CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #961
If... me choosing not to sin would stop LGBT from trying to say what they are doing is NOT a sin, and not try to bully those that disagree with them, it would be enough. To do that now, in today's society would require me to turn my back on my beliefs and the Lord's teaching. I would be like Lot in Sodom: ignore it and it will go away. That has been tried, it was not acceptable to the LBGT community. Many have infiltrated the schools and now want "children" (some starting with kindergarden) taught about homosexual sex. That is evil. I don't believe children should be taught about sex until they are emotionally mature to understand (that is an individual basis, usually when they start asking more detailed questions).
Pain is universal. These people that you claim "suffer" so much, do so, as a result of their life's choices. I can tell you that drug addicts and alcoholics suffer and go thru intense pain of their own. Like LGBT, they have a choice, their decisions will either punish the families or make them proud. Only through pain do we grow as humans.
I am not "judging" anyone (i choose to call evil, evil). I do not have that authority. I pray that when LGBTs are kneeling (as every person will) in front of the Lord on judgement day, that He will be merciful and forgiving of their sins (as I hope He will be for mine). The Lord is just, and we will be punished according to our sins (mine are just as bad as anyone else's) Pretending that an addict not controlling themselves is 'good', does not help anyone, just like pretending LBGT actions are 'good'. You seem to think the lifestyle is good. I think that it is deceptive. You seem to think encouraging others to join this lifestyle is acceptable; can you imagine what people would say if someone was teaching children that being an alcoholic is 'good'?
LBGT people have the same Bill of Rights that I have, it is their choices that limit them. They want the law changed to give them additional rights (they could marry either sex).
Activists homosexuals do scare me. They do not admit that what they are doing rips families apart. They do not admit to deceiving others in their quests for partners or to gain 'trust' in employment. They will not admit they support a lewd and perverse community. They will not control their public displays of lewdness. Why don't those that claim LGBT is so loving and honorable denounce these demonstrations of lewdness? Any of these hurt families, communities, and society as a whole; eventually, if not checked, the corruption will infiltrate all aspects of life. It will be equal misery for all, good job!
Sod and Gom had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality but I am grateful for another example of ignorance and dishonesty from a bigot who preaches about God but lies. It's sad humor.
I am familiar with your 'version' of the story. Were the people of Sodom sinning? Were they corrupt and incorrigible in their pursuit of sin? Did they or did they not want to 'rape' (sin) against the visitors to Lot's home? The people of Sodom were insatiable sinners. Lot ignored their sins and tried to live his life peaceable (but lived in fear, behind walls, instead). They were destroyed because there was no good left, everyone, had been corrupted (Lot and his family were slightly less corrupted). The example of Sodom was deliberate because of your 'version'; it show that sin corrupts. It does not matter what the sin is. Homosexual acts are sinful. Therefore the act, corrupts.
That is what sin does, it corrupts. It starts small, and people are de-sensitized to the effects. Sin affects everyone it touches. If it is not fought, it grows, smaller sins become larger sins against more people. The great villians in history, never started by killing hundreds or thousands, that is where sin took them. It hurts, it is painful and it cannot be stopped without the grace of the Lord.
No they did not want to rape Lot's visitors and there is no proof of that in the narrative. I suppose you are hanging the bulk of your interpretation on the word "ya'da" and think that has an overt sexual meaning. It does not. Have you ever looked up its usage in the OT? It's used over 500 times and more than 96% of the time it had nothing to do with sex. "Ya'da" also meant to interrogate and/or punish so let's consider some basic facts.
There were men, women, and children that descended on Lot's house. Kind of hard to sell any homosexual agenda there.
There is no mention of sexual activity at all.
If homosexuality was the desire then Lot would have only enraged the crowd with the offer of his virgin daughters.
We are told in many places what the sins of S+G were and none of them mention homosexuality. Ie
New International Version (©1984)
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
How do you preach about studying scripture when you clearly write your own hollywood homosexual script to try and justify your bigotry?