Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

You don't find that rather circular? To assert that the Bible views homosexuality as detestable, and to support that with an assertion that whenever the Bible says "detestable", it means "homosexuality?" They're clearly not, though. If the Bible is inerrant, then the Bible simply can't be saying that homosexual acts are unnatural, because they do occur in nature. Either the Bible is wrong, or you're reading it wrong.

So do it standing up. God apparently doesn't have a problem with that. "Intercourse", i.e. speech, interaction. Circular definition, again. It's hardly the case that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Yet, it occurs in nature. So either the Bible is wrong, or you are. But obviously God designed some of us to be gay, just as he designed some animals to be gay. Again, either the Bible is wrong, or you are. What could be more natural than that we find in nature? I eat food; animals do to. Does that put me on the level of an animal? I have sex; animals do to. Does any sex whatsoever put me on the level of an animal?You'll have to do way better than pointing out similarities between animal and human behavior in order to make the argument that I'm putting my conduct on the level of an animal.

I don't understand why God would employ euphemisms for something as important as "what not to do or else you'll go to hell." So I see two obvious solutions:1) It doesn't say what you say it says;
2) It wasn't written by God. No; it clearly means "speech, interaction" in the verses that refer to the inhabitants of Sodom. But what else would "unnatural" mean? What else is natural besides that which we find in the natural world? You're free to redefine "natural" and "unnatural" as you see fit for your own purposes, but why should I play along? Oh? You asked God? You're suddenly the expert on what God did and didn't do?The Bible doesn't say that he didn't, only that he doesn't like unnatural things. But anything he designed, and is found in nature, can't be against his will. Unless God is an asshole, which is possible I suppose. If God did it, and he obviously did, then it isn't a sin. Since God cannot sin. But here's what we've learned since: being gay is biological, it's not a voluntary choice, and it's not a defect. Any more than red hair is. It's simply one more trait in which humans vary amongst themselves. There's absolutely no scientific debate about this. The consensus is clear - sexual orientation is non-voluntary. Neither is it a defect. It's simply part of God's design, much as he designed some of us to have red hair. My conduct? When was it established that I was gay? I would think my wife would be interested to know.Nonetheless, this is not my "justification" for homosexuality; that justification is that God designed some people to be gay, even though Paul doesn't like it. The evidence for this is that some animals are gay as well, by design. And that there's a kin selective effect for genetic lines that include homosexuality. God clearly has a plan for gay people, because the natural mechanisms he created, like natural selection and random mutation, make sure that homosexuality persists in populations.Again, either the Bible is wrong, or you are. Your statements simply don't reflect reality.

It's been well established, from the very mouth of the authors themselves, that the NIV bible is not an accurate translation of the source material. I think you would do better to find a more accurate source.

No, it's the opposite of that - you had to explain to me that it means sex and not lying down. "Self-explanitory" would mean it meant "lying down." I knew what that euphamism means, yes. I don't understand how I'm supposed to know it's a euphamism and not literal. It's much more reasonable than your interpretation. If the men of Sodom were gay, and Lot knew that, why offer his daughters? They're gay! It doesn't make any sense.The men of Sodom want to interrogate Lot's visitors; he believes this is a sin and so he offers to allow them to rape his daughters. The only reason he would do this is if he knew the men were not gay, because why would gay men want to rape women; thus, we know that the men of Sodom were not gay. Being gay is normal. Just like having red hair or black skin is normal. Clearly not, not any more than having red hair or black skin are "diseases." There's nothing pathological about homosexuality. My point exactly. Since we know that some people are born homosexual, then we know that scripture does not condemn them for being homosexual. It really is just that simple. I'm not worried about it. I simply didn't want the discussion to proceed from inaccurate assumptions. Surely you can respect a desire to avoid mistaken impressions? Apparently not.

Yeah. Maybe you've read it? It's called "The Bible."

You're going to have to explain to me how that addresses my question. Don't see how the context helps. It doesn't make sense to propose that the inhabitants of Sodom were gay, and then, in the story, Lot, who presumably would have known that the Sodomites were gay, offers to distract them with heterosexual intercourse.So clearly the men of Sodom were not gay. And how could they be? How could you have a city composed entirely of gay people? That would last one generation. It certainly would not be. Homosexuality is inherited and is not pathological. We're not talking about behavior, though. Behavior is irrelevant; even straight men can and do have gay sex. What we're talking about is orientation, and orientation is not learned, its innate. You're born with it, and it's apparently inherited.We're not talking about behaviors, here. That's a strawman. Sorry, but either the Bible is wrong, or you're reading it wrong. And don't get me wrong - I can see how you would easily misunderstand it. The passages are quite tricky. But its clear that homosexuality is not wrong, it's not unnatural - it's just people being who God created them to be. You were quite right to say that God would not condemn people for how he created them; hence, the Bible must not condemn homosexuality if it's the word of God.But I understand your confusion, as its easily misunderstood. Nonetheless a little research into how human sexual orientation works makes it abundantly clear. Repent of what? Being the way God made them? Hardly a sin, as you yourself have pointed out.

As opposed to, of course, the Notorious B.I.G.:

Great. Superb. Are any of those people posting on the forum, or involved in this discussion, that we might draw on their superior understanding? An entire city of bisexuals? Where did they all come from? You're telling me there were no straight or gay people in the city at all? It defies sense. One is a homosexual if one is sexually orientated to members of the same sex. Just as one is heterosexual if one is sexually orientated to members of the opposite sex. It's entirely possible to be a celibate homosexual, just as one can be a celibate heterosexual.By your definition, it's impossible for a virgin to be heterosexual or homosexual; according to your usage the sexual orientation reported by people who have not had sex is irrelevant, is meaningless. In other words your terminology reflects a usage contradicted by the reported experience of sexual human beings. Such as? What is he? He's certainly not heterosexual, as he is not attracted to members of the opposite sex. This is a common myth. So what would it take to turn you gay? What would it take for you to find other men sexually attractive, if you don't now, already? Why is it that being heterosexual is a choice for everyone but you, for whom its no choice at all? Are we really supposed to believe that you're the only person born straight, and who didn't have to choose one or the other? Why should we believe such an unlikely story? Straightforward would be "thou shalt not have gay sex." That's not what it says. Gay men can't "lay down" the same as they would with a woman, for two reasons:1) They wouldn't "lay" with a woman in the first place;
2) Neither of them have a vagina. What about a gay marriage would be different?

Well, let me see. Since we're still stringing the gays up to fenceposts and beating them to death, and amending the Constitution so that "equal protection under the law" applies to everyone but them, I just don't see it likely that people are lining up to join the "Homosexual agenda" or whatever.But, I dunno. Maybe the food's better? So how did you know who you wanted to have sex with? I mean, if you aren't it until you do it, you must have tried it with both sexes, right? You must have been attracted to both men and women until you had sex with women, right? ...Are you trying to tell us something, Wmscott? As I said, "homosexual therapy" is a myth. Oh, I'm sure that you have stories from people you managed to guilt into having heterosex. There are usually the people you find in the gay bars in about a year after their supposed "miraculous conversion." Exactly. Just like it was a personal choice for you to be straight? How come I don't think so? I know it wasn't a personal choice for me; being attracted to women and not men was never something I chose. It just worked out that way.I'm supposed to believe that I'm different, though? That it was a choice for everybody else? Even though everybody tells the same story as me, that they didn't choose their orientation?If being gay is a choice, then why are gay people so adamant that it isn't a choice? Like I said, what would it take to turn you gay? Or, if you prefer, what would it take to convince you to choose to find men attractive?I dare you to do it, just for a minute. Prove to me you can. Just for a minute find men sexually attractive. If it's a choice you should be able to do it easily. And since I'm not asking you to have sex with another man you won't actually be gay.Go on, do it. I bet you can't. I further bet you'll claim you're refusing to do it on the grounds that it's a sin. Never mind that it'll completely contradict what you said before:

quote:

---

One can have as you say a homosexual orientation and not act on it, while the person still has that orientation, he may not want to be that way and maybe working to change and would not consider himself homosexual.

---

So choose the orientation, just for a minute. Like you said it's not a sin and you won't really be gay. Choose to find men attractive, just for one minute. I dare you. Well, now isn't that interesting? I'm pretty sure that's Rrhain's exact argument to you. How can the Bible condemn something for which there was no word at the time? Don't you think that if people were doing it, which they would have to be if it was such a big deal it needed to go into the Bible, they'd have a word for it?If only to plan the party schedule. Yes. And therefore "lay..as with a woman" specifies the sexual acts you perform with a woman.Two gay men can't do what one man does with a woman; it requires a part neither one of them possess. It's not "splitting hairs", its reading what is actually written in the Bible absent 2000 years of anti-homosexual bias. In the sense that a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich people, yes. Sure. If either of two gay men in a marriage are non-virginal daughters, I guess the law can apply to them. Or, as is more likely, they simply need less rules because they're not in a procreative marriage. Most of what you deem "marriage" laws are actually laws about inheritance and property.

So to speak.

Even the ones that think Christianity is a pile of horseshit? Why would they give a damn about what your Bible says about it?That's the thing, you know. Not everybody believes in your God or your Bible. No, really. They don't. So why would they be trying to avoid a "responsibility" that they don't feel they have? It just doesn't make sense. Unless you're saying that everybody that doesn't believe in your God, which is the majority of people, is a liar?You didn't choose to be gay, did you? Why not? I asked you to. What would it take for you to make that choice?