Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It was misinterpreting the bible, that's where it came from. Kinda like "the mark of Cain"

Utter bullshit! An absolute lie or something from your imagination. The men of Sodom refused an offer to sleep with Lott's young virgin daughters and wanted Lott to send out his male guests instead.

Your are really and truly a lying piece of shit!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Go ahead and cite where the bible states that bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for gay couples.

Go ahead and cite where it says they must bow to the wishes of Sodomites and other perverts.

 

[dblack]

Go ahead and cite where the bible states that bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for gay couples.

Go ahead and cite where it says they must bow to the wishes of Sodomites and other perverts.

Or cite where, in the Constitution it says that government must bow to the wishes of self-righteous fundies.

How's about we just let people live their lives without government meddling.

 

[Seawytch]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

[Seawytch]

It was misinterpreting the bible, that's where it came from. Kinda like "the mark of Cain"

Utter bullshit! An absolute lie or something from your imagination. The men of Sodom refused an offer to sleep with Lott's young virgin daughters and wanted Lott to send out his male guests instead.

Your are really and truly a lying piece of shit!

Never heard of the mark of Cain? It’s where the racists get their ideas.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Weird that not helping the poor and needy is first. Think that’s why San Francisco hasn’t “suffered gods wrath”, because they DO help the poor and needy?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Or cite where, in the Constitution it says that government must bow to the wishes of self-righteous fundies.

How's about we just let people live their lives without government meddling.

Great idea, Socrates. Why don't we tell the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to go **** themselves? Their meddling is not appreciated and this is not Communist China.
The days of government compelling labor against people's wills were over I thought with the 14th Amendment.

We still have our Constitution I presume that guarantees freedom of thought and religion. The two lesbians that
blew a gasket when the Kleins declined to make their wedding cake could have gone dozens of other places to have their cake and gobble it down too.

Where do the Kleins go when authoritarian leftist courts and commissions deny people their Constitutional rights?

 

[Seawytch]

Go ahead and cite where the bible states that bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for gay couples.

Go ahead and cite where it says they must bow to the wishes of Sodomites and other perverts.

Same place that says the racists have to serve those cursed with the “mark of Cain”...or that says gays have to serve intolerant Christians.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Never heard of the mark of Cain? It’s where the racists get their ideas.

Yeah...racists are full of shit. And so are you.
"The nature of the mark on Cain has been the subject of much debate and speculation. The Hebrew word translated "mark" is 'owth and refers to a “mark, sign, or token.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, 'owth is used 79 times and is most frequently translated as "sign." So, the Hebrew word does not identify the exact nature of the mark God put on Cain. Whatever it was, it was a sign/indicator that Cain was not to be killed." What was the mark that God put on Cain (Genesis 4:15)?
Why are you always so ******* stupid and wrong?

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Weird that not helping the poor and needy is first. Think that’s why San Francisco hasn’t “suffered gods wrath”, because they DO help the poor and needy?

Actually, you detestable ape, being arrogant, overfed and unconcerned were the first things mentioned, if you theorize things were mentioned in order of their offense (which is totally an assumption of yours). So ******* wrong!

Yeah, San Francisco is such an exemplary Christian city.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

"Knowing" someone in the biblical context always means having sex with that person, unless it is specifically stated otherwise. But please, keep on stating things as if you are an authority whether you are right or not.
It gives you so much, umm, credence.

And the angels were not sodomized principally because Lot shut the door on the mob and would not allow them access to the pair. The pack didn't want Lot's young virgin daughters....they wanted the two men (who were angels unbeknownst to them). So once more you are making shit up as you go along. I'm getting very tired of you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not religious.
Nature.
Nature.
Procreation.
Babies.
Survival of the species.
Nature.
Nature.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Ah, so you have moved to a dictatorship where the opposition can't vote.

Grasp any straw you can to impose your will and that of the government on what consenting adults do.

You emphasize my point about democrats lacking reasoning ability.
I said nothing about dictating behavior.
I said nothing about opposition.
This is about granting privileges in the name of nature. You can still buttfuck or be buttfucked with/by any consenting adult.
Go get a non-democrat to draw you a picture of the logic.

But you said ppl who disagree with you (Democrats) should not be allowed to vote.

If you mean something else, type something else.

I said that not because I disagree but because they demonstrate the lack of intellect and reason to be able to make a sound judgment.

That's fairly narcissistic.

So yeah, anyone who you don't agree with can't vote. Sounds like a great idea from Stalin here.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Which is to be expected per my assessment of democrats.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

If it was only about power and control then did they not rape Lot's daughters? They had plenty of chances to rape his daughters because Lot lived in the city and yet they never approached Lot's house until the two men showed up.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In this particular passage of Ezekiel, God is speaking through Ezekial to the city of Jerusalem and addresses the city as if it were a prostitute: Ez. 16:35 - "" 'Therefore, you prostitute (Jerusalem), hear the word of the LORD!'"

The Genesis story doesn't mention the Sodomites not helping the poor and needy but homosexuality certainly falls under "detestable things".

I'm no Bible scholar and I don't believe any of it but I would have to say, based on what I've read, the text seems to be saying that all or all but ten of the people in these two cities were wicked and engaged in sexual immorality.

 

[Seawytch]

Never heard of the mark of Cain? It’s where the racists get their ideas.

Yeah...racists are full of shit. And so are you.
"The nature of the mark on Cain has been the subject of much debate and speculation. The Hebrew word translated "mark" is 'owth and refers to a “mark, sign, or token.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, 'owth is used 79 times and is most frequently translated as "sign." So, the Hebrew word does not identify the exact nature of the mark God put on Cain. Whatever it was, it was a sign/indicator that Cain was not to be killed." What was the mark that God put on Cain (Genesis 4:15)?
Why are you always so ******* stupid and wrong?

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Weird that not helping the poor and needy is first. Think that’s why San Francisco hasn’t “suffered gods wrath”, because they DO help the poor and needy?

Actually, you detestable ape, being arrogant, overfed and unconcerned were the first things mentioned, if you theorize things were mentioned in order of their offense (which is totally an assumption of yours). So ******* wrong!

Yeah, San Francisco is such an exemplary Christian city.

You not believing it does not make the racist believe it any less just like me not believing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about consenting adult gay relationships makes your anti gay bigotry change in any way. Yes, the racists are wrong..but so are the anti gay bigots.

 

[Seawytch]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

If it was only about power and control then did they not rape Lot's daughters? They had plenty of chances to rape his daughters because Lot lived in the city and yet they never approached Lot's house until the two men showed up.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In this particular passage of Ezekiel, God is speaking through Ezekial to the city of Jerusalem and addresses the city as if it were a prostitute: Ez. 16:35 - "" 'Therefore, you prostitute (Jerusalem), hear the word of the LORD!'"

The Genesis story doesn't mention the Sodomites not helping the poor and needy but homosexuality certainly falls under "detestable things".

I'm no Bible scholar and I don't believe any of it but I would have to say, based on what I've read, the text seems to be saying that all or all but ten of the people in these two cities were wicked and engaged in sexual immorality.

They didn't want to exert power over Lotts daughters. They already HAD power over his daughters. Women had no rights or power. You should volunteer with a Rape Crisis Center. It's an eye opener.

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.

That ain't about the gays...

 

[justinacolmena]

The Wedding Cake Church (Iglesia La Luz del Mundo, 106 E Fireweed Ln, Anchorage, AK 99503) recently re-opened across the street from a marijuana establishment after some repairs.

The ladies might consider going on a diet after all that wedding cake.

 

[Seawytch]

I forgot nothing, I'm simply better educated on the subject than you are.

Are you familiar with the story at all? Lott welcomed two angels (strangers) into his home. The in-hospitable townspeople demanded Lott produce the strangers. The crowd allegedly wanted to rape the angels (who are like 9 foot begins of light so I'd have liked to see how that was supposed to be possible) but the "godly" Lott offered his virgin daughters to the angry crowd instead. Now rape, as you may or may not be aware, is not a sexual act. The men of the town were not gay with consenting same sex attractions, they were an angry mob bent on asserting power over the strangers..

Let's fast forward to Lott escaping into the mountains with only his daughters...who he FUCKED. Tell me how gays got the bad rap in that story?

Oh, and God decided to destroy S & G before the crowd wanted to rape the angels so it obviously wasn't destroyed because of the gays.

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

If it was only about power and control then did they not rape Lot's daughters? They had plenty of chances to rape his daughters because Lot lived in the city and yet they never approached Lot's house until the two men showed up.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In this particular passage of Ezekiel, God is speaking through Ezekial to the city of Jerusalem and addresses the city as if it were a prostitute: Ez. 16:35 - "" 'Therefore, you prostitute (Jerusalem), hear the word of the LORD!'"

The Genesis story doesn't mention the Sodomites not helping the poor and needy but homosexuality certainly falls under "detestable things".

I'm no Bible scholar and I don't believe any of it but I would have to say, based on what I've read, the text seems to be saying that all or all but ten of the people in these two cities were wicked and engaged in sexual immorality.

Matthew 10 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah...right after talking about:

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

“Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.​

Nothing about gays. How strange. Jesus had the perfect opportunity to go after gays...I mean he brought up S&G when he was talking about healing the sick and raising the dead...if gays were the reason those cities were destroyed, wouldn't Jesus have mentioned that?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

If it was only about power and control then did they not rape Lot's daughters? They had plenty of chances to rape his daughters because Lot lived in the city and yet they never approached Lot's house until the two men showed up.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In this particular passage of Ezekiel, God is speaking through Ezekial to the city of Jerusalem and addresses the city as if it were a prostitute: Ez. 16:35 - "" 'Therefore, you prostitute (Jerusalem), hear the word of the LORD!'"

The Genesis story doesn't mention the Sodomites not helping the poor and needy but homosexuality certainly falls under "detestable things".

I'm no Bible scholar and I don't believe any of it but I would have to say, based on what I've read, the text seems to be saying that all or all but ten of the people in these two cities were wicked and engaged in sexual immorality.

They didn't want to exert power over Lotts daughters. They already HAD power over his daughters. Women had no rights or power. You should volunteer with a Rape Crisis Center. It's an eye opener.

Unless you're saying that women were never raped at that time, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Besides, that is not the kind of power a rapist is looking for. A rapist wants to exert sexual power over the woman. I don't think her rights and power factor into it.

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.

That ain't about the gays...

No, it's not. At least not that particular sentence. As I said before, immoral sexual acts very easily fall under "detestable acts" mentioned in the next sentence.

 

[Seawytch]

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

If it was only about power and control then did they not rape Lot's daughters? They had plenty of chances to rape his daughters because Lot lived in the city and yet they never approached Lot's house until the two men showed up.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In this particular passage of Ezekiel, God is speaking through Ezekial to the city of Jerusalem and addresses the city as if it were a prostitute: Ez. 16:35 - "" 'Therefore, you prostitute (Jerusalem), hear the word of the LORD!'"

The Genesis story doesn't mention the Sodomites not helping the poor and needy but homosexuality certainly falls under "detestable things".

I'm no Bible scholar and I don't believe any of it but I would have to say, based on what I've read, the text seems to be saying that all or all but ten of the people in these two cities were wicked and engaged in sexual immorality.

They didn't want to exert power over Lotts daughters. They already HAD power over his daughters. Women had no rights or power. You should volunteer with a Rape Crisis Center. It's an eye opener.

Unless you're saying that women were never raped at that time, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Besides, that is not the kind of power a rapist is looking for. A rapist wants to exert sexual power over the woman. I don't think her rights and power factor into it.

Wrong. It isn't about sex at all which is why I recommended you volunteer at a rape crisis center.

Sexual Assault Misconceptions | Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center

No, it's not. At least not that particular sentence. As I said before, immoral sexual acts very easily fall under "detestable acts" mentioned in the next sentence.

None of them are about consenting adult gay relationships. Matthew 10 doesn't mention "detestable acts".

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nothing about gays. How strange. Jesus had the perfect opportunity to go after gays...I mean he brought up S&G when he was talking about healing the sick and raising the dead...if gays were the reason those cities were destroyed, wouldn't Jesus have mentioned that?

Sodom & Gomorrah: Bible Story with Lesson

GFY.....speaking of sick unnatural acts. There's a reason why sodomy got it's name.

 

[Rustic]

LGBT people are mentally insane, and should be treated as such

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Right. Clearly the mob of sodomists who preferred to "know" the two men staying with Lott rather than his two young virgin daughters were not gay! Sure thing! Not gay at all! No gay tendencies exhibited there. Nope! And Harvey Milk and Liberace were raging hetero males.

"Not long afterward, "the LORD appeared" to Abraham in the form of "three men" come to visit and have a meal with him, and after two left to go to Sodom,". Men! Not nine foot tall beings of light. Men.


The Sodomites (don't forget where they got their name) demanded of Lott to "know" these angels but Lott said take my two daughters instead which did not please them.
The Sodomites, famous for their "sodomy" (but who you insist were not gay) said hell no, bring us those two cute guys in your house.

You claim the Sodomites were not gay but when offered two young virgin girls in place of the angels the crowd demanded the angels (who appeared as men to them). Not gay? Not a ******* chance!

You aren't a liar so much as a deluded fool.
And according to the bible, and not you and your b.s., it was Lott's daughters who got their father drunk so they could lay with him. Lot (biblical person) - Wikipedia.

There was no rape here, certainly not on Lott's part anyway. Better educated? Or just an incompetent liar? Your story is clearly an attempt to deny who the Sodomites were and what went on in Sodom. Unfortunately what went on in Sodom did not stay there.

I cannot believe you offer this all as a serious reinterpretation of the bible. It's ******* bunk!
Get lost.

You actually believe all the men of Sodom were gay and that’s why the city was destroyed? You’re not even applying logic let alone a reasonable person standard. And even if that were remotely possible, what about Gomorrah?

If I may interject here: Genesis 19:4 says that all the men of the city converged outside Lot's home.

NIV version:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James version:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

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.

It would appear that, by the text itself, every man in the city of Sodom wanted to lay with Lot's guests. As for Gomorrah, Abraham conversed with the angels before they entered the city and he pleaded for them to spare the cities if there were at least ten righteous people living there and they agreed. So, we can only assume from the fact that they destroyed them that there were fewer than ten righteous people in the cities or none at all.

Yeah, we know how the story has been translated through the centuries. The word “to know” appears frequently but seldom means “to know” in the biblical sense. Even if they were bent on raping the angels, they did not do so because they were gay since rape is about power and control not sexual attraction.

If it was only about power and control then did they not rape Lot's daughters? They had plenty of chances to rape his daughters because Lot lived in the city and yet they never approached Lot's house until the two men showed up.

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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

In this particular passage of Ezekiel, God is speaking through Ezekial to the city of Jerusalem and addresses the city as if it were a prostitute: Ez. 16:35 - "" 'Therefore, you prostitute (Jerusalem), hear the word of the LORD!'"

The Genesis story doesn't mention the Sodomites not helping the poor and needy but homosexuality certainly falls under "detestable things".

I'm no Bible scholar and I don't believe any of it but I would have to say, based on what I've read, the text seems to be saying that all or all but ten of the people in these two cities were wicked and engaged in sexual immorality.

Matthew 10 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah...right after talking about:

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

“Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.​

Nothing about gays. How strange. Jesus had the perfect opportunity to go after gays...I mean he brought up S&G when he was talking about healing the sick and raising the dead...if gays were the reason those cities were destroyed, wouldn't Jesus have mentioned that?

You're floundering. The men of Sodom attempted to rape God's angels. It wasnt the only reason God destroyed it but it was the straw that broke the camel's back.