Gay Pride, the final sign of the end...

[ninerbuff]

Just 50 years ago many were worried about Anti-miscegenation laws. Seems we turned out fine.

 

[Smoke]

That gave me a good chuckle (seriously).
If I haven't said so, you are a good poster here and I generally enjoy reading your posts.

Does this post mean you have spent time studying his work or listening to him?

Not a great deal of time, but enough.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Just 50 years ago many were worried about Anti-miscegenation laws. Seems we turned out fine.

I have no fears about gay marriage or gay pride. It is very apparent it is part of nature, and as part of nature how can we condemn it?
If a person were inclined to believe in a Christian God, and happened to be gay, that is between God and that person. No further comment needed.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Not a great deal of time, but enough.

Oh come on, it isn't that I don't believe you, but I am curious about your affiliation with his work.

 

[Wotan]

Without hopefully sounding judgmental. It seems there are those who are just not wired to "feel" metaphysics, and then there are those that become totally engulfed with the idea of it.

Now, it doesn't matter if metaphysics is real or not, I am just making an observation and noting a curious thing about human nature. The more I talk to people the more I tend to think people can not help their attitude towards metaphysics, and consequently God as well.

Another question for you, is have you actually spent any time with the subject of metaphysics? Did you ever think it might be valid, or have you always thought it was simply not existent?

I was never impressed with the 'does a falling tree make noise' argument. It does. And the evidence of that is what we know about the natural world. Reality exists independent of us and independent of our perception of it. We need not engage in navel gazing to understand it.

We have built civilizations and gone to the moon assuming that what we think is out there actually is. Most of the time we are right. And when we are wrong we find out soon enough.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Gays: Bringing down the world, one straight at a time...

...and I'm having SO much fun doing it

 

[Smoke]

Oh come on, it isn't that I don't believe you, but I am curious about your affiliation with his work.

I certainly don't have any affiliation with his work.

His method of biblical interpretation is naive at best and dishonest at worst. Take this, for example:

God in His great mercy has given a marvelous proof that the year 2011 is the year of the Rapture which coincides with Judgment Day and the end of the world. Remember in 2 Peter 3:8, in the context of pointing us to the flood of Noah’s day as well as to the destruction of the world at the end of time, He declared: “one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Years ago we learned from the Bible that the flood occurred in the year 4990 B.C. More recently we learned that Judgment Day is to occur in the year 2011 A.D. The year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after the year 4990 B.C. Just before the flood Noah was instructed by God that in seven days the flood would begin (Genesis 7:4, 10-16). Using the language of 2 Peter 3:8 that one day is as a thousand years, God used Noah, who was a preacher (2 Peter 2:5) to declare that “mankind has seven days or 7,000 years to escape destruction.” Since 2011 A.D. is precisely 7,000 years after Noah preached that warning, God has given mankind a wonderful proof that Judgment Day will occur in the year 2011.​

It's just idiotic blather. There's no reasonable connection between the "facts" he's tying together here.

Then there's his twisting of scripture (in this case typical of Christians) to pretend that scripture is talking about homosexuality when it isn't.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in ever- lasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

The author of Jude is clearly talking about intercourse between humans and angels, and he's clearly saying that intercourse between humans and angels was the problem at Sodom, too. But that's not satisfying to anti-gay bigots, so they pretend this is about gay people, and that "going after strange flesh (heteros sarkos)" means homosexual intercourse, even though "going after heteros sarkos" obviously refers to sex with a different sort of being, not with one who is too similar.

This is typical of his approach to the Bible. He's either a fool or a liar; I couldn't say which. Either way, it's foolish to take him seriously.

 

[tomato1236]

I am for the most part open and honest with you people. I learn and grow each day. As far as it being fun, as you can see some have already made jokes... right?

You don't find it funny, I will respect that. I didn't write the material, but I thought members would like to see what is being published out there. I knew some would find it funny, and I could only assume some would find it highly offensive.

Despite all of that, I have generally treated members here with respect and honesty. What else do you want from me?

Money. Lots of money. And a giraffe.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Then there's his twisting of scripture (in this case typical of Christians) to pretend that scripture is talking about homosexuality when it isn't.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in ever- lasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

The author of Jude is clearly talking about intercourse between humans and angels, and he's clearly saying that intercourse between humans and angels was the problem at Sodom, too. But that's not satisfying to anti-gay bigots, so they pretend this is about gay people, and that "going after strange flesh (heteros sarkos)" means homosexual intercourse, even though "going after heteros sarkos" obviously refers to sex with a different sort of being, not with one who is too similar.

This is typical of his approach to the Bible. He's either a fool or a liar; I couldn't say which. Either way, it's foolish to take him seriously.

Could it not be interpreted that in Sodom people were having sex to idols, namely to angelic beings? Is there any reason to think otherwise? It was common for idol worship, and probably more common to have sexual relations to such idols.

How can you conclude with any certainty it isn't talking about humans sex, in honor of said idols, and not humans having sex with angels???

 

[Just_me_Mike]

His method of biblical interpretation is naive at best and dishonest at worst. Take this, for example:

God in His great mercy has given a marvelous proof that the year 2011 is the year of the Rapture which coincides with Judgment Day and the end of the world. Remember in 2 Peter 3:8, in the context of pointing us to the flood of Noah’s day as well as to the destruction of the world at the end of time, He declared: “one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Years ago we learned from the Bible that the flood occurred in the year 4990 B.C. More recently we learned that Judgment Day is to occur in the year 2011 A.D. The year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after the year 4990 B.C. Just before the flood Noah was instructed by God that in seven days the flood would begin (Genesis 7:4, 10-16). Using the language of 2 Peter 3:8 that one day is as a thousand years, God used Noah, who was a preacher (2 Peter 2:5) to declare that “mankind has seven days or 7,000 years to escape destruction.” Since 2011 A.D. is precisely 7,000 years after Noah preached that warning, God has given mankind a wonderful proof that Judgment Day will occur in the year 2011.​

It's just idiotic blather. There's no reasonable connection between the "facts" he's tying together here.

How can you conclude this without doing the research behind what he is saying? Maybe you're right, but please explain...

 

[Smoke]

Could it not be interpreted that in Sodom people were having sex to idols, namely to angelic beings? Is there any reason to think otherwise? It was common for idol worship, and probably more common to have sexual relations to such idols.

How can you conclude with any certainty it isn't talking about humans sex, in honor of said idols, and not humans having sex with angels???

Jude is plainly talking about sex with angels. Jude is plainly saying that's what the story of Sodom is talking about, too. He is quite obviously not talking talking about homosexuality. Nor is the story of Sodom about homosexuality.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.​

The word translated "men" here does not mean adult males. It means people or humans generally. And the word translated "people" means people in the sense that we would say "the Spanish people" or "the people of Cincinnati." In other words, the people gathered outside of Lot's house were not just men wanting to "know" other men, but both men and women wanting to "know" Lot's visitors -- who, as Jude recognizes, were not even men, but angels.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Jude is plainly talking about sex with angels. Jude is plainly saying that's what the story of Sodom is talking about, too. He is quite obviously not talking talking about homosexuality. Nor is the story of Sodom about homosexuality.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.​

The word translated "men" here does not mean adult males. It means people or humans generally. And the word translated "people" means people in the sense that we would say "the Spanish people" or "the people of Cincinnati." In other words, the people gathered outside of Lot's house were not just men wanting to "know" other men, but both men and women wanting to "know" Lot's visitors -- who, as Jude recognizes, were not even men, but angels.

I appreciate the response, but I think this warrant breaking that section of Jude down piece by piece, because it is anything but clear.

Any objections to doing that?

 

[Smoke]

How can you conclude this without doing the research behind what he is saying? Maybe you're right, but please explain...

Why, for instance, does he pick that "seven days" as the relevant time period? Why not the 120 years? (That would put the end of the world in the far distant future, so it wouldn't be as useful to somebody who makes a living alarming people, but it would make just as much if not more sense.)

Why does he decide the "seven days" start with Noah? Why not with Adam? Why not with Jesus?

And how, for that matter, does he determine that the Flood was in 4990 B.C.?

You can "prove" anything with this kind of reasoning. You just have to abandon any sense of context or meaning, and pick the "facts" that suit your purpose.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Why, for instance, does he pick that "seven days" as the relevant time period? Why not the 120 years? (That would put the end of the world in the far distant future, so it wouldn't be as useful to somebody who makes a living alarming people, but it would make just as much if not more sense.)

Why does he decide the "seven days" start with Noah? Why not with Adam? Why not with Jesus?

And how, for that matter, does he determine that the Flood was in 4990 B.C.?

You can "prove" anything with this kind of reasoning. You just have to abandon any sense of context or meaning, and pick the "facts" that suit your purpose.

I'd be glad to TRY and answer these, but allow me one at a time.

Why the seven days? Why Noah? HE explained that when he referenced the book of Peter. It was in that book where it talks about the end of the world and how it would be like the days of Noah, and then used terminology that allows one to postulate days/years... Before I attempt to go into detail which is what you seem to be complaining about, I need to know that you saw that part of the information? I mean it is crucial and was certainly in the text, but it appears you missed it. It helps tie this stuff together that you say is arbitrarily being done.

If it is OK with you, can we work on one at a time?

 

[Smoke]

I appreciate the response, but I think this warrant breaking that section of Jude down piece by piece, because it is anything but clear.

Any objections to doing that?

Okay, look at what Jude is saying. He's telling his readers that they have to remain firm in the faith and not follow after certain false brethren who are ungodly and lascivious and who deny Christ.

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Being in the Church doesn't mean you'll be saved. Look at the people who were delivered from Egypt, and then were condemned anyway.

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

Also, look at the fallen angels.

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Look at how God judged the unfaithful and immoral people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.

These false brethren are just as bad as all of the above. They even revile angelic majesties.

9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

But even Michael the archangel didn't dare to indulge in that kind of reviling.


10-16 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.

Now what is there in any of that that would lead anybody to think Jude was talking about homosexuality? Because they followed their own lusts? Is that something specific to gay people?

He quotes the Book of Enoch, which also talks about how the fallen angels had sex with human women and produced the Nephilim or giants referred to in Genesis 6.4.

In verse 6, he's talking about fallen angels who had sex with humans.
In verse 7, he's talking about humans who "went after strange flesh (heteros sarkos)" and tried to have sex with angels.
In verse 8, he's talking about people reviling "angelic majesties."
In verse 9, he's talking about having proper respect for "angelic majesties."

Angels, angels, angels, angels. Nothing about homosexuality.

 

[Smoke]

I need to know that you saw that part of the information

Sure, I saw it.

If it is OK with you, can we work on one at a time?

Sure.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I appreciate the response, but when did Harold suggest Sodom's only sin was gay action? At least represent the facts clearly...

In the Bible God instructs us that about 4,000 years ago
there were four cities that were abruptly destroyed by God
because of their wickedness . The key city was named Sodom
(Genesis 19).
In Sodom lived a man named Lot who was a believer in
the God of the Bible. God came to warn Lot to immediately leave
Sodom because of its imminent destruction due to its great
wickedness. God came to Lot’s house appearing as two very
distinguished holy men.
The men of Sodom, both young and old, had seen these
distinguished visitors enter Lot’s house. They demanded that they
be allowed “to know them.” “To know them” is Biblical language
that means that they wanted to have sex with them. They were so
demanding that they were ready to tear down the door of Lot’s
house. Finally God blinded them so that they could no longer find
the door.
The next morning after Lot and his two daughters were
safely out of Sodom, God completely destroyed it and the three
neighboring cities by fire and brimstone (Genesis 19:24,25).
SODOM’S DESTRUCTION ILLUSTRATES JUDGMENT DAY

GAY PRIDE< PLANNED BY GOD AS A SIGN OF THE END
http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/gaypride/gaypride.pdf


Pretty clear what he is focusing on.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

In verse 6, he's talking about fallen angels who had sex with humans.
In verse 7, he's talking about humans who "went after strange flesh (heteros sarkos)" and tried to have sex with angels.
In verse 8, he's talking about people reviling "angelic majesties."
In verse 9, he's talking about having proper respect for "angelic majesties."

Angels, angels, angels, angels. Nothing about homosexuality.

We really need to focus on verse 6 and 7. I think if you slow that down a bit you will see the error you are making. This post had a lot of information, but sometimes more is less.

You say that verse 6 says angels fell and had sex with humans? How do you conclude that. I know it is difficult through typing, at least it can be for me at times, but the verse says nothing about sex.
In verse 7, again I feel you are reaching just as you accuse Camping of doing.
It does us little good to make claims without examining the claims in detail. So let's start with verse 6 and 7.

[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Here we see a comment about Satan and his minions as they left heaven. I see no mention of sex with humans in this particular verse. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Here in verse 7 we have a comparison made from the author of Jude. Pointing out that for like reasons and results as Satan falling from his former glory, so to did Sodom fall from any glory it had.
It then states why Sodom fell, because of its fornication, going after strange flesh.

I am curious why you extract out of that they had sex with angels? When it is a simple parallel comparison of how the angels fell and also how Sodom fell. I mean I think I can see how you drew that conclusion, but I don't see why it is even necessary to draw that, and seems very thin to do so.

So please help me understand before we move on. If you find me too dense and bothersome, no worries, we can just drop the subject. I am just a stickler for details, and find over the internet it can be a challenge to present and comprehend complex ideas between two people.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

In the Bible God instructs us that about 4,000 years ago
there were four cities that were abruptly destroyed by God
because of their wickedness . The key city was named Sodom
(Genesis 19).
In Sodom lived a man named Lot who was a believer in
the God of the Bible. God came to warn Lot to immediately leave
Sodom because of its imminent destruction due to its great
wickedness. God came to Lot’s house appearing as two very
distinguished holy men.
The men of Sodom, both young and old, had seen these
distinguished visitors enter Lot’s house. They demanded that they
be allowed “to know them.” “To know them” is Biblical language
that means that they wanted to have sex with them. They were so
demanding that they were ready to tear down the door of Lot’s
house. Finally God blinded them so that they could no longer find
the door.
The next morning after Lot and his two daughters were
safely out of Sodom, God completely destroyed it and the three
neighboring cities by fire and brimstone (Genesis 19:24,25).
SODOM’S DESTRUCTION ILLUSTRATES JUDGMENT DAY

GAY PRIDE< PLANNED BY GOD AS A SIGN OF THE END
http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/gaypride/gaypride.pdf


Pretty clear what he is focusing on.

Of course for this book that is what he is focusing on, after all it is about Gay pride. However, to conclude he teaches Sodom's only sin was gay sex, is dishonest. I just wanted you to clarify...

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Christianity, Blaming Everyone but what it should be since time immemorial.&#8482;