L.A. and San Fransico, Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by helios prime
 


Helios Prime,

I don't know about those passages referring to Homosexual marriage. Not sure I agree with all of that.

I do however know that the natural tendency of intelligent men is to turn things around backwards in an attempt for instant gratification. To turn leven into unleaven, new wine into olde, Light into darkness. These things are not enlightenment.
To me these are the same types of intelligences whom for years and years and years are talking about balancing a budget..yet this has not happened.

However...back on topic line..concerning California and also throwing in the State of New York.

I find it highly insulting that these states by default in politics, the media, and even in education are supposed to be by implication ..the trend setters for the United States. These states are the template to be emulated and followed by the rest of us with adoration. Not happening. Whenever I hear of a trend happening in California or New York state...my alarm bells start ringing and I know to turn my radar up several notches.

The media and politicians often conduct themselves as if no other states count or even think on such matters. I find this insulting on many issues and especially this one. We will think and conduct for ourselves on this and other issues. Thank you!!

Lucid Lunacy...concerning this quote


You may not think you support guys like Heliosprime. But when you believe homosexuals are inherently wrong and sinful and will receive eternal damnation in hell if they don't repent for it. Makes homosexuals sound like they are 'hellish' to begin with. This idea fosters beliefs that breed people like Helios Prime.


The doctrine known by knowledgeable Believers..is that " all" deserve hell and damnation..Believers especially. They are no different. Their God would be perfectly just and righteous in even sending us ,as Believers, to hell and damnation..for we deserve no better. For we too are fallen men.
This concept and doctrine is often overlooked by even many Believers..but it is in fact the Christian doctrine.

It is also obvious that many unbelievers do not know that this is the Christian doctrine...trying instead by subtilty and reason to substitute their beliefs and doctrine...by guilt conditioning. It does not work on Believers on meat and not milk.

The concept at issue here ...is the unwillingness of Believers to accept this homosexual doctrine. Knowledgeable Believers don't accept even the sexual doctrine..as it is made so heavily merchandize of on an unwary population.
Believers are to separate from this behavior. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
This is especially true of states like California/New York, as I was speaking earlier in this post, which are used as trendsetters/templates for the rest of the nation to follow. Many believers are aware of this fingerprint and reject this. They have a right to do so and also to speak their minds on this as do you.

In illustration of this..I use your point about eating meat.


It's kinda like eating meat your whole life without ever seeing the process take place at the slaughterhouse. You finally meet the butcher for the first time, and you are like "God! that's what I have been supporting!?!".


I dont tell another not to eat meat or to eat meat. I also dont put up with another forcing their views on this topic on me or making me feel guilty about meat or no meat. I will, however, seperate myself from zealots on this topic..for you see...Lucid Lunacy..eating or not eating meat is not my religion.
You seriously need a better example to demonstrate your rationale and for making others feel guilty. For attempting to substitute your religion for thiers....by guilt conditioning.

I am reminded of trying to buy bacon in California. Difficult in many places to find just regular bacon in many stores. One must wade through all the ersatz bacons in the case. No wonder many of the knowledgable dont want to follow California and or New York as a template.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom






[edit on 18-11-2008 by orangetom1999]




posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
From a real Christian, thanks for trying to ruin any goodwill toward Christians that exists on here. I'm sure God appreciates the way you hit people over the head with His word.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



The concept at issue here ...is the unwillingness of Believers to accept this homosexual doctrine. Knowledgeable Believers don't accept even the sexual doctrine..as it is made so heavily merchandize of on an unwary population.
Believers are to separate from this behavior. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
This is especially true of states like California/New York, as I was speaking earlier in this post, which are used as trendsetters/templates for the rest of the nation to follow. Many believers are aware of this fingerprint and reject this. They have a right to do so and also to speak their minds on this as do you.


The concept at issue here ...is the unwillingness of Believers to accept this African-American doctrine. Knowledgeable Believers don't accept even the equality doctrine..as it is made so heavily merchandize of on an unwary population.
Believers are to separate from this behavior. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate.
This is especially true of states like California/New York, as I was speaking earlier in this post, which are used as trendsetters/templates for the rest of the nation to follow. Many believers are aware of this fingerprint and reject this. They have a right to do so and also to speak their minds on this as do you.

Thankyou for granting me the right to speak my mind.

I invite you to read the statement you typed, that I altered slightly. I have changed the subject from homosexuality to racial equality, as if you had written it 50 years ago during the civil rights movement.

I'm not advocating you are racist, I'm trying to show you that even if you claim to separate yourself from the "zealots", some on the other side of the coin will read your post and disregard any intelligent contribution you might say because it's obvious you will never change your opinion towards an entire group of people, just as a someone who believes African-Americans are inferior will never be able to look at a black person without some sort of disregard or enmity.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Heliosprime, bottom line, and I can say this with 99.9 percent certainty. God....... he doesn't exist. And your attitude is the prime reason why we need to do away with religion.



We do agree on one thing, doing away with so called "religion". 99.9% of the so called religions on this planet are fake, islam, catholic's, hindu, budda, most so called protestant's too.

Worshiping God isn't a religion it is a privilege, a requirment of HIS grace and mercy. God says homosexuality is an abomination, listen to him, repent and live, ignore him and die.............


No... we don't agree because in my opinion 100% of ALL religions on this planet are fake.

I'm not going to listen to God, because he is the product of a fable, and doesn't exist. I also have absolutely nothing to repent for.


Homosexuality itself is a false religion, a religion of selfish uncontrolled desire and gradification, immediate sexual fulfillment is the god homosexuals worship......

Demanding marriage (rights) and acceptance from the world is spitting in the very face of GOD himself.


how can you spit in the face of someone who doesn't exist?


Homosexuality itself isn't a false religion, homosexuality itself is a completely natural phenomenon. Whether it be a birth defect or not, it is still something very much out of the control of the homosexual. How can you fault someone for something they cannot control?



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


LOL LOL Avenginggkecko..

You are certainly welcome about speaking your mind...I agree.

You are right on one thing..I will not change my mind on this.

No I do not take your statement as being racist. I believe it is ignorance in its technique and application. It is however designed to be very deceiving in its intentions..in order to generate an emotion and put the unwary on the hook. It is the seduction to which I was stating in one of my earlier posts. Oh..and thank you for confirming my statement in an earlier thread about seduction.
It is subtilty and dishonest...but It also tells of the name of your god in that it is a counterfeit technique. It will work on those who do not know its template and what it is designed to do in deception.
You see Avenginggecko..I know the name of the counterfeiter...by name.

You might want to learn or read about a Jesuit techinque of manipualtion called "Mentalus Reservatus" also known as Mental Reservation. This comes from Occult Religious practices. We know this historically, as Americans, by the popular phrase at one time......"I did not have sex with that girl."

However ...Just like Lucid Luncay on page 9 of this thread..In order to generate the necessary emotional default to play through unchallanged and unquestioned ..you too resort to a placebo. A placebo which by defaut emotional conditioning is gauranteed to play through by "Victimization/guilt" on all but the most knowledgable on the technique.
Lucid Lunacy uses meat eaters..verses vegitarians..and you use racism as your defaut settings to draw out the emotions of unthinking peoples.

By the way..this is how I view California and New York..emotional train wreck states. Lot of people there with the idea that they deserve...are entitled to play through... against others by their emotions as a virtue. Your posting and technique are confirmation of this. Doesnt matter if you are in these states or not. It is just that these states are become the template for this kind of default setting.

My point is that this technique.."Victimization/gulit/defaults" does not work on me. What you have now done to those who can read this thread..is demonstrate how the manipulation technique works. This is also become standard political technique used by both of the dominant political partys on an uneducated and easily emoting public.

People out here need to be aware for their own benefit as to how this manipulation method works.

In short ..you are trying to shuffle the shells and see which one the pea is under. I know that the pea is not under any of the shells. And now, in like manner, so do some of the readers on this thread.

This type of emotional technique by gulit manipulation is not the moral and ethical high ground..unless you successfully hijack the emotions of the unwary. It does work..it just does not work on me.

I agree about speaking your mind..well said...well said. The voters in California have spoken their mind...

By the way..I dont agree with the premise of the OP about the fires in California. Fires have been happening in California for centurys...same as the Oil bubbling out of the ground killing wildlife. I do believe California has huge problems ...problems of their own making. It is up to them how they decide to solve their problems. I also believe in state sovereignty.
I just dont believe in California nor New York as being the template for all the nation to follow.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 18-11-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime

There are many different forms of antichrist, which actually means (instead of christ). Homosexuality itself is a false religion, a religion of selfish uncontrolled desire and gradification, immediate sexual fulfillment is the god homosexuals worship......

Demanding marriage (rights) and acceptance from the world is spitting in the very face of GOD himself.



Where does it say in the bible you should impose your interpretation, will, and beliefs on others?



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


So, exactly how would you term it? If it is not victimization, what is it? I'd like to set up some conditionals before you reply:

1. Most practicing homosexuals believe that they were born that way. Whether or not they had a predisposition to it or it was formed during early childhood or a combination of both, I can not say. However, there is scientific evidence to support both of those views and none to support that it is simply a choice some people make around puberty. Therefore, let us assume that without any other evidence to the contrary, homosexuals become that way through birth/early childhood.

2. Discrimination is still legal against homosexuality in many places. Not in California I believe, but in states such as Texas, someone may be fired simply due to their orientation.

3. Homosexuals in a relationship are not afforded the same rights as heterosexuals under secular law. Therefore, if Susy's partner Beth is dying in a hospital, Susy may be refused visitation during Beth's final hours because the law does not afford that right.

These conditionals I've set forth are not based on opinion or religious belief, but fact. What rational, logical, person would say this is not discrimination of one and victimization of the other?


victimize or -ise
Verb
[-izing, -ized] or -ising, -ised to punish or discriminate against (someone) selectively or unfairly
victimization
-isation n


And I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I still stand by statement. I wasn't trying to call you racist or be rude, just trying to show you that it is a relevant parallel because it is the systematic discrimination of a section of American society that is too small to protect their own rights and equality.

Calling me dishonest, manipulative, counterfeit, deceitful, and a Satan worshipper by proxy? I'll have to reiterate - don't you think some people will disregard your contribution when you continue to belittle and debase them through a superior tone with an assumed intellectual superiority?

At least we can agree on the fact that the OP was a little off on this thread



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 




What about the people of California who voted to ban gay marriage? What about there rights? The people have spoken. The losers need to man up (or woman up) and deal with it. They lost. THey need to get over it.

Yep, you're right. They need to man up. The majority has spoken.
Yep, back then women and black people had to man up again and again when their rights were denied by majority.
Yep, in other countries, women need to woman up after the majority denied their right to vote.
Yep, you are right.
Human rights denied? Too bad. The majority has spoken.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with homosexuals, in fact, I have a much bigger issue with venom-spewing hypocrites.

The real abomination is quite evident in your post(hint: it's not homosexuals).



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You seriously need a better example to demonstrate your rationale and for making others feel guilty.


Guilty? If that's what you think I was trying to do then fine. I was showing you the monster Christianity makes. I was talking about being a realist and taking responsibility.

I need a better example? For what? Saying that Christians should be upset that their religion breeds people like Heliosprime? It does. All the time. Or that it breeds disdain and even hate against the homosexual? I need better examples for this eh. I base this on what the majority of the Christians say themselves


33% of all hate crimes in the US are against LGBT from religious people. You can choose not to feel guilty if you like. That was not my point. My point was, the belief that homosexuals are sinful and wrong in their very nature, and are going to spend eternity in hell if they go un-repented, makes them sound hellish. Hence they are demonized and often attacked as such.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
It's been determined that the Montecito fire was not an Act of God at all! It was started by a group of students who had a bonfire.

I KNEW it sounded too fishy that god would deliberately burn down (parts of) a private Christian College; that'd be the work of a very confused almighty one.






[edit on 19/11/08 by Fuggle]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
These fires are a warning from God to the righteous people of california to flee before the destruction of BOTH cities of sin.

Is it only a coincidence than these fire, the worst ever seen,have "popped" up just days after the abominations of God took to the streets?

The wrath of the Lord God will soon rain destruction of those who basphem his name demanding to corrupt "holy" marriage of a man and woman.

Repent or DIE...........

The fires happen every year and also, the fires were at their worst AFTER gay marriage was banned. Why didn't God hit the areas in America were gay marriage is legal? Why did the fires get worse after gay marriage was banned? Doesn't God forgive when most people in an area "repents"? Maybe you're wrong. Maybe it's you who should "repent" for being a bigot against people with a different sexual preference than you.

Bigot
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite.

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right

If you didn't view your faith as unquestionably right then it wouldn't be faith would it?

As far as the bigotry is concerned, would I be a bigot if I was intolerant of theft? What about murder? Are you a bigot if you're intolerant of murder? You see you're only a bigot if you're intolerant of things that are shown to be acceptable and good. Since this discussion is about homosexuality in light of the Bible, your argument falls flat on it's face and fails.

You're throwing stones at the wrong individual here. The Bible is authored by God. If you have an issue with the policies and laws inside, then please direct your stones upward. Just make sure and get out of the way when they fall back down.

Why is it that those most opposed to this being a valid prophecy are not arguing the validity of the OP's statement? The answer of course is that they don't believe in a God. They're only here to promote a lifestyle and their rebuttals have nothing to do with this subject.

Like I said before this isn't about homosexuality being right or wrong. We're discussing homosexuality in light of the Bible, not some Broadway production. Of course homosexuality is evil and vile in this discussion. That's what's written in the Bible.

Now back to the actual subject. Are the fires a judgment on L.A. and San Francisco? I really doubt it. God told Abraham that he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if he could find just 10 righteous people in those cities. I'd wager that more than that number live in the area of the fires.

Secondly you're not giving God enough credit. Don't you think that an actual act of judgment would be more severe than this? You're selling God short when you make a few wild fires out to be his "vengeful wrath". I'd like to think it would be more dramatic than what we're seeing today.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


1)The Bible was not written by God.

2)Notice I stated the direction of his bigotry and didn't use the word vaguely. Go on, go back and read it again.

As far as my own beliefs, I believe in harming none and I believe in karma. I'm also agnostic and a liberal. Do I believe I'm 100% right? Of course not. But I don't believe every smartly written text to be Divine either.

BTW, is this a Christian forum? I was not aware.

On topic, your statement about Abraham was what I was referring to. Notice the very next chapter "God" destroys it anyway? Obviously someone wasn't playing fair and already knew the correct number of "righteous" residents in that little haggle between Abraham and "God". I believe God would not be so deceptive. But that's just my opinion. I think the Bible was written by liars.






[edit on 19-11-2008 by mmariebored]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
BTW, is this a Christian forum? I was not aware.

No but the subject of this discussion is about the Judaeo-Christian story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If we're not discussing the subject then why participate in this thread?



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by mmariebored
BTW, is this a Christian forum? I was not aware.

No but the subject of this discussion is about the Judaeo-Christian story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If we're not discussing the subject then why participate in this thread?

Thank goodness. I was beginning to worry. And I'm staying on topic, I know it's about S&G in Biblical terms. I'm simply pointing out that those terms are from a prejudice standpoint and I do NOT believe that standpoint is God's.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 

Fair enough, then what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God judge those cities and burn them to cinder?


Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 18:20

I guess it's implied in the next chapter that it was homosexuality due to their behavior with Lot's visitors. What would be other reasons? Bad banking practices? Cruelty to animals? Murder?



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

I guess it's implied in the next chapter that it was homosexuality due to their behavior with Lot's visitors. What would be other reasons? Bad banking practices? Cruelty to animals? Murder?

Again, you're basing this entirely on a belief that the Bible was written by God. In order to say "God" destroyed all those people, you first have to prove God wrote the Bible.

We have technology today that can fool an unlearned race of people into thinking that WE are "God". We can make a rule like no nosepicking and tell those people they better follow it or their city will be destroyed by "God". We can secretly watch them from spy cameras and BLAST them with loud, hidden speakers EVERY time we catch them picking their nose. Then we can predict to a nonnosepicking family that their whole city will now be destroyed because no one but them followed that one, simple rule. Then we can nuke their whole disgusting existance off the face of the earth, all because one of us "Gods" decided we didn't like nosepickers.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
How do you know God, honestly?
Is it because someone told you about him when you where young?
Is it because someone said that he inspired others to write a book?

Hasn't it ocurred to you that, if God is the most powerful entity on the Universe and beyond, he woudn't be so worried about some humans having sex with eachother? Or demanding lamb sacrifices? Or giving tips to someone on how to destroy an enemy tribe?

I believe God has better things to do, if it exists. I know if I were God, I would.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by seb2882]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 




I guess it's implied in the next chapter that it was homosexuality due to their behavior with Lot's visitors. What would be other reasons? Bad banking practices? Cruelty to animals? Murder?

I posted this in another thread and thought I'd repeat it in here to answer your question.
 


I am going to try to dispel some myths about what the Bible really say about homosexuality.

About Sodom and Gomorrah:

"Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels." Inge Anderson


The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. 3 Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city.



Opinion among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the original Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers.


Consider:


* In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43
* Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all
* Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.
* Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.
* Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers
* Luke 10:7-16: This is parallel passage to the verses from Matthew.
* 2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.
* Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations of this passage in Jude describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust. It looks as if the translators were unclear of the meaning of the verse in its original Greek, and simply selected their favorite sin to attack. The original Greek is transliterated as: "sarkos heteras." This can be translated as "other flesh". Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" comes from "heteras."

www.religioustolerance.org...





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join