Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

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

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

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

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

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

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[1John2_26]

Quote:
A blanket statement proves very little without supporting evidences. Homosexuality by the very nature of the act in males is very dangerous and painful. In women it is entirely "fruitless" in the "multiply" department. There is no support for same-gender sexual relationships anywhere in the Hebrew or Christian Bible.


A blanket statement proves very little without supporting evidences.

Now, who is being ignorant of sex?

Lubes and rectal tears and of course AIDS stand in opposition of your point of view "Scrotum." The supporting evidence that anal sex is not natural is immutable. Of course.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Quote:
It is only mankinds fears and prejudices that have concocted this monstrous imaginary sin, not God.

Man shall not lie with a man as with a woman it is a destestable thing. How in the world can a theologian concoct that same sex sex is something that God was not concerned about?

You raise some interesting points here. I would ask:

1) How do you know that god really was concerned about any of this? You have only a book that claims to be the word of god. There are other books that claim to be words of gods, too. How can anyone tell which one, if any, is the real word of a god?

Wow! The Jose going for the cognitive dissonance debate tactic? (Though if you think about it, it is apporopraite when discussing homosexuality.)

Jose, gays and lesbians are free to pick and choose an anti-Christian, or, to be fair, a non-Christian religion to fight their battle of homosexualizing the earth's populace. You pick a religion for them. Obviously even "you" can see that they have no support "from" the Bible.

What if all of them are stories written by Man?

All, with the same anatomy. Put down your religions and look at the human body. It proclaims that we learn our sexual orientation from its design. But that would be using logic and not emotionaism and a million different religions. If we allow anyone that can "do" anything sexually to proclaim whatever they do should be equated with noramlity then science is to be discarded altogether.

If the latter, then this notion of "sin" is, indeed, a monstrous imagining concocted from mankind's fears and prejudices.

Anatomy and physiology niether are a religion. I have written many times for the Gay Agenda to proclaim itself a religion and be done with it.

Let's go through the dissonanc process. I have my philosophical ibuprofen handy:

2) How do you know the correct interpretation of the term "as with" in the passage to which you refer?

In "english" or hebrew? Let's ask a Rabbi fluent in Hebrew. I'll bet it comes down they way it has always been "interpreted."

I'll offer some other phrases, to illustrate my concern.
one does not kill with a sword as with a gun

Usually blood loss and trauma kills the person. Not the gun or the knife.

a bird does not travel with its wings as with its feet

If a bird does not move it dies from starvation. It doesn't feed itself with its wings or feet either. Baby birds don't come from two mating male birds. Ok, ok, I'm with you. This isn't as painful as I thought it would be.

one does not win the game with a basketball as with a baseball

The mechanics involved in sporting events may not support you hypotheisis here. Fat lazy uncoordinated people don't usually do well in championship rounds. There is a set format for "winning."

man does not witness the world with his eyes as with his ears

Normality of both are used though. Actually there is no such things as something "being a color." Only reflecting light waves we perceive as colors. The deaf and blind also want to be healed of their sometimes "congenital condition" of not being born "normal."

Could it be that you are mis-reading this passage?

I guess i could just be a computer program responding to rebuttals in orthodox ways. I guess i could be a Bonobo taking a braek from whatever it is Bonobos do.

Could it be that it is more a "manual of style" than anything else?

The Bible is definately a "manual of style."

Could it really be saying that the manner in which man lies with man should be different from the manner in which man lies with woman? Besides, who cares about lying--your concern is always with sex, not sleep.

Jose, this is not a place I would expect you reaching for absurd offerings be considered logic and reason.

3) The injunction about lying with man in the same manner as lying with woman is from a portion of the bible that puts forward a number of other requirements.

Then discard it. There is no support for same-gender sexual relationships anywhere in the Tankh or the New Testament. But many other ways of declaring it an abomination. Molech worship (opposing it) would be a good place to examine.

Yet, Christians seem quite happy to ignore most of them.

What "Christians" would that be? I don't need the Bible at all to assert the unnaturalness and uselessness of same-gender sex acts. If two guys love each other that is great. I love many of my male friends. My semen production though, is not "designed" for them. Something tells me that. Not necessarily the Bible.

Why is it considered OK to pick and choose?

Pick and choose what? Shell fih really can kill people. Pork has caused many heart attacks. look up the Africam America community and its causes of disease-deaths?

How can we justify claims of biblical support for one viewpoint, while completely ignoring the biblical injunctions against other actions?

Ask Jesus. I am a Christian. He proclaimed marriage and sex is for a man and a woman. Reading into the text or extrapolating from it. Food IS mentioned. Sex is also, and it does NOT get changed to accept homosexual sex acts be OK'd for Christians "IN the New Testament. C'mon Jose. Do we really need to debate on this level?

Is it just a matter of choosing what's convenient?

You tell me? If it was convenience and political power being sought "by Christians" then everyone and ebery sexual practice would, or should be, proclaimed as "what the heck! anything goes!!!" But purity and morallity is proclaimed. Same-gender sex acts is preached against. No amount of arguing hypothetical licentiousness is going to prove whatever point it is Jose, that you are trying to make. The New Testament writers debated you point for point. I just agree with them.

Is it that cultural norms have changed?

Not according to Paul, Peter, John, Jude or James. "Jesus" (it is said) is the same yesterday, today and forever. I just agree with that. I wish I didn't have to be painted with epithets for believing the writers of the New Testament but alas, it is a very light burden.

Is it that the price of lambs has increased to where it is unsound economic policy to sacrifice them,

Just the opposite here Jose. You could clone the perfect lamb over and over again. In fact.

or that medical knowledge has advanced to where we know leprosy is a bacterial disease that is unaffected by dabbing blood on ears and toes?

The hands of Jesus produced anti-biotics? Miracles are all around us. "I" for example, can raise the dead with the training I have received I am even purchasing an electrical device to do it even more effectively. My CPR and First Aid cards are up to date as we write by the way.

Oh, you know something, I just thought about CPR. Do we do pulmonary resusitation techniquese on the thigh muscles?

Get where I'm going Jose?

For example, can you explain to us how we decide which of the following we may ignore?

Easy. Practice any non-Biblical based religion. Or, invent one yourself. I'll leave your list written in english.

Lev 19:19 doesn't bode well for the Gay Agenda though, from first glance. How many gays are in the garment business and mix genders where they shouldn't be mixed? But anyway . . . I'll ask a Levite priest about your offerings when I find one. By the way, if Jesus is our "High Priest," that kind of destroys the whole gay Jesus fantasy.

Quote:

Lev. 11:7-8
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Lev. 14--how to cure leprosy
[2] This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
<snip the bit about killing a bird over running water and dipping another bird in its blood>
<snip the bit about shaving the hair, beard, and eyebrows>
[14] And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Lev. 19:27
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Lev. 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 23:16-18
Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.
And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the LORD.

[melikio]

Folks, I think it is time to stop debating 1John.

Of course I'm not demaniding that, just thinking that rather than answer him where he has already been proven wrong numerous times, that some or most of us would simply provide more information which contains far more truth.

I think 1John is good at causing arguments; pressing the "HOT BUTTON". He says outrageous things, then goes through the (imagenary) ritual of "biblically" or "scientifically" supporting what's obviously ludicrous. I admit it seems somewhat like a magic trick to me, because he tends to quote text from right-wing religious sources.

So, if you generally believe in the Bible at all, it's at least interesting to see how certain right-wing fundamentalists have TWISTED so much of what is written, to FIT their own mindsets. Honestly, I've learned it is better to believe what you can from the Bible, and leave the rest if it cannot be believed. But it seems certain people are nearly insane about making ALL of it FIT what they themselves are capable of believing (or blindly compelling others to follow it, because they consider all of what's in that book to be truth).

Here's what I recommend: Continue to "debate" the topic, but stop letting 1John steer any of it using his outrageous claims or proclamations. I think that if "God" were anything like 1John, we'd have to ALL BE DEAD (homosexual people first). If not for the buffer of anonymity here, I would consider 1John a SERIOUS threat (if he knew I was a homosexual); I would respect him as a human being, but generally avoid him. Any arguments would last about 30 seconds max, as I would dismiss myself from his presence, once I caught wind of his attitude and religious approach. I mean, WHO would want to be a Christian, if they HAD to think like 1John does?

Bottom line: Don't argue with 1John, debate the topic from a more societal viewpoint overall. I AM interested in seeing what others see in that light; but I'm really tired of seeing so much energy used to counter 1John's distortions, when most thinking people already know such distortions exist.

How are the views which 1John holds concerning "homosexuality", beneficial to "Christianity", "society" or individual homosexual "people?
(I think that's on topic, but I DO often wonder what positives he really sees in his worldview.) And I already know that HAMMERING people with Bible verses is NOT constructive period. If one is lucky, they may affect someone overwhelmed by fear/guilt, and through some neurotic effect cause them to "convert" their thinking. Usually, people ust end up "playing" as a Christian or something else religious... not really believing in ALL that they've been COMPELLED to believe. And that is where I came from in religion; so I'm not ever going back there.

If God exists, it is His "providence" which will cause the deep and heartfelt beliefs of individual "sinners"; not some few words loaded with religious-compulsion that some person pulled from the holy-book of choice. In fact, it's God's influence (I believe), which keep the whole darned thing from being absolutely meaningless. NO ONE need believe that God's influence resembles anything like that which 1John and other rightists tend to exude in character. These fanatical guys QUOTE the BIBLE with as much arrogance, as the young guy who tells everyone he disagrees with to "get screwed!".

As MLK Jr. said to society many times "...Just go on living life..." and much more will be seen and understood in due time. I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure that 1John doesn't either. I present myself as a REAL person who has suffered from the religious persecution which multitudes of homosexuals already have. So yes, I'm vulnerable in my credibility... until someone who really wants to know and has compassion decides to check out the things I've shared from a more hands-on, compassionate human perspective; not as if one is sitting on the very armrest of God's Chair, and repeating what daddy has said.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Jose,

Can you see?

What I wrote that is.

Quote:
1John2_26 wrote:
Quote:
It is only mankinds fears and prejudices that have concocted this monstrous imaginary sin, not God.

Man shall not lie with a man as with a woman it is a destestable thing. How in the world can a theologian concoct that same sex sex is something that God was not concerned about?

You raise some interesting points here. I would ask:

1) How do you know that god really was concerned about any of this? You have only a book that claims to be the word of god. There are other books that claim to be words of gods, too. How can anyone tell which one, if any, is the real word of a god?

Wow! The Jose going for the cognitive dissonance debate tactic? (Though if you think about it, it is apporopraite when discussing homosexuality.)

Jose, gays and lesbians are free to pick and choose an anti-Christian, or, to be fair, a non-Christian religion to fight their battle of homosexualizing the earth's populace. You pick a religion for them. Obviously even "you" can see that they have no support "from" the Bible.

Quote:
What if all of them are stories written by Man?

All, with the same anatomy. Put down your religions and look at the human body. It proclaims that we learn our sexual orientation from its design. But that would be using logic and not emotionaism and a million different religions. If we allow anyone that can "do" anything sexually to proclaim whatever they do should be equated with noramlity then science is to be discarded altogether.

Quote:
If the latter, then this notion of "sin" is, indeed, a monstrous imagining concocted from mankind's fears and prejudices.

Sin is as real as gravity.

Anatomy and physiology niether are a religion. I have written many times for the Gay Agenda to proclaim itself a religion and be done with it.

Let's go through the dissonance process. I have my philosophical ibuprofen handy:

Quote:
2) How do you know the correct interpretation of the term "as with" in the passage to which you refer?

In "english" or hebrew? Let's ask a Rabbi fluent in Hebrew. I'll bet it comes down they way it has always been "interpreted."

Quote:
I'll offer some other phrases, to illustrate my concern.
one does not kill with a sword as with a gun

Usually blood loss and trauma kills the person. Not the gun or the knife.

Quote:
a bird does not travel with its wings as with its feet

If a bird does not move it dies from starvation. It doesn't feed itself with its wings or feet either. Anatomy tells you this. Baby birds don't come from two mating male birds. Ok, ok, I'm with you. This isn't as painful as I thought it would be.

Quote:
one does not win the game with a basketball as with a baseball

The mechanics involved in sporting events may not support you hypotheisis here. Fat lazy uncoordinated people don't usually do well in championship rounds. There is a set format for "winning."

Quote:
man does not witness the world with his eyes as with his ears

Normality of both are used though. Actually there is no such things as something "being a color." Only reflecting light waves we perceive as colors. The deaf and blind also want to be healed of their sometimes "congenital condition" of not being born "normal."

Quote:
Could it be that you are mis-reading this passage?

No. Why not you?


I guess I could just be a computer program responding to rebuttals in orthodox ways. I guess i could be a Bonobo taking a braek from whatever it is Bonobos do.

Quote:
Could it be that it is more a "manual of style" than anything else?

The Bible is definately a "manual of style."

Quote:
Could it really be saying that the manner in which man lies with man should be different from the manner in which man lies with woman? Besides, who cares about lying--your concern is always with sex, not sleep.

Jose, this is not a place I would expect you reaching for absurd offerings be considered logic and reason.

Quote:
3) The injunction about lying with man in the same manner as lying with woman is from a portion of the bible that puts forward a number of other requirements.

Then discard it. There is no support for same-gender sexual relationships anywhere in the Tankh or the New Testament. But many other ways of declaring it an abomination. Molech worship (opposing it) would be a good place to examine.

Quote:
Yet, Christians seem quite happy to ignore most of them.

What "Christians" would that be? I don't need the Bible at all to assert the unnaturalness and uselessness of same-gender sex acts. If two guys love each other that is great. I love many of my male friends. My semen production though, is not "designed" for them. Something tells me that. Not necessarily the Bible.

Quote:
Why is it considered OK to pick and choose?

Pick and choose what? Shell fih really can kill people. Pork has caused many heart attacks. look up the Africam America community and its causes of disease-deaths?

Quote:
How can we justify claims of biblical support for one viewpoint, while completely ignoring the biblical injunctions against other actions?

Ask Jesus. I am a Christian. He proclaimed marriage and sex is for a man and a woman. Reading into the text or extrapolating from it. Food IS mentioned. Sex is also, and it does NOT get changed to accept homosexual sex acts be OK'd for Christians "IN the New Testament. C'mon Jose. Do we really need to debate on this level?

Quote:
Is it just a matter of choosing what's convenient?

You tell me? If it was convenience and political power being sought "by Christians" then everyone and ebery sexual practice would, or should be, proclaimed as "what the heck! anything goes!!!" But purity and morallity is proclaimed. Same-gender sex acts is preached against. No amount of arguing hypothetical licentiousness is going to prove whatever point it is Jose, that you are trying to make. The New Testament writers debated you point for point. I just agree with them.

Quote:
Is it that cultural norms have changed?

Not according to Paul, Peter, John, Jude or James. "Jesus" (it is said) is the same yesterday, today and forever. I just agree with that. I wish I didn't have to be painted with epithets for believing the writers of the New Testament but alas, it is a very light burden.

Quote:
Is it that the price of lambs has increased to where it is unsound economic policy to sacrifice them,

Just the opposite here Jose. You could clone the perfect lamb over and over again. In fact.

Quote:
or that medical knowledge has advanced to where we know leprosy is a bacterial disease that is unaffected by dabbing blood on ears and toes?

The hands of Jesus produced anti-biotics? Miracles are all around us. "I" for example, can raise the dead with the training I have received I am even purchasing an electrical device to do it even more effectively. My CPR and First Aid cards are up to date as we write by the way.

Oh, you know something, I just thought about CPR. Do we do pulmonary resusitation techniquese on the thigh muscles?

Get where I'm going Jose?

Quote:
For example, can you explain to us how we decide which of the following we may ignore?

Easy. Practice any non-Biblical based religion. Or, invent one yourself. I'll leave your list written in english.

Lev 19:19 doesn't bode well for the Gay Agenda though, from first glance. And many other glances.

How many gays are in the garment business and mix genders where they shouldn't be mixed? But anyway . . . I'll ask a Levite priest about your offerings when I find one. By the way, if Jesus is our "High Priest," that kind of destroys the whole gay Jesus fantasy.

Quote:

Lev. 11:7-8
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Lev. 14--how to cure leprosy
[2] This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
<snip the bit about killing a bird over running water and dipping another bird in its blood>
<snip the bit about shaving the hair, beard, and eyebrows>
[14] And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Lev. 19:27
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Lev. 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 23:16-18
Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.
And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the LORD.

[kiwimac]

Of the passages used most often to attack homosexuality none is used more vociferously than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but is the story really about homosexuality at all?

We all know the verses from Genesis, "...Chapter 19:vs 1-6 "...1And the two angels came into Sodom at evening. And Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. And Lot saw, and he rose up to meet them and bowed his face to the earth. 2And he said, Behold, now, my lords, please turn into your servant's house and lodge, and wash your feet; and rise early and go to your way. And they said, No, for we will lodge in the street. 3And he much urged them, and they turned into him and came into his house. And he made a feast for them. And he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate. 4Before they had laid down, even the men of the city, the men of Sodom, circled the house; from the young to the aged, all the people from its limits. 5And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them. .. .."

It all sounds pretty bad for those who support homosexuals, I mean here is God destroying cities because of threatened Gang-rape of the Angels Yahweh has sent EXCEPT

1: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been decided long before the Angels get there (Genesis 18:17 onwards) so that the people's actions are not the deciding reason for its destruction.

2: Verse 4 makes it quite clear that it was "ALL THE PEOPLE" which includes women and children.

3: As we allow Scripture to interpret scripture we needs must look at what the rest of the Bible has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah. Let us leave aside the disturbingly similar incident in Judges 19 and look at what Ezekiel has to say about Yahweh's reasons for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah

Ezekiel 16:49 "...Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy..."

So according to Ezekiel the sin of the cities was economic rather than sexual, Jesus himself strengthens this interpretation of the matter by referring to Sodom and Gomorrah SOLEY in terms of inhospitality

Matthew 10:13-15
Mark 6:11
Luke 10:10-12

4: Finally, let us consider what the Rabbis have to say on this matter.

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

"Some say," continues the Mishnah, "this is the mark of the people of Sodom." The people of Sodom have been the archetype of an evil community deserving of destruction ever since biblical times, primarily because of their selfish economic behavior.

The Malbim (Rabbi Meir Lebush, Hungary, nineteenth century) comments that their sin lay in their refusal to share their wealth with the surrounding nations. It should be noted that while the Aggadah [classical rabbinic legends] is replete with stories of their inhospitality to strangers, the men of Sodom welcomed Lot, Abrahams nephew. Lot was a wealthy man, and it was only poor strangers who were not welcome in Sodom.

The Sodomite view of absolute private property rejects any obligations to assist others, which is contrary to the Jewish concept of limited private-property rights. . . . . However, what made it necessary to destroy Sodom was not the individual selfishness of its citizens, but the fact that this had become an integral part of its communal culture. While a society can exist with cruel and selfish individuals, the moral decay that sets in when cruelty and callousness become hallmarks of that society marks it for Divine retribution.

Rashi, commenting on a verse in Amos--"They who sell the poor for a pair of shoes"--highlights this communal aspect. He notes the difference between a sandal, which is open, and a shoe, which is closed and possesses in Hebrew the same grammatical root as the word for "lock." This is what the rich did. They closed in the poor farmers field and then forced him to sella perfectly legal but immoral use of societal legislation. So Judea had to be destroyed.

In Sodom they gave charity generously. However, all the money was secretly marked so that the storekeepers refused to accept it. When the poor died of hunger, each Sodomite reclaimed his moneylegal but abhorrent.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/8en58

Were told in Parshat Vayera that Sodom is a wicked and miserable place, and we know the inhabitants of Sodom were "very wicked sinners against the Lord." But were left wondering what they could have done that that was so wicked that now God wants to destroy them.

For most Jewish thinkers, the evil of the men of Sodom had nothing to do with sex. Instead, the mainstream of Jewish tradition has understood the terrible evil of Sodom to be its residents lack of concern and even hatred for those in need.

As the Talmud imagines things, the residents of the city were comparatively wealthy, as the valley of Sodom was the most fertile land in Israel. Knowing that those in need seek help from those who have resources, the Sodomites passed laws prohibiting any citizen from welcoming visitors, lest one poor person tell another that charity was to be found in Sodom and the city be flooded with poor people.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/magoe

Simply put none of the sources support the contention that Sodom and Gomorrah were about homosexuality at all.

For 1John:

I am a Priest in the Anglican Church International and I am a Christian Theologian.

[Easyrider]

Of the passages used most often to attack homosexuality none is used more vociferously than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but is the story really about homosexuality at all?

We all know the verses from Genesis, "...Chapter 19:vs 1-6 "...1And the two angels came into Sodom at evening. And Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. And Lot saw, and he rose up to meet them and bowed his face to the earth. 2And he said, Behold, now, my lords, please turn into your servant's house and lodge, and wash your feet; and rise early and go to your way. And they said, No, for we will lodge in the street. 3And he much urged them, and they turned into him and came into his house. And he made a feast for them. And he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate. 4Before they had laid down, even the men of the city, the men of Sodom, circled the house; from the young to the aged, all the people from its limits. 5And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them. .. .."

It all sounds pretty bad for those who support homosexuals, I mean here is God destroying cities because of threatened Gang-rape of the Angels Yahweh has sent EXCEPT

1: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been decided long before the Angels get there (Genesis 18:17 onwards) so that the people's actions are not the deciding reason for its destruction.

2: Verse 4 makes it quite clear that it was "ALL THE PEOPLE" which includes women and children.

3: As we allow Scripture to interpret scripture we needs must look at what the rest of the Bible has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah. Let us leave aside the disturbingly similar incident in Judges 19 and look at what Ezekiel has to say about Yahweh's reasons for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah

Ezekiel 16:49 "...Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy..."

So according to Ezekiel the sin of the cities was economic rather than sexual, Jesus himself strengthens this interpretation of the matter by referring to Sodom and Gomorrah SOLEY in terms of inhospitality

Matthew 10:13-15
Mark 6:11
Luke 10:10-12

4: Finally, let us consider what the Rabbis have to say on this matter.

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

"Some say," continues the Mishnah, "this is the mark of the people of Sodom." The people of Sodom have been the archetype of an evil community deserving of destruction ever since biblical times, primarily because of their selfish economic behavior.

The Malbim (Rabbi Meir Lebush, Hungary, nineteenth century) comments that their sin lay in their refusal to share their wealth with the surrounding nations. It should be noted that while the Aggadah [classical rabbinic legends] is replete with stories of their inhospitality to strangers, the men of Sodom welcomed Lot, Abrahams nephew. Lot was a wealthy man, and it was only poor strangers who were not welcome in Sodom.

The Sodomite view of absolute private property rejects any obligations to assist others, which is contrary to the Jewish concept of limited private-property rights. . . . . However, what made it necessary to destroy Sodom was not the individual selfishness of its citizens, but the fact that this had become an integral part of its communal culture. While a society can exist with cruel and selfish individuals, the moral decay that sets in when cruelty and callousness become hallmarks of that society marks it for Divine retribution.

Rashi, commenting on a verse in Amos--"They who sell the poor for a pair of shoes"--highlights this communal aspect. He notes the difference between a sandal, which is open, and a shoe, which is closed and possesses in Hebrew the same grammatical root as the word for "lock." This is what the rich did. They closed in the poor farmers field and then forced him to sella perfectly legal but immoral use of societal legislation. So Judea had to be destroyed.

In Sodom they gave charity generously. However, all the money was secretly marked so that the storekeepers refused to accept it. When the poor died of hunger, each Sodomite reclaimed his moneylegal but abhorrent.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/8en58

Were told in Parshat Vayera that Sodom is a wicked and miserable place, and we know the inhabitants of Sodom were "very wicked sinners against the Lord." But were left wondering what they could have done that that was so wicked that now God wants to destroy them.

For most Jewish thinkers, the evil of the men of Sodom had nothing to do with sex. Instead, the mainstream of Jewish tradition has understood the terrible evil of Sodom to be its residents lack of concern and even hatred for those in need.

As the Talmud imagines things, the residents of the city were comparatively wealthy, as the valley of Sodom was the most fertile land in Israel. Knowing that those in need seek help from those who have resources, the Sodomites passed laws prohibiting any citizen from welcoming visitors, lest one poor person tell another that charity was to be found in Sodom and the city be flooded with poor people.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/magoe

Simply put none of the sources support the contention that Sodom and Gomorrah were about homosexuality at all.

For 1John:

I am a Priest in the Anglican Church International and I am a Christian Theologian.

Have you ever read Jude 1:7?

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Recommended reading: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html

[kiwimac]

I wondered if anyone would bring up Jude 1:7

This scripture is a dangerous one for you to use because it almost certainly does not say what you THINK it says. Jude is one of those books you need to be very careful with as the author has a habit of quoting from extra-biblical material in order to make a point and sometimes no one is sure just WHAT he means.

Let me quote

JUDE 7

Some people ASSUME that this verse refers to the account of what happened in Genesis chapters 18 and 19. However this verse says that people in Sodom and Gomorrah went after "strange flesh". It does NOT say that they are talking about the account in Genesis 18-19.

Some scholars believe that this passage actually refers to a Jewish legend, as contained in the apocryphal Naphtali 3.3.4-5 in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, that the WOMEN of Sodom had intercourse with angels. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, p. 97,
Professor John Boswell and Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Derrick Sherwin Bailey, pp 11-16).

It would not be unprecedented to believe that the author of Jude would refer to extrabiblical stories as he does so in Jude 6 (referring to a passage in the apocryphal Enoch 1:6-8) and in Jude 9 (referring to a Jewish tradition that the archangel Michael argued with Satan over the body of Moses). Even if one chooses to believe that this passage DOES refer to Genesis 18-19 one can not ASSUME that "strange flesh" means a "man going after a man", after all Lot's guests were NOT MEN but ANGELS, "strange flesh" indeed.

The context of this passage is condemning a new teaching which did not honor angels (see Jude verse 8) an example of people attempting to dishonor angels is simply brought up here to illustrate the point.

Source: http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

[melikio]

The context of this passage is condemning a new teaching which did not honor angels (see Jude verse 8) an example of people attempting to dishonor angels is simply brought up here to illustrate the point.

I'd heard this from moderate and liberal Christian scholars awhile back. And it is sensible.

What some people don't want to happen however, is very similar to how the KKK (and other groups like them), do NOT want it to be understood that ALL-White, is not always ALRIGHT. There will be opposition to a reasonable view of Scripture, which basically shows that "real" Christians DO NOT get to BEAT UP on "homosexual" people (with the few verses they have in their arsenal).

As a matter of fact, it doesn't take so much biblical scholarship to see how terribly wrong some are in treatment of homosexual people. 1John has so often said that: "Two wrongs don't make a right.", but the hypocrisy in that is evident. That is, Christians are systematically taught to possess a nearly neurotic aversion to homosexuality; even to the point of actually HATING homosexuals and supporting it with the twisting of Jesus' message to all mankind (a definite "wrong").

After I realized that my homosexual-orientation wasn't going to just FADE away (and park behind me), I had to face what I saw (socially) within Christianity; I needed to know what I was going to have to deal with. And I'll be honest and say, that then (as now) I realize that many "Christians" (sadly) have been taught or convinced to HATE homosexual people. And some have even learned to call that "hatred" by the title of "tough-love". I know that it's been taken too far, and all it amounts to is a free-pass for people to abuse any thing/person that is "homosexual".

And I almost think it is humorous to see that some (in this day, knowing what we know about human sexuality), could actually be shocked or repulsed by a homosexual person. Ok, I can kind of feel the "ICK" factor, because I can honestly tell anyone that certain practices of heterosexuals don't turn me on one iota (I would avoid certain things period). But even though I may not embrace certain "anatomical" practices, I realize that I shouldn't DESPISE the people who perform them.

Even so, I'm willing to accept that some Christians cannot abide homosexuality; as long as they consciously realize and understand, that their spiritual, moral or social convictions in the matter, do not trump their duties and obligations to homosexual people in the real sense. A lot of what we see TODAY, simply amounts to homosexual people not being willing to take the various forms of abuse which had once been "OK" in this society. And no one should be surprized or offended, that homosexuals are also LOVED dearly by the same person who gave us all breath.

-Mel-

[Cathar1950]

Jose, gays and lesbians are free to pick and choose an anti-Christian, or, to be fair, a non-Christian religion to fight their battle of homosexualizing the earth's populace. You pick a religion for them. Obviously even "you" can see that they have no support "from" the Bible.

No John they are allowed to believe anything they want and to call themselves Christian. If you dont like it you start your own religion and be done with it.

Wow! The Jose going for the cognitive dissonance debate tactic?

You need to hold at least two opposing view and you barely have one.

All, with the same anatomy. Put down your religions and look at the human body. It proclaims that we learn our sexual orientation from its design. But that would be using logic and not emotionaism and a million different religions. If we allow anyone that can "do" anything sexually to proclaim whatever they do should be equated with noramlity then science is to be discarded altogether.

I see you dont understand science, sexuality and psychology either.

Sin is as real as gravity.

Let us see the research when someones sexuality is a sin according to science also include formulas. But I see you like using emotionalism poor logic.

Anatomy and physiology niether are a religion. I have written many times for the Gay Agenda to proclaim itself a religion and be done with it.

Well you got two out of the three correct. Maybe they dont claim it is a religion because it isnt a religion. Just because you want you religion to be about se does not mean every one has to follow your example.

Usually blood loss and trauma kills the person. Not the gun or the knife.

I expect more from even you. What kind of game is that?

If a bird does not move it dies from starvation. It doesn't feed itself with its wings or feet either. Anatomy tells you this. Baby birds don't come from two mating male birds. Ok, ok, I'm with you. This isn't as painful as I thought it would be.

What does that have to do with anything?
How is that trash even relevant? No brain no pain.

The mechanics involved in sporting events may not support you hypotheisis here. Fat lazy uncoordinated people don't usually do well in championship rounds. There is a set format for "winning."

This has what to do with homosexuality?
Now you are comparing them to fat lazy people in a race?

Normality of both are used though. Actually there is no such things as something "being a color." Only reflecting light waves we perceive as colors. The deaf and blind also want to be healed of their sometimes "congenital condition" of not being born "normal."

More baby word games I see.

The Bible is definately a "manual of style."

Maybe it is for you but not for every one, including Christians.

Jose, this is not a place I would expect you reaching for absurd offerings be considered logic and reason.

You are projecting your own faults again. Absurdity is where you hold the lead.

Then discard it. There is no support for same-gender sexual relationships anywhere in the Tankh or the New Testament. But many other ways of declaring it an abomination. Molech worship (opposing it) would be a good place to examine.

If they worship Molech it would not be your business either.

If two guys love each other that is great. I love many of my male friends. My semen production though, is not "designed" for them. Something tells me that. Not necessarily the Bible.

A little voice in your head? It is subconscious prejudice. Where you deposit your sperm is more then we want to hear.

Ask Jesus. I am a Christian. He proclaimed marriage and sex is for a man and a woman. Reading into the text or extrapolating from it. Food IS mentioned. Sex is also, and it does NOT get changed to accept homosexual sex acts be OK'd for Christians "IN the New Testament. C'mon Jose. Do we really need to debate on this level?

If they say Jesus said it was ok then it should be good enough for you too.
No one is asking you to be gay.

kiwimac

Of the passages used most often to attack homosexuality none is used more vociferously than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but is the story really about homosexuality at all?

John has been told this many times. He thinks it is all about sex. He seems to think evey thing is about sex. Good luck!
I think I know how Mel feels.

[kiwimac]

Cathar,

Many christians do seem obsessed with sex especially homosexual sex but what can you do. The fact is that, IMO, God is far more upset over hatred, bigotry, oppression and violence than over who sleeps with whom.

Kiwimac