Golden Globe honors gay agenda!

[Libero]

The point is they engaged in homosexual acts.

No, the point is that Sodomy does not equal homosexuality.

And that can simply be deduced from actually reading the account from the story of sodom. There is enormous misunderstanding about this, it is not good, Catholics cannot be taken seriously by homosexuals they want to convince to get in line with the church teaching, if they try to claim that Sodomites are homosexuals.

 

[felra]

Libero:

If you actually read the bible it may then become very obvious why sodomites are not the same as homosexuals.

Sodomites engage in rape
Sodomites engage in sex in public
Sodomites engage in underage sex
Sodomites wanted to rape angels

Trying to claim that a homosexual is a Sodomite is clearly not correct.

You are simply presenting the array of sexual perverse acts of sodomy that are part and parcel of homosexual acts. Period. Once one gives themself over to sin, all bets are off as one graduates in their sin choices. I will stick with the dictionary definition and bible meaning thank you.

“…understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,” 1 Timothy 1:9-10

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1: 24-27

“…just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.” Jude 1:7-8

 

[Libero]

You are simply presenting the array of sexual perverse acts of sodomy that are part and parcel of homosexual acts. Period. Once one gives themselve over to sin, all bets are off as one graduates in their sin choices. I will stick with the dictionary definition and bible meaning thank you.

I will stick with the bible meaning and not this ridiculously twisted meaning - thankyou. I cannot take you seriously if you wish to try and claim that a homosexual is a sodomite.

Trying to lump all sins into the same basket is purely silly, it does not exammine the complexity of the human nature, and shows no understanding of factors influencing our behaviour.

Period. I have nothing more to say on this matter, if you cannot see that there is an enormous difference between a homosexual and a sodomite, then clearly I will just be labouring under a lost cause.

 

[fix]

Libero:

No, the point is that Sodomy does not equal homosexuality.

Sodomy equals homosexual acts.

 

[Libero]

Sodomy equals homosexual acts.

Have you read the story of the destruction of Sodom? If so, I strongly suggest you try reading it again. If homosexuality is the only bad thing you can see in the story, and the people of Sodom, then I am concerned.

 

[cathgal]

Libero:

Have you read the story of the destruction of Sodom? If so, I strongly suggest you try reading it again. If homosexuality is the only bad thing you can see in the story, and the people of Sodom, then I am concerned.

Why analyze so much of what happened there. It’s so plain and simple
Homosexuality was the MAIN (if not THE ONLY) reason why Sodom was destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven”. It was an abomination in the Lord’s eye. What kind of sins can warrant such wrath from God??? The City is KNOWN for its unnatural sins. What comes to mind when Sodom is mentioned. Homosexuality of course!

I know. Truth is hard to handled.

 

[felra]

Libero:

Have you read the story of the destruction of Sodom? If so, I strongly suggest you try reading it again. If homosexuality is the only bad thing you can see in the story, and the people of Sodom, then I am concerned.

Homosexual acts were the “abominable thing” that resulted in God’s judgment and destruction of Sodom.

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

 

[Libero]

Why analyze so much of what happened there. It’s so plain and simple
Homosexuality was the MAIN (if not THE ONLY) reason why Sodom was destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven”. It was an abomination in the Lord’s eye. What kind of sins can warrant such wrath from God??? The City is KNOWN for its unnatural sins. What comes to mind when Sodom is mentioned. Homosexuality of course!

And you do not think that rape, materialism, public sex, paraphillia have anything to do with it? Homosexuality was the only reason indeed…

What kind of sins warrant such wrath from God, sin is sin to God, all sin hurts him, he does not favour puishing homosexual sinners.

And as for which sin comes to mind when ones thinks of Sodom, to me it is not homosexuality, the most chilling thing to me is that the man offers up his own daughters to be raped and possibly killed. As well as the fact that God acts in a moment of anger, showing characteristics that I find very contrary to the God I have come to know.

The truth is not hard for me to accept, as I have actually read the passage.

 

[fix]

Libero:

Have you read the story of the destruction of Sodom? If so, I strongly suggest you try reading it again. If homosexuality is the only bad thing you can see in the story, and the people of Sodom, then I am concerned.

I have read it and I have read the interpretation of the magisterium:

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

 Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

 In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Libero]

Homosexual acts were the “abominable thing” that resulted in God’s judgment and destruction of Sodom.

This is merely the writers interpretation, he has twisted his words here. Do you not think that I could pull up articles from very respected and intelligent sources that are contrary to the “homosexuality was the worst sin” attitude?

 

[Libero]

I have read it and I have read the interpretation of the magisterium:

Good for you, however the days of the church being the only ones allowed to read the bible are over, I know have the gift of God’s word on paper, and I can see what I strikingly obvious, cherry picking single lines acheives nothing. Read the article in context and look at the entire passage, one cannot think that homosexuality is the only or primary thing wrong here. That would indicate an issue of interpretation, and if that goes against the opinion of the magesterium, then so be it.

 

[goofyjim]

Libero:

I will stick with the bible meaning and not this ridiculously twisted meaning - thankyou. I cannot take you seriously if you wish to try and claim that a homosexual is a sodomite.

Trying to lump all sins into the same basket is purely silly, it does not exammine the complexity of the human nature, and shows no understanding of factors influencing our behaviour.

Period. I have nothing more to say on this matter, if you cannot see that there is an enormous difference between a homosexual and a sodomite, then clearly I will just be labouring under a lost cause.

If one is going to define themselves primarily as homosexual, and is interested in that behavior, wel the story of Sodom is quite clear. The city dwellers say to the visitors “Bring out the young men that we may know them.” This is where active homosexuality is equated with sodomy. One does a great disservice to oneself to define as homosexual.

 

[Ortho]

goofyjim:

If one is going to define themselves primarily as homosexual, and is interested in that behavior, wel the story of Sodom is quite clear. The city dwellers say to the visitors “Bring out the young men that we may know them.” This is where active homosexuality is equated with sodomy. One does a great disservice to oneself to define as homosexual.

Is that the story where Lot offered his daughters to the mob? Is that a lesson?

 

[Libero]

If one is going to define themselves primarily as homosexual, and is interested in that behavior, wel the story of Sodom is quite clear. The city dwellers say to the visitors “Bring out the young men that we may know them.” This is where active homosexuality is equated with sodomy. One does a great disservice to oneself to define as homosexual.

I can understand people wishing to try and define homosexuals as Sodomites, however this, I feel would be to overlook the psychology in the matter.

If you can take a monogamous gay relationship and compare it to the behaviour in this tract, then there is obvious difference. The men gathered wish to rape, this would be unthinkable to many homosexuals, chaste or not. Whilst some of the sexaul acts may be similar, the mentality behind the people in Sodom, and that of numerous homosexuals is not the same. Those in Sodom would endorse public rape involving numerous people and entities that are not of the same species. Trying to say that all active homosexuals today think this way is simply wrong. That, is where I believe the problem lies in trying to call homosexuals, Sodomites.

 

[felra]

Libero:

Good for you, however the days of the church being the only ones allowed to read the bible are over, I know have the gift of God’s word on paper, and I can see what I strikingly obvious, cherry picking single lines acheives nothing. Read the article in context and look at the entire passage, one cannot think that homosexuality is the only or primary thing wrong here. That would indicate an issue of interpretation, and if that goes against the opinion of the magesterium, then so be it.

This not a very convincing argument if in contempt you openly disregard the Magisterium criteria for proper intepretation to the preference of your own personal interpretation.

“…the 1993 document of the Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, in which the Magisterium no longer imposes norms on the exegetes from above, but they themselves are the ones who determine the criteria that indicate the way for a fitting interpretation of this special book.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html

 

[felra]

Libero:

Good for you, however the days of the church being the only ones allowed to read the bible are over, I know have the gift of God’s word on paper, and I can see what I strikingly obvious, cherry picking single lines acheives nothing. Read the article in context and look at the entire passage, one cannot think that homosexuality is the only or primary thing wrong here. That would indicate an issue of interpretation, and if that goes against the opinion of the magesterium, then so be it.

This not a very convincing argument if in contempt you openly disregard the Magisterium criteria for proper intepretation to the preference of your own personal interpretation.

“…the 1993 document of the Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, in which the Magisterium no longer imposes norms on the exegetes from above, but they themselves are the ones who determine the criteria that indicate the way for a fitting interpretation of this special book.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html

 

[Libero]

This not a very convincing argument if in contempt you openly disregard the Magisterium criteria for proper intepretation to the preference of your own personal interpretation.

This is not merely my own personal interpretation, there are many accredited scholars, priests and theologians who would mantain that a homosexual is not a sodomite. This matter is under huge discussion.

In fact it was when I read an article relating to the interpretation of the story of Sodom, that initially led to me wanting to find out more about my faith, without reading that one article, I would know even less about church teachings on a wide variety of matters.

 

[cathgal]

Libero:

Good for you, however the days of the church being the only ones allowed to read the bible are over, I know have the gift of God’s word on paper, and I can see what I strikingly obvious, cherry picking single lines acheives nothing. Read the article in context and look at the entire passage, one cannot think that homosexuality is the only or primary thing wrong here. That would indicate an issue of interpretation, and if that goes against the opinion of the magesterium, then so be it.

You made youself clear. You have a mind of a protestant. Interpret the bible however it suit you. You can preach to ‘solar scriptura’ people and it’ll work, but not Catholics. Catholics will only follow the one who was given authority to interpret.

 

[Libero]

You made youself clear. You have a mind of a protestant. Interpret the bible however it suit you. You can preach to ‘solar scriptura’ people and it’ll work, but not Catholics. Catholics will only follow the one who was given authority to interpret.

If I took everything at face value then I would merely be a clone of the “ideal Catholic” God gave me a mind, I intend to use it. I will not sit idly by and be told to accpet anothers interpretation. If I am to follow my faith, then I would like to start by exploring it and actually thinking about it. I am unique. Further more, I am a Catholic, I am not going to tolerate the “I am a better Catholic than you” attitude merely becuase other people have chosen to just believe everything they are told.

 

[Troy7]

I applaud you Libero, I feel the same way. I dont take things at face value. I need to the whys. Thats the mind God gave me. I cant help it and I am not sorry for it.

The rapists of Sodom disgust me. Whether they are gay or not means nothing to me. Anyone ever stop to question the whole validity of that story anyway? What was such a devout holy man doing living among so many depraved peoples anyway?
What truly disgusts me is what the other poster pointed out:

The fact the father who knew these beings were angels and could have taken care of things themselves, would have given up his daughters for rape disgusts me utterly and I find nothing holy in him for these actions.

And if he DIDNT know they were angels at the time, thats even MORE disgusting cause he was ready to give up his daughters to rape and violence due to mere mortal guests. What the heck was his religion? Islam? It totally has a demeaning to women vibe running thru it. So either way I have major issues with the story of Sodom.

But before I get accused of siding with gay people…I also dont buy into gay people saying its all about the lack of “hospitality” its NOT. Its about rampant immorality, both gay and straight. It was total lawlessness. No sherif was in town to keep the peace so to speak.

I kinda believe the authors really twisted the tale of Sodom to make homosexuality so bad that a father was willing to give up his daughters to them but they were “so gay” and perverse they wanted nothing to do with straight sex. Sure I can believe there are wicked people like that, but I think the story goes bunk when they try and get me to believe pops would offer his kids like that…and again, if he did, then refer to my opinions about THAT.

Another things that makes me go “hmmm” is that since the father knew these were violent homosexuals, why was he offering up his DAUGHTERS? What are gays gonna do with girls? Its sad that people get upset and even scared when others “dare” to question things in the bible and just believe we should shut up and take things at face value. Digging for the truth doesnt harm the faith, but it does take it out of the ranks of mythology.

To accuse todays taxpaying ,law abiding homosexual who goes to work, pays his bills and keeps to himself as no more than a “Sodomite” of the Old Testament is an offense and I guarantee the Church would condemn anyone who tries to make such a henious connection.

I can usually believe a story if something a little closer to our history can be proved or relayed to. Nothing comes as close to the outragiousness in Sodom. Sure, I can accept the possibility it was so bad God wiped it out, but I also beleive there’s much creative license taken with the story. Or…OR… maybe the town was corrupt, a volcanoe blew, wiped it out and like we have the outragious Pat Robertsons of today, they turned a tragedy into, "See, God was SO angry he sent a Katrina, He was SO angry, he knocked down towers…all because of gay people…AND only GAY PEOPLE.

Well, for me that backfired, cause it reveals for me a father who was a lout to his children and once again we have females of the old testament as “objects” There’s too many thousands of years and bizarre traditions and cultural ugliness to take that story straight. And I am sure many Pat Robertsons and hateful religious who boil everything down to the gays had a hand in shaping that story thru the years before quill hit parchament.