Let's talk about Sodom and Gomorrha.

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.

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).

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.

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 😱

Originally posted by Regret
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.

One must be very careful about using their own *insight* - when attempting to interpret the scriptures. God does not make it difficult for those who love him to understand the meaning of his words. Generally, when individuals are using complicated linguistics and etymologies to translate a simple word or passage(within the scriptures) - they are not being moved by the Holy Spirit when presenting this type of *insight* to others.

That being said - there is nothing Pharisaical, Legalistic, or prideful about my interpretation of this story. The passage in itself is very direct about the accounts that transpired. My problem is not with *pride* - or in the inability to admit incorrectness, but with the often times misuse(and blatant misrepresentations) of God's word, particularly when its used to further personal agendas. I do not like to idly say nothing - when I see such gross misinterpretations.

Originally posted by Regret
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.

Conceeding to the possibility that one is in error - does not make one's stance on a subject any less prideful or any more correct. Pride(and all sin) is very malleable - and takes whatever form necessary to further its own agenda.

Originally posted by Regret
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.

More legalistic - and un-Christian like is your stance becoming - regarding the presentation of the scriptures. The bible should not be "approached from as many methods of interpretation as possible" - or to simplify *interpreted* subjectively. Christ speaks very adamently about how his believers are to *interpret* his word, and how those same believers - will be punished for selectively adding to scriptures - or when they attempt to deceive or mislead others in their presentation of them.

Revelation 22:18-19

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”

Proverbs 30:5-6:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Originally posted by Regret
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 argument is not a "waste of time." True believers and followers of Christ do indeed have the Holy Spirit indwelling within them. They will not subjectively interpret or convolute the scriptures - and will be quickly roused to anger, when they have witnessed blatant misinterpretation of their God's word, or quickly moved to change their behaviours - when given valid correction from one of their bretheren.

Given your stance on this subject, as well as your interpretations on many other Christian subjects within this forum - I find it indeed sad to say, that the Holy Spirit does not dwell within you(at this time). This is not to say that it at some point, it will not. But the spirit that indwells you now - is a *lying prideful* one - which you have unwillingly(or willingly) embraced.

Originally posted by Regret
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.

Lot was a righteous man however, like many of us - he buckled under pressure and was possessed by a *fearful* spirit, which caused him to sin. However, like Abraham - he redeemed himself by demonstrating this righteousnous(through faith) upon leaving the city of Sodom, when commanded by God to do so.

The story is not to be subjectively interpreted - and by continuing to assert that it is - you only further demonstrate that the Holy Spirit hasn't taken up residence within you. Please do not take this as a condemning criticism, being that we are all human, and susceptible to allowing evil spirits to rule over us(during times of weakness). However - I sincerely ask of you to take this as a loving correction, and meditate on what has been presented within this topic.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
One must be very careful about using their own *insight* - when attempting to interpret the scriptures. God does not make it difficult for those who love him to understand the meaning of his words. Generally, when individuals are using complicated linguistics and etymologies to translate a simple word or passage(within the scriptures) - they are not being moved by the Holy Spirit when presenting this type of *insight* to others.

That being said - there is nothing Pharisaical, Legalistic, or prideful about my interpretation of this story. The passage in itself is very direct about the accounts that transpired. My problem is not with *pride* - or in the inability to admit incorrectness, but with the often times misuse(and blatant misrepresentations) of God's word, particularly when its used to further personal agendas. I do not like to idly say nothing - when I see such gross misinterpretations.

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. 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.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Conceeding to the possibility that one is in error - does not make one's stance on a subject any less prideful or any more correct. Pride(and all sin) is very malleable - and takes whatever form necessary to further its own agenda.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
More legalistic - and un-Christian like is your stance becoming - regarding the presentation of the scriptures. The bible should not be "approached from as many methods of interpretation as possible" - or to simplify *interpreted* subjectively. Christ speaks very adamently about how his believers are to *interpret* his word, and how those same believers - will be punished for selectively adding to scriptures - or when they attempt to deceive or mislead others in their presentation of them.

Revelation 22:18-19

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”

Proverbs 30:5-6:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The argument is not a "waste of time." True believers and followers of Christ do indeed have the Holy Spirit indwelling within them. They will not subjectively interpret or convolute the scriptures - and will be quickly roused to anger, when they have witnessed blatant misinterpretation of their God's word, or quickly moved to change their behaviours - when given valid correction from one of their bretheren.

Given your stance on this subject, as well as your interpretations on many other Christian subjects within this forum - I find it indeed sad to say, that the Holy Spirit does not dwell within you(at this time). This is not to say that it at some point, it will not. But the spirit that indwells you now - is a *lying prideful* one - which you have unwillingly(or willingly) embraced.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Lot was a righteous man however, like many of us - he buckled under pressure and was possessed by a *fearful* spirit, which caused him to sin. However, like Abraham - he redeemed himself by demonstrating this righteousnous(through faith) upon leaving the city of Sodom, when commanded by God to do so.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The story is not to be subjectively interpreted - and by continuing to assert that it is - you only further demonstrate that the Holy Spirit hasn't taken up residence within you. Please do not take this as a condemning criticism, being that we are all human, and susceptible to allowing evil spirits to rule over us(during times of weakness). However - I sincerely ask of you to take this as a loving correction, and meditate on what has been presented within this topic.

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.

Originally posted by Regret
So, if my neighbor gives me his daughters for sex, this is sanctioned by the Bible?

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.

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. 😛

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?

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

What?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?

(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.