Symbolina said:

Just because you don't want to talk about the other sins in those cities does not negate the fact that homosexuality wasn't the reason those cities went up in flames. Why haven't each major city in the world burst into flames? San Francisco should be at the bottom of the ocean right about now shouldn't it. And while you're praising your scriptures and using them to support your desire to keep gay American men and women from what is rightfully there's as citizens, please read the following about the inhabitants of said cities:



Please explain why it's wrong for us to have sex with another man but OK for a father to offer up his daughters to be raped.

Supa, you know you won't get a proper answer. Religious dogma and logic are pretty mutually exclusive...

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:[quote]

Symbolina said:

I'll try and reply to the "rape" question only....

Well, from the previous verse we see they were all men that arrived at lots house. (Every man in Sodom). And they wanted the angels (men) that were inside.
If these men were all gay, then they weren't attracted to girls and Lot knew his daughters would have been safe from rape.

After all, they lived in the city and hadn't been assaulted yet.

Just speculating with the evidence at hand, not saying I'm right.

Symbolina said:

See that's the problem with "the bible", even Christians can't get their story straight.

I'm looking at a King James Version right at this very moment.
I’m looking at Symbolina’s reference: Corinthians 6:9–10

It DOESN’T say anything about homosexuals.

I’ll quote it for you:
“9 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,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

And Eternaldragon….come on

Quoting Matthew 19:4 --that's like sealing your own fate.

Not only does Matthew 19 compare divorce to adultery, but gives indication that wealth will prevent you from entering heaven.

I don’t know anything about you…so this isn’t personal. But doesn’t that send a lot of Christians to hell?

(sarcasm)
Hey…while were at it, lets come up with some archaic passages to support slavery!
(/sarcasm)

Eternaldragon said:

Nice try.

Certainly Lot was much smarter than to make a lame offer he knew would never be taken up right? And if Soddom/Gomorrah were gay meccas why would Lot's wife turn back to look at the destruction? She certainly wasn't gay was she?

Soddom and Gomorrah had gay populations, but the sin in those cities went beyond simple lust. That is why God destroyed the city, gay and straight alike were wicked.

.
[Edited 2/25/05 9:55am]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:[quote]

Symbolina said:

exactly

Symbolina said:

Well, whatever you do, don't tell him how you feel, because there will be "hair" to pay.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

DuckPurple said:

Let's get some things straight here. The Bible teaches that the ONLY thing that will keep you on the path to hell is REJECTING JESUS CHRIST. Every human being has the sin nature in them and will continue to sin in some fashion.

Sin sending you to hell is just an invented humanistic notion.

Staying away from sin as much as you can is a good thing. Jesus said a rich man can hardly get into heaven because he is so attached to his riches that he won't let them go. The rich man in that passage gave no indication that he was a Christian yet but he wanted to be. Yet he would not give up his wealth for God.

Now how did this post get to talking about salvation and heaven?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Lot didn't ever come across as very smart in the Bible. But neither of us can accruately determine that point. It is thought that Lots wife looked back because she liked the sin and wanted to go back. Maybe she liked to watch? LOL.

That was just my take on it. I never said those cities were gay meccas and the only thing the Bible says is they were unrighteous. Ungodly. I think elements of both our statements are probably true.

Getting back to the show, yes it was messed up. I am sure neither of those families represent all those types of families. All families are different. The Christian woman was judging which is wrong.

Eternaldragon said:

Umm....bull
Ever hear of a mortal sin? Maybe you are not Roman Catholic?
Baptism?
Communion?

The Catholic Church absolutely believes in hell.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

What if you don’t accept Christ as your personal Savior? Do you get salvation? Not by some interpretation.

Maybe you only believe the bible the way you want to interpret it?
Typical....

Eternaldragon said:

I noticed the word "hardly"
Did you see I used the word "indication"?

"...because he is so attached to his riches that we won't let them go."
Where did you get that last part...it doesn't appear in the book I'm looking at anywhere? Personal Interpretation again?

DuckPurple said:

Sorry. I meant that someone saying if you sin, like stealing or something, that sends you to hell. Or saying if your gay, that sends you to hell. It doesn't. Everyone born is destined for hell already. That's what the Bible teaches. I do believe in a literal hell and that accepting Christ is the only thing that will save a person. Just like the Bible says.

Eternaldragon said:

Mark 10:22 "And he was sad at the saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

If you read that and the rest, the guy didn't want to do that. Did he say "Sure, o.k.!". No, he didn't. If you read just a bit further, you will see that Jesus says in Mark 10:24 "...how hard is it for them that TRUST in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" Notice the word TRUST...in riches. As opposed to TRUST in God.

I am really getting tired of reading the Bible for folks.....

DuckPurple said:

Oh, I'm sorry. Does your translation say that he was glad and gave his riches away and followed Jesus? Or does it say he went away sad. Just curious.