Feral wrote:
“And again mumble jumble what do you mean exactly by every author has the advantage of knowing what previous authors wrote.......Thats sounds like a bunch of double talk to me....which I find you amazing at.”

Where’s the double-talk? The Bible is not a single ‘book’ that was published by a single publisher and written by a single author. It’s a collection of many different stories that were written by different authors throughout history. Each one having obviously read the stories of the others. This is one thing that is perfectly clear. In fact, the cannon of stories that we now call “The Bible” were personally selected by King James. Some historians believe that he may have also been selective about accepting specific parts within stories. And it’s certainly plausible that he may have even edited parts to make them more compatible with other parts. This may have even been done with ‘innocence’ in the sense that he just felt he was helping to make the stories more coherent which is what he believe them to be.

Answer: Sorry but all were the authors of the Bible whether the first or the last.....were all God inspired to write what they did. And again I say to you abra.....that we can have this fight from now to the day we die and the results will always be the same......you with your rebellious ways in what you want to believe and mine through God and his speaking to me......so be it....believe as you may......and in the end the truth will be told as it was intended.

Abra wrote:

Floyd wrote:
“Modern religious people may still consistently believe in prayer as a form of inward aspiration, but it is difficult to take literally the assurance given by Jesus of practical accomplishments by means of prayer in his name.

Jesus did not confine himself to promising spiritual results from prayer, but distinctly gave it to be understood that the physical world would respond to petitions to Jehovah. "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." [Matt. xviii, 19.] "If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." [Matt. xxi, 21-22.] "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." [Mark xi, 24.] "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto you." [Matt. xvii, 20.]

These promises have not been fulfilled. Bishops, priests and deacons with strong faith have been unable to obtain, by means of the most sincere prayer, results similar to those indicated, They have followed Jesus in vain. No man living dare put his faith to the test by a public demonstration of prayer for physical changes. Christian prayers for rain are conventional, not being offered with confidence that rain will follow.

Jesus has misled us.”

I don’t see how you can argue with Floyd on this point. It’s clearly the truth. What Jesus proclaimed to be truth has not come to pass.


ARE YOU NEW!!!!!!! every thing up there throughout time has been answered......all the books of the bible......fulfilled.....any prayer any man or woman had throughout biblical times were answered.....all the way up to present time.......I have had every prayer answered but one...and I understand that it is through Him...and in his time........DANG Abra......why can't you get this.....I have given you proof after proof in my own life of His Miracles, of the works he has done in my life.......

A few more examples. I have a friend named Danny Bonaduce....You may or may not know of his from the Partridge Family TV show growing up. Now this man has been an alcoholic since the age of 10. I was sitting here one night and watched his show Saving Bonaduce where he was going on a skateboard to the liquor store and bought a bottle of vodka and a lil bottle of orange juice. He drank it so fast and it was dribbling all down him.....I just fell to my knees and started to ball......And prayed non stop for the next year and half every day every night. I then again found myself in front of the tv and his show was on and he was getting baptized and became a born again Christian. I was again was compelled to my knees in thanks and prayer again. Now at church I had given testimony that I had been praying for him and asked the prayer warrior of my church to do the same. He is sober for the first time in 35 years.......When I gave the testimony in front of church the clapping was awesome...I sat down and my daughter said (15) "Mom you don't think your prayer had anything to do with that do you?, where I replied you bet your sweet bootey I do. I have now been in constant contact with Danny and his wife Gretchen. Who by the way as of October 31, 2007 divorced Danny....I again prayed non-stop as I knew this would devastate Danny and may have a bad consequence. (drinking) It did not, he is strong in the Lord, and just turning out to be awesome dad and an awesome human being.

AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF PRAYER........

So you think, say, do as you please......But my Faith in My God, and His Son......will always be strong, and I will always always always believe in the power of prayer.....because I see what prayer does on a daily basis.......AND MY FAITH IS UNWAVERING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND STRONG!!!!!!!!AND WILL BE UNTIL THE DAY HE TAKES ME HOME.

well isnt that nice...
(thats my patented sarcasm right there)
im not gonna even start as ur one of the christians ive been cutting my argumentative pagan teeth on 4 a while, i gtg 2 work now mayb abra will take up the battle cry of the nonbelievers but i cant right now
have fun with jesus (i hear hes great at a party what with the whole unlimited wine thing)

Feral wrote:
".......AND MY FAITH IS UNWAVERING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND STRONG!!!!!!!!AND WILL BE UNTIL THE DAY HE TAKES ME HOME."

Good for you honey.

May the Lord bless you and all of your exclamation points.

I have no desire to change your faith one iota, and I never have.

I once posted this and a couple excerpts from the following book. You did not debate you waved off and one of your responces was, to paraphrase, and what version of the Bible is he using?

You only just mentioned in another thread that EVERY version and translation of the Bible is inspired and in tact.

You have also agreed with others that the Bible and religion does not evolve. So it doesn't matter from which version one interprets.

Can you offer any point by point debate on how the view in these excerpts are incorrect?

(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” (vs.4) gathered at Lot’s door and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group oat Lot’s door was compromised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a telling fact. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual) and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.
This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. Lot, in a last ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the crowd at the door. Although Lot’s offer is reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. If you were entertaining some dinner guests at your home when suddenly a group of men that you khew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would ti make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead?

The motivaton to sexually abuse those we hate is, sadly, part of the general human experience (even if it is not part of each of our personal experiences). It is this motivation, not desire, which stands behind the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of the city feared the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot (a recent immigrant) had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot’s house clamoring to brutalize the strangers. This is a story about attempted mob violence, not desire.

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Trading natural relations for unnatural (Romans 1:21-28) King James Version

Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today.

Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions andrationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?

Follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorigy God (v.21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator. (v.23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v.25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v.26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v.29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

Hey Redy.........Yes I will......just give me a few and it will be done. And Im sorry about not responding in the other thread......and it was no intension of ignoring you I promise.

I will have to do when I get back from Church.....because I wont have time right now to give the attention to it that I want to......so I promise Redy I will.....

Feral,

When words like 'rebellious' and 'warrior' in the context of 'Pt. 100000056' are used to make points, it makes me wonder if some Christians don't have an absolute need for eternal confrontation with people who don't believe as they do.

We know from history that it's often an advantage to have an outgroup (in this case-- unbelievers) to rally the so-called troups. As Abra might say, a 'Designer Great Satan', if you will.

I have to tell ya, if may be fun on Halloween, but 24/7/365? The costume _really_ starts to chafe after a short while.

-Kerry O.

Ferel, take the time you need, the ideas suggested by the authors came at great expense of time, research and knowledge.

Hi KerryO, you sound well.

Redy Wrote:

once posted this and a couple excerpts from the following book. You did not debate you waved off and one of your responces was, to paraphrase, and what version of the Bible is he using?

You only just mentioned in another thread that EVERY version and translation of the Bible is inspired and in tact.

You have also agreed with others that the Bible and religion does not evolve. So it doesn't matter from which version one interprets.

Can you offer any point by point debate on how the view in these excerpts are incorrect?

(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” (vs.4) gathered at Lot’s door and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group oat Lot’s door was compromised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a telling fact. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual) and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.
This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. Lot, in a last ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the crowd at the door. Although Lot’s offer is reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. If you were entertaining some dinner guests at your home when suddenly a group of men that you khew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would ti make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead?

Answer: First redy you have to read the entire text of Genesis 19 and understand what was really happening. Two angels came to Sodom (city) to warn Lot that the iniquity of the people was such that both the cities Sodom & Gomorrah had to be destroyed. Judges 19:22 While they were making merry, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door, and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man saying, "Bring out the man who came into your house that may have relations with him". They were asked not to do this wickedness.

No if your warned and warned and you still try to do as YOU please.....well then the consequences are always yours. They could of chosen to do what was a Godly thing...but hence they did not.....and went against God.....Not a good thing.

Then when Lot was told to flee the city with his daughters and his wife by the Angels of God and TOLD not to look back....another word straight from God....His wife looked back and was turned into a pilar of salt.....She was told not to look back.....

Then Lots two daughters decided to sleep with their father to carry on the family line....big mistake.....each daughter bore a son one Moab and the other Ben-ammi......Moab father of the Moabites and Den Ammi the father of the sons of Ammon Which also shows generational curses for not listening to the Father God......which come later in the Bible.

Redy wrote:

The motivaton to sexually abuse those we hate is, sadly, part of the general human experience (even if it is not part of each of our personal experiences). It is this motivation, not desire, which stands behind the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of the city feared the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot (a recent immigrant) had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot’s house clamoring to brutalize the strangers. This is a story about attempted mob violence, not desire.


Answer: First off the angels struck the men of Sodom with blindness so in fact they did nothing to the angels. Then the angels told Lot to get anyone in his home out of the city.

And then the above answer as far as Sodom and his daughters.



Redy Wrote:
Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Trading natural relations for unnatural (Romans 1:21-28) King James Version

Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today.
Answer: ARE YOU NEW

Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions and rationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?

Answer: If a man lives or has relations with another man......SIN If a woman does the same. SIN now people can think and do as they wish (freewill) but nonetheless it is a sin.


Follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorigy God (v.21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator. (v.23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v.25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v.26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v.29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

Answer: It is what it is....not matter how you slice the pie so to speak....sin is sin is sin is sin.

Redy wrote:

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

Answer: Wrong...again sin is sin is sin is sin.....if God intended for man to sleep with man he would of created adam and adam.

Kerry...actually when I put pt 1000000056 it was a joke....because as I have said on countless occasions this debate has and will go on for all of time.


I have no need for confrontation but when the Lord my God Bible is beaten up, torn apart, and just basically called a myth....you bet I am going to come to his defense....How would that look to My Lord if I just let it be.....

And as I have said at least 100000000056 times.....People can believe whatever they want....(Freewill) entitles them to do so.

Feral writes:

" have no need for confrontation but when the Lord my God Bible is beaten up, torn apart, and just basically called a myth....you bet I am going to come to his defense....How would that look to My Lord if I just let it be.....

And as I have said at least 100000000056 times.....People can believe whatever they want....(Freewill) entitles them to do so."

Why would an omnipotent being need defending and against what threat? My disbelief?

As to freewill, how can there be any if an omniscient being knew for all time everything that ever happened or was going to happen? How can a non-omniscient help but be trapped like the proverbial pre-historic insect in amber? *I* think the freewill argument is just used to justify painting the Scarlet Letter on the forehead of unbelievers. Tagged in such a manner, unbelievers are then fair game for more human forms of disenfranchisement. As I've told Spider before, look up the quote from former President Bush regarding atheists.

Further, apparently, disbelief is an evil that merits punishment, so how can there be freewill where there is coercion?

-Kerry O.

Hey Kerry:

Kerr wrote:
Why would an omnipotent being need defending and against what threat? My disbelief?

Answer: As a child of God......and thou shalt respect thy Father......It is my God given duty to protect, defend, and honor thy Father. Look at it another way.....My Lord God sees all and yes even if people don't want to believe it you are judged by all you do all of your life. So anyway he sees that I am just letting everyone tell lies about Him, saying anything they want about the Bible (His Holy word to man) Would I be a faithful child of God if I said nothing....."I think not".

Kerry wrote:

As to freewill, how can there be any if an omniscient being knew for all time everything that ever happened or was going to happen? How can a non-omniscient help but be trapped like the proverbial pre-historic insect in amber? *I* think the freewill argument is just used to justify painting the Scarlet Letter on the forehead of unbelievers. Tagged in such a manner, unbelievers are then fair game for more human forms of disenfranchisement. As I've told Spider before, look up the quote from former President Bush regarding atheists.

Further, apparently, disbelief is an evil that merits punishment, so how can there be freewill where there is coercion?

Answer: Are you Abra's twin......jk....First off because of God giving you freewill your choice is your choice, and I have always made that pretty clear. When you speak of God knowing you before you were even a seed in your mothers womb and all that you will do.....that was before your rebellion..(your choice once again) And although your comparison to an inspect being trapped in amber made be laugh it's not even a close analogy.......What makes this so hard is you have on this side the non-believers.....and on the other the believers...and no matter what the other does you nor us will be changing our minds anytime soon on what we believe or what you believe......so honestly all I can do is put His word out...and again what you do with it is entirely up to you. And vise versa.....and I do read what each and every person put as their views....and they as well as you are totally entitled to whatever it is you want to believe and I have always made that crystal clear.

As far as being judged.....not my job.....

But also remember this Christian do hold other Christians accountable for things they do.......But it is done with much love and much respect.

Feral writes:

"were even a seed in your mothers womb and all that you will do.....that was before your rebellion..(your choice once again) And although your comparison to an inspect being trapped in amber made be laugh it's not even a close analogy"

To the contrary, philosophers have been contemplating this conundrum for a long time. Along with the famous Question of Evil. And I can fully understand why you said 'made be laugh (sic)', because I have a feeling you are projecting your impatience with unbelievers and their explanations as to why the believe as they do back onto them as a payback.

Pretty much all your responses are like this-- appeals to authority, with unbelievers framed as rebellious, foolish children who don't know what's good for them. Sorry, it gets tiresome.

Feral writes:
".......What makes this so hard is you have on this side the non-believers.....and on the other the believers...and no matter what the other does you nor us will be changing our minds anytime soon on what we believe or what you believe"

Yes, I hear that all the time, yet we have had in this country, groups of fundamentalists who have tried to wrest control of the government to somehow give this country a religious makeover to be more pleasing to your godhead. While that may not be an attempt to change minds per se, it _is_ an attempt to be a controlling, dominant influence. A maybe not a little bit counter to Jesus' teaching of 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'.

If you want to learn patience with other's beliefs, I'd recommend spending some time with the Quakers. _They_ truly have earned the right to be the yardstick in that respect.


Feral also wrote:

"But also remember this Christian do hold other Christians accountable for things they do.......But it is done with much love and much respect."

I've don't have the exact quote at hand, but televangelist Pat Robertson said something to the effect that he didn't feel any moral obligation to be nice Episcopalians. Jerry Falwell tried to blame the 9/11 attacks on gays, lesbians and femininists, et al. We see different sects malign other sects all the time. Many fundamentalists Christians waggle fingers at those same gays and lesbians, even as their own rates of divorce climb ever upward. We've seen Christians kill other Christians in Nothern Ireland. Need I go on?

Christiandom isn't this big happy tent that you're projecting.

-Kerry O.

Kerry writes:

To the contrary, philosophers have been contemplating this conundrum for a long time. Along with the famous Question of Evil. And I can fully understand why you said 'made be laugh (sic)', because I have a feeling you are projecting your impatience with unbelievers and their explanations as to why the believe as they do back onto them as a payback.

I laughed because it was funny. and as far as impatient not really a word that describes me.....and I have no readon for payback from anyone.

Kerry writes:
Pretty much all your responses are like this-- appeals to authority, with unbelievers framed as rebellious, foolish children who don't know what's good for them. Sorry, it gets tiresome.

Answer: as do your answers get not only tiresome but also tedious. but again its a debate that has been going on since time began.......so I guess to be expected.

Feral writes:
".......What makes this so hard is you have on this side the non-believers.....and on the other the believers...and no matter what the other does you nor us will be changing our minds anytime soon on what we believe or what you believe"

Yes, I hear that all the time, yet we have had in this country, groups of fundamentalists who have tried to wrest control of the government to somehow give this country a religious makeover to be more pleasing to your godhead. While that may not be an attempt to change minds per se, it _is_ an attempt to be a controlling, dominant influence. A maybe not a little bit counter to Jesus' teaching of 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'.

Answer: ok

Kerry wrote:
If you want to learn patience with other's beliefs, I'd recommend spending some time with the Quakers. _They_ truly have earned the right to be the yardstick in that respect.

Answer: I have

Kerry writes:

I've don't have the exact quote at hand, but televangelist Pat Robertson said something to the effect that he didn't feel any moral obligation to be nice Episcopalians. Jerry Falwell tried to blame the 9/11 attacks on gays, lesbians and femininists, et al. We see different sects malign other sects all the time. Many fundamentalists Christians waggle fingers at those same gays and lesbians, even as their own rates of divorce climb ever upward. We've seen Christians kill other Christians in Nothern Ireland. Need I go on?

Christiandom isn't this big happy tent that you're projecting.

Answer: Well thats nice but thats not me now is it.....and I am very nice to everyone.....oh please people are killing people all over this planet......I don't think Christians are killing or divorcing for that matter at any more a higher rate then anyone else.

Looks in the mirror.....yea I would say pretty darn happy.

Where oh where could redy be.....oh where oh where can she be....

I had a long day at work, and had a two hour exam tonight. But finally here are my replies. Made two posts so as not to get too lenghty.

I guess sometimes patience is required when discussing Biblical interpretation. So if you please let me try again.

So there is no misunderstanding; my point in this discussion is to attempt to clarify that his verse is not in any way related to or with normal acts of generally civil people. In fact it may be that the only “sex” referred to, is the offering Lot made of his daughters.

Here we go:

4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

In the above – it is clearly stated that all the men, both young and old have gathered around Lot’s house.

5: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

ALL THE MEN, wanted to “know” the visitors. The word “know” in this section is misleading.

“The Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know" is yada. Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). It only seems to refer to ‘sex’ in about a dozen of these cases and even then the reference is to heterosexual relations. It is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape the angels or to meet with them, and perhaps attack them physically. What is clear is that the mob is not being hospitable.”

It seems the only way to determine what was meant is to use the standards set in the Bible itself.

• “Many Jewish stories mentioning Sodom are cited in the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person’s survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty, as mentioned in Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.”
•
• “Isaiah 1; The first chapter is a condemnation of Judah, compared with Sodom and Gomorra in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. Homosexuality and other sexual activities were not mentioned at all.”
•
• Ezekiel 16:49-50: >Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.<
God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom’s sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

• “Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.

• Luke 10:7-16: This is similar to the verse from Matthew.

• 2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.

• Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom’s sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust”

So it would seem that those who translated the text have decided that Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke & Peter were all wrong. Or perhaps, they just liked what Jude had to say better. What do you think?

Taking into consideration ALL the text that refers to the destruction of Sodom, even previous text in Geneisis 18, why do you think God destroyed Sodom? (in your own words – let them be inspired)

Whatever you write, let me ask you – was it the combination of all the wrong doings that brought Sodom to its’ demise or is was it any one specific wrong/sin?

(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Trading natural relations for unnatural (Romans 1:21-28) King James Version

"Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today."

Answer: ARE YOU NEW (di says – confused, please explain)

"Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions and rationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?"

Per Ferel >Answer: If a man lives or has relations with another man......SIN If a woman does the same. SIN now people can think and do as they wish (freewill) but nonetheless it is a sin. <

The sin you refer to is only a sin if it can be placed as such in your Bible. What I’m doing is refuting that there is anything logical or accurate enough in the Bible to come to this conclusion. If you can find text that directly states that a homosexual lifestyle is a sin – I will do my best to discuss it with you. I am simply pointing out those places that Christians, in general, think the situation applies. But you can pick a text too.


"Follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorigy God (v.21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator. (v.23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v.25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v.26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v.29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available."

Per Ferel >Answer: It is what it is....not matter how you slice the pie so to speak....sin is sin is sin is sin.<

Have you read the next statement? The Bible seems to be explaining that for a heterosexual to reject God and seek all manner of pleasure, including sodomy, then this passage would apply to them. Nowhere in this passage does it refer to someone whose nature is homosexual. Again, this is difficult to ascertain, because the translations over the centuries have been to accommodate ideas with the best substitute – that also happen to fit the premise of what was related in a “previous” translation. Creating error upon error.

Redy wrote:

"There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people."

Per Ferel >Answer: Wrong...again sin is sin is sin is sin.....if God intended for man to sleep with man he would of created adam and adam. <

How do you know what God intended when adam was created? There are two Genesis creation stories you know. The word adam is not a proper pronoun, in translation it means “the first” as in the first created human. Why would God create a man and no partner? Well except that adam was created in Gods image, and therefore was probably sexless, or possibly was created as hermaphrodite. It wasn’t until adam noticed that the beasts all had mates that he petitioned God for a mate, because he wanted to be like the other creatures. So how do you know what God intended?

Again I’ll offer - If you can find text that directly states that a homosexual lifestyle is a sin I will take a look them. If you have trouble finding some – I have others, I can post.

Hi Britty, didn't mean to ignore you, just wanted to get my reply done.

Are you learning anything?

Redy;

I do not think that you are far off in your interpretation of the text of S & G. Over the years it has become "a commonality" as it were, that the sin of S & G was in fact Homosexuality. I put this into the same catagory as I do Eve giving Adam the "apple" (We have no idea what fruit it was - could have been a pear) That three wise men came to Jesus at the manger (It was 157 wise men bearing THREE gifts - or, pick a number) And that Jonah was swallowed by a whale (It could have been an oversized goldfish - we just don't know)

We do know that the poeple of S & G were indeed, Lawless. It should simply remain as such. It is not a relevant passage in the study of "homosexuality as a sin".

.... Okay, I don't know if this was already pointed out or not. Too much to read here. But, the point of prayer in the time of Jesus or now wasn't just the prayer. That's just an action. The real point is faith. If you have no faith and just pray for things then your prayers are made in vain. they will not come to pass. Something was said about something along the lines of things in the Bible not already coming to pass... Okay.....(deep breath.) First, we're still in the dispensation of Grace. This means that a lot of the New Testament promises haven't happened yet. But many have. For example, Israel is now a recognized country whereas before World War 2, they were just a scattered people without a land of their own. I forget the actual scripture, but it's in John and it's Jesus talking. It goes something along these lines: But this generation who sees Israel brought back together, the same shall not pass away before the coming of Christ. I know. Not the best translation,but if you want to know what I'm talking about, go and read it. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can post the scripture reference for you.

The second point. The scripture references pointed out (see the first log to read these) were all examples of faith and how powerful it really is. The act of prayer is a work put to faith. Remember the scripture "faith without works is dead?" That's what it means. You first must have faith: believe it's going to happen. Then you must act on it. In this case, you pray for/over it.

Now I've been a christian for a long time and I've felt the babtism of the Holy Ghost on me and have seen the works God had done through me and I am convinced that God and prayer are both real. That's the kind of faith that one must have in order to see prayers come true.

Oh, a quick note: If you're praying for something selfish like a new car or win the lottery, don't expect it. Paul asked god to take away his injury from when he went outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and went to Asia to share the gospel. Those people were not ready to hear the word and they attacked Paul and all he went with. They were very lucky to get out of there alive.

But when Paul asked God to heal him, God responded by saying "my grace is sufficient for you." this means that the fact that he's still alive is good enough. He'll carry that scar/injury for the rest of his life as a reminder of what happens when you step outside of God's guidance and go out on your own tangent.

That's all I can say for now. Hope it was intuitive for you.