|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2014 20:04:49 GMT -5
Did we decide whether Fred Phelps's Baptist Church was a "particularly dangerous cult"? Anyway, Pastor Fred Phelps has passed away. Fixit ~ I remember the Westboro Baptist Church. It's leader created a lot of bad publicity nationwide for the Baptists due to this man's warped beliefs which promoted so much hate instead of love for our fellowman ~ especially those who were different due to their sexual preference. He really gave Christians a bad image with all his hate-filled rhetoric which made the news!
May Fred Phelps finally R.I.P. ~ Hopefully, his legacy will not live on? 
|
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 20, 2014 20:43:33 GMT -5
I am surprised you desire him to be a holy roller, even in death. Lol. Alvin
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 20, 2014 21:30:22 GMT -5
I am surprised you desire him to be a holy roller, even in death. Lol. Alvin ~ I never thought of it in that way ~ but you made a neat correlation with "holy roller." Leave it to Dmmichgood to come up with some witty remark in his honor ~ Bless her heart!  |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 21, 2014 21:33:20 GMT -5
although its sad when someone passes away i can't say i'll miss him.... I'm not so sure it's always sad when someone passes away. |
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 21, 2014 21:55:38 GMT -5
Know what you mean. A neighbour told us it was one of the best days of his life, the day his dad died. He finally finally felt "safe". I can only imagine how terrible life had been for him Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 7:33:25 GMT -5
Strangely, I think Phelps unwittingly helped the gay rights movement more than anyone realizes. He exposed clearly the true source of anti-gay rights: hatred.....and few people wanted to be associated with that side of it. I think his antics really helped shift public opinion toward a more pro-gay view.
|
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Mar 24, 2014 2:02:21 GMT -5
Phelps outbursts were distinctly unchristian and has no place amongst those who preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It certainly falls far short of Paul's description of a Christian:
[9] Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. [10] Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. [11] Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. [12] Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. [13] Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. 14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. [15] Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. [16] Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. [17] Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. [18] If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. [19] Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” [20] To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” [21] Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21 ESV)
|
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Mar 24, 2014 8:35:02 GMT -5
Strangely, I think Phelps unwittingly helped the gay rights movement more than anyone realizes. He exposed clearly the true source of anti-gay rights: hatred.....and few people wanted to be associated with that side of it. I think his antics really helped shift public opinion toward a more pro-gay view. Yes, no Christian wanted to identified with the WBC bunch so when some have similarly identified with the hardline (and Biblical) stance on homosexuality it makes it awkward for them. In some ways the WBC group are more principled than, other more moderate Christian groups. I have heard Shirley Phelps in an interview and her knowledge of the bible is without fault or spin; they embrace the bible, all of it. While other, moderate Christian groups will spin and reinterpret the bible to try and make ancient, primitive, tribal beliefs relevant in modern times. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 24, 2014 8:55:15 GMT -5
they embrace the bible, all of it. I wonder how they deal with scripture that speaks of God's love?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 9:15:06 GMT -5
they embrace the bible, all of it. I wonder how they deal with scripture that speaks of God's love? The bible states that God hates abominations and it also states that a man lying with mankind is an abomination. The bible prescribes extermination of homosexuals. The WBC didn't come up with this from nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 13:10:09 GMT -5
Sodom is often used as an example of God's "judgement" on homosexuality, and even the word "sodomy" stems from ? , but according to the prophet Ezekiel , homosexuality didn't even make it on to his list of "sins" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49- Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. " I don't know if anybody , "straight" or not , has not been guilty of the sins of Sodom that did make it on to Ezekiel's list of Sodom's sins. I dunno , maybe there are a few of you innocent , but I am not. Grimly, I am QUITE full of bread at the moment, and need to change my "abundance of idleness" on this computer.
Alvin
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 24, 2014 15:43:30 GMT -5
Sodom is often used as an example of God's "judgement" on homosexuality, and even the word "sodomy" stems from ? , but according to the prophet Ezekiel , homosexuality didn't even make it on to his list of "sins" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49- Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. " I don't know if anybody , "straight" or not , has not been guilty of the sins of Sodom that did make it on to Ezekiel's list of Sodom's sins. I dunno , maybe there are a few of you innocent , but I am not. Grimly, I am QUITE full of bread at the moment, and need to change my "abundance of idleness" on this computer. Alvin
Gee, I wouldn't stop at the 49th verse of Ezekiel chapter 16 if we're going for a complete understanding of the "sins of Sodom." The 50th verse will clear things up:
"50. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit." (Ezek.16:50)
Both their having been taken away and their abomination are mentioned in the past tense in this verse ("they were / [they] committed / therefore I took"). What the abomination WAS that they committed, and HOW they were taken away are covered in detail in Genesis, Chapters 18 through 19. There really is no inconsistency in what Sodom was about.
In addition to that, Sodom was also a rich city, but they didn't share with the poor. Here God is reiterating how he hates arrogance and people not sharing with the poor (which are also mentioned several times throughout the Bible as sinful). |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 18:01:15 GMT -5
Strangely, I think Phelps unwittingly helped the gay rights movement more than anyone realizes. He exposed clearly the true source of anti-gay rights: hatred.....and few people wanted to be associated with that side of it. I think his antics really helped shift public opinion toward a more pro-gay view. Yes, no Christian wanted to identified with the WBC bunch so when some have similarly identified with the hardline (and Biblical) stance on homosexuality it makes it awkward for them. In some ways the WBC group are more principled than, other more moderate Christian groups. I have heard Shirley Phelps in an interview and her knowledge of the bible is without fault or spin; they embrace the bible, all of it. While other, moderate Christian groups will spin and reinterpret the bible to try and make ancient, primitive, tribal beliefs relevant in modern times. This is true. They fully believe they should speak out against gays and others that they feel do not do what the bible says. They are literalists and most Christians are not. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 18:34:43 GMT -5
Sodom is often used as an example of God's "judgement" on homosexuality, and even the word "sodomy" stems from ? , but according to the prophet Ezekiel , homosexuality didn't even make it on to his list of "sins" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49- Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. " I don't know if anybody , "straight" or not , has not been guilty of the sins of Sodom that did make it on to Ezekiel's list of Sodom's sins. I dunno , maybe there are a few of you innocent , but I am not. Grimly, I am QUITE full of bread at the moment, and need to change my "abundance of idleness" on this computer. Alvin
Gee, I wouldn't stop at the 49th verse of Ezekiel chapter 16 if we're going for a complete understanding of the "sins of Sodom." The 50th verse will clear things up:
"50. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit." (Ezek.16:50)
Both their having been taken away and their abomination are mentioned in the past tense in this verse ("they were / [they] committed / therefore I took"). What the abomination WAS that they committed, and HOW they were taken away are covered in detail in Genesis, Chapters 18 through 19. There really is no inconsistency in what Sodom was about.
In addition to that, Sodom was also a rich city, but they didn't share with the poor. Here God is reiterating how he hates arrogance and people not sharing with the poor (which are also mentioned several times throughout the Bible as sinful).and yet God saved Lot after he offered his daughters up to be raped. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 18:37:08 GMT -5
Sodom is often used as an example of God's "judgement" on homosexuality, and even the word "sodomy" stems from ? , but according to the prophet Ezekiel , homosexuality didn't even make it on to his list of "sins" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49- Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. " I don't know if anybody , "straight" or not , has not been guilty of the sins of Sodom that did make it on to Ezekiel's list of Sodom's sins. I dunno , maybe there are a few of you innocent , but I am not. Grimly, I am QUITE full of bread at the moment, and need to change my "abundance of idleness" on this computer. Alvin
The Sin Of Sodom According To Jesus Was Not HomosexualityThe sin of Sodom was homosexuality, according to many Christians (but not according to the Bible). We are told by modern preachers that Sodom’s destruction proves that homosexuality was the problem in Sodom and therefore, homosexuality is wrong. The problem with that viewpoint is that it goes against the testimony of history and the testimony of scripture.For 1700 years after God destroyed Sodom, the human authors of the Bible and the Jews as a nation described Sodom's sin as lack of hospitality, pride, idolatry, greed or gluttony but never as homosexuality.The wickedness of the people of Sodom is well attested in ancient Jewish writings yet the Biblical witness never links Sodom to homosexuality.The belief that God destroyed Sodom because of “homosexuality” is a late interpretation. It came into being approximately 1700 years after the destruction of Sodom. No human author of the Old Testament linked Sodom with homosexuality. In fact, until the inter-testamental period, around 150 BC to AD 100, it is difficult to find any Jewish literature which links Sodom with homosexuality. Since the Biblical text makes no mention of homosexuality, anti-gay commentators must read into the text, something the text does not say, in an attempt to make scripture say what they wish it said.Moses and Ezekiel emphasize Sodom’s lack of hospitality, greed, idolatry, gluttony but never mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. |
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 20:03:39 GMT -5
Thanks for above posts. It seems like maybe the eastern culture of the day was pretty sick, to the point of offering daughters to "visitors" to reflect well on the host?  ?? In Peter it refers to Lot, as a righteous man and being vexed with "unlawful deeds", which must not have included giving his daughters to "visitors"? Looking back on the change in culture in my short lifetime, it is a shame what culture considered "acceptable" and lawful , a few short years ago. It was OK to beat up homosexuals, not respect people of a different skin color, not allow women to vote etc. etc. Not always sure the battle of "sick" culture will ever be won, when considering that the protection of a "system' comes ahead of child sexual abuse, as is evident in the cultures of different institutions , not all of which are religious either. 2 Peter 2- And god delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds....... Alvin |
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 24, 2014 20:37:35 GMT -5
The following have been asserted on this thread:
"The Sin Of Sodom According To Jesus Was Not Homosexuality"
(Please provide proof of this assertion!!)
"The sin of Sodom was homosexuality, according to many Christians (but not according to the Bible)."
(Actually, this is according to the Bible. It was not only sexual sin, but the sin of greed and haughtiness. Please provide proof that Sodom's sins did not include homosexuality.)
"We are told by modern preachers that Sodom’s destruction proves that homosexuality was the problem in Sodom and therefore, homosexuality is wrong."
Wow. The opposite is the truth. Fewer and fewer preachers are willing to stick with the Bible these days. This interpretation of Scripture is the oldest one. The opposite is the case -- more and more "modern" preachers are saying what you're saying here. And this is no doubt what they would like to believe.
"The problem with that viewpoint is that it goes against the testimony of history and the testimony of scripture."
Quite the opposite is true!
"For 1700 years after God destroyed Sodom, the human authors of the Bible and the Jews as a nation described Sodom's sin as lack of hospitality, pride, idolatry, greed or gluttony but never as homosexuality."
(Please provide proof of this.)
"The wickedness of the people of Sodom is well attested in ancient Jewish writings yet the Biblical witness never links Sodom to homosexuality."
(Again, the opposite is the "scriptural evidence," so please provide your proof.)
"The belief that God destroyed Sodom because of “homosexuality” is a late interpretation. It came into being approximately 1700 years after the destruction of Sodom."
(Proof, please.)
"No human author of the Old Testament linked Sodom with homosexuality. In fact, until the inter-testamental period, around 150 BC to AD 100, it is difficult to find any Jewish literature which links Sodom with homosexuality."
(Proof again, please.)
"Since the Biblical text makes no mention of homosexuality, anti-gay commentators must read into the text, something the text does not say, in an attempt to make scripture say what they wish it said.
Moses and Ezekiel emphasize Sodom’s lack of hospitality, greed, idolatry, gluttony but never mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom."
(I'm sounding like a broken record, but you have provided no proof for the above, so please do!)
By the way, it appears that "your" comments were lifted from the comments sections of various blogs. You really should use quotation marks if you're going to do that:
www.google.com/#q=Since+the+Biblical+text+makes+no+mention+of+homosexuality%2C+anti-gay+commentators+must+read+into+the+text%2C+something+the+text+does+not+say%2C+in+an+attempt+to+make+scripture+say+what+they+wish+it+said. And I believe I've found the other source of your information, pulled pretty much word for word:www.gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.htmlOf course, gaychristian101 is trying to overturn thousands of years of Biblical scholarship for its claims, but doesn't count, apparently, on more seasoned Bible readers really knowing the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 24, 2014 21:18:43 GMT -5
Few observations - if lot knew the men outside his door were homosexuals, why offer his daughters to appease them. The men threatened lot that if he did not open the door to them, they would do worse with him than his daughters. Obviously, not sexual gratification but violence was the objective.? Alvin. Should have added some quotations as not all original thoughts at all
|
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Mar 25, 2014 14:03:56 GMT -5
] I simply don't understand your use of the term "antitheist."
The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God".
That simply does not define any of the F&W's!
How could it?
They believe in a god and surely aren't "opposed to a belief in the existence of a God"
"The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833.[1] An antitheist may oppose belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive.
Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he writes:
"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[2]
How does that in any way whatever describe F&W's?I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier but FWIW I didn't say that F&Ws were antitheists but only that many are so against other christian groups and perspectives that they'd sooner support antitheist views than be accused of holding common ground with those false churches. It is something I've seen and heard again and again over the decades. The kneejerk reaction of F&W's is always to rally to an antitheists view and completely toss over and refuse anything coming from other christian groups and I guess that is part of the 'only way' mentality. Maybe that is hard to shake and what is really sad is friends I know who think that it is better for their kids to deny God completely rather than to get involved with or listen to other christian groups. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 25, 2014 22:09:54 GMT -5
Gee, I wouldn't stop at the 49th verse of Ezekiel chapter 16 if we're going for a complete understanding of the "sins of Sodom." The 50th verse will clear things up:
"50. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit." (Ezek.16:50)
Both their having been taken away and their abomination are mentioned in the past tense in this verse ("they were / [they] committed / therefore I took"). What the abomination WAS that they committed, and HOW they were taken away are covered in detail in Genesis, Chapters 18 through 19. There really is no inconsistency in what Sodom was about.
In addition to that, Sodom was also a rich city, but they didn't share with the poor. Here God is reiterating how he hates arrogance and people not sharing with the poor (which are also mentioned several times throughout the Bible as sinful).and yet God saved Lot after he offered his daughters up to be raped. ~ You bring up an intriguing point here.  I feel what a lot of people fail to realize is how many things were approved and part of Old Testament laws which would be considered outrageous today. For instance, selling your daughters into slavery and offering them up to be raped, as Lot did, to remain hospitable to strangers. Also, rebellious teenagers were taken out and stoned according to Mosiac law. So, it doesn't surprise me one bit how homosexuals were treated by the same standards, as a sin punishable by death. For sure, the God of the Old Testament comes across more as a cruel taskmaster than a God of love and compassion. Although Jesus spoke out against sex outside of marriage, or fornication, he never described homosexuality to the extent that Paul did in his epistles. Some believe that his reference to "sexual immorality" included this, even though it wasn't spelled out? Perhaps that might be the case, but I believe you must weigh the many times Jesus showed mercy towards those who were considered outcasts in his day ~ which were examples of his compassion and love over judgment and condemnation. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 23:07:18 GMT -5
But the apostles never approved of Paul or his teaching so it really doesn't matter what Paul said. What did Jesus say? Nothing. He never wrote a thing. Everything said about Jesus is heresay. And, we know there were plenty of writers out there with their own agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Mar 26, 2014 4:06:46 GMT -5
But the apostles never approved of Paul or his teaching so it really doesn't matter what Paul said. What did Jesus say? Nothing. He never wrote a thing. Everything said about Jesus is heresay. And, we know there were plenty of writers out there with their own agendas. According in Gal. 2:2 - 2:9 Paul submitted his teaching to the apostles and they approved and they sent Paul out with that to the gentiles and Peter later approved of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15 - 16 so I don't know where whoever you heard or read who said the apostles didn't approve of Paul or his teaching pulled that conclusion. Gotta say too that what we have that was said from every historical figure from that time is only what we know from historians and other writers of the time and there's nothing particularly different about that and even more recently there are people who didn't write down anything thats survived and we only know what they said because others reported it. That doesn't always or even usually mean that the person who wrote it down made up what was said or even skewed it for some personal agenda and that becomes difficult when it is something that multiple people would have heard. Not every speaker's a writer. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 26, 2014 9:49:34 GMT -5
But the apostles never approved of Paul or his teaching so it really doesn't matter what Paul said. What did Jesus say? Nothing. He never wrote a thing. Everything said about Jesus is heresay. And, we know there were plenty of writers out there with their own agendas. According in Gal. 2:2 - 2:9 Paul submitted his teaching to the apostles and they approved and they sent Paul out with that to the gentiles and Peter later approved of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15 - 16 so I don't know where whoever you heard or read who said the apostles didn't approve of Paul or his teaching pulled that conclusion. Gotta say too that what we have that was said from every historical figure from that time is only what we know from historians and other writers of the time and there's nothing particularly different about that and even more recently there are people who didn't write down anything thats survived and we only know what they said because others reported it. That doesn't always or even usually mean that the person who wrote it down made up what was said or even skewed it for some personal agenda and that becomes difficult when it is something that multiple people would have heard. Not every speaker's a writer. Who wrote Galatians? You need to read the Zealot. It's the easiest read. There are others that talk about how the apostles disapproved of Paul and did not ok his teachings. But they are drier reading. Luke is Paul's sycophant (not Luke the apostle) and his writings seem to be a deliberate attempt to elevate his mentor's status in the founding church. Paul actually felt he was a better apostle than the original apostles. 23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
In Galations 2:6 he defends himself and his ministry. "Whatever they are makes no difference to me" "Those leaders contributed nothing to me" He talks about how the original apostles might have walked and talked with 'Jesus in the flesh" but he Paul, walks and talks with the divine Jesus. Does this sound like a man that agreed with the original apostles or one the original apostles agreed with too? I think not.
In many ways he doesn't even preach Jesus but his own twisted version of it. Jesus didn't come to get rid of the law of Judaism, he came to fulfill it. He even expanded on it and intensified it in some ways. He took the law "though shalt not kill" and added "if you are angry with your brother or sister you are liable to (the same) judgement". He took the law "thou shalt not commit adultery" and extended it to include "everyone who looks at a woman with lust". He may have disagreed with those scribes and scholars over the interpretation, but he never rejected 'the law'. Paul did. Interesting, no?
ps. some of these quotes are from the zealot.
|
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Mar 26, 2014 11:12:09 GMT -5
There is no variance between the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul. Even Peter endorses Paul's writings as Scripture. As for all of the variants in the multiple manuscripts none of these would change any of the major doctrines of the Christian church. I think the Apostles Creed is a good synopsis of the major beliefs of the Christian church
|
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Mar 26, 2014 13:56:04 GMT -5
Snow, none of those verses says anything about the apostles of Jesus opposing Paul. In Galatians Paul was comparing himself to people who wanted to be regarded as apostles but were not sent by Jesus and was showing that he met the qualifications of being an apostle but they did not. Paul did correct Peter at Antioch but it doesn't say anything about the apostles opposing Paul or doing anything but confirming Paul's work and they did that at least twice. Galatians was written by Paul and not Luke who wasn't one of the apostles and isn't called an apostle anywhere in the Bible. Paul didn't reject the law at all even though some people twist what he said to make it seem so. Paul reaffirmed the law even as he insisted that the gentiles - who were never given the law or compelled to live under the law - weren't required to convert to Judaism and practice the law such as circumcision. He made it clear that if gentiles decided to become Jews then they would have to practice the laws as is required of Jews like himself but they were at liberty in regards to the law otherwise. This was the message Paul was given by the apostles to take to the non-Jewish believers and that is what he did and upheld. Even if anti-semites have often taken some of Paul's writing out of context and twisted into being anti-law it takes a wild imagination to make out that Paul was out to get rid of the law when Paul himself states that he was a Pharisee even after his Damascus experience and himself offered sacrifice in the Temple and himself circumicised Timothy and himself says that he kept himself blameless according to the law. Paul's the guy who wrote 'Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.'
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 26, 2014 17:29:18 GMT -5
Think what you like. But Paul was not liked nor endorsed by the apostles. His toady Luke tried very hard to make history sound like they did, but they didn't and Paul was very much for the divine Jesus, and didn't talk at all about the flesh and blood one. Maybe that's who started the Christ consciousness myth instead of a flesh and blood savior.
|
|
?? In Peter it refers to Lot, as a righteous man and being vexed with "unlawful deeds", which must not have included giving his daughters to "visitors"? Looking back on the change in culture in my short lifetime, it is a shame what culture considered "acceptable" and lawful , a few short years ago. It was OK to beat up homosexuals, not respect people of a different skin color, not allow women to vote etc. etc. Not always sure the battle of "sick" culture will ever be won, when considering that the protection of a "system' comes ahead of child sexual abuse, as is evident in the cultures of different institutions , not all of which are religious either. 
I feel what a lot of people fail to realize is how many things were approved and part of Old Testament laws which would be considered outrageous today. For instance, selling your daughters into slavery and offering them up to be raped, as Lot did, to remain hospitable to strangers. Also, rebellious teenagers were taken out and stoned according to Mosiac law. So, it doesn't surprise me one bit how homosexuals were treated by the same standards, as a sin punishable by death. For sure, the God of the Old Testament comes across more as a cruel taskmaster than a God of love and compassion. Although Jesus spoke out against sex outside of marriage, or fornication, he never described homosexuality to the extent that Paul did in his epistles. Some believe that his reference to "sexual immorality" included this, even though it wasn't spelled out? Perhaps that might be the case, but I believe you must weigh the many times Jesus showed mercy towards those who were considered outcasts in his day ~ which were examples of his compassion and love over judgment and condemnation.