• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Seriously Pathetic Baptists(Westboro)

I've never heard them mention Jesus Christ, but I think I've only seen one viseo. I believe if they were true believers, they'd talk about Jesus. Instead they are always talking about God, and they seem to not understand the God of the OT, IMHO by the way they act.

Jesus died for gay people too, their sin is just a bit harder than some to resist because it's the same as being loose and liking to do it a bunch for straight people. It's not a desease, they may be born that way, but it's just sin. It seems like some people don't resist some sin as well as other sin, myself included.

Anyway that's what I think. :2wave: I don't know any gay people, and I'd be uncomfortable around it, like I am the other way, but they shouldn't be bothered or hurt, just treated nice like everyone else.
 
Very sad indeed. Reminds me of the Fred Phelps crowd when I was in Topeka Ka. They used to target gay funerals and picket them with signs saying the families loved one was burning in hell.

Ignorance surly is not bliss. It is hurtful and painful and such hate speech should not be tolerated by anybody.

Moe
 
I don't get how Santa is a "fag" or what at all he has to do with "fags".:confused:

Also, wtf was up with that "You will eat your children" sign?

At least they recognize that the Christmas Tree has pagan origins, but seriously, fag Christmas? Santa is satan? wtf is that?:confused:

I'm confused.
 
Also, wtf was up with that "You will eat your children" sign?

At least they recognize that the Christmas Tree has pagan origins, but seriously, fag Christmas? Santa is satan? wtf is that?:confused:

I'm confused.

It could be an allusion to the siege of Jerusalem in 70 ad. The Romans stopped all supplies going into the city and it was reported that people resorted to cannibalism. Extreme Fundamentalists have been claiming for years that Gods wrath is about to fall on man due to Homosexuality and abortion. Famous faith healer Benny Hinn made such predictions as gays were going to be destroyed by fire from Heaven and the children of people who were against him were going to be killed by God.
The Forerunner • View topic - "Prophecy experts" failed predictions

1995 - Benny Hinn predicts that God will destroy the homosexual community of America with fire.

BENNY HINN, SATAN'S PROPHET
Benny Hinn seems to believe this madness because at his crusades he warns people, "Touch not God's Anointed. If you try to interfere with My Ministry, God will strike you dead. Not just you but your children, your children too."
These kinds of people wish and pray for death on people who do not agree with them.

This particular group seems to among those who do not celebrate christmas because it is a holiday with pagan roots so any body who does in their view is a pagan.

Moe
 
Last edited:
Jesus died for gay people too, their sin is just a bit harder than some to resist because it's the same as being loose and liking to do it a bunch for straight people. It's not a desease, they may be born that way, but it's just sin. It seems like some people don't resist some sin as well as other sin, myself included.


Why is it a sin? If you use a bible quote to support your answer, please use one that specifically calls out homosexuality as a sin.
 
Why is it a sin? If you use a bible quote to support your answer, please use one that specifically calls out homosexuality as a sin.
There is an entire essay on it, as well as bible verses. Look here: What the Bible says about Homosexuality

With the schism in the Anglican communion, the Constitutional amendment in the United States to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in light of various ‘human rights’ laws around the world that vilify those who speak against homosexuality, more Christians are asking what the Christian position towards homosexuality should be. While only a tiny percentage of people are homosexual, the gay lifestyle is becoming mainstream – at least in some circles and in the media. Let’s examine what the Bible says about homosexuality, and clear up a few myths in the process.

First, let’s start with some fundamental groundwork. Some people, uneducated in scripture, are under the mistaken impression that all forms of sexuality are sinful according to the Bible. With this misconception, they readily disregard anything the Bible might say with regards to sexuality, choosing instead to side with their sexual desires. What they don’t understand is that they are completely wrong. Sex is a creation of God, who pronounced all His creation “good!” Sexuality is not sinful. It is a wonderful part of God’s plan.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

God put a limit on sex, though. Yes, a limit – only one. There is no long dissertation on the do’s and don’ts of sex. The only caveat to the enjoyment of sex is this: sex is meant to be enjoyed in the context of marriage – not outside of it. Unfortunately, these days we must be specific. Sex is to be enjoyed within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. That’s it! That’s the limit. Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” All sexual sins (i.e. promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are sins because they do not conform to the limit of sex being a marital activity. Now of course some of you will point out the list of sexual activity prohibited by the Mosaic laws, but let’s not address those issues of the law from which Paul said we are now free. Instead, let’s stick to those ancient commands that endure eternal. To that end, the above-mentioned single rule is how we are to judge sexual morality.

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”

Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.

Having established that homosexuality is a sin, we must now face that we live in increasingly pro-homosexual societies. The media and the schools have become mouthpieces for the gay subculture, and are working hard to marginalize those of us who take a moral, biblical stance on the issue. School sex education programs based on the curriculum developed by SIECUS champion homosexuality as being normal and healthy, while encouraging teenagers to ignore the values of their parents if their parents feel homosexuality is wrong. “Gay” television shows are popping up on networks like Bravo and on other networks as well.

In many nations, current and existing laws are including slurs against homosexuality in the definition of hate crimes. In fact, some in Canada have found themselves in legal trouble for reading the first chapter of Romans over the airwaves. This is a pattern that is sweeping the Western world, and I predict we’ll see similar legislation in the United States within the next few years. While the Canadian Parliament claims that a religious exemption in their recent hate speech bill will protect speech of a religious nature, in practice Canadians have already been prosecuted by human rights tribunals for things as simple as listing the same Bible verses above in a newspaper advertisement.

Even the church today is not immune to the mainstreaming of immorality. The Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church in the United States is suffering a rift because of the appointment of an openly homosexual bishop. This rift is widened because some of its leaders have deemed it appropriate to perform homosexual marriages. The Methodist Church has allowed openly homosexual ministers to retain their positions. Let me make this clear: I do not oppose allowing homosexuals to attend church. In fact, I think that’s where they should be. However, we must not condone sinful immorality by allowing our clergy to practice it openly. Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are unrepentant of their sin. If they were repentant, they would no longer identify themselves as homosexual. Just as no church would allow their minister to engage in an ongoing adulterous affair and retain his position, so we must not allow homosexual ministers to retain their positions of leadership.

Homosexual advocates will contend that homosexuality is natural, and some will point to homosexual activity within some animal species as evidence. However, it’s not hard to figure out that homosexuality is decidedly unnatural. My wife and I used to have a couple of pendant necklaces. Each of us had half of a pendant on our necklace. When we put our two halves together, the zigzag pattern meshed together flawlessly to create a single, whole pendant (which, by the way, bore the words of Genesis 2:24). God made men and women different, both emotionally and physically. Physically, we were created to fit together anatomically much like our pendant. Our parts just match up! Remember the child’s game of matching the round peg into the round hole, the square peg into the square hole, etc.? The homosexual is trying to force two pegs together, in blatant disregard for God’s natural design! The argument above also falls flat on its face when you consider that some animal species also eat their young. I don’t think we can extrapolate that into an acceptable practice for human beings.

These same homosexual advocates will claim that homosexuality is genetic. NOT TRUE! Nobody is ‘born homosexual.’ In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error. The fact is that after all the attempts to show a genetic cause for homosexuality, no such genetic cause has been found. A British psychologist has had enormous success in providing “reorientation” therapy to homosexuals who want to change. This is not a surgery or a medical treatment, but it is effective. How could it be effective if the cause of homosexuality is physical? Well, it couldn’t be. Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition.

Also untrue is the label applied to those who don’t approve of homosexuality. “Homophobe” has been applied to anyone speaking negatively of homosexuality or of homosexuals. But in 2002, a study by the University of Arkansas was publicized that showed that term to be inaccurate. While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.
 
Leviticus 18:22:

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9:

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Basically God's design was meant to be one man and woman, married. Anything other than that is a sin against God (including straight harlots/hookers and those who do it for fun, and they always got in trouble in the Bible too.). But lucky for us, Jesus took our death and our punishment for sin for us. Those are just the sexual sins, but there are a bunch of other sins that are part of our nature, and they are just as wrong because if you do just one sin you can't go to heaven.
 
Last edited:
Those are just the sexual sins, but there are a bunch of other sins that are part of our nature, and they are just as wrong because if you do just one sin you can't go to heaven.

This about covers it all.. :rofl

Vita est Lavorum



YouTube - Vita est Lavorum
 
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”

No where in Genesis does it say "so that we can have sex with them" about the visitors surrounding Lots house. What the verse says is "Bring them out unto us, that we may know (yadha) them" [Genesis 19:5]. Depending on the context Yadaha could mean either ""to have acquaintance with" or "engage in coitus". The word Yadha is used 943 in the OT and only 10 times refers to to the coitus meaning. The word shakhabh is used throughout the OT in reference to homosexuality and beatiality. So if the author(s) indeed meant homosexual sex why was the word Yadha chosen over Shakhabh, which was normally used in the OT to describe homosexual activity?

Over course the argument could be that Lot offering his daughters to the mob was an exchange of sexual favors but then the counter argument could be that his daughters were the only bargaining tool Lot had that would appease the mob no matter what they wanted.

Given the differing evidence from both sides you can either interpret the passage as the mob wanting to know who these visitors were and what they were going in Sodom (while possibly wanting to rob or hurt them) or that the mob wanted to have homosexual sex with them. To believe the latter you must also believe that anyone that visited Sodom during this age were sexually assaulted before they were allowed to enter the town.


Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.

Paul is speaking of sexual practices that are against the normal practices. This could mean anything that is outside of the normal sexual practices of procreation (anal, oral, non-intercourse, etc).

I also love how the author equates the definition of "soft skin" to "a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man" and "abusers of manking" to " men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men". No leaps there. :roll:
 
Last edited:
No where in Genesis does it say "so that we can have sex with them" about the visitors surrounding Lots house. What the verse says is "Bring them out unto us, that we may know (yadha) them" [Genesis 19:5]. Depending on the context Yadaha could mean either ""to have acquaintance with" or "engage in coitus". The word Yadha is used 943 in the OT and only 10 times refers to to the coitus meaning. The word shakhabh is used throughout the OT in reference to homosexuality and beatiality. So if the author(s) indeed meant homosexual sex why was the word Yadha chosen over Shakhabh, which was normally used in the OT to describe homosexual activity?

Over course the argument could be that Lot offering his daughters to the mob was an exchange of sexual favors but then the counter argument could be that his daughters were the only bargaining tool Lot had that would appease the mob no matter what they wanted.

Given the differing evidence from both sides you can either interpret the passage as the mob wanting to know who these visitors were and what they were going in Sodom (while possibly wanting to rob or hurt them) or that the mob wanted to have homosexual sex with them. To believe the latter you must also believe that anyone that visited Sodom during this age were sexually assaulted before they were allowed to enter the town.




Paul is speaking of sexual practices that are against the normal practices. This could mean anything that is outside of the normal sexual practices of procreation (anal, oral, non-intercourse, etc).

I also love how the author equates the definition of "soft skin" to "a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man" and "abusers of manking" to " men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men". No leaps there. :roll:

In Sodom the men tried to break into Lot's house. Why would they do that if they just wanted to literally make friends with the angels? And they were so bad that they got destroyed with fire by God himself, maybe they did force themselves on everybody who came into the city. The angels wanted to go out, and Lot said no, it was too dangerous, and that was probably why. We don't know, we just know that those people were evil enough that god completely wiped them out. And the Bible points toward being gay (and also viscious, sort of like how some gay people just acted recently toward some churches and the lady with the cross) as the reason. :shrug:

And no, I'm not saying all gay people are viscious and hateful, some are friendly and some are not friendly just like everyone else, but how some have acted recently, their behaviour is a little like Sodom it looks like.
 
Last edited:
In Sodom the men tried to break into Lot's house. Why would they do that if they just wanted to literally make friends with the angels? And they were so bad that they got destroyed with fire by God himself, maybe they did force themselves on everybody who came into the city. The angels wanted to go out, and Lot said no, it was too dangerous, and that was probably why. We don't know, we just know that those people were evil enough that god completely wiped them out. And the Bible points toward being gay (and also viscious, sort of like how some gay people just acted recently toward some churches and the lady with the cross) as the reason. :shrug:

Oh I don't doubt the mob had ill-intentions with the angels. I just doubt they were homosexual in nature. The mob could have wanted to interrogate the angels, get them to gamble (trying to take their money), rob them, attack them, put them into slavery, kidnap them, etc.

The fact is we don't know what the mob wanted and there are numerous reasons a mob of townspeople would be outside someones house asking for the visitors to come out other then to perform homosexual sex.

And no, I'm not saying all gay people are viscious and hateful, some are friendly and some are not friendly just like everyone else, but how some have acted recently, their behaviour is a little like Sodom it looks like.

So taking your interpretation of Sodom, some of today's homosexuals have acted in a way that makes you believe they want to sexually abuse/rape people?

Ok...:roll:
 
Last edited:
Oh I don't doubt the mob had ill-intentions with the angels. I just doubt they were homosexual in nature. The mob could have wanted to interrogate the angels, get them to gamble (trying to take their money), rob them, attack them, put them into slavery, kidnap them, etc.

The fact is we don't know what the mob wanted and there are numerous reasons a mob of townspeople would be outside someones house asking for the visitors to come out other then to perform homosexual sex.



So taking your interpretation of Sodom, some of today's homosexuals have acted in a way that makes you believe they want to sexually abuse/rape people?

Ok...:roll:

No, I didn't say that, sorry, I meant the ones in Sodom seemed violent and disrespectful of Lot's house, wanting to break in and get their own way. The people who went and messed with churches and who tore the cross from an elderly lady were upset because there was a legal vote in California and they didn't get their way so they are messing with churches and people, trying to force their way...
 
No where in Genesis does it say "so that we can have sex with them" about the visitors surrounding Lots house. What the verse says is "Bring them out unto us, that we may know (yadha) them" [Genesis 19:5]. Depending on the context Yadaha could mean either ""to have acquaintance with" or "engage in coitus". The word Yadha is used 943 in the OT and only 10 times refers to to the coitus meaning. The word shakhabh is used throughout the OT in reference to homosexuality and beatiality. So if the author(s) indeed meant homosexual sex why was the word Yadha chosen over Shakhabh, which was normally used in the OT to describe homosexual activity?

Over course the argument could be that Lot offering his daughters to the mob was an exchange of sexual favors but then the counter argument could be that his daughters were the only bargaining tool Lot had that would appease the mob no matter what they wanted.

Given the differing evidence from both sides you can either interpret the passage as the mob wanting to know who these visitors were and what they were going in Sodom (while possibly wanting to rob or hurt them) or that the mob wanted to have homosexual sex with them. To believe the latter you must also believe that anyone that visited Sodom during this age were sexually assaulted before they were allowed to enter the town.
Hey Southern Belle, watch this:

Hey Gibberish. could you please site your sources for this BS? Because I have a all-hebrew and all-greek Bible with me as well as several books covering this story. Also, just to be sure, you should check your manuscripts. I have 4 that don't use "yadha".
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't say that, sorry, I meant the ones in Sodom seemed violent and disrespectful of Lot's house, wanting to break in and get their own way. The people who went and messed with churches and who tore the cross from an elderly lady were upset because there was a legal vote in California and they didn't get their way so they are messing with churches and people, trying to force their way...

What is your point and link between the mob at Lot's house and the people that acted because of the California vote?

You seem to be trying to make the argument that the mob at Lot's house wanted to have homosexual sex is backed by the fact that some people acted out in response to the California vote.
 
What is your point and link between the mob at Lot's house and the people that acted because of the California vote?

You seem to be trying to make the argument that the mob at Lot's house wanted to have homosexual sex is backed by the fact that some people acted out in response to the California vote.

They formed a mob outside Lot's house, and were trying to break in because they wanted something really bad. After the vote, the groups went and ran in the church and disrespected it and vandalised it, and took something from a lady and crushed it that they were technically rebelling against (a cross), because they felt it stood in the way of what THEY wanted.

I've noticed that with some people, their gayness seems to become their complete identity. They seem to love it so much that anyone who says anything negative, the person feels like they are talking about them personally, and they feel they need to do whatever it takes to keep the sin acceptable. I wonder if that's why God says it's an abomination, because they literally lose their self in it?

And no, I don't think all do this, some are quiet and kind and normal, but there are some activists who would be active for anything they believed in, if it was something besides that, probably. They really believe they have an idintity of it, just like the black people. :shock:
 
What is your point and link between the mob at Lot's house and the people that acted because of the California vote?

You seem to be trying to make the argument that the mob at Lot's house wanted to have homosexual sex is backed by the fact that some people acted out in response to the California vote.

the link is indiscriminate violence. Not every Christian voted against gay marriage. How do they know that this woman did not vote for gay marriage?

And if she did, What do think the odds are she will vote for it next time? Do think such irrational violent behaviour helps the cause of the gays or do think it acts to confirm in the minds of those who voted against that they made the right choice?

Moe
 
I've noticed that with some people, their gayness seems to become their complete identity. They seem to love it so much that anyone who says anything negative, the person feels like they are talking about them personally, and they feel they need to do whatever it takes to keep the sin acceptable. I wonder if that's why God says it's an abomination, because they literally lose their self in it?

Hello sister.

I agree to a point but I see this in fellow Christians and others alike. Any militant type behavior (Phelps family) or prideful behavior (many Protestants, Catholics etc) can fit into the same notch. It has little to do with being gay and more to do with being human. Every human wants to feel accepted by a group. Homosexuals and lesbians are no different. This group often becomes an identity for the person. Take a look at your basic "holy Rollers" or even sports fanatics.

As for being an "abomination" this sums it up much better than I ever could:

"Contrary to what many of us may think, the term “abomination” does not refer to extra-ordinary sins per se. When some denounce homosexuality as an “abomination” they usually do so with the intent of emphasizing how “ghastly” it is. Thus, we don’t typically hear other sins referred to as “abomination.” Sins like gluttony, lying, stealing or arrogance are considered more “ordinary” and not worthy of the epithet “abomination.” The problem is Scripture doesn’t use the term in this way; it does not treat homosexuality as the more grievous sin. Proverbs states, “There are six things which the Lord hates. Yes, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who utters lies, and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers” (6:16-19). The reality is all of us, gay or straight, have committed various “abominations” in our lives. No one should ever use this term to single out certain people for extra condemnation. Furthermore, God gives us prohibitions, not to condemn us or make life difficult, but to guide us toward what is life-giving. As God puts it: “If only you had paid attention to my commands, then your well-being would have been like a river” (Isaiah 48:18)." - Homosexuality: An Abomination? Pursue God


And no, I don't think all do this, some are quiet and kind and normal, but there are some activists who would be active for anything they believed in, if it was something besides that, probably. They really believe they have an idintity of it, just like the black people. :shock:

This applys to 99.9% of all humans.

Continue to walk and live in Christ.
 
the link is indiscriminate violence. Not every Christian voted against gay marriage. How do they know that this woman did not vote for gay marriage?

And if she did, What do think the odds are she will vote for it next time? Do think such irrational violent behaviour helps the cause of the gays or do think it acts to confirm in the minds of those who voted against that they made the right choice?

Moe

Yeah, that...^

And even if she did vote against it, does that mean they have the right to go get in her face and tear stuff up? Can everybody who is negatively affected by a law vote just go do violent things to everybody who voted?
 
Hey Southern Belle, watch this:
:roll:

Hey Gibberish. could you please site your sources for this BS? Because I have a all-hebrew and all-greek Bible with me as well as several books covering this story. Also, just to be sure, you should check your manuscripts. I have 4 that don't use "yadha".
Not a problem. This translation is well documented.

STR - Verse Display containing Strong's Number: 3045 - Yada` - Hebrew Lexicon

Yada` - KJV Hebrew Lexicon
52 Verses for 'yada`' - Genesis - ". uc(kjv). " Verse Count - Hebrew Lexicon
Genesis 19 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp

Translation comparrisons:
Genesis 19:5 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.
BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Genesis 19:5;

And if you need further reading:
Let me google that for you
 
the link is indiscriminate violence. Not every Christian voted against gay marriage. How do they know that this woman did not vote for gay marriage?
So the mob in Genesis is gay because some people conducted violence in the name of homosexuals today?

And if she did, What do think the odds are she will vote for it next time? Do think such irrational violent behaviour helps the cause of the gays or do think it acts to confirm in the minds of those who voted against that they made the right choice?
Such behavior helps no one and is complete despicable, no matter who is performing the action or for what cause. This however has nothing to do with the topic of the mob in Genesis.
 
Hello sister.

I agree to a point but I see this in fellow Christians and others alike. Any militant type behavior (Phelps family) or prideful behavior (many Protestants, Catholics etc) can fit into the same notch. It has little to do with being gay and more to do with being human. Every human wants to feel accepted by a group. Homosexuals and lesbians are no different. This group often becomes an identity for the person. Take a look at your basic "holy Rollers" or even sports fanatics.

As for being an "abomination" this sums it up much better than I ever could:

"Contrary to what many of us may think, the term “abomination” does not refer to extra-ordinary sins per se. When some denounce homosexuality as an “abomination” they usually do so with the intent of emphasizing how “ghastly” it is. Thus, we don’t typically hear other sins referred to as “abomination.” Sins like gluttony, lying, stealing or arrogance are considered more “ordinary” and not worthy of the epithet “abomination.” The problem is Scripture doesn’t use the term in this way; it does not treat homosexuality as the more grievous sin. Proverbs states, “There are six things which the Lord hates. Yes, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who utters lies, and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers” (6:16-19). The reality is all of us, gay or straight, have committed various “abominations” in our lives. No one should ever use this term to single out certain people for extra condemnation. Furthermore, God gives us prohibitions, not to condemn us or make life difficult, but to guide us toward what is life-giving. As God puts it: “If only you had paid attention to my commands, then your well-being would have been like a river” (Isaiah 48:18)." - Homosexuality: An Abomination? Pursue God




This applys to 99.9% of all humans.

Continue to walk and live in Christ.

Thank you very much. :) I agree with you 100%. I've been trying to explain about everyone's sin nature in different threads. Nobody's innocent. But some church messes with gay people, then gay people lash out at Christians and mock and rideicule us, and then the other people think that Christians are nallisciously victimising gay people. Yes I know the world loves its' own and we are not of the world, but I can't help wanting to explain why that's not true. I do not hate people who are gay, but their sin is not good. Some cannot separate the person from the sin, just like all other people, yes. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
They formed a mob outside Lot's house, and were trying to break in because they wanted something really bad. After the vote, the groups went and ran in the church and disrespected it and vandalised it, and took something from a lady and crushed it that they were technically rebelling against (a cross), because they felt it stood in the way of what THEY wanted.
Your really reaching for a link here. You are basically saying Group A (the mob in Genesis) acted in aggression, Group B acted in a aggression in the name of homosexuality. Therefore Group A must also be homosexual.

I've noticed that with some people, their gayness seems to become their complete identity. They seem to love it so much that anyone who says anything negative, the person feels like they are talking about them personally, and they feel they need to do whatever it takes to keep the sin acceptable. I wonder if that's why God says it's an abomination, because they literally lose their self in it?
For most people their sexuality becomes their identity. Do women buy high heeled shoes and lace underwear because it's comfortable? Do they get their hair done and wear makeup for health reasons? Do men buy nice suits and workout to be more attractive to themselves?

What makes homosexuals different then the above?

And no, I don't think all do this, some are quiet and kind and normal, but there are some activists who would be active for anything they believed in, if it was something besides that, probably. They really believe they have an idintity of it, just like the black people. :shock:
Of course they have an identity. Every social group has an identity. Show me one social group that does not.
 
Back
Top Bottom