FIRST thing, Im sure that in the begining there was no word Wife. Clearly that is Roman/European identification. Second, to lie with or intercourse, even gay had completely different meanings in Ancient Middle East. Europe made these words Lustful and evil by Roman church, many Bishops who- were doing these things. 3. Bible spoke about conduct at the Temple. Not a mans House. Which included his land, property, servents, family. These were his buisness.
Both the book of Ezekiel and Jesus (in the NT) state what the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were basically the people being horrible to their fellow human beings...There is no mention of any homosexual sins.
As for the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, it has nothing to do with being gay, or gay sex. It has to do with inhospitality, disrespect & lust. If it were about homosexuality, then God certainly has the power to wipe out all gays from the earth at any point. So has killed off a very small few at sodom and then no other gays for the rest of history? Why? because it has nothing to do with being gay. It is about being unfriendly, lustful and crude. Again gays are not condemned in this passage.
@jakeluv7 The story of Sodom & Gomorrah doesn't even have to do with lust either. The men of Sodom wanted to rape the men (angels) staying with Lot, because that's what many soldiers did then to humiliate enemies. The men staying with Lot were unknown to the people of Sodom and they feared who these men might be.
Male & female were once one, then god severed them into male & female, this is why the male and female come together and have offspring. Thus they started on the Genetic cycle, thus Genesis. This has nothing with condemning NOT marrying or being gay, it simply says that man & woman seek their fullness in each other, even so much as to leave their parents to find that love. What fullness? its the only way there can be reproduction. Gay people could not reproduce then, so why bring up gays?
Well the bible is just a pretty book that was almost all nicely written. It's actually very nice in a fantasy world, except some of the silly rules like gays, and shrimp, and so on. I thought this video was gonna be a someone who would be able to say the bible is wrong. More like a book of laws and bills, there all created by humans, that were told by other humans. Just like the bible, it wasn't written in the begining of time, wheres the proof. It was written thousands of years later sillies.
There's a good book that explores loving same sex relationships. It's called The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationship by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley. It's available on Amazon. It looks at the scriptures in the correct context. It's an excellent book, that I highly recommend reading.
I appreciate what you're trying to do with this series, but you should beware of falling into a closed belief trap. If you're only going to argue for homosexuality from the bible you're in for a long trip. The bible wasn't even written at the same time, but consists of 66 books written by different authors, for difference audiences, addressing different issues, at different times. Don't treat it like one book. I know a lot of christians do this, but it's stupid. The bible can't trump biology.
There are some who believe gay Christians are called by God to lives of celebacy, while others believing scripture has been misinterpeted and/or misrevised believe intimate, same gender relationships ARE possible. Im glad it's for our Lord ALONE to decide which is right.
No - the Bible elsewhere states that being single and chaste is also permissible. You have to read the whole Scripture. So Biblical options are either heterosexual marriage or chaste singleness.
Saying Adam and Eve's being the first couple meant our Lord forbade other types of unions may be presuming too much. The presumed intent of the Sodom mob seem to hinge on the word "know" which in Hebrew has a sexual meaning. I sometimes wonder if Lot misunderstood the mob's intentions with this ONE word. But if the intentions of the mob were carnal, it reflects all homosexuals no better than people like Jim Jones or David Koresh reflect all Christians.
Concerning Sodom. Eze 16-49-50 give the root problem that provided the soil for sodomy to grow. Second ,sodomy is named after Hmmmm Sodom? Eze does not contradict Gen 19 but shows the cause of the perversion. Gen 19 gives us a snapshot of life in Sodom. Finally 2 pet 2:6-8 and Jude 1:7 confirms the judgment of God for its perversion. You failed.
What a joke. Let me help you. 1 Cor chapter 7 talks about whether to be single or married. So it is not a sin to get married. Second in that very chapter the apostle Paul gives a simple answer to avoid fornication (unlawful sex) Ready it is so simple.
"Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.: 1 Cor 7:2 So no option for sodomy. You failed. Have a nice day.
Also back then did the fathers of daughters not pretty much sell them to other men for their virginity? And to produce children in which the males would carry the last name and the females would benefit the father? So why wouldn't straight marriage be the socially approved way back then? The bible is nothing more than filled with historical facts if nothing else. Times change and with it so do the people.
You are wrong my friend. Adam and EVE were the first couple on earth by the will of God to be an example, a principle for later generations. A man and a woman are compatible even anatomically speaking, which is why two men and two women can't procreate.
Two men and two woman can't procreate but they can adopt and there is invitro fertilization. As far as anatomy goes, I have studied anatomy and physiology, men have a prostate which can be stimulated anally. Why would God create that as a pleasure point if he condemns it?
@naara05 You forgot the part of the talking snake, the magic fruit, the unknown girl Cain married and the part when Gollum falls to the lake of fire with the ring :( The saddest part.
@naara05 first Adam and eve werent the first couple. I mean you cant take this literally. You know that right? And even if you take it that way and not as a metaphor like its meant to be: THey werent the FIRST COUPLE! You might do your Research: Lilith was Adams first partner. An Equal. "Created" like Adam was. She didnt wanted to be oppressed (written She wanted to ride adam and not do Missionary position) God casted her out and made Eve out of Adams rip, so she was a feeble woman
Look, I didn't get into this debate to win an argument. I just want to show you the truth behind those who pretend to destroy our moral compass and show you that God's truth is absolute. There's no two ways about it. Nothing is relative or subjective. Everything is absolute. Jesus' vicarious sacrifice is absolute. He loves his cration and He wants everyone to place their trust in Him. John 3:16. God Bless.
Fiery torment is part of the Bible sir, you should know that and not preaching it is withholding truth. Psalm 9:17, Luke 12:5, etc. Preaching God's mercies should suffice though.
No. How can I convince a person of truth if truth isn't being taught? Come on, it's common sense. First you hear the truth and then you accept it. You can accept truth if you haven't heard it ifrst.
Oh, so you're for hate crimes, huh? No wait, you're an advocate of censorship! That's right. You're on of the thousands of dissenters which given the opportunity would silence and disagreeing points of views on subject matters. That is an infringement of my First Amendment right of Free Speech. Don't ever try to take that away from me. If not you're a part of problem, not the solution to a successful and prosperous society. What ever happened to simple discussion?
I am not an advocate for censorship. Am I an advocate for censorship if I say death threats should be illegal? In the same way, why should you be allowed to threaten me with eternal torture unless I convert?
I'm not nor is anybody THREATENING you. Christians simply preach the truth. It's like if you were in a dark cave and haven't found a way out, someone comes in with a flashlight and says "follow me". But you say "I want to know how that flashlight works, if not I'm not moving". Fine, have it your way. Free Speech means speaking without repercussion. If we start with censoring Christians, were does it end? Then we'd have to censor you saying that type os speak is illegal, so on and so forth.
Your analogy makes no sense. The an in the cave knows he is in trouble because he knows teh cave exists, I don't have any evidence of this hell you speak of, so it's like you telling me that tomorrow I will die in a blizzard in San Francisco.
Evidence. Example: You never met Alexander the Great. But you believe he existed because of the written record. Jesus existed and still exists. The Bible is the written record. Even in terms of the resurrection there were more than 500 witnesses.
Lastly, if you say you're a Christian, why don't you accept that there is a hell where those that disobey God's commandments shall perish? I've given you verses to support the fact. Still you neglect to see the fact that God is merciful and longsuffering. This is the reason He sent His Son to die for us, for the forgiveness of our sins. All you have to do is believe that Jesus is the Son of God. It's that simple, and you'll be saved. After that abiding by God's law is only natural and rational.
"Verses...fact = oxymoron" The Bible is evidence. Look around you: creation is evidence of God's existence.
Dude, that's different. That's a lifeguards job to save you, if not he can get in trouble if he didn't. Christ's sacrifice is available to all but God gives you free will in order to choose if you want to be saved or not. It's that simple. I don't understand how you compare the mundane with the spiritual.
The Bible is evidence? Of what? Itself? I don't believe in "creation" I believe in evolution. Even if I did believe in creation it would only prove a god exists, not your God exists.
You defeat your own argument. If evolution is true then why aren't monkey still changing into humans and where the hell is the missing link? Darwin himself stated that i his theory couldn't be proven within 50 years of the publishing of Origin of Species, that the whole system shouldn't even be considered anymore. The only thing I could say about the first statement is Romans 1:18-26. It says creation is the evidence for THE LIVING GOD. Whether you accept Him or not is your issue.
Where am I ignorant? On the fact that evolution is a fallacy or that many believe it's blunders? You keep asking me for proof and every answer I receive from you if a personal viewpoint or worldview more than facts. I've given you facts. Facts shape my worldview, not the culture. I think it's either in the last chapter or chapter 6 were he finds holes in his own theory.
"suffering he created"?! We got ourselves into this mess. Adam sold us into sin (Romans 7:14). Sin brings about corruption. God created man and creation itself perfectly. We destroyed everything. Even then God stretches His hand and saves us from evil. He still does it knowing well that people like you would call Him evil. People are evil sir, not God.
Suffer what? You live in a land of the free. Don't use that term with me like if you're actually suffering some ailment. You're looking at it worng anyways. Romans 3:23 says ALL have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God. Not only did Adam sin, you sin continuously just like me and the rest of humanity.
I wasn't going to reply but this statement is just plain stupid. African suffer because of a politically oppressing government and tyrant named Nelson Mandela. A terrorist and racist who sings "kill the white people, kill the farmers". Also, guess what people go to Africa most to give aid? CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES.
Whatever sir. you can't seem to grasp the point. I just hope that one day your worldview isn't skewed by the culture and society. Absolute truth doesn't come from sinning humans, it comes from God.You've got a very convoluted view of things and I hope that the truth will clarify those things for you. God Bless.
@Jiotimes7 How does absolute truth come from a god? That just makes it something that the god made up, which isn't absolute. That makes it relative. An absolute truth cannot be dependant upon ANY being.
@gustjorodedheo Let's put your logic that truth is relative in play to see if it stands water. Why do we convict rapists if their relative truth tells them that it's okay to sexually violate innocent people? If their truth dictates that they can sexual violate others, then the criminal courts shouldn't convict them. We know that isn't true but your argument permits them that. Truth isn't relative! And truth comes from God whom is the Creator of the world.
@jiodrum7 Really? Are you that stupid? "Truth" is just another word for "Fact". You can't have a different "truth" than I do. Either you're right about a fact, or you're wrong about a fact. You went from 'truth' to 'morality', which is not the same as truth. All my argument (which it isn't even that) states is that a being cannot be the source of facts. That would just be making them up. Facts have to exist independantly of any beings in order to be absolute or objective.
@gustjorodedheo What, the existence of morality isn't a fact? Isn't committing a crime a crime? Isn't telling a lie a lie? That's a FACT. And yes, you're wrong that there is no God and that morals don't come from him. I'm sure you'll argue that they have all come from evolution. All we know how and what to do is evil. Are you telling me that loving your neighbor is something you thought of? Paying evil with good is your intrinsic idea? NO WAY. It came from an eternal being who is perfect, JESUS!
The first saying you "quote" by John Adams is nowhere to be found. It was first "used" by a guy named Jonathan Miller in an online video titled A Brief History of Disbelief, BBC Four 2005. Most quotations atheists and liberals use to discredit our nation's Christian founding and past are fabricated or reworded like the previous examples. Don't you think that's plain evil? You should do some research before you go around repeating untrue statements. Besides, don't you say you're a Christian?
From: Peter Roberts, "John Adams" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (geocities (.) com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/JohnAdams; viewed 23 November 2005): Religious Affiliation: Unitarian Summary of Religious Views: Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian.
Dude, forget the websites. Read his own words from his own pages. John Adams' words from his diaries and letters are available all over the internet. As a matter of fact there are plenty of pictures of his writings. That's where I get my stuff from. From Mr. Adams' writing, not some biased liberal atheist college professor.
Funny, but it has actually been liberal professors and communist Marxist believers bent on stripping our nation of its identity and Christian heritage.
How about this from John Adams if he didn't accept the divinity of Jesus:
We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! April, 18 1775
Holy Spirit:
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Letter to Benjamin Rush, December 21, 1809
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
"With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history." Killing people through religion anyone?
The second quote I'll accept simply because if you anything about John Calvin, he was a murderer and a devout Catholic preaching that only the "elect" of God made it into heaven and the rest where destined for hell!
He was stating that the Catholics were using the Cross (symbol) to kill people even during the American Revolution. Read other quotes from Adams regarding this truth. No, I'm not a Calvanist. Calvinism is one of the more evil doctrines out there.
— Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days? * (18 February 1756)
Spent an hour in the beginning of the evening at Major Gardiner's, where it was thought that the design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers, or good mystery-mongers, but good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants. The following questions may be answered some time or other, namely, (read next post)
You just regurgitate what your liberal professors, atheists and others "interpret" about history. Interpretation is not subjective. History is as is. Lastly, don't use Thomas Jefferson to support your argument of deism in the founding fathers. He was considered a deist because he didn't go to church or practice Christianity. But he believed in God as is apparent by his statements when he uses the word "Divine Providence" and "God".
I just named other below. Belief in God is too generic. The Bible says in multiple places that if you believe in Jesus as the Son of God you will be saved. The old saying, "all roads lead to God" is plain stupid. Look what happened to Rome. All roads lead to Rome and they fell. Jesus stated "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. And no one goes to the Father except through me." Plain and simple.
I also disputer the fact that John Adams was Cristian. Here's a few quotes of him:
"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
So I give you a short list of 52 and you still say that the majority weren't Christians? When a person like yourself doesn't accept truth, they want to stay in ignorance and darkness and therefore there is no more helping that person. There is no historical backing for these John Adams quotes. I would be acreful next time you go to wikipedia to copy and paste supposed quotes.
Yes a biased doesn't change history but if enough biased are passed around, history itself cannot be preserved and as a consequence the truth is lost.
Lastly, these "quotes" by John Adams aren't found anywhere. The last saying is an altered quote mixed from two other sayings from Mr. Adams' diaries.
Major Greene this evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the argument he advanced was, "that a mere creature or finite being could not make satisfaction to infinite justice for any crimes," and that "these things are very mysterious."Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
You don't really have to go to guesses as to what the story of Sodom and Gomorrha means. The Old Testament (as well as the New) cites this story serveral times throughout and gives its own interpretation: pride, idleness, inhospitality. See: Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Mark 6:11
Bible based?! Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 6:9 which states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God? Just because Genesis doesn't "mention" gay marriage doesn't mean you read into the text like you just have. It tells you God DESIGNED man to be with a woman. You seem to have left out Genesis 2:24 where Adam states that man shall join his wife and they will become one. Good job on nitpicking certain portions of Scripture. Know the Bible first and then argue.
Funny. You just took stuff out of context in the video and now are going to refute Bible verses. First approach the Bible without preconceived notions and biases. And don't look at the Bible thru our cultures eyes. You must take it a face value. Society doesn't validate the Bible, God does. Just ask our nation's founding fathers. But you probably don't agree with that statement either?
"Showing that there are many ways to interpret the Bible" is a preconceived notion. You must take the literature for what it says. Culture doesn't validate the Bible. Lastly your last statement is grossly untrue. 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were professing Christians. Have you ever read the first prayer offered in Congress by Jacob Duche?
Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." John Adams said, "the general principals upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity... I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principals of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God".
I just gave you two out of 52! I was mistaken in my original number of 29. Read the previous quotes I gave you. But here's a more complete list.
John Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Joseph Storey, John Marshall, John Jay, Fisher Ames, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman, etc.
Of Course! Why wouldn't you? It's a book of history. I bet you take everything your professors tell you literally, right? Have you read Julius Ceasar's Gaelic Wars? Do you take that literally or not? It's a book of history and no one questions its authenticity. But since the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God and that Moses parted the Red Sea, "You can't take the stuff literally!" Interpretation of history of folly. You read and ACCEPT history not make it what you want.
Where does the Bible say to stone the children? I knoe what you're going to say: Leviticus 20. But READ. It says the "Children of Israel" meaning all of Israel not just the kids. Besides it talks about offering children to Molech. If you knew anything about Molech you'd know that other nations were offering their kids to this huge statue with a burning dish in order to receive a good harvest. God tells Israel not to fall into this mess if not they'd be stoned. And you say you have no bias.
For orthodox Jews, they believe no work should be done on the Sabbath. But if your a Christian, you're not under the law of Moses, but under grace. This doesn't mean you kill, plunder or have sex left and right, but Jesus' vicarious sacrifice is the remedy for your sins.
What have I just told you in previous posts? I accept everything in the Bible not because culture or someone else tells me its accounts are real, but it's a historically reliable book and its obvious that it was inspired by the Living God. Why are you misconstruing my words?
That can be misconstruing. I know folks who don't totally accept that Revelation is a future event yet they accept that Jesus is the Son of God. That alone makes you saved. But following in Christ's footsteps and obedience to God's word comes in at a very close second. We'll not be only judged in placing our trust in Christ but in what we did to share the Gospel.
No not works based but grace based. Read my original comments and don't twist them. You're saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8,9). Works come as a natural and rational part of service unto the Lord that saves you.
Again out of context. I used the word judged not in the form of damnation. If you read Scriptures carefully, those that placed there trust in Christ are saved. But these same individuals will be judges according to their works not to receive punishment, but in order to receive rewards.
there is of course the jewish interpretation of S&G. it is about cruelty and inhospitality to strangers. actually makes more sense then the bible-thumping christian one
An other thing about the Sodom story is this. Why are people assuming that the actions when the angels came to condemn them, are the same as the sins for which they were being condemned? You don't pass sentence before the crime has been committed.
What is your view of John Stuart Mill's/ John Locke's 'harm principle' (i.e. no action is wrong as long as it does not harm another individual)? According to a previous reply you made to my comment, you believe this to be a sound principle. Do you have any Biblical justification for it?
All good points. I think the reason this verse is often misinterpreted is because hardcore christians tend to lump all sexual perversions in together because they believe they all have the same origin. By this I mean they think that homosexuals are pedophiles, rapists, etc. and since Sodom and Gamorrah (spelling?) had sodomy, they assume it's on the same level as homosexuality in general.
Of course, a creation myth that gets the world populated needs a male and a female. That does not mean all possible human relationships are are summed up by this verse.
I think you've got the Sodom story just right. To the degree that homosexuality has anything to do with it at all, it has to do with violence and rape, which is hardly a general condemnation of homosexuality.
FIRST thing, Im sure that in the begining there was no word Wife. Clearly that is Roman/European identification. Second, to lie with or intercourse, even gay had completely different meanings in Ancient Middle East. Europe made these words Lustful and evil by Roman church, many Bishops who- were doing these things. 3. Bible spoke about conduct at the Temple. Not a mans House. Which included his land, property, servents, family. These were his buisness.
MrKelaross 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
MARCH 2010 UPDATE: "GAY" GENE FOUND!
Here's a video you should watch here on you tube:
The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Also just google:
GAY BRAIN
And you're going to see all the recent discovery that gay man's brain is like a females and lesbians brains are like males.
Scientifictly proven, that is NOT A CHOICE NOR A SIN, you are who you are since the night your parents... well... you know... and here we are!
NuLaifMusic 3 months ago
Both the book of Ezekiel and Jesus (in the NT) state what the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were basically the people being horrible to their fellow human beings...There is no mention of any homosexual sins.
cmdrkoenig67 3 months ago
As for the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, it has nothing to do with being gay, or gay sex. It has to do with inhospitality, disrespect & lust. If it were about homosexuality, then God certainly has the power to wipe out all gays from the earth at any point. So has killed off a very small few at sodom and then no other gays for the rest of history? Why? because it has nothing to do with being gay. It is about being unfriendly, lustful and crude. Again gays are not condemned in this passage.
jakeluv7 5 months ago
@jakeluv7 The story of Sodom & Gomorrah doesn't even have to do with lust either. The men of Sodom wanted to rape the men (angels) staying with Lot, because that's what many soldiers did then to humiliate enemies. The men staying with Lot were unknown to the people of Sodom and they feared who these men might be.
cmdrkoenig67 3 months ago
Male & female were once one, then god severed them into male & female, this is why the male and female come together and have offspring. Thus they started on the Genetic cycle, thus Genesis. This has nothing with condemning NOT marrying or being gay, it simply says that man & woman seek their fullness in each other, even so much as to leave their parents to find that love. What fullness? its the only way there can be reproduction. Gay people could not reproduce then, so why bring up gays?
jakeluv7 5 months ago
You're a fool and you cherry pick verses. If you use accept one verse you must accept them all. Your argument is invalid.
NikoMeyng 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NikoMeyng Christians cherry pick verses too, so what is your point?
cmdrkoenig67 3 months ago
Well the bible is just a pretty book that was almost all nicely written. It's actually very nice in a fantasy world, except some of the silly rules like gays, and shrimp, and so on. I thought this video was gonna be a someone who would be able to say the bible is wrong. More like a book of laws and bills, there all created by humans, that were told by other humans. Just like the bible, it wasn't written in the begining of time, wheres the proof. It was written thousands of years later sillies.
idoltyler06 10 months ago
There's a good book that explores loving same sex relationships. It's called The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationship by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley. It's available on Amazon. It looks at the scriptures in the correct context. It's an excellent book, that I highly recommend reading.
shadowgwm 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are sooo cute hehehe
minus321 1 year ago
I appreciate what you're trying to do with this series, but you should beware of falling into a closed belief trap. If you're only going to argue for homosexuality from the bible you're in for a long trip. The bible wasn't even written at the same time, but consists of 66 books written by different authors, for difference audiences, addressing different issues, at different times. Don't treat it like one book. I know a lot of christians do this, but it's stupid. The bible can't trump biology.
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
There are some who believe gay Christians are called by God to lives of celebacy, while others believing scripture has been misinterpeted and/or misrevised believe intimate, same gender relationships ARE possible. Im glad it's for our Lord ALONE to decide which is right.
clay56 1 year ago
No - the Bible elsewhere states that being single and chaste is also permissible. You have to read the whole Scripture. So Biblical options are either heterosexual marriage or chaste singleness.
elderaps 1 year ago
Saying Adam and Eve's being the first couple meant our Lord forbade other types of unions may be presuming too much. The presumed intent of the Sodom mob seem to hinge on the word "know" which in Hebrew has a sexual meaning. I sometimes wonder if Lot misunderstood the mob's intentions with this ONE word. But if the intentions of the mob were carnal, it reflects all homosexuals no better than people like Jim Jones or David Koresh reflect all Christians.
clay56 1 year ago
Concerning Sodom. Eze 16-49-50 give the root problem that provided the soil for sodomy to grow. Second ,sodomy is named after Hmmmm Sodom? Eze does not contradict Gen 19 but shows the cause of the perversion. Gen 19 gives us a snapshot of life in Sodom. Finally 2 pet 2:6-8 and Jude 1:7 confirms the judgment of God for its perversion. You failed.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
What a joke. Let me help you. 1 Cor chapter 7 talks about whether to be single or married. So it is not a sin to get married. Second in that very chapter the apostle Paul gives a simple answer to avoid fornication (unlawful sex) Ready it is so simple.
"Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.: 1 Cor 7:2 So no option for sodomy. You failed. Have a nice day.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
check out my comment on ur debate team homosexuality vid!
bobobobobo73 1 year ago
it says in the bible fornicators nor homosexuals shall enter the kingdom of heaven.
bobobobobo73 1 year ago
Also back then did the fathers of daughters not pretty much sell them to other men for their virginity? And to produce children in which the males would carry the last name and the females would benefit the father? So why wouldn't straight marriage be the socially approved way back then? The bible is nothing more than filled with historical facts if nothing else. Times change and with it so do the people.
hictownredneck 2 years ago
You are wrong my friend. Adam and EVE were the first couple on earth by the will of God to be an example, a principle for later generations. A man and a woman are compatible even anatomically speaking, which is why two men and two women can't procreate.
naara05 2 years ago 3
The first, yes. But does that mean the only?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Two men and two woman can't procreate but they can adopt and there is invitro fertilization. As far as anatomy goes, I have studied anatomy and physiology, men have a prostate which can be stimulated anally. Why would God create that as a pleasure point if he condemns it?
questionsamson 2 years ago
@naara05 You forgot the part of the talking snake, the magic fruit, the unknown girl Cain married and the part when Gollum falls to the lake of fire with the ring :( The saddest part.
cre599 4 months ago
@naara05 first Adam and eve werent the first couple. I mean you cant take this literally. You know that right? And even if you take it that way and not as a metaphor like its meant to be: THey werent the FIRST COUPLE! You might do your Research: Lilith was Adams first partner. An Equal. "Created" like Adam was. She didnt wanted to be oppressed (written She wanted to ride adam and not do Missionary position) God casted her out and made Eve out of Adams rip, so she was a feeble woman
DallasGuy91 3 months ago
Look, I didn't get into this debate to win an argument. I just want to show you the truth behind those who pretend to destroy our moral compass and show you that God's truth is absolute. There's no two ways about it. Nothing is relative or subjective. Everything is absolute. Jesus' vicarious sacrifice is absolute. He loves his cration and He wants everyone to place their trust in Him. John 3:16. God Bless.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
You're the one who destroys peoples morals.
If you can't win an argument you'll never convince me.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
So preaching loving your neighbor and loving God over anything else is destruction of morals?
It's not about convincing you!!!
It's about showing you the truth!!!
Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Not my words, they're Jesus'.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Loving your neighbor is fine, but preaching of fiery torment is not.
To show me the truth you must first convince me of the truth.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Fiery torment is part of the Bible sir, you should know that and not preaching it is withholding truth. Psalm 9:17, Luke 12:5, etc. Preaching God's mercies should suffice though.
No. How can I convince a person of truth if truth isn't being taught? Come on, it's common sense. First you hear the truth and then you accept it. You can accept truth if you haven't heard it ifrst.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Threatening people like that should be against the law.
So you've told me the "truth", now prove it.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Oh, so you're for hate crimes, huh? No wait, you're an advocate of censorship! That's right. You're on of the thousands of dissenters which given the opportunity would silence and disagreeing points of views on subject matters. That is an infringement of my First Amendment right of Free Speech. Don't ever try to take that away from me. If not you're a part of problem, not the solution to a successful and prosperous society. What ever happened to simple discussion?
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I am not an advocate for censorship. Am I an advocate for censorship if I say death threats should be illegal? In the same way, why should you be allowed to threaten me with eternal torture unless I convert?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
I'm not nor is anybody THREATENING you. Christians simply preach the truth. It's like if you were in a dark cave and haven't found a way out, someone comes in with a flashlight and says "follow me". But you say "I want to know how that flashlight works, if not I'm not moving". Fine, have it your way. Free Speech means speaking without repercussion. If we start with censoring Christians, were does it end? Then we'd have to censor you saying that type os speak is illegal, so on and so forth.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Your analogy makes no sense. The an in the cave knows he is in trouble because he knows teh cave exists, I don't have any evidence of this hell you speak of, so it's like you telling me that tomorrow I will die in a blizzard in San Francisco.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Evidence. Example: You never met Alexander the Great. But you believe he existed because of the written record. Jesus existed and still exists. The Bible is the written record. Even in terms of the resurrection there were more than 500 witnesses.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Lastly, if you say you're a Christian, why don't you accept that there is a hell where those that disobey God's commandments shall perish? I've given you verses to support the fact. Still you neglect to see the fact that God is merciful and longsuffering. This is the reason He sent His Son to die for us, for the forgiveness of our sins. All you have to do is believe that Jesus is the Son of God. It's that simple, and you'll be saved. After that abiding by God's law is only natural and rational.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
"Verses...fact" = oxymoron. I don't believe base on verses, only evidence.
Compare it to a lifeguard: do you have to accept a lifeguard's salvation, or does he give it to you whether you ask or not?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
"Verses...fact = oxymoron" The Bible is evidence. Look around you: creation is evidence of God's existence.
Dude, that's different. That's a lifeguards job to save you, if not he can get in trouble if he didn't. Christ's sacrifice is available to all but God gives you free will in order to choose if you want to be saved or not. It's that simple. I don't understand how you compare the mundane with the spiritual.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
The Bible is evidence? Of what? Itself? I don't believe in "creation" I believe in evolution. Even if I did believe in creation it would only prove a god exists, not your God exists.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
You defeat your own argument. If evolution is true then why aren't monkey still changing into humans and where the hell is the missing link? Darwin himself stated that i his theory couldn't be proven within 50 years of the publishing of Origin of Species, that the whole system shouldn't even be considered anymore. The only thing I could say about the first statement is Romans 1:18-26. It says creation is the evidence for THE LIVING GOD. Whether you accept Him or not is your issue.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
You are obviously EXTREMELY ignorant. Look up evolution please. Websites can answer you better than I can.
Cite me a source for the Darwin quote.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Where am I ignorant? On the fact that evolution is a fallacy or that many believe it's blunders? You keep asking me for proof and every answer I receive from you if a personal viewpoint or worldview more than facts. I've given you facts. Facts shape my worldview, not the culture. I think it's either in the last chapter or chapter 6 were he finds holes in his own theory.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Research evolution before you talk about it.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
So it's not God's job to save us from the suffering he created?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
"suffering he created"?! We got ourselves into this mess. Adam sold us into sin (Romans 7:14). Sin brings about corruption. God created man and creation itself perfectly. We destroyed everything. Even then God stretches His hand and saves us from evil. He still does it knowing well that people like you would call Him evil. People are evil sir, not God.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
So I should suffer because a man 10,000 years ago made a mistake?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Suffer what? You live in a land of the free. Don't use that term with me like if you're actually suffering some ailment. You're looking at it worng anyways. Romans 3:23 says ALL have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God. Not only did Adam sin, you sin continuously just like me and the rest of humanity.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Ok, should people starving in Africa suffer because one person ruined it for us?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
I wasn't going to reply but this statement is just plain stupid. African suffer because of a politically oppressing government and tyrant named Nelson Mandela. A terrorist and racist who sings "kill the white people, kill the farmers". Also, guess what people go to Africa most to give aid? CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Oh right, there are no starving people in Africa.
But that's besides the point. There is suffering because of one person's sin. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Whatever sir. you can't seem to grasp the point. I just hope that one day your worldview isn't skewed by the culture and society. Absolute truth doesn't come from sinning humans, it comes from God.You've got a very convoluted view of things and I hope that the truth will clarify those things for you. God Bless.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I hope one day will stop being ignorant and actually think about the idiocy you preach.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
@Jiotimes7 How does absolute truth come from a god? That just makes it something that the god made up, which isn't absolute. That makes it relative. An absolute truth cannot be dependant upon ANY being.
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
@gustjorodedheo Let's put your logic that truth is relative in play to see if it stands water. Why do we convict rapists if their relative truth tells them that it's okay to sexually violate innocent people? If their truth dictates that they can sexual violate others, then the criminal courts shouldn't convict them. We know that isn't true but your argument permits them that. Truth isn't relative! And truth comes from God whom is the Creator of the world.
jiodrum7 1 year ago
@jiodrum7 Really? Are you that stupid? "Truth" is just another word for "Fact". You can't have a different "truth" than I do. Either you're right about a fact, or you're wrong about a fact. You went from 'truth' to 'morality', which is not the same as truth. All my argument (which it isn't even that) states is that a being cannot be the source of facts. That would just be making them up. Facts have to exist independantly of any beings in order to be absolute or objective.
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
@gustjorodedheo What, the existence of morality isn't a fact? Isn't committing a crime a crime? Isn't telling a lie a lie? That's a FACT. And yes, you're wrong that there is no God and that morals don't come from him. I'm sure you'll argue that they have all come from evolution. All we know how and what to do is evil. Are you telling me that loving your neighbor is something you thought of? Paying evil with good is your intrinsic idea? NO WAY. It came from an eternal being who is perfect, JESUS!
jiodrum7 1 year ago
The first saying you "quote" by John Adams is nowhere to be found. It was first "used" by a guy named Jonathan Miller in an online video titled A Brief History of Disbelief, BBC Four 2005. Most quotations atheists and liberals use to discredit our nation's Christian founding and past are fabricated or reworded like the previous examples. Don't you think that's plain evil? You should do some research before you go around repeating untrue statements. Besides, don't you say you're a Christian?
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
From: Peter Roberts, "John Adams" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (geocities (.) com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/JohnAdams; viewed 23 November 2005): Religious Affiliation: Unitarian Summary of Religious Views: Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Dude, forget the websites. Read his own words from his own pages. John Adams' words from his diaries and letters are available all over the internet. As a matter of fact there are plenty of pictures of his writings. That's where I get my stuff from. From Mr. Adams' writing, not some biased liberal atheist college professor.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Well they must have been edited by the evil conservatives!
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Funny, but it has actually been liberal professors and communist Marxist believers bent on stripping our nation of its identity and Christian heritage.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
How about this from John Adams if he didn't accept the divinity of Jesus:
We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! April, 18 1775
Holy Spirit:
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Letter to Benjamin Rush, December 21, 1809
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Sources please? Links to where you found those?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Too many. Google some of John Adams diaries and you should come up with plenty.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Website: adherents (.) com/people/pa/John_Adams
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Website: earlyamerica (.) com/review/summer97/secular
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
You didn't include the ending of the first quote:
"With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history." Killing people through religion anyone?
The second quote I'll accept simply because if you anything about John Calvin, he was a murderer and a devout Catholic preaching that only the "elect" of God made it into heaven and the rest where destined for hell!
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I don't understand your first point.
Than I take it you're not a Calvinist. Good, at least your slightly more rational than most Christians.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
He was stating that the Catholics were using the Cross (symbol) to kill people even during the American Revolution. Read other quotes from Adams regarding this truth. No, I'm not a Calvanist. Calvinism is one of the more evil doctrines out there.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Another good source for a complete list: positiveatheism (.) org/hist/quotes/adams
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
— Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days? * (18 February 1756)
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
The second quotes goes:
Spent an hour in the beginning of the evening at Major Gardiner's, where it was thought that the design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers, or good mystery-mongers, but good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants. The following questions may be answered some time or other, namely, (read next post)
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
You just regurgitate what your liberal professors, atheists and others "interpret" about history. Interpretation is not subjective. History is as is. Lastly, don't use Thomas Jefferson to support your argument of deism in the founding fathers. He was considered a deist because he didn't go to church or practice Christianity. But he believed in God as is apparent by his statements when he uses the word "Divine Providence" and "God".
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I have no liberal professors, they are all conservative.
Name me one Christian founding father. There is a difference between belief in God and Christianity.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
I just named other below. Belief in God is too generic. The Bible says in multiple places that if you believe in Jesus as the Son of God you will be saved. The old saying, "all roads lead to God" is plain stupid. Look what happened to Rome. All roads lead to Rome and they fell. Jesus stated "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. And no one goes to the Father except through me." Plain and simple.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
So teh majority were not Christian.
I also disputer the fact that John Adams was Cristian. Here's a few quotes of him:
"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
So I give you a short list of 52 and you still say that the majority weren't Christians? When a person like yourself doesn't accept truth, they want to stay in ignorance and darkness and therefore there is no more helping that person. There is no historical backing for these John Adams quotes. I would be acreful next time you go to wikipedia to copy and paste supposed quotes.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I don't use wikipedia. I am "acreful"
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Every website you use for quotes is a politically charged anti-moral agenda website.
Let's see:
positiveatheism (.) org = Atheist agenda
worldpolicy (.) org/projects/globalrights/sexo rient/twins = Special rights for gays!
Need I say more?! But remember, you're a Christian.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Every source is biased in some way. That doesn't change history.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Yes a biased doesn't change history but if enough biased are passed around, history itself cannot be preserved and as a consequence the truth is lost.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Dude, that's a low blow in this kind of an debate. Be more mature about this.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Oh come on, it's a joke. I understand we all make spelling mistakes, I just thought it an ironic time for you to make one.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Okay.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Lastly, these "quotes" by John Adams aren't found anywhere. The last saying is an altered quote mixed from two other sayings from Mr. Adams' diaries.
Major Greene this evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the argument he advanced was, "that a mere creature or finite being could not make satisfaction to infinite justice for any crimes," and that "these things are very mysterious."Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
You don't really have to go to guesses as to what the story of Sodom and Gomorrha means. The Old Testament (as well as the New) cites this story serveral times throughout and gives its own interpretation: pride, idleness, inhospitality. See: Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Mark 6:11
poolerboy0077 2 years ago
Bible based?! Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 6:9 which states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God? Just because Genesis doesn't "mention" gay marriage doesn't mean you read into the text like you just have. It tells you God DESIGNED man to be with a woman. You seem to have left out Genesis 2:24 where Adam states that man shall join his wife and they will become one. Good job on nitpicking certain portions of Scripture. Know the Bible first and then argue.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I'm not done with this series. I will be refuting all verses against homosexuality, but I can't do it all in one video.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Funny. You just took stuff out of context in the video and now are going to refute Bible verses. First approach the Bible without preconceived notions and biases. And don't look at the Bible thru our cultures eyes. You must take it a face value. Society doesn't validate the Bible, God does. Just ask our nation's founding fathers. But you probably don't agree with that statement either?
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I didn't take anything out of context.
I have no biases when I approach it. I am simply showing that there are many ways to interpret the Bible.
Culture says the Bible is true, since most of our country in Christian.
The founding fathers were deists and atheists, not Christian.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
"Showing that there are many ways to interpret the Bible" is a preconceived notion. You must take the literature for what it says. Culture doesn't validate the Bible. Lastly your last statement is grossly untrue. 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were professing Christians. Have you ever read the first prayer offered in Congress by Jacob Duche?
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." John Adams said, "the general principals upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity... I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principals of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God".
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Name me one Christian founding father.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
I just gave you two out of 52! I was mistaken in my original number of 29. Read the previous quotes I gave you. But here's a more complete list.
John Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Joseph Storey, John Marshall, John Jay, Fisher Ames, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman, etc.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Do you take everything in the Bible literally?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Of Course! Why wouldn't you? It's a book of history. I bet you take everything your professors tell you literally, right? Have you read Julius Ceasar's Gaelic Wars? Do you take that literally or not? It's a book of history and no one questions its authenticity. But since the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God and that Moses parted the Red Sea, "You can't take the stuff literally!" Interpretation of history of folly. You read and ACCEPT history not make it what you want.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I accept aspects of history that can be proven, not fairy tales.
The Bible says to stone children in Leviticus. Do you take that literally?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Where does the Bible say to stone the children? I knoe what you're going to say: Leviticus 20. But READ. It says the "Children of Israel" meaning all of Israel not just the kids. Besides it talks about offering children to Molech. If you knew anything about Molech you'd know that other nations were offering their kids to this huge statue with a burning dish in order to receive a good harvest. God tells Israel not to fall into this mess if not they'd be stoned. And you say you have no bias.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
I don't have bias. I have read all of Leviticus, I am not quote mining. Do you believe that no work is allowed on the sabbath?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
For orthodox Jews, they believe no work should be done on the Sabbath. But if your a Christian, you're not under the law of Moses, but under grace. This doesn't mean you kill, plunder or have sex left and right, but Jesus' vicarious sacrifice is the remedy for your sins.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
So you don't accept parts of the Bible.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
What have I just told you in previous posts? I accept everything in the Bible not because culture or someone else tells me its accounts are real, but it's a historically reliable book and its obvious that it was inspired by the Living God. Why are you misconstruing my words?
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
If you don't follow all of the Bible's teachings then you don't believe in it all.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
That can be misconstruing. I know folks who don't totally accept that Revelation is a future event yet they accept that Jesus is the Son of God. That alone makes you saved. But following in Christ's footsteps and obedience to God's word comes in at a very close second. We'll not be only judged in placing our trust in Christ but in what we did to share the Gospel.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
So you believe in a works based system of judgment, contrary to the Bible's teachings.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
No not works based but grace based. Read my original comments and don't twist them. You're saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8,9). Works come as a natural and rational part of service unto the Lord that saves you.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
You said we'll be judged on if we shared the gospel. So we are judged by works, not faith.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Again out of context. I used the word judged not in the form of damnation. If you read Scriptures carefully, those that placed there trust in Christ are saved. But these same individuals will be judges according to their works not to receive punishment, but in order to receive rewards.
Jiotimes7 2 years ago
Now are you saying that there are different levels of heaven depending on your works?
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
there is of course the jewish interpretation of S&G. it is about cruelty and inhospitality to strangers. actually makes more sense then the bible-thumping christian one
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
An other thing about the Sodom story is this. Why are people assuming that the actions when the angels came to condemn them, are the same as the sins for which they were being condemned? You don't pass sentence before the crime has been committed.
wyrdness1 2 years ago
What is your view of John Stuart Mill's/ John Locke's 'harm principle' (i.e. no action is wrong as long as it does not harm another individual)? According to a previous reply you made to my comment, you believe this to be a sound principle. Do you have any Biblical justification for it?
saqib09 2 years ago
I'm not trying to prove every principle I hold Biblically. I am only refuting Biblical cases against homosexuality.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Of course you are. I was just curious about your view on this.
saqib09 2 years ago
I'll see if I can find something Biblical to back up my belief.
amazinglibertarian 2 years ago
Cheers
saqib09 2 years ago
All good points. I think the reason this verse is often misinterpreted is because hardcore christians tend to lump all sexual perversions in together because they believe they all have the same origin. By this I mean they think that homosexuals are pedophiles, rapists, etc. and since Sodom and Gamorrah (spelling?) had sodomy, they assume it's on the same level as homosexuality in general.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
thanks, I don't have much good to say about the bible, but yeah AFAIK the sodom&gommorah story was about rape and power, not homosexuality
enigmatically 2 years ago
Of course, a creation myth that gets the world populated needs a male and a female. That does not mean all possible human relationships are are summed up by this verse.
I think you've got the Sodom story just right. To the degree that homosexuality has anything to do with it at all, it has to do with violence and rape, which is hardly a general condemnation of homosexuality.
Good job with a complex subject.
kevinanity 2 years ago