--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/27/06 10:32:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> Homosexual acts between two people of homosexual
> preference are  engaged in for "pleasure" and, often,
> out of deep emotional feelings of  love, just as with
> heterosexuals.
> Homosexual acts between two people  of *heterosexual*
> preference are engaged in for many different  reasons,
> including ritualistic performance, stimulating a
> jaded sexual  appetite, and for purposes of
> intimidation and humiliation, among  others.
> Now, given a loving, beneficent God, which type  of
> "homosexuality" do you think He would be most
> opposed to?  Or do  you think He would condemn all
> of them as equally detestable in His  sight?
> Perhaps you should ask Him. Either way, it's still sin and  
> disobedience and either way that sin and disobedience can be 
> forgiven if  repented of. Basically you're asking me to judge for 
> God or speak for him. I  can't do that.

You can certainly say what you would expect of the
God you believe in.  If you didn't have some expectations
that you think He satisfies, you wouldn't be very
likely to believe in Him, would you?

> You still haven't shown me any evidence that the men and boys in  
> Sodom tried to have sex with the angels in order to intimidate them 
> into leaving.

Well, it would be rather difficult to provide you
with hard evidence at this juncture.  However, as
I've noted, there's excellent historical/cultural
evidence that anal rape was a means of intimidating
and humiliating people; and there's also Ezekiel's
complaint about Sodom, which emphasizes its refusal
to share its wealth with the poor and needy (in
this case, Lot's visitors).

There's also the unlikelihood that all the males in
the town--including the young ones--suddenly got
horny all at once on that particular evening, and
instead of satisfying their desires with each other,
decided to go after Lot's visitors.

In other words, the story doesn't make much sense in
your interpretation, whereas it makes perfect sense
in mine.

> Yet it is said in the Bible that they wanted to "know" them, a 
> term  which is repeatedly used to show intimacy between men and 
> women in the Bible.  Somebody wanting to exhibit dominance and 
> control by rape are not  concerned with intimacy.

Certainly not, but such people would be quite capable
of using mocking, sneering language, suggesting that
the strangers were weak.  Remember the social position
of women in biblical times.  The whole idea of anal
rape of one man by another was (and still is) to put
the rapee in a position of submission and
powerlessness, just as a woman is when a man wants
to have his way with her.

The men of Sodom would have used that term to suggest
that the strangers were as powerless as women.  It
*emphasizes* the power element in the situation, makes
it explicit.  Has nothing to do with intimacy per se.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to