Sodom-Gomorrah----99.9% Gay. Proves socially learned/acquired sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
brb3 said:
Or, did they run off all the straights ?

What lineage were they from …Ammorites ?
Click to expand...
Stop worrying about it.

Stop hating.

Start praying.

Start being a channel of God’s love.
 
Err why quote the Talmud? Jesus said that the tradition of the Pharisees nullifies God’s laws.

If the Church has always understood it as homosexual sex,why are we redifining the sin?
 
Boy_Wonder said:
Stop worrying about it.

Stop hating.

Start praying.

Start being a channel of God’s love.
Click to expand...
By loving the sodomy sin ? No
By loving the sinner ? Yes
By praying for the LGTG’s ? Yes This society is telling all that SSA is normal, and not sinful. The Bible says otherwise, Christ taught otherwise, and the Catholic Church must tell the fuller truth that secular society ignores.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Err why quote the Talmud? Jesus said that the tradition of the Pharisees nullifies God’s laws.

If the Church has always understood it as homosexual sex,why are we redifining the sin?
Click to expand...
welcome to the Catholic Church !!
 
I think it is important to again clarify that the Church understands the homosexuality is not sinful, but homosexual acts are sinful.
 
L_Marshall said:
I think it is important to again clarify that the Church understands the homosexuality is not sinful, but homosexual acts are sinful.
Click to expand...
It is important to add that this inclination is objectively disordered.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Err why quote the Talmud? Jesus said that the tradition of the Pharisees nullifies God’s laws.

If the Church has always understood it as homosexual sex,why are we redifining the sin?
Click to expand...
The problem of the Pharisees was self-righteous hypocrisy

As posted by ISoG
Question
Click to expand...
Was it right for Lot to offer his daughters to be raped?
Click to expand...
Share on twitter Share on linkedin Share on email Share on print Share on gmail More Sharing Services
Full Question
Click to expand...
I don’t think Lot offering his virgin daughters to be raped (Gen. 19) was anything to be celebrated, despite his motivation to protect his visitors, do you?
Click to expand...
Answer
Click to expand...
No. Lot offered his daughters to the Sodomites in order to protect his guests. In doing so, he was choosing to commit one evil in order to avoid another; the Church clearly teaches that this is wrong: “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (CCC 1789).
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lot explains: "Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mistake of placing them above his duties as a father by offering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites." A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture agrees: “Lot cannot be praised. He chose what he considered the less of two evils” (195).
Click to expand...
Answered by: Jim Blackburn
Click to expand...
 
Pat_Payne said:
Maybe I’m wrong on this, but Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the very few passages in the Bible I have a lot of trouble accepting – I understand the debates over just what the “sin of Sodom” is, but the part that I cannot accept is that in a culture that highly prized virginity (to say nothing of the moral qualms) that Lot would say “don’t sexually assualt these men – here are my two daughters. Sexually assault THEM.” And nobody looked at him and said “What? No, really – WHAT? What the heck, “hero”?”
Click to expand...
Lot was offering his daughters as a supreme act of sacrifice. Of course, since those who would have raped the two “guests” (in reality, angels) weren’t interested in normal sexual relations, perhaps Lot knew that his daughters were really pretty safe?
 
aspirant said:
The idea of categorizing people in these ways never occurred to people before quite recently. Sexual activity between two people of the same sex (two males, two females) is not new, but the idea of “a homosexual identity” or “a homosexual person” originated about a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
Aw! Now I understand what you were writing. It makes so much sense. We are so use to this being shoved down our throats it is hard to realize that other times would not have the mind set or as you stated concept of this sin as being “idenity”.
 
Michael1966 said:
I’ve never thought Sodom-Gomorrah was about loving same-sex relationships.
Click to expand...
Well, those living there knew otherwise. Lot knew what the Sodomite relationships were…and scripture is very specific about their sin.

Christ taught…“if you love me, keep my commandments”.

Mankind forbidden to have IC outside of heterosexual marriage. No fornicators, adulterers, pedophiles, lesbians, or sodomizers …will see heaven. Except ye repent & return to the Church & receive the Eucharist of Life.
 
brb3 said:
Well, those living there knew otherwise. Lot knew what the Sodomite relationships were…and scripture is very specific about their sin.

.
Click to expand...
Show me the sripture that is very specific what their sin was. The footnote from the NAB shows three scriptures with three different reasons.
 
adrift said:
Really?

From the footnotes of NAB

It is important to recognize that those who promote the sin of homosexuals do so by misrepresenting scripture and minimizing what it says.
Click to expand...
Why are you** minimizing** the 3 other things that you, yourself quoted in the commentary which are not homosexuality? :confused:

Isaiah: social justice
Ezekiel: lack of concern for the poor
Jeremiah: general morality
:confused:
 
adrift said:
The sin is not mentioned. The Talmud is only an opinion that has no authority. It was written sometime between the 3rd and 5th century. Of course all you have to do is provide the scripture that says it was inhospitality. :confused:

In other words, this is just another interpretation.:rolleyes:

There is Scripture that address this which seems to have been ignored.
Again from footnotes

That they wanted to commit homosexual acts on the angels is undeniable hence we have the word sodomy. Jeremiah saw it as general immorality of which homosexuality was part of it.
Click to expand...
And you just quoted it again and still ignored 2 of the things the commentary lists? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top