Pakistan

Here is Ezekiel 16: 49-50 (KJV)

49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

***Thanks for the correction, Anye. It appears God explained in Ezekiel why He destroyed those cities. Has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Well.....obviously you are ignorant if you didn't take this into consideration. Since this whole discussion is about how scripture is "out of context" because people aren't taking the history or translations into consideration.....you just did the same thing.

Spoiler on long quotes must be extremely difficult to use.

Edit: Hahahaha gdi...

you are late

Orgies in ancient times probably were seen or caused the spread of virus. These cities were quarantined and destroyed by the aliens (Primative man's attempt at God).

No, its not common sense.

You are stating that out of what, approximately 6 billion people on earth, every single person agrees that they would not want to be enslaved. Regardless of the reason, or surrounding circumstances.

Every. Single. One.

And if you think a theory is proof, then you really need help.

Just need to point this out:

Just because you believe so and so passage means this, that does not mean that everyone holds your views nor does it mean you are correct.

I can find many churchs and preachers that believe and preach that the downfall of Sodom is because they had rampant homosexuality/sexual deviancy. Just like I can find churches/preachers who say the exact opposite.

oh oh oh allow me to re-torque (was that what Samuel said in pulpl fiction lulz?)!

I am not here to talk about the bible, the thread aint even about it, its about w/e the *** happened in pakistan, but yet it deviated into what does the bible say? lol. I just came to drop my pov on why orgies are bad in the present, and not in the past, as the underlined question in the quotation let me believe.

lets go over a short english class, while my english is terrible, i agree, i still can differentiate between past and present, the question obviously asks why orgies are bad and not why were they bad. The question was also obviously pointed to starr, which believed it to be so *** HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE that he didnt even bother answering. So i took it up for him for the lulz, cuz i generally dont give a *** about thees kinda close minded conversations and am here only for the lulz and out of boredom. Now if you wanna be a smartass and take my answer out of the context ill go back and put it in yours:

context:

You are 9 years old, it is late at night, you are in your bed or on the floor depending on how ever the *** ppl slept back in the days under confortable or dis-comfortable sheets or goat furr? lol trying to fall asleep after a good night story from your mom. some noises in wake you up in the same room lol. You dont know anything about sex and why it is done, you open your eyes and look right in front of you haha:

A. Your mother taking it hard in the *** by some guy you dont know while another guy is satisfying her from below, all of this while she is sucking your father off. The guy behind your mother tells you to go back to sleep while your father nodes to it.

B. Your mother and father in a kinda of a strange position on the bed breaking their swet. Your father tells you to go back to sleep.

Choose which situation's explanation the morning after it has happened would make you grow up in a more normal matter.

happy? :)

There are churches that preach "name it and claim it". That does not mean that they are right. Preachers should back up what they say with scriptures.

I believe it's retort.

I can find a lot of churches that are wrong, and only a few that are right.

^Apply this to most controversial Biblical interpretations.

While what you're saying is true, it's also quite apparent that many pious, religious figures will allow their own prejudices to take precedence over biblical "truths." Not everything in the Bible is a metaphor--obviously that, in and of itself, is up for debate--But there IS a point at which people will take entire verses and chapters out of context just to back their own blinded prejudices.

-edit- DAMMIT WOMBAT

Don't ban me!

/cower

So a kid is asleep and has never heard sex before (because like I said before it happened next to them all the time but whatever) and they wake up next to an orgy?

So what. Who defines normal? If they aren't using the kid to get off this could be what normally happens. You know there are countries around that world that don't view sex as a bad thing.

Every society has their own definition of normal and it changes all the damn time.

Who defines what is right? You define it. Which doesn't make it "right" it makes it your opinion.

what a ***!
;3
of all the controversies i enjoy the controversial white hippie jesus the best.

that's your opinion.

in those lines, using said logic could define it to the point that you realize there is no true good/evil.
but that's just going further down the bunny hole.
it'll be perceived differently by others regardless.

Thats very true. Many people take verses out of context...according to you and others who think like you. While others who believe/think like them (the pious hypocrites) don't agree with your version.

I'm not saying one is the right or wrong way. I'm saying that their can't be a right or wrong way. It is someone's opinion (belief) not correct or incorrect.

Which, in my opinion, as long as it doesn't affect my life and others who don't believe the same, I don't care what that belief is.

what if it does effect your life and the life of others?
still not wrong in that reasoning.
:D

The idea of context clarifies the intention of what was stated. While I understand your point regarding perspective and opinion, in many cases the true intent of the passage is made clear by the context in which it is placed, but is contradicted when taken out of context and placed within one's own preconceived context.

Which true intent? The intent when it was written 2000 years ago or the intent when it has been translated many times or the intent in how the world is looked at (pick your time period)?

The Catholic Church considered women to be unclean when they had a period and so would not let them go to church when this occured. If a woman died in child birth they were buried on unconsecrated ground because they were considered unclean. Eve gave the apple to Adam and so she had to suffer. Women were considered very inferrior 500+ years ago and this was backed up by scripture. This was considered to be right back then. This was considered the true intent of the scrupture they read. Does that make it right?

I don't think so and most people today (I think...probably not good to ask that question on a game forum) would agree that that was not right.

so what is better about your opinion?
or if a lot of people today deem something to be right/wrong that should be accepted?
i'm confused as this conflicts with what you were previously stating :/

no no no and no, stop talking bout the kid, the kid is YOU as my context leads to understand, read my question with two possible answers at the end. you pick A or B. It has nothing to do with the kid or different point of views on sexuality in general or how the word normal is relative. The question CLEARLY is not about back then and is about NOW. as much as it can identically be aplied to both eras. The topic also deviated into what the bible says and the bliefs of christians in general, so stop your relativistic *** talk as it can be applied to any generic conversation, and you will always look smart for pointing it out to ignorant fools. In your misery and the running around the bush you not only fail to answer a simply cornering question but are bringing in question the word normal like a real *** kid would do. go die :)

ninja edit: also what society deems wrong or right (laws) are whats accepted. I prefer todays laws and society to 500+ years ago

or double post ; ;

Since you're bringing up the point of Christianity in the context of an old-age patriarchal society, this might clarify it for you:Outside the context of the italicized and underlined verses, this would have made Christian doctrine appear sexist. But within the context of the rest of the chapter it becomes clear that Paul is endorsing his human perspective of the difference between man and woman while also clearly stating God's perspective of the equality of man and woman. In a way, he's acknowledging his own bias.

Also, to clarify, Christians should not be quoting Mosaic Law on the basis that it should be followed, as Christ has not only fulfilled the law, but nullifies the effects of it by his death:

So you are going to insist that how you see the scripture is the correct way? That only after 2000+ years of bible interruption yours is the only correct way to interrupt those passages?

I'm sure everyone else believed they were correct too.

Its tiresome to see so much hatred and time in peoples lives wasted because of religion.

Use your time to do something good for your community. You don't even need a church to do it. Plenty of places to do so. I do volunteer work for the Humane Society. Save a cat,dog, or other animal instead of bickering over who's religious practices are right/wrong.

It saddens me to see the amount of time put into religion that could be used for the betterment of humanity.