Christian friends of gays and lesbians

May the gods forgive that this guy is trying to become as educated as possible. That simply cannot be abided!

I thought it was funny logical4u highlighted the man's education as a reason to not even address his explanation of S+G. I've no doubt he clicked on the link and began skimming until he realized he could not possibly address the exegesis so he immediately googled the author's name in a desperate search for anything as an excuse to ignore it. I don't care he did that in itself. It just pisses me off when Christians like him claim to be stewards and students of the bible then run and hide like little puppies when they know they can't roll.

It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the Bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would I want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could I trust anything he has to say?

Where are your chapter and verses that say "women" demanded the visitors? I posted chapter and verse of demands by men for the male visitors. It was there. How can "women" rape men that are aware? It is obvious that "you" will not consider the truth because it goes against your deceitful propoganda.

You would not provide chapter and verse for your statements about David and Johnathan. You took three phases out of two (posssibly three) chapters and combined them to falsely claim the Bible said they had homosexual sex.

You have not backed up claim one. You "say" that "all the men" means women and children too. There is no evidence that it means that. It is different than the events that go into detail listing women, children, and even the types (and sometimes numbers) of animals).

I see you as a coward running away from a conversation where someone questioned your statements. You are running away repeating the falsehoods over your shoulder, mixed with names. Then you wonder why people think that LGBT activists are deceitful and under-handed. You are giving them a great example.


I've never said "all the men" means women and children you lying fuck. I pointed out scriptre says "all the people" and your dishonest ass has tried to ignore it. You're pathetic and you know so keep whining and ignoring the facts.

Until you want to show chapter and verse, you really have no credibility.


Waiting........

I've posted them more than once but keep being a dishonest stain o'matic shit stick.
 
Why would anyone listen to him, he doesn't even know which religion he wants to be.

John of AllFaith's Blog

Name: John of AllFaith Location: Paradise, Ca., United States
I hold three Christian Ordinations, an MA in Religious Studies, an ordination in Ministry and Spiritual Counseling from the Interfaith Seminaries. I have worked and studied with various Hindu groups, was initiated as a Welsh Traditionalist Pagan priest. I've been a Wahabi Sunni Muslim, a Taoist, a member of various Buddhist and Hindu sects. I've delved into the Occult Arts, the teachings of Gurdjieff, Madame Blavatsky and others. I've been a member in several other groups and movements too numerous to mention. See Mystory my sites for more.


So, again, ignore the Bible, go with your version of the "secret code". This guy is trying so hard to please so many religions, he cannot be true to any (IMHO).

May the gods forgive that this guy is trying to become as educated as possible. That simply cannot be abided!

Education and wisdom are two very different things. To value education above wisdom is....unwise.


Since you have dedicated your life to completely avoiding both there is absolutely no danger of an intoxicating combination of wisdom and education coming from you.
 
I thought it was funny logical4u highlighted the man's education as a reason to not even address his explanation of S+G. I've no doubt he clicked on the link and began skimming until he realized he could not possibly address the exegesis so he immediately googled the author's name in a desperate search for anything as an excuse to ignore it. I don't care he did that in itself. It just pisses me off when Christians like him claim to be stewards and students of the bible then run and hide like little puppies when they know they can't roll.

It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the Bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would I want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could I trust anything he has to say?

I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at Lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis I linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about S+G and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up Jesus' ass while he was dying on the Cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.

You did not show chapter and verse where the "Bible" says Johnathan and David were homosexual lovers. You took three phases over two or three chapters (not even complete sentences) and said it was some sort of secret code. Is that what you call evidence?

You said that "S+G" had "nothing" to do with homosexual acts. You did not provide a response to how wanting the male visitors by the men of the city were NOT homosexual. You said that they were rapists. If men are "raping" males, isn't that a homosexual act? Especially if they are offered 'virgins' and refuse women in their desire for males?

You did not provide evidence or chapter and verse, just opinions, lectures and name-calling.

Waiting.......
 
It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the Bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would I want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could I trust anything he has to say?

I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at Lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis I linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about S+G and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up Jesus' ass while he was dying on the Cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.

You did not show chapter and verse where the "Bible" says Johnathan and David were homosexual lovers. You took three phases over two or three chapters (not even complete sentences) and said it was some sort of secret code. Is that what you call evidence?

You said that "S+G" had "nothing" to do with homosexual acts. You did not provide a response to how wanting the male visitors by the men of the city were NOT homosexual. You said that they were rapists. If men are "raping" males, isn't that a homosexual act? Especially if they are offered 'virgins' and refuse women in their desire for males?

You did not provide evidence or chapter and verse, just opinions, lectures and name-calling.

Waiting.......

You are nuclear class stoopid and dishonest. I never said the men were rapists. I said even IF your assertion that sex played a role then the crime would have been rape and not homosexuality. Obviously your dumbass needs that explained. Homosexuality requires consent and since the visitors were not willing to go outside they were not willing to give consent.

Once again you assfart, sex had nothing to do with it at all. I'm simply pointing out even your stoopid claim sex being an issue still doesn't show it was homosexuality because (according to your sexual fantasy) the attempted act was rape.

I've repeatedly explained why it had nothing to do with sex but since you are so cock loving obsessed you can't seem to understand the virgins were offered as payment to leave the visitors alone. Remember when I pointed out virgins were seen as property and a high commodity in that culture? Think about it einstein: if the people at Lot's door were gay why would he knowingly anger them even more by offering females?

You've never shown anything from the narrative that supports your claim sex was an issue. You keep repeating that but never attempt to prove it. The word for "know" (ya'da) did not mean sex you ignorant fuck and it surely didn't mean homosexuality. So here is the sum of your stoopidity:

S+G: nothing is said nor implied about sex but you insist it was with no evidence.

Jonathon and David take their clothes off, all alone in the middle of a field, make a covenant with each other a kiss. But nope. Nothing to do with sex, according to your backwards ignorant agenda. (Don't even think about pulling out that "it was a middle eastern custom" card again. Why? First, the "middle east" didn't yet exist and second, out of all of scripture show us how many times two dudes took their clothes off and kissed. I mean, if it was "customary" as you claim, and since scripture covers a couple of thousand of years of events you should be able to point to at least 3 other examples. Afterall, it was "customary" according to you.)

Keep embarrassing yourself with your arrogance and ignorance.
 
I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at Lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis I linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about S+G and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up Jesus' ass while he was dying on the Cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.

You did not show chapter and verse where the "Bible" says Johnathan and David were homosexual lovers. You took three phases over two or three chapters (not even complete sentences) and said it was some sort of secret code. Is that what you call evidence?

You said that "S+G" had "nothing" to do with homosexual acts. You did not provide a response to how wanting the male visitors by the men of the city were NOT homosexual. You said that they were rapists. If men are "raping" males, isn't that a homosexual act? Especially if they are offered 'virgins' and refuse women in their desire for males?

You did not provide evidence or chapter and verse, just opinions, lectures and name-calling.

Waiting.......

You are nuclear class stoopid and dishonest. I never said the men were rapists. I said even IF your assertion that sex played a role then the crime would have been rape and not homosexuality. Obviously your dumbass needs that explained. Homosexuality requires consent and since the visitors were not willing to go outside they were not willing to give consent.

Once again you assfart, sex had nothing to do with it at all. I'm simply pointing out even your stoopid claim sex being an issue still doesn't show it was homosexuality because (according to your sexual fantasy) the attempted act was rape.

I've repeatedly explained why it had nothing to do with sex but since you are so cock loving obsessed you can't seem to understand the virgins were offered as payment to leave the visitors alone. Remember when I pointed out virgins were seen as property and a high commodity in that culture? Think about it einstein: if the people at Lot's door were gay why would he knowingly anger them even more by offering females?

You've never shown anything from the narrative that supports your claim sex was an issue. You keep repeating that but never attempt to prove it. The word for "know" (ya'da) did not mean sex you ignorant fuck and it surely didn't mean homosexuality. So here is the sum of your stoopidity:

S+G: nothing is said nor implied about sex but you insist it was with no evidence.

Jonathon and David take their clothes off, all alone in the middle of a field, make a covenant with each other a kiss. But nope. Nothing to do with sex, according to your backwards ignorant agenda. (Don't even think about pulling out that "it was a middle eastern custom" card again. Why? First, the "middle east" didn't yet exist and second, out of all of scripture show us how many times two dudes took their clothes off and kissed. I mean, if it was "customary" as you claim, and since scripture covers a couple of thousand of years of events you should be able to point to at least 3 other examples. Afterall, it was "customary" according to you.)

Keep embarrassing yourself with your arrogance and ignorance.

Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u

Yeshua spoke of lewd and perverse behavior; that would be immoral sex (that translates to homosexual acts).

(That translates into bigots hating gays and Jesus so much they try to put words into Jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
Mark 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Proverbs 3:32
for the LORD detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

Psalm 101:4
Men of perverse heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the Lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: demonstrate where the Lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between Jonathon and David was praised. Want another example?
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight


The offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Why would anyone want a virgin if it wasn't about sex?
The offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Repeating statements does not answer the question. Why would virgins be a valueable commodity if they weren't going to be used for sex/childbearing?

Try not to go activist LGBT, and just answer the question.

Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight


(That translates into bigots hating gays and Jesus so much they try to put words into Jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
Mark 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Proverbs 3:32
for the LORD detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

Psalm 101:4
Men of perverse heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the Lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: demonstrate where the Lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between Jonathon and David was praised. Want another example?



Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight


Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between Jonathon and David was praised. Want another example?
Where did it say they had a homosexual relationship? Please use the words in context and not pick apart 3 Chapters for specific words, and re-arrange them to suit you.
Saul gave David his armor (he took off his clothes) to battle Goliath.
David, after being dressed, returned the king's clothes (he took off his clothes), because he had not 'earned' them (also, possibly because they were too big for him to fight).
David slew Goliath and in doing so, made the Phil... servants to Israel, forever (Goliath's words).
David was welcomed as a hero by the king and his son (Jonathan), who gave him his cloak (he took off his clothes) to "honor" him as a hero.
time goes by
David is married to the king's daughter, he spends little time with her because he is helping Saul in battles (not really a loving relationship).
Johnathan confronts Saul about trying to kill David (apparently Saul is envious of the people's love for David).
Saul swears, using the Lord, that he wants no part of that.
David tells Johnathan not to believe "his" father and "his" king.
Johnathan discovers "his" father and "his" king deceived him.
Johnathan has sworn an oath to David to protect him and his family in return for David's protection of him and his (Johnathan's) family. David says that Johnathan's love is better than that of a woman (he is in a pretty cold marriage that is dissolved, when David loses favor with Saul), he is young and has not had any long-tem relationship with a woman.
He must break one alliance:
either to his father and his king: a crime punishable by death at that time,
or one the he swore an oath.
He broke the one to his father, and was emotionally crushed.
He told David, they wept and kissed (a middle-eastern custom that exists to this day).

Go ahead, write your examples, and yes, I would like to see your other Biblical examples praising homosexuality.

The "middle-east" didn't exist until about the 8th century CE so how did "ME customs" exist so many hundreds of years prior? You give a typical dance and ignore the scripture to write your own. The dudes got naked, made a covenant with each other and kissed all alone in a field. You may also ignore Ruth and Naomi's relationship at your leisure.

Have you figured out yet why S+G had nothing to do with homosexuality?
Where does it say they were naked, at the same time, in the same place? Where does it say they had homosexual sex? Where does the Lord praise homosexual acts?

In the instances where two people had sex, there is clear reference: he knew his wife, or he had relations with her, etc. You, again, are being deceitful. You make strong statements, I ask you to back it up, and you go totally limp?????
Where is your evidence? Your three phases are from three different chapters and are out of context. If the Lord was sooo pleased with Johnathan, why did he die a short while after his betrayal to the king? Doesn't the Lord promise his favorites to have descendents as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach?

Third time: give the written examples (chapter and verse) of where the Lord praises homosexual acts.


Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u

Okay, I'll give you that it says 'all the people'. But it does not say women and children the way it does in other events. It does say 'men', (only), will you admit that, you.....?
It also says the men demanded the male visitors to have sex with them, now will you admit that, you ....?

I doubt it because you are dishonest and will not admit what is i black and white. I am still waiting for any passage or verse that the Lord praises homosexual acts (not one that needs interpreted or is in homosexual secret code). Still no honesty from you there.

If you are going to call me a bigot, please list the way of life that is better than what is taught in the Bible.
What the hell was unclear about:

"Don't bother answering because you've proven yourself to be a dishonest bitch."

Did you think that was a joke you fucking ****?
So you use your 'elite' words that show you have no class as well as no truth? You made a lot of statements without backing them up, and then when you were asked to demonstrate your statements were factual, you start with the name calling?
Since you can not back up your statements, I guess your statements were deceitful propoganda to support sinful acts and lead people away from the Lord.

And still no way of life better than the Bible's teaching? If you are going to tell people they are bigots, you should have some idea of a better way. If your example of name-calling instead of real conversation is your idea of a better way, then I think your way is not for me.
I've backed up every claim I made you lying self righteous fuckwad. I pointed out "all the people" were at Lot's door and even after posting five fucking different bible sources you still tried to ignore it.


You preach about "real conversation" when it is clear as day you tried so damn hard to ignore obvious facts you did not like. I call bitches like you names because you earn it with your dishonesty and your obvious bigotry you fucking punk. Then you continue your dishonesty by trying to claim the people at Lot's door demanded to have sex. There is nothing anywhere close to that so here is your bigotry based logic you fucking useless ****:

When the bible says "all the people" it only means men unless women and children are specifically mentioned even though a passage says "men and all the people."

You take that position on this because you know damn well to admit "all the people" seriously undermines your claim it was homosexuality. It's dishonest and you know it but you don't give a fuck because trying to justify your bigotry is your master. You are a slave to dishonesty by your own anti-gay agenda.

You are basing your homosexuality claim almost entirely on the passage saying the crowd wanted to "know" the visitors. You are trying to say "know" means have sex with when it doesn't even come close to that you lying bitch. Here is the ultimate blow to your theory:

If they wanted to force the visitors to have sex then the crime was attempted rape and not homosexuality. So even letting you lie about "know" meaning sex does not support your claim about it being homosexuality. I might be nasty with the name calling but I much prefer being honest over your method of pattern dishonesty then try to claim the upper hand simply because you don't call people names. You're a pathetic self righteous bigot and you keep proving it to be true. It's fucking disgusting lying fucks like you keep raping scripture to try and justify your bigotry.
Quote: Originally Posted by logical4u
Quote: Originally Posted by CurveLight
Quote: Originally Posted by bodecea

May the gods forgive that this guy is trying to become as educated as possible. That simply cannot be abided!
I thought it was funny logical4u highlighted the man's education as a reason to not even address his explanation of S+G. I've no doubt he clicked on the link and began skimming until he realized he could not possibly address the exegesis so he immediately googled the author's name in a desperate search for anything as an excuse to ignore it. I don't care he did that in itself. It just pisses me off when Christians like him claim to be stewards and students of the bible then run and hide like little puppies when they know they can't roll.
It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the Bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would I want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could I trust anything he has to say?
I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at Lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis I linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about S+G and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up Jesus' ass while he was dying on the Cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.


You proved that it said all the people.

You did not show anywhere that the Bible demostrated praise for homosexual acts.
You did not show anywhere the Bible declared homosexual acts not sinful.
You did not quote chapter and verse demonstrating that David and Johnathan had homosexual sex.
You deny that a man raping a male has anything to do with homosexuality, even if females are present.
You focus on 'select' phrases taken out of context over the moral of the event.
When you are exposes as one that bears false witness, you call names and cry, cry, cry.
You present 'one' man's interpretation as 'word', while disregarding the parts of the Bible that do not agree with your agenda.
You have no credibility.
 
You're a fucking joke and everytime you wonder why I laugh at your stoopid ass all I have to do is link this page. You consistently completely ignore straightforward facts and try to obfuscate to hide your own failed claims.
 
you did not show chapter and verse where the "bible" says johnathan and david were homosexual lovers. You took three phases over two or three chapters (not even complete sentences) and said it was some sort of secret code. Is that what you call evidence?

You said that "s+g" had "nothing" to do with homosexual acts. You did not provide a response to how wanting the male visitors by the men of the city were not homosexual. You said that they were rapists. If men are "raping" males, isn't that a homosexual act? Especially if they are offered 'virgins' and refuse women in their desire for males?

You did not provide evidence or chapter and verse, just opinions, lectures and name-calling.

Waiting.......

you are nuclear class stoopid and dishonest. I never said the men were rapists. I said even if your assertion that sex played a role then the crime would have been rape and not homosexuality. Obviously your dumbass needs that explained. Homosexuality requires consent and since the visitors were not willing to go outside they were not willing to give consent.

Once again you assfart, sex had nothing to do with it at all. I'm simply pointing out even your stoopid claim sex being an issue still doesn't show it was homosexuality because (according to your sexual fantasy) the attempted act was rape.

I've repeatedly explained why it had nothing to do with sex but since you are so cock loving obsessed you can't seem to understand the virgins were offered as payment to leave the visitors alone. Remember when i pointed out virgins were seen as property and a high commodity in that culture? Think about it einstein: If the people at lot's door were gay why would he knowingly anger them even more by offering females?

You've never shown anything from the narrative that supports your claim sex was an issue. You keep repeating that but never attempt to prove it. The word for "know" (ya'da) did not mean sex you ignorant fuck and it surely didn't mean homosexuality. So here is the sum of your stoopidity:

S+g: Nothing is said nor implied about sex but you insist it was with no evidence.

Jonathon and david take their clothes off, all alone in the middle of a field, make a covenant with each other a kiss. But nope. Nothing to do with sex, according to your backwards ignorant agenda. (don't even think about pulling out that "it was a middle eastern custom" card again. Why? First, the "middle east" didn't yet exist and second, out of all of scripture show us how many times two dudes took their clothes off and kissed. I mean, if it was "customary" as you claim, and since scripture covers a couple of thousand of years of events you should be able to point to at least 3 other examples. Afterall, it was "customary" according to you.)

keep embarrassing yourself with your arrogance and ignorance.

quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u

yeshua spoke of lewd and perverse behavior; that would be immoral sex (that translates to homosexual acts).

(that translates into bigots hating gays and jesus so much they try to put words into jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
mark 7:21-23 (new international version)
21for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23all these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

proverbs 3:32
for the lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
to fear the lord is to hate evil; i hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

psalm 101:4
men of perverse heart shall be far from me; i will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: Demonstrate where the lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?
Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


the offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Why would anyone want a virgin if it wasn't about sex?
The offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Repeating statements does not answer the question. Why would virgins be a valueable commodity if they weren't going to be used for sex/childbearing?

Try not to go activist lgbt, and just answer the question.

Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


(that translates into bigots hating gays and jesus so much they try to put words into jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
mark 7:21-23 (new international version)
21for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23all these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

proverbs 3:32
for the lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
to fear the lord is to hate evil; i hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

psalm 101:4
men of perverse heart shall be far from me; i will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: Demonstrate where the lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?



Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?
Where did it say they had a homosexual relationship? Please use the words in context and not pick apart 3 chapters for specific words, and re-arrange them to suit you.
Saul gave david his armor (he took off his clothes) to battle goliath.
David, after being dressed, returned the king's clothes (he took off his clothes), because he had not 'earned' them (also, possibly because they were too big for him to fight).
David slew goliath and in doing so, made the phil... Servants to israel, forever (goliath's words).
David was welcomed as a hero by the king and his son (jonathan), who gave him his cloak (he took off his clothes) to "honor" him as a hero.
Time goes by
david is married to the king's daughter, he spends little time with her because he is helping saul in battles (not really a loving relationship).
Johnathan confronts saul about trying to kill david (apparently saul is envious of the people's love for david).
Saul swears, using the lord, that he wants no part of that.
David tells johnathan not to believe "his" father and "his" king.
Johnathan discovers "his" father and "his" king deceived him.
Johnathan has sworn an oath to david to protect him and his family in return for david's protection of him and his (johnathan's) family. David says that johnathan's love is better than that of a woman (he is in a pretty cold marriage that is dissolved, when david loses favor with saul), he is young and has not had any long-tem relationship with a woman.
He must break one alliance:
Either to his father and his king: A crime punishable by death at that time,
or one the he swore an oath.
He broke the one to his father, and was emotionally crushed.
He told david, they wept and kissed (a middle-eastern custom that exists to this day).

Go ahead, write your examples, and yes, i would like to see your other biblical examples praising homosexuality.

The "middle-east" didn't exist until about the 8th century ce so how did "me customs" exist so many hundreds of years prior? You give a typical dance and ignore the scripture to write your own. The dudes got naked, made a covenant with each other and kissed all alone in a field. You may also ignore ruth and naomi's relationship at your leisure.

Have you figured out yet why s+g had nothing to do with homosexuality?
Where does it say they were naked, at the same time, in the same place? Where does it say they had homosexual sex? Where does the lord praise homosexual acts?

In the instances where two people had sex, there is clear reference: He knew his wife, or he had relations with her, etc. You, again, are being deceitful. You make strong statements, i ask you to back it up, and you go totally limp?????
Where is your evidence? Your three phases are from three different chapters and are out of context. If the lord was sooo pleased with johnathan, why did he die a short while after his betrayal to the king? Doesn't the lord promise his favorites to have descendents as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach?

Third time: Give the written examples (chapter and verse) of where the lord praises homosexual acts.


Quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u

okay, i'll give you that it says 'all the people'. But it does not say women and children the way it does in other events. It does say 'men', (only), will you admit that, you.....?
It also says the men demanded the male visitors to have sex with them, now will you admit that, you ....?

I doubt it because you are dishonest and will not admit what is i black and white. I am still waiting for any passage or verse that the lord praises homosexual acts (not one that needs interpreted or is in homosexual secret code). Still no honesty from you there.

If you are going to call me a bigot, please list the way of life that is better than what is taught in the bible.
What the hell was unclear about:

"don't bother answering because you've proven yourself to be a dishonest bitch."

did you think that was a joke you fucking ****?
So you use your 'elite' words that show you have no class as well as no truth? You made a lot of statements without backing them up, and then when you were asked to demonstrate your statements were factual, you start with the name calling?
Since you can not back up your statements, i guess your statements were deceitful propoganda to support sinful acts and lead people away from the lord.

And still no way of life better than the bible's teaching? If you are going to tell people they are bigots, you should have some idea of a better way. If your example of name-calling instead of real conversation is your idea of a better way, then i think your way is not for me.
I've backed up every claim i made you lying self righteous fuckwad. I pointed out "all the people" were at lot's door and even after posting five fucking different bible sources you still tried to ignore it.


You preach about "real conversation" when it is clear as day you tried so damn hard to ignore obvious facts you did not like. I call bitches like you names because you earn it with your dishonesty and your obvious bigotry you fucking punk. Then you continue your dishonesty by trying to claim the people at lot's door demanded to have sex. There is nothing anywhere close to that so here is your bigotry based logic you fucking useless ****:

When the bible says "all the people" it only means men unless women and children are specifically mentioned even though a passage says "men and all the people."

you take that position on this because you know damn well to admit "all the people" seriously undermines your claim it was homosexuality. It's dishonest and you know it but you don't give a fuck because trying to justify your bigotry is your master. You are a slave to dishonesty by your own anti-gay agenda.

You are basing your homosexuality claim almost entirely on the passage saying the crowd wanted to "know" the visitors. You are trying to say "know" means have sex with when it doesn't even come close to that you lying bitch. Here is the ultimate blow to your theory:

If they wanted to force the visitors to have sex then the crime was attempted rape and not homosexuality. So even letting you lie about "know" meaning sex does not support your claim about it being homosexuality. I might be nasty with the name calling but i much prefer being honest over your method of pattern dishonesty then try to claim the upper hand simply because you don't call people names. You're a pathetic self righteous bigot and you keep proving it to be true. It's fucking disgusting lying fucks like you keep raping scripture to try and justify your bigotry.
Quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by bodecea

may the gods forgive that this guy is trying to become as educated as possible. That simply cannot be abided!
I thought it was funny logical4u highlighted the man's education as a reason to not even address his explanation of s+g. I've no doubt he clicked on the link and began skimming until he realized he could not possibly address the exegesis so he immediately googled the author's name in a desperate search for anything as an excuse to ignore it. I don't care he did that in itself. It just pisses me off when christians like him claim to be stewards and students of the bible then run and hide like little puppies when they know they can't roll.
It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would i want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could i trust anything he has to say?
I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis i linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about s+g and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up jesus' ass while he was dying on the cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.


You proved that it said all the people.

You did not show anywhere that the bible demostrated praise for homosexual acts.
You did not show anywhere the bible declared homosexual acts not sinful.
You did not quote chapter and verse demonstrating that david and johnathan had homosexual sex.
You deny that a man raping a male has anything to do with homosexuality, even if females are present.
You focus on 'select' phrases taken out of context over the moral of the event.
When you are exposes as one that bears false witness, you call names and cry, cry, cry.
You present 'one' man's interpretation as 'word', while disregarding the parts of the bible that do not agree with your agenda.
You have no credibility.


tl:dr
 
you are nuclear class stoopid and dishonest. I never said the men were rapists. I said even if your assertion that sex played a role then the crime would have been rape and not homosexuality. Obviously your dumbass needs that explained. Homosexuality requires consent and since the visitors were not willing to go outside they were not willing to give consent.

Once again you assfart, sex had nothing to do with it at all. I'm simply pointing out even your stoopid claim sex being an issue still doesn't show it was homosexuality because (according to your sexual fantasy) the attempted act was rape.

I've repeatedly explained why it had nothing to do with sex but since you are so cock loving obsessed you can't seem to understand the virgins were offered as payment to leave the visitors alone. Remember when i pointed out virgins were seen as property and a high commodity in that culture? Think about it einstein: If the people at lot's door were gay why would he knowingly anger them even more by offering females?

You've never shown anything from the narrative that supports your claim sex was an issue. You keep repeating that but never attempt to prove it. The word for "know" (ya'da) did not mean sex you ignorant fuck and it surely didn't mean homosexuality. So here is the sum of your stoopidity:

S+g: Nothing is said nor implied about sex but you insist it was with no evidence.

Jonathon and david take their clothes off, all alone in the middle of a field, make a covenant with each other a kiss. But nope. Nothing to do with sex, according to your backwards ignorant agenda. (don't even think about pulling out that "it was a middle eastern custom" card again. Why? First, the "middle east" didn't yet exist and second, out of all of scripture show us how many times two dudes took their clothes off and kissed. I mean, if it was "customary" as you claim, and since scripture covers a couple of thousand of years of events you should be able to point to at least 3 other examples. Afterall, it was "customary" according to you.)

keep embarrassing yourself with your arrogance and ignorance.

quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u

yeshua spoke of lewd and perverse behavior; that would be immoral sex (that translates to homosexual acts).

(that translates into bigots hating gays and jesus so much they try to put words into jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
mark 7:21-23 (new international version)
21for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23all these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

proverbs 3:32
for the lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
to fear the lord is to hate evil; i hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

psalm 101:4
men of perverse heart shall be far from me; i will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: Demonstrate where the lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?
Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


the offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Why would anyone want a virgin if it wasn't about sex?
The offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Repeating statements does not answer the question. Why would virgins be a valueable commodity if they weren't going to be used for sex/childbearing?

Try not to go activist lgbt, and just answer the question.

Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


(that translates into bigots hating gays and jesus so much they try to put words into jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
mark 7:21-23 (new international version)
21for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23all these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

proverbs 3:32
for the lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
to fear the lord is to hate evil; i hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

psalm 101:4
men of perverse heart shall be far from me; i will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: Demonstrate where the lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?



Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?
Where did it say they had a homosexual relationship? Please use the words in context and not pick apart 3 chapters for specific words, and re-arrange them to suit you.
Saul gave david his armor (he took off his clothes) to battle goliath.
David, after being dressed, returned the king's clothes (he took off his clothes), because he had not 'earned' them (also, possibly because they were too big for him to fight).
David slew goliath and in doing so, made the phil... Servants to israel, forever (goliath's words).
David was welcomed as a hero by the king and his son (jonathan), who gave him his cloak (he took off his clothes) to "honor" him as a hero.
Time goes by
david is married to the king's daughter, he spends little time with her because he is helping saul in battles (not really a loving relationship).
Johnathan confronts saul about trying to kill david (apparently saul is envious of the people's love for david).
Saul swears, using the lord, that he wants no part of that.
David tells johnathan not to believe "his" father and "his" king.
Johnathan discovers "his" father and "his" king deceived him.
Johnathan has sworn an oath to david to protect him and his family in return for david's protection of him and his (johnathan's) family. David says that johnathan's love is better than that of a woman (he is in a pretty cold marriage that is dissolved, when david loses favor with saul), he is young and has not had any long-tem relationship with a woman.
He must break one alliance:
Either to his father and his king: A crime punishable by death at that time,
or one the he swore an oath.
He broke the one to his father, and was emotionally crushed.
He told david, they wept and kissed (a middle-eastern custom that exists to this day).

Go ahead, write your examples, and yes, i would like to see your other biblical examples praising homosexuality.

The "middle-east" didn't exist until about the 8th century ce so how did "me customs" exist so many hundreds of years prior? You give a typical dance and ignore the scripture to write your own. The dudes got naked, made a covenant with each other and kissed all alone in a field. You may also ignore ruth and naomi's relationship at your leisure.

Have you figured out yet why s+g had nothing to do with homosexuality?
Where does it say they were naked, at the same time, in the same place? Where does it say they had homosexual sex? Where does the lord praise homosexual acts?

In the instances where two people had sex, there is clear reference: He knew his wife, or he had relations with her, etc. You, again, are being deceitful. You make strong statements, i ask you to back it up, and you go totally limp?????
Where is your evidence? Your three phases are from three different chapters and are out of context. If the lord was sooo pleased with johnathan, why did he die a short while after his betrayal to the king? Doesn't the lord promise his favorites to have descendents as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach?

Third time: Give the written examples (chapter and verse) of where the lord praises homosexual acts.


Quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u

okay, i'll give you that it says 'all the people'. But it does not say women and children the way it does in other events. It does say 'men', (only), will you admit that, you.....?
It also says the men demanded the male visitors to have sex with them, now will you admit that, you ....?

I doubt it because you are dishonest and will not admit what is i black and white. I am still waiting for any passage or verse that the lord praises homosexual acts (not one that needs interpreted or is in homosexual secret code). Still no honesty from you there.

If you are going to call me a bigot, please list the way of life that is better than what is taught in the bible.
What the hell was unclear about:

"don't bother answering because you've proven yourself to be a dishonest bitch."

did you think that was a joke you fucking ****?
So you use your 'elite' words that show you have no class as well as no truth? You made a lot of statements without backing them up, and then when you were asked to demonstrate your statements were factual, you start with the name calling?
Since you can not back up your statements, i guess your statements were deceitful propoganda to support sinful acts and lead people away from the lord.

And still no way of life better than the bible's teaching? If you are going to tell people they are bigots, you should have some idea of a better way. If your example of name-calling instead of real conversation is your idea of a better way, then i think your way is not for me.
I've backed up every claim i made you lying self righteous fuckwad. I pointed out "all the people" were at lot's door and even after posting five fucking different bible sources you still tried to ignore it.


You preach about "real conversation" when it is clear as day you tried so damn hard to ignore obvious facts you did not like. I call bitches like you names because you earn it with your dishonesty and your obvious bigotry you fucking punk. Then you continue your dishonesty by trying to claim the people at lot's door demanded to have sex. There is nothing anywhere close to that so here is your bigotry based logic you fucking useless ****:

When the bible says "all the people" it only means men unless women and children are specifically mentioned even though a passage says "men and all the people."

you take that position on this because you know damn well to admit "all the people" seriously undermines your claim it was homosexuality. It's dishonest and you know it but you don't give a fuck because trying to justify your bigotry is your master. You are a slave to dishonesty by your own anti-gay agenda.

You are basing your homosexuality claim almost entirely on the passage saying the crowd wanted to "know" the visitors. You are trying to say "know" means have sex with when it doesn't even come close to that you lying bitch. Here is the ultimate blow to your theory:

If they wanted to force the visitors to have sex then the crime was attempted rape and not homosexuality. So even letting you lie about "know" meaning sex does not support your claim about it being homosexuality. I might be nasty with the name calling but i much prefer being honest over your method of pattern dishonesty then try to claim the upper hand simply because you don't call people names. You're a pathetic self righteous bigot and you keep proving it to be true. It's fucking disgusting lying fucks like you keep raping scripture to try and justify your bigotry.
Quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by bodecea

may the gods forgive that this guy is trying to become as educated as possible. That simply cannot be abided!
I thought it was funny logical4u highlighted the man's education as a reason to not even address his explanation of s+g. I've no doubt he clicked on the link and began skimming until he realized he could not possibly address the exegesis so he immediately googled the author's name in a desperate search for anything as an excuse to ignore it. I don't care he did that in itself. It just pisses me off when christians like him claim to be stewards and students of the bible then run and hide like little puppies when they know they can't roll.
It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would i want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could i trust anything he has to say?
I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis i linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about s+g and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up jesus' ass while he was dying on the cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.


You proved that it said all the people.

You did not show anywhere that the bible demostrated praise for homosexual acts.
You did not show anywhere the bible declared homosexual acts not sinful.
You did not quote chapter and verse demonstrating that david and johnathan had homosexual sex.
You deny that a man raping a male has anything to do with homosexuality, even if females are present.
You focus on 'select' phrases taken out of context over the moral of the event.
When you are exposes as one that bears false witness, you call names and cry, cry, cry.
You present 'one' man's interpretation as 'word', while disregarding the parts of the bible that do not agree with your agenda.
You have no credibility.


tl:dr

:eusa_liar:
 
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u

yeshua spoke of lewd and perverse behavior; that would be immoral sex (that translates to homosexual acts).

(that translates into bigots hating gays and jesus so much they try to put words into jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
mark 7:21-23 (new international version)
21for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23all these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

proverbs 3:32
for the lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
to fear the lord is to hate evil; i hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

psalm 101:4
men of perverse heart shall be far from me; i will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: Demonstrate where the lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?
Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


the offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Why would anyone want a virgin if it wasn't about sex?
The offer of his virgin daughters was a demonstration of being willing to sacrifice his most valuable commodities to protect his guests. Virgin daughters were one of the highest forms of currency for fathers in that culture so the offer of his daughters only helps show how the narrative is about social economics and had nothing to do with sex at all.
Repeating statements does not answer the question. Why would virgins be a valueable commodity if they weren't going to be used for sex/childbearing?

Try not to go activist lgbt, and just answer the question.

Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


(that translates into bigots hating gays and jesus so much they try to put words into jesus' mouth because they know nothing of honesty)
mark 7:21-23 (new international version)
21for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23all these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

proverbs 3:32
for the lord detests a perverse man but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 8:13
to fear the lord is to hate evil; i hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Proverbs 2:12
wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,

psalm 101:4
men of perverse heart shall be far from me; i will have nothing to do with evil.


I think those demonstrate the lord's displeasure with homosexual acts.
Your turn: Demonstrate where the lord praises homosexual acts.

Waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................

Lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?



Quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight


lol! There is nothing about homosexuality there dumbass. The gay relationship between jonathon and david was praised. Want another example?
Where did it say they had a homosexual relationship? Please use the words in context and not pick apart 3 chapters for specific words, and re-arrange them to suit you.
Saul gave david his armor (he took off his clothes) to battle goliath.
David, after being dressed, returned the king's clothes (he took off his clothes), because he had not 'earned' them (also, possibly because they were too big for him to fight).
David slew goliath and in doing so, made the phil... Servants to israel, forever (goliath's words).
David was welcomed as a hero by the king and his son (jonathan), who gave him his cloak (he took off his clothes) to "honor" him as a hero.
Time goes by
david is married to the king's daughter, he spends little time with her because he is helping saul in battles (not really a loving relationship).
Johnathan confronts saul about trying to kill david (apparently saul is envious of the people's love for david).
Saul swears, using the lord, that he wants no part of that.
David tells johnathan not to believe "his" father and "his" king.
Johnathan discovers "his" father and "his" king deceived him.
Johnathan has sworn an oath to david to protect him and his family in return for david's protection of him and his (johnathan's) family. David says that johnathan's love is better than that of a woman (he is in a pretty cold marriage that is dissolved, when david loses favor with saul), he is young and has not had any long-tem relationship with a woman.
He must break one alliance:
Either to his father and his king: A crime punishable by death at that time,
or one the he swore an oath.
He broke the one to his father, and was emotionally crushed.
He told david, they wept and kissed (a middle-eastern custom that exists to this day).

Go ahead, write your examples, and yes, i would like to see your other biblical examples praising homosexuality.

The "middle-east" didn't exist until about the 8th century ce so how did "me customs" exist so many hundreds of years prior? You give a typical dance and ignore the scripture to write your own. The dudes got naked, made a covenant with each other and kissed all alone in a field. You may also ignore ruth and naomi's relationship at your leisure.

Have you figured out yet why s+g had nothing to do with homosexuality?
Where does it say they were naked, at the same time, in the same place? Where does it say they had homosexual sex? Where does the lord praise homosexual acts?

In the instances where two people had sex, there is clear reference: He knew his wife, or he had relations with her, etc. You, again, are being deceitful. You make strong statements, i ask you to back it up, and you go totally limp?????
Where is your evidence? Your three phases are from three different chapters and are out of context. If the lord was sooo pleased with johnathan, why did he die a short while after his betrayal to the king? Doesn't the lord promise his favorites to have descendents as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach?

Third time: Give the written examples (chapter and verse) of where the lord praises homosexual acts.


Quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by logical4u

okay, i'll give you that it says 'all the people'. But it does not say women and children the way it does in other events. It does say 'men', (only), will you admit that, you.....?
It also says the men demanded the male visitors to have sex with them, now will you admit that, you ....?

I doubt it because you are dishonest and will not admit what is i black and white. I am still waiting for any passage or verse that the lord praises homosexual acts (not one that needs interpreted or is in homosexual secret code). Still no honesty from you there.

If you are going to call me a bigot, please list the way of life that is better than what is taught in the bible.
What the hell was unclear about:

"don't bother answering because you've proven yourself to be a dishonest bitch."

did you think that was a joke you fucking ****?
So you use your 'elite' words that show you have no class as well as no truth? You made a lot of statements without backing them up, and then when you were asked to demonstrate your statements were factual, you start with the name calling?
Since you can not back up your statements, i guess your statements were deceitful propoganda to support sinful acts and lead people away from the lord.

And still no way of life better than the bible's teaching? If you are going to tell people they are bigots, you should have some idea of a better way. If your example of name-calling instead of real conversation is your idea of a better way, then i think your way is not for me.
I've backed up every claim i made you lying self righteous fuckwad. I pointed out "all the people" were at lot's door and even after posting five fucking different bible sources you still tried to ignore it.


You preach about "real conversation" when it is clear as day you tried so damn hard to ignore obvious facts you did not like. I call bitches like you names because you earn it with your dishonesty and your obvious bigotry you fucking punk. Then you continue your dishonesty by trying to claim the people at lot's door demanded to have sex. There is nothing anywhere close to that so here is your bigotry based logic you fucking useless ****:

When the bible says "all the people" it only means men unless women and children are specifically mentioned even though a passage says "men and all the people."

you take that position on this because you know damn well to admit "all the people" seriously undermines your claim it was homosexuality. It's dishonest and you know it but you don't give a fuck because trying to justify your bigotry is your master. You are a slave to dishonesty by your own anti-gay agenda.

You are basing your homosexuality claim almost entirely on the passage saying the crowd wanted to "know" the visitors. You are trying to say "know" means have sex with when it doesn't even come close to that you lying bitch. Here is the ultimate blow to your theory:

If they wanted to force the visitors to have sex then the crime was attempted rape and not homosexuality. So even letting you lie about "know" meaning sex does not support your claim about it being homosexuality. I might be nasty with the name calling but i much prefer being honest over your method of pattern dishonesty then try to claim the upper hand simply because you don't call people names. You're a pathetic self righteous bigot and you keep proving it to be true. It's fucking disgusting lying fucks like you keep raping scripture to try and justify your bigotry.
Quote: Originally posted by logical4u
quote: Originally posted by curvelight
quote: Originally posted by bodecea

may the gods forgive that this guy is trying to become as educated as possible. That simply cannot be abided!
I thought it was funny logical4u highlighted the man's education as a reason to not even address his explanation of s+g. I've no doubt he clicked on the link and began skimming until he realized he could not possibly address the exegesis so he immediately googled the author's name in a desperate search for anything as an excuse to ignore it. I don't care he did that in itself. It just pisses me off when christians like him claim to be stewards and students of the bible then run and hide like little puppies when they know they can't roll.
It seems to me that you are the one making statements about what "is" in the bible and then run calling names and repeating falsehoods when asked for chapter and verse. As a way to change the subject you bring in a man that is not true to any of the religions for which he holds degrees. Him being "ordained" in more than one religions demonstrates his dishonesty. Why would i want to listen to a man that had to decive to get his "ordinations"? How could i trust anything he has to say?
I've provided evidence for all of my claims and even posted five fucking different translations showing "all the people" showed up at lot's house and like a sniveling crybaby whitewashed **** you run like hell with obfuscation and deflection.

You cannot address the exegesis i linked so you laughably make an ass of yourself scrambling to find some reason-regardless of how fucking ridiculous-to avoid addressing it.

You are fucking clueless about s+g and you refuse to do anything but continue to live in your fantasy and you're so damn obsessed with keeping your narrow ignorant viewpoints that if necessary, you would have shoved a thermos up jesus' ass while he was dying on the cross if it meant keeping him silent to maintain your views. Now cry about that you piss ant nancy boy.


You proved that it said all the people.

You did not show anywhere that the bible demostrated praise for homosexual acts.
You did not show anywhere the bible declared homosexual acts not sinful.
You did not quote chapter and verse demonstrating that david and johnathan had homosexual sex.
You deny that a man raping a male has anything to do with homosexuality, even if females are present.
You focus on 'select' phrases taken out of context over the moral of the event.
When you are exposes as one that bears false witness, you call names and cry, cry, cry.
You present 'one' man's interpretation as 'word', while disregarding the parts of the bible that do not agree with your agenda.
You have no credibility.


tl:dr

:eusa_liar:
Well I didn't
 

Forum List

Back
Top