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.
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).
No, we criticize Corinthians because it is in fact a mistranslation. The original Greek does not mean what the current translations do.
Quote:
The verses clearly indicate that more was going on here than inhospitality.
Attempted rape and humiliation of strangers falls under inhospitality.
Quote:
The verses indicate that the sin was exceptionally bad. The verses indicate that sexual immorality was occurring.
But the city was full of mostly heterosexuals, including women. Meaning fornication between men and women was probably occurring, as was attempted rape of those who visited. We're not talking about Neil Patrick Harris and his husband here. Why do you condemn all gays on an ancient story of heterosexuals committing rape and fornication, but refuse to condemn heterosexuals for the same thing? That proves your hatred of gays is blinding you and you're creating a double standard.
Quote:
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.
That's because the men weren't after sexual desire. Their intent was to demean the strangers like bullies. Read Judges 19, it disproves your argument.
Because Fundamentalists refuse to admit they could be wrong, or listen to other people's explanations.
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.
One big problem with your theory is that God decided to judge and destroy the city well before the angels ever arrived. So how could the sin be raping strangers unless you can prove that this was a common every day occurrence?
One big problem with your theory is that God decided to judge and destroy the city well before the angels ever arrived. So how could the sin be raping strangers unless you can prove that this was a common every day occurrence?
The New Testament mentions fornication as the immorality. Meaning men and women were having promiscuous sex in the city before the strangers got here. Attacking visitors was probably a common occurrence in a society viewed as that bad.
By your own admission, if God decided to destroy it before the angels ever arrived, the men asking the angels to come out weren't the reason God was going to destroy the city. He viewed it as evil before that event ever happened. So why the focus on gays?
The New Testament mentions fornication as the immorality. Meaning men and women were having promiscuous sex in the city before the strangers got here. Attacking visitors was probably a common occurrence in a society viewed as that bad.
By your own admission, if God decided to destroy it before the angels ever arrived, the men asking the angels to come out weren't the reason God was going to destroy the city. He viewed it as evil before that event ever happened. So why the focus on gays?
It doesn't make sense that God would grind this city to dust for fornication or being inhospitable because other cities were doing far worse things. Why only single out these cities? Now a city completely gone over to perversion where the NORM is to do things sexually in complete opposite from God's design. I can certainly understand why God would take action.
2 Peter 2:7–8 doesn't describe rape. It describes sensuality, and Jude 7 just doesn't make sense in any context beyond homosexual behavior. Sarkos heteras means "other flesh" which makes more sense with homosexuality rather than the pretty far out there theory that it means sex with angels.
The New Testament mentions fornication as the immorality. Meaning men and women were having promiscuous sex in the city before the strangers got here. Attacking visitors was probably a common occurrence in a society viewed as that bad.
By your own admission, if God decided to destroy it before the angels ever arrived, the men asking the angels to come out weren't the reason God was going to destroy the city. He viewed it as evil before that event ever happened. So why the focus on gays?
Since they were identified as more wicked than even the neighboring cities, it was more than jst "normal" fornication. Plus fornication covers any sex without a Biblical marriage regardless if it is male/female or male/male or female/female. It is all fornication and worse than the depraved cities around them and included male/male as that is specifically mentioned. It isn't rape and heterosexual conduct it is that and homosexual sex and probably a lot more. ALL forms of "wickedness" were being practiced, not just one.
Focusing on one is wrong, trying to eliminate one is just as wrong.
It doesn't make sense that God would grind this city to dust for fornication or being inhospitable because other cities were doing far worse things. Why only single out these cities? Now a city completely gone over to perversion where the NORM is to do things sexually in complete opposite from God's design. I can certainly understand why God would take action.
2 Peter 2:7–8 doesn't describe rape. It describes sensuality, and Jude 7 just doesn't make sense in any context beyond homosexual behavior. Sarkos heteras means "other flesh" which makes more sense with homosexuality rather than the pretty far out there theory that it means sex with angels.
That's correct.
And besides, I don't think God wanted a repeat of the wickedness that destroyed the world by flood not long before this.
The Angels are alive and well of this story they made the evil people that wished to harm others blind
Just like the people that post hate and evil on CDf
The blind people
In my post #54 I alluded to this possible answer by Christians in their defense for a God who would destroy babies and minors when throwing a tantrum. Perhaps a case could be made for Adolph Hitler and the holocaust by using similar logic. Oh, that's right, Hitler was evil, God is good.
God is the creator--he owns all of creation--he says what goes in his creation--not the creation telling him.
Yes Hitler was a mass murderer, he gave no one life thus had 0 right to end anyones life.
God is the creator--he owns all of creation--he says what goes in his creation--not the creation telling him.
This is a preposterous claim created by ignorant savages who feared and did not know God. Tell me, if you have any children . . . do you OWN them????
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.
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.
