Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Switch to Forum Live View CA Priest speaks out AGAINST Prop. 8
6 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2008 - 12:20PM #31
Zachguy18
Posts: 191
[QUOTE=redroses098;837065]In Ezekiel 16 God did mention in a single verse that Sodom was 'inhospitable' to the poor (along with committing many other crimes), but look at the entire chapter and read it in context. More than the fist half is God telling Jerusalem that she's a whore who's betrayed Him. Then He went one further and said she was just like her 'sisters' Samaria and Sodom (who were destroyed), only worse. Sorry, but simple inhospitably doesn't invite that kind of wrath.[/QUOTE]

Let's see, which is more harmful...

A. Refusing hospitality to strangers in a desert land where inhospitality could essentially kill someone.
B. Two men sharing a loving relationship.

Gee, I wonder what it could be.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah LONG before the people of Sodom tried to gang rape the angels.  In fact, that's why Abram tried to argue with Him about it.  Sorry, but context-wise, there is no way that it could be homosexuality, even if you believe that rape and a loving relationship are somehow the same thing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2008 - 12:32PM #32
Riesl1
Posts: 270
Honestly, the type of "marraige" being discussed here isn't even recognized by the church when it concerns two straight people who have never been married before and intend to be together forever. The state is talking about civil marraiges, and the civil rights that come along with those marraiges. And if I remember my constitution, civil rights are to be extended to all people regardless of race or creed...well, believing that homosexuality is acceptable is a creed that does not interfere with other peoples liberties, and as such is protected under freedom of religion.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2008 - 3:49PM #33
robinsgarret
Posts: 228
[QUOTE=Zachguy18;837932]Let's see, which is more harmful...

A. Refusing hospitality to strangers in a desert land where inhospitality could essentially kill someone.
B. Two men sharing a loving relationship.

Gee, I wonder what it could be.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah LONG before the people of Sodom tried to gang rape the angels.  In fact, that's why Abram tried to argue with Him about it.  Sorry, but context-wise, there is no way that it could be homosexuality, even if you believe that rape and a loving relationship are somehow the same thing.[/QUOTE]

  Someone who has actually read the Bible account...and understands it !!!  Whooo hooo....

  Very refreshing, Zach guy!    (BTW, even the gang rape scenario is also doubtful... the phrase "to know them" was used both to mean "to know" or "had marital sex with".  If it is the first...then it is the "hospitality" (as in torture your guests kind...) thing... if it is the latter, then it would have been saying that the entire city wanted to marry the angels and have sex with them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2008 - 6:32PM #34
Zachguy18
Posts: 191
[QUOTE=robinsgarret;848227]Someone who has actually read the Bible account...and understands it !!!  Whooo hooo....

  Very refreshing, Zach guy!    (BTW, even the gang rape scenario is also doubtful... the phrase "to know them" was used both to mean "to know" or "had marital sex with".  If it is the first...then it is the "hospitality" (as in torture your guests kind...) thing... if it is the latter, then it would have been saying that the entire city wanted to marry the angels and have sex with them.[/QUOTE]

I say gang-rape because it's not too far of a leap from the common interpretation, but still identifies it as something entirely different from the common interpretation... i.e., sex vs. rape.

Gang-rape or torture, it was still most undeniably inhospitable, and in a desert environment where hospitality can save someone's life, it is truly detestable to do such a thing..
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2008 - 9:14PM #35
Mareczku
Posts: 2,220
Good discussion gentlemen.  Yes, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were surely a nasty lot but how many of them were living in faithful, committed same sex relationships? 

Peace - Mareczku
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 13, 2008 - 2:33PM #36
becca97
Posts: 2,562
[QUOTE=redroses098;834675]Uh…I think you’ve got some issues, and I’m not getting into that here. My explanation was entirely reasonable and has nothing to do with ‘control’. Sorry you feel that way.



Well for starters i do liek how you only quote the three words of control and missed the entire of the rest of the paragraph giving that response context out of your quote. Very mature :rolleyes: below is the context.

[QUOTE](originally posted by becca97)Oh yes a winning argument here -- notice it says ""if a virgin was seduced or raped she was avoided by other men like the plague"" distinctly making this about controling women, it doesn't say if make virgins were seduced or raped they were avoided like the plague; face it this whole ''homosexuals can't marry'' is exactly the same as the above attitude to raped virgins, control, control, control ...[/QUOTE]

No it is about control, i suggest you read some sociological theory sometime.

I’ve read Genesis. Lilith? Not in it. I believe that she was some sort of mythological figure. Maybe Babylonian, not sure where she originated from.



her origin is only mentioned in the earliest known forms of the bible currently housed in the british museum and where actual true bible scholars study from -- and yes she most assuredly did originate in genesis and was constructed as an equal to adam out of clay, but she did not wish to be subjegated by adam, saw herself as equal, adam did not liek this and so God dismissed her from eden, then creating eve out of adams ribb so she would always be sunordinate to him - though more 'modern' xtians, catholics etc try to make her out to be some demoness, or dimsiss her form exsistance entirly- her root is in early biblical/abrhamic creation myth.


[QUOTE]Not really…I don’t get how on earth you get that from what I said. But here is the scripture most commonly used to back it up and what I was referring to.[/QUOTE]


and yet it doesn't mention actual marriage - hence marriage as we talk about it today is a human construct ergo has bugger all to do with religion so if homosexuals wish to legally marry it is none of religions business.


[QUOTE]The point being that the state of matrimony, a man and a woman being united for life, is God made. Man’s celebration of it may have come later. [/QUOTE]

No; it might be that according to abrahamic theology/myth God unified adam and eve in sexual partnership and union, but matrimony is man constructed.

Aside from the above? How about Sodom and Gomorrah? It’s there; you seem to just not know where it is. Or are maybe deliberately ignoring it. I’m not a ‘Bible Christian’, I don’t have the whole thing memorized, so there’s more there than I can point out to you.



And yet again you do not seem to be reading the actual descriptions about why soddom and gomorah were destroyed, though others here have covered this in detail so i'll leave you to read that if you are so inclined.

That Jesus told Peter He would give him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and what he loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven and what he closed on earth would be closed in Heaven is 100% fact. I know people take issue with that and (very lamely) try to explain it away, but the 2000 year life of the Church attests to it perfectly.[/QUOTE]

err again no it is not 'fact' it is A truth according to A religion and according to AN interpretation of said religion.

Now i am not particularly religious though i have a deep interest in the foundations of our societies and religions undeniable role in shaping those societies particular the widespread imapct of the abrhamic religions -- but i do know many theologians, christian scholars and the like who might have their own favoured interpretations and truths but realise all of that is ENTIRLY a matter of faith not fact.

This programme is very interesting, and is a programme imho all christians incl catholics should watch as if they are going to take the bible literally then they aiught ot know its historic foundations. (programme is made by a practicing priest btw )

part one is below the other episodes are linked in the related videos section.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook