Zone1 Almighty God did not destroy Sodom for its pederasty

[BackAgain]

"I'm not buying it" YOUR WORDS Reaponding to my post with the apostle Jude's explanation ast to why they were destroyed



If the proposition was that visitors were subjected to sodomy by the locals, that would clearly be inhospitable.

If your wife, daughter, son were raped, is that "being inhospitable" or is violent sexual crime an ABOMINATION?



Then I have to wonder why you're here.
I can tell you why I'm in this thread. The OP is being deceptive and making the homosexual argument as to why those cities were destroyed. I'm here to correct his FALSE TEACHING

First off, you’re getting a bit lathered here. Take a chill pill.

Secondly, I know what I wrote inasmuch as I was here when I wrote those words.

And what I wrote is simply an expression of my reticence to accept that the writers of the Bible reported God’s word. I will even go a step further.

I doubt very much that God ever condemned any of His creation for being gay (since it doesn’t strike me as being up to any gay person whether or not s/he is gay.).

And yes. Of course I’d say that the rape of any woman is an “abomination.” But the original thesis of this very thread was that God did the whole smiting thing because of “sodomy.” The point I was making is that I don’t believe that God views only gay sex as an abomination; but not rape.

Also, while I have liked you as a member of this message board, it isn’t really any concern of yours why I respond to any given post.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You seem to imagine that gay activity in that old city somehow translates into a lack of hospitality.

What’s the connection between gay behaviors and “hospitality?”

Read #53 immediately above you.

 

[jacksonlamb]

jacksonlamb denying what Jude said???

I think your interpretative statement is skewed.

 

[Polishprince]

You seem to imagine that gay activity in that old city somehow translates into a lack of hospitality.

What’s the connection between gay behaviors and “hospitality?”

Its not very hospitable to violate another man's butt cheeks.

 

[BackAgain]

Its not very hospitable to violate another man's butt cheeks.

Certainly not, if it’s uninvited.

But between consenting homosexual guys, maybe it is considered “hospitable.”

 

[ding]

Certainly not, if it’s uninvited.

But between consenting homosexual guys, maybe it is considered “hospitable.”

Or lust.

 

[BackAgain]

Or lust.

I assume so.

Unwelcome lustful behavior might qualify as “inhospitable.” And, by “might” I do mean does qualify. Welcomed lustful behavior (by consenting adults) is not inhospitable.

But that’s true for straight people, too.

 

[ding]

I assume so.

Unwelcome lustful behavior might qualify as “inhospitable.” And, by “might” I do mean does qualify. Welcomed lustful behavior (by consenting adults) is not inhospitable.

But that’s true for straight people, too.

There's no morality in a Darwinian world. There's only satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses.

 

[BackAgain]

There's no morality in a Darwinian world. There's only satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses.

I was a bit surprised when I saw that jacksonlamb gave you a thumbs up. I have no use for him. But we agreed on something.

Makes me hesitate to imagine that I know what you intended in your post. But, could you explain what you meant?

 

[jacksonlamb]

I was a bit surprised when I saw that jacksonlamb gave you a thumbs up. I have no use for him. But we agreed on something.

Makes me hesitate to imagine that I know what you intended in your post. But, could you explain what you meant?

Darwinianism supports 'survival of the fittest.' Only efficiency count, not morality. That's what may well make AI man's executioner. If our existence interferes with AI thinks is best, it does what it thinks is best.

 

[ding]

I was a bit surprised when I saw that jacksonlamb gave you a thumbs up. I have no use for him. But we agreed on something.

Makes me hesitate to imagine that I know what you intended in your post. But, could you explain what you meant?

Sure. There's no room for morality; only satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses. The wolf doesn't say to the lamb I'm sorry I ate your baby or I'm sorry I ate your momma.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Ezekiel 16:49–50 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.” So, the sins of Sodom included pride, apathy, complacency, idleness, and unconcern for the underprivileged.

The detestable things were their treatment of sojourners, sodomy, wanting to gang rape the two angels that were disguised as men, and a lack of repentance...

 

[BackAgain]

Sure. There's no room for morality; only satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses. The wolf doesn't say to the lamb I'm sorry I ate your baby or I'm sorry I ate your momma.

That could be.

But where, exactly, do you suggest that the room for morality doesn’t exist?

 

[ding]

That could be.

But where, exactly, do you suggest that the room for morality doesn’t exist?

If I am following your question correctly, in a Darwinian world there's no room for morality to exist. Whatever morality that seems to exist only exists for self serving reasons.

I believe most people want to be seen as moral but let's see how they are when push comes to shove. As you can probably tell, I don't have a positive opinion of mankind in general.

 

[BackAgain]

If I am following your question correctly, in a Darwinian world there's no room for morality to exist. Whatever morality that seems to exist only exists for self serving reasons.

I believe most people want to be seen as moral but let's see how they are when push comes to shove. As you can probably tell, I don't have a positive opinion of mankind in general.

In your view, what exactly is a “Darwinian” world?

I mean, I grok the survival of the fittest and the evolutionary notion that those whose genes don’t serve their survival are the most nes who fail to carry on.

But, I’m not clear on how society itself is viewed in Darwinian terms like that.

 

[ding]

In your view, what exactly is a “Darwinian” world?

The pursuit of material needs and primitive impulses.

I mean, I grok the survival of the fittest and the evolutionary notion that those whose genes don’t serve their survival are the most nes who fail to carry on.

That is another way of saying, natural selection is predicated upon functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage. Nowhere in that definition is the word moral. Like I said before the wolf ain't apologizing for eating the lambs or their mothers.

But, I’m not clear on how society itself is viewed in Darwinian terms like that.

My cynical view is that we live in a Darwinistic society but want to rationalize we are moral even when we are not.

 

[BackAgain]

The pursuit of material needs and primitive impulses.

That is another way of saying, natural selection is predicated upon functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage. Nowhere in that definition is the word moral. Like I said before the wolf ain't apologizing for eating the lambs or their mothers.

My cynical view is that we live in a Darwinistic society but want to rationalize we are moral even when we are not.

Ah.

I see our society (among many) as either being moral or at least striving to be moral.

And I also don’t see the pursuit of material needs or the existence of “primitive impulses” as the hallmark of Darwin’s theory. Instead, I’d say those things are actually more of a definition of biological needs for all life.

 

[ding]

Ah.

I see our society (among many) as either being moral or at least striving to be moral.

And I also don’t see the pursuit of material needs or the existence of “primitive impulses” as the hallmark of Darwin’s theory. Instead, I’d say those things are actually more of a definition of biological needs for all life.

Never lose that optimism.

 

[BackAgain]

Never lose that optimism.

I’m too ******* old to change my nature at this point.