NJ Same-Sex Marriage Bill to be Considered Next Week

[CurveLight]

I'm not trying to end any debate with force but merely exposing your positions for what they are: bigotry and unAmerican standards. You claim the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Do you not realize even if your archaic theology is correct it is wholly irrelevant to this discussion? Are we a theocrac? Do you want all religions legislating American laws or just yours? So are you advocating unabashed hypocrisy on top of your bigotry? If you are a bigot expect to get called out. Don't preach bigotry then whine about it being exposed.

CurveLight, is bigot, like your favorite word???

Thank for showing you have reached your limits in this discussion. Do let us know when you have something to contribute.

 

[Sunni Man]

CurveLight, is bigot, like your favorite word???

Thank for showing you have reached your limits in this discussion. Do let us know when you have something to contribute.[/QUOTE]

I believe you reached your discussion limit on this topic many posts ago.

Now you just accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being a bigot or of bigotry.

Your posts mainly consist of: "You are a bigot", "your position is bigoted", "what you say is bigoted", etc.

Although to be fair, lately you have been sprinkling your posts with the word "unamerican"

 

[CurveLight]

How does one learn about anything without discussing it? Even if Sunni Man knows nothing, he has a right (which you are so big on) to say what he wants. Ultra liberals like yourself are quick to end debate when the results are not in your favor. Then you throw some type of bigotry term in, so we can be labeled and minimized. It doesn't work any more, we have caught on. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Sodom and Gamorrah might make a good reference for you.

I meant he shouldn't try to speak about it is as if he is informed, just like I'm going to tell you right now you shouldn't try to speak on an issue you are clearly ignorant about, which is Sodom and Gomorrah. You don't have the first clue about that narrative so if you wish to embarrass the hell out of yourself then mention it again. If you want your ignorance to remain a secret, don't try to bring Genesis 19 into this discussion.

I'm not a Liberal so are you trying to show your political knowledge is on par with your Biblical comprehension? I'm not trying to end any debate with force but merely exposing your positions for what they are: bigotry and unAmerican standards. You claim the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Do you not realize even if your archaic theology is correct it is wholly irrelevant to this discussion? Are we a theocrac? Do you want all religions legislating American laws or just yours? So are you advocating unabashed hypocrisy on top of your bigotry? If you are a bigot expect to get called out. Don't preach bigotry then whine about it being exposed.

Okay smart guy, the Bible clearly states in Genesis 19 the sex act which defines homosexuality. Yes I do claim, as has my religion that homosexuality is a sin. Calling a immoral act a sin is no more an act of bigotry than stating criminals belong in jail. If you feel better or superior because you have placed a label on me, so be it. You certainly will not or can not silence me with your false accusations. By the way, that is considered a sin too.

You should be very careful about which Bible you use because some publishers have actively inserted known false translations to try and sell bibles to people like you who care more about your agenda than truth. There is absolutely nothing in Gen 19 that speaks of homosexuality. Sex wasn't even the issue but if it was then the attempted crime by the MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at Lot's door was rape, not homosexuality.

I'm guessing you think "Ya'da" meant to know "sexually." Ge away from Robertson's Sunday School of Ignorance. That word is used over 930 times in the OT and it never references homosexuality. At best it is used in reference to consensual hetero sex maybe 10 times. Look again....over 930 uses of the term "ya'da" and none of them speak about homosexuality. Do you know what some common uses were? To interrogate, to punish. Sounds like it fits the crowd of men, women, and children at Lot's door. They wanted to interrogate the visitors because inhospitality was a main cause of the destruction.

Let's look at verse explaining why Sod and Gom were destroyed, shall we?

Ezek. 49-50
“Now this is 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.* Therefore I

did away with them as you have seen.”*

Gee, there is nothing there about homosexuality. Why try to bear false witness about scripture to justify your own ignorance


Don't bring up how Lot offered his virgin daughters. That was not a sexual offering by nature but only economical. Virgins were the highest form of currency in their culture so Lot was trying to buy his visitors protection. I stand by my claim you don't comprehend Gen 19.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight, is bigot, like your favorite word???

Thank for showing you have reached your limits in this discussion. Do let us know when you have something to contribute.

I believe you reached your discussion limit on this topic many posts ago.

Now you just accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being a bigot or of bigotry.

Your posts mainly consist of: "You are a bigot", "your position is bigoted", "what you say is bigoted", etc.

Although to be fair, lately you have been sprinkling your posts with the word "unamerican" [/QUOTE]


Lol....if you preach bigotry I will call it out. Don't get upset at others for your position. Then you falsely claim I will call anyone a bigot who disagrees with me? Do you have a shred of honesty?

 

[saveliberty]

I meant he shouldn't try to speak about it is as if he is informed, just like I'm going to tell you right now you shouldn't try to speak on an issue you are clearly ignorant about, which is Sodom and Gomorrah. You don't have the first clue about that narrative so if you wish to embarrass the hell out of yourself then mention it again. If you want your ignorance to remain a secret, don't try to bring Genesis 19 into this discussion.

I'm not a Liberal so are you trying to show your political knowledge is on par with your Biblical comprehension? I'm not trying to end any debate with force but merely exposing your positions for what they are: bigotry and unAmerican standards. You claim the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Do you not realize even if your archaic theology is correct it is wholly irrelevant to this discussion? Are we a theocrac? Do you want all religions legislating American laws or just yours? So are you advocating unabashed hypocrisy on top of your bigotry? If you are a bigot expect to get called out. Don't preach bigotry then whine about it being exposed.

Okay smart guy, the Bible clearly states in Genesis 19 the sex act which defines homosexuality. Yes I do claim, as has my religion that homosexuality is a sin. Calling a immoral act a sin is no more an act of bigotry than stating criminals belong in jail. If you feel better or superior because you have placed a label on me, so be it. You certainly will not or can not silence me with your false accusations. By the way, that is considered a sin too.

You should be very careful about which Bible you use because some publishers have actively inserted known false translations to try and sell bibles to people like you who care more about your agenda than truth. There is absolutely nothing in Gen 19 that speaks of homosexuality. Sex wasn't even the issue but if it was then the attempted crime by the MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at Lot's door was rape, not homosexuality.

I'm guessing you think "Ya'da" meant to know "sexually." Ge away from Robertson's Sunday School of Ignorance. That word is used over 930 times in the OT and it never references homosexuality. At best it is used in reference to consensual hetero sex maybe 10 times. Look again....over 930 uses of the term "ya'da" and none of them speak about homosexuality. Do you know what some common uses were? To interrogate, to punish. Sounds like it fits the crowd of men, women, and children at Lot's door. They wanted to interrogate the visitors because inhospitality was a main cause of the destruction.

Let's look at verse explaining why Sod and Gom were destroyed, shall we?

Ezek. 49-50
“Now this is 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.* Therefore I

did away with them as you have seen.”*

Gee, there is nothing there about homosexuality. Why try to bear false witness about scripture to justify your own ignorance


Don't bring up how Lot offered his virgin daughters. That was not a sexual offering by nature but only economical. Virgins were the highest form of currency in their culture so Lot was trying to buy his visitors protection. I stand by my claim you don't comprehend Gen 19.

Protection from what? Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. This would be the part you get to play stupid and act like you don't understand what, "that we may know them" means. Boy, that King James, trying to trick us modern peolpe with his twentith century Bible. Oh wait, just a little earlier than that huh?

 

[CurveLight]

Okay smart guy, the Bible clearly states in Genesis 19 the sex act which defines homosexuality. Yes I do claim, as has my religion that homosexuality is a sin. Calling a immoral act a sin is no more an act of bigotry than stating criminals belong in jail. If you feel better or superior because you have placed a label on me, so be it. You certainly will not or can not silence me with your false accusations. By the way, that is considered a sin too.

You should be very careful about which Bible you use because some publishers have actively inserted known false translations to try and sell bibles to people like you who care more about your agenda than truth. There is absolutely nothing in Gen 19 that speaks of homosexuality. Sex wasn't even the issue but if it was then the attempted crime by the MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at Lot's door was rape, not homosexuality.

I'm guessing you think "Ya'da" meant to know "sexually." Ge away from Robertson's Sunday School of Ignorance. That word is used over 930 times in the OT and it never references homosexuality. At best it is used in reference to consensual hetero sex maybe 10 times. Look again....over 930 uses of the term "ya'da" and none of them speak about homosexuality. Do you know what some common uses were? To interrogate, to punish. Sounds like it fits the crowd of men, women, and children at Lot's door. They wanted to interrogate the visitors because inhospitality was a main cause of the destruction.

Let's look at verse explaining why Sod and Gom were destroyed, shall we?

Ezek. 49-50
“Now this is 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.* Therefore I

did away with them as you have seen.”*

Gee, there is nothing there about homosexuality. Why try to bear false witness about scripture to justify your own ignorance


Don't bring up how Lot offered his virgin daughters. That was not a sexual offering by nature but only economical. Virgins were the highest form of currency in their culture so Lot was trying to buy his visitors protection. I stand by my claim you don't comprehend Gen 19.

Protection from what? Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. This would be the part you get to play stupid and act like you don't understand what, "that we may know them" means. Boy, that King James, trying to trick us modern peolpe with his twentith century Bible. Oh wait, just a little earlier than that huh?

You just completely skipped over the fact I already anticipated you would try to claim the "we may know them" means homosexuality. What the hell is wrong with you that you would quote my post just to pretend I didn't already point out "we may know them" is not a homosexual reference?

 

[saveliberty]

You should be very careful about which Bible you use because some publishers have actively inserted known false translations to try and sell bibles to people like you who care more about your agenda than truth. There is absolutely nothing in Gen 19 that speaks of homosexuality. Sex wasn't even the issue but if it was then the attempted crime by the MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at Lot's door was rape, not homosexuality.

I'm guessing you think "Ya'da" meant to know "sexually." Ge away from Robertson's Sunday School of Ignorance. That word is used over 930 times in the OT and it never references homosexuality. At best it is used in reference to consensual hetero sex maybe 10 times. Look again....over 930 uses of the term "ya'da" and none of them speak about homosexuality. Do you know what some common uses were? To interrogate, to punish. Sounds like it fits the crowd of men, women, and children at Lot's door. They wanted to interrogate the visitors because inhospitality was a main cause of the destruction.

Let's look at verse explaining why Sod and Gom were destroyed, shall we?

Ezek. 49-50
“Now this is 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.* Therefore I

did away with them as you have seen.”*

Gee, there is nothing there about homosexuality. Why try to bear false witness about scripture to justify your own ignorance


Don't bring up how Lot offered his virgin daughters. That was not a sexual offering by nature but only economical. Virgins were the highest form of currency in their culture so Lot was trying to buy his visitors protection. I stand by my claim you don't comprehend Gen 19.

Protection from what? Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. This would be the part you get to play stupid and act like you don't understand what, "that we may know them" means. Boy, that King James, trying to trick us modern peolpe with his twentith century Bible. Oh wait, just a little earlier than that huh?

You just completely skipped over the fact I already anticipated you would try to claim the "we may know them" means homosexuality. What the hell is wrong with you that you would quote my post just to pretend I didn't already point out "we may know them" is not a homosexual reference?

Your denial of a facts makes debating you pointless. Certainly Lot would want to buy off a crowd of men out side his house because they just wanted to get to know his male guests, like have some beers and talk? It is a common reference to sex, which most of us know, but has somehow escaped you. Major fail on your part. I didn't skip over it, I merely created a trap for you to fall into. Thanks for playing.

 

[stevecox]

The 14th amendment says it does.

People like you are the first ones to shout "sin!" while pretending you are free of sin. You're the kind of hypocrite that embarrasses Christianity and you're the kind of Christian that does nothing but try to make others feel bad. You're also the worst kind of American because you want to use the government to force your theology on others while ignoring the basic principles of equality that is the basis for our Constitution.

You know nothing of Christ as demonstrated by your bigotry and you know nothing of America as demonstrated by your claim this issue has nothing to do with the Constitution.

...and you're just throwing a temper tantrum because nobody ever taught you how to argue your opinions in a mature fashion.

No constitutional amendment mandates the creation of a law. The 14th Amendment, loosely speaking, says the law has to pertain to everyone, but it doesn't have to appease everyone. If the law said "gay people can't marry", that would be unconstitutional. However, since the law says marriage is defined as one man and one woman, that might not appease those who would want to marry someone of the same sex, but it's not unconstitutional.

Also, you don't have to permit sin to be a Christian or appeasing in the eyes of God. You shouldn't be a hypocrite and overly judgmental, but even Christ had standards. He wasn't just some long-haired hippie standing around with an olive branch. Remember the story of the adulteress woman who was about to be stoned? Yeah, he stopped the people from stoning her, but he also told her to go forth and sin no more. So people who rightly think homosexuality is a sin aren't compelled to support them in that. If anything, you're the one with the issues, because you're only worried about being popular.

Christians shouldn't be hypocritical and overly judgmental? Is that your theological depth? Must be because you have absolutely no idea what the narrative about the adultress was discussing so unless necessary I recommend not trying to appear informed simply because you know how to repeat ignorant Biblical exegesis.

"You're stupid and you're wrong" is the gist of this, which lets me know you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Like garyd, you pretend to know something about me personally by claiming I'm "worried about being popular." Ask around, the last thing I'm concerned with is approval from a bunch of random people on a message board. You two should really should stick to your day jobs (if you have them) because your psychic abilities suck.

I don't have to know the intimate details of your life to know you're just like a lot of liberals who think all the Bible is tell us to love each other and be nice to everybody. There's a way to finesse the point about loving your fellow man and being tolerant without this self-righteous, finger-wagging that only liberal douches who don't know shit about the Bible do. I've met enough people like you. You're no different.

Instead of relying on your "loosely" speaking bullshit on the 14th let's take a look at what the two relevant sections state:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Notice S1 clearly states all persons are guaranteed equal protection of the laws and S5 says Congress has the power by legislation to enforce those provisions. Obviously, your ignorance on the Constitution is a close second behind scripture.

Yes it does, dumbbell. Now, plug that back into the argument. We define marriage as one man and one woman. Gay men and lesbians fall into that category, unless they're some third sex I don't know about. So that's...equal.

If the government gives two Citizens over a thousand laws based on their petition to the State to have their marriage legally recognized then it must do so for any two Citizens regardless of physical anatomy. Or do you wish to live in a country that places more importance on what is between peoples' legs versus equality? We are not a theocracy so don't waste our time with your theological reasons, aside from the obvious you are ill informed on that matter, because if you wish to inject religion then by the 14th you must respect any and all other religions. But we are not in much danger of experiencing consistency from your camp, are we?

First of all, though I know what you're referring to, the government doesn't give "two Citizens over a thousand laws based on their petition to the State", and second, no, they don't have to do so for any two citizens. That's dumb as hell. There are over a thousand federal instances (some tied to existing social programs, some tied to taxes, some totally obsolete) in which marriage plays a factor. People like you think these are all rights and benefits, but they're not, because the government doesn't love you that damn much. People like you think there's a windfall of benefits being withheld from gay couples, and that's why you're so adamant about them applying to everybody.

Furthermore, like I told you before, no amendment mandates the creation or expansion of a law or privilege or subsidy. The government does this careful parses of most of its expenditures with relative impunity. They GET TO DO THAT. Gay and lesbian INDIVIDUALS have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like heterosexual INDIVIDUALS have the same right. You're trying to assert that gay couples and straight couples should be treated the same (though I'd disagree with that), but the point you're missing (because you're an idiot who can't think) is marriage is an individual right. "Any two people" is just bullshit you made up. Even when you file taxes, you're either an unmarried or married INDIVIDUAL.

And for someone who just went through a post chastising someone about not being Christ-like or accepting, you really don't have any right to tell me what I can and can't mention. Shit, you can't even analyze the Constitution, so you really need not worry about me trying to turn this country into a theocracy.

 

[CurveLight]

Protection from what? Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. This would be the part you get to play stupid and act like you don't understand what, "that we may know them" means. Boy, that King James, trying to trick us modern peolpe with his twentith century Bible. Oh wait, just a little earlier than that huh?

You just completely skipped over the fact I already anticipated you would try to claim the "we may know them" means homosexuality. What the hell is wrong with you that you would quote my post just to pretend I didn't already point out "we may know them" is not a homosexual reference?

Your denial of a facts makes debating you pointless. Certainly Lot would want to buy off a crowd of men out side his house because they just wanted to get to know his male guests, like have some beers and talk? It is a common reference to sex, which most of us know, but has somehow escaped you. Major fail on your part. I didn't skip over it, I merely created a trap for you to fall into. Thanks for playing.

I didn't say the crowd wanted to have a beer with Lot's guests.....in fact I explicitly pointed out their intentions were hostile. Yet you boldly ignored that because you are a fake. You don't give a shit about scripture.

Ya'da is not a common reference to sex and here is the evidence:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 3045. yada

Let's look at it's meanings:

acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow) -- acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit,


What was that you were saying about people ignoring facts? Not only did you ignore yada is not a sexual term but you also completely ignored Ezek. 16:49-50 because it straight up says why S + G were destroyed......and it had nothing to do with homosexuality.

I suppose in the face of these facts and evidence your next response will be to ignore those again and try to squirm away hoping not too many people will notice your preach about something you are deeply mistaken about.

 

[saveliberty]

Curvelight says, "I didn't say the crowd wanted to have a beer with Lot's guests.....in fact I explicitly pointed out their intentions were hostile. Yet you boldly ignored that because you are a fake. You don't give a shit about scripture.

Ya'da is not a common reference to sex and here is the evidence:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 3045. yada

Let's look at it's meanings:

acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

Funny, the definition doesn't look like hostile is a possibility. You are in conflict with yourself. Let us know how that turns out. Please feel free to lace your response with profanity, a long standing religious tradition.

 

[CurveLight]

Curvelight says, "I didn't say the crowd wanted to have a beer with Lot's guests.....in fact I explicitly pointed out their intentions were hostile. Yet you boldly ignored that because you are a fake. You don't give a shit about scripture.

Ya'da is not a common reference to sex and here is the evidence:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 3045. yada

Let's look at it's meanings:

acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

Funny, the definition doesn't look like hostile is a possibility. You are in conflict with yourself. Let us know how that turns out. Please feel free to lace your response with profanity, a long standing religious tradition.

How do you so boldly practice such blatant dishonesty? First of all you ignore the fact it is obviously not a term referencing sex or homosexuality. Second, let's look at where you chose to stop your cut and paste job. Notice how you stopped short? Let's try a bit more of an honest approach:


acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.)


By golly! Doesn't that say punishment? So you ignore that and again you ignore Ezekiel showing S+G was not destroyed due to homosexuality. Then you ******* whine about cuss words? Lol....figures.....with your heart of hate you place priority on frivolous matters.

Go ahead stubborn einstein and show us again how little you actually know. You should pick a new religion or at least try to pretend you want to learn about the one you claim allegiance to. Just a thought!

 

[CurveLight]

In response to post 68:

Marriage has never had a single universal definition, ever. Your appeal to denying equal rights on that claim is empty by the mere fallacy of a demonstrably false claim.

Even if marriage has always had a single universal definition that would still be insufficient evidence to justify discrimination against gays. For a period "A Citizen" of the US was defined in ways that prevented women and other minority groups from basic equal rights, such as Voting. By your argument, they still wouldn't be allowed to vote for not fitting an arbitrary definition.

For the State to afford Laws to two people based on sex while denying those same Laws to a different set of two people based on sex is sexual discrimination. This is no different than when the Law afforded Whites certain Rights that were denied to African Americans. Or when men had rights not afforded to women.

Contrary to popular belief from the voices in your head, you are not of the authority to define "Marriage" for everyone else. If you knew anything about American and Christian principles you would not be advocating discrimination based on your tiny narrow view. Unfortunately, you apparently abhor American values of Equality and likewise have nothing but contempt for the basic social teachings of Christ. You are an example of why Christianity is mocked on a daily basis.

 

[saveliberty]

Curvelight says, "I didn't say the crowd wanted to have a beer with Lot's guests.....in fact I explicitly pointed out their intentions were hostile. Yet you boldly ignored that because you are a fake. You don't give a shit about scripture.

Ya'da is not a common reference to sex and here is the evidence:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 3045. yada

Let's look at it's meanings:

acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

Funny, the definition doesn't look like hostile is a possibility. You are in conflict with yourself. Let us know how that turns out. Please feel free to lace your response with profanity, a long standing religious tradition.

How do you so boldly practice such blatant dishonesty? First of all you ignore the fact it is obviously not a term referencing sex or homosexuality. Second, let's look at where you chose to stop your cut and paste job. Notice how you stopped short? Let's try a bit more of an honest approach:


acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.)


By golly! Doesn't that say punishment? So you ignore that and again you ignore Ezekiel showing S+G was not destroyed due to homosexuality. Then you ******* whine about cuss words? Lol....figures.....with your heart of hate you place priority on frivolous matters.

Go ahead stubborn einstein and show us again how little you actually know. You should pick a new religion or at least try to pretend you want to learn about the one you claim allegiance to. Just a thought!

I understand you have a need to be right here. Too bad you have to take the last possible meaning in the literal sense (one of four suggested) of the root of the meaning, instead of the actual meanings highlighted in bold from your own source.

What exactly were they being punished for again? What crime is mentioned? None. Because that is not what the Bible is talking about in Genesis 19. Interesting you ignore that Sodom has become the meaning of another word. Your anger and need to discredit me instead of my points is telling also. I am being true to religion, yours is apparently made up to help you feel good. Enjoy.

 

[CurveLight]

Curvelight says, "I didn't say the crowd wanted to have a beer with Lot's guests.....in fact I explicitly pointed out their intentions were hostile. Yet you boldly ignored that because you are a fake. You don't give a shit about scripture.

Ya'da is not a common reference to sex and here is the evidence:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 3045. yada

Let's look at it's meanings:

acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

Funny, the definition doesn't look like hostile is a possibility. You are in conflict with yourself. Let us know how that turns out. Please feel free to lace your response with profanity, a long standing religious tradition.

How do you so boldly practice such blatant dishonesty? First of all you ignore the fact it is obviously not a term referencing sex or homosexuality. Second, let's look at where you chose to stop your cut and paste job. Notice how you stopped short? Let's try a bit more of an honest approach:


acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.)


By golly! Doesn't that say punishment? So you ignore that and again you ignore Ezekiel showing S+G was not destroyed due to homosexuality. Then you ******* whine about cuss words? Lol....figures.....with your heart of hate you place priority on frivolous matters.

Go ahead stubborn einstein and show us again how little you actually know. You should pick a new religion or at least try to pretend you want to learn about the one you claim allegiance to. Just a thought!

I understand you have a need to be right here. Too bad you have to take the last possible meaning in the literal sense (one of four suggested) of the root of the meaning, instead of the actual meanings highlighted in bold from your own source.

What exactly were they being punished for again? What crime is mentioned? None. Because that is not what the Bible is talking about in Genesis 19. Interesting you ignore that Sodom has become the meaning of another word. Your anger and need to discredit me instead of my points is telling also. I am being true to religion, yours is apparently made up to help you feel good. Enjoy.

So you consistently ignore the facts "yada" was not a sexual reference, homosexuality is never given as a reason for the destruction, and that verses like Ezek. 16:49-50 give clear reasons for the destruction and again homosexuality is not mentioned. Nobody has to do anything to discredit you. Your ignorance does it automatically.

What were they being punished for? It was for being strangers in a place that was extremely inhospitable to strangers. Even when Jesus made a reference to S+G it was in direct connection to inhospitality. But let's not drown you in information. You obviously refuse to address any info that shows your homophobic motive is based on bullshit.

I took the meaning of yada that most likely fits based on the information available. Weren't you pontificating that term meant "sex" and everyone knew that? Isn't it funny you refuse to openly admit it clearly does not mean what you thought.

As for the etymology of the word "Sodomite" have you ever done homework on that? Going by your sheer and utter ignorance of Gen 19 I am guessing no.

If your religion is Christianity you are not being true to it at all. Christianity does not condone nor teach it is acceptable to bear false witness about scripture.

 

[saveliberty]

How do you so boldly practice such blatant dishonesty? First of all you ignore the fact it is obviously not a term referencing sex or homosexuality. Second, let's look at where you chose to stop your cut and paste job. Notice how you stopped short? Let's try a bit more of an honest approach:


acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.)




By golly! Doesn't that say punishment? So you ignore that and again you ignore Ezekiel showing S+G was not destroyed due to homosexuality. Then you ******* whine about cuss words? Lol....figures.....with your heart of hate you place priority on frivolous matters.

Go ahead stubborn einstein and show us again how little you actually know. You should pick a new religion or at least try to pretend you want to learn about the one you claim allegiance to. Just a thought!

I understand you have a need to be right here. Too bad you have to take the last possible meaning in the literal sense (one of four suggested) of the root of the meaning, instead of the actual meanings highlighted in bold from your own source.

What exactly were they being punished for again? What crime is mentioned? None. Because that is not what the Bible is talking about in Genesis 19. Interesting you ignore that Sodom has become the meaning of another word. Your anger and need to discredit me instead of my points is telling also. I am being true to religion, yours is apparently made up to help you feel good. Enjoy.

So you consistently ignore the facts "yada" was not a sexual reference, homosexuality is never given as a reason for the destruction, and that verses like Ezek. 16:49-50 give clear reasons for the destruction and again homosexuality is not mentioned. Nobody has to do anything to discredit you. Your ignorance does it automatically.

What were they being punished for? It was for being strangers in a place that was extremely inhospitable to strangers. Even when Jesus made a reference to S+G it was in direct connection to inhospitality. But let's not drown you in information. You obviously refuse to address any info that shows your homophobic motive is based on bullshit.

I took the meaning of yada that most likely fits based on the information available. Weren't you pontificating that term meant "sex" and everyone knew that? Isn't it funny you refuse to openly admit it clearly does not mean what you thought.

As for the etymology of the word "Sodomite" have you ever done homework on that? Going by your sheer and utter ignorance of Gen 19 I am guessing no.

If your religion is Christianity you are not being true to it at all. Christianity does not condone nor teach it is acceptable to bear false witness about scripture.

Every major Christian religion sees it my way. Enjoy yours Curvelight.

 

[rightwinger]

NJ now has civil unions...its only a matter of time before they allow gay marriage

 

[bodecea]

Okay smart guy, the Bible clearly states in Genesis 19 the sex act which defines homosexuality. Yes I do claim, as has my religion that homosexuality is a sin. Calling a immoral act a sin is no more an act of bigotry than stating criminals belong in jail. If you feel better or superior because you have placed a label on me, so be it. You certainly will not or can not silence me with your false accusations. By the way, that is considered a sin too.

You should be very careful about which Bible you use because some publishers have actively inserted known false translations to try and sell bibles to people like you who care more about your agenda than truth. There is absolutely nothing in Gen 19 that speaks of homosexuality. Sex wasn't even the issue but if it was then the attempted crime by the MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at Lot's door was rape, not homosexuality.

I'm guessing you think "Ya'da" meant to know "sexually." Ge away from Robertson's Sunday School of Ignorance. That word is used over 930 times in the OT and it never references homosexuality. At best it is used in reference to consensual hetero sex maybe 10 times. Look again....over 930 uses of the term "ya'da" and none of them speak about homosexuality. Do you know what some common uses were? To interrogate, to punish. Sounds like it fits the crowd of men, women, and children at Lot's door. They wanted to interrogate the visitors because inhospitality was a main cause of the destruction.

Let's look at verse explaining why Sod and Gom were destroyed, shall we?

Ezek. 49-50
“Now this is 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.* Therefore I

did away with them as you have seen.”*

Gee, there is nothing there about homosexuality. Why try to bear false witness about scripture to justify your own ignorance


Don't bring up how Lot offered his virgin daughters. That was not a sexual offering by nature but only economical. Virgins were the highest form of currency in their culture so Lot was trying to buy his visitors protection. I stand by my claim you don't comprehend Gen 19.

Protection from what? Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. This would be the part you get to play stupid and act like you don't understand what, "that we may know them" means. Boy, that King James, trying to trick us modern peolpe with his twentith century Bible. Oh wait, just a little earlier than that huh?

Funniest part of all!

 

[bodecea]

I understand you have a need to be right here. Too bad you have to take the last possible meaning in the literal sense (one of four suggested) of the root of the meaning, instead of the actual meanings highlighted in bold from your own source.

What exactly were they being punished for again? What crime is mentioned? None. Because that is not what the Bible is talking about in Genesis 19. Interesting you ignore that Sodom has become the meaning of another word. Your anger and need to discredit me instead of my points is telling also. I am being true to religion, yours is apparently made up to help you feel good. Enjoy.

So you consistently ignore the facts "yada" was not a sexual reference, homosexuality is never given as a reason for the destruction, and that verses like Ezek. 16:49-50 give clear reasons for the destruction and again homosexuality is not mentioned. Nobody has to do anything to discredit you. Your ignorance does it automatically.

What were they being punished for? It was for being strangers in a place that was extremely inhospitable to strangers. Even when Jesus made a reference to S+G it was in direct connection to inhospitality. But let's not drown you in information. You obviously refuse to address any info that shows your homophobic motive is based on bullshit.

I took the meaning of yada that most likely fits based on the information available. Weren't you pontificating that term meant "sex" and everyone knew that? Isn't it funny you refuse to openly admit it clearly does not mean what you thought.

As for the etymology of the word "Sodomite" have you ever done homework on that? Going by your sheer and utter ignorance of Gen 19 I am guessing no.

If your religion is Christianity you are not being true to it at all. Christianity does not condone nor teach it is acceptable to bear false witness about scripture.

Every major Christian religion sees it my way. Enjoy yours Curvelight.

What is it the Episcopals just did....again? Refresh our memories on what that Major English speaking Christian sect just did.

 

[CurveLight]

You should be very careful about which Bible you use because some publishers have actively inserted known false translations to try and sell bibles to people like you who care more about your agenda than truth. There is absolutely nothing in Gen 19 that speaks of homosexuality. Sex wasn't even the issue but if it was then the attempted crime by the MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN at Lot's door was rape, not homosexuality.

I'm guessing you think "Ya'da" meant to know "sexually." Ge away from Robertson's Sunday School of Ignorance. That word is used over 930 times in the OT and it never references homosexuality. At best it is used in reference to consensual hetero sex maybe 10 times. Look again....over 930 uses of the term "ya'da" and none of them speak about homosexuality. Do you know what some common uses were? To interrogate, to punish. Sounds like it fits the crowd of men, women, and children at Lot's door. They wanted to interrogate the visitors because inhospitality was a main cause of the destruction.

Let's look at verse explaining why Sod and Gom were destroyed, shall we?

Ezek. 49-50
“Now this is 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.* Therefore I

did away with them as you have seen.”*

Gee, there is nothing there about homosexuality. Why try to bear false witness about scripture to justify your own ignorance


Don't bring up how Lot offered his virgin daughters. That was not a sexual offering by nature but only economical. Virgins were the highest form of currency in their culture so Lot was trying to buy his visitors protection. I stand by my claim you don't comprehend Gen 19.

Protection from what? Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. This would be the part you get to play stupid and act like you don't understand what, "that we may know them" means. Boy, that King James, trying to trick us modern peolpe with his twentith century Bible. Oh wait, just a little earlier than that huh?

Funniest part of all!

There are some new translations that actually put the word "homosexual" in verses where it has never been.