Condemning men for what one conceives to be wickedness is a most unloving act. What does G-d need your help for?

I brought up this one rabbi again and again because it always takes Lula some time to acknowledge new information (although I have no doubt that the next time this comes up somewhere she will have forgotten everything about him again).

You know as well as I do that G-d had already decided to destroy the city before the angels even entered Lot's house. I therefor believe that it takes a very rough interpretation of events to argue that the actions of the city men towards the angels were related to sex AND were the reason for a decision G-d had already made.

In fact I know of no rabbi or ancient Jewish script who ever made that same mistake.

Yes, the story of Sodom and Gamora.

"As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom; She and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:46-50, G-d speaking to Jerusalem

Regarding Sodom and Gamora the Bible mentions in detail what the people of those cities did wrong, it mentions many things, but it doesn't mention homosexuality.

Josephus wrote that "the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance".

The attributes of Sodom (what makes one a "Sodomite") are mentioned in the Talmud. They were inhospitality, arrogance, pride, and disdain for the poor. This is not a new view, even if you insist that it is. It's a view that was held by the rabbis of the middle ages, by the Talmudists, and by the prophets before them.

The other, non-literal, reading, however, seems to be newer. Can you show me a text that refers to homosexuality as the reason for Sodom and Gamora's demise that is older than Ezekiel or the Talmud?

zubaz posts:

leauki posts:

Zubaz,

Leauki makes a great point. So, if you will, please bear with us on this. And who knows, you and other readers might find it interesting.

LULA POSTS:

Leauki posts:

Well, yes, but not me personally, it's only the Catholic Church who is authorized to interpret Sacred Scripture and I'll get back to this later.

Sacred Scripture is God's written word and since God is not a God of confusion, there can be only one correct sense of it's meaning otherwise we'd have total confusion as to its meaning.

Anyone can interpret Sacred Scripture and they may get it right and they might not...and that's the rub. Have 10 people interprete and you'll have 10 different interpretations and then 10 different doctrines based on that person's interpretation. Happens all the time in Protestantism and that's why there are thousands of churches all based on someones's private interpretation.  Started with Luther's private interpretation and hasn't stopped since.

Certainly Sacred Scripture contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear and Scripture itself states that it needs an interpreter. We read in St. Paul's epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort), as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

In Acts, we read an account of the deacon, St.Philip and the Ethopian eunuch. Philip approaches the Ethopian and learns that he's reading from the prophet Isaias and asks him a question. "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" And the Ethopian answers, "How can I, unless some man show me?" St.Philip was commissioned by the APostles 6:6, who preached the Gospel with authority 8: 4-8. the point being verifies the fact that Scripture isn't sufficient in itself and people who read it do need an authority to insturct them properly to understand what it means.  

 God is the Author of Scripture and as to its difficult "things hard to be understood", He certainly knew that the changing mentalities of subsequent generations would lead to confusion. To obviate the danger He could do one of 2 things....He could stablize human reason and prevent each one from mistaking the true and original sense or else He could establish certain men to teach in His name and finally, if necessary, establish an infallible tribunal in which men could consult under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. He chose the latter.

St.Paul distinguishes between the letter and the spirit of Scripture. By the letter, he meant the Old Testament as understood by the Jews prior to the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ. Whereas, Spirit meant Scripture as understood in the light of faith in Jesus Christ of which is grounded on Apostolic Tradition.

So, when it comes to interpretating Sacred Scripture, we find it's not a question of human opinions. It's a question of God's teaching and neither your interpretation nor mine has any value if it contradicts that.

I have beliefs and faith and even organized religion . .  but I live in the mortal world, not one made of gods and spirits. And I was hoping for more than "God said; I believe it; that settles it."

It's been interesting to watch.  But I can't accept it as a way to govern.

In the end, for me, an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god that leaves his most holy book up for interpretation and allows a world counter to his teachings to exist for his own unknown purposes  . . . strikes me as wrong on a level I can't get past.

I'm a father.  I have daughters.  I think of Jehovah as a super-duper me; better in every way; by an infinite amount. 

As much as I love my daughters and wife he would love me and you and everyone more than I can imagine.

As much as I would protect my girls, he would do it more.

Any yet . .  . here we are.  Free will.

Homosexuals exist because God allows it.  And if God allows it, it's because God wants it.

Same with murder and hunger and disease.

So, I'll pray as if it's up to God.  But I'll live my life as if it's up to me.

And I'll choose to support gay rights.  Because I believe it's the right thing to do.

God.  He can judge me later if he wants.  Until then, I'll follow his son's tenets as best I can.

Today, that means loving my neighbor.  And I have gay neighbors.  Who love other gays.  And who, after a lifetime of being together get nothing.

No, everyone is.

If G-d had wanted to authorise only specific people in Rome to interpret Jewish scripture, He wouldn't have made His word scripture and He wouldn't have made it Jewish.

And it would be Latin, not Hebrew; and it would have been revealed to the Pontifex Maxiumus in Rome, not a shepherd in Sinai.

ZUBAZ POSTS:

Zubaz,

First, just to be clear.....Marriage and the absurd idea to redefine it according to the homosexualist image isn't a government program!

Government should indeed be involved in marraige and has a stake in promoting it becasue marriage and family are the indispensable building blocks of society.  Remember government is only good when it works for the common good of all. Government gives special benefits becasue marraige involves children..inheritance rights, tax relief, insurance policies, etc. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose..to build stable families which is best done with a mom and a dad.  

There is no obligation for government to give the same benefits to every type of coupling and rightly so.

Homosexuals are willing to deprive children of either a mom or a dad and use them to equate sodomy with marital sex.     

This is quite profound.

Yes, it's true God allows all of the above because He gave us intellect, reason, and free will to obey Him and His laws or not.  You are wrong though in saying that God wants homosexualiy and murder becasue He gave His commandments which are still in effect today which forbid both.

Leauki posts:

People who will not accept the Catholic Church as the official interpreter of Sacred Scripture, and who insist on puzzling out the orginal sense for themselves have only themselves to blame if they end in skepticism. If the government establishes an inquiry offfice as a guide to the city and a complete stranger refuses to use its services, he is to blame if he gets lost.

Good song.

KFC POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

from Lula's post #77

And besides those abominations referenced by Ezekiel according to 1Kings 15:12, 22:47 and 2Kings 23:7, under Canaanite influence, this same abominable practice was introduced in Isreal. Even the Holy Temple had rooms where the hieroduels (ritual male and female prostitutes) carried out their rites.

Leauki you persist, but neither using Ezekiel 16:49-50 nor Rabbi's Nachmanides interpretation of it makes your case for the Sodomite sin being inhospitality.

You fail to consider that one sin is usually related to others, as either cause or consequence which putting Genesis with Ezekiel explains well. The Sodomites sinned by despising and lack of mercy to the poor and needy, practicing self indulgence, and falling into sexual immorality.  

Anything faith based has nothing to do with fact nor with logic. One cannot reason about faith...that's why it's called 'faith/belief' and not 'proven fact'.

That has nothing to do with logic. That you "can't get past it" does not mean it is not correct.

G-d is nothing like man, infinitely improved or not. "Ani asher ehiyeh" or the way it's tranlated to English is "I am that I am" not "I am the infinite you". The anthropomorphising of G-d into something man can understand while human and understandable as such, is essentially wrong as it denies the incomprehensible nature of G-d.

G-d has nothing to do with any of that. Man does. What G-d wants or not isn't our purveyance. Also, that is invalid logic.

"Thou shalt not murder" does not mean "G-d doesn't want you to murder". It means "You shall not murder." Period. It is a subtle difference but a real one. It is a commandment not a request nor an explanation as to why. It's a "just do it, period".

This is interesting. True prayer is not making a deal with G-d, nor asking G-d for something. It is an act in praise of G-d for our own sake. G-d does not need our prayers, we do.

"But I'll live my life as if it's up to me." In fact it is:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won."

Mahatma Gandhi

I was 8 years old when I first read that story, I didn't know that homosexuality existed until I was 13. So, no... the moral of "rape is bad" seems to fit. Also that is what I got from the story of amnon and tamar.

And as an atheist I see homosexuality as a reproductive disorder (it prevents it). So its not like I am trying to "further the gay agenda" here.

I just consider rape to much a much more serious issue than "ickky" and unnatural consentual sex. Specifically, the rape one is a horrible thing that should be punished, the gay thing is not a crime and should be at most pitied, and never persecuted for it.

Your suggestion that anyone who dares suggest that rape is a more serious offense than homosexuality is a "modern homosexualist, hedonist" furthering the gay agenda would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening...

PS. Hedonism is a school of philosophy which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance and is the most important pursuit of humanity.

I don't know what closet you are in lula, but homosexuality isn't hedonism for me, it holds not "secret pleasures" to a comfortable hetrosexual...

HOWEVER, It is tiresome when everyone always accuses gay bashers of being in the closet... I am just gonna chulk this one up to you being ignorant of the definition of hedonism. And not the externalization of what you beleive is satan temping you with cock.

Whoops...for some reason my last paragraph didn't make it.

To answer the question in the OP, absolutely agree it'll take Federal action (and I support the suit as well).

The major problem (besides prejudice) revolves I beleve, around the point that should one State pass a resolution into law that marriage between homosexual couples is recognized equally with heterosexual marriage, all States must recognize the couple as married...it's a point in Constitutional Law...but should some or any of the 50 deny that, then there is a Constitutional crisis.

To prevent that, passing a Federal statute would, I believe enforce that recognition. I could well be wrong. To me, refusing a Federal Law on a State level smacks of sedition and would invite an "Old Miss" type action. Maybe not...after all, "Sanctuary Cities" exist where Federal law is breeched with impunity (NOT to start that topic).

I must have missed the eleventh commandmant "thau shalt not fornicate with a fellow man"

Leauki:

Busted!  You underestimate me.  As I've told you already,  I've got a vast library that spans the generations.  So I pulled down Josephus from my shelf and read this from "Antiquities of the Jews." 

"Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodgings in his house and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed he wold expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers-neither thus were they made ashamed." 

So here you go from the 1st Century from Josephes showing you quite clearly it's not new and it's quite literal.  I don't know why you keep saying I'm not being literal.  I'm reading this in the most literal sense and not using any sort of symbolic language at all.   So now I'm starting to wonder if maybe your Jewish Rabbi of the 13 Century didn't have more to say about this than you're willing to show us?  What you gave me from Josephus is very subjective on your part. 

Also, here's another example  written before Josephus thus older than both him and the Talmud.   Jude wrote somewhere around 70-90 AD and said this about Sodom:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication (hetero sex) and going after strange flesh (homo sex) are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." 

The whole reason Sodom was destroyed was for an example to the other surrounding nations and the reason why God included Abraham in his plan (Gen 18) in the first place. 

The thing that is most interesting in this section Leauki (did you notice?) is the fact that there are some things that are worse than homosexuality and other sexual deviant behavior according to God because he said Sodom and Samaria's sins were not nearly as bad as Jerusalem's were.   But did you not notice the "abominable things" mentioned here?  What is that? 

See what you're seeing is a progression of sin.  First comes riches, excesses and then follows pride and selfishness that gives way to doing whatever it is they want to do because they feel there is nothing to stop them.  The money and the power has given them a reprobate mind so naturally they follow this to the extreme with all sorts of abomination. 

This is seen everyday in our world around us.  Our examples are the movie stars, politicians and the elite of our culture.  It's no wonder we are where we are right now.  In our country today even the poor are rich in comparison to the poor of yesteryear.  We have been increasingly coming to this point for years now and this is the last straw and  our nation will be judged and found wanting. 

Zubaz

He will.  Ok, let's start with the following statement you made and see if you really mean what you say about following his son. 

Jesus said that we "are to be in the world but NOT of the world."   He also said that he would send the Holy Spirit as our comfortor to guide us in our time here on earth. 

It sounds like by your comment that you are quite comfortable in this mortal world and have set up shop.  For Christians who are to follow Christ, we are not to look upon this mortal world as our home.  We are just passing through.  Our home is not here.  He said he was going to prepare a place for us and will return to take us to his home (like a Jewish wedding). 

He didn't leave it for interpretation.  It has only one interpretation but many applications.  All thru this "holy book" you mention are exhortations to read it, meditate on it, study it and test it.  Are you doing that?  There are also many warnings about those from the outside who want nothing but to distort, destroy and discourage us from understanding this book by throwing in all sorts of obstacles and false teachings to sway us and confuse us.   So if it seems wrong from your perspective you're listening to much to the "mortal world" and not God himself who left this book here to reveal himself to us.  One day we will be asked, "what did you do with my word I left you?"    God is all about order but the world is all about chaos and confusion. 

God allows it to happen that is true but it's not God's desired will.  Once sin entered the world the rest followed.  In the beginning all was good.  Once the pandora's box was opened God allowed it to stay open.  My understanding of the scriptures is that there's a reason behind the whole thing.  There's a definite plan going on including the sin of homosexuality and our participating in it is not a good thing.   You can show love to your neighbors in many ways without accepting their lifestyle.  I believe we should embrace homosexuals like we would anyone else in society but that does not mean we are to accept a lifestyle that God has time and time again told us not to engage in nor accept as an alternative.  It's an outright sin against God just as adultery or any other sexual sin.  So when we encourage them in this way, we are in effect not loving them at all.

Yes, you have a correct understanding of the agape love of God.  I recently heard of a family whose 21 year old daughter died.  Instead of anger and resentment towards God they had nothing but blessing and thankfulness towards God for allowing them to have this precious girl for 21 years.  They had the correct and proper understanding that our children are not ours but God's and that he appointed us managers of them.  Someday we will be held accountable for how we took care of this precious treasure.  Did we bring our children to him?  Or did we sacrifice them to the gods of the world? 

Sorry.  Can't do it.  Can't go along with "all the mess is someone else's fault" when he/she/it created it all.  And either there's a plan and all this is part of it and he's a jerk or he kick started everything and walked away.

I'm like Fox Moulder from the X-Files.  I want to believe.  I want to have faith.  But if I have teh right idea about God's love compared to my daughters . . then he would stop that which is hateful to him to the same degree I would with my kids.  Without him acting in some way like that . . what is there to believe in or have faith in?

God as described in the christian bible is a sadistic prick with the emotional development of a 4 year old.

Must have missed the response to 135 and 137 somewhere.

Again, G-d being anthropomorphized. Love between humans is that. I wouldn't speculate re: G-d's love or not. Again you think that G-d "stands" aroung like some type of referee preventing and protecting, when more than ample empiric evidence  points out the fallacy in that.

Faith is simply that. Faith. It is not dependent on stopping or starting anything. If you need rainbows in the sky and all sorts of "actions"/"preventions" etc., then you're not really talking about faith, are you?

I think "busted" was when I reminded you that G-d had decided to destroy Sodom and Gamora BEFORE the event with the angels and that hence the event you cited had nothing to do with that decision.

I used Josephus as an example for another scholar who agreed that Sodom and Gamora were destroyed because of inhospitality. What he interprets into the word "to know" is quite immaterial. As Taltamir has explained rape is immoral. There is no requirement for the rape to be of a homosexual nature to be immoral.

Can you tell me why raping angels (and I still don't believe that that is what they wanted to do, Josephus had a dirty mind) is a "homosexual" act? Angels do not have a defined sex, surely.

If you want a compromise, I will admit that trying to rape angels is wicked. (I would go as far as saying that it is inhospitable.)

So the Bible simply TELLING us directly that it was is not enough? And you still wonder why I don't think of you as a literalist?

It needs faith to believe that these things happened to the patriarchs.

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Lev. 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Lev. 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Lev. 11:12)
"And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard." (Lev. 11:13)
"All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." (Lev. 11:20)
"Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth, these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination." (Lev. 11:42)

And the inference that can be taken from all of the above passages is that if you eat any of those items then you too can be regarded as an abomination.

Not to mention some other things that are regarded as abominations in Deuteronomy:

In Duet. 24:4 remarrying your wife after she has remarried with someone in between is an abomination.  In Duet. 22:5 it is an abomination for a man to wear woman's clothing and vice versa which includes a woman wearing pants at all (Hillary Clinton is a major violator of this one).

But did you choose who you fell in love with?  I know I didn't, it hit me like a ton of bricks.  Why should someone not be allowed to make a lifelong commitment to another just because they happen to share the same equipment?  I'm not asking for any church to be bound to accept the union, just for the law to recognize it.

That is a matter of parenting.  If you don't want your kids to do something then don't let them or council them that you think it's wrong.  Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed for others.  Remember I'm not asking you to accept these unions as marriages merely that they are entitled to the same legal rights as a married couple (ie taxes, estate transfer, medical proxy, etc).

If you actually believe this crap there is no hope to argue with you.

Very well said.  Government should be secular in nature, that's what our founders wanted and that is what we should continue doing.

Exactly.  Why should religion have any bearing on government?  If you or anyone else happens to be a member of a religion that doesn't accept homosexualtiy that's fine but that shouldn't bar homosexuals from being able to join in civil unions, it just means they can't get married in your religious institution.

That legislature is elected by the people, I assume. Hence people's opinions matter. My opinion is certainly shaped by my religious beliefs (and vice versa).

So why exactly is my opinion worth less than yours just because it happens to be based on a religion?

To be honest, I don't know what homosexuals do for sex. As far as I know there are only two groups of people who know a lot about it: homosexuals and those fanatically interested in homosexual behaviour and practices.

Incidentally, I don't eat seafood that doesn't have fins and scales. I don't eat shellfish or birds of prey or insects. (You will find that certain land animals are also "abominations" and must not be eaten.) Again, this is for Jews only.