Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[Easyrider]

Do you think only Christians do these things?

"So called" Christians was the charge. So, Christians doing Christian charity was the proper response. If you feel a need to include others, go ahead.

Me: i.e. "Adultery Pride" or "Fornicator's Pride" parades...

You: It seems you are placing homosexuality in the same category when that is not the claim or the opinion of everyone.

Me: You have your opinions, I have mine. But I don't see any "Adultery Pride" or "Fornicator's Pride" parades going on like the gay pride people like to do.

[Cathar1950]

<flush> See above to see why yours are folly.

Wouldn’t that be more like “see why I think it is folly “? Or more like see why “see why I think it is folly because Joe Dallas thinks it is folly”?
Grumpy gives you verse and passage after passage and you come back with extra biblical passages of others that think Sodom’s populace were a bunch perverts. What does that have to do with his passages?
Talk about irrelevance to the topic.
As I recall God was thinking about destroying them before the decided to rape strangers which by the way is not homosexuality. First his omniscient self had to go check out what he had heard. Do you really want to go there?

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced.

I think rape of strangers was commonly practiced. I bet most had wives. This was not homosexuality as practiced today by those that say they are homosexuals.
No one is saying rape is right and you equating the two is just dishonest.

Me: You have your opinions, I have mine. But I don't see any "Adultery Pride" or "Fornicator's Pride" parades going on like the gay pride people like to do.

Again you are equating.

[melikio]

Perhaps God wan't you to REPENT, and then he'll help you out. Ever thought of that?

Perhaps you'd do better, if you knew what you were talking about period.

And while I spent decades struggling, no, you weren't around to help or suffer with me. You are missing a lot of information, and filling in some massive gaps with the very kinds of arrogant assumptions which make many "Christians" some of the most inconsiderate, unsympathetic, cruel and hurtful people in the world. You think you know, but you have NO idea.

NOT ALL Christians are terrible people, but some most certainly are. I hope to stay away from the terrible ones for the rest of my life (if God gives me the grace and wisdom to do so).

Later,

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Grumpster,

You not surprisingly left out the stuff the female codom up the rectum to have "natural" sexual relations in the rectum.

I wonder why you did that? No I don't.

Oh, the depravity!!!! Real people supporting each other and demanding that John mind his own business!!! And doing things with each other that John can only obcess about!!!

Poor John, he has to live in a world that really doesn't care what he thinks. And when the lights go out John can only toss and turn thinking about what they must be doing to each other!!!

John just can't deal with the fact that they are here, they are queer and they refuse to take any CRAP from john and his ilk ever again, even in the church(which is theirs as much as it is his).

John, DEAL WITH IT, it isn't going to change for you.

100% personal attack directed 100% against another debater. Proof as well of the utter intolerance of of the people that disapprove of anal and oral sex being paraded down main street.

Why can't these homosexuals "keep it to themselves," like they demand of those that disapprove of their personal choice behaviors be showcased in public.

How inhospitable the way "I" was treated.

What did Ezekiel say the sin of Sodom was?

[1John2_26]

The OT verses quite clearly refer to temple / ritual prostitution. While no-one is entirely sure just what Paul meant.

Paul did not write about pederasty/homosexual pedophilia, which was quite common in his world. He wrote arsenokotai. Male to male sexual intercourse.

Christ Jesus defined marriage as a man and a woman. And that this was the way it was, from the beginning.

You'll have to start another religion to the force celebration and acceptance of homnosexuality on scholarly Bible based religious organizations. To preach and teach scholarly views the way Jesus and Paul did, on marriage and same-gender sex acts, is to "hold on fast, to that which is truth." Marriage is man ans woman, and same-gender sex acts are to repented of and not engaged in.

I am sorry if this distresses you but modern scholarship, rooted in the original tongues and based on information gleaned not only from secular sources but also from the teachings of the Jewish people, makes me quite sure that your interpretation is incorrect.

Makes "you" quite sure. It seems that only liberal scholars are NOT distressed over changing the truth for false teachings. There are many other people that do not see the Bible through the eyes of permissive and hedonistic liberal politics, and that see same-gender sex acts as not compatible with both a life of holiness and a life of repentance. If it distresses anti-Christians that it is necessary for sinners to repent and there for turn away from their sins . . . too bad. Christ Jesus never wavered from the truth. Why should those that choose to follow Him?

Furthermore if celibacy is important to you, YOU keep it.

Why go orthodox now? If you want to present Biblical truth, also, stay consisyent on same-gender sex acts the only way they can be presented in Biblical scholarship.

Kiwimac

Please visit this link: http://www.massresistance.com/docs/even ... index.html

. . . and then please try to reconcile; female vaginal condoms shoved up a person's rectum so that anal sex will be "safer," and the New Testament message of salvation?

Reality should be part of "Biblical scholarship." Don't ya think?

[otseng]

OK everyone, let me jump in again and say to everyone to calm down. I'm not even sure now it's possible to have a civil debate on topics dealing with homosexuality. Let's try to keep the fight clean and fair. Don't make comments that against specific posters. And I know that the rules do not prohibit attacks against a group of people, but let's try to at least keep the discussions civil. Thanks.

[kiwimac]

kiwimac

Some interestingstuff:

What Exactly Is The Sin of Sodom?

How many times have you heard a Christian say, "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so...According to the Bible, Sodom was destroyed for its depravity of engaging in sodomy..."?

Well, next time you hear that, don't be angry at the speaker. Instead, be sympathetic and understanding, because it only proves the speaker hasn't thoroughly studied their own Bible.

After all, anybody can read the instructions for "Assembling A Bicycle." But if you've actually *ridden a bike, and you understand the engineering and physics behind one, you're a lot less likely to finish the assembly with a malfunctioning bike and lots of parts left over.

In similar fashion, many Christians' "reading" leaves them with a malfunctioning understanding of the "Sin of Sodom."

It was not "Homosexuality," but instead "Inhospitality" that was Sodom's Big sin, and the reason God was so angry at Sodom's citizens.

Traditional Position:

The men of Sodom were attempting homosexual contact with Lot's visitors. Sodom was subsequently destroyed for its great wickedness, homosexuality playing a major role in its destruction.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Professor John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1980), supports this view, basing it on two assumptions: first, that Lot was violating Sodom's custom by entertaining guests without the permission of the city's elders, thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them"; second, that the word "to know" did not necessarily have a sexual connotation.

The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times. The argument, then, is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions towards Lot's visitors.

Well while you are arguing about this perhaps the Jewish view of what the sin of Sodom is should be mentioned?

Judaism’s Encounter with Greed

The notion that humans are merely stewards of wealth, not its owner, can play into the hands of the greedy.
By Dr. Meir Tamari

Excerpted from The Challenge of Wealth: A Jewish Perspective on Earning and Spending Money. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Copyright 1995 by Jason Aronson, Inc.


The effects of greed and the fear of uncertainty, which lead to economic crime and theft, may be limited by the understanding of God’s role as the real provider of all the needs of His creatures. This, however, is not sufficient to create a moral economic system. All too often, faith in God’s bounty as satisfying all the needs of men leads to an evasion of social responsibilities. This piety can easily degenerate into the moral corruption of telling the poor, the weak, and even one’s competitors in the marketplace to trust in God’s bounty, using it as an excuse for not sharing what we receive from Him.

It is because of this ease with which people are able to find reasonable and rational reasons for not giving charity that the Tur [Ya‘akov ben Asher, 15th century codifier of Jewish law known by the title of his work, Arba‘ah Turim], in his opening statement to the laws of tzedakah uses a repetitive form, writing that “one is obligated to be very, very careful in giving charity.”

By these laws, the belief in Divine bounty as a source of all wealth creates in Judaism a concept of stewardship, whereby part of that wealth is given to assist others. The religious concept of bitachon (trust in God) may be applied only to ourselves and may not be projected as the means to solve the economic problems of others. One of the chassidic masters said that he was taught this lesson when he found a ten ruble note. “I put it under a stone and wrote on the stone, ‘Thou shalt not steal!’ When I returned, I found a five ruble note in its place and written on the stone was the verse, ‘Thy brother shall live with thee.’ ”

The Mishnah (Avot 5:12) classifies one whose attitude to wealth is “What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours” as being a mediocre person. Such a person is prepared to respect the property of another and operate within the framework of the law. However, he is not prepared to assist others, nor does he recognize a social obligation in view of the wealth in his possession.

“Some say,” continues the Mishnah, “this is the mark of the people of Sodom.” The people of Sodom have been the archetype of an evil community deserving of destruction ever since biblical times, primarily because of their selfish economic behavior. The Malbim (Rabbi Meir Lebush, Hungary, nineteenth century) comments that their sin lay in their refusal to share their wealth with the surrounding nations. It should be noted that while the Aggadah [classical rabbinic legends] is replete with stories of their inhospitality to strangers, the men of Sodom welcomed Lot, Abraham’s nephew. Lot was a wealthy man, and it was only poor strangers who were not welcome in Sodom. The Sodomite view of absolute private property rejects any obligations to assist others, which is contrary to the Jewish concept of limited private-property rights.


Hearing that in the World to Come evildoers would be punished by not being able to bend their arms, a chasid queried Divine Justice, saying that this was no punishment. “Well, they will not be able to eat,” answered his master. But the chasid countered, “Let them sit opposite each other and then they can feed one another with their outstretched arms.” That, however they refused to do. That is their evil way even as it was in Sodom.


However, what made it necessary to destroy Sodom was not the individual selfishness of its citizens, but the fact that this had become an integral part of its communal culture. While a society can exist with cruel and selfish individuals, the moral decay that sets in when cruelty and callousness become hallmarks of that society marks it for Divine retribution. Rashi, commenting on a verse in Amos--“They who sell the poor for a pair of shoes”--highlights this communal aspect. He notes the difference between a sandal, which is open, and a shoe, which is closed and possesses in Hebrew the same grammatical root as the word for “lock.” This is what the rich did. They closed in the poor farmer’s field and then forced him to sell—a perfectly legal but immoral use of societal legislation. So Judea had to be destroyed. In Sodom they gave charity generously. However, all the money was secretly marked so that the storekeepers refused to accept it. When the poor died of hunger, each Sodomite reclaimed his money—legal but abhorrent. Cruelty and callousness are expressed not only in relationships with the poor and weak but also in those between buyer and seller, employer and employee, and even competitors in all spheres of business activity.


When a chasid came to his Admor [the rabbi of whom he was a follower] to complain that his competitors were encroaching on his livelihood, the master told him the following story: “A horse, pausing to drink of the waters of a lake, was astounded to see the head of another horse, bending to drink of his water. In anger, he lashed out with his hooves to chase the other horse away. When, indeed the waves drove away the intruder, the horse put his head down into the water once again to drink, only to find that the other horse had returned. Once again he lashed out with his hooves. You, my friend, are a man, not a horse. The God who provides for you, provides also for the needs of your fellowmen.”

If people really believed that all their needs would be satisfied as a result of God’s mercy and providence, then they would not hesitate to share their wealth with others. Indeed, the refusal to share wealth with others is a denial of trust in God, a rejection of God’s merit as the provider of the needs of man, and an assumption that that wealth is the result solely of one’s work, ability, or luck. The selfishness of the people of Sodom and their imitators in all societies is actually a form of idolatry, since it negates the Divine Source of all wealth.

Dr. Meir Tamari, a native of South Africa, is director of the Centre for Business Ethics at the Jerusalem College of Technology and the author of With All Your Possessions: Jewish Ethics and Economic Life.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/hyyrr

[kiwimac]

The OT verses quite clearly refer to temple / ritual prostitution. While no-one is entirely sure just what Paul meant.

Paul did not write about pederasty/homosexual pedophilia, which was quite common in his world. He wrote arsenokotai. Male to male sexual intercourse.

Christ Jesus defined marriage as a man and a woman. And that this was the way it was, from the beginning.

You'll have to start another religion to the force celebration and acceptance of homnosexuality on scholarly Bible based religious organizations. To preach and teach scholarly views the way Jesus and Paul did, on marriage and same-gender sex acts, is to "hold on fast, to that which is truth." Marriage is man ans woman, and same-gender sex acts are to repented of and not engaged in.

I am sorry if this distresses you but modern scholarship, rooted in the original tongues and based on information gleaned not only from secular sources but also from the teachings of the Jewish people, makes me quite sure that your interpretation is incorrect.

Makes "you" quite sure. It seems that only liberal scholars are NOT distressed over changing the truth for false teachings. There are many other people that do not see the Bible through the eyes of permissive and hedonistic liberal politics, and that see same-gender sex acts as not compatible with both a life of holiness and a life of repentance. If it distresses anti-Christians that it is necessary for sinners to repent and there for turn away from their sins . . . too bad. Christ Jesus never wavered from the truth. Why should those that choose to follow Him?

Furthermore if celibacy is important to you, YOU keep it.

Why go orthodox now? If you want to present Biblical truth, also, stay consisyent on same-gender sex acts the only way they can be presented in Biblical scholarship.

Kiwimac

Please visit this link: http://www.massresistance.com/docs/even ... index.html

. . . and then please try to reconcile; female vaginal condoms shoved up a person's rectum so that anal sex will be "safer," and the New Testament message of salvation?

Reality should be part of "Biblical scholarship." Don't ya think?

1_John,

You'll have to start another religion to the force celebration and acceptance of homnosexuality on scholarly Bible based religious organizations. To preach and teach scholarly views the way Jesus and Paul did, on marriage and same-gender sex acts, is to "hold on fast, to that which is truth." Marriage is man ans woman, and same-gender sex acts are to repented of and not engaged in.

Actually the clearest Biblical picture of marriage is either polygamous or levirate, the whole 'one man, one woman' thing is quite a new innovation in the history of marriage.

Makes "you" quite sure. It seems that only liberal scholars are NOT distressed over changing the truth for false teachings. There are many other people that do not see the Bible through the eyes of permissive and hedonistic liberal politics, and that see same-gender sex acts as not compatible with both a life of holiness and a life of repentance. If it distresses anti-Christians that it is necessary for sinners to repent and there for turn away from their sins . . . too bad. Christ Jesus never wavered from the truth. Why should those that choose to follow Him?

AD hominem. I do not see the Bible through the 'eyes of permissiveness and hedonism', I see it through the eyes of compassion. Further same-sex relationships are never addressed by Jesus. The idea that they fail the test of holiness is simply YOUR opinion.

please try to reconcile; female vaginal condoms shoved up a person's rectum so that anal sex will be "safer," and the New Testament message of salvation?

I am not going to support you in your mono-mania, 1_John. If this is something that personally distresses you then I suggest you don't use vaginal condoms during anal sex. Please also note it is not just homosexuals who have anal sex, it also forms a large part of the sexual experience of any number of heterosexuals.

Kiwimac

[1John2_26]

OK everyone, let me jump in again and say to everyone to calm down. I'm not even sure now it's possible to have a civil debate on topics dealing with homosexuality. Let's try to keep the fight clean and fair. Don't make comments that against specific posters. And I know that the rules do not prohibit attacks against a group of people, but let's try to at least keep the discussions civil. Thanks.

Something tells me that personal insults of this intensity are going unchallenged again?

Grumpy wrote:
Oh, the depravity!!!! Real people supporting each other and demanding that John mind his own business!!! And doing things with each other that John can only obcess about!!!

Poor John, he has to live in a world that really doesn't care what he thinks. And when the lights go out John can only toss and turn thinking about what they must be doing to each other!!!

John just can't deal with the fact that they are here, they are queer and they refuse to take any CRAP from john and his ilk ever again, even in the church(which is theirs as much as it is his).

John, DEAL WITH IT, it isn't going to change for you.

Now granted, his vitriol proves my point perfectly about the intolerance of the Gay Agenda, and the true face of Christian bashers, but, what I presented lines up exactly with the thread topic of homosexuals trying to reach other people's children.

The level of intensity of the vitriol that rises from a liberal/atheist who will not allow dissent from their mandated authority on all things, serves my point/counterpoints well. Still if there were some rebuttal present in Grumpy's verbal assault . . . oh well. Nevermind.

Here's the thread topic.

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

What was presented in my posts; secular, scientifically and religiously, lines up with the thread topic.

Grumpy just used ad hominem (directly at "me") and vitriol (as usual) without a rebuttal to the facts. That at least should finally be alarming.

My position "insults" because it is opposing liberaism and humanism that is literally driving the lives of the adherants that hate Christians as a matter of upholding "their" belief systems.

Should Gay groups handing out literature to children about pushing a "FEMALE VAGINAL CONDOM" up their rectum's for use in anal sex ,not be allowed an opposition voice to that?

Note the "youth" in the photos Grumpy used in his verbal tirade against my posts? I left them out, plus, I do not know how to post photos in threads. Darwin forbid more facts and reality to support the disapproval of homosexuality be presented yet again.

Shouldn't these "youth" be exposed to a counter claim that pushing a female condom up their rectums is neither a natural sex act, nor is it truly safe, be allowed without that being a hate crime, or homophobia? C'mon man, the use of logic, reason and empiricism? Just like you are admonishing?

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Quote:
The OT verses quite clearly refer to temple / ritual prostitution. While no-one is entirely sure just what Paul meant.

Paul did not write about pederasty/homosexual pedophilia, which was quite common in his world. He wrote arsenokotai. Male to male sexual intercourse.

Christ Jesus defined marriage as a man and a woman. And that this was the way it was, from the beginning.

You'll have to start another religion to the force celebration and acceptance of homnosexuality on scholarly Bible based religious organizations. To preach and teach scholarly views the way Jesus and Paul did, on marriage and same-gender sex acts, is to "hold on fast, to that which is truth." Marriage is man ans woman, and same-gender sex acts are to repented of and not engaged in.

Quote:
I am sorry if this distresses you but modern scholarship, rooted in the original tongues and based on information gleaned not only from secular sources but also from the teachings of the Jewish people, makes me quite sure that your interpretation is incorrect.


Makes "you" quite sure. It seems that only liberal scholars are NOT distressed over changing the truth for false teachings. There are many other people that do not see the Bible through the eyes of permissive and hedonistic liberal politics, and that see same-gender sex acts as not compatible with both a life of holiness and a life of repentance. If it distresses anti-Christians that it is necessary for sinners to repent and there for turn away from their sins . . . too bad. Christ Jesus never wavered from the truth. Why should those that choose to follow Him?

Quote:
Furthermore if celibacy is important to you, YOU keep it.


Why go orthodox now? If you want to present Biblical truth, also, stay consisyent on same-gender sex acts the only way they can be presented in Biblical scholarship.

Quote:
Kiwimac


Please visit this link: http://www.massresistance.com/docs/even ... index.html

. . . and then please try to reconcile; female vaginal condoms shoved up a person's rectum so that anal sex will be "safer," and the New Testament message of salvation?

Reality should be part of "Biblical scholarship." Don't ya think?


1_John,

Quote:
You'll have to start another religion to the force celebration and acceptance of homnosexuality on scholarly Bible based religious organizations. To preach and teach scholarly views the way Jesus and Paul did, on marriage and same-gender sex acts, is to "hold on fast, to that which is truth." Marriage is man ans woman, and same-gender sex acts are to repented of and not engaged in.


Actually the clearest Biblical picture of marriage is either polygamous or levirate, the whole 'one man, one woman' thing is quite a new innovation in the history of marriage.

And absolutely NO same-gender unions/marriage anywhere from "beginning to end" in that (your) Bible. Old Testament or New.

Quote:
Makes "you" quite sure. It seems that only liberal scholars are NOT distressed over changing the truth for false teachings. There are many other people that do not see the Bible through the eyes of permissive and hedonistic liberal politics, and that see same-gender sex acts as not compatible with both a life of holiness and a life of repentance. If it distresses anti-Christians that it is necessary for sinners to repent and there for turn away from their sins . . . too bad. Christ Jesus never wavered from the truth. Why should those that choose to follow Him?


AD hominem.

Wrong. I highlight reality. One must repent and be reconciled to God. I know you know that "as an Anglican."

I do not see the Bible through the 'eyes of permissiveness and hedonism', I see it through the eyes of compassion.

There is not one shred of compassion to allowing people to stay seperated from God "in their sins." No lay person of clergy have that right. Christ Jesus and the New Testament record is clear on that. The secular world has the right to "KEEP" marriage man-woman. Note that NO ONE is outlawing same-gender marriage. It is the Gay Agenda and its supporters that are intolerant (and coveting) of marriage as society has held it for a very long time.

Further same-sex relationships are never addressed by Jesus.

Neither is hunting. Your red herring is unbecoming of a person that claims Biblical authority. The morality and holiness of Hebrew and Christian thoughts on marriage is immutable. You'll have to start a different religion to get your same-gender unions to be saluted and celebrated.

The idea that they fail the test of holiness is simply YOUR opinion.

One I obtained from the Bible and history and life experience.

Quote:
please try to reconcile; female vaginal condoms shoved up a person's rectum so that anal sex will be "safer," and the New Testament message of salvation?


I am not going to support you in your mono-mania, 1_John.

You simply wil not address the inappropriateness and the abomination of the situation in the Biblical or secular context. I expected that.

Jesus was not spared the details of the woman caught "in the very act" of adultery and Paul gives such an amzingly accurate account of wrongful sexual behavior, that it could have been obtained two-miutes ago on cable TV.

Both preached repentance and forgiveness, Neither Paul or our Lord refused to "deal with it."

Even in the secular, what the Gay Community and Culture IS doing should have a dissenting voice without the charge of bigotry being labeled. Simply, the anus and rectum is not a sex organ. It is neither bigoted or hateful to hold to the facts. "Even if" one supoorts anal sex as a variation/theme between consenting ADULTS.

If this is something that personally distresses you then I suggest you don't use vaginal condoms during anal sex.

Geez thanks Pastor.

Please also note it is not just homosexuals who have anal sex, it also forms a large part of the sexual experience of any number of heterosexuals.

Note that no where in physiology, biology, anatomy, history, the Bible, Humanism, secularism, or anywhere else . . .except in pornographic films. gay culture, sexual deviance, et al, can the mouth or anus or rectum be called sexual organs. Disapproving of the morality and religion of people that declare a celebration of aberrant sexuality is not wrong, or, a hateful, bigoted or phobic position.

Kiwimac

Your position needs much testing.