To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

a reply to: windword


Septuagint

Chapter 19


19:1 And the two angels came to Sodom at evening. And Lot sat by the gate of Sodom, and Lot having seen them, rose up to meet them, and he worshiped with his face to the ground, and said, 2 Lo! my lords, turn aside to the house of your servant, and rest from your journey, and wash your feet, and having risen early in the morning ye shall depart on your journey. And they said, Nay, but we will lodge in the street. 3 And he constrained them, and they turned aside to him, and they entered into his house, and he made a feast for them, and baked unleavened cakes for them, and they did eat. 4 But before they went to sleep, the men of the city, the Sodomites, compassed the house, both young and old, all the people together. 5 And they called out Lot, and said to him, Where are the men that went in to thee this night? bring them out to us that we may be with them. 6 And Lot went out to them to the porch, and he shut the door after him, 7 and said to them, By no means, brethren, do not act villanously. 8 But I have two daughters, who have not known a man. I will bring them out to you, and do ye use them as it may please you, only do not injury to these men, to avoid which they came under the shelter of my roof.

Torah:
הִנֵּה נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר כִּי עַל כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי:

Behold now I have two daughters who were not intimate with a man. I will bring them out to you, and do to them as you see fit; only to these men do nothing, because they have come under the shadow of my roof."



Sorry to burst your bubble but you are misinformed.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Ghost147

Psychopathy is a mental disease that very much is a state of mind. Because, a persons State of mind depends upon if they are anti-social or not. It wasn't just some abreviation of a *saying* i meant it quite literally. State of mind.

Are you implying that being gay automatically makes one antisocial and therefore psychopaths?

And yes being gay is a fetish, I don't know where you are getting the idea of pedophilacs as wanting a romantic relationship with children.

I don't think you quite grasp what fetishism involves if you really believe that. And then in the same sentence attempt to parlance pedophilia as equitable or the same as homosexuality? I'm sorry but you are demonstrating how sheltered your mind truly is if this is actually what you believe. The 2 concepts have absolutely nothing to do with one another and the rationalizing and circular reasoning one must undertake to stand behind this "belief" is far outside the realm of reality. If loving another person and engaging in a consensual relationship with them is a fetish or evidence of pedophilia then you need to attach that stigma to every heterosexual couple as well.

Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.[1] The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist.[2] A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.

The only time I have ever seen someone be caused

significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life

as a result of their sexual orientation is when they are forced to stay in the closet because of peer attitudes similar to yours.

Capturing children, raping them and dumping them in the woods does not constitute a romantic relationship. it is acting out a sexual fetish because it is a desire not a nessesity as much as you make it seem like it.

Pedophilia isn't a fetish. It's a paraphilia and is particularly harmful to the children involved against their will. Being gay harms nobody except for your tender sensibilities it would appear. Homosexuality is a consensual act just like with heterosexuals. It is about engaging in a consensual and loving relationship. Just like heterosexual couples. Furthermore, anyone who harms children in any way, shape or form let alone kidnaps, rapes or kills them, is about the lowest piece of s# I can think of and one of the few instances I could get behind the death penalty on. but I digress...

Is it nessisary that pedophiles kill children? No. is it nessisary that they take children at all? No.

And this has nothing to do with the discussion on homosexuality. Or are you just trying to set up some twisted rationalization for why being gay is just wrong in your world?

So why should it be nessisary for a gay person to be with the similar sex?

Why is it necessary for hetero couples to be with someone of the opposite sex as long as the relationship is consensual? You can't compare a forced and harmful paraphilia to a loving and consensual relationship. Furthermore, if you can't fathom the ethical issues with pedophilia vs. homosexuality then there really isn't much anybody can say that will creep into your mind.

I am sorry if my conversation has infuriated you so much that you do not really comprehend my out of the box thinking but i think you are farther from the truth are and mostly mirroring the expectations of western cultural society.

taking the same tired arguments to justify being a bigot is thinking outside the box huh? Keep telling yourself that.

Being gay is as much a fetish as anything else. necrophila ect.

Not at all true. You keep making statements of fact which are just your opinions masquerading as reality in your insular world.

What sexual orientation is a necrophiliac? A deadist? Lol seriously?

Since orientation is about gender it depends on which gender corpse they are attracted to.

There is what is considered normal behavior, and then there is abnormal behavior caused by an abnormality.

Do you have a citation for that? You are stating it as though it is fact so you should be able to support it with appropriate citations or admit that it's little more than your own prejudicial opinion.

Are gay people the majority or minority? because if they were the majority, then it wouldn't be considered weird, bizare, or a state of mental ilness now would it?

Perhaps instead of vilifying gay people you would do better looking at the demographics as a whole. For example, in America the estimates are 5-10% of the population is gay. Yet 63% of the population supports same sex marriage. therefore, its the minority who views the concept as weird, bizarre or a mental illness. This percentage of supporters for same sex marriage continues to increase quite rapidly here. It was 48% in September and 55% in January.

www.freedomtomarry.org...

Because what is not normal, is abnormal. Ect. And this is just the English language here, from the view point of pre-biases and information suckled from the tit of psychology books.

I find it interesting based on your posting history and some of your personal views that you are so comfortable calling anyone else abnormal for having what you feel are minority viewpoints. You just keep on keeping on with your big bad self!

Oh and the propaganda of the gay community pushing for symbiot research into cloning vats.

What the hell are you even talking about with this statement? can you give a little more insight as to what you mean? Support it with a citation perhaps?

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. Being gay is the same as being a pedophile. There both has destructive as the other. Every time I watch gay porn I think " this is exactly the same as watching a child being horribly violated in the most hurtful of ways." Quick question what is God's opinion on pedophilia?

If you view homosexuality as such an abhoration, why then are you watching gay porn hmm?!?!? Is there a closet you need help out of perhaps?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
You're welcome.

I think that the Bible was written by different people who had different ideas about the gods. The editors and compilers themselves had different ideas about the gods. It could be argued that one particular idea eventually won out, and yet more editors did a haphazard job of sanitizing the library. After all, it's not like the sanitizers had any idea that regular people would have copies of their own to read and compare.

The Torah rules about which prophets must be killed to prevent the wrath of the then officially sanctioned claimant to one and only deity status, I believe were some of the most recent additions.

If I'm not mistaken, we seem to be on the same page.

I was a Christian for decades, and a teaching preaching elder for years. There is a doctrine which I was teaching, that there was one Christ, therefore all Christians were united in that one Christ. This teaching I abandoned. There seems to be almost as many Christs as there are gods. Each Christian has his or her own idea of what function their Christ is to serve.

So what we have are many people making alliances with other people over social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, creationism in schools etc. with illusory unity as a cover. It's basically politics. Secular politics with a sacred cover. That's not a pretty picture.

On the other hand, some people have a personal Jesus who helps them and is not concerned about what other people are doing. The doctrine of unity sucks them in to support positions they and their personal Jesus would otherwise avoid.

Therefore it is my opinion that diversity of Christianities should be celebrated rather than ridiculed. All we have is hope that the individual with individual Jesus is stronger than the forces sucking toward political Jesus.

I hope that makes sense. It's the kind of thing I should have to spend days on wording, rather than just spouting out.

originally posted by: pthena

Sorry, Post removed.

I think I might have written sacrilegious things.

What did you write as sacrilegious?

I was referring to WakeupBeer's picture that I was making the observation that people can post pictures of Jesus in sacrilegious ways but not Mohammed.

I think fairness should be observed.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. Being gay is the same as being a pedophile. There both has destructive as the other. Every time I watch gay porn I think " this is exactly the same as watching a child being horribly violated in the most hurtful of ways." Quick question what is God's opinion on pedophilia?

If you view homosexuality as such an abhoration, why then are you watching gay porn hmm?!?!? Is there a closet you need help out of perhaps?

How does he know what it looks like to see a child horribly violated?

It's one thing for him to say he watches gay porn, it's another to say "the same as watching??????

I think perhaps the mods should delete that post because it is more than bordering on criminal activity.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
You're welcome.

I think that the Bible was written by different people who had different ideas about the gods. The editors and compilers themselves had different ideas about the gods. It could be argued that one particular idea eventually won out, and yet more editors did a haphazard job of sanitizing the library. After all, it's not like the sanitizers had any idea that regular people would have copies of their own to read and compare.

Of course it was written by different people who lived in different times. We all know this. That's why Paul said "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".

The Torah rules about which prophets must be killed to prevent the wrath of the then officially sanctioned claimant to one and only deity status, I believe were some of the most recent additions.

What do you mean by "which prophets must be killed"? You mean Jeremiah and Isaiah? Or do you mean the prophets of Ba'al?

Ba'al and Molech had prophets, yes. Both encouraged the killing of children in the fire, are those prophets the good guys because they simply teach about different gods?

I was a Christian for decades, and a teaching preaching elder for years. There is a doctrine which I was teaching, that there was one Christ, therefore all Christians were united in that one Christ. This teaching I abandoned. There seems to be almost as many Christs as there are gods. Each Christian has his or her own idea of what function their Christ is to serve.

Yes, there are many gods. We all know this. The Bible actually mentions those gods. Ba'al, Molech, Dagon to name three. And yes, Christians are united under the same Christ. The Bible does say that there would be false Christs and those coming who claim to be in His name. Have you been led by another Christ?

So what we have are many people making alliances with other people over social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, creationism in schools etc. with illusory unity as a cover. It's basically politics. Secular politics with a sacred cover. That's not a pretty picture.

On the other hand, some people have a personal Jesus who helps them and is not concerned about what other people are doing. The doctrine of unity sucks them in to support positions they and their personal Jesus would otherwise avoid.

Therefore it is my opinion that diversity of Christianities should be celebrated rather than ridiculed. All we have is hope that the individual with individual Jesus is stronger than the forces sucking toward political Jesus.

That personal Jesus should express the nature and character of the Christ we know from the Bible. Otherwise, it could simply be any spiritual entity that one doesn't know if it is good or evil. There has to be a standard.

a reply to: WarminIndy

that's a pretty fair point you're making there. The whole post has a massive creep factor.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you believe the Bible is completely accurate?

Not just spiritually, but prophetically, historically etc.?

Can you demonstrate that the Bible is given by God?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you believe the Bible is completely accurate?

Not just spiritually, but prophetically, historically etc.?

Can you demonstrate that the Bible is given by God?

Yes.

Yes.

And it is "by inspiration of God".

But look at the prophetic messages, unless you believe in psychic phenomenon and the ability of people to accurately predict future events, then perhaps something is going on?

Here is one...

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Compared to

Luke 2: 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

There was a 400 year gap between Micah and Jesus, now unless the Romans knew this prophetic message, and instigated a baby be born in Bethlehem, that they would later kill as a grown man, then someone knew something, wouldn't you say?

Not only is it talking about a baby born in a specific city, but a baby that would be from the tribe of Judah.

Here is Peter Stoner's mathematical experiment to test the Bible's claim, if you don't accept the Bible itself, then look at the mathematical probabilities.

Because Frank Tipler could not disprove the mathematical probabilities of only those 8, he did not remain atheist. And there were 108 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.

If only 8 gives you

Multiplying all these probabilities together produces a number (rounded off) of 1×1028. Dividing this number by an estimate of the number of people who have lived since the time of these prophecies (88 billion) produces a probability of all 8 prophecies being fulfilled accidently in the life of one person. That probability is 1 in 1017 or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. That’s one in one hundred quadrillion.” Stoner writes, “…we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly. Blindfold a man and tell him that he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing just eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote in their own wisdom. “Now these prophecies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 10^17 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ [Mashiach]. “This means that the fulfillment of just eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those [eight] prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10^17 of being absolute.” - Stoner, Peter W. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963, pp 100-107

Unless the 400 year span gave time for the Romans to find a baby in Bethelehem, to tax the populace forcing Joseph to go to Bethlehem WITH his wife about to give birth...then the Romans must have been Jewish??????

While that might not be enough to convince you, it does seem remarkable that in those 8, some were so specific that it is hard to ignore as being mere coincidence. But 108, that makes the probability even greater.

If you accept math as a means of scientific inquiry, then this experiment should be acceptable. You could say that Jesus might have inserted Himself back into the text in order to fulfill it, however, Jesus was coming as an infant, therefore He could not have any control over where He would be born, unless He was divine.

An infant not born yet doesn't cause a Roman taxation sending his parents to the very city written about 400 years earlier.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Thanks for your reply. It looks like there was some time put into it, which I can appreciate. I would like to respond more directly later, when I have more time to give your information a fair review.

I just want to be clear of your stance.

You believe that there is not one single failed prophecy, prophecy written in after the fact, historical inaccuracy, or Biblical inaccuracy?

I don't have time to put together a post to show some at the moment. But I'm telling you that they're there. What would your explanation be for such things?

a reply to: WarminIndy

You should have read my original post on that matter. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the account of Lot offering up his daughter to be raped in the angel's place, and windowrd said that didn't appear in the original text.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

You should have read my original post on that matter. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the account of Lot offering up his daughter to be raped in the angel's place, and windowrd said that didn't appear in the original text.

You know that sometimes people answer two posters at the same time not realizing they might be quoting a different poster.

Infolurker already gave the Septuagint and Torah scriptures. I had merely provided other instances in the Bible where the word sodomite was used.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: WarminIndy

Thanks for your reply. It looks like there was some time put into it, which I can appreciate. I would like to respond more directly later, when I have more time to give your information a fair review.

I just want to be clear of your stance.

You believe that there is not one single failed prophecy, prophecy written in after the fact, historical inaccuracy, or Biblical inaccuracy?

I don't have time to put together a post to show some at the moment. But I'm telling you that they're there. What would your explanation be for such things?

I believe that it came by inspiration.

Even Jude talks about the book of Enoch, therefore I have to conclude it came by inspiration as well. And since there is more than just the Roman Catholic canon, there is also Eastern Orthodox, Byzantine, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic canons that have different books contained, but all came at the same time, then by limiting what you know to only one, that can be stifling and really ignorant of the historical fact that Christianity is based in fundamental teachings about Jesus.

So which church's canon are you going to show us to disprove it?

a reply to: WarminIndy

You know, instead of getting defensive, you could have just said, "yea, sorry. I can see how only putting one "reply to" then talking about something completely different for a page and a half than what the post you responded to actually was talking about could be a little confusing to the reader. I should have put an extra "reply to" the other guy so there wasn't any confusion".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

You know, instead of getting defensive, you could have just said, "yea, sorry. I can see how only putting one "reply to" then talking about something completely different for a page and a half than what the post you responded to actually was talking about could be a little confusing to the reader. I should have put an extra "reply to" the other guy so there wasn't any confusion".

@Krazyshot
OK, point taken. Next time I will do just that.

a reply to: infolurker

Ezediel 16:49
"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49"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. 50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.…

Not one word about homosexuality.

According to the text, the mob was not there to rape the sojourners, but to bring them before a judge.

Genesis 16:49
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

It was illegal to provide food to sojourners in Sodom. Lot's daughter was burned alive for giving bread to a starving sojourner, who the townspeople were enjoying watch slowly starve to death.

originally posted by: windword
According to the text, the mob was not there to rape the sojourners, but to bring them before a judge.
"Genesis 16:49
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

I haven't been following this thread, but I just want to point out that you have misunderstood this wording.
"He must needs be a judge" is a mocking remark made about Lot, for rebuking them.
"Who does that man Lot think he is, telling us what to do? He's only just arrived in the city, and now he thinks he's a judge or something?"

a reply to: DISRAELI

Read the account in the Book of Jasher and you will see that it was their custom to take sojourners to a judge. Since Lot and the Angels were refusing to submit to the townsmen authority, they were accusing them (Lot and the Angels) of acting the judge themselves.

The mob proceeds to threaten Lot that they will be harder on the him, for offering hospitality, than they will be on the sojourners.

There is nothing in this story that backs the idea that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality, and every indication that they broke basic laws of common decency and human hospitality.

Besides, "God" had already heard the cries, and had set out to remedy the situation before he sent his Angels into the city, before any threat of man on man rape. The Angels had every intention of spending the night in the square, as the city law required of sojourners. But Lot knew that they would be shackled, tortured and slowly starved to death, if they did, so he bid them to hide out inside his home, a violation of Sodom's law.

Lot also knew the weight of his crime, as his daughter had been burned alive for less. The men of the city weren't there to rape the men because of homosexual lust. Their perversion was much, much more heinous.

At least the people of Sodom and Gomorrah died fast. Jesus warned his followers that those who don't follow God's laws, harming the innocent, would have it worse than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you look at the narrative that Josephus gives us of the Siege of Jerusalem, you'll see he was right. It was much worse for those people. Their "punishment" had nothing to do with homosexuality.

a reply to: windword
What you were quoting was the account in Genesis ch19 (not ch16), and my comment was purely about the reading of the Genesis text.
As far as the Genesis text is concerned, I stand by my point that you were misreading it.
Lot said in v16 "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly".
In response to that, the crowd were saying to each other "This man [Lot] came to sojourn, and now he would play the judge [= tell us what to do]" Then they told him to get out of the way.

In fact I got the impression, from your earlier post, than you were claiming "He must go to a judge" as the meaning of the phrase "He will be a judge". Obviously "being" a judge and "going to" a judge are two entirely different things, and that's why I thought a misunderstanding was taking place.