Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why you have to use a denigrating term such as "fundies." If you are correct, your correctness should be enough without the denigrations. Usually when one resorts to put-downs it is a clear indication that they believe their ideology is lacking.
It is my understanding that the men who first came to the door wanted to have a homosexual experience with the messengers who came to Lot. Lot, instead, tried to give them his daughters to have sex with. Crowds gathered to watch the rape of the messengers take place.
How is calling someone who views the S&G scriptures after the fundamental view a fundie being denigrating?
The story is not about homosexuality Richard, it is about rape. Sure there was homosexuality involved, but there was also heterosexuality involved because ALL THE PEOPLE, both men and women of Sodom wanted to rape the angels. So why do you see ALL the PEOPLE of Sodom as being only concerning the homosexual? as the story involves both homosexuality and heterosexuality.
What Bible version of the Jude passage are you using? This is the KJV version:
Jude 7
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Not that it matters, I guess, since neither one says anything about homosexuality. Tell me, why on earth would the scripture you gave tell you that "coming away after other flesh" interprets as "the men went after other men"? Even if true, what the heck would 'the men went after other men' even mean?
People - PLEASE - stop with these attempts to vilify gay people with ambiguous scriptures that can mean whatever interpretation one chooses to give them! Just give one - JUST ONE - scripture that states unequivocally that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality!
So you will only be satisfied if the Sodom passages use the exact term, "homosexual"? Umm no because other scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9 specifically mention homosexuals and this gets blown off by people like you saying the term "homosexual" didn't exist until modern times (which really is a copout).
The verses clearly indicate that more was going on here than inhospitality. The verses indicate that the sin was exceptionally bad. The verses indicate that sexual immorality was occurring. The verses indicate that something besides normal sexual behavior was occurring. The verses indicate that same sex relations was going on here to such a level that Lot's daughters were not even satisfactory to the immoral crowd.
How is calling someone who views the S&G scriptures after the fundamental view a fundie being denigrating?
The story is not about homosexuality Richard, it is about rape. Sure there was homosexuality involved, but there was also heterosexuality involved because ALL THE PEOPLE, both men and women of Sodom wanted to rape the angels. So why do you see ALL the PEOPLE of Sodom as being only concerning the homosexual? as the story involves both homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Who is Richard?
The people who showed up at Lot's door wanted to rape who they thought were men. A crowd gathered. They all wanted to "know" or sexually mistreat who they thought were men.
1. The daughters got him drunk before knowing Lot.
2. People get drunk and have no recollection of what occurred while they were drunk.
3. Under the law of Moses, which was way before Lot, it was allowed to drink the strongest drink one wanted to drink for a day each year. There was no law in Lot's day saying "thou shalt not get drunk."
4. Lot actually did not give his daughters to the mob.
He was unaware he was drinking too much? It was all the young girls fault? Nonsense. He was responsible for having intercourse with his children.
People are responsible for their actions, drunk or not. I will venture a guess he was not that drunk, as he was able to obtain and erection to cause pregnancy. He is responsible for his sperm, and where he puts it.
There is no law that says someone is not responsible for choosing to get drunk either.
Lot offered up his beloved daughters. Yes? That tells you about his character. He has none. A man with any sort of character does not have sexual intercourse with his children. He does not offer his children to a mob.
Not my fault, I was drunk does not fly. Ever. Not then, not now.
I don't know why you have to use a denigrating term such as "fundies." If you are correct, your correctness should be enough without the denigrations. Usually when one resorts to put-downs it is a clear indication that they believe their ideology is lacking.
Because Fundamentalists refuse to admit they could be wrong, or listen to other people's explanations.
Quote:
It is my understanding that the men who first came to the door wanted to have a homosexual experience with the messengers who came to Lot. Lot, instead, tried to give them his daughters to have sex with. Crowds gathered to watch the rape of the messengers take place.
That's not what the story says. They didn't want a homosexual experience. The entire basis of the story is inhospitality and mistreating strangers. Their intent was to humiliate and demean the angels. And the men would have been heterosexual. There is absolutely zero evidence that anything taking place in Sodom involved gay men pursuing consensual relationships with other gay men.
You're projecting your dislike of gays onto the story to fit your preconceived belief of what it should say, not what it does say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.