Anti-Semitism In France!

[lisah25 3]

And it is accurate. Taken in context, it can mean nothing else by homosexuality, which is what Sodom was known for. In the very next verse it speaks about them "defileing the flesh"! Beastility is not even something to consider because it is never ever mentioned in connection with Sodom. I suspect you picked that up from someone elses post.

You asked previously what I meant about picking and choosing verses to believe and changing or not believing verses that were inconvenieve with you opinions. This is exactly what I meant. The meaning of the verse is clear and obvious, and you want to change it's intent and meaning to support your opinion.

Ah, but where is homosexuality mentioned in connection with Sodom? It talks about sin and sexual perversion, I don't see a list anywhere of what specific acts that covers.

[wavydaby 1]

Mine says : "Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

So, when are we going to start jailing those people who have premarital sex? Where are those laws?

Unnatural vice could mean anything not in the marriage bed.

You can not pick and chose what laws you want to have.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Because you are talking about laws that would prohibit you from worshiping God as you see fit, and that never was the issue. My question was how would Jesus and the other Fathers of the Church vote on an issue that would sanction and condon an abomination?? You said you would abstain. Do you think they would do the same? Or, would they, as they always did, take a stand against sin and unrighteousness whenever they cam across it??

But I am not missing the point. You asked specifically how I thought our predecessors or Jesus would vote and I answered that question and why. How did I miss the point?

[ousooner 1]

Because you are talking about laws that would prohibit you from worshiping God as you see fit, and that never was the issue. My question was how would Jesus and the other Fathers of the Church vote on an issue that would sanction and condon an abomination?? You said you would abstain. Do you think they would do the same? Or, would they, as they always did, take a stand against sin and unrighteousness whenever they cam across it??

I guess you didn't read my post. Let me copy and paste it here:

["honestly believe (and you can call me a sell-out, that I comprimise my faith, etc, etc, etc) But I beleive they would not interfer as long as it did not put restriction on following their faith. ... Again we go back to God giving us free will. The early Christians , to the best of my knowledge, did not try to get Ceasar to change the laws to make the Roman empire a Christian nation. They only wanted to be allowed to worship as they wanted."

I beleive that is a direct answer to the question you asked me. Is it not?

[wavydaby 1]

And also, God's first commandment is not to have anyother Gods before me.

I think we would have to start banning other religions.

If you are going to take things to the deep end I will too (ie, your posting that if we allow same sex marriages, that it would end in man-dog marriages)

[Ron Cusano 0]

Premartial sex is sinful, but it is not an act against nature is it? Sodom was known for it's homosexuality witch is an "unnatural act or vice", if you want to use that terminology"! You can say anything can mean anything, but you need to look at the context of how it is used to understand it's meaning.

For example, if I said "We celebrated the holiday on December 25th with presents around the tree". Hey, the holiday could mean Easter or Ground Hog Day because both are holidays. But in the proper context of how holiday is used in that sentence, it is describing a specific holiday that is celebrated with a tree and presents, therefore Christmas is to be understood from that context.

Mine says : "Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

So, when are we going to start jailing those people who have premarital sex? Where are those laws?

Unnatural vice could mean anything not in the marriage bed.

You can not pick and chose what laws you want to have.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I did read it wrong and I apoligize, but I strongly disagree with your answer. I believe that they would take a stand against this abomination in no uncertain terms, in much the same way Jesus did with the moneychangers in the Temple.

I guess you didn't read my post. Let me copy and paste it here:

["honestly believe (and you can call me a sell-out, that I comprimise my faith, etc, etc, etc) But I beleive they would not interfer as long as it did not put restriction on following their faith. ... Again we go back to God giving us free will. The early Christians , to the best of my knowledge, did not try to get Ceasar to change the laws to make the Roman empire a Christian nation. They only wanted to be allowed to worship as they wanted."

I beleive that is a direct answer to the question you asked me. Is it not?

[wavydaby 1]

It may not be a "crime against nature", but its obviously a crime against God.

I do understand the context. That they are referring to Lot's plight when the townsfolk demanded that the "strangers" he was housing, be released to them so they could be intimate with them.

The passage is still referring to promiscuity. in the same line... with the same disdain.

"indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice"

Again, I say, you can not PICK AND CHOOSE laws you want to see created.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Suit yourself!

It may not be a "crime against nature", but its obviously a crime against God.

I do understand the context. That they are referring to Lot's plight when the townsfolk demanded that the "strangers" he was housing, be released to them so they could be intimate with them.

The passage is still referring to promiscuity. in the same line... with the same disdain.

"indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice"

Again, I say, you can not PICK AND CHOOSE laws you want to see created.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Just for the record, the terminology in the verse that you quoted said "unnatural vice"! Homosexuality is unnatural which premartial sex is not "unnatural" or against nature. If you want to take something out of context and give it an alternative meaning, against what is obvious, knock yourself out.

Suit yourself!

[wavydaby 1]

Suit yourself?

Is that all you can say on that?

That you prefer to pick and choose what you wish to see in our laws?

What do you mean suit yourself?

That you can not come up with a legitimate answer to my question on why you wish to pick and choose?

You can not have it both ways.

We can not live in a society that picks and chooses it laws based on some ones interpretation on what God things is worse.

I think that God doesnt like ANY sin. Not just the ones YOU think are worse than others.

[wavydaby 1]

Just for the record, the terminology in the verse that you quoted said "unnatural vice"! Homosexuality is unnatural which premartial sex is not "unnatural" or against nature. If you want to take something out of context and give it an alternative meaning, against what is obvious, knock yourself out.

I take great offence that you say I am taking anything out of context.

I agree that you can infer homosexuality out of this reference.

Premarital sex is still AGAINST GOD's Law

So, I am going to take something out of context in your post,

Are you now defending premarital sex now?

Or is it that you dont want to see laws against premarital sex??

What pray tell EXACTLY am I taking out of context??

[Ron Cusano 0]

I didn't see a question there or I would have answered you. I don't care to pick or choose laws, I will just not support laws that I consider to be wrong or against my faith. You see that as a problem??

If you want to take things out of context and make your own interpretation, as I said, suit yourself. You either believe the Bible or you don't.

Suit yourself?

Is that all you can say on that?

That you prefer to pick and choose what you wish to see in our laws?

What do you mean suit yourself?

That you can not come up with a legitimate answer to my question on why you wish to pick and choose?

You can not have it both ways.

We can not live in a society that picks and chooses it laws based on some ones interpretation on what God things is worse.

I think that God doesnt like ANY sin. Not just the ones YOU think are worse than others.

[Ron Cusano 0]

The fact the the verse was speaking about Sodom and homosexuality and not about premartial sex. Of course premartial sex is a sin and against God's Law, but that is not what is being discussed in this verse. That is what you are taking out of context.

I take great offence that you say I am taking anything out of context.

I agree that you can infer homosexuality out of this reference.

Premarital sex is still AGAINST GOD's Law

So, I am going to take something out of context in your post,

Are you now defending premarital sex now?

Or is it that you dont want to see laws against premarital sex??

What pray tell EXACTLY am I taking out of context??

[ousooner 1]

If you want to take things out of context and make your own interpretation, as I said, suit yourself. You either believe the Bible or you don't.

What your really saying is "Either believe in Ron's interpretation of the Bible or your not a good Christian. "