Can someone address this PLEASE?

Craven, you've 'proof texted' my argument in much the same way you proof text the Bible and draw equally wrong conclusions.

Example: you say

Whereas the text of the scripture says (NIV): "Before they had gone to bed, ALL the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house." They didn't refuse the daughters but rather turned on Lot to do violence to him (upon which he was rescued by his guests). If you got that wrong, is it possible you have misconstrued all the rest?

You can no more PROVE your assertions about what the Bible says than I can. I stand on my argument based on years of study on this subject. You will no doubt stand on your based on the particular prejudice you have adopted. I offered my take on it because a member asked the question. You can be as insulting as you wish, and I will continue to believe that I am right.

Incorrect, and I will show you again, just for fun.



And I continue to assert that the crowd may not have consisted of all the men of Sodom Foxfyre.

You implied that it would be unlikely that all the men in Sodom were gay, and I, in turn raise the possibility that the crowd did not comprise the entire male population of Sodom.

I did not assert that no translation of the scriptures asserts that the entire male population showed up.

Do you understand the difference? I offer a parable:

Craven: I do not think the whole town was at the Knicks game.

Foxfyre: But Bib said, "what a crowd, both young and old. The whole damn city is here!"

Yes, and Bib can get it wrong Foxfyre, just like advocating death as recompense for homosexual sex was getting it wrong Foxfyre.



Got that wrong? Really Foxfyre, it is to laugh. I asserted that the crowd may not have consisted of the entire population of Sodom. And here's a news flash Foxfyre, the whole fire and brimstone story might not have happened at all.

I did not assert that the scriptures made no claim to the crowd consisting of the entire male population. I asserted that it may not be the case.

To again highlight the difference in our exegesis:

I do not treat the scriptures with as much faith as you do, my opinions are not defined by what your Bible says, and just as I do not believe in killing gays, I am willing to take up smaller differences with the Bible on the size of the crowd.



Huh? This makes no sense Fox. Each of us can "proove" what the Bible says.

I will offer this manual on how to do so:

1) Read the text. Therin lies the "proof" of what the Bible says.

2) Just fleshing it out so we have at least two steps.

To illustrate what the Bible says Foxfyre is a matter of simply illustrating what it says.

Now as to what is factual that is another matter, and please understand that we approach that angle very differently.

Again, I do not have the faith in the Bible that you do. I know what it says and can prove it, I do not necessarily agree with what it says and this should be evident to you eventually (rejecting the Bible as an beacon of veracity takes some time for some to get their heads around).



ROTFLMAO!

Well... <tee hee> ..... Foxfyre. I can see why you would like to think that.




Insulting? It is to laugh Fox. Do not fault me that you find discomfort in being found wrong. I've not insulted you.

Foxfyre, the Bible condemns men having sex with men and makes no distinction about whether it is done in private or public.

The men of the city did not accept the offer of Lot's daughters. They wanted his male guests.

According to Genesis 18, God did not know whether the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as he had heard and was on his way with 2 men to see for himself. Please note that the morning after Lot refused to throw the men to the crowd, God destroyed the entire city, killing all life there - people, animals and plants - just as he had planned. Since God had promised Abraham that he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if as few as 10 righteous people were found in them, we may conclude that God found virtually all of the people guilty of perversions.

I don't see anything in this passage that supports your contention. God hates homosexuals enough to kill animals, plants, women and children in order to eliminate them.

Only if you read it with 21st century eyes Terry. I don't.

Foxfyre, all of the passages say the same thing however you read them: God doesn't want homosexuals around. If society cannot police itself, he will take out entire towns to get rid of them. What other interpretation could you possibly get from the Bible?

i heard that the sodom and gomorrah thing was caused by an earthquake that caused the ground to liquify and the cities to plunge into the dead sea
apparently they were both asphalt mining towns by the sea and this is why they were so prosperous.....
as for gods intervention if god did make this earthquake i think he did it not because the people were sodomites or gay but because they were bad people in general plus what the bible says is the jews intepretation of what god did and what god wanted
thats what i got anyway when i read genesis wasnt about being gay or anything was it? maybe i missed that part
from reading the torah it all seems pretty scary to me stories of these guys going round killing everyone in the name of god and all this how to sacrifice animals sounds a bit dodgy to me
im into christianity for the peace and love aspect and for me that covers all things straight gay animal vegetable and mineral
and i wouldnt take it alll so literally
really the universe is like 14billion years old
man has been around for a long time too well i hear at least 20,000 years and we got religions dating back 10,000 years im sure god didnt one day decide to write one book to be the be all and end all
i say we can all quote scripture for our own purpose
they said that of the devil
but for me all this argueing over words is madness
anyway i see all religions as part of a greater whole
i think all religions were brought about by spiritual men inspired by god and then perverted by other men who were not so spiritual
i say if you read the bible and it makes you feel love inside and you can share that with others so they feel love and togetherness too then its a good thing but if you use the bible to exclude people then this is a bad thing
come on dudes its obvious from reading it that the torah was wrote by a bunch of jewish priests back in the past
it was the best they could do given the times back then
and the new testament is a story about one mans attempt to get people to be nice to one another
son of god or not jesus never said set up a religion in my name so we can bash heads with it
he just said be love
love god n love thy neighbour etc
as for the bible quotes like all gays are abominations who should be put to death i say this is definately wrote by an ancient jew who couldnt understand gay people
peace and love most of all peace and love
the kingdom of heaven is within you not in a book
a book is a guide no more no less
black and white words are not alive
only we are alive in the moment
so there that my thoughts

peace and love y'all

Exactly Col Man. What the ancient writers were expressing in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was the belief that God destroys a society that has become thoroughly evil. Even with the story of the men demanding sex with Lot's guests, there is no implication that it was the sex that was so bad, but the idea they would attack Lot for not turning over his guests. (It was convenient that the guests were angels and could strike the mob blind. )

I can't accept Terry's interpretation because 1) I haven't found any evidence that the ancients even recognized that such a thing as homosexuality existed and 2) there are no incidents where a single homosexual act was singled out for condemnation--all condemnation referred to society as a whole; and 3) perverted homosexuality was not singled out even as a group activity but was included with a litany of other sins. I therefore think Col Man's take on it is correct: whenever society, by whatever means, becomes perverse and wicked, it puts itself in peril.

I am not saying the ancients considered homosexuality as normal. They almost certainly would not have done that even if they recognized homosexual orientation. All I am saying is you cannot correctly use the Bible to condemn homosexuality nor use the Bible to condemn Christian homophobia.

(Edited to correct awkward syntax)

thanks fox im touched by your words
i was expecting to be burned at the stake for my blasphemy

LOL. The only blasphemy that usually gets condemned on A2K is putting any faith in God or the Bible at all. But some of us are real gluttons for punishment.

im sure my dear im sure
well ive had too many spiritual experiences to be able to not have faith in god anymore
the bibles a book but i believe god is everywhere
a freemason friend of mine once said to me god is mans best self
free will and all that allows us to be this way
i believe you can 'tune in' so to speak thru meditation to the universal mind and thru it affect other people and even life itself
thats faith..... you know.... moving mountains
lifes what we make it and all that
there are too many miserable materialist sceptics that cant see beyond their material world
its their lives and their deaths and their choice

peace and love

Fox - I would like to see you substantiate your theory that there is no evidence the ancients even recognized such a thing as homosexuality.

My theory is based on the fact that you can find no indication they had a clue homosexuals existed D. They comment on group behavior. But there isn't even a glimmer of suggestion that they suspected any sexual orientation existed other than that men desire women and vice versa. For that matter, I was in highschool before I knew there was such a thing as homosexuality.

I find that very poor evidence Fox - especially when you discount the Bible's obvious (to everyone else) knowledge and bigotry about it!

Including your knowledge and bigotry D? You are effectively saying I am lying about what I know of the Bible. That's fine. I can't prove what I know and believe about the Bible any more than you can prove that you have a superior knowledge of the Bible. I have shared some of what I know. I don't require my classes to accept it as gospel. I certainly don't expect you to accept it as gospel. I will say that so far, nobody has seriously disputed the evidence as presented.

But believe what you will and use th Bible to bash whomever you desire. Just know you will probably be wrong.

Fox - much evidence has been presented and by people who know a great deal more about the bible than I do.

You have not effectively rebutted a shred of it.

Bless you - I wish I thought you right - because I would far prefer not to believe in a kind god than a bigoted and savage one.

But when you say such ridiculous things as "the ancients did not know about homosexuality" (what about the ancient Greeks, for pity's sake? The Persians, just to name two cultures with well known homosexual activities) it really does you no favours.

You have NEVER discredited Craven's quotes, by the way - NOR named your criteria for dumping some words of god and not others.

So - please do not pull the bigot card.

Not when your house is made with so much glass.

I do not think you are lying, by the way - I think you are marvellously blindfolded by your theories.

Then I'll wear my blindfold and grope my way out of the thread and leave you to defend your own theories D. I answered as best as I could what I thought was a sincere question posed by a member. I'm sorry you are so bothered by it.

D writes


I didn't pull the bigotry card you see. You did. I tried very hard not to be personally insulting to anybody. I'm quite sure Craven fully agrees with you that I failed to dispute his assertions as well.

May I assume you won't want an autographed copy of my book?

I am not bothered in the least, Fox - just curious, and wanting to hear some evidence.

Er - you have also actually misunderstood me , I have just realized.

I did not call YOU bigoted, I called the view of homosexuality expressed in the Bible bigoted.

Love to have the autographed copy, if it is free!