[quote]haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
what is your point?
The point is that Lot clearly believed they were not exclusively straight or gay.
No he doesn’t, and you can’t claim that. To do so is to interject your opinion upon the text. You have no clue what lot thought.
[/quote]
So why offer females if he thought they weren’t bisexual?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
what is your point?
The point is that Lot clearly believed they were not exclusively straight or gay.
No he doesn’t, and you can’t claim that. To do so is to interject your opinion upon the text. You have no clue what lot thought.
So why offer females if he thought they weren’t bisexual?[/quote]
Last ditch effort for all we know. that is the point. If the cultural norm of his day was to protect house guest with your very being then you would offer whatever you had.
Look I don’t think the idea of them going both ways is unreasonable, but you can’t 100% declare that to be the case.
ancient civilization were known for having temple prostitues and it was a requirment for many types of sexual acts be performed to please different gods. That being the case it is very reasonable to assume the whole town was being punished for a whole array of sins, not just homosexuality. The point of that being in the story most likely was to communicate to what level of Biblical debautchery(sp?) they had stooped to. I.E. raping visitors they came to town.
I however won’t force a full blown conclusion from the text and spout it off like it is certain. Which is my whole complaint with this.
(also I added more text to emphasize this point in the previous post).
look I don’t realy care what your life style preference is. I am not here to condemn or justify anyone. I am merely trying to keep the text from getting destroyed for the sake of scoring points.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Last ditch effort for all we know. that is the point. If the cultural norm of his day was to protect house guest with your very being then you would offer whatever you had.[/quote]
Why not offer his own backside if he knew without a doubt that they wouldn’t go for the females? If it was such a big deal to protect house guests.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
what is your point?
The point is that Lot clearly believed they were not exclusively straight or gay.
No he doesn’t, and you can’t claim that. To do so is to interject your opinion upon the text. You have no clue what lot thought.
So why offer females if he thought they weren’t bisexual?[/quote]
Maybe he thought they needed house slaves.
[quote]Rocky101 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?
They were looking for love in all the wrong places
[/quote]
In another man’s hairy ass?
Look, maybe there is something I am missing here. Now these Christians must have been doing something to provoke the rage of the crowd. Else, how would the Gay people have even known they were Christians?
Now, assuming that they went into the Castro passing out pamphlets or carrying signs, what did they expect? If you go into Watts carrying KKK signs you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you go into a Jewish neighborhood, marching with Nazi uniforms on, you should expect to get your ass kicked. The situation is tense. Gay people are understandably pissed off. They understand that not all Christians are homophobes, but if you go into the Castro and start distributing Mormon literature or literature that is anti-gay, you should expect to get run out of the Castro.
It’s obvious that if the Klan goes into a black neighborhood, they do so as a provocation (they certainly aren’t there to do a membership drive). It’s obvious these “Christians” did this as a provocation. Of course, then as a follow-up the reactionary fundamentalists/Mormons/Catholics will cry about their rights being infringed upon.
Actually, I don’t know of any Mormon Literature, which has an anti gay theme. Stop trying to create a conflict that is not there. In fact, I think the Mormon Church teaches a principle called free agency. People are free to worship how, where, and what they may. This does not mean that we will sit idly by and allow changes to traditional marriage. You have domestic partnerships.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Look, maybe there is something I am missing here. Now these Christians must have been doing something to provoke the rage of the crowd. Else, how would the Gay people have even known they were Christians?
Now, assuming that they went into the Castro passing out pamphlets or carrying signs, what did they expect? If you go into Watts carrying KKK signs you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you go into a Jewish neighborhood, marching with Nazi uniforms on, you should expect to get your ass kicked. The situation is tense. Gay people are understandably pissed off. They understand that not all Christians are homophobes, but if you go into the Castro and start distributing Mormon literature or literature that is anti-gay, you should expect to get run out of the Castro.
It’s obvious that if the Klan goes into a black neighborhood, they do so as a provocation (they certainly aren’t there to do a membership drive). It’s obvious these “Christians” did this as a provocation. Of course, then as a follow-up the reactionary fundamentalists/Mormons/Catholics will cry about their rights being infringed upon.
[/quote]
Actually if you read the chapter, they were foreigners to the land so it was easy to tell they didn’t belong, they weren’t gay, and this is well before Jesus so they weren’t christians,
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Look, maybe there is something I am missing here. Now these Christians must have been doing something to provoke the rage of the crowd. Else, how would the Gay people have even known they were Christians?
Now, assuming that they went into the Castro passing out pamphlets or carrying signs, what did they expect? If you go into Watts carrying KKK signs you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you go into a Jewish neighborhood, marching with Nazi uniforms on, you should expect to get your ass kicked. The situation is tense. Gay people are understandably pissed off. They understand that not all Christians are homophobes, but if you go into the Castro and start distributing Mormon literature or literature that is anti-gay, you should expect to get run out of the Castro.
It’s obvious that if the Klan goes into a black neighborhood, they do so as a provocation (they certainly aren’t there to do a membership drive). It’s obvious these “Christians” did this as a provocation. Of course, then as a follow-up the reactionary fundamentalists/Mormons/Catholics will cry about their rights being infringed upon.
[/quote]
I see your point. We’ve taught the gays to stay out of our neighborhoods, after all.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Last ditch effort for all we know. that is the point. If the cultural norm of his day was to protect house guest with your very being then you would offer whatever you had.
Why not offer his own backside if he knew without a doubt that they wouldn’t go for the females? If it was such a big deal to protect house guests.[/quote]
no clue. I guess we will have to ask lot why he was willing to give up his daughters and not himself.
Why do you want me to answer information that is not available?
why don’t you tell me why he offered his daughters?
I will not deviate from my stance that we can’t answer things that are not in the text or part of the culture at the time.
all we can do is guess
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
Bible thumpers need to mind their own business.
So do the militant fucking gay motherfuckers. [/quote]
I agree with both of you, and I’d like to add the government to your fine list.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Last ditch effort for all we know. that is the point. If the cultural norm of his day was to protect house guest with your very being then you would offer whatever you had.
Why not offer his own backside if he knew without a doubt that they wouldn’t go for the females? If it was such a big deal to protect house guests.
no clue. I guess we will have to ask lot why he was willing to give up his daughters and not himself.
Why do you want me to answer information that is not available?
why don’t you tell me why he offered his daughters?
I will not deviate from my stance that we can’t answer things that are not in the text or part of the culture at the time.
all we can do is guess[/quote]
I’ll guess that it would be explained if some guys didn’t decided to cut and paste the bible into it’s current format.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Last ditch effort for all we know. that is the point. If the cultural norm of his day was to protect house guest with your very being then you would offer whatever you had.
Why not offer his own backside if he knew without a doubt that they wouldn’t go for the females? If it was such a big deal to protect house guests.
no clue. I guess we will have to ask lot why he was willing to give up his daughters and not himself.
Why do you want me to answer information that is not available?
why don’t you tell me why he offered his daughters?
I will not deviate from my stance that we can’t answer things that are not in the text or part of the culture at the time.
all we can do is guess
I’ll guess that it would be explained if some guys didn’t decided to cut and paste the bible into it’s current format.[/quote]
do you know of any copies of that passage from the hebrew mss. that are missing parts or are you just speculating?
better yet do you think the point of the story is being missed by these speclative missing pieces of yours?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
do you know of any copies of that passage from the hebrew mss. that are missing parts or are you just speculating?
better yet do you think the point of the story is being missed by these speclative missing pieces of yours?[/quote]
I do think bits of the story are missing and the point is warped. Leaving things to “interpretation” led to the rise of extremist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.
The bible was put into one “definitive” version some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
do you know of any copies of that passage from the hebrew mss. that are missing parts or are you just speculating?
better yet do you think the point of the story is being missed by these speclative missing pieces of yours?
I do think bits of the story are missing and the point is warped. Leaving things to “interpretation” led to the rise of extremist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.
The bible was put into one “definitive” version some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[/quote]
That is pure speculation and very unfounded. Go look up a hebrew Bible and tell me what is so drastically different? you know christianity didn’t have access to every single copy of the torah right?
you also know there was a hebrew and a greek version which have all pretty much said the same thing about that story.
so how did these sects you know herews and Christians get together and codify this one story? last time I checked the niene council only had Christians.
edit this refers only to the passage of gen 19
[quote]haney1 wrote:
The bible was put into one “definitive” version some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That is pure speculation and very unfounded. Go look up a hebrew Bible and tell me what is so drastically different? you know christianity didn’t have access to every single copy of the torah right?
you also know there was a hebrew and a greek version which have all pretty much said the same thing about that story.
so how did these sects you know herews and Christians get together and codify this one story? last time I checked the niene council only had Christians.[/quote]
Sigh.
That is but one example of modifying the Bible.
Where did the gospel of Judas come from? Why is it he is the most vilified human being to have ever lived, yet if he had not been born Jesus could not have died on the cross? There are many questions without answer.
Did Judas exist in his time only to betray Jesus just to fulfill the prophecy?
Why did Jesus allow Judas to betray him?
Was Jesus unable to prevent the betrayal?
Did Jesus willingly allow the betrayal to go ahead?
Did Jesus actively try to cause the betrayal to happen?
Why is it that the ‘villainy’ of Judas becomes greater and more pronounced as one reads from Mark to John?
If Jesus foresees Judas’ betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control the temptation of Satan to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3-4 vs 1 Cor 10:13), then he is not morally responsible for his actions.
If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the “free will” argument.
If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then does Judas not suffer much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus? Should his role in the Atonement be that much more significant?
Does Jesus’ plea, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas’ sins?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
The bible was put into one “definitive” version some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That is pure speculation and very unfounded. Go look up a hebrew Bible and tell me what is so drastically different? you know christianity didn’t have access to every single copy of the torah right?
you also know there was a hebrew and a greek version which have all pretty much said the same thing about that story.
so how did these sects you know herews and Christians get together and codify this one story? last time I checked the niene council only had Christians.
Sigh.
That is but one example of modifying the Bible.
Where did the gospel of Judas come from? Why is it he is the most vilified human being to have ever lived, yet if he had not been born Jesus could not have died on the cross? There are many questions without answer.
Did Judas exist in his time only to betray Jesus just to fulfill the prophecy?
Why did Jesus allow Judas to betray him?
Was Jesus unable to prevent the betrayal?
Did Jesus willingly allow the betrayal to go ahead?
Did Jesus actively try to cause the betrayal to happen?
Why is it that the ‘villainy’ of Judas becomes greater and more pronounced as one reads from Mark to John?
If Jesus foresees Judas’ betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control the temptation of Satan to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3-4 vs 1 Cor 10:13), then he is not morally responsible for his actions.
If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the “free will” argument.
If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then does Judas not suffer much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus? Should his role in the Atonement be that much more significant?
Does Jesus’ plea, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas’ sins?[/quote]
look I am not going to expand this discussion beyond this one piece of text. You claim it was altered. Where is the proof. You keep trying to associate that all of it was modified. Where is you proof on this piece of text Gen 19.
as for the rest of it. You used wikipedia as a resource nuff. said. You can stay on topic on how this text was modified or just admit you have no reason to suggest that it was, but you can’t use a poison the well argument to try and justify your statements.
Now if you really want a discussion on the other stuff search my posts and you will see that I have covered this topic ad nausium. It always ends the same I have good reasons to think the text is reliable, and others think they have good reasons. I don’t care if you believe the text or not, but don’t make false claims ie gen 19 was modified with out having atleast a shred of proof.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
The bible was put into one “definitive” version some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That is pure speculation and very unfounded. Go look up a hebrew Bible and tell me what is so drastically different? you know christianity didn’t have access to every single copy of the torah right?
you also know there was a hebrew and a greek version which have all pretty much said the same thing about that story.
so how did these sects you know herews and Christians get together and codify this one story? last time I checked the niene council only had Christians.
Sigh.
That is but one example of modifying the Bible.
Where did the gospel of Judas come from? Why is it he is the most vilified human being to have ever lived, yet if he had not been born Jesus could not have died on the cross? There are many questions without answer.
Did Judas exist in his time only to betray Jesus just to fulfill the prophecy?
Why did Jesus allow Judas to betray him?
Was Jesus unable to prevent the betrayal?
Did Jesus willingly allow the betrayal to go ahead?
Did Jesus actively try to cause the betrayal to happen?
Why is it that the ‘villainy’ of Judas becomes greater and more pronounced as one reads from Mark to John?
If Jesus foresees Judas’ betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control the temptation of Satan to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3-4 vs 1 Cor 10:13), then he is not morally responsible for his actions.
If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the “free will” argument.
If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then does Judas not suffer much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus? Should his role in the Atonement be that much more significant?
Does Jesus’ plea, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas’ sins?[/quote]
The gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel. It is not a Christian gospel. Hence it’s rejection by…Christians.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
haney1 wrote:
The bible was put into one “definitive” version some years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That is pure speculation and very unfounded. Go look up a hebrew Bible and tell me what is so drastically different? you know christianity didn’t have access to every single copy of the torah right?
you also know there was a hebrew and a greek version which have all pretty much said the same thing about that story.
so how did these sects you know herews and Christians get together and codify this one story? last time I checked the niene council only had Christians.
Sigh.
That is but one example of modifying the Bible.
Where did the gospel of Judas come from? Why is it he is the most vilified human being to have ever lived, yet if he had not been born Jesus could not have died on the cross? There are many questions without answer.
Did Judas exist in his time only to betray Jesus just to fulfill the prophecy?
Why did Jesus allow Judas to betray him?
Was Jesus unable to prevent the betrayal?
Did Jesus willingly allow the betrayal to go ahead?
Did Jesus actively try to cause the betrayal to happen?
Why is it that the ‘villainy’ of Judas becomes greater and more pronounced as one reads from Mark to John?
If Jesus foresees Judas’ betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control the temptation of Satan to betray Jesus (Luke 22:3-4 vs 1 Cor 10:13), then he is not morally responsible for his actions.
If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the “free will” argument.
If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then does Judas not suffer much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus? Should his role in the Atonement be that much more significant?
Does Jesus’ plea, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas’ sins?
look I am not going to expand this discussion beyond this one piece of text. You claim it was altered. Where is the proof. You keep trying to associate that all of it was modified. Where is you proof on this piece of text Gen 19.
as for the rest of it. You used wikipedia as a resource nuff. said. You can stay on topic on how this text was modified or just admit you have no reason to suggest that it was, but you can’t use a poison the well argument to try and justify your statements.
Now if you really want a discussion on the other stuff search my posts and you will see that I have covered this topic ad nausium. It always ends the same I have good reasons to think the text is reliable, and others think they have good reasons. I don’t care if you believe the text or not, but don’t make false claims ie gen 19 was modified with out having atleast a shred of proof.
[/quote]
Doesn’t answer the questions. I think at one stage the bible could have answered them. It’s incomplete, so I very much doubt it can or ever will. If one part is false/incomplete then I have no reason to believe any of it contains the original message.
As for the Wikipedia quip, it’s just like the bible, I don’t know who wrote the text. Funny, that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel. It is not a Christian gospel. Hence it’s rejection by…Christians.[/quote]
Doesn’t make the questions any less relevant.
At any rate, we’re getting off topic.