If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[linaloki]

PoeticVengeance

Hardly. But has Loki shown coldness?

I have yet to see it.

Truth be told, I don't think I've ever been cold... I tend to get heated in arguments sometimes... But not cold. Hell, I live in Tuscaloosa, AL. My ROOM doesn't go below 75... Ugh.

[TheNinjaGoddess]

linaloki

PoeticVengeance

Hardly. But has Loki shown coldness?

I have yet to see it.

Truth be told, I don't think I've ever been cold... I tend to get heated in arguments sometimes... But not cold. Hell, I live in Tuscaloosa, AL. My ROOM doesn't go below 75... Ugh.

that would be hell to me.

[PoeticVengeance]

TheNinjaGoddess

linaloki

PoeticVengeance

Hardly. But has Loki shown coldness?

I have yet to see it.

Truth be told, I don't think I've ever been cold... I tend to get heated in arguments sometimes... But not cold. Hell, I live in Tuscaloosa, AL. My ROOM doesn't go below 75... Ugh.

that would be hell to me.

Cold is better then heat, because you can always put more clothes on.

But people get pissed when you take a certain amount off.

^^

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

PoeticVengeance

TheNinjaGoddess

linaloki

PoeticVengeance

Hardly. But has Loki shown coldness?

I have yet to see it.

Truth be told, I don't think I've ever been cold... I tend to get heated in arguments sometimes... But not cold. Hell, I live in Tuscaloosa, AL. My ROOM doesn't go below 75... Ugh.

that would be hell to me.

Cold is better then heat, because you can always put more clothes on.

But people get pissed when you take a certain amount off.

^^

Lol.

I'm fond of warmer weather, myself. 75 is cool to me.

[ty_ping]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Marshal67

Elf Lord Chiewn

That Yeshua is the Son of God? Okay, so what about people who believe Yeshua is the Son of God but completely fail to follow his teachings?

Part of truly believing, I would say it trying to follow. I would argue they were never truly saved, but that is not my call to make.

I'm sure trying counts for something, but what if someone's running around oppressing all the gay people because they think they're sinful? Would that make them un-Christian?

depends. If these people were simply misinformed and believed they were doing good then maybe not so much, I mean I`d follow up questioning wheather they acctually believed or not or just in the usefullness of belief since their beliefs are efectivly being spoonfed to them. However if for no reason they honestly were told that they were supposed to opress people and they did then they would on a technicallity be bad Christians but I`m sure God would give them an A for effort and let them pass anyway.
I mean you can call yourself a bird till youre blue in the face but until you grow some feathers and a beak you`re just another wino on the street.

On the other hand the MOMENT these "Christians" have been informed otherwise of the law if they ignore the warnings or do not seek their own council and prayer and instead plug their ears and refuse to debate or share wisdom with the new opinion THEN scripturally they are a really bad christian because they are being told the truth and are willfully ignoring it.

[ty_ping]

Marshal67

Elf Lord Chiewn

Marshal67

Elf Lord Chiewn

I'm sure trying counts for something, but what if someone's running around oppressing all the gay people because they think they're sinful? Would that make them un-Christian?

If they truly believed they were wrong, then yes that would still be a Christian I would think. But the opression is still wrong, even if it is a sin.

Agreed, assuming that we're using your prior definition of Christian. However, I think the person who acts inappropriately is a bad Christian, or at least a bad example of one.

Ya, I could see the bad example of one, but bad, I still cant bring myself to say "bad Christian". I still believe man is inherently evil xd

what about simply not a christian then, According to paul which is an old argument for me to go against christs teachings in any way generally makes you not a christian because the Christian process is supposed to be a one time only all or nothing deal.
Acording to paul that is.
...
And Jesus a little bit too...

[ty_ping]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Flemavenger

I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.

However, as a heterosexual, you have the legal right to marry those whom you are sexually attracted to, and those whom you desire to enter into a lifetime partnership with, whereas homosexuals are not afforded this right. This is unfair, and while it may not appear to be anti-gay at first glance, it is. Homosexuals are those most affected by this, and to the best of my knowledge there is no legal or constitutional reason why this ought to be law.

Plus whenever questioning if something is discrimination or not I try the old black test.
Change the word Homosexual to Black.

I can get married and so can they. I cannot get married to someone black, and they cannot marry white.

sure, it`s not discrimination.
(And if you bring animals siblings poligamy or ***** into this I`ll wap you one because I can justify why none of them are like homosexuality and if you don`t know the reason`s aready then maybe you need to get out of the ED.)

[ty_ping]

Flemavenger

Elf Lord Chiewn

Flemavenger

Elf Lord Chiewn

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

• violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.

I love homosexuals the same way I love all my neighbors. I merely believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also love muderers, but I believe that murder is a sin.

Given this premise, I believe there is a clear distinction between considering homosexuality to be sinful and supporting the oppression of homosexuals. I hold opposition to gay marriage to be the latter.

So since I believe that homosexuality is a sin, you would claim that my opposition to gay marriage is a form of oppression. Considering that I also consider using illegal narcotics to be a sin, I suppose they could claim that by me voting to keep them illegal, I am oppressing drug addicts? By your logic, we shouldn't have laws at all. render unto Cesar what is Cesar and unto God what is Gods...

I agree that withing a christian setting there Should be no laws.


bookmark page six, Imma going home! and Imma gonna eat cake...

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

ty_ping

Elf Lord Chiewn

Marshal67

Elf Lord Chiewn

That Yeshua is the Son of God? Okay, so what about people who believe Yeshua is the Son of God but completely fail to follow his teachings?

Part of truly believing, I would say it trying to follow. I would argue they were never truly saved, but that is not my call to make.

I'm sure trying counts for something, but what if someone's running around oppressing all the gay people because they think they're sinful? Would that make them un-Christian?

depends. If these people were simply misinformed and believed they were doing good then maybe not so much, I mean I`d follow up questioning wheather they acctually believed or not or just in the usefullness of belief since their beliefs are efectivly being spoonfed to them. However if for no reason they honestly were told that they were supposed to opress people and they did then they would on a technicallity be bad Christians but I`m sure God would give them an A for effort and let them pass anyway.
I mean you can call yourself a bird till youre blue in the face but until you grow some feathers and a beak you`re just another wino on the street.

On the other hand the MOMENT these "Christians" have been informed otherwise of the law if they ignore the warnings or do not seek their own council and prayer and instead plug their ears and refuse to debate or share wisdom with the new opinion THEN scripturally they are a really bad christian because they are being told the truth and are willfully ignoring it.

I wonder if it's possible to say with any certainty whether God will give As for effort.

However, I definitely agree with the latter paragraph.

("Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!" wink

[Fairy of Love]

christian and supporting gay marrige smile

[Kachie-Chan_exe]

I believe this thread embodies the fact that Homosexuality is neither a clearly stated sin, neither is is spoke of in the scriptures or clearly translated into english to do so. Unfortunately, without this strong evidence in the eyes of christianity than this proves nothing at all.

I feel bad for those Gay christians who have to suffer so much for just being who they are and believing God at the same time. It is important that the people who advocate that 'God hates fags' know just what the hell they're talking about.

[ty_ping]

Flemavenger

Elf Lord Chiewn

Flemavenger

Elf Lord Chiewn

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

• violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.

I love homosexuals the same way I love all my neighbors. I merely believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also love muderers, but I believe that murder is a sin.

Given this premise, I believe there is a clear distinction between considering homosexuality to be sinful and supporting the oppression of homosexuals. I hold opposition to gay marriage to be the latter.

So since I believe that homosexuality is a sin, you would claim that my opposition to gay marriage is a form of oppression. Considering that I also consider using illegal narcotics to be a sin, I suppose they could claim that by me voting to keep them illegal, I am oppressing drug addicts? By your logic, we shouldn't have laws at all.
Also now that I think of it there are other non religious reasons that a person can put down to certain laws. Mainly being that things like Narcotics hurt the physical body, those around the parson, endanger lives, cause economic strain blah blah the whole reason they`re banned in the first place has little or nothing to do with religion.
The only reason a person can stand against homosexuality is some vauge scriptural reasoning which most of the time a person can`t seem to fully argue the reasoning behind and the non religious reasoning of "Well it`s icky"
If the only reason you have to oppress someone is because you just personally don`t like it then yes. You`re oppressing them.
opposing and keeping illegal things like drugs murder, theft and relationships between people who are not adults or not human can be given valid non religious reasoning making it so it`s not oppression to continue to keep them illegal.
The opposition of homosexuality can only vaugly fall under religious which then opposing them due to their sexuality and denying them rights (Yes marrage is a legal right because in modern construct it is simply a form of contract) effectively homosexuals have LESS rights then hetrosexuals do.

Flemavenger

Quote:

Flemavenger

Quote:

judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).

These scriptures are subject to interpretation. Although some Christians condemn homosexuals to Hell, I do not. I feel that simply by believe homosexuality to be a sin, I am not judging anyone. If by simply believing that something is a sin I am sinning, or passing judgement, then we wouldn't be permitted to believe that anything is a sin.

While I understand how a conceptual belief might be removed from practice or action against others, I do not consider the belief in question to be accurate, or to be justification for opposing gay marriage.

And if one person is somehow harmed due to the prevalence of that belief, I consider that to be a sin.

Other Christians might harm homosexuals in the common fashion, "You are Gay therefore I condemn thee to Hell!" however I am not one of these. I merely am opposed to Gay Marriage because I consider homosexuality to be a sin, and I feel that the majority of things I consider to be sins should be illegal, wherewhich manner I shall vote. Your arguments could be used for anything that is illegal.
See above under the not neccisarily.
Everything that is illegal can be considered somehow harmful in this life, not the next. Therefore the argument can`t be made for anything illegal.
However I am willing to argue under the command of Judge not lest ye be judged, DOES effectivly prevent you from casting you opinion in such a fashion that is oppresses other of whatever it is they want to do. Live by example not by command. Be not like the Pharasis and yar yar yar...

Flemavenger

Quote:

Flemavenger

To me, this sounds like you are the one raping the Bible.

I disagree, as I am certain you expected. LDS texts and doctrine aside, I believe the bible does not support, and certainly does not explicitly dictate, the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

Actually it does in Leviticus, however most Christians no longer abide by the Mosaic Law. I feel that the scripture in Romans is abundantly clear as well that homosexuality is a "vile affection".

Hell I`m willing to argue against Levidicus with a Jew too considering that its the only time Homosexuality is condemed and even then it`s not a blanket statement. Considering it`s context within the Torah, wording, the gendered terms given, historical context, and the fact that no female homosexuality is mentioned (When female bestiality is) leave Levidicus quite open to debate as well.
Plus as Paradox and Ananel can argue far better then I I do not find Romans and have never found Romans to be clear on Homosexuality being the Vile Affection when there are many (Once again historical and biblical context) other Vile Affections they could be talking about.

Flemavenger

Quote:

Flemavenger

Quote:

raping the bible, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.

Romans 1:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 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:
27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

I will stand by this scripture and I feel that Ananel's arguments against it are weak. I'm too lazy to adress his arguments in this post but I'll probably be compelled to in another post.

I'm sure we'll get into this later as well, though I believe I ought to clarify that Ananel's arguments were against common interpretations of the original text and not against the biblical text, and that I disagree with the Infallibility Doctrine. As such, I should mention that I do not consider Paul to be an exceptionally reliable source, nor do I consider his epistles, which were not written to you or me, to be especially relevant.

None of the Bible was actually written for our day. This is a major reason why our church has the Book of Mormon. The last Prophet to write in it, named Moroni,
I`m sorry it`s youre religion and all but I though the prophet was spoken to by an angel named Moroni?

Flemavenger

it based on a vision he had where God showed him through the spirit what our day would be like. The book is far more relevant to our day than the Bible is. I actually appreciate Paul very much as a Prophet. His writings are often misconstrued by mainstream Christians to claim things like "works don't matter", not understanding that Paul was speaking towards people who were trying to hold to the Mosaic Law, rather than saying works no longer matter.

I too disagree with mainstream Christians who think Paul was trying to claim works no longer mattered, In all consideration with my argument that Christianity is an all or nothing deal and you can`t be a bad christian simply not a christian I argue that Paul spoke in the sense that works that have no meaning, and no spirit behind them don`t matter however there are no thoughts without actions so for the mind to believe then the body must act. Which makes the mind the most important point but no the only point just as in contrast works without faith are just as useless because someone does something nice dosn`t give them a ticket to heaven, if someone does good their whole life and is prozed as a sainf but in their heart the had bitter thoughts and only were doing works for the prize at the end all the Good deeds are just as bad as wrond deads because you did them in the state of a lie.

Flemavenger

Quote:

Flemavenger

Quote:

arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.

Though they may have offended God.

As might be reasonably expected of any man. Two wrongs do not make a right, one wrong does not make a right, and it is not the place of man to pronounce divine judgment as though he knew the mind of God.

Very true. I'm sure I'm guilty of this more often than I realize, but I feel that the world is better off with things my church considers a sin to be illegal, and this is my legal right to vote the way I choose.

Quote:

Flemavenger

I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.

However, as a heterosexual, you have the legal right to marry those whom you are sexually attracted to, and those whom you desire to enter into a lifetime partnership with, whereas homosexuals are not afforded this right. This is unfair, and while it may not appear to be anti-gay at first glance, it is. Homosexuals are those most affected by this, and to the best of my knowledge there is no legal or constitutional reason why this ought to be law.

It is law because society and mainly Christianity has historically considered homosexuality to be wrong, thus they have used their legal right to vote it as such.
History and might do not neccisarily make right else women not being allowed to vote was right because the church and the people thought that way.
Slavery was right because the church and the people thought that way.
The world was flat because the church and the people thought that way.

Church and people change their minds, which is why it is questionable as to wheather or not the Church or the people should make decisions in things like this.
(Which then oddly enough it`s a good thing on a regular basis they don`t, Courts in the end which are depressingly influanced far too much by chuch and people attempt to make these calls.)

[ty_ping]

PoeticVengeance

Calmer

To give homosexuals the possibility of marriage within the Church, their promoters must declare the authority of those Churches invalid should those Churches deny that option. Doing so means another authority must be found to validate the marriages within that place (or possibly, to seperate the legal and Christian aspects of marriage completely, such as having both a legal matrimonial ceremony at one time, and a blessing/sacrament cerimony at another).

Actually, legal marriage should be separate from the Christian ceremony. State officals should be the ones to perform them, as it is a secular ceremony to gain secular rights.

Then if the couple is composed of Christians, it can get a Christian ceremony too.

Of course, being licensed to perform secular marriage isn't something we need to restrict. A church offical can still have that ability, but there must be a religion neutral government offical nearby that can perform the marriage if the church refuses.

Just to intrude this is acctually how marrage is already set up, You see any church official has to apply for a licence from the Government to became a.... hmm I can`t remember the technical name but basically just being a preist dosn`t give them the right to marry people they need a seperate licence for that. Anyone can get a licence to marry anyone else.
One of the arguments that My teacher brought up was if the Church wants to not be bothered with the legality of homosexual marrage then they should finally kick the government out of the church and finally make marrage simply a secular event.
Basically, burn your licence and stop legally marrying people and just do it in front of the church.
That way by law noone can make churches or church officals marry anyone they don`t want to simply because legally they can`t marry anyone anyway.

This is the reason Athiests can marry or those without weddings can marry.

[ty_ping]

angel_magic2007

New Internatinonal Version
First off I would just like for you to take another look at Sodom and Gomora. Genesis 19 veruses 1-29 particually veruses 1-11 and and importnat ones veruses 4-5 "Before they had gone to bed, all the men form every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the ouse. They called to Lot 'Where are the men who caome to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot wanted the two angels to come into his house because he was tring to protect them from the homosexual men of the city. He was even willing to give his two virgin daugthers to the crowd of men that had gathered at his house to try and save the two angels. So...what did the two angels do? They (veruses 10-11) "But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struk the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that thye cound not find the door." Now my question to you is, if were suck bad christians then why did God allow the two angels to blind the homosexual men of Sodom, then later God destory the two cities?

I C WUT U DID THAR!!
...
*cough* anyway
Sodom Gomorah and all the related "rape magically = sex but only for them homo's" argument.

Ananel

Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

Philisophical Paradox

Sodom and Gamorrah's distruction had nothing to do with homosexuality as a general construct. It had to do with inhospitality, idolatry, and arrogance.
When referenced multiple times in both the old and the new testaments as an analogy, it is used in terms of condemning those who act unkindly toward those around them, particularly the poor. Even later it lists the sins of Sodom very explicitly. Or did you forget to read Ezekial 16:46-50? Pride is listed, idleness was listed, disregarding the poor was listed. Homosexuality as a general construct was not. Same with Jude. The closest you may get is the listing of committing "toeb'eh" as a term...and conjoining it with "hetero sarkas" in Jude. However, reading Jude, one notes it is a continuation of verse 6 here, and directly references the Book of Enoch, which quite clearly spells out what hetero sarkas implies- the desire of the angels to have sex with men (gender neutral term) and similar men with angels.
Now, reading all of Genesis 19, it is quite clear to the open-minded reader (which you have professed to be), that Sodom and Gamorrah's fate for destruction was set BEFORE the act in question occured. But what as to the act itself? At the best, you get a condemnation of homosexual rape. But that is obviously condemned due to its violent nature and sin against another person irregardless of sex. However, when using the language of the text, the angels are always referenced as "Enoch'im" literally meaning "guys"- non-gendered term. The sex of the angels is never revealed to the audience...and is only assumed masculine, though the crowd and Lot himself is getting quite specific gendering. Without a strong form of eisegesis....one cannot conclude the sex of the angels, making it quite troublesome to go out on a limb and suggest this story has to do with a generalized condemnation of ALL same-sex activity.
One must also look at the cultural norms of the time...and view the text as writing from such a time. I'm not sure how much you know of Ancient Mesopotamia, but it was not a cheery place. At constant warfare with the cultures around them (widely known for raping and killing even women and children), it was a distrustful time where foreigners were highly suspect. Fear of a spy infiltrating your town was part and parcel with the age, and most took the better safe than sorry approach to the manner. Often they would drag a visitor out in the middle of the night to beat or degrade him, as a safeguard for protecting their village...and occasionally this included degrading his manhood by raping him, and treating him like a woman. HOWEVER these acts are not comparable with homosexuality as a general construct these days...and are quite clearly detestable as a form of rape. If these acts were the ones punished, it is these acts alone that were addressed, not a general condemnation of an act from a specific instance. Turning a specific condemnation into a general one is presenting your cultural bias into the text without merit...and not tolerated much in M&R. Now, if you'd kindly quote scripture on S&G that spells out quite clearly how these two cities' destruction was due to GENERAL homosexuality, I will take your argument more seriously. Otherwise you are presenting poor choices to make a point.
Sodom and Gamorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality as a general construct.

arguing cut and paster

What does Ezekiel really say?
Does Ezekiel 16:49-50 say Sodomy wasn’t the reason Sodom was destroyed? Notice verse 50:
(49) 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. (50) They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Notice that along with neglecting the poor the Lord says they also did detestable things [i.e. homosexuality, Genesis 19:1-29]

The word rendered here as "detestable" comes from "tow'ebah" (in Strong's, it's # 8441), and is said in Strong's to mean "idolatry" or "idolaters". In the Hebrew it is very clear that it does not mean "homosexuality" and it makes sense since in the bible God clearly states that the ONLY thing he hates, is Idolitary a concept which is reinforced by Jesus stating that one cannot serve two masters.

Back to Sodom specific

There are many laws of hospitality and Good manners which were given to the Jewish people, by not obaying them one effectivly is disobaying God, to disobay these manners and rules of hospitality directly to Gods servents... well.
Exodus 22:
21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Right there at 24 God says that he will hear the cries of those whom you have been inhospitable to and he'll smite you and smite you good.

Deuteronomy 10:
18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

19:4 however traslates some words to "men" of the cities.
ד טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר אנשי סדם נסבו על הבית
מנער ועד זקן כל העם מקצה

shakab 'enowsh `iyr 'enowsh Codom cabab bayith cabab zaqen na`ar `am qatseh

But before they [the men in the house and the angels] lay down [to sleep], the men [enowsh] of the city, even the men [enowish] of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter

The focus words here are Enowsh, which is traslated as "Men" however this is a relativly bad traslation as when looking at ishshah the feminine of iysh which DOES mean Man or Men we find Enowsh as it's plural!
Enowsh! Male AND Female? What does that mean??
It means Enowsh isn't a gender specific term when the bible says "The men of the city" they really mean "And the people of the city and the people of Sodom" came, not just the men, Enowsh means everyone, every man woman and child came out to brutally assault these newcomers.

a second thing as well, the single phrase "that we may know them" is were the entire argument of homosexual sex is based. The word translated "to know" is yada. Its primary meaning is "to ascertain some information," just as we use it today. There is a very rare usage of the word where it refers to "knowing someone in the Biblical sense" as the saying goes, but of the approximately 900 times this word is used in the Bible, less then a half dozen uses refers to sexual congress. In virtually every instance it simply means "to know something." As there is no evidence that it means anything else here, there is no justification for reading anything else into this account. If it is taken sexually it means rape, considering it may have NO sexual context all of this falls under the laws of Jewish hospitality and that the people of Sodom are quite blaitantly breaking them.

cut and run

Jude 1:7

going BACK to the assumption that Sodom and Gomorrah magically means homosexual sex, lets take another look shall we?

ως σοδομα και γομορρα και αι περι αυτας πολεις τον ομοιον τουτοις τροπον
εκπορνευσασαι και απελθουσαι οπισω σαρκος ετερας προκεινται δειγμα πυρος αιωνιου δικην υπεχουσαι

hos Sodoma kai Gomorrha kai polis peri autos homoios toutois tropos ekporneuo kai aperchomai opiso heteros sarx prokeimai deigma hupecho dike aionios pur

I will be focusing on the words Ekporneuo and Heteros Sarx here.

The word translated as "fornication" here is ekporneuo, which comes from the root, ek referring to the place from whence a thing comes, i.e. the motivation for the act; and porneuo which refers to any type of unlawful lust, sexual or otherwise.
Thayer's Lexicon indicates it is a lust in which one Gluts themselves, adding for one to "Go a-whoreing" (Searching for hookers)
Not all lust is sexual of course, The word is also often used in scripture for the act of idolatry, the lustful passions invoked in Pagan rites (as Strong's Greek Dictionary, entry 4203, confirms). This would include the lusts that comes from mistrust and the refusal to show hospitality based thereon, as was the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. Jews are strictly required by the the Torah to show hospitality to strangers. (see above) Failure to do so would be infidelity to God's Law, habitually failing to do so would be spiritual whoring since throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the command is that the Hebrews are not to "follow the ways of the nations." The refusal of the people of Sodom to show the biblically mandated hospitality to the visiting "strangers" arose from - "ek" - their lustful fear of strangers.
That this understanding is correct is supported by Jesus of Nazareth, who clearly said the cities were destroyed due to their inhospitably to strangers Mark 6:11 and Matthew 10:14-15

Heteros Sarks quite simply means "Other Flesh" While some may argue that this could verily imply same sex copulation taken into context with Angels being refered to as "Other Flesh" it is an obvious referance to them.

[ty_ping]

angel_magic2007

IceDust3

True..you've got me there...but some laws dont apply to todays world. So here is the questions how does one decide what laws to follow and which ones not to?

The old laws set up by Moses was outsetted by Christ death on the cross. Jesus when preaching marriage and divorce never talked about homosexual marriage. Hebrews 13:4 says very clearly that sexual immorality is wrong ande is punishable by God. Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage should be homored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge tghe adulterer and all the sexually immoral."

Anyone else find it ironic that one one had she says the Torah is no longer valid due to Jesus, and then turns around and quotes from the Torah as her justification against homosexuality?