UPCI Mega Churches???

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

And what of Sodom and Gomorrah? You cannot bury your head in the sand and ignore how God dealt with the sin that had taken over these two cities.

There have always been freaks of nature, however even with all that, there is still no definitive conclusion that one is born with a desire for the same sex. I personally believe it is a spirit of perversion that one gives into at some point in their life.

But one thing we do know is this. The way God dealt with a city full of homose*uals lets us know quite plainly, just how He feels about that sin.

(I use * in certain words so as to not draw in computer bots looking for those words)

Votive, you have taken this term and gone way overboard with the reaction to it. It is simply a means of describing someone who is born with atypical characteristics. Whatever you do, don't read any medical documentation recording such things, it would surely shock you, if this term is offensive to you, and I certainly did not mean it to be so.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

No. But they are born with a law of sin in their members that, when revives, slays them. That law of sin can be directed toward homosexuality.

KBTW was referring to godsdrummer's post about hermaphrodites. She was calling hermaphrodites "freaks of nature". I do not believe it to be very consistent with Christ-likeness to call someone born with additional, opposite sex genitalia a "freak of nature", when God is the author of life and is the cause of many disabilities, as He said in Exodus to Moses, and etc. David wasn't and isn't the only human God "knit together" in a mother's womb.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I know you didn't create the term. But I advise you, if ever you're in a crowd, and someone is there who has been born with some kind of deformity or abnormality, or tells you he or she is a hermaphrodite, please don't tell them you think they are a "freak of nature".

You will lose your witness and never get another chance to evangelize that person. To call someone a freak in this way would serve no better than to call a black person "colored". It will hurt just as much, and do as much psychological damage.

What are you suggesting? That I would just walk up and call someone a freak of nature? I don't understand the overreaction I am getting from you at all. I surely would never do such a thing! smh

[Cracker Barrel]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Brother, that verse in Ezekiel is not about the Sodom in Genesis, but is a derogatory term for Jerusalem.

So, "Jerusalem's" sin was "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idlness...".

Go back to the beginning of the chapter. See how God refers to "thy sister Sodom"? It goes back to Jerusalem and Samaria. It's quite clear, if the whole chapter is taken as one whole unit, and not dissected for proof-texts.

You my canadian Sodomite defender, are an einstein!

God through the prophet, was drawing a direct parallel between the actions and sins of his people and the Sodom of Genesis.

It can also be said of this generation.

Lolo.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Votive, you have taken this term and gone way overboard with the reaction to it. It is simply a means of describing someone who is born with atypical characteristics. Whatever you do, don't read any medical documentation recording such things, it would surely shock you, if this term is offensive to you, and I certainly did not mean it to be so.





What are you suggesting? That I would just walk up and call someone a freak of nature? I don't understand the overreaction I am getting from you at all. I surely would never do such a thing! smh

What I am saying, Sis, is that "freak of nature" finds itself a very hurtful, negative term as a descriptor for someone born with a deformity. Using it here to describe hermaphrodites and others doesn't get a pass just because you wouldn't use the term in public toward someone with a deformity.

I realize it may not seem such a striking issue for you. I am trying to raise your awareness of how such a term can come across.

What if one of our members here at AFF has an undisclosed deformity, or has a sibling hermaphrodite? Don't you suppose reading you use the phrase "freak of nature" to describe someone with these genetic conditions would hurt their feelings?

That's all I intend here. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Cracker Barrel

You my canadian Sodomite defender, are an einstein!

God through the prophet, was drawing a direct parallel between the actions and sins of his people and the Sodom of Genesis.

It can also be said of this generation.

Lolo.

And since this is so, there is no mention at all of homosexuality in either the Genesis account of Sodom or of this account of Jerusalem.

And if you don't mind, you could be less flippant.

(PS. I am not Canadian.)

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Brethren, Jude 1:7 does not AT ALL say what you all think.

The Greek word for "strange" as in strange flesh is:

hetero

As in heterosexual. Hetero means "different". Homo means "same".

See: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/jude/1-7.htm

See: http://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

The sin that occurred there is that the people of Sodom lusted after "different" flesh, that is, they wanted to fornicate with ANGELS, who, though they were in the form of man, were not actually humans. It wasn't about a homosexual rape gang. It was about people who wanted to have some nirvana experience by bedding angels, who, it was often believed, gave humans secret knowledge and understanding, often through sexual liaisons.

See Genesis 6, as an example, re: the sons of God, something Jude mentions as one of the examples of ungodliness, before referring to Enoch, a tome in which fallen angels procreate with humans and give humans forbidden knowledge in the process.

Yes, there was fornication in Sodom and Gomorrah, but no actual proof of homosexuality. Not a single verse of it happening. No verse indicating it didn't, either. So the Bible is silent here, and so should we be, except for their lusting after angelic flesh.

Why then was it men that came after the angels, and not women? Would women not want that "forbidden knowledge" as well? I would think so, if your scenario were to play out as you say. This makes it quite obvious that "homo" activity was at play here, and not just desiring angelic flesh or supernatural knowledge.

Just because the word "homo" is not specifically used, certainly what happened there describes that kind of activity. That is like looking at the forest and saying there is no forest, only trees.

International Standard Version
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.

NET Bible
So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

New Living Translation
And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment.

English Standard Version
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

What I am saying, Sis, is that "freak of nature" finds itself a very hurtful, negative term as a descriptor for someone born with a deformity. Using it here to describe hermaphrodites and others doesn't get a pass just because you wouldn't use the term in public toward someone with a deformity.

I realize it may not seem such a striking issue for you. I am trying to raise your awareness of how such a term can come across.

What if one of our members here at AFF has an undisclosed deformity, or has a sibling hermaphrodite? Don't you suppose reading you use the phrase "freak of nature" to describe someone with these genetic conditions would hurt their feelings?

That's all I intend here. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings. But whatever you do, don't read medical literature. Your feelings may never recover.

This discussion has gone beyond the attention it is due. I explained where the term came from, and you can't accept that it is a term to describe a wide range of physical abnormalities.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Why then was it men that came after the angels, and not women? Would women not want that "forbidden knowledge" as well? I would think so, if your scenario were to play out as you say. This makes it quite obvious that "homo" activity was at play here, and not just desiring angelic flesh or supernatural knowledge.

The texts don't tell us why women didn't attend the gathering. To say why is mere speculation; not much good comes from that, when trying to establish doctrine. Apart from this, nothing else is "quite obvious".

Just because the word "homo" is not specifically used, certainly what happened there describes that kind of activity. That is like looking at the forest and saying there is no forest, only trees.

Sis, it's not just that the word "homo" wasn't used, but that the word hetero was used to describe the nature of the flesh the men from Sodom desired. They wanted to engage in sexual activity with "flesh" that was different than their own, i.e. angelic, or not human. Did you check the link?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The texts don't tell us why women didn't attend the gathering. To say why is mere speculation; not much good comes from that, when trying to establish doctrine. Apart from this, nothing else is "quite obvious".

The fact that women weren't present tells a lot. Whatever was happening was unnatural, perverted, and because it was only men involved, that would typically fall into the description of what is known as "homo" activity today.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Sis, it's not just that the word "homo" wasn't used, but that the word hetero was used to describe the nature of the flesh the men from Sodom desired. They wanted to engage in sexual activity with "flesh" that was different than their own, i.e. angelic, or not human. Did you check the link?

Unnatural se*ual activity was most certainly mentioned in this passage, and from that we can understand that the unnatural perverted se*ually immoral homose*ual state and activity that S & G had sunk to, was so bad that God had to destroy them.

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

The fact that women weren't present tells a lot. Whatever was happening was unnatural, perverted, and because it was only men involved, that would typically fall into the description of what is known as "homo" activity today.



Unnatural se*ual activity was most certainly mentioned in this passage, and from that we can understand that the unnatural perverted se*ually immoral homose*ual state and activity that S & G had sunk to, was so bad that God had to destroy them.

Please reread Genesis 19:4. Tell me what "all the people" means to you.

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

good grief. Seems like lots of homos over here?

yano.....i'm beginning to see your point ..