"John Fraser"  wrote in message 
news:47fe93ec$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
> Good evening Willy;
>
> "Willy"  wrote in message 
> news:h5fLj.2466$%41.1611@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
>> news:47fcf6c9$0$4047$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>> Good afternoon Willy;
>>>
>>> "Willy"  wrote in message
>>> news:Li4Lj.547$FF6.462@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>> news:47fc1950$0$4037$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>> Good evening Tim;
>>>>>
>>>>> "- .. -- Tim .-."  wrote in message
>>>>> news:ENidnRMSTZE4OWbanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:47fb5f9c$0$4048$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>> Good morning Jeff;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"  wrote 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> message news:o9FKj.44906$5i5.8371@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:47f8d102$0$4075$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>>> but why was it so important for the crowd to want to anally 
>>>>>>>>> violate
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> visitors?  What purpose would be served to treat strangers in such 
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> manner other than to ensure they never returned?  Would it be a
>>>>>>>>> hatred
>>>>>>>>> against Lot, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Being Homo'Sodomites, they just loved perverted sex.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their 
>>>>>>>> neighboring
>>>>>>>> towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for 
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a 
>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished. " Jude 1:7
>>>>>>>> (TLB)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I know, but I was hoping Willy or someone would provide a
>>>>>>> satisfactory
>>>>>>> defence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two aspects to the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, and 
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> these aspects are referred to in the New Testament.  Those two 
>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>> are: (1) refusal to show hospitality, and (2) lust.  Some people 
>>>>>> argue
>>>>>> that only one or other of these was the subject, but in fact 
>>>>>> scripture
>>>>>> refers to *both* aspects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the operative word of aspect No.2 is *lust*.  Love didn't 
>>>>>> come
>>>>>> into it.  It was a combination of deliberate mistreatment of the
>>>>>> stranger
>>>>>> within their gates (when the protocol of the time *required* they be
>>>>>> offered hospitality and protection), and at least a degree of sexual
>>>>>> gratification. But three things are relevant also. (1) ALL the men of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> city were involved, most of whom would have been naturally of
>>>>>> heterosexual
>>>>>> orientation, (2) This is about attempted gang homosexual rape, in 
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> deliberately mistreat the men by degrading and abusing them (3) No 
>>>>>> love
>>>>>> was involved, only lust and dekiberate abuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus it is fair to say that this passage is not very relevant when
>>>>>> considering issues of love and attraction between people of the same 
>>>>>> sex
>>>>>> and of same-sex orientation.  Scripture ALWAYS condemns *lust*, it 
>>>>>> NEVER
>>>>>> condemns *love*, so we should, to be fair, note that all instances in
>>>>>> scripture of *love* between people of the same gender are very 
>>>>>> positive.
>>>>>> Lust and some sexual acts are spoken against, but not love, of any 
>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>> [Cross-postings left in as I don't know who else is following this
>>>>>> thread]
>>>>>
>>>>>    I agree that the group who presented themselves at the door of Lot
>>>>> were only a small fraction of the number of the townsfolk, and they
>>>>> certainly did not have the best of intentions toward Lot's guests.  It
>>>>> seems that both cities were renown for same-sex relationships.  The 
>>>>> issue
>>>>> is not whether they occurred, but why they occurred.  That particular
>>>>> passage and the passage Jeff quoted deals specifically with same-sex
>>>>> relationships.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I'm not saying this to be harsh or demeaning.  I appreciate some 
>>>>> men
>>>>> have feminine natures while some women display male natures with both
>>>>> groups displaying behaviour counter to the norm.  Well, whatever the 
>>>>> norm
>>>>> is.  So, what's normal, male-female?  Or, is it what's normal for me 
>>>>> may
>>>>> be foreign to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Biblically, normal is what God intended for mates: male-female. 
>>>>> Those
>>>>> who were representative of Sodom did not care for women, period. 
>>>>> Their
>>>>> natural sexual preference was strictly for other men.  Not only did 
>>>>> the
>>>>> men prefer it, but they exalted in it.  As this was not intended, how
>>>>> could God bless such a relationship?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I can agree with you for this reason.  The "mob" was a 
>>>> group
>>>> of testosterone driven men with hardly the majority being homosexual.
>>>> This verse has little if anything to do with homosexuality, and 
>>>> everything
>>>> to do with their desire to rape and therefore injure and humiliate the
>>>> guests.  To rape a male was the ultimate violation.  It had nothing to 
>>>> do
>>>> with love, nor even lust per se, rather all about doing an act that,
>>>> within their society (harming a households guests) was considered a
>>>> terrible and defiling act.
>>>>
>>>> Willy
>>>
>>>    True, for that one instance.  But, I suspect it was an example which 
>>> gave a truer portrayal of the inhabitat's general attitude.  The cities 
>>> weren't destroyed because of a few bad apples; they were destroyed 
>>> because of rampant sin of which I'm sure homosexual rape was only one of 
>>> a larger set of problems.  But, it's mention in several places in 
>>> Scripture likely signified a rampant problem and not a random act.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> We agree.  But with that said, we often are lead to believe that the 
>> "sin" that  caused the destruction of S&G was purely sexual in nature, 
>> and I think this was hardly the case.
>>
>> Willy
>
>    You're quite right.  It was only a symptom of a more serious problem.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>

Absolutely, and as much and as often as the literalists of our day love to 
totally misquote scripture (as though from God's lips to mans ears).... 
they are doing so with no understanding of the context or intent.

Blessings,

Willy

"Willy"  wrote in message 
news:jdqQj.22419$%41.3584@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
> news:47fe93ec$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>> Good evening Willy;
>>
>> "Willy"  wrote in message 
>> news:h5fLj.2466$%41.1611@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> We agree.  But with that said, we often are lead to believe that the 
>>> "sin" that  caused the destruction of S&G was purely sexual in nature, 
>>> and I think this was hardly the case.

Of  course it wasn't purely to do with the 'Abomination' of Sodomy sex, 
"mankind lying with mankind" but it was still a great part of it.
"13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them 
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their 
blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is 
wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be 
no wickedness among you." Lev 20:13-14 (KJV)

They were no excuses from God for obscure 'genes', He demanded the death of 
all who committed such abominable acts of depravity. And God knows all 
things from beginning to the end, His wisdom cannot be measured by the puny 
ideas of 21st century homophiles.

>>    You're quite right.  It was only a symptom of a more serious problem.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John
>>
>
> Absolutely, and as much and as often as the literalists of our day love to 
> totally misquote scripture (as though from God's lips to mans ears).... 
> they are doing so with no understanding of the context or intent.

"6 And I remind you of those angels who were once pure and holy but turned 
to a life of sin. Now God has them chained up in prisons of darkness, 
waiting for the judgment day. 7 And don't forget the cities of Sodom and 
Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, 
including lust of men for other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and 
continue to be a warning to us that there is a hell in which sinners are 
punished."
Jude 1:6-7 (TLB)

Good morning Willy;

"Willy"  wrote in message 
news:jdqQj.22419$%41.3584@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
> news:47fe93ec$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>> Good evening Willy;
>>
>> "Willy"  wrote in message 
>> news:h5fLj.2466$%41.1611@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
>>> news:47fcf6c9$0$4047$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>> Good afternoon Willy;
>>>>
>>>> "Willy"  wrote in message
>>>> news:Li4Lj.547$FF6.462@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:47fc1950$0$4037$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>> Good evening Tim;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "- .. -- Tim .-."  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ENidnRMSTZE4OWbanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:47fb5f9c$0$4048$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>> Good morning Jeff;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"  wrote 
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> message news:o9FKj.44906$5i5.8371@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:47f8d102$0$4075$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>>>> but why was it so important for the crowd to want to anally 
>>>>>>>>>> violate
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> visitors?  What purpose would be served to treat strangers in 
>>>>>>>>>> such a
>>>>>>>>>> manner other than to ensure they never returned?  Would it be a
>>>>>>>>>> hatred
>>>>>>>>>> against Lot, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Being Homo'Sodomites, they just loved perverted sex.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their 
>>>>>>>>> neighboring
>>>>>>>>> towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for 
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a 
>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished. " Jude 1:7
>>>>>>>>> (TLB)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I know, but I was hoping Willy or someone would provide a
>>>>>>>> satisfactory
>>>>>>>> defence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are two aspects to the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, and 
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>> these aspects are referred to in the New Testament.  Those two 
>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>> are: (1) refusal to show hospitality, and (2) lust.  Some people 
>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>> that only one or other of these was the subject, but in fact 
>>>>>>> scripture
>>>>>>> refers to *both* aspects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, the operative word of aspect No.2 is *lust*.  Love didn't 
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>> into it.  It was a combination of deliberate mistreatment of the
>>>>>>> stranger
>>>>>>> within their gates (when the protocol of the time *required* they be
>>>>>>> offered hospitality and protection), and at least a degree of sexual
>>>>>>> gratification. But three things are relevant also. (1) ALL the men 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> city were involved, most of whom would have been naturally of
>>>>>>> heterosexual
>>>>>>> orientation, (2) This is about attempted gang homosexual rape, in 
>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> deliberately mistreat the men by degrading and abusing them (3) No 
>>>>>>> love
>>>>>>> was involved, only lust and dekiberate abuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus it is fair to say that this passage is not very relevant when
>>>>>>> considering issues of love and attraction between people of the same 
>>>>>>> sex
>>>>>>> and of same-sex orientation.  Scripture ALWAYS condemns *lust*, it 
>>>>>>> NEVER
>>>>>>> condemns *love*, so we should, to be fair, note that all instances 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> scripture of *love* between people of the same gender are very 
>>>>>>> positive.
>>>>>>> Lust and some sexual acts are spoken against, but not love, of any 
>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>>> [Cross-postings left in as I don't know who else is following this
>>>>>>> thread]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I agree that the group who presented themselves at the door of Lot
>>>>>> were only a small fraction of the number of the townsfolk, and they
>>>>>> certainly did not have the best of intentions toward Lot's guests. 
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> seems that both cities were renown for same-sex relationships.  The 
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> is not whether they occurred, but why they occurred.  That particular
>>>>>> passage and the passage Jeff quoted deals specifically with same-sex
>>>>>> relationships.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I'm not saying this to be harsh or demeaning.  I appreciate some 
>>>>>> men
>>>>>> have feminine natures while some women display male natures with both
>>>>>> groups displaying behaviour counter to the norm.  Well, whatever the 
>>>>>> norm
>>>>>> is.  So, what's normal, male-female?  Or, is it what's normal for me 
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> be foreign to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Biblically, normal is what God intended for mates: male-female. 
>>>>>> Those
>>>>>> who were representative of Sodom did not care for women, period. 
>>>>>> Their
>>>>>> natural sexual preference was strictly for other men.  Not only did 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> men prefer it, but they exalted in it.  As this was not intended, how
>>>>>> could God bless such a relationship?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think I can agree with you for this reason.  The "mob" was a 
>>>>> group
>>>>> of testosterone driven men with hardly the majority being homosexual.
>>>>> This verse has little if anything to do with homosexuality, and 
>>>>> everything
>>>>> to do with their desire to rape and therefore injure and humiliate the
>>>>> guests.  To rape a male was the ultimate violation.  It had nothing to 
>>>>> do
>>>>> with love, nor even lust per se, rather all about doing an act that,
>>>>> within their society (harming a households guests) was considered a
>>>>> terrible and defiling act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Willy
>>>>
>>>>    True, for that one instance.  But, I suspect it was an example which 
>>>> gave a truer portrayal of the inhabitat's general attitude.  The cities 
>>>> weren't destroyed because of a few bad apples; they were destroyed 
>>>> because of rampant sin of which I'm sure homosexual rape was only one 
>>>> of a larger set of problems.  But, it's mention in several places in 
>>>> Scripture likely signified a rampant problem and not a random act.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>> We agree.  But with that said, we often are lead to believe that the 
>>> "sin" that  caused the destruction of S&G was purely sexual in nature, 
>>> and I think this was hardly the case.
>>>
>>> Willy
>>
>>    You're quite right.  It was only a symptom of a more serious problem.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John
>>
>
> Absolutely, and as much and as often as the literalists of our day love to 
> totally misquote scripture (as though from God's lips to mans ears).... 
> they are doing so with no understanding of the context or intent.
>
> Blessings,
>
> Willy

    The context of the story is the citizens of both cities preferred 
immorality and reveled in it.  They had no interest in the pursuit of decent 
morality.  The rampant sodomy was the last straw.  That is the context, 
period.  Why is that so difficult to accept?

Cheers,
John

"John Fraser"  wrote in message 
news:4812b559$0$4033$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
> Good morning Willy;
>
> "Willy"  wrote in message 
> news:jdqQj.22419$%41.3584@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
>> news:47fe93ec$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>> Good evening Willy;
>>>
>>> "Willy"  wrote in message 
>>> news:h5fLj.2466$%41.1611@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:47fcf6c9$0$4047$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>> Good afternoon Willy;
>>>>>
>>>>> "Willy"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:Li4Lj.547$FF6.462@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:47fc1950$0$4037$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>> Good evening Tim;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "- .. -- Tim .-."  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ENidnRMSTZE4OWbanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:47fb5f9c$0$4048$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>>> Good morning Jeff;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"  wrote 
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> message news:o9FKj.44906$5i5.8371@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:47f8d102$0$4075$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> but why was it so important for the crowd to want to anally 
>>>>>>>>>>> violate
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> visitors?  What purpose would be served to treat strangers in 
>>>>>>>>>>> such a
>>>>>>>>>>> manner other than to ensure they never returned?  Would it be a
>>>>>>>>>>> hatred
>>>>>>>>>>> against Lot, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Being Homo'Sodomites, they just loved perverted sex.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their 
>>>>>>>>>> neighboring
>>>>>>>>>> towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for 
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a 
>>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished. " Jude 1:7
>>>>>>>>>> (TLB)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    I know, but I was hoping Willy or someone would provide a
>>>>>>>>> satisfactory
>>>>>>>>> defence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are two aspects to the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, and 
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> these aspects are referred to in the New Testament.  Those two 
>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>> are: (1) refusal to show hospitality, and (2) lust.  Some people 
>>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>> that only one or other of these was the subject, but in fact 
>>>>>>>> scripture
>>>>>>>> refers to *both* aspects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the operative word of aspect No.2 is *lust*.  Love didn't 
>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>> into it.  It was a combination of deliberate mistreatment of the
>>>>>>>> stranger
>>>>>>>> within their gates (when the protocol of the time *required* they 
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> offered hospitality and protection), and at least a degree of 
>>>>>>>> sexual
>>>>>>>> gratification. But three things are relevant also. (1) ALL the men 
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> city were involved, most of whom would have been naturally of
>>>>>>>> heterosexual
>>>>>>>> orientation, (2) This is about attempted gang homosexual rape, in 
>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> deliberately mistreat the men by degrading and abusing them (3) No 
>>>>>>>> love
>>>>>>>> was involved, only lust and dekiberate abuse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus it is fair to say that this passage is not very relevant when
>>>>>>>> considering issues of love and attraction between people of the 
>>>>>>>> same sex
>>>>>>>> and of same-sex orientation.  Scripture ALWAYS condemns *lust*, it 
>>>>>>>> NEVER
>>>>>>>> condemns *love*, so we should, to be fair, note that all instances 
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> scripture of *love* between people of the same gender are very 
>>>>>>>> positive.
>>>>>>>> Lust and some sexual acts are spoken against, but not love, of any 
>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>>>> [Cross-postings left in as I don't know who else is following this
>>>>>>>> thread]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I agree that the group who presented themselves at the door of 
>>>>>>> Lot
>>>>>>> were only a small fraction of the number of the townsfolk, and they
>>>>>>> certainly did not have the best of intentions toward Lot's guests. 
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> seems that both cities were renown for same-sex relationships.  The 
>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>> is not whether they occurred, but why they occurred.  That 
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>> passage and the passage Jeff quoted deals specifically with same-sex
>>>>>>> relationships.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I'm not saying this to be harsh or demeaning.  I appreciate some 
>>>>>>> men
>>>>>>> have feminine natures while some women display male natures with 
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>> groups displaying behaviour counter to the norm.  Well, whatever the 
>>>>>>> norm
>>>>>>> is.  So, what's normal, male-female?  Or, is it what's normal for me 
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> be foreign to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Biblically, normal is what God intended for mates: male-female. 
>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>> who were representative of Sodom did not care for women, period. 
>>>>>>> Their
>>>>>>> natural sexual preference was strictly for other men.  Not only did 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> men prefer it, but they exalted in it.  As this was not intended, 
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> could God bless such a relationship?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think I can agree with you for this reason.  The "mob" was a 
>>>>>> group
>>>>>> of testosterone driven men with hardly the majority being homosexual.
>>>>>> This verse has little if anything to do with homosexuality, and 
>>>>>> everything
>>>>>> to do with their desire to rape and therefore injure and humiliate 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> guests.  To rape a male was the ultimate violation.  It had nothing 
>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> with love, nor even lust per se, rather all about doing an act that,
>>>>>> within their society (harming a households guests) was considered a
>>>>>> terrible and defiling act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Willy
>>>>>
>>>>>    True, for that one instance.  But, I suspect it was an example 
>>>>> which gave a truer portrayal of the inhabitat's general attitude.  The 
>>>>> cities weren't destroyed because of a few bad apples; they were 
>>>>> destroyed because of rampant sin of which I'm sure homosexual rape was 
>>>>> only one of a larger set of problems.  But, it's mention in several 
>>>>> places in Scripture likely signified a rampant problem and not a 
>>>>> random act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We agree.  But with that said, we often are lead to believe that the 
>>>> "sin" that  caused the destruction of S&G was purely sexual in nature, 
>>>> and I think this was hardly the case.
>>>>
>>>> Willy
>>>
>>>    You're quite right.  It was only a symptom of a more serious problem.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely, and as much and as often as the literalists of our day love 
>> to totally misquote scripture (as though from God's lips to mans 
>> ears).... they are doing so with no understanding of the context or 
>> intent.
>>
>> Blessings,
>>
>> Willy
>
>    The context of the story is the citizens of both cities preferred 
> immorality and reveled in it.  They had no interest in the pursuit of 
> decent morality.  The rampant sodomy was the last straw.  That is the 
> context, period.  Why is that so difficult to accept?
>
> Cheers,
> John
>

For me, it is easy to accept, and what you say is completely correct.  My 
rub with most religious legalists is that they make homosexuality "the 
reason"...   and that is absolutely contradictory to the intent of the 
story.  It was the total self serving self centered nature that had become 
commonplace, along with complete violations of other human beings with total 
disregard to human life that caused S&G.

And again I say, imho, the "sex" was more of a violation than a pleasure. 
It was not that two women truly loved and cared for each other, it was wild 
unbridled dirty sex, which is not what a respectful God fearing gay person 
does in our society.  It was not that the men were truly attracted to each 
other and wanted to have a genuine loving relationship, it was JUST SEX, and 
in this case, we have every reason to believe it was as emotionally 
perverted as possible.

Willy

zxxxzcc
"Willy"  wrote in message 
news:P2wRj.130$nW2.86@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
> news:4812b559$0$4033$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>> Good morning Willy;
>>
>> "Willy"  wrote in message 
>> news:jdqQj.22419$%41.3584@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
>>> news:47fe93ec$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>> Good evening Willy;
>>>>
>>>> "Willy"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:h5fLj.2466$%41.1611@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:47fcf6c9$0$4047$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>> Good afternoon Willy;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Willy"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Li4Lj.547$FF6.462@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:47fc1950$0$4037$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>> Good evening Tim;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "- .. -- Tim .-."  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ENidnRMSTZE4OWbanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:47fb5f9c$0$4048$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Good morning Jeff;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"  
>>>>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message news:o9FKj.44906$5i5.8371@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "John Fraser"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:47f8d102$0$4075$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> but why was it so important for the crowd to want to anally 
>>>>>>>>>>>> violate
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> visitors?  What purpose would be served to treat strangers in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> such a
>>>>>>>>>>>> manner other than to ensure they never returned?  Would it be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> hatred
>>>>>>>>>>>> against Lot, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Being Homo'Sodomites, they just loved perverted sex.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their 
>>>>>>>>>>> neighboring
>>>>>>>>>>> towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for 
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a 
>>>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished. " Jude 
>>>>>>>>>>> 1:7
>>>>>>>>>>> (TLB)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    I know, but I was hoping Willy or someone would provide a
>>>>>>>>>> satisfactory
>>>>>>>>>> defence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are two aspects to the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah, and 
>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>> these aspects are referred to in the New Testament.  Those two 
>>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>>> are: (1) refusal to show hospitality, and (2) lust.  Some people 
>>>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>>> that only one or other of these was the subject, but in fact 
>>>>>>>>> scripture
>>>>>>>>> refers to *both* aspects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, the operative word of aspect No.2 is *lust*.  Love didn't 
>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>> into it.  It was a combination of deliberate mistreatment of the
>>>>>>>>> stranger
>>>>>>>>> within their gates (when the protocol of the time *required* they 
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> offered hospitality and protection), and at least a degree of 
>>>>>>>>> sexual
>>>>>>>>> gratification. But three things are relevant also. (1) ALL the men 
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> city were involved, most of whom would have been naturally of
>>>>>>>>> heterosexual
>>>>>>>>> orientation, (2) This is about attempted gang homosexual rape, in 
>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> deliberately mistreat the men by degrading and abusing them (3) No 
>>>>>>>>> love
>>>>>>>>> was involved, only lust and dekiberate abuse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus it is fair to say that this passage is not very relevant when
>>>>>>>>> considering issues of love and attraction between people of the 
>>>>>>>>> same sex
>>>>>>>>> and of same-sex orientation.  Scripture ALWAYS condemns *lust*, it 
>>>>>>>>> NEVER
>>>>>>>>> condemns *love*, so we should, to be fair, note that all instances 
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> scripture of *love* between people of the same gender are very 
>>>>>>>>> positive.
>>>>>>>>> Lust and some sexual acts are spoken against, but not love, of any 
>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tim.
>>>>>>>>> [Cross-postings left in as I don't know who else is following this
>>>>>>>>> thread]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I agree that the group who presented themselves at the door of 
>>>>>>>> Lot
>>>>>>>> were only a small fraction of the number of the townsfolk, and they
>>>>>>>> certainly did not have the best of intentions toward Lot's guests. 
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> seems that both cities were renown for same-sex relationships.  The 
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> is not whether they occurred, but why they occurred.  That 
>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>> passage and the passage Jeff quoted deals specifically with 
>>>>>>>> same-sex
>>>>>>>> relationships.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I'm not saying this to be harsh or demeaning.  I appreciate some 
>>>>>>>> men
>>>>>>>> have feminine natures while some women display male natures with 
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> groups displaying behaviour counter to the norm.  Well, whatever 
>>>>>>>> the norm
>>>>>>>> is.  So, what's normal, male-female?  Or, is it what's normal for 
>>>>>>>> me may
>>>>>>>> be foreign to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Biblically, normal is what God intended for mates: male-female. 
>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>> who were representative of Sodom did not care for women, period. 
>>>>>>>> Their
>>>>>>>> natural sexual preference was strictly for other men.  Not only did 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> men prefer it, but they exalted in it.  As this was not intended, 
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> could God bless such a relationship?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think I can agree with you for this reason.  The "mob" was a 
>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>> of testosterone driven men with hardly the majority being 
>>>>>>> homosexual.
>>>>>>> This verse has little if anything to do with homosexuality, and 
>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>> to do with their desire to rape and therefore injure and humiliate 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> guests.  To rape a male was the ultimate violation.  It had nothing 
>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>> with love, nor even lust per se, rather all about doing an act that,
>>>>>>> within their society (harming a households guests) was considered a
>>>>>>> terrible and defiling act.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Willy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    True, for that one instance.  But, I suspect it was an example 
>>>>>> which gave a truer portrayal of the inhabitat's general attitude. 
>>>>>> The cities weren't destroyed because of a few bad apples; they were 
>>>>>> destroyed because of rampant sin of which I'm sure homosexual rape 
>>>>>> was only one of a larger set of problems.  But, it's mention in 
>>>>>> several places in Scripture likely signified a rampant problem and 
>>>>>> not a random act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We agree.  But with that said, we often are lead to believe that the 
>>>>> "sin" that  caused the destruction of S&G was purely sexual in nature, 
>>>>> and I think this was hardly the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Willy
>>>>
>>>>    You're quite right.  It was only a symptom of a more serious 
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely, and as much and as often as the literalists of our day love 
>>> to totally misquote scripture (as though from God's lips to mans 
>>> ears).... they are doing so with no understanding of the context or 
>>> intent.
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>>
>>> Willy
>>
>>    The context of the story is the citizens of both cities preferred 
>> immorality and reveled in it.  They had no interest in the pursuit of 
>> decent morality.  The rampant sodomy was the last straw.  That is the 
>> context, period.  Why is that so difficult to accept?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John
>>
>
> For me, it is easy to accept, and what you say is completely correct.  My 
> rub with most religious legalists is that they make homosexuality "the 
> reason"...   and that is absolutely contradictory to the intent of the 
> story.  It was the total self serving self centered nature that had become 
> commonplace, along with complete violations of other human beings with 
> total disregard to human life that caused S&G.
>
> And again I say, imho, the "sex" was more of a violation than a pleasure. 
> It was not that two women truly loved and cared for each other, it was 
> wild unbridled dirty sex, which is not what a respectful God fearing gay 
> person does in our society.  It was not that the men were truly attracted 
> to each other and wanted to have a genuine loving relationship, it was 
> JUST SEX, and in this case, we have every reason to believe it was as 
> emotionally perverted as possible.
>
> Willy
>
>