Originally posted by steverules_2
If God was commanding people to kill gays...with I doubt is what he would command...then that would be going against one of the ten commandments 'Thou shall not kill.'
If God would command you to kill gays what would stop him from retroactively change that to "You shall not kill unless it's gays"?
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not their ability though, everyone can achieve that...there are more straights able to do it anyways.
"If you work hard...and apply yourself Daniel-San...even YOU can achieve....the AIDS!!!"
"Oh Sensei...do you really think so?"
"The wisdom of the ages tells me that there are more straights able to achieve the AIDS Daniel-San"
😖hifty:
Originally posted by Bardock42
If God would command you to kill gays what would stop him from retroactively change that to "You shall not kill unless it's gays"?
Cause God is the same today, yesterday, and forever.
He destroyed the sodomites for their buttsexual ways. Kind of harsh, IMO. But I"m not God.
To be fully honest, the God of the Old Testament was a really angry and very unforgiving.
Some say that He was that way because of how immature and slothful the spirits were back then, that it took tough love. For example, when the poisonous snakes came through the camp of the Jews, all they had to do was look at a statue and they would be "cured." If they didn't, they died. Many people who were bitten looked at the statue and were spared. Some refused, saying it was stupid. Despite the clear evidence that it was saving lives, they still refused, thinking that retarded and illogical. Those who didn't, died. That was God's harsh way of eliminating those individuals who refused to follow Him. He would rather a few die than spare all and allow an entire nation to dwindle in unbelief. This was all an extremely complex plan, setting up a social experiment of sorts, that would result in the overly pious and hypocritical environment necessary for Christ's dispensation. Kind of odd that weeding out the bad and leaving the faithful would lead to hypocritical and processional Jews that would hate and crucify their very own God, isn't it?
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]He destroyed the sodomites for their buttsexual ways. Kind of harsh, IMO. But I"m not God.
I read (or watched) somewhere that [originally] Sodom's crime in God's eye wasn't rampant male-on-male anal, it was greed, where they had plenty, yet refused to help their neighboring cities who had famine.
But a story about smiting gays sells better than a story about smiting capitalism.
Originally posted by Robtard
I read (or watched) somewhere that [originally] Sodom's crime in God's eye wasn't rampant male-on-male anal, it was greed, where they had plenty, yet refused to help their neighboring cities who had famine.But a story about smiting gays sells better than a story about smiting capitalism.
I read in many more places that sodomy is a derivative of Sodom, and the rampant references to "the ways of the sodomite" in the old testament are further evidence of this man on man action that appears to have it's origins in Sodom.
You do know that we've had this discussion before, don't you?
I thought it was less the fact that it was gay and anal and more that it was group and non-consensual. There really isn't that much consensual sex in the bible. I mean in context, that is the original Hebrew phrasing of that passage in what Christians call Leviticus that they say condemns homosexuality. In the syntax of the times, all it says is that a man shall not lay with a male rapist.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I read in many more places that sodomy is a derivative of Sodom, and the rampant references to "the ways of the sodomite" in the old testament are further evidence of this man on man action that appears to have it's origins in Sodom.You do know that we've had this discussion before, don't you?
I'm well aware of the etymology of the word and it does make perfect sense, still, it could have been used after the fact, when the changing happened.
Yeah, as I was typing, it all seemed too familiar.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I thought it was less the fact that it was gay and anal and more that it was group and non-consensual.There really isn't that much consensual sex in the bible.
The most accepted is that Sodom was full of sexual sin, male-on-male anal, unfaithful wives, orgies, bestiality etc. The final straw in God's eye was the gang of males who wanted to anal gang-rape the two angels in disguise in Lot's house.
Neither in DDM's house, ohh, see what I did there?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm pretty sure every male over the age of 18 here is a sodomite according to the legal definition.
Really depends how we use the term, personally, I associate the word only with anal penetration, call me old school.
You're probably right, though I'd go further to say just about everyone over 16 is some kind of sodomite.