And they said it wouldn't last ...

[jimpeel]

Source

Gomes' column offers a similar observation: "...the story [of Sodom and Gomorrah] is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50:'Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.' To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing."

GEN 19: 1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
GEN 19: 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
GEN 19: 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
GEN 19: 4 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:
GEN 19: 5 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.
GEN 19: 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
GEN 19: 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
GEN 19: 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
GEN 19: 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
GEN 19: 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

So the men surrounding the house desired to have sex with the male angels; and Lot offered up his virgin daughters to these reprobates, that they might have sex with them instead, so that they would do no harm to the angels.

I think that the story is all about "sexual perversion and homosexual practice" with a bit of inhospitality thrown in.

 

[randomJACKASS]

OK, now for the record, when I am tired of arguing, totally disagree with you, but wish to stop arguing because of the futility of it, this is what I give you Jim:

OK, Jim, you must be right again!

Are we clear on this? So for this one....

OK, Jim, you must be right again!

Does that make you feel better? It sure does make me feel better, good night now!

 

[spike]

That's a pretty silly story. The god destroyed two cities full of innocent people. Lot's wife looked behind her and got turned into salt then his daughters got him drunk and slept with him.

I think I'll now base life decisions on this.

 

[catocom]

Is why I concentrate on the NT.
The old law was fulfilled by Jesus.
The OT is there for reference, contrast, and historical value.

 

[randomJACKASS]

My real point is, that I believe what I believe, but also that it's long been proven that one can take all that out of context and come up with all manner of madness.

I'd have discussions with you catocom, or most anyone here about it, but my frustration is that it just seems to me that Jim will never concede any point and the only way to "win" is to just concede and move on. So when I give you:

OK, Jim, you must be right again!

Then you are free to declare victory and gloat and tell me I cut and run because of your overwhelming rightness, whatever you like that makes you feel better and I will give no further argument to you on the matter. I may still debate with others, and you may choose to debate those posts, but just know that I am not aiming them at you at that point and:

OK, Jim, you must be right again!

 

[catocom]

I'd have discussions with you catocom, or most anyone here about it, but my frustration is that it just seems to me that Jim will never concede any point and the only way to "win" is to just concede and move on.

I am more open than many in the realm of faith that I profess.
Some times things are better dropped, when the conversation is not productive, in Any way.

 

[jimpeel]

My real point is, that I believe what I believe, but also that it's long been proven that one can take all that out of context and come up with all manner of madness.

I'd have discussions with you catocom, or most anyone here about it, but my frustration is that it just seems to me that Jim will never concede any point and the only way to "win" is to just concede and move on. So when I give you:

Then you are free to declare victory and gloat and tell me I cut and run because of your overwhelming rightness, whatever you like that makes you feel better and I will give no further argument to you on the matter. I may still debate with others, and you may choose to debate those posts, but just know that I am not aiming them at you at that point and:

So I debate the points and contentions and you go back to doing what you said you would no longer do. That was certainly a short-lived promise. I did not harangue you personally, no name calling, etc. yet here we are at the same ol' same ol'.

You brought up Sodom and Gomorrah in your post at http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=623864&postcount=87 which argued -- not your argument but a certain Gomes and Fontaine -- that the destruction of same was over things other than the sexual perversion there. Were we supposed to simply let the contentions or Gomes and Fontaine stand unchallenged when the written Word belies them? Apparently, you believe that we should.

Were we supposed to post

OK,Gomes and Fontaine must be right!?

If you are going to use the contentions of others to support your own contentions you must be ready for the contentions of those you use to be challenged.

 

[randomJACKASS]

No Jim, the only point is, again, that either you cannot stand not to be "right", or else you have a powerful desire to convince me to change my mind. I don't know why it's so important to you but since it is, and since you aren't going to change my mind, I'll give you the next best thing.

OK, Jim, you must be right again!

I suggest you take it and run with it, because it's the best you are going to get.

All I am saying really, is I don't want to argue anymore, and I think it's non-productive, so do I have your permission to go now?

 

[MrBishop]

Most states do not recognize an inconsummate marriage and, by definition, Gay marriage is an inconsummate marriage. To be so, the law would have to be redefined to include the anus, mouth, and inanimate objects as sex organs.

Consumate, in this case, means to complete the act of marriage with the first act of intercourse. It doesn't state "Vaginal intercourse", therefore it doesn't have to be redefined.

 

[Gonz]

Consumate, in this case, means to complete the act of marriage with the first act of intercourse. It doesn't state "Vaginal intercourse", therefore it doesn't have to be redefined.

Come now Bish. Like it even alluded to anything else.

 

[jimpeel]

No Jim, the only point is, again, that either you cannot stand not to be "right", or else you have a powerful desire to convince me to change my mind. I don't know why it's so important to you but since it is, and since you aren't going to change my mind, I'll give you the next best thing.

I suggest you take it and run with it, because it's the best you are going to get.

All I am saying really, is I don't want to argue anymore, and I think it's non-productive, so do I have your permission to go now?

You are dismissed; but make sure you bow repeatedly as you back toward the door.

 

[jimpeel]

Consumate, in this case, means to complete the act of marriage with the first act of intercourse. It doesn't state "Vaginal intercourse", therefore it doesn't have to be redefined.

Ah, yes, the Clinton defense. Oral sex isn't mentioned in the Bible so it isn't a sin, it isn't adultery, and it isn't cheating on your wife. Simple, huh?

 

[2minkey]

Come now Bish. Like it even alluded to anything else.

well, considering he was responded to peel, and given peel's stance on the prostate...

 

[jimpeel]

well, considering he was responded to peel, and given peel's stance on the prostate...

The prostate is a sex gland while the anus is not remotely related to being a sex organ. The closest one can come to it being so is that you can wrap it around a penis. Of course you could as easily do so with a knothole in a fence. That does not, of course, make a knothole a sex organ either.

 

[spike]

You really enjoy that prostate of yours.

 

[jimpeel]

You really enjoy that prostate of yours.

We've grown quite close.

 

[spike]

Eww.

 

[MrBishop]

Come now Bish. Like it even alluded to anything else.

To be more specific, what it alludes to is denying 'marriages of convenience' - so, you can't just marry someone on paper in order to gain citizenship, insurance, medical benefits, unemployment benefits, tax havens etc... you actually have to *gasp* live with them and have sexual relations with them (at least once).

The spirit of the law is meant to deny the abuse of marriage (the legal aspects thereof) - the wording of the law is a whole other argument.

 

[MrBishop]

The prostate is a sex gland while the anus is not remotely related to being a sex organ. The closest one can come to it being so is that you can wrap it around a penis. Of course you could as easily do so with a knothole in a fence. That does not, of course, make a knothole a sex organ either.

Nipples and breasts aren't sex-organs or glands either..but try telling that to the pr0n industry, the censorship councils, or the average male

 

[chcr]

The way old Jim is so fascinated with his prostate and the stimulation thereof by a penis or penises (penii?) certainly surpasses creepiness on the disgusting scale by quite a little bit, doesn't it?