--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/27/06 10:32:48 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > 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 http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
