Gay Mob Attacks Christians

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

Abysmal exegesis. [/quote]

Please state logically conflicts and reasons.

62

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

No it was the cultural norm for the day that you protect your guests. Similiar to the tribal region of pakistan in our day and time. They have cultural rules which dictate how they treat guests.

There was an article about how some of those tribes in pakistan can’t surrender thier guest because of their culture and that it would be a problem for the U.S. in the war on terror.

So we are in agreement the bible depicts homosexuality as immoral, because I remember someone saying that jesus never said that because he didn’t specifically use the word homosexual. HE used a blanket statement sexual immorality.

[/quote]

I would agree that the Biblical stance seems to indicate that homosexuality is a form of sexual immorality.

interesting argument. Since the jewish leaders of the day were sticklers for the laws of moses the question becomes why would Jesus need to pick just one part of sexual immorailty (ie. homosexuality)? After all Leviticus has a whole list. He could lump them into one giant category and people would know he was talking about all of them.

63

[quote]forlife wrote:
Saying sexuality is a continuum doesn’t imply that everyone is bisexual. It means people vary in where they are on that continuum. Some are gay, some are bisexual, and some are straight.

In this case, the mob was clearly bisexual rather than gay.[/quote]

Maybe they were gay, but could perform with women.

64

The new testament also condemns women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Every time I bring this up, the fundamentalists ignore it just like they ignore the passages themselves.

65

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Maybe they were gay, but could perform with women. [/quote]

In order to find the women an acceptable exchange for the men, they would be definitionally bisexual not gay.

66

[quote]forlife wrote:
The new testament also condemns women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Every time I bring this up, the fundamentalists ignore it just like they ignore the passages themselves.[/quote]

Way to lump Genesis 19 in the same category as women being quiet in church and covering their heads.

For the record, “Fundamentalists” (whatever that means), don’t avoid the topic at all.

67

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Maybe they were gay, but could perform with women.

In order to find the women an acceptable exchange for the men, they would be definitionally bisexual not gay.[/quote]

You’re reading that into the text. You were married to a woman, for crying out loud. It’s beyond absurd that you would make a statement like that.

68

[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
You don’t have to agree with it, and I am not defending it, but you do need to make a coherent and relevent argument rather than an ad hom attack on the text that is in no way relelvent.

I thought we were talking about Genesis 19 as an example of the evil gays. I’m pointing out that a) Lot wasn’t exactly righteous, and b) they were bisexual in any case or Lot wouldn’t have tantalized them with his two daughters. Down with the evil bisexuals!
[/quote]

If that is what you understood from genesis 19 being brought into the discussion then why attack lot and his righteous standing? It has notthing to do with it.

secondly

You can’t make the connection that they were bi. They didn’t take lot up on the offer so they could have been gay.

In fact scour the Bible and point to one spot where it says the people of sod. and gom. went both ways.

now it could be a possibilty that they did, but you can’t make that connection from the text. so you are reaching.

69

[quote]haney1 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

No it was the cultural norm for the day that you protect your guests. Similiar to the tribal region of pakistan in our day and time. They have cultural rules which dictate how they treat guests.

There was an article about how some of those tribes in pakistan can’t surrender thier guest because of their culture and that it would be a problem for the U.S. in the war on terror.

So we are in agreement the bible depicts homosexuality as immoral, because I remember someone saying that jesus never said that because he didn’t specifically use the word homosexual. HE used a blanket statement sexual immorality.

I would agree that the Biblical stance seems to indicate that homosexuality is a form of immorral sexual immorality.

interesting argument. Since the jewish leaders of the day were sticklers for the laws of moses the question becomes why would Jesus need to pick just one part of sexual immorailty (ie. homosexuality)? After all Leviticus has a whole list. He could lump them into one giant category and people would know he was talking about all of them.
[/quote]

Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It’s pretty clear what the Bible states about homosexuality in my eyes. I just don’t see it as any real dividing line.

Is it a sin in the Bible? Yes. But Romans also stats we are all sinners so if you exclude them from things, shouldn’t you exclude everyone?

Can’t a husband and wife commit sexual sin even within their own marriage? Should we legally try to stop this?

70

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

Abysmal exegesis.

Please state logically conflicts and reasons.[/quote]

it isn’t a logical conflict. It is the fact that you are adding your thoughts and interpretation to the text and they are unwarrented and unfounded. that is the exegesis problem. You are committing isagesis.

71

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Maybe they were gay, but could perform with women.

In order to find the women an acceptable exchange for the men, they would be definitionally bisexual not gay.

You’re reading that into the text. You were married to a woman, for crying out loud. It’s beyond absurd that you would make a statement like that. [/quote]

“Doah!”

72

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
haney1 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

No it was the cultural norm for the day that you protect your guests. Similiar to the tribal region of pakistan in our day and time. They have cultural rules which dictate how they treat guests.

There was an article about how some of those tribes in pakistan can’t surrender thier guest because of their culture and that it would be a problem for the U.S. in the war on terror.

So we are in agreement the bible depicts homosexuality as immoral, because I remember someone saying that jesus never said that because he didn’t specifically use the word homosexual. HE used a blanket statement sexual immorality.

I would agree that the Biblical stance seems to indicate that homosexuality is a form of immorral sexual immorality.

interesting argument. Since the jewish leaders of the day were sticklers for the laws of moses the question becomes why would Jesus need to pick just one part of sexual immorailty (ie. homosexuality)? After all Leviticus has a whole list. He could lump them into one giant category and people would know he was talking about all of them.

Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It’s pretty clear what the Bible states about homosexuality in my eyes. I just don’t see it as any real dividing line.

Is it a sin in the Bible? Yes. But Romans also stats we are all sinners so if you exclude them from things, shouldn’t you exclude everyone?

Can’t a husband and wife commit sexual sin even within their own marriage? Should we legally try to stop this?[/quote]

what are you talking about? are you adding to my point or are you attack my point.

if you are attacking it then here you go.

I didn’t know that Romans was the whole Bible? I gave an interpretation on what the whole consensus of the Bible was. I stated it was a sin. I could be wrong though since I am not God and I can interpret the Bible incorrectly sometimes.

as for the other stuff I was actually pointing out that Jesus didn’t need to cite homosexuality specifically as a sin since when he cited sexual immorality everyone who knew the law of moses would know it included a whole list of sexual sins.

73

[quote]haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

Abysmal exegesis.

Please state logically conflicts and reasons.

it isn’t a logical conflict. It is the fact that you are adding your thoughts and interpretation to the text and they are unwarrented and unfounded. that is the exegesis problem. You are committing isagesis.
[/quote]

First off, I wasn’t so much directly interpreting the text as pointing out there were other issues in that story I feel are more important.

Yes it was an interpretation the same as any other person who has commented on that text, so point to some reasons mine opinion was somehow less worthy.

you see my interpretation as expresing my beliefs and not statements like this?

“So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?”

74

[quote]haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
haney1 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

No it was the cultural norm for the day that you protect your guests. Similiar to the tribal region of pakistan in our day and time. They have cultural rules which dictate how they treat guests.

There was an article about how some of those tribes in pakistan can’t surrender thier guest because of their culture and that it would be a problem for the U.S. in the war on terror.

So we are in agreement the bible depicts homosexuality as immoral, because I remember someone saying that jesus never said that because he didn’t specifically use the word homosexual. HE used a blanket statement sexual immorality.

I would agree that the Biblical stance seems to indicate that homosexuality is a form of immorral sexual immorality.

interesting argument. Since the jewish leaders of the day were sticklers for the laws of moses the question becomes why would Jesus need to pick just one part of sexual immorailty (ie. homosexuality)? After all Leviticus has a whole list. He could lump them into one giant category and people would know he was talking about all of them.

Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It’s pretty clear what the Bible states about homosexuality in my eyes. I just don’t see it as any real dividing line.

Is it a sin in the Bible? Yes. But Romans also stats we are all sinners so if you exclude them from things, shouldn’t you exclude everyone?

Can’t a husband and wife commit sexual sin even within their own marriage? Should we legally try to stop this?

what are you talking about? are you adding to my point or are you attack my point.

if you are attacking it then here you go.

I didn’t know that Romans was the whole Bible? I gave an interpretation on what the whole consensus of the Bible was. I stated it was a sin. I could be wrong though since I am not God and I can interpret the Bible incorrectly sometimes.

as for the other stuff I was actually pointing out that Jesus didn’t need to cite homosexuality specifically as a sin since when he cited sexual immorality everyone who knew the law of moses would know it included a whole list of sexual sins.
[/quote]

No, I was mostly agreeing and just adding to the topic.

75

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Way to lump Genesis 19 in the same category as women being quiet in church and covering their heads.
[/quote]

If the old testament was fulfilled in Christ and the new testament is the proper touchstone for morality, why would Genesis 19 even be relevant? The proscriptions against women would actually have precedence over the proscriptions against angry bisexual mobs.

76

[quote]forlife wrote:
The new testament also condemns women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Every time I bring this up, the fundamentalists ignore it just like they ignore the passages themselves.[/quote]

what is there to ignore. No where does it say it is a sin for women to speak in church. It just says don’t do it. Why would that be? Possibly because it was cultural taboo.

You do know there is a difference between things deemed a sin and things deemed appropriate conduct right?

77

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You were married to a woman, for crying out loud. It’s beyond absurd that you would make a statement like that. [/quote]

Maybe some day you will understand how social and religious mores can drive people into damaging relationships which inherently conflict with their sexual orientation.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

78

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
pat wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I have not read the entire thread but has anyone asked what the “Christians” were doing walking through a gay part of town at night? I’m not condoning any sort of violence toward them, the gays who participated in this should be jailed. But, what the heck were they doing there to begin with?

What, is it not well with in there rights to walk down a public street?

I already stated that they perpatrators were wrong and should be jailed so save your nonsense.

I’m curious at this point…that’s all.[/quote]

Um, so were they?

Really, really curious?

79

[quote]haney1 wrote:
You can’t make the connection that they were bi. They didn’t take lot up on the offer so they could have been gay.
[/quote]

On the other hand, you certainly don’t know that they were gay. At minimum, Lot thought they were bi or he wouldn’t have tantalized them with his two daughters.

80

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.

I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:

Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.

So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?

It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.

Abysmal exegesis.

Please state logically conflicts and reasons.

it isn’t a logical conflict. It is the fact that you are adding your thoughts and interpretation to the text and they are unwarrented and unfounded. that is the exegesis problem. You are committing isagesis.

First off, I wasn’t so much directly interpreting the text as pointing out there were other issues in that story I feel are more important.

Yes it was an interpretation the same as any other person who has commented on that text, so point to some reasons mine opinion was somehow less worthy.

you see my interpretation as expresing my beliefs and not statements like this?

“So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?”[/quote]

If you really want to know…
the problem is

1.you are one not letting text first speak for itself.
2. Abraham was commanded to “test his faith” Lots act was not a test of faith, so they can’t be equal
3. Abraham’s sacrifice with lot was also a sign point to God’s sacrifice of Jesus
4. There are cultural norms that come into play that you didn’t include in your interpretation.
5. you are adding your opinion to the text which is by definition an isagesis