Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

EDIT: DAMNIT, I SPELLED IT WRONG. Gargh.

For all you Chick fans out there, here's my take on the story (I wrote this as having to deal with the misinterpretation of the story by someone I know):

QQ.

Thoughts, particularly those from JIA?

Can you honestly expect anything from JIA other than the "mankind shalt not lay with mankind..." quote and then a few bible quotes on how it is prophesied that evils will distort the true meaning of the bible?

Originally posted by Eis
Can you honestly expect anything from JIA other than the "mankind shalt not lay with mankind..." quote and then a few bible quotes on how it is prophesied that evils will distort the true meaning of the bible?
I'm putting faith in my fellow man.

There is strong evidence that suggests that this is a poor course of action.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Thoughts?

Your interpretation of the events, and the reasons for them, are how it was explained to me by various religion teachers over the years. However, given my situation, me agreeing with your interpretation would result in little more than certain people thinking "well of course he agrees!". So, I'll just sit back.

I doubt JIA will even read that, or he'll most likely, copy and paste from bible.com and leave the forum thinking he's saved your soul.

Anyway, who's up for a good old game of chess?

While I would love to turn this inot a JIA bashing thread. That is not the point of the thread or the questions posed. We all, even fellow christians, realize JIA is a nut. But what about the issue of religious interpretation this thread has raised?

I' ve always defined and labeled the crime as rape, even gang rape.

On a side note, no archaeological evidence of the actual existence of Sodom and Gomorrah has ever been recovered.

It's easier to believe then god just destroying a city because they happen to have a few gays in them. If he would have done that tons of city's today should have been destroyed already.

Originally posted by Fishy
It's easier to believe then god just destroying a city because they happen to have a few gays in them. If he would have done that tons of city's today should have been destroyed already. No, God works in mysterious ways.

Originally posted by Storm
I' ve always defined and labeled the crime as rape, even gang rape.

On a side note, no archaeological evidence of the actual existence of Sodom and Gomorrah has ever been recovered.

But doesn't that jsut prove that God is a very thorough Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But doesn't that jsut prove that God is a very thorough Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Why do you think everybody wants god on their side in a war? Why soldiers are blessed and religious wars happen so often and have so much support. God being on your side is a real comfort in battle... If god would show up a few times it would be a lot worse especially if he or she destroyed entire city's because people prayed that he would or because they would sin.

But god doesn't really seem to want to involve itself to much in our world, which is logical if you ask me. If I was god I wouldn't want to do that either to boring, besides watching is more fun then doing sometimes.

Why even suppose that God would take sides? If God took sides on behalf of someone, this necessarily means that God took sides against the other person. The idea of God intervening in human affairs trivializes God. If God would take an active role in people' s life, then God is somehow denying the right of free will to another person.

Originally posted by Storm
Why even suppose that God would take sides? If God took sides on behalf of someone, this necessarily means that God took sides against the other person. The idea of God intervening in human affairs trivializes God. If God would take an active role in people' s life, then God is somehow denying the right of free will to another person.

He does that anyways by being all-knowing...so that shouldn't be a problem.

What is Gomorrha anyway?

A city that I spelled incorrectly.

HAHA.....If Sodom and Gomorrah was soooooooooo bad, then why haven't countries today been vaporised?

Originally posted by FeceMan
A city that I spelled incorrectly. Oh, okay.

Originally posted by debbiejo
HAHA.....If Sodom and Gomorrah was soooooooooo bad, then why haven't countries today been vaporised?
'Cause we're under grace.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh, okay.
I would have liked the story better if it was "Sodom and Gonorrhea."

Originally posted by FeceMan
'Cause we're under grace.

I would have liked the story better if it was "Sodom and Gonorrhea." ermm

Bumped this thread - due to an argument I had over in *Homosexuality* one.(which I stated I would no longer reply in - because my point had been made, so to keep my word - I've bumped this - in order to continue my argument).

Many are under the impression that *homosexuality* wasn't the reason for Sodom and Gommorha's destruction. This is a innaccurate claim at best, misleading one at worst.

The city was an extremely depraved one - and many unnatural and/or abysmal sins were commited within it(homosexuality being among them). Despite such practices taking place in other nations(at the time) - Sodom was by far the most depraved. Sadly their was not even *one* man in this city, that was righteous(or repentant) save Lot. So depraved was this people, that the men even wished to engage in sexual sin with angels(those in the form of men).

The bible does not go into any further explicit detail about the depravity, however, one can draw their own conclusions from the story(from God's judgement - the nation itself was completely whipped off the map, nothing of it remains to this day).

In relation to the homosexuality thread - I ask anyone who believes that homosexual *attraction* is not a sin, please explain to me why a loving God, would put such an unnatural *attraction* within a man, and then condemn him for it, as he did - with the city of Sodom(and Gommorha).
(This thread is not meant to condemn or call anyone out, I just really felt it necessary to clarify why some feel homosexual *attraction* is not sinful - even though it is blantantly demonstrated as being such, within the bible)

So basically you're indirectly replying to that thread in this one, however are still really replying to that thread. Nice cop out. No wonder you're fond of the hypocritical god of Christianity.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So basically you're indirectly replying to that thread in this one, however are still really replying to that thread. Nice cop out. No wonder you're fond of the hypocritical god of Christianity.


A hypocrite who lives in a glass house - shouldn't throw stones, for not only will the stones shatter the glass that encompasses him, but it will also cause him to be on the receiving end of any shards produced by the fractured glass. Only the wise hypocrite, however, will be able remove the glass shards embedded within his skin, and apply the appropriate bandages/remedies to heal his wounds.

Moving on..my argument applies to the topic of this thread(Sodom and Gomorrha) - the only relation it has to the other thread is the argument against *homosexual* attraction not being one of the reasons for the city's destruction. I'm attempting to inquire as to how those who believe this *attraction*(homosexual) is not a sin - can disregard this particular story - and God's obvious condemnation of those who partook in such *attractions*

Let me post the scripture pertaining to the story(of Sodom and Gommorha) for all to review.



Why would a righteous man such as Lot condemn such an *attraction*(homosexual) and behaviour as wicked? Lot was versed with God's word(as was Abraham) - did he err in judgement regarding this being a *natural attraction*? I would think that if this *attraction* towards men was natural and unsinful, Lot would have offered himself to the men, as opposed to his virgin daughters.

I'm interested in knowing others thoughts regarding why Lot didn't offer himself(sexually) in this scenario(only from those who view homosexual *attraction* - as being an unsinful behaviour).

i think the cause of god's supposed wrath was decadence and not homosexuality.
of course wingnuts like JIA and whob usagi believe they go hand in hand.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
A hypocrite who lives in a glass house - shouldn't throw stones, for not only will the stones shatter the glass that encompasses him, but it will also cause him to be on the receiving end of any shards produced by the fractured glass. Only the wise hypocrite, however, will be able remove the glass shards embedded within his skin, and apply the appropriate bandages/remedies to heal his wounds. You're a poet, you just don't know it.

Hmm, I wonder what deep spiritual message I'm meant to take from this - but really all I'm getting is that you should stay out of the Louvre Pyramid.

Originally posted by FeceMan


He's like that... nice guy, isn't he.

He's filled with the Holly Ghost.

I like how, by saying he's not going to respond in the other thread, he gives himself an excuse to ignore everything I've recently written.

thats all whob knows how to do. debating, to him, is yelling through a megaphone while having his ears sealed shut with earplugs. once his "im open for disagreement" facade wears off (somebody challenges him with a valid point) he runs like a chickenshit coward to avoid the reality that he's an idiot.....no, more like an idiot's idiot

now wait for the cry of "group think"

Cont...

52 You also, bear you your own shame, in that you have given judgment for your sisters; through your sins that you have committed more abominable than they, they are more righteous that you: yes, be also confounded, and bear your shame, in that you have justified your sisters.

53 I will turn again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and the captivity of your captives in the midst of them;

54 that you may bear your own shame, and may be ashamed because of all that you have done, in that you are a comfort to them.

55 Your sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate; and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate; and you and your daughters shall return to your former estate.

56 For your sister Sodom was not mentioned by your mouth in the day of your pride,

57 before your wickedness was uncovered, as at the time of the reproach of the daughters of Syria, and of all who are around her, the daughters of the Philistines, who do despite to you all around.

58 You have borne your lewdness and your abominations, says Yahweh.

59 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will also deal with you as you have done, who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant.

60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish to you an everlasting covenant.

61 Then you shall remember your ways, and be ashamed, when you shall receive your sisters, your elder sisters and your younger; and I will give them to you for daughters, but not by your covenant.

62 I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall know that I am Yahweh;

63 that you may remember, and be confounded, and never open your mouth any more, because of your shame, when I have forgiven you all that you have done, says the Lord Yahweh.

As you can see from the passage listed in Ezekiel, pride is the root of all sin. Like the city of Sodom(and Gomorrah), the people of Israel were extremely depraved during this time - and sinned in abundance(by engaging in sexual sin such as homosexuality, worshiping idols, performing sacrifices using humans...) However, their major sin was the*pride* that they had, when engaging in such behaviours. Their was no repentance, no remorse for these actions - they *pridefully* went about engaging in them(like the people of Sodom) - cursing their true Lord and Saviour while doing so.

You have asked previously(in other threads), why God didn't destroy other cities - that engaged in similar sexual depravity? The answer to this is simple - no other city, during that time, was as *prideful* with their depravity as Sodom. To state that the people of Sodom were guilty of just *pride*, and that being guilty of this *pride* in someway excuses the inherent sin of *homosexuality* -- is a legalistic, Pharisaical, and Satanic method of interpreting the scriptures.

This is the same type of debate style used by the Pharisees, when they asked questions of Jesus(which entailed taking scriptures out of context, or reciting one simple verse as the crux of their argument - to justify sinful behaviour). This is a very unbecoming debate style for you, particularly since you post many relevant and well thought out Christian ideas in other threads.

If you feel the need to repost any other arguments that you feel I haven't adressed, please do so now. Again, my purpose is not to condemn - but it is to inform of the incorrectness of the position of homosexual *attraction* not being sinful.

First, Usagi's Bible quote is one of those retranslated texts that takes liberty based in interpretation of meaning.



The proper and direct translation does not read as this. The term "know" as used in a sexual manner is a much more entailed activity than just sex, it refers to an extremely intimate and thorough knowledge of a person, including sexual acts but in no way limited in scope to only sexual acts, even though the term does include sexual acts in all usage. Thus using the phrase "that we may have sex with them is correct, but is also an oversimplification.

Now, I think Fece was rather well thought out in his assessment at the beginning of this thread. The cities had much sin in them, but homosexuality was just one of many.

I do believe the story of the events surrounding them have been incorrectly recorded. I do not believe offering one's daughters to be raped is in any manner an acceptable course of action. So either Lot was not a very good man and thus the Angels did not even want to spend the night in his home or Lot was a good man and the offer of his daughters is an example of erroneous recording of events. Another example of probable error is the seeming condoning of Lot's daughters' rape of their father.

Given the probable errors and obvious contradictions in the story, the entire story of Lot must be interpretted with caution, imo. I believe much of the story is symbolic and metaphorical in nature, even the destruction should be viewed as probably exaggerated in nature as to the actual event.

Originally posted by Regret
First, Usagi's Bible quote is one of those retranslated texts that takes liberty based in interpretation of meaning.

The proper and direct translation does not read as this. The term "know" as used in a sexual manner is a much more entailed activity than just sex, it refers to an extremely intimate and thorough knowledge of a person, including sexual acts but in no way limited in scope to only sexual acts, even though the term does include sexual acts in all usage. Thus using the phrase "that we may have sex with them is correct, but is also an oversimplification.

Now, I think Fece was rather well thought out in his assessment at the beginning of this thread. The cities had much sin in them, but homosexuality was just one of many.

I do believe the story of the events surrounding them have been incorrectly recorded. I do not believe offering one's daughters to be raped is in any manner an acceptable course of action. So either Lot was not a very good man and thus the Angels did not even want to spend the night in his home or Lot was a good man and the offer of his daughters is an example of erroneous recording of events. Another example of probable error is the seeming condoning of Lot's daughters' rape of their father.

Given the probable errors and obvious contradictions in the story, the entire story of Lot must be interpretted with caution, imo. I believe much of the story is symbolic and metaphorical in nature, even the destruction should be viewed as probably exaggerated in nature as to the actual event.

The story is in no way metaphorical. It is very direct. You are making the same mistake as Feceman - taking minor words or phrases - and bending them to affect the obvious meaing(s) behind the scriptures.

Feceman has made no specific mention of *homosexuality* being a sin within this thread - in fact he has frankly stated(within other threads) that being gay - or having an attraction to men is not an unsinful and unnatural thought pattern - so long as one has not acted on it.

Again - this is another Legalistic way to interpret the scriptures. The point that is made(within the bible) - is that being tempted in itself is not sinful, however - when one harbors the temptation, be it physically or emotionally, it then becomes a sin. This is the rationale behind all sin, not just homosexuality.

I have no idea why you all even argue this. It is an extremely inaccurate and deceiving way to interpret God's word, and depressing to see two individuals who profess themselves to be devout Christians even arguing it. Let me just say - that I have no problem with being corrected(when I'm incorrect about something) but both you and Feceman are extremely wrong on this issue.

If you wish to continue with this debate, that is fine with me - however, as of right now, I feel as if there is no more for me to say. I may return however, at a later time - if I feel that I can add any further insight to the discussion.

Good day to you all. God bless.

I don't believe that the bible is a book of facts. This story is just a story.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The story is in no way metaphorical. It is very direct. You are making the same mistake as Feceman - taking minor words or phrases - and bending them to affect the obvious meaing(s) behind the scriptures.

Feceman has made no specific mention of *homosexuality* being a sin within this thread - in fact he has frankly stated(within other threads) that being gay - or having an attraction to men is not an unsinful and unnatural thought pattern - so long as one has not acted on it.

Again - this is another Legalistic way to interpret the scriptures. The point that is made(within the bible) - is that being tempted in itself is not sinful, however - when one harbors the temptation, be it physically or emotionally, it then becomes a sin. This is the rationale behind all sin, not just homosexuality.

I have no idea why you all even argue this. It is an extremely inaccurate and deceiving way to interpret God's word, and depressing to see two individuals who profess themselves to be devout Christians even arguing it. Let me just say - that I have no problem with being corrected(when I'm incorrect about something) but both you and Feceman are extremely wrong on this issue.

If you wish to continue with this debate, that is fine with me - however, as of right now, I feel as if there is no more for me to say. I may return however, at a later time - if I feel that I can add any further insight to the discussion. If you ever present something remotely insightful, I will be sure to let you know. Feceman's approach at the beginning of this thread was incredibly insightful, while your comments attempt to shove insight into a hole and stomp on it with ignorance as your mantle of pride. I have never seen you concede to the value of any one else's interpretations of scripture, I have only seen you state that your view is correct and everyone else is interpreting the wrong way. The pharisees were not a bad group of individuals, they were good men, many of which would not concede that their interpretations were wrong, and thus they rejected Christ. Now, it is always possible that one is in error, this is my stance, that it is possible that I am in error. Understanding a broad spectrum of possibility is the only method for avoiding the error of the proud pharisees that could not accept that their interpretation was not the correct one. I accept that other possibilities exist, but I have my belief as to which possibility is the most likely, and I follow that, it is possible that I am wrong, and I embrace that as a shield to hold me against the error of the pharisees.

You believe that the Bible should not be interpreted in what you refer to as legalistic interpretation. The Bible should be approached from as many methods of interpretation as possible, the Bible does not state how it should be interpreted, it states that the spirit will aid a person in understanding, I believe this.

Various Christians bring the concept of spirit given understanding of scripture up at this point, so I am heading any attempts at this direction off now. Here is the issue, I do not believe you have the spirit with you. Thus, your interpretation is very likely wrong imo. Now, you will turn around and say the same thing about me, unless of course I agree with you. Given this, this argument to who "has the spirit" is a waste of time to bring up.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah could be extremely literal, it could be an entirely fictional tale or it could be somewhere in between. All possibilities should be understood. Now, you claim it is entirely literal. So, if my neighbor gives me his daughters for sex, this is sanctioned by the Bible? If my daughter drugs me and then rapes me, is this then acceptable if I have no sons? No, these are both erroneous claims and are unBiblical. The only method for the Lot story to fit with the rest of the Bible is either error in the record or the stance that it is a moral story that may have fiction involved, or perhaps a combination of the two.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
As you can see from the passage listed in Ezekiel, pride is the root of all sin. Like the city of Sodom(and Gomorrah), the people of Israel were extremely depraved during this time - and sinned in abundance(by engaging in sexual sin such as homosexuality, worshiping idols, performing sacrifices using humans...) However, their major sin was the*pride* that they had, when engaging in such behaviours. Their was no repentance, no remorse for these actions - they *pridefully* went about engaging in them(like the people of Sodom) - cursing their true Lord and Saviour while doing so.
Or...it could be their arrogance as to think they were above God, or maybe they were prideful and considered themselves better people in other areas, or they were so prideful as to think themselves greater than believing in any gods...

See, now it gets muddied up. I also doubt that the use of "pride" in this context meant that Sodom took pride in their actions.

Like gay pride, amirite?

Le sigh.

Awesome! I've got the "whob seal of approval" for my posts!

Furthermore, you'll notice that, in the original post, I did mention the following verse in Ezekiel.

Le sigh. Attraction != sin no matter what.

P.S. I like the following post where you "bow out" of the debate in order to look like a gentleman. Really classy.

Regret: I think that, by Lot's offering his daughters to the crowd of rapetacular men, it was an act of sacrifice (in a way)--him allowing his virgin daughters to be despoiled for the safety of two strangers. It's analagous to Christ's crucifixion, in a way.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Regret: I think that, by Lot's offering his daughters to the crowd of rapetacular men, it was an act of sacrifice (in a way)--him allowing his virgin daughters to be despoiled for the safety of two strangers. It's analagous to Christ's crucifixion, in a way. While this is possible, Biblically sacrifices to God are offered following the command to sacrifice. Sacrifices outside the commanded sacrifices met with correction Biblically, this leads to the conclusion that Lot's offering of his daughters cannot be seen as having literally occurred and being acceptable to God at the same time.

It is only a symbolic story. Lot got a lot from his daughters, and his sweet sweet wife was so full of compassion that she was turned into salt,..salt meaning goodness/preserved for ever more...ever more...It is Good lesson.

The lesson is that we should all be full of salt.......

Oh btw it was custom back then to gang bang people into the pecking order.....

Originally posted by Regret
While this is possible, Biblically sacrifices to God are offered following the command to sacrifice. Sacrifices outside the commanded sacrifices met with correction Biblically, this leads to the conclusion that Lot's offering of his daughters cannot be seen as having literally occurred and being acceptable to God at the same time.
The Law was not yet communicated, though, so there were no set times for sacrifices/feasts. Also, I was only saying that, while it wasn't a literal sacrifice to God, it was indeed a sacrifice similar to God's giving up of Christ to protect us (the strangers).

Originally posted by FeceMan
The Law was not yet communicated, though, so there were no set times for sacrifices/feasts. Also, I was only saying that, while it wasn't a literal sacrifice to God, it was indeed a sacrifice similar to God's giving up of Christ to protect us (the strangers). Ahh, you are right, in the Bible the command had not come yet. In LDS scripture we have an account where Adam responds to the query of an angel as to why sacrifices are offered, and Adam states "I know not, save the Lord commanded it" or relatively close to that. Sometimes I make comments and forget which scriptures contain the text that gives me my interpretation.

I always wanted to go on Vacation to Sodom and Gomorrha !


I heard it's like a GAY oasis over there

Seriously, did mommy and daddy not hug you enough?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe that the bible is a book of facts. This story is just a story. I concur.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I always wanted to go on Vacation to Sodom and Gomorrha !


I heard it's like a GAY oasis over there

http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/9493/agdchucksomedutchchick2tc0.gif

Originally posted by Regret
Your interpretations are your "personal agenda." You present your interpretation and make the claim that other interpretations are misinterpretations. You are the one that in many of our eyes "grossly misinterprets." Why do you do this? Because you believe that you know the proper manner of interpretation. From my, and other's, perspective you do not know how to interpret scripture correctly.


The only *personal agenda* I have is to spread the truth and love of God's word. The truth is always loving - unfortunately many don't love the truth. Whether I receive praise or condemnation from others while spreading this truth is of little value to me.

Still - I do have much concern and great animosity towards false doctrines, and those Christians who purposefully profess them, particularly when presented in a fashion capable of leading those not versed in the scriptures astray.

Feceman's *insightful* arguments of "homosexual attraction" not being sinful, and of God not condemning Sodom and Gomorrha because of such perverse behaviour - falls under the category of being a false doctrine. I will continue to call you and others out when you've espoused such *insightful* drivel - regardless of whether or not I receive excessive adulation/praise for any expression of truth, and with the hope that you and others, do not resign yourselves to following such foolish opinions.

Originally posted by Regret
Part of the reason is that, in our opinion, you lack the Spirit. The other reason is that you are using an English version of the Bible, it is a translation, and by virtue of linguistics, all translations are intrepretations based in "using complicated linguistics and etymologies to translate a simple word or passage(within the scriptures)" the very English text you read was gained through this process, by individuals that followed one of the Christian denominations that you disagree with. The only versions that come close to avoiding translation are the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. One must examine the original language because man has translated it, and man makes mistakes, both intentionally and unintentionally,to do otherwise is leaning on the understanding of men, not on the spirit.Pride, as a sin, is a lack of humility.


I have no problem humbling myself when presented with truth, however, I will save this humility for a time when I have been presented with such.

The bible is never referenced as being the *inspired word of man* - but instead it is always referred to being the *inspired word of God*
When one lacks or questions their faith in the latter statement - they have begun to declare fallibility in God's word, and are in essence calling God a liar. Men do make mistakes - however, the beauty of having true faith in God's word(the bible) - comes from one having enough faith in God, and his ability to account for any mistakes made by man. Legalism and exstensive studying of minor words and phraseologies, does not garner such faith, but instead - sets a precendence for endless-convoluted-embellished interpretations of scripture, and prideful arguments which cause confusion - over glaringly obvious meanings within it.

Again - the debate style yourself and Feceman are using is the same type of debate style used by the Pharisees, and it is very sadenning to see two intelligent individuals such as yourselves engaging in it.

Originally posted by Regret
Now, you did exactly what I predicted you would do. So, I will do exactly what I stated I would. You do not have the Spirit, thus everything that I disagree with that you have stated is in error due to the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" that I enjoy and you do not.


You are very capable of possessing the Holy Spirit, as is everyone who believes in Christ - it is not either of our places to insinuate who does and does not have the capability of receiving such a spirit within them. However, the false argument you seem so determined to adhere to, as well as the debate style you have presented it in, is a major indication that you are not being moved by such a spirit - while presenting this argument. Again - I do not seek to condemn you by saying this, rather I pray that you at some point - will acknowledge the truth in my words, so that the spirit will move you to inform others of the truth that's been presented.


Originally posted by Regret
Once again you "add" to the scripture in the same manner you accuse others of. Lot and the acts I mentioned are not condemned in the Bible, you claim he erred, there is nothing in the text of the Bible suggesting this. Lot was a good man, he, and his family, is excepted from the scrutiny of the Angels due to his relation to Abraham when the Angels go to search for one righteous person. Your disagreement with my assertions merely demonstrate that you do not agree, and given that I believe I have the Spirit, it is evidence to me that you do not. Now like I stated earlier arguments to who does or does not have the Spirit is a pointless venture, so I will not pursue it further, as you have already stated that I do not, and I have reciprocated with the same claim. If you wish to pursue such, I will ignore that portion of your posts.


I never stated that Lot wasn't a good man. In fact - if you read my statement above *once again* you will see that I professed Lot to be "righteous." For you to insinuate otherwise after reading my prior response - is extremely illogical - and it appears that you have presented it in a willfully deceiving fashion. However - in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to not appear as *prideful* with this assertion - let me repeat what was initially stated again, in case I have erred regarding the motive of your interpretation.

Lot's righteousnous was based on his faith in God - rather than any works he had performed. This righteousnous was *once again* demonstrated by his faith in God when leaving Sodom and Gomorrha.

This entire argument regarding Lot's righteousnous was in response to the following Legalistic/Pharisaical argument you had presented - regarding him willing giving his daughters over to the depraved men of Sodom.



As stated in my prior post - this was indeed a sinful action on Lot's part, and it took place due to lot being overtaken by a spirit of fear.

This is not simply not base on my own willfull *interpretation* of the scripture, this is simply called using my God given *common sense* - something that he(God) instills within all those who truly love him.

Sodom was a wicked city, and it's pride over commiting such wickedness, was the reason as to why it was destroyed. Still this does not excuse any sinful actions - commited by its people because of this pride. When one states otherwise - they are grossly misrepresenting the scriptures. I have no further reason nor motivation to argue this obvious truth behind my arguments. I hope that you do indeed meditate and accept the truth that's been presented - and at some point use it for the benefit of others. Good day to you. And God bless.

Hey, usagi, why don't you attempt to rebutt what I said?

Otherwise, you can just skittle back under whatever bridge whob trolls live.

Damn, Usagi...


You lost respect from Atheists and Christians alike...that must be quite sad

Originally posted by FeceMan
Hey, usagi, why don't you attempt to rebutt what I said?

Otherwise, you can just skittle back under whatever bridge whob trolls live.
I like how my post is just sitting here, kind of like a "lol, pwned" thing.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I like how my post is just sitting here, kind of like a "lol, pwned" thing.

Get used to it, after all, you are just one of us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Get used to it, after all, you are just one of us.
Hey, I try to leave no post un-replied.

Originally posted by FeceMan
THICK MEAT



droolio

Originally posted by FeceMan
Hey, I try to leave no post un-replied.

Why?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?
Because that's a whob tactic.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because that's a whob tactic.

What?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?
Ignoring posts.

(By the way, I can't tell if Urizen is hitting on me. Can you?)

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ignoring posts.

Oh, I see...

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ignoring posts.

(By the way, I can't tell if Urizen is hitting on me. Can you?)

Its Urizen. Of course he is.

I maintain: "lol pwned"

I'm going to continue bumping this until I get a rebuttal or get yelled at.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I maintain: "lol pwned"

I'm going to continue bumping this until I get a rebuttal or get yelled at.

At least add a funny picture each time, for emtertainment purposes.

http://www.headphonic.com/pwned.jpg

drooliodrooliodrooliodrooliodrooliodroolio

Like characterizing a natural disaster as Hurricane Katrina as God' s judgment on the wicked city of New Orleans.

Originally posted by Storm
Like characterizing a natural disaster as Hurricane Katrina as God' s judgment on the wicked city of New Orleans.


BOOYYAHHH

Originally posted by Storm
Like characterizing a natural disaster as Hurricane Katrina as God' s judgment on the wicked city of New Orleans.
Except that's incorrect because of the "grace" dispensation.

Originally posted by Storm
Like characterizing a natural disaster as Hurricane Katrina as God' s judgment on the wicked city of New Orleans. God in the Bible typically claims credit for such acts, not just men believing such are his acts. Typically it occurs following a statement by God through a prophet that such a thing will occur and why, followed by an opportunity for the inhabitants to change, then a follow through with the stated action. Hurricane Katrina did not follow the established pattern, so no, one cannot claim that it was an act of God in that manner.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Except that's incorrect because of the "grace" dispensation. Except, that's assuming the "grace" dispensation is anything other than an erroneous interpretation.

Originally posted by Regret
Except, that's assuming the "grace" dispensation is anything other than an erroneous interpretation.
I have a hard time believing that it is nothing but an erroneous interpretation.

Old testemat God was never really the gracious type. He killed a man for trying to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling to the ground just becasuse he touched it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Except that's incorrect because of the "grace" dispensation. Dispensation???

You're one of them........False teacher!!

Dispensation was never taught be Jesus, it was Darby and Scholfield in the 1800's.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Dispensation???

You're one of them........False teacher!!

Dispensation was never taught be Jesus, it was Darby and Scholfield in the 1800's.
It's a teaching to help us understand God.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's a teaching to help us understand God. Now we got a Darby and Scholfield worshipper........Paul, Constantine and now this...........ohhhhhh for shame.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Now we got a Darby and Scholfield worshipper........Paul, Constantine and now this...........ohhhhhh for shame.
Nuurh.

I don't know how to make you understand that the teachings of dispensations aren't heretical. Because they're not.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Nuurh.

I don't know how to make you understand that the teachings of dispensations aren't heretical. Because they're not. Yes they are. If Jesus didn't teach it, then it's a false teaching...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes they are. If Jesus didn't teach it, then it's a false teaching...
GAH.

The teaching is not one that is being said to be part of the Bible. Rather, dispensations are an idea that help us to understand the nature of God. No one is saying that they are teachings from the Bible, but they are biblically based, founded on Scripture and how God has worked in the past.

Originally posted by FeceMan
GAH.

The teaching is not one that is being said to be part of the Bible. Rather, dispensations are an idea that help us to understand the nature of God. No one is saying that they are teachings from the Bible, but they are biblically based, founded on Scripture and how God has worked in the past. Quit making weird noises........

Of course it changes the teachings. There is dispensation of Noahs time, of Moses time, Jesus time, the church age, the millennial ....Changes the whole grace thing.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Quit making weird noises........

Of course it changes the teachings. There is dispensation of Noahs time, of Moses time, Jesus time, the church age, the millennial ....Changes the whole grace thing.
No, it doesn't?

I mean, no, it doesn't.

Hehe, I just made an even more in-depth summary of Sodom and Gomorrah. I'll post it here (I'm quite pleased with myself for making the ignorant learned).

Originally posted by FeceMan
Hehe, I just made an even more in-depth summary of Sodom and Gomorrah. I'll post it here (I'm quite pleased with myself for making the ignorant learned).

That's an interesting interpretation, and I'll readily agree with you that homosexuality wasn't the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom, but at the same time how does your interpratation of the events in any way shape or form justify homosexual behavior as not being "sinful"?

Well, obviously it does not, however, it is obviously a minor cause the schemes of things if it was a motivation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, obviously it does not, however, it is obviously a minor cause the schemes of things if it was a motivation.

Hey bud. Long time no see. Yeah I agree with you. I just want to get Feceman's opinion of why this event proves it not to be a sin. I've seen him post of it as not being a sin in other threads.

Originally posted by Thundar
That's an interesting interpretation, and I'll readily agree with you that homosexuality wasn't the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom, but at the same time how does your interpratation of the events in any way shape or form justify homosexual behavior as not being "sinful"?
No, that's a whole other issue.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No, that's a whole other issue.

Okay, but what about homosexual attraction? Is it sinful? Don't worry I won't get all Marchello on you, regardless of your answer..

Originally posted by Thundar
Okay, but what about homosexual attraction? Is it sinful? Don't worry I won't get all Marchello on you, regardless of your answer..
No, homosexual attraction isn't sinful despite one's view on homosexuality and Christianity.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No, homosexual attraction isn't sinful despite one's view on homosexuality and Christianity.

Okay, well I respect your view on this. That being said, what are your views on pedophilic, necrophilic, and sexually oriented bestial attractions, are those sinful?

Originally posted by Thundar
Okay, well I respect your view on this. That being said, what are your views on pedophilic, necrophilic, and sexually oriented bestial attractions, are those sinful?
No, the attraction itself is not sinful.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No, the attraction itself is not sinful.

Okay gotcha. Bear with me now. I haven't reached Marchello level yet.

Okay a few more questions for you..

Is having an attraction to something a type of action?

And if an individual harbors an attraction to commiting sexual sins, or any sin for that matter -- are they not commiting a sin?

Originally posted by Thundar
Is having an attraction to something a type of action?
An involuntary one.

If that's the case, then I'm a murderer, thief, and worse. Now, I don't believe the attraction is sinful, but the thoughts stemming from the attraction are.

Originally posted by FeceMan
An involuntary one.

If that's the case, then I'm a murderer, thief, and worse. Now, I don't believe the attraction is sinful, but the thoughts stemming from the attraction are.

Matthew 15:19-20;
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:

20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

Matthew 5:27-28
27. You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

28. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart.


So the sin action actually begins in the heart, not with the actual physical act. This is why even Job, the most righteous man on earth during his time - still commited the act of sin. He like all of us, harbored sinful thoughts, despite having not acted upon the thoughts, or not having sinned with "his lips."

Only two individuals within this life did not harbor or possess sinful thoughts. The first was Adam, and the second was Jesus.

The harboring part of sinning is the only part where individual interpretation can come into play. Personally, I think the harboring aspect of sin is a bit different for each person, as only God knows exactly when a person has harbored sinful attraction long enough for them to have commited an offense against him.

Despite it all, I am of firm belief that most sin we've commited can be forgiven - so long as we have earnestly repented of it. It's important as Christians though, that we all know distinctively what sin is, and inform each other when we've commited sin, so as not to get ourselves involved in the complicated spiritual warfare and confusion that commiting sin entails.

Thoughts, not innate reactions.

Sorry, but involuntarily getting a hard-on when one sees a corpse isn't wrong.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Thoughts, not innate reactions.

Sorry, but involuntarily getting a hard-on when one sees a corpse isn't wrong.

Umm. Yeah it is. Getting a hard-on from a corpse is definitely sinful, as it takes awhile to harbor sinful thoughts that lead to the hard on. I'd hardly(no pun intended) call any action that precipitated those thoughts involuntary.

The only time I think we could argue that such a behavior was involuntary is if a person were dreaming about such a vile act, and they woke up with an erection.

Even in such situation like this though, I believe that God could only excuse a person of not commiting a sin for possessing such thoughts, if they had not harbored any thoughts about such actions immediately before hand.

So say for example the Devil decided to prove a point to God about you being a hypocritical sinner, and planted a thought in your head while you were asleep about having sex with a corpse. If you had never really had thoughts about such an action before, then you wouldn't have commited any sin, because you never harbored the thoughts -- they were just planted in your head during a vulnerable time, a time in which you had little ability to control them.

Now if you looked at necro-porn right before you went to bed and then had the dream about having sex with a corpse, then yeah -- its definitely your fault, not the Devil's for planting and harboring those sinful thoughts within your head.

Just wanted to highlight this verse again to further clarify the position I presented --

Matthew 15:19-20;
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:

So the "thought" or "attraction" of homosexuality is in itself defined by God as being evil, however, a man only begins to commit an evil action or sin against God with such thoughts/attractions when he harbors them.

One kind of gets in dangerous territory when they start describing evil as involuntary. It's important to remember that evil exists apart from one's ability to be influenced by it, and this existence is not solely dependant upon whether or not we participate in it.

Originally posted by Thundar
Just wanted to highlight this verse again to further clarify the position I presented --

Matthew 15:19-20;
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:

So the "thought" or "attraction" of homosexuality is in itself defined by God as being evil, however, a man only begins to commit an evil action or sin against God with such thoughts/attractions when he harbors them.

One kind of gets in dangerous territory when they start describing evil as involuntary. It's important to remember that evil exists apart from one's ability to be influenced by it, and this existence is not solely dependant upon whether or not we participate in it.






Aren't you a homosexual Whob ? One who denies his natural desires ? I feel bad 4 u

Originally posted by Thundar
Umm. Yeah it is. Getting a hard-on from a corpse is definitely sinful, as it takes awhile to harbor sinful thoughts that lead to the hard on. I'd hardly(no pun intended) call any action that precipitated those thoughts involuntary.
All those 13-year-old boys who suddenly find themselves having to shift their books when a girl walks by them disagree.

Thought != attraction. Attraction occurs involuntarily.

Originally posted by FeceMan
All those 13-year-old boys who suddenly find themselves having to shift their books when a girl walks by them disagree.

Thought != attraction. Attraction occurs involuntarily.

Natural attractions/thoughts are involuntary. Homosexuality is biblically defined as an unnatural behavior in relation to what God defines natural and good behavior to be.

Please understand though that no form of evil is involuntary. Evil is always performed as a concious action against God, and it is either performed or impressed upon an individual by an evil spirit, or at some point - an individual has themself engaged in evil behavior that has caused their body to harbor evil thoughts and/or unnatural attractions.

what we talking bought

Originally posted by Thundar
Natural attractions/thoughts are involuntary. Homosexuality is biblically defined as an unnatural behavior in relation to what God defines natural and good behavior to be.

Please understand though that no form of evil is involuntary. Evil is always performed as a concious action against God, and it is either performed or impressed upon an individual by an evil spirit, or at some point - an individual has themself engaged in evil behavior that has caused their body to harbor evil thoughts and/or unnatural attractions.
Homosexuality isn't a choice, and it does occur in nature. It might be aberrant, but it is natural.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Homosexuality isn't a choice, and it does occur in nature. It might be aberrant, but it is natural.

Yeah, homosexuality is a choice for us human beings. And remember as I stated before, evil exists apart from mankind. Due to Adam's sin, the entire earth -- including plants and animals were given to Lucifer(or evil) to have dominion over. The system that we're under now is an evil one, and Lucifer himself is defined as the "God of this age."

So the death, sexual perversion, as well as other evil things seen within the animal kingdom are due to the influence of this evil system created by Lucifer. Remember, before Adam's sin - there was no death on earth, and all animals were herbivores. After Adam's sin and the fall came the whole "survival of the fittest" doctrine/death were imposed upon mankind and nature. These evil things were obviously instilled upon us by Lucifer, as the "survival of the fittest" doctrine as well as death are his modus operandi - not God's.

Fortunately, God was merciful on man once again, and instilled an inherent fear of mankind within the animal kingdom, so as not to have man completely destroyed by this evil system.

Most of what I just summarized can be found within the books of "Adam of Eve." I've included a link to translated version of it below:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/adameve/adamevetoc.html


There are two books to it. If you choose to read them, I advise you to do so with a grain of salt and a lot of prayer - as I don't believe the description of the events is a completely accurate in some areas, which is probably why the books weren't included in modern translations of the bible. However, the books still have much merit to them - as I believe they were at one point included within the original Torah along with the book of Enoch, and the book of Enoch is a book that is referenced to within the book of Jude. Enoch is a good read, and it fills in a lot of gaps between the books of Adam and Eve and Noah's time. A translated version of the original text can be found at the following site:

http://www.altheim.com/lit/enoch.html

Thats a specualtion, and your opinion because there is not a single (credible) evidence which suggests hat homosexuality is choice.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Thats a specualtion, and your opinion because there is not a single (credible) evidence which suggests hat homosexuality is choice.

Even if it was their is no proof to say that its immoral.

Thundar has no evidence to support his claims

Originally posted by Thundar
Yeah, homosexuality is a choice for us human beings.
Pursuing a homosexual lifestyle? Yes. Being attracted to people of the same sex? No.


I don't think they were.

Genesis 9:1-3

Originally posted by Thundar
Yeah, homosexuality is a choice for us human beings. And remember as I stated before, evil exists apart from mankind. Due to Adam's sin, the entire earth -- including plants and animals were given to Lucifer(or evil) to have dominion over. The system that we're under now is an evil one, and Lucifer himself is defined as the "God of this age."

So the death, sexual perversion, as well as other evil things seen within the animal kingdom are due to the influence of this evil system created by Lucifer. Remember, before Adam's sin - there was no death on earth, and all animals were herbivores. After Adam's sin and the fall came the whole "survival of the fittest" doctrine/death were imposed upon mankind and nature. These evil things were obviously instilled upon us by Lucifer, as the "survival of the fittest" doctrine as well as death are his modus operandi - not God's.

Fortunately, God was merciful on man once again, and instilled an inherent fear of mankind within the animal kingdom, so as not to have man completely destroyed by this evil system.

Most of what I just summarized can be found within the books of "Adam of Eve." I've included a link to translated version of it below:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/adameve/adamevetoc.html


There are two books to it. If you choose to read them, I advise you to do so with a grain of salt and a lot of prayer - as I don't believe the description of the events is a completely accurate in some areas, which is probably why the books weren't included in modern translations of the bible. However, the books still have much merit to them - as I believe they were at one point included within the original Torah along with the book of Enoch, and the book of Enoch is a book that is referenced to within the book of Jude. Enoch is a good read, and it fills in a lot of gaps between the books of Adam and Eve and Noah's time. A translated version of the original text can be found at the following site:

http://www.altheim.com/lit/enoch.html





WOW WHOB YOUR STUPID

Originally posted by FeceMan
Pursuing a homosexual lifestyle? Yes. Being attracted to people of the same sex? No.


I don't think they were.

Genesis 9:1-3 There was an essay at Berlin University which said that homosexuality was not a choice

Originally posted by TRH
There was an essay at Berlin University which said that homosexuality was not a choice
Thank God that there was some essay at some university that said something.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Thank God that there was some essay at some university that said something.








Oh yes, that confirms it !

Originally posted by FeceMan
Thank God that there was some essay at some university that said something. what are you tying to say?

Originally posted by TRH
what are you tying to say?


An essay is support, but it does not prove anything.


I being a bisexual myself, however, know i never chose my sexuality

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
An essay is support, but it does not prove anything.


I being a bisexual myself, however, know i never chose my sexuality I did not mean that I meant like a press conference when they Announce discoveries

Originally posted by TRH
I did not mean that I meant like a press conference when they Announce discoveries


I know, i was being sarcastic

Originally posted by Thundar
Being attracted to killing, stealing, sexual perversion, or any other form of sin is considered evil. And being attracted to evil is definitely wrong, regardless of what form of evil it is.


What about Ignorance and Bigotry ?

Originally posted by Thundar
Being attracted to killing, stealing, sexual perversion, or any other form of sin is considered evil. And being attracted to evil is definitely wrong, regardless of what form of evil it is.
Um...being attracted to evil is a product of the Fall. Not a cause.

Wtf? That's no such thing. God, it's like I'm dealing with yusagi again. At least when I say that someone's misusing God's word, I can back it up. All I said was that animals weren't all herbivorous before the Flood.

Spare me the lecture on Christ's role--I'm quite familiar with it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Um...being attracted to evil is a product of the Fall. Not a cause.

Wtf? That's no such thing. God, it's like I'm dealing with yusagi again. At least when I say that someone's misusing God's word, I can back it up. All I said was that animals weren't all herbivorous before the Flood.


No one insinuated otherwise Feceman. You know better. The statement was made about how death(or Satan) was only given authority over man after Adam's disobedience. This in no way gives the implication that death/Satan wasn't present before the Flood.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Spare me the lecture on Christ's role--I'm quite familiar with it.


You are mistaken if you think that my intention is to just prove you incorrect and lecture you. My intention was to assist you along the path, which is something as a Christian myself -- I would want others to do for me if I was misguided about a particular verse or scripture.

That being stated, your intepretation of this issue of homosexuality not being evil is a very incorrect one -- and again, I sincerely hope that some of what I've posted has assisted you in understanding how dangerous such a position can be.

Originally posted by Thundar
You are mistaken if you think that my intention is to just prove you incorrect and lecture you. My intention was to assist you along the path, which is something as a Christian myself -- I would want others to do for me if I was misguided about a particular verse or scripture.

That being stated, your intepretation of this issue of homosexuality not being evil is a very incorrect one -- and again, I sincerely hope that some of what I've posted has assisted you in understanding how dangerous such a position can be.


So let me guess....your intepretation of the Bible are correct while Feceman's is not ?



OH, here we go again



The Bible claims that "God is not the Author of Confusion", yet the Bible is the most confusing book ever written. Even Christians fight over the text....


That must mean the Bible is INVALID

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So let me guess....your intepretation of the Bible are correct while Feceman's is not ?



OH, here we go again



The Bible claims that "God is not the Author of Confusion", yet the Bible is the most confusing book ever written. Even Christians fight over the text....


That must mean the Bible is INVALID

Or god is hiding the truth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or god is hiding the truth.


I can't believe I actually used to be like them....beleiving the Bible was absolute truth with no actual proof, regardless of the fact that I knew in the back of my mind that the Bible often contradicted reason and reality.

Originally posted by Thundar
No one insinuated otherwise Feceman. You know better. The statement was made about how death(or Satan) was only given authority over man after Adam's disobedience. This in no way gives the implication that death/Satan wasn't present before the Flood.
Oh, poop, I realized that I misread what you said originally. My bad.

Would you at least bother countering any of the points made in this article rather than just saying, "It's a sin, it's a sin, it's a sin"?

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I can't believe I actually used to be like them....beleiving the Bible was absolute truth with no actual proof, regardless of the fact that I knew in the back of my mind that the Bible often contradicted reason and reality. It is okay *pats on back* I did to

Originally posted by TRH
It is okay *pats on back* I did to


cry

*slaps* suck it up man

Originally posted by TRH
*slaps* suck it up man


droolio

2guns

Originally posted by TRH
2guns



2guns droolio

NM

Originally posted by TRH
NM


8======D

To assert that the last recorded acts of a group of Sodomites is proof that Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed for homosexuality is equivocal to asserting that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards; Sodom and Gomorra were planned for destruction long before the mob converged on the home of Lot and demanded to rape his guests.

Homosexuality is not cited anywhere in Genesis 19 as a cause of the destruction of the two cities. In fact, the reason God destroys Sodom and Gomorra is stated clearly in Ezekiel 16:49-50:

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

Thus they were haughty before Me and I removed them when I saw it."

Furthermore, the sex of the angels is irrelevant; Had the angels been female, it would not suddenly be acceptable to rape them.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To assert that the last recorded acts of a group of Sodomites is proof that Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed for homosexuality is equivocal to asserting that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards; Sodom and Gomorra were planned for destruction long before the mob converged on the home of Lot and demanded to rape his guests.

Homosexuality is not cited anywhere in Genesis 19 as a cause of the destruction of the two cities. In fact, the reason God destroys Sodom and Gomorra is stated clearly in Ezekiel 16:49-50:

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

Thus they were haughty before Me and I removed them when I saw it."

Furthermore, the sex of the angels is irrelevant; Had the angels been female, it would not suddenly be acceptable to rape them.
I said it better, with more words, and I'm a Christian.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I said it better, with more words, and I'm a Christian.

Go you.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I said it better, with more words, and I'm a Christian.

Problem being you're all still wrong about this somehow justifying homosexuality as not being an evil-sinful attraction...

Originally posted by FeceMan
To assert that the last recorded acts of a group of Sodomites is proof that Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed for homosexuality is equivocal to asserting that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards; Sodom and Gomorra were planned for destruction long before the mob converged on the home of Lot and demanded to rape his guests.


Your guard analogy is also a poor one, because it insinuates that "cursing" at authority is not an evil behavior, simply because someone is being punished for something else. If anything, such addtional evil behavior only further helps demonstrate why Sodom was condemned over other nations. The pride that they had when commiting their sins, was comparable to that of the condemned man cursing at the guards.

So you and Feceman are only partially correct with this interpretation.
Sodom and Gommorah was not solely destroyed for the sin of homosexuality. Rather, they were destroyed for being extremely prideful and unrepentant for all of the sins they had commited.

My apologies Feceman - the second quote was actually Adam Poe's not yours.

Originally posted by Thundar
Problem being you're all still wrong about this somehow justifying homosexuality as not being an evil-sinful attraction...
I don't justify homosexuality based on Sodom and Gomorrah--all I'm saying is that Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of the hommasekshul relashuns they wanted with the angels.

No, it's pretty good. The prisoner is already ****ed; his cursing at the guard isn't going to make him more ****ed.

So...going to challenge the New Testiment anytime soon?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...going to challenge the New Testiment anytime soon?

Nobody likes a smart ass.

Originally posted by Devil King
Nobody likes a smart ass.

But I love you... Well, maybe not love, but respect.

Well, a thread about Sodom and Gomorrah isn't really relevant to the New Testament.

But I'm sure I love you too.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, a thread about Sodom and Gomorrah isn't really relevant to the New Testament.

But I'm sure I love you too.

...only sure...now I know why you don't look at me during.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...only sure...now I know why you don't look at me during.

It's hard to make eye contact when I'm behind you.


And the best part is that our joking conversation is totally on-topic for a thread about Sodom and Gomorrha

Originally posted by Devil King
It's hard to make eye contact when I'm behind you.


And the best part is that our joking conversation is totally on-topic for a thread about Sodom and Gomorrha

Hahha, I wonder if Lil'B would approve!

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't justify homosexuality based on Sodom and Gomorrah--all I'm saying is that Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of the hommasekshul relashuns they wanted with the angels.



Well initially you did - but it seems that you don't think so anymore so it looks like I've fulfilled my purpose with this argument. So I guess we can agree that homosexual attraction, action, reaction, relashuns, etc, etc, etc are definitely evil, despite whether or not we engage/harbor/or actively participate in them. In the end though - sin is sin, and homosexuality is no worse than any other. And like any other it can be forgiven - if one earnestly repents and turns away from it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No, it's pretty good. The prisoner is already ****ed; his cursing at the guard isn't going to make him more ****ed.


Hmmm...well I still think it's still a good example of why he's ****ed. His attitude toward his crime is very prideful, which is exactly how the people of Sodom were regarding their sins.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Hahha, I wonder if Lil'B would approve!

She's usually got a pretty good sense of humor.

Originally posted by Thundar
Well initially you did - but it seems that you don't think so anymore so it looks like I've fulfilled my purpose with this argument. So I guess we can agree that homosexual attraction, action, reaction, relashuns, etc, etc, etc are definitely evil,

Feceman has no real issues with homosexuality. And I certainly know he doesn't think it's evil.

Originally posted by Thundar
Well initially you did - but it seems that you don't think so anymore so it looks like I've fulfilled my purpose with this argument.
Er, no, I didn't. If you look through the thread, you'll find that I've made no such claim.

He might just, you know, be pissed off. Not prideful.

h

So, Thundar = whob sock confirmed?

Originally posted by FeceMan
So, Thundar = whob sock confirmed?

I did not realize this was ever in question.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not realize this was ever in question.
Well, he's not banned, so...

Really, his "I've won the argument" cut-and-run strategy makes it undeniable.