Sammy - from a page or so back:


If you read the entire account from well before to well after you get a better picture of everything that happened.

after the fire and brimstone bit and the wife into a pillar of salt
lot and daughters wind up in a cave and they think the whole world has been distroyed [not just the two citys]
and they are the last people
so the daughters get lot drunk as to start to repopulate the earth

are people who belive this BS any more
as disordered
as gays [who are born that way]
or more of a clear and present danger to progress?

if gay is a option
when did you deside to be strait?

religion is a danger , all of them
just some cults are more wacko then others

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
Lot and his daughters (And Adam Knew Eve)
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. What the Bible says about incest, family values, and fathers
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

But your bible says to kill them?

Lev 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

That's not ill will? How do you reconcile "thou shalt not kill" with "they shall be put to death"? If you choose to believe the part where they have "committed an abomination", why do you not believe the part where "they shall be put to death"? Or do you believe that they should be put to death?

Serious question.

Mike

AFAIK, the bible does not suggest that Jesus discussed homosexuality.
He did address adultery, saying that if you have thought about adultery you are already guilty of it. God knows what is in your heart.
Jesus said that If you look at an attractive woman and have lustful thoughts, you have already sinned.
I suppose that could be used to argue that not only are homosexual acts sinful, but just being homosexual and celibate is a sin also.
I don't think I want to go there, I'd like to think that a person who is homosexual and celibate through repentance is closer to God. Too much interpretation and opinion there, a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened here and now.

Jesus talked about gouging your eye out if it causes you to sin, it is better to loose an eye than a soul but that was IMO a parable. A figurative example, not meant to be taken litterally.

I have to ask you moneyguy1, who is casting stones? yes, the bible says that a homosexual act is a sin and is detestable in the eyes of God, and Christians consider homosexual acts to be a sin. Yes, there are lots of other sins. Hundreds of them, all spelled out in the bible. Yes, Christians are guilty of all kinds of sin. Every one of us. No one is without sin. We have already gone over that several times in this thread.

There is no persecusion here, no one is saying that one person is better than another because of degree of sinfulness, nothing like that at all even though some are trying to make it look that way.

Some folks here have suggested that we can't say that homosexual acts are sinful because we are sinners too. BS.

I shouldn't judge others and say I'm better than them, or less sinful because I have less sins or because my sins are not as extreme, and I try not to.
But I will not say that because I do things that are wrong, homosexual acts are ok too. That would truly be hypocritical.
I believe that all sin is bad and all sinners are bad. The only difference is that some have asked for and have been granted forgiveness. It really is that simple.

I like to think that I have a fairly clear moral compass. This is based on the sum total of what I have learned and experienced in my life - and a good deal of common sense.

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. Rational, compassionate humanism. These are just phrases, but they are phrases which mean something to me and which, in shorthand, describe my personal moral compass.

I have a few gay friends who I like and respect. Their sexual proclivities interest me no more than the hetero who puts his wife in handcuffs and bonks her in a rubber suit. This is harmless stuff, and who am I to say that what I prefer in the sack is superior?

These are questions of taste and inclination - not moral absolutes - and certainly not absolutes dictated by some primitive text that can be interpreted and reinterpreted in any way you like to suit any purpose you wish - as the history of the church has amply demonstrated over the past 2000 years.

I repeat: It is extraordinary to me that rational people could seek a justification for their views about homosexuality in texts that are as primitive, racist, inherently ambiguous and of as questionable a provenance as the Old Testament and the Talmud. Think for a moment how primitive the writers of these texts were - and how primitive the societies in which they lived!

There have been more than 2000 years of science and learning and civilization - of enlightenment - since then that you are choosing to ignore for some primitive mantra.

Unbelieveable!

Well put.

Yes, Dottore. We do believe there might be Truth in documents written two thousand years ago. Indeed, a comic strip in today's newspaper does not trump Shakespeare simply because of its advanced modern-ness. You can go ahead and adore your moral relativism. Many of us think there are some very important matters that have answers better than "it depends......"

The Church takes another position that is poorly understood or not understood at all. Freedom. You see, the Church thinks that in order for a person to be 100% culpable for a sinful decision, that person needs to be 100% free to choose either way. The Church recognizes there are many influences that inhibit our freedom of choice. Addiction, for example. It is convenient to indict alcoholics for drinking, and it makes some people feel better to criticize others rather than being compassionate or trying to understand and sympathize. But those of you who are alcoholics who have managed to stay sober for a time will understand better than the others the fact that the disease robs its victims of choice freedom.

When I say that homosexuals (and heterosexuals) are "disordered," this is what I am talking about. There is an interruption in our freedom of choice. For this reason and many others, we should not judge. Christians who judge are committing a sin. God knows, and the Church recognizes, our efforts and the barriers we must overcome to successfully avoid sin.

One person manages to smile at his mother-in-law. Another person works tirelessly all day to help AIDS victims who are dying. Just possibly.....the former achieved a greater spiritual victory than the latter. We just don't know.

I respectfully suggest that some of you gather more information before you reach conclusions about something (like God and religion) you hate. Hatred is ignorance. One of the clearest lessons I have ever learned in my life is the fact that when I hate something, it means I don't understand it very well. True understanding results in compassion, not hatred. Some of you have this lesson in your future, it seems.

I'm not sure anyone who disagrees necessarily hates...
Small percentage I suspect.

Fun reading: http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/sodom_and_gomorrah/gn19_01.html

http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/the_seduction_of_lot/gn19_30.html

Supe, Well put, as they say

Serious answer:

Here is a little "Bible 101". The Bible is divided into two major collections of books, letters, poems, and other forms of literature. The Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old is considered "law"; the New is considered "Gospel".

The Law was written to point out both the sins of mankind as a whole, and men as individuals. It convicts all men of sin, and highlights the hopelessness of our plight regarding our efforts to measure up to God's expectations.

The harshness of that law, the severity of the punishment, served two purposes. It was initially levied over a people living under some pretty brutal conditions; the Israelites wandering a harsh wilderness, surrounded by enemies on all sides. It was meant to keep them in line under what could very easliy have degenerated into some pretty lawless conditions.

The second, and to us the more important intent of the law (to us) and its seemingly merciless punishment, is to highlight what is in store for those who oppose God. This next point is VERY important, so I hope I can present it without muddling it.

Anyway, the punishments were not so much for breaking any one specific article of law. The punishments were for defying God; for not doing as He says. There is a difference. This is a foreshadowing of God's ultimate punishment that awaits us all. It all sounds pretty bleak if you stop right there; we are all damned. No hope.

That's where the Gospel comes in. It announces God's plan to save us from His punishment that we deserve so much. Here is the next important point - it absolves us of all guilt under, and any need to follow, or ENFORCE, The Law. We can't anyway; it's far too demanding for us. The gist of the story is that Jesus stepped up and said something like "Dad, blame me. Punish me. For everything those poor bastards have done. Let them off the hook, for my sake."

So what this means in this particular case is the the Bible most certainly DOES NOT extol us to kill homosexuals. Or anyone else, for that matter. It explicitely tells us not to, in the Gospel. When the angry mob was getting ready to stone the whore to death, Jesus Himself stopped them. His famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line came from there. He is very clear that we are no longer to punish each other for our sins. Ever.

Incidently, this is the major difference between the Quaran and the Bible. They share much of the Old Testament. The Quaran, obviously, does not include the Gospels containing Jesus' message of absolution, nor His message to knock off with the punishment thing. Muslims are still trying to live up to God's (or Allah's) laws, and still looking to punish those who do not. Understanding that fundemental difference between the Bible and its followers, and the Quaran and its followers, will go a long way towards understanding the world's situation today. But I digress...

Good explanation, Jeff. I still don't fully understand the big picture (since I do not possess the secret decoder ring), but your explanation gives insight into something I could not reconcile.

Thanks,

Mike

Jesus did come to forgive and sacrifice himself for our wickedness, but he did not tell us to ignore the old testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

The above shows that you really have this unbelievable urge to view Christians as somehow less intelligent, enlightened, modern, or whatever than yourself.

You go on and on about primitive blah blah. I ask you this, would you consider the time period of Einstein more or less primitive than now? I am sure you do not consider him "less intelligent". Why do you have such a bigotry toward people that lived in the past? You feel that you are somehow better or more intelligent because you drive a car? I suppose you feel superior to the dirt poor guy in Africa who barely has a sharp stick to his name?

Again, why do people feel that Christians are the intolerant ones.

great discussion, i learned alot about both sides of the argument. I'm giving all participants a golf clap right now. i do take exception to gassy's post "Wow. What a read. I'm not sure where to start. Just like a political thread, I'm sure my post will be quoted in thick black font with many a retort...First of all, there is no God. Any of you religious guys believe in aliens? Didn't think so. Same thing. Secondly, F#ck you all that think being a homo is a decision that one makes. Its genetic. The bible is fiction, by the way. Give me a God Damn break." Its those that cry the loudest for tolerance are often the most intorlerant. Christians can believe whatever they want, adults can have sex with other adults in whatever fashion they both agree on. At the end of the day neither decision will affect me. I try to be tolerant. Do i want to have sex with men, nah. I don't like anchovies on my pizza either. If you don't like anchovies don't order them. Organized religion is not my bag but those that like it, so be it.

And please stop trying to put anchovies on my pizza, and knocking on my door at 7:00am on Sunday morning to tell me how f*cking wonderful you think anchovies are!

They are prolific spreaders of various STDs, molesters of children, and generally effed up individuals.

All rational reasons to be distrustful(or worse) of gays.

Simply put, they are unmoraled people.

I also find it utterly impossible to relate to them, as the thought of banging some guy in his hairy asss is enough to make me puke in my mouth a little.

I don't want to belabor the point too much. Yes, we are still guilty in God's eyes under the Law. We always will be. Jesus' message of coming to "fulfill" the law means he is accepting punishment in our stead, and relieving us of the Law.

No, we cannot ignore the Old Testament. We just don't have to live it anymore. It stands as a constant reminder of why Jesus came. He tells us to leave the punishments and judgements outlined in it to God; it is no longer for us to implement them.

Mike, I'm glad I could help, at least a little, from my admittedly limited grasp.

Yipes.

I usually stay out of religious and political threads. But this stands out a bit. Two questions - 1) would like to be enlightened by the data to substantiate these statements; and 2) does this statement apply to both genders?