(October 9, 2015 at 12:08 am)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote:(October 8, 2015 at 11:56 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Fornication = unmarried, unapproved, and/or "casual" sex.
Going after strange flesh = rape? Angel rape? Gay rape? Virgin daughters of Lot rape? Raping anyone who came to town on visit?
I mean, doesn't it even cross your mind that you could be mistaken about the lesson of S&G?
The fact that Lot thought offering his daughters to the crowd makes it pretty plain that the Bible wasn't suggesting the crowd were homosexuals. They were rapists. It is common knowledge in the field of criminology that rapists, especially child molesters, care far more about power and control than they do about the gender of their victims. It's one of the reasons so many men are raped in the military, by otherwise "straight" soldiers, in addition to the women who are attacked.
Why is the lesson there not, "God burned cities where the society/culture of those cities thought that sexual assault was okay?"
All the cities in existence sinned but God destroyed those two cities specifically, and it's because they committed that particular sin - going after strange flesh. the lesson is that God hates that sin a lot.
Yeah, I get that. Why do you think it means "gay" and not "rape"?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
