingrained. But at least I know that when some fifteen year old kid kills himself because his family and friends look at him like some freak who is going to hell, and completely turn away from him, it's not on my conscience. It's on the conscience of everyone who tells him he is evil because of the "choice" he made. A choice which he somehow was unable to "unmake", no matter how hard he tried. I also don't have the ruined lives of a mother and three kids who wake up one day to the declaration that "dad" can't keep living the lie that society made him feel forced into for the last twenty years on my conscience. Guess who does?

It seems simple to me D7. I can't find a victim when two homosexual adults get together. The only time there is a victim there is when the society your beliefs have engendered makes one.It's a sad world we live in Brother. You'll have to take this up with God.

Always a top notch debate with you though.:up:

PhinPhan1227
02-01-2009, 06:08 AM
It's a sad world we live in Brother. You'll have to take this up with God.

Always a top notch debate with you though.:up:


I'm sure that eventually God and I will be able to review everything that my warped little mind has produced. But as I said, none of the harm I mentioned will be on my ledger. Of that I am sure.

emeraldfin
02-01-2009, 08:02 AM
No sweat. My apologies for misinterpreting your earlier post. I "mixed my metaphors" so to speak. Again, you have my abject apologies.

Its cool dude.

Fair play to you for being able to say you mis-interpreted it.

Dolphan7
02-01-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm sure that eventually God and I will be able to review everything that my warped little mind has produced. But as I said, none of the harm I mentioned will be on my ledger. Of that I am sure.
Nor me. I sleep very well at night.

I have a list of questions for God too.

PhinPhan1227
02-02-2009, 08:42 AM
Nor me. I sleep very well at night.

I have a list of questions for God too.

Well, I'm assuming that discernment will be one of the rewards in heaven...so I'm assuming my first words will be "Oh, THAT'S why!"

Marino613
02-03-2009, 12:30 AM
Christianity speaks about sexual issues that goes all the way back to Genesis, including the sin of homosexuality.

Just to clarify, do you mean that Genesis weighs in on homosexuality? If so, where?

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 08:35 AM
Just to clarify, do you mean that Genesis weighs in on homosexuality? If so, where?

I would give anything to see D7 shouting "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" at his PC.

Marino613
02-03-2009, 09:00 AM
I would give anything to see D7 shouting "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" at his PC.

:lol:

Good answer though. It does weigh in there in one sense about what is expected.

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 11:54 AM
Just to clarify, do you mean that Genesis weighs in on homosexuality? If so, where?
Um......Read Genesis 19. Sodom and Gomorrah?

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 01:35 PM
Um......Read Genesis 19. Sodom and Gomorrah?


Here's what bothers me...if all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were gay...that should have been a couple of very short lived cities. Not to mention, there should have been quite a few virtuous women standing around since none of the men were interested in them.

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 01:56 PM
Here's what bothers me...if all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were gay...that should have been a couple of very short lived cities. Not to mention, there should have been quite a few virtuous women standing around since none of the men were interested in them.As it turns out....they were short lived. :lol:

But seriously, why would you think that there would be no procreating going on?

I have often heard this term - Men are for pleasure, women are for breeding.

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 01:57 PM
As it turns out....they were short lived. :lol:

But seriously, why would you think that there would be no procreating going on?

I have often heard this term - Men are for pleasure, women are for breeding.

I'm not sure where you have been hanging out, but the gay friends I know have never said that to me.:lol2:

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 02:14 PM
I'm not sure where you have been hanging out, but the gay friends I know have never said that to me.:lol2:I first heard it from a guy who used it to describe the Arab culture. Obviously he thought they were all gay, in retrospect, he may have been gay too.

But it really could be indicative of the type of culture practiced in ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no indication that they "never" had sex with women. In fact Gen 19:4 indicates both "young and old", which would mean that there is some procreatin' goin' on somewhere!:d-day:

Marino613
02-03-2009, 02:16 PM
Um......Read Genesis 19. Sodom and Gomorrah?

Honestly, I find the general interpretation found in the Christian world that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality to be tertiary. True they wanted to "know" the guests of Lot, but the issue in my mind is much more in line with the Jewish traditional interpretation that it was bigger issue that they were mistreating their guests. Consider the context of the story: Lot welcoming them so anxiously, obviously being compared to Abraham doing the same thing a chapter earlier. I guess you could find some foundation for a biblical problem with homosexuality in that story, but I think the simple interpretation is that they did not honor guests do such a degree they were willing to rape them.

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 02:49 PM
Honestly, I find the general interpretation found in the Christian world that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality to be tertiary. True they wanted to "know" the guests of Lot, but the issue in my mind is much more in line with the Jewish traditional interpretation that it was bigger issue that they were mistreating their guests. Consider the context of the story: Lot welcoming them so anxiously, obviously being compared to Abraham doing the same thing a chapter earlier. I guess you could find some foundation for a biblical problem with homosexuality in that story, but I think the simple interpretation is that they did not honor guests do such a degree they were willing to rape them.Oh Really?

And the obvious punishment for unhospitality is.....


Complete and total destruction of your city including all life....men, women and children...animals.


Right!

Makes so much more sense now.:rolleyes2:

Thanks for that.

I would be very cautious about accepting such misguided and agenda driven interpretation of Gen 19.

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 03:39 PM
Oh Really?

And the obvious punishment for unhospitality is.....


Complete and total destruction of your city including all life....men, women and children...animals.


Right!

Makes so much more sense now.:rolleyes2:

Thanks for that.

I would be very cautious about accepting such misguided and agenda driven interpretation of Gen 19.

Actually, in the ancient world inhospitality to strangers was a huge sin in almost every culture. Read the literature from the ancient Celts, Norse, Germans, Indus, Babylonians and Chinese. All had STRONG taboos against mistreating visitors. Almost all had strong laws that equated rudeness to visitors with sins against their gods. Heck, a major portion of the myths of those cultures revolve around gods who came to the door disguised as strangers, witches/sorcerers who came to the door and were treated rudely, or "heroes" who came to the door and were given favors because of their status as visitors. To ancient Hebrews, having a city wiped out because nobody would give a travelor their due respect would have made perfect sense. Remember, in the time being discussed, there were few or no inns. The only way travelors could get around was by being given shelter. Those taboos against mistreating travelors helped keep economies going.

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 03:49 PM
Actually, in the ancient world inhospitality to strangers was a huge sin in almost every culture. Read the literature from the ancient Celts, Norse, Germans, Indus, Babylonians and Chinese. All had STRONG taboos against mistreating visitors. Almost all had strong laws that equated rudeness to visitors with sins against their gods. Heck, a major portion of the myths of those cultures revolve around gods who came to the door disguised as strangers, witches/sorcerers who came to the door and were treated rudely, or "heroes" who came to the door and were given favors because of their status as visitors. To ancient Hebrews, having a city wiped out because nobody would give a travelor their due respect would have made perfect sense. Remember, in the time being discussed, there were few or no inns. The only way travelors could get around was by being given shelter. Those taboos against mistreating travelors helped keep economies going.Uhuh...uhuh....uhuh.....


And total annihilation of a whole city is just rewards for such sinful behavior?

That makes sense to you?

I am not denying that hospitality was an important cultural phenomenon, but let's be real here.

PhinPhan1227
02-03-2009, 04:00 PM
Uhuh...uhuh....uhuh.....


And total annihilation of a whole city is just rewards for such sinful behavior?

That makes sense to you?

I am not denying that hospitality was an important cultural phenomenon, but let's be real here.

I am being perfectly real here. You have to remember that the Old Testament was written for people thousands of years ago. So you have to understand those cultures in order to understand the stories. Those cultures have a TON of stories which relate the fall of kings for the simple sin of denying courtesy to a passing stranger. And when I say fall, I mean full bore tragedy, everyone brought to complete ruin. So yes, in a tale where a whole CITY wasn't just impolite, they were hostile and injurious, I can certainly see people in that time understanding wiping them all out. You are applying a modern view to an ancient story, and that is a mistake. Read those stories D7, and try to understand that this was their culture. It tells you EXACTLY what was important to them.

Marino613
02-03-2009, 04:44 PM
Oh Really?

And the obvious punishment for unhospitality is.....


Complete and total destruction of your city including all life....men, women and children...animals.


Right!

Makes so much more sense now.:rolleyes2:

Thanks for that.

I would be very cautious about accepting such misguided and agenda driven interpretation of Gen 19.

What agenda are you assuming exists in a rather anti-gay Rabbinic Midrash that is at least 1500 years old?

Believe me, my general defense of GLBT folks has nothing to do with the bible which I don't believe is authoritative on such matters because I don't believe it is "THE WORD of God". I was just interested in seeing how you interpret the bible in general. In this case I believe your interpretation isn't the actual plain meaning of the text.

The simple read of the text is that Lot was hospitable and that Sodom was so inhospitable they were going to RAPE their guests. The parallel comparing Abraham and Lot's hospitality (chapters are next to each other and they behave almost exactly the same) to what the sodomites wanted to do his guests (and how quickly they turned on him as "an outsider") makes it quite clear that this was central to the problem. This is not about insulting your guests though, it is about RAPING them, i.e., violating them and using them for your pleasure completely as opposed to being there for them. I don't doubt that to the ancient reader of the bible the fact that there was a homosexual aspect to the story was resonant, but it is clearly secondary to the violating your guests.

Biblically, this gets repeated somewhat with Egypt who found eating with Hebrews to be an abomination. The same (although to a lesser degree - until they enslave them) mistreatment of outsiders. Indeed, how often does the bible warn about mistreating the outsider?

(FYI - Please excuse my translations; they are the result of being most familiar with the original hebrew; not to toot my own horn)

And to me when an entire town doesn't treat a guest with hospitality but instead violates them, that sounds like a good enough biblical justification for divine punishment.

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 06:10 PM
I am being perfectly real here. You have to remember that the Old Testament was written for people thousands of years ago. So you have to understand those cultures in order to understand the stories. Those cultures have a TON of stories which relate the fall of kings for the simple sin of denying courtesy to a passing stranger. And when I say fall, I mean full bore tragedy, everyone brought to complete ruin. So yes, in a tale where a whole CITY wasn't just impolite, they were hostile and injurious, I can certainly see people in that time understanding wiping them all out. You are applying a modern view to an ancient story, and that is a mistake. Read those stories D7, and try to understand that this was their culture. It tells you EXACTLY what was important to them.
Please provide some examples of the bolded scenario. I will be happy to read up on them.

Nonetheless...in context of this discussion, one would have to provide convincing evidence that the sin of Sodom was in fact hospitality and not homosexuality. As it is written it is clear that they were involved in the sin of homosexuality.

Do you not agree with that?

Or are you in one of your "open to discussion" moods?

Dolphan7
02-03-2009, 06:55 PM
What agenda are you assuming exists in a rather anti-gay Rabbinic Midrash that is at least 1500 years old?

Believe me, my general defense of GLBT folks has nothing to do with the bible which I don't believe is authoritative on such matters because I don't believe it is "THE WORD of God". I was just interested in seeing how you interpret the bible in general. In this case I believe your interpretation isn't the actual plain meaning of the text.

The simple read of the text is that Lot was hospitable and that Sodom was so inhospitable they were going to RAPE their guests. The parallel comparing Abraham and Lot's hospitality (chapters are next to each other and they behave almost exactly the same) to what the sodomites wanted to do his guests (and how quickly they turned on him as "an outsider") makes it quite clear that this was central to the problem. This is not about insulting your guests though, it is about RAPING them, i.e., violating them and using them for your pleasure completely as opposed to being there for them. I don't doubt that to the ancient reader of the bible the fact that there was a homosexual aspect to the story was resonant, but it is clearly secondary to the violating your guests.

Biblically, this gets repeated somewhat with Egypt who found eating with Hebrews to be an abomination. The same (although to a lesser degree - until they enslave them) mistreatment of outsiders. Indeed, how often does the bible warn about mistreating the outsider?

(FYI - Please excuse my translations; they are the result of being most familiar with the original hebrew; not to toot my own horn)

And to me when an entire town doesn't treat a guest with hospitality but instead violates them, that sounds like a good enough biblical justification for divine punishment.The Agenda - Those who seek to take every biblical account mentioning the sin of homosexuality, try to explain it away as something else, in order to continue in that sin today, and still consider it biblical. That agenda.

I don't think there is any doubt that the people of Sodom were inhospitable. But to say that is the reason for the divine destruction denies the context of the story, and other biblical references to this same event. In all cases it is the sin of homosexuality that is the reason for God's wrath. The writers knew and understood this from the get go.



JUDE 1:5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
JUDE 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
JUDE 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
It is interesting to note that the two times God stepped in and totally destroyed something, it was because of sexual sin. Thefirst was the Flood. the second was Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 6 is referring to Gen 6 - basically the Sons of God (angels or heavenly beings) were having sex with human women, even taking them as wives, which was against God's rules. This was the cause of the Flood of Noah. Verse 7 obviously refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and states it is a sexual sin (homosexuality) as the reason for the destruction. Jude obviously understood the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to be sexual sin, not poor hospitality. Peter also refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and the sexual sin of homosexuality II Pet 2:4-10.

Also worth noting we see a similar story at the end of the Book of Judges, wherein sexual sin (and again in this case homosexuality) being the cause of a violent conflict and thus the end of the Judges.

It always ends in an end of an era or a society. And the common denominator is always sexual sin. So much for the hospitality school of thought. If these were sins of hospitality as was such a big deal in this ancient culture, I would expect there to be clear reference to the sin of inhospitality, I would expect there to be no reference to any sexual sin, yet all the references point to it being a sexual sin, the sin of homosexuality to be exact.

I understand you don't believe the bible, so you can believe what you want.

To me it is pretty clear cut.

Marino613
02-03-2009, 10:36 PM
The Agenda - Those who seek to take every biblical account mentioning the sin of homosexuality, try to explain it away as something else, in order to continue in that sin today, and still consider it biblical. That agenda.

I don't think there is any doubt that the people of Sodom were inhospitable. But to say that is the reason for the divine destruction denies the context of the story, and other biblical references to this same event. In all cases it is the sin of homosexuality that is the reason for God's wrath. The writers knew and understood this from the get go.


It is interesting to note that the two times God stepped in and totally destroyed something, it was because of sexual sin. Thefirst was the Flood. the second was Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 6 is referring to Gen 6 - basically the Sons of God (angels or heavenly beings) were having sex with human women, even taking them as wives, which was against God's rules. This was the cause of the Flood of Noah. Verse 7 obviously refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and states it is a sexual sin (homosexuality) as the reason for the destruction. Jude obviously understood the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to be sexual sin, not poor hospitality. Peter also refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and the sexual sin of homosexuality II Pet 2:4-10.

Also worth noting we see a similar story at the end of the Book of Judges, wherein sexual sin (and again in this case homosexuality) being the cause of a violent conflict and thus the end of the Judges.

It always ends in an end of an era or a society. And the common denominator is always sexual sin. So much for the hospitality school of thought. If these were sins of hospitality as was such a big deal in this ancient culture, I would expect there to be clear reference to the sin of inhospitality, I would expect there to be no reference to any sexual sin, yet all the references point to it being a sexual sin, the sin of homosexuality to be exact.

I understand you don't believe the bible, so you can believe what you want.

To me it is pretty clear cut.

In writing this I realized I may have stepped into someone else's poop. I have no agenda of the kind you envision because I am not Christian and never have been. The debate that I just found out about tonight while googling more about thie verses in Jude talk about this very issue of interpretation as a point of contention between liberal and conservative Christians and it has nothing to do with me. My experience with the Hebrew Bible is primarily based in influences from a time in my life when I seriously studied Jewish texts and my interpretation goes back perhaps to 2nd century rabbis and maybe even earlier.

Anyway, I think pointing out agendas in arguing is rather backhanded and unfair, and in this case wrong. It doesn't serve a purpose other than to make the accuser look somehow more pure in his argumentation. We all have agendas. You have one as do I, but you got my agenda wrong in this case. As I said from the outset, I don't believe this text supports homosexuality in anyway and the fact that the intended rape was male only likely resonated with ancient readers, but I don't think a plain reading of the text, nor the context of more contemporary works supports this as THE sin of Sodom.

[Edit: I do have a different agenda which has much more to do with wanting to understand Conservative Christian Biblical interpretation based on some experiences I have had with Christian Missionaries and some comments you made in other posts. This provided me with an excuse.]

Marino613
02-03-2009, 11:36 PM
As to the content of your argument, my answer is long because there are so many ways in which I disagree with your undestanding of the texts in question, so maybe print it up and take it as bathroom reading or just ignore it:

1) Biblical context - Jude? Peter? Those books were written in a totally different historical context. In accepted religious traditions they are at least 1300 years later than the Lot story. More Academic historians would still put the difference as at least 600-700 years. You have to accept that the texts all came from the same source to have even a sense of context from these texts. That certainly explains why rabbis possibly from the 2nd century inheriting a tradition of interpretation of the text would focus on hospitality. They didn't have this later inspired reading on the part of Christian texts to influence them, so they read it as they saw it amongst there own creative and inspired or possibly received readings. I have a hunch we will have to disagree on this because of our different religious views. Nevertheless, a further overview of context still makes your reference to Jude and Peter suspect:

How do you deal with Jeremiah 23:14 or the first Chapter of Isaiah? Here are clear comparisons to Sodom and Gomorrah with no mention of Homosexuality. Moreover your reference to Judges 19 is humorous in its own right because I interpret it exactly the same as I do the Sodom story. The town in Benjamin is Sodom II in essence only without angels to guide anyone and protect them and tragically, in the biblical account, it is an Israelite town. The town is completely inhospitable and wants to "know the guests". It is clearly alluding to the earlier Lot story. Like in Genesis 19 there is no sense that they are doing this to each other at all but purely as a way to violate the strangers. It's more that famous scene in deliverance then it is the Castro District which is why they violate the concubine. There is also Ezekiel 16-49-50 - that mentions a few things - being basically wealthy but not helping the needy, being haughty and committing an abomination. Even if you interpret that abomination might mean homosexuality you at least have to equally admit that the text is concerned with not taking care of the needy, which usually includes the stranger amongst you. That seems to be a fair middle ground adopted by Ezekiel that includes both elements of the story and interprets them based on later biblical precepts of "love the stranger" and "gay sex sucks before the lord", But if you want to push only the last part, I could point out that abomination could mean they eat shell-fish. That is the OT stuff. Hell, I am not an NT expert but a simple google search found at least one comparison in Luke 10 where it seems to be inhospitable treatment that gets people compared to Sodom, at least in part.

2) What the story itself emphasizes - As to the story itself, there is as much a clear reference in this story to the sin of being inhospitable/violating the stranger as there is to homosexuality and the context of the story emphasizes the former much more. Lot says to paraphrase, don't do this evil thing to these men "under the shade of my roof" emphasizing they are his guests under his protective "shade". They then continue to emphasize the us/them dichotomy by calling Lot an outsider who they will do worse to. There is no indication of them wanting to have sex with each other which you would expect in the story if homosexuality had been the prime issue, only with "outsiders".who they want to violate and rape. That they were not interested in his daughters adds the homosexual flare to it, but is clearly not the main point. Maybe I could consider like Ezekiel that it is an equal partner in the sin of Sodom although it clear to me and to many readers who unlike me are actually anti-gay that it is tertiary at best. Context in the story of Lot's anxious plea to host these Angels mimicking Abraham's plea to host the three "men" he met further emphasizes the fact. The Judges 19 story which I think is a great "more contemporary" context spells out the lack of hospitality even further making it clear that the man and his concubine were stuck out in the street with no help until the old man found them. The story there practically bends over backwards to say "these people are unwelcoming and will more likely try and rape you then give you the time of day"

3) The centrality of hospitality in the Bible - Of course, the idea that the bible would place heavy emphasis on the treatment of strangers is obvious if you take the time to read through the text. the OT is FULL of exhortations to love the stranger and moreover not to harm them (et ger lo tonu) [check exodus 22:10 - for you were strangers in the land of Egypt - note they got beaten down for treating their strangers poorly - this is just one example., but also check lev 19:33-34, duet 10:18-19; job 31:32, etc.]. I am not an expert in the NT but I have a hunch that Jesus and his disciples say pretty much the same thing. In both the Sodom and the Judges story both of the precepts of loving the stranger and not harming them are being violated in an incredibly vicious manner. I think an entire town raping a vulnerable traveler is the problem and is why God crushes them in the story.

4) Sexual perversion and the end of society - Your argument about sexual perversion and the end of society is interesting but not overwhelming especially since two of the three stories you suggest are the subject of our debate (Lot and judges 19) and other destruction stories like the destruction of Jerusalem with the temple and Egypt with the exodus don't seem to have too much to do with sexuality either with the exception of the reference ot adultery as one element, but the social justice issues of helping the oppressed or freeing slaves is high up there as a constant refrain. I think the Noah story is more complex then just the crossing of boundaries with the "children of God", but there are good arguments to say it was at least in part a sexual crime. I think murder likely had something to do with it as well, but I am not married to that pov.

PhinPhan1227
02-04-2009, 10:07 AM
Please provide some examples of the bolded scenario. I will be happy to read up on them.

Nonetheless...in context of this discussion, one would have to provide convincing evidence that the sin of Sodom was in fact hospitality and not homosexuality. As it is written it is clear that they were involved in the sin of homosexuality.

Do you not agree with that?

Or are you in one of your "open to discussion" moods?


Early Celtic-Village of Simmerdale/Semerwater, Legend of St Germanus

Early French-Village of Liers

Early Greek-Philemon/Baucis, Zeus(God of Strangers)

Early ME-"Darkheel" custom

That should get you started. When I have time I'll try to dig up some of the Norse myths. They are a trip.

Dolphan7
02-04-2009, 11:39 AM
In writing this I realized I may have stepped into someone else's poop. I have no agenda of the kind you envision because I am not Christian and never have been. The debate that I just found out about tonight while googling more about thie verses in Jude talk about this very issue of interpretation as a point of contention between liberal and conservative Christians and it has nothing to do with me. My experience with the Hebrew Bible is primarily based in influences from a time in my life when I seriously studied Jewish texts and my interpretation goes back perhaps to 2nd century rabbis and maybe even earlier.

Anyway, I think pointing out agendas in arguing is rather backhanded and unfair, and in this case wrong. It doesn't serve a purpose other than to make the accuser look somehow more pure in his argumentation. We all have agendas. You have one as do I, but you got my agenda wrong in this case. As I said from the outset, I don't believe this text supports homosexuality in anyway and the fact that the intended rape was male only likely resonated with ancient readers, but I don't think a plain reading of the text, nor the context of more contemporary works supports this as THE sin of Sodom.

[Edit: I do have a different agenda which has much more to do with wanting to understand Conservative Christian Biblical interpretation based on some experiences I have had with Christian Missionaries and some comments you made in other posts. This provided me with an excuse.]I didn't say it was your agenda, I simply warned of an agenda that seeks to remove homosexuality from the lists of sins in the biblical texts. I understand your interest in historical and conservative biblical exegesis, but post #89 clearly demonstrates an inability to comprehend such exegesis.

Beware of the liberal agenda. That's all I am saying.

PhinPhan1227
02-04-2009, 12:03 PM
I didn't say it was your agenda, I simply warned of an agenda that seeks to remove homosexuality from the lists of sins in the biblical texts. I understand your interest in historical and conservative biblical exegesis, but post #89 clearly demonstrates an inability to comprehend such exegesis.

Beware of the liberal agenda. That's all I am saying.

Why don't we ever hear about the agenda to remove the Sabbath as holy? Stonings for adultry? Why exactly is it legal in America to work on Sunday, cheat on your wife, and get divorced because it's convenient?

Dolphan7
02-04-2009, 01:44 PM
As to the content of your argument, my answer is long because there are so many ways in which I disagree with your understanding of the texts in question, so maybe print it up and take it as bathroom reading or just ignore it:It isn't my understanding alone, but the understanding of historical biblical scholars who use sound exegesis. I was going to ignore this, but it is so full of innaccuracy, and out of context, that I can't simply let it pass, if only for the sake of anyone who may be reading this. I broke it into two posts due to length. My summary is in the last post.


1) Biblical context - Jude? Peter? Those books were written in a totally different historical context. In accepted religious traditions they are at least 1300 years later than the Lot story. More Academic historians would still put the difference as at least 600-700 years. You have to accept that the texts all came from the same source to have even a sense of context from these texts. That certainly explains why rabbis possibly from the 2nd century inheriting a tradition of interpretation of the text would focus on hospitality. They didn't have this later inspired reading on the part of Christian texts to influence them, so they read it as they saw it amongst there own creative and inspired or possibly received readings. I have a hunch we will have to disagree on this because of our different religious views. Nevertheless, a further overview of context still makes your reference to Jude and Peter suspect:Jude, Peter, Rabbis - all had the exact same texts to review - the Jewish OT. 2nd century Rabbis would have had the NT by this time. If they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, then maybe they would have read it, but to say they didn't have it makes no sense as the NT was completed in the 1st century. The point is that the NT writers understood the sin of Sodom to be sexual sin. Judaism today believes the sin of Sodom to be sexual sin.


How do you deal with Jeremiah 23:14 or the first Chapter of Isaiah? Here are clear comparisons to Sodom and Gomorrah with no mention of Homosexuality. Moreover your reference to Judges 19 is humorous in its own right because I interpret it exactly the same as I do the Sodom story. The town in Benjamin is Sodom II in essence only without angels to guide anyone and protect them and tragically, in the biblical account, it is an Israelite town. The town is completely inhospitable and wants to "know the guests". It is clearly alluding to the earlier Lot story. Like in Genesis 19 there is no sense that they are doing this to each other at all but purely as a way to violate the strangers. It's more that famous scene in deliverance then it is the Castro District which is why they violate the concubine. There is also Ezekiel 16-49-50 - that mentions a few things - being basically wealthy but not helping the needy, being haughty and committing an abomination. Even if you interpret that abomination might mean homosexuality you at least have to equally admit that the text is concerned with not taking care of the needy, which usually includes the stranger amongst you. That seems to be a fair middle ground adopted by Ezekiel that includes both elements of the story and interprets them based on later biblical precepts of "love the stranger" and "gay sex sucks before the lord", But if you want to push only the last part, I could point out that abomination could mean they eat shell-fish. That is the OT stuff. Hell, I am not an NT expert but a simple google search found at least one comparison in Luke 10 where it seems to be inhospitable treatment that gets people compared to Sodom, at least in part. Jeremiah 23 talks about the coming savior - Jesus - and how he will gather to himself those who follow him, and those who don't are considered wicked and will be punished for that wickedness. Jeremiah 23:14 refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as being involved in wickedness. There is no mention of what that wickedness is, neither sexual sin, nor hospitality. Isaiah 1 refers to rebellion against God and the consequences of that rebeliion. There is no mention of what the rebellion was about, again neither sexual sin nor hospitality. Ezekial 16 clearly shows that Sodom was lacking in taking care of the needy and the poor. But there is no mention that this is the anly reason for their destruction. It says they "committed abominations before me", meaning more than one. In many cases where the bible talks about rebellion against God it refers to wickedness and abominations, meaning the whole group was simply degenerate and unrepentant and involed in all sorts of sinful behavior. Ezekial 16 simply adds to the list of the sins of Sodom. Gen 19 doesn't indicate that homosexuality is the only sin, only that it was the main sin, the one that incurred the wrath of God and brought down their destruction. Luke 10 is a stretch if I have ever seen one. Jesus is talking about sending out disciples to spread his message, and that rejection of that message equates to rebellion against God and that on judgement day it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah that it will be for those who reject God. This is also a prophetic passage as well because it applies to us today. Eternity is an aweful long time to be wrong.


2) What the story itself emphasizes - As to the story itself, there is as much a clear reference in this story to the sin of being inhospitable/violating the stranger as there is to homosexuality and the context of the story emphasizes the former much more. Lot says to paraphrase, don't do this evil thing to these men "under the shade of my roof" emphasizing they are his guests under his protective "shade". They then continue to emphasize the us/them dichotomy by calling Lot an outsider who they will do worse to. There is no indication of them wanting to have sex with each other which you would expect in the story if homosexuality had been the prime issue, only with "outsiders".who they want to violate and rape. That they were not interested in his daughters adds the homosexual flare to it, but is clearly not the main point. Maybe I could consider like Ezekiel that it is an equal partner in the sin of Sodom although it clear to me and to many readers who unlike me are actually anti-gay that it is tertiary at best. Context in the story of Lot's anxious plea to host these Angels mimicking Abraham's plea to host the three "men" he met further emphasizes the fact. The Judges 19 story which I think is a great "more contemporary" context spells out the lack of hospitality even further making it clear that the man and his concubine were stuck out in the street with no help until the old man found them. The story there practically bends over backwards to say "these people are unwelcoming and will more likely try and rape you then give you the time of day"Ok so the simplest way to resolve this is to show that the people of Sodom were involved in homosexuality within their community. Let's check it out. Peter writes about Lot (II Pet 2).

2PE 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2PE 2:2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
2PE 2:3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
2PE 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
2PE 2:5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2PE 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
2PE 2:7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
2PE 2:8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),

Note the underlined text. Sensual conduct, happening everyday. They were having sex with each other everyday, not just to visitors, unless they had visitors every single day, which is unrealistic.

We also have Ham and his descendants, Cannanites.. Gen 10:19 indicates that these descendents inhabited the area of Sodom and Gomorrah. The curse of Ham is a homosexual sin that he was involved in. Gen 9:20-27. This wasn't a homosexual act with a stranger, but with his own father. Pervert. Thus the Cannanites were especially hated by God.

Also worth noting is that the men of Sodom , young and old, surrounded the house. This indicates everyone was involved in homosexual sin. It was customary in those times for the elders of the city to extend such hospitality to it's visitors, yet we see young and old in the so called welcoming committee. Makes no sense if one is proposing the inhospitality reason, but makes all the sense if the whole city was involved in homosexual acts on a daily basis. Everyone wanted a piece of the action.

Dolphan7
02-04-2009, 02:10 PM
3) The centrality of hospitality in the Bible - Of course, the idea that the bible would place heavy emphasis on the treatment of strangers is obvious if you take the time to read through the text. the OT is FULL of exhortations to love the stranger and moreover not to harm them (et ger lo tonu) [check exodus 22:10 - for you were strangers in the land of Egypt - note they got beaten down for treating their strangers poorly - this is just one example., but also check lev 19:33-34, duet 10:18-19; job 31:32, etc.]. I am not an expert in the NT but I have a hunch that Jesus and his disciples say pretty much the same thing. In both the Sodom and the Judges story both of the precepts of loving the stranger and not harming them are being violated in an incredibly vicious manner. I think an entire town raping a vulnerable traveler is the problem and is why God crushes them in the story.Of course hospitality was and is important and is a common theme in the Old and New Testaments. No doubt. And there are many others sins that God railed against; false Gods, Idol worship, sacrificing live children, etc....

But keep in mind that there were many cities in the world at the time of Sodom and most were involved in ungodly sins of various nature, being inhospitable being just one of them, yet God doesn't intervene. The city of Sodom weren't God's people. The Jews were, but not the Sodomites. So it makes no sense that God would pass judgement on the entire city of unbelievers who swore no loyalty to Him, unless it was such an agregious act of the vilest nature.


4) Sexual perversion and the end of society - Your argument about sexual perversion and the end of society is interesting but not overwhelming especially since two of the three stories you suggest are the subject of our debate (Lot and judges 19) and other destruction stories like the destruction of Jerusalem with the temple and Egypt with the exodus don't seem to have too much to do with sexuality either with the exception of the reference ot adultery as one element, but the social justice issues of helping the oppressed or freeing slaves is high up there as a constant refrain. I think the Noah story is more complex then just the crossing of boundaries with the "children of God", but there are good arguments to say it was at least in part a sexual crime. I think murder likely had something to do with it as well, but I am not married to that pov.
Keep in mind that the two issues I mentioned, wherein God totally destroys due to sexual sin predominantly, and a host of other wickedness secondarily, are not His chosen people. Makes no sense that he would utterly destroy the Jews, as the Savior must come from a direct line from Adam -Noah - Jesus. Judges 19 and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD70, as well as the captivity into Babylon, are punishments for the Jews for ungodliness, but not their total destruction. Also note that with the Exodus from Egypt, that God kept the Jewish people in the desert for 40 years so as to remove the older ungodly generations from their midst. Even Moses didn't make it into the promised land. So there is always a punishment for His people when they turn their back on him, but never total destruction. That is reserved for those who are not His chosen people and who involve themselves in the most horrific sins imaginable, abominations to God.

Look if you want to believe that the destruction of Sodom was due to them simply being inhospitable, that is your prerogative. I would simply put forth to you that..... it wasn't their lack of hospitality, but the manner of the hospitality, the sexual perversion that drew God's wrath. That is the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. Sodom being inhospitable does nothing to change the biblical view that homosexuality is a sin either, as the agenda attempts to do.

Dolphan7
02-04-2009, 02:11 PM
Why don't we ever hear about the agenda to remove the Sabbath as holy? Stonings for adultry? Why exactly is it legal in America to work on Sunday, cheat on your wife, and get divorced because it's convenient?:rolleyes2: And this has been explained to you many times before. Would one more time make it sink in?

PhinPhan1227
02-04-2009, 02:37 PM
:rolleyes2: And this has been explained to you many times before. Would one more time make it sink in?


Silly question MD. Do you know that many people MORE thick headed(in a perfectly charming way) than me?:D

Marino613
02-04-2009, 04:50 PM
Thank you for responding and indeed I agree with some of your criticisms and of course find others inadequete or just wrong..



Jude, Peter, Rabbis - all had the exact same texts to review - the Jewish OT. 2nd century Rabbis would have had the NT by this time. If they had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, then maybe they would have read it, but to say they didn't have it makes no sense as the NT was completed in the 1st century. The point is that the NT writers understood the sin of Sodom to be sexual sin. Judaism today believes the sin of Sodom to be sexual sin.

You make two assumptions
1) That the rabbis in the 2nd century had the NT. There is no evidence that they were all that familiar with it beyond rumor. Maybe a couple of them did read it, but they rejected it and it wasn't part of their religious milieu. Their interpretations though are foundational to Judaism today. I actually assume since they believed owning books of separatist movements (like Christianity) was considered sinful, they didn't possess them.
2) "Judaism today believes the sin of Sodom to be a sexual sin" - where do you get this? I have worked and studied in the Jewish community (mostly traditional) and this is completely false in both sociological fact and textually. The most common explanation of the Sin of Sedom in the Jewish religion today and in its long history of exegesis is that they treated their guests viciously. They also mention a few other sins occassionally, but most Jewish commentaries just talk about the guest thing, and most Jewish children are taught it as well. There is an ancient rabbinic story - fanciful stories being one of the major teaching tools they used, it is part of what is called midrash - that they were so tough on guests that they had bed in the town for guests; if you were to tall they cut your feet off to fit you, too long they put you on the wrack until you fit. The rabbis had a tradition that if you showed hospitality to guests in Sedom it was punishable by death.


Jeremiah 23 talks about the coming savior - Jesus - and how he will gather to himself those who follow him, and those who don't are considered wicked and will be punished for that wickedness. Jeremiah 23:14 refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as being involved in wickedness. There is no mention of what that wickedness is, neither sexual sin, nor hospitality.
Jeremiah certaily talks about the coming savior (although does not mention Jesus, but I guess if you believe that savior was meant to be Jesus...), but that is not the main thesis. I am surprised you didn't push me on this one more because the more I read it, the more it seems to be to be about sexual immorality amongst a more complete wickedness. The chapter is about how God sends spiritual leaders to shepherd Israel, including the eventual Messiah who will lead people justly. Unfortunately the prophets of Israel and Judah don't do their jobs and their is niuf - meaning adultery, but could mean other types of sexual immorality - rampant in the land. Because of their failure to rebuke and because they strengthen the hand of the wicked, the people are like s/g. This was gold for you. But you need the text to explicitly state that this was the sin? If so, Genesis itself never does this.


Isaiah 1 refers to rebellion against God and the consequences of that rebeliion. There is no mention of what the rebellion was about, again neither sexual sin nor hospitality.You are right they are rebellious which is why God says he doesn't want their sacrifices. But you are wrong in that he lists the sins quite clearly vs 21 - was just now full of murderers, vs 23 - taking of bribes and not defending the rights of orphans and widows. That is clear as day. Not homosexuality. And here they are being called s/g


Ezekial 16 clearly shows that Sodom was lacking in taking care of the needy and the poor. But there is no mention that this is the anly reason for their destruction. It says they "committed abominations before me", meaning more than one. In many cases where the bible talks about rebellion against God it refers to wickedness and abominations, meaning the whole group was simply degenerate and unrepentant and involed in all sorts of sinful behavior. Ezekial 16 simply adds to the list of the sins of Sodom.I agree that the bible does often describe the whole groups as degenerate. Genesis seems 13:13 just describes Sedom as very very wicked which would support this. Indeed when God tells Abraham he will destroy them, he just refers to general sinfulness. Moreover, when the angels tell Lot he will destroy them, they just say general sinfulness.

But as to Ezekiel, you are reading vs 49 and 50 as seperate units when they are not. It starts with the header saying "this was the sin etc. lists a There is a list of sins ending in a general degenracy. Not helping the needy despite being rich is the main sin Ezekiel spells out rather clearly. Choosing the final phrase as the only reason is a mistaken read on your part and clearly incorrect.


Gen 19 doesn't indicate that homosexuality is the only sin, only that it was the main sin, the one that incurred the wrath of God and brought down their destruction.No it doesn't. It just says that they were wicked and the wickedness cried out to God. The story has the people raping travelling strangers and that is what Lot sees as the main problem and what the context of the text between Genesis 18-19 (comparing Abraham and his nephew to S/G). That it was "gay" rape is icing on the cake. Please point to me where it says anything otherwise in Gen. 13, 18 or 19 where it talks about the sinfulness of Sedom?


Luke 10 is a stretch if I have ever seen one. Jesus is talking about sending out disciples to spread his message, and that rejection of that message equates to rebellion against God and that on judgement day it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah that it will be for those who reject God. This is also a prophetic passage as well because it applies to us today. Eternity is an aweful long time to be wrong.
I am not an NT person. I think the comparison is still valid, but my point doesn't rest on this at all.



Ok so the simplest way to resolve this is to show that the people of Sodom were involved in homosexuality within their community. Let's check it out. Peter writes about Lot (II Pet 2).That is the book of Peter's interpretation. I have no problem with it interpreting it, but it is not authoritative as I stated. It was written in a completely different cultural context. That may work for you, but it is far from proof to anyone who reds the bible as a non-Christian.


We also have Ham and his descendants, Cannanites.. Gen 10:19 indicates that these descendents inhabited the area of Sodom and Gomorrah. The curse of Ham is a homosexual sin that he was involved in. Gen 9:20-27. This wasn't a homosexual act with a stranger, but with his own father. Pervert. Thus the Cannanites were especially hated by God.
His father was drunk and passed out. Like the men of sedom, he raped his father. Actually, I think it is fairly clear that Canaan is the one who raped his grandfather but that is a different conversation. I agree that this is compelling that sexual crimes were part of it. Something I have never denied, but it highlights the violent aspect of it which is much more akin to what happened in the story.


Also worth noting is that the men of Sodom , young and old, surrounded the house. This indicates everyone was involved in homosexual sin. It was customary in those times for the elders of the city to extend such hospitality to it's visitors, yet we see young and old in the so called welcoming committee. Makes no sense if one is proposing the inhospitality reason, but makes all the sense if the whole city was involved in homosexual acts on a daily basis. Everyone wanted a piece of the action.
1) Young and old were involved in raping visitors.
2) But the town didn't have a welcoming committee, so it works very well with my point.

In the end, you have convinced me to broaden my horizons. The sins of Sedom v' a'morah included all types of abominations, but the test itself highlights their violation of guests and the fact that Lot alone was hospitable. Judges 19 repeats the story similarly and even further emphasizes that point. There is no indication outside of NT sources which are much later interpretations that the people were involved in homosexuality as a normative practice, although they do seem to have had a taste for sexually violating other men but that is not the same thing as saying they were destroyed for homosexual sex. At best you can say if men rape other men the bible warns God will destroy them, but that is a vey limited read that leaves out the context of the story in Gen 18-19. It certainly isn't about consensual sex.

Marino613
02-04-2009, 05:06 PM
So it makes no sense that God would pass judgement on the entire city of unbelievers who swore no loyalty to Him, unless it was such an agregious act of the vilest nature.

I agree that it isn't just hospitality, but I disagree that hopitality isn't central. Treating the vulnerable with dignity and respect is a common biblical theme and issues of hospitality make up the bulk of the story in gen. 18 and 19.


Keep in mind that the two issues I mentioned, wherein God totally destroys due to sexual sin predominantly, and a host of other wickedness secondarily, are not His chosen people. Makes no sense that he would utterly destroy the Jews, as the Savior must come from a direct line from Adam -Noah - Jesus. Judges 19 and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD70, as well as the captivity into Babylon, are punishments for the Jews for ungodliness, but not their total destruction. Also note that with the Exodus from Egypt, that God kept the Jewish people in the desert for 40 years so as to remove the older ungodly generations from their midst. Even Moses didn't make it into the promised land. So there is always a punishment for His people when they turn their back on him, but never total destruction. That is reserved for those who are not His chosen people and who involve themselves in the most horrific sins imaginable, abominations to God.
So you do admit that judges 19 doesn't fit in your theory? In which case the two destructions are only The flood and Sodom (or not even the flood because of Noah?). The flood had a sexual character to it, but it also was deeply connected to murder as well as indicated by the very first thing God commands Noah after the flood.


Look if you want to believe that the destruction of Sodom was due to them simply being inhospitable, that is your prerogative. I would simply put forth to you that..... it wasn't their lack of hospitality, but the manner of the hospitality, the sexual perversion that drew God's wrath. That is the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. Sodom being inhospitable does nothing to change the biblical view that homosexuality is a sin either, as the agenda attempts to do.You have partially convinced me. It wasn't just being inhospitable. Hospitality is emblematic of treating the vulnerable (the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger) justly and helping them. Abraham was good at it. Lot was good at it. The Sedomites were the exact opposite. This is what Ezekiel means as well. I also see that gay RAPE was part of the problem, but I think that fits into the whole theme. The sedomites took advantage of people who were vulnerable. Drunk (grand)fathers, travelling visitors. Sex was just the most intimate violation. That it was homosexual only served to make the violation worse, but I wouldn't say that THIS is a source for the bible's problem with homosexuality... that is uness you want to start interpreting the whole issue the way many pro-gay people do which I disagree with as the plain meaning... I think the host of other abominable acts whic may have included sexual perversion was tertiary and just weighed the case against them. I.e., the exact opposite of how you read it.

Dolphan7
02-04-2009, 08:05 PM
Thank you for responding and indeed I agree with some of your criticisms and of course find others inadequate or just wrong..




You make two assumptions
1) That the rabbis in the 2nd century had the NT. There is no evidence that they were all that familiar with it beyond rumor. Maybe a couple of them did read it, but they rejected it and it wasn't part of their religious milieu. Their interpretations though are foundational to Judaism today. I actually assume since they believed owning books of separatist movements (like Christianity) was considered sinful, they didn't possess them.They were available. Whether they read them or not is debatable. That was my point.

2) "Judaism today believes the sin of Sodom to be a sexual sin" - where do you get this? I have worked and studied in the Jewish community (mostly traditional) and this is completely false in both sociological fact and textually. The most common explanation of the Sin of Sedom in the Jewish religion today and in its long history of exegesis is that they treated their guests viciously. They also mention a few other sins occassionally, but most Jewish commentaries just talk about the guest thing, and most Jewish children are taught it as well. There is an ancient rabbinic story - fanciful stories being one of the major teaching tools they used, it is part of what is called midrash - that they were so tough on guests that they had bed in the town for guests; if you were to tall they cut your feet off to fit you, too long they put you on the wrack until you fit. The rabbis had a tradition that if you showed hospitality to guests in Sedom it was punishable by death. The traditional view of hospitality is that you provide food, water and shelter to guests and visitors, not pull their pants down and attempt to have homosexual sex with them. So yes the men of Sodom were very inhospitable. It was such an afront to God and the Jewish culture, that the name sodom was coined and forever referrred to homosexual sex thereafter. Sodomy carries with it not just inhospitableness, but the very homosexual act of that inhospitableness. They go hand in hand.


Jeremiah certainly talks about the coming savior (although does not mention Jesus, but I guess if you believe that savior was meant to be Jesus...), but that is not the main thesis. I am surprised you didn't push me on this one more because the more I read it, the more it seems to be to be about sexual immorality amongst a more complete wickedness. The chapter is about how God sends spiritual leaders to shepherd Israel, including the eventual Messiah who will lead people justly. Unfortunately the prophets of Israel and Judah don't do their jobs and their is niuf - meaning adultery, but could mean other types of sexual immorality - rampant in the land. Because of their failure to rebuke and because they strengthen the hand of the wicked, the people are like s/g. This was gold for you. But you need the text to explicitly state that this was the sin? If so, Genesis itself never does this.Jeremiah is accusing the peoiple of Israel of adultury against God, not any specific sexual perversion, although that may have been going on with individuals as well too.


You are right they are rebellious which is why God says he doesn't want their sacrifices. But you are wrong in that he lists the sins quite clearly vs 21 - was just now full of murderers, vs 23 - taking of bribes and not defending the rights of orphans and widows. That is clear as day. Not homosexuality. And here they are being called s/gHe lists the source of the current rebellion of the Jewish people of Isaiah's time, not the specific sins of Sodom. That was my point.


I agree that the bible does often describe the whole groups as degenerate. Genesis seems 13:13 just describes Sedom as very very wicked which would support this. Indeed when God tells Abraham he will destroy them, he just refers to general sinfulness. Moreover, when the angels tell Lot he will destroy them, they just say general sinfulness.

But as to Ezekiel, you are reading vs 49 and 50 as seperate units when they are not. It starts with the header saying "this was the sin etc. lists a There is a list of sins ending in a general degenracy. Not helping the needy despite being rich is the main sin Ezekiel spells out rather clearly. Choosing the final phrase as the only reason is a mistaken read on your part and clearly incorrect.No I read them together and I addressed them together. This text is not a definitive explanation of all the sins of Sodom, it only lists a few as the author thought fit for his rebuke of his audience of the time. I read the final phrase not as the only reason, but in addition to the other sins listed. It was common knowledge when mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah that the people knew what the story was about, and why, and didn't need retold in every mention of it.


No it doesn't. It just says that they were wicked and the wickedness cried out to God. The story has the people raping travelling strangers and that is what Lot sees as the main problem and what the context of the text between Genesis 18-19 (comparing Abraham and his nephew to S/G). That it was "gay" rape is icing on the cake. Please point to me where it says anything otherwise in Gen. 13, 18 or 19 where it talks about the sinfulness of Sedom? Yes it does. It goes into great detail as to exactly what that sin was - homosexual sex. It doesn't mention anything else about other sins, only this one.


I am not an NT person. I think the comparison is still valid, but my point doesn't rest on this at all.

That is the book of Peter's interpretation. I have no problem with it interpreting it, but it is not authoritative as I stated. It was written in a completely different cultural context. That may work for you, but it is far from proof to anyone who reads the bible as a non-Christian. Peter lived under OT law and interpretations of the Jewsh OT texts, until Jesus died and arose in three days, starting the Christian Church era. Peter was very much aware of and educated on Jewsih culture, tradition, law and scriptures. He was very authoritative, as is the NT.


His father was drunk and passed out. Like the men of sedom, he raped his father. Actually, I think it is fairly clear that Canaan is the one who raped his grandfather but that is a different conversation. I agree that this is compelling that sexual crimes were part of it. Something I have never denied, but it highlights the violent aspect of it which is much more akin to what happened in the story. Gen 9:22 indicates Ham, father of canaan, saw his father Noah naked, and told his two brothers Japeth and Shem.


1) Young and old were involved in raping visitors.
2) But the town didn't have a welcoming committee, so it works very well with my point.
The traditional view is that there are welcoming committees per se, the elders. There is no indication there was one here, all were involved in the immorality.

In the end, you have convinced me to broaden my horizons. The sins of Sedom v' a'morah included all types of abominations, but the test itself highlights their violation of guests and the fact that Lot alone was hospitable. Judges 19 repeats the story similarly and even further emphasizes that point. There is no indication outside of NT sources which are much later interpretations that the people were involved in homosexuality as a normative practice, although they do seem to have had a taste for sexually violating other men but that is not the same thing as saying they were destroyed for homosexual sex. At best you can say if men rape other men the bible warns God will destroy them, but that is a vey limited read that leaves out the context of the story in Gen 18-19. It certainly isn't about consensual sex.I think there needs to be some clarification as to what homosexual sex is:

Sex with the same sex - man with man, woman with woman.

If a man has consentual sex with another man, this is homosexualsex.

If a man forces another man to have sex with him, this is homosexual sex.

It doesn't matter if there is love and affection between the two parties, sex is sex, and homosexual sex is homosexual sex.

To think that the men of Sodom were simply exerting their will on these strangers, attempting to show their dominance over them, which I agree is a facet of homosexuality, and then went back to their wives and had normal hetersexual relationships, as if it was this night of the living dead scenarios going on, or this kekyl and hyde switch.....makes no sense. The whole homosexual lifestyle is highly promiscous, seeking new partners every week. Eventually these men would have "known" every potential partner in the city, all the more eager to "seek strange flesh". They were heavily involved in homosexuality to such an extent that they abondoned the practice of hospitality and went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Thus the wrath of God.

Marino613
02-04-2009, 11:25 PM
They were available. Whether they read them or not is debatable. That was my point.

I agree on that, but they most likely didn't have or care about them. My original point was that without the NT to influence them, they read it as a problem of being treating strangers with violence.


The traditional view of hospitality is that you provide food, water and shelter to guests and visitors, not pull their pants down and attempt to have homosexual sex with them. So yes the men of Sodom were very inhospitable. It was such an afront to God and the Jewish culture, that the name sodom was coined and forever referrred to homosexual sex thereafter. Sodomy carries with it not just inhospitableness, but the very homosexual act of that inhospitableness. They go hand in hand.
Sodomy is not a Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, Ladino or Judeo Arabic word. Jewish Religious tradition does not think the problem of Sedom was gay sex. Why did you say it was just because Christian influenced English makes the comparison? Modern English developed in Christian countries that assumed the NT is correct. Therefore that the issue of sodomy is a sexual one would have developed [Note: Sodomy is not just homosexualty. Many common and legal parlances include any type of non vaginal sex, even between a man and a woman]. Jewish Culture, which is not traditionally pro-gay, never equated the two in its languages because that isn't how Jews have traditionally understood the story.


Jeremiah is accusing the peoiple of Israel of adultury against God, not any specific sexual perversion, although that may have been going on with individuals as well too.
I like this interpretation. So when Jeremiah says the prophets have made the people into Sodom and Gomorrah what did he mean? Just you are rebellious like them? I am not married to using this text. Score for D7.


He lists the source of the current rebellion of the Jewish people of Isaiah's time, not the specific sins of Sodom. That was my point.
I get your point, but it seems strange that he would refer to the people as Sodom and Gomorrah if there was no analogy. I think it is a more straighforward read to say that the comparison was there. But again, it isn't essential to my point either.


No I read them together and I addressed them together. This text is not a definitive explanation of all the sins of Sodom, it only lists a few as the author thought fit for his rebuke of his audience of the time. I read the final phrase not as the only reason, but in addition to the other sins listed. It was common knowledge when mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah that the people knew what the story was about, and why, and didn't need retold in every mention of it.
But this isn't just a reference. The use of Sedom is part of a rhetorical point. Considering in context Ezekiel is comparing Judea to Sodom and Samaria, listing their sins saying how even your "sisters" whom I destroyed weren't weren't half as bad as you in the (clearly quantitative) amount of sins, it is strange that the Book would single out for special notice not helping the poor. Indeed, for the rhetorical point to work it would be likely that Ezekiel would only single out the worst (they even did THIS) or at least primary violation (they got destroyed for THIS) otherwise why not just stay with haughtiness and abomination as that would get the point across well. It doesn't seem to just be highlighting something at random.

And even if it was (though it wasn't), it means according to Ezekiel there was at best no single reason for the destruction and it is still different than the homosexuality argument.

Also, Peter and Jude felt the need to retell it according to your read. Why would they need to do that?


Yes it does. It goes into great detail as to exactly what that sin was - homosexual sex. It doesn't mention anything else about other sins, only this one.
No it doesn't! It really doesn't. Lot points out to them precisely the issue of violating the protective "shade" of his home. They are deliberately targeting strangers. They decide Lot is truly an outsider as well and then target him. We can go back and forth.

Moreover, when God tells abraham about the destruction there is no description of why other than wickedness. Gen. 19 provides an example of wickedness And, the one given is far beyond gay sex. It is rape of a guest and as I have repeated over and over again, it is in context of Abraham and Lot treating guests well.


Peter lived under OT law and interpretations of the Jewsh OT texts, until Jesus died and arose in three days, starting the Christian Church era. Peter was very much aware of and educated on Jewsih culture, tradition, law and scriptures. He was very authoritative, as is the NT.
Authority is different than providing context that would bolster an argument. Earlier works are from arguably a similar cultural milieu and may give greater insight to the original meaning. Peter is a book written many centuries later and therefore is much less useful for context than say Judges or even Ezekiel. Moreover, it is no more authoritative to a non-Christian then the rabbinic interpretations which don't tend to mention homosexual sex as the concern. There are other rabbinic interpretations, but the main one is harming strangers. I don't argue that Peter has authority, but the NT doesn't have sole authority to interpret and others who didn't necessarily read his comments but come from the same background read the text differently.


Gen 9:22 indicates Ham, father of canaan, saw his father Noah naked, and told his two brothers Japeth and Shem.I am familiar with the story. It isn't relevant to this discussion, but there are two curious features of the story that seriously imply that the wrongdoing was on the part of Canaan. First, it says b'no hakaton - his youngest son. Ham was the middle son, but Canaan was Ham's youngest. Moreover, it is strange that Noah would have only cursed canaan if it was Ham's doing. It should have been all of Ham's kids. This isn't my read but a well known medieval Jewish read.


The traditional view is that there are welcoming committees per se, the elders. There is no indication there was one here, all were involved in the immorality.
This only supports my reading. Only Lot was outside waiting for people. Where was the welcome wagon? Only he brought them into the protective shade of his roof. The people were involved in the immorality of wanting to harm a stranger. That they weren't a welcome committee is precisely the point. They don't care about strangers beyond abusing them. They attack the vulnerable.


I think there needs to be some clarification as to what homosexual sex is:

Sex with the same sex - man with man, woman with woman.

If a man has consentual sex with another man, this is homosexualsex.

If a man forces another man to have sex with him, this is homosexual sex.

It doesn't matter if there is love and affection between the two parties, sex is sex, and homosexual sex is homosexual sex.

To think that the men of Sodom were simply exerting their will on these strangers, attempting to show their dominance over them, which I agree is a facet of homosexuality, and then went back to their wives and had normal hetersexual relationships, as if it was this night of the living dead scenarios going on, or this kekyl and hyde switch.....makes no sense. The whole homosexual lifestyle is highly promiscous, seeking new partners every week. Eventually these men would have "known" every potential partner in the city, all the more eager to "seek strange flesh". They were heavily involved in homosexuality to such an extent that they abondoned the practice of hospitality and went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Thus the wrath of God.The above quote makes no sense to me on so many levels.

1) There is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEX AND RAPE!!!! I am generally civil in my tone but in this case I have to say it is insanity to think otherwise. The text only mentions rape. It is gay rape, but it is rape. That is not an extraneous point. "They were gay and they happened to rape strangers"

2) Your whole point about promiscuous life styles is weak. Gay men are not markedly more promiscuous then any other men. Just check out your typical frat house. Moreover, there are plenty of gay men who are monogamous. That's why they want to got married in droves. If gay relationships were more public ally acceptable, even the mild differences would likely fade away. It is also irrelevant because the text itself doesn't talk about what they do with each other. It only mentions what they want to do to the strangers in their midst. You are extrapolating to something that isn't in the text at all. You like Peter's interpretation and extrapolate from that. Fine. But that is a later retelling and not in the text itself. I don't think Peter's interpretation is accurate. I prefer the rabbinic interpretation.

3) Your jekyl and Hyde point is also extrapolating beyond what the story actually says. They may very well have in the biblical mind gone back home to their families after they rape strangers. Lots of men go back to their families after doing all sorts of things. Besides, to use a point you raised earlier it wasn't like they did this all the time. Only when strangers were around. Moreover, the Judges 19 text shows that in the biblical mind, to the extent that these two texts can be seen in parallel (since they are largely parallel stories), the object was to violate and in the end they did so to the female concubine. The object was violence and domination of the vulnerable.That they preferred the man didn't stop them from violating the woman.

4) as a final point - Does the OT ever talk about women with women?

I still think you are reading it backwards - it isn't that they were so gay they weren't hospitable (but thank you for allowing hospitality into even your read - I am glad to have heled you find a deeper reading of the bible), it is they were so vicious to the vulnerable and the stranger and would treat them with such little humanity that they would rape them. Thus they get squashed by divine wrath.

Marino613
02-04-2009, 11:54 PM
Thank you for debating. I will gladly continue although we probably will just go back and forth on this, but I am up for more always when time permits.

In general my reason for posting this is I am interested in getting a sense of how different Christians for completely different reasons that are more religiously motivated than you probably think.

I learned more about Jeremiah, and was able to formulate my understanding of Ezekiel and Judges more clearly so thank you for that.

Dolphan7
02-05-2009, 12:33 AM
Thank you for debating. I will gladly continue although we probably will just go back and forth on this, but I am up for more always when time permits.

In general my reason for posting this is I am interested in getting a sense of how different Christians for completely different reasons that are more religiously motivated than you probably think.

I learned more about Jeremiah, and was able to formulate my understanding of Ezekiel and Judges more clearly so thank you for that.No I am done. I don't really like repeating myself over and over.

But I do thank you for your point of view. It sharpens me.

Penny4president
03-05-2009, 05:37 PM
The Bible also says



So if God created men and women does'nt it then mean God is responsible for creating homosexuals?


Im a Buddhist but i have heard that god gave us a free will..

AjFazz85
03-08-2009, 07:44 AM
Think you are putting too much emphasis on the importance of the Bible, after all whether you like it or not the Bible was written by humans, not God. Lets look at a subject like divorce where Moses said it was allowed and Jesus contradicts him.

Yet Jesus says

Point being made is that you simply cant use the Bible as a relieable source for every ethical issue. You have to be able to look outside of it so that you can discover what is the morally right path to choose.

You took that out of context. Jesus was saying that it was never the will of the father to have divorce, but that the people were so hard to get through to that he allowed it. CONTEXT! Jesus clarified the issue

Penny4president
03-09-2009, 04:54 PM
Let me ask you D7, in Christianity does a gay person have an immoral soul? If a gay person has a morally good conscience can they enter heaven?



how bout this answer NOOOOOOO

PhinPhan1227
03-18-2009, 03:46 AM
You took that out of context. Jesus was saying that it was never the will of the father to have divorce, but that the people were so hard to get through to that he allowed it. CONTEXT! Jesus clarified the issue


Wait...by that logic since people also continue to be hardheaded about murder, theft, and virtually every other sin ever committed, if we just stick to it long enough God will allow all of it? Last time I checked, God expects man to conform to him, not the other way around.