Jesus Never Said It!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tparsons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
truagape said:
Since when are angels and mortal men a “homo” sexual encounter?
Click to expand...
Is that your best? I mean, are you honestly asking me a question that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said?
40.png
TemplarKnight:
The angels which left their first estate [ref. Genesis 6, following] and then knew [sexually] the daughters of men are reserved unto the day of judgement. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah are compared to these same angels in that they too were guilty of fornication, and going after strange flesh.
Click to expand...
Just as God holds those angels guilty of going after strange flesh [namely Adam’s female descendants],

**So God held the angels accountable. Do you know what that word means? He’s giving an example here. **so too will He hold the men of these two cities

SEE? The MEN of these two cities to account for their fornications and homosexuality [going after strange flesh] as expressed in their desire for the two men [angels] in Lot’s care.

These men in S&G don’t know that the two strangers are angels, they only see them as men. How are they supposed to know?? How in the world you cannot see this is beyond me. Is English your first language? Some of these questions make me think so.
 
heisenburg said:
is it wrong for a women to have sex with her sister?
Click to expand...
Absolutely it’s wrong. Incest is wrong for both gays and straights. True the passage you noted only addresses straight couples, but as you noted the implication can be inferred to apply to all couples.

But you seem to weave homosexuality and incest into the same thread. Restricting someone from incest dosen’t exclude them from ever entering into a loving relationship of mutual love and attraction. Restricting someone on the grounds of homosexuality does.
 
truagape said:
but as you noted the implication can be inferred to apply to all couples.

But you seem to weave homosexuality and incest into the same thread. Restricting someone from incest dosen’t exclude them from ever entering into a loving relationship of mutual love and attraction. Restricting someone on the grounds of homosexuality does.
Click to expand...
Soooo, we’re allowed implications to be inferred, or is that acceptable only when it’s convenient, or supports your point?

And what does a loving relationship of mutual love and attraction have to do with homosexual? Homosexuality is an act performed, not feelings for one another.
 
TemplarKnight said:
Is that your best? I mean, are you honestly asking me a question that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said?

Just as God holds those angels guilty of going after strange flesh [namely Adam’s female descendants],

So God held the angels accountable. Do you know what that word means? He’s giving an example here. so too will He hold the men of these two cities

SEE? The MEN of these two cities to account for their fornications and homosexuality [going after strange flesh] as expressed in their desire for the two men [angels] in Lot’s care.

These men in S&G don’t know that the two strangers are angels, they only see them as men. How are they supposed to know?? How in the world you cannot see this is beyond me. Is English your first language? Some of these questions make me think so.
Click to expand...
Once again …since when are angels and mortal men a “homo” sexual encounter!!!
 
And if you notice I also said if you can have a relationship similar to a proper relationship with siblings, no sin is committed…

However, I think I am beginning to no longer follow you… (could be a fault on my end)…

I was simply trying to show you that sibling sex, though not explicit for sister/sister is a sin…

the exact same thing can be said for man/man… girl/girl…

If you are going to say that because it is not explicit for girl/girl that it is ok…

The I can just as easily say sister/sister is ok and by your own logic, you cannot complain… (and thus making many prepubescent boys very excited probably…)

again… i am simply using the logic you set forth…

In Christ
 
truagape said:
Once again …since when are angels and mortal men a “homo” sexual encounter!!!
Click to expand...
Did the men surrounding Lot’s house want the strangers that were in Lot’s house to come out so they can “know” them.

Indisputably YES.

Did the men surrounding Lot’s house think the two strangers were men?

Indisputably YES.

Therefore, did the men surrounding Lot’s house want the two MEN to come out so they may “know” THE MEN?

Indisputably YES.

So by what extent are you claiming that mortal men wanted to have sex with angels?
 
TemplarKnight said:
Soooo, we’re allowed implications to be inferred, or is that acceptable only when it’s convenient, or supports your point?
Click to expand...
Convenient? Supports my point? How about when it harmoniously concides with the two greatest commands that Jesus spoke of:
Love your God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your whole soul.
And love your neighbor as yourself.
 
To paraphrase a '90s movie.

If I buy a bag of pot with the intention of smoking it, the fact that the bag may contain oregano is irrelevant to my INTENT.

So if the men surrounding Lot’s house intended to have anal sex with who they thought were men, it makes no difference if those two were angels or men. It does not change the intent of the attackers.
 
truagape said:
Code: 
 And love your neighbor as yourself.
Click to expand...
So you love Adolf Hitler? Did you love Pol Pot? Did you love Idi Amin? These are all you neighbors yet are unquestionably all evil. So do you love evil?
 
heisenburg said:
And if you notice I also said if you can have a relationship similar to a proper relationship with siblings, no sin is committed…

However, I think I am beginning to no longer follow you… (could be a fault on my end)…

I was simply trying to show you that sibling sex, though not explicit for sister/sister is a sin…

the exact same thing can be said for man/man… girl/girl…

If you are going to say that because it is not explicit for girl/girl that it is ok…

The I can just as easily say sister/sister is ok and by your own logic, you cannot complain… (and thus making many prepubescent boys very excited probably…)

again… i am simply using the logic you set forth…

In Christ
Click to expand...
I think you completely missed my point, and the direction of my logic. But that’s okay. I’ll make another attempt.
 
TemplarKnight said:
So you love Adolf Hitler? Did you love Pol Pot? Did you love Idi Amin? These are all you neighbors yet are unquestionably all evil. So do you love evil?
Click to expand...
Of this list, which ones do you believed loved their neighbors as themselves?
 
TemplarKnight said:
To paraphrase a '90s movie.

If I buy a bag of pot with the intention of smoking it, the fact that the bag may contain oregano is irrelevant to my INTENT.

So if the men surrounding Lot’s house intended to have anal sex with who they thought were men, it makes no difference if those two were angels or men. It does not change the intent of the attackers.
Click to expand...
Jude 7 uses the terms “sarkos hetras” literally “strange flesh”. As I have said countless times, even the originally language of scripture accurately protrays the details of the Sodom account. If the bible had referred to the incident as a homosexual one, it would have been inaccurate and completely improbable! You are letting your preconceptions hinder you!
 
truagape said:
Of this list, which ones do you believed loved their neighbors as themselves?
Click to expand...
I’m asking which ones YOU love. Can you not answer the question?

You are claiming that your stance coincides with the greatest commandment. I simply asked you if you “practice what you preach” and love your neighbor as yourself. Hitler was a Catholic, did you love him “as yourself”?
 
truagape said:
Jude 7 uses the terms “sarkos hetras” literally “strange flesh”. As I have said countless times, even the originally language of scripture accurately protrays the details of the Sodom account. If the bible had referred to the incident as a homosexual one, it would have been inaccurate and completely improbable! You are letting your preconceptions hinder you!
Click to expand...
negative. you are claiming the scripture “accurately portrays”. How do we know it accurately portrays? What is your experience with the original languages? Do you count yourself a better interpreter than the Church? Or rather those members of the Church who has interpreted it for 2000 years?

I’m also waiting on the answers to my previous post about the source of sodomy.
 
TemplarKnight said:
I’m asking which ones YOU love. Can you not answer the question?

You are claiming that your stance coincides with the greatest commandment. I simply asked you if you “practice what you preach” and love your neighbor as yourself. Hitler was a Catholic, did you love him “as yourself”?
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Do you think that for some reason that I wouldn’t? That I shouldn’t?
 
truagape said:
Absolutely! Do you think that for some reason that I wouldn’t? That I shouldn’t?
Click to expand...
I can think of one reason. They’re evil. So does that mean you love evil too? You love all of these evil men, because of Christ?
 
Perhaps you would also like to discern the passage of 1 Timothy 1:10 ?
 
TemplarKnight said:
negative. you are claiming the scripture “accurately portrays”. How do we know it accurately portrays? What is your experience with the original languages? Do you count yourself a better interpreter than the Church? Or rather those members of the Church who has interpreted it for 2000 years?
Click to expand...
I most certainly am claiming an accuracy of the scriptures!! And so is scripture itsef. Long befor the Catholic Church, God, yes God himself provided THE FIRST COMMENTARY on the reasons for the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. The catholic church claims homosexuality was not only one of those reasons, but the main one. However, every bit of biblical history refutes such untruths without question!
Ez. 16:48-50 documents God’s own response and he says absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Nothing!! Out of all the references provided in scripture, not one of them mentions homosexuality. Jude refers to the materialized angels as “sarkos hetras” “flesh different”, “strange flesh”. The people of Sodom, were so inhospitable as Ez. proclaimed, that they were out to maltreat anyone. And whether the inhabitants of Sodom knew the vistors were “sarkos heteras” or not dosent’ change the fact that their intent was abuse and their target was God’s own messangers --“sarkos hetras”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top