religious war for the presidency has begun.

Originally posted by chithappens
If you read that chapter, it is very clear they are talking about homosexual sex.

There is not anything to read into. It is what it is

I watched a documentary on Sodom and the Biblical account, there are older text which portray Sodom's sin being one of greed. The Sodomites (not anal-sex practitioners) had plenty of food, water and wealth, yet didn't share with their neighbor cities who were destitute due to famine and whatnot. So God destroyed them for being selfish; not for being butt****ers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Whether it's about ****ing angels or men is up to interpretation.

Also, sodomy refers to all kinds of "unnatural" sex. Only recently it is predominantly used to refer to male gay sex.

Actually, you have that backwards. Sodomy, back then, was almost always associated with man on man sex. Nowadays, sodomy is more open to interpretation. Completely heterosexual couples indulge in sodomy and actually talk about it.

Originally posted by chithappens
If you read that chapter, it is very clear they are talking about homosexual sex.

There is not anything to read into. It is what it is

Yeah...what this guy said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends on which translation you're reading.

I watched a documentary on Sodom and the Biblical account, there are older text which portray Sodom's sin being one of greed. The Sodomites (not anal-sex practitioners) had plenty of food, water and wealth, yet didn't share with their neighbor cities who were destitute due to famine and whatnot. So God destroyed them for being selfish; not for being butt****ers.

An indepth reading into Jude 1:7, and various other scriptures would lend a different conclusion.

I did a quck skim over...but, alas, I couldn't find where it directly associated "the way of the sodomite" to man on man sex...but I could have sworn that it's in there.

Edit...there's a reason we call it "sodomy"...because "it is the way of the sodomite".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you have that backwards. Sodomy, back then, was almost always associated with man on man sex. Nowadays, sodomy is more open to interpretation. Completely heterosexual couples indulge in sodomy and actually talk about it.

I am pretty sure I don't have that backwards, but I am willing to learn, what have you got to convince me?

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends on which translation you're reading.

I watched a documentary on Sodom and the Biblical account, there are older text which portray Sodom's sin being one of greed. The Sodomites (not anal-sex practitioners) had plenty of food, water and wealth, yet didn't share with their neighbor cities who were destitute due to famine and whatnot. So God destroyed them for being selfish; not for being butt****ers.

I just read the Genesis 19 from three translations. Some of the words change but it's hard to confuse what happened:

Men, young and old, came to have sex with the two angels sent by God to check out the city. Lot says no but offers his two virgin dauthers. Men say no thanks and then add they will now do "worse" to Lot than they do to the angels (I feel crazy now but I almost certainly remember mention of group sex, looting and so on before this chapter in Sodom and Gomorrah). Angels say, "Move out the way" and blind all the men looking to have have their way with them.

After that comes the fire.

Originally posted by Robtard

In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible.

Exactly, and the Senator is correct. The US is based on and intended for secular governing and jurisprudence. The only reason he's getting flak, is because a lot of snake-handling rednecks want the US to be a Christian state.

Originally posted by Robtard

You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

Because today, many people who are not religious, think that stoning and slavery are pretty backwards but still consider being gay disgusting/abnormal/weird. So whether they're "arbitrarily" kept or tossed aside is debatable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That would be one helluva typo.

Yeah, that also sounds pretty straight-forward to me. You'd be hard pressed to try and find a way to show that its actually a metaphor.

----

Religion Forum, Robtard?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure I don't have that backwards, but I am willing to learn, what have you got to convince me?

The word "sodomy".

Originally posted by dadudemon
The word "sodomy".

Go on.

I disagree with this being in the religion forum.

Originally posted by Devil King
I disagree with this being in the religion forum.

Originally posted by chithappens
I just read the Genesis 19 from three translations. Some of the words change but it's hard to confuse what happened:

Men, young and old, came to have sex with the two angels sent by God to check out the city. Lot says no but offers his two virgin dauthers. Men say no thanks and then add they will now do "worse" to Lot than they do to the angels (I feel crazy now but I almost certainly remember mention of group sex, looting and so on before this chapter in Sodom and Gomorrah). Angels say, "Move out the way" and blind all the men looking to have have their way with them.

After that comes the fire.

If I remembered the documentary (it was some time ago), I would post what was stated. It did bring forth proof from older scriptures (eg less rewritten/revised) to substantiate the claim that Sodoms sin was greed and not gay-anal-rape.

I'll look though.

Originally posted by Devil King
I disagree with this being in the religion forum.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Same.

Despite the fact that the first two words in the title are "religious war"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Go on.

LOL.

That's it. Short of asking the original authors and subsequent translators about colloquial sayings and words, I don't have a way. I'm not an archaeologist.

I've come to this conclusion based on how the word "sodomite" is used to reference homosexual men in the old and new testaments. It was usually in reference to men who have sex with men. I could look that up somewhere...

Ahh these Christians in America scare me,

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ahh these Christians in America scare me,

Me too. 😱

Better be scared! God has OUR collective back!

Originally posted by chithappens
Better be scared! God has OUR collective back!

I've never been afraid of God, just afraid of people who think they know what God wants. 😱

Haha, Christian have the answer. Not from the bible! But from the church!

Shazaam!

Originally posted by Robtard
You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

The better question is why the Old Testament is paid attention to at all, or included in such a "holy" text. I can think of dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of books that are better guidelines for morality than it is. All it does is leave room for assh*les with an agenda to use scripture to justify their hatred, oppression, and intolerance.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ahh these Christians in America scare me,

qft

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The better question is why the Old Testament is paid attention to at all, or included in such a "holy" text. I can think of dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of books that are better guidelines for morality than it is. All it does is leave room for assh*les with an agenda to use scripture to justify their hatred, oppression, and intolerance.

Puts what comes after in into context, to understand Jesus' new winesack you have to know of the old one he replaced.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
qft

???

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Despite the fact that the first two words in the title are "religious war"?

Yes. This is not a thread about religion. It's about political consideration of people who take their religion too far and refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church and state. This is a political thread, not a religious thread.