Christians Rejoice? Sodom & Gomorrah Ruins, including 'homosexual' males in coitus, Discovered

a reply to: Akragon

Are you even a Lil surprised tho, I mean, they pretty well known for taking things literally
*cough*
The entire Bible
*cough cough*

The "archaeological team" noted in the self-published article referred to in the OP is from a Bible college.

Trinity Southwest University

There isn't anything even faintly resembling science in this OP article; it's merely the record of an abominable destruction of an ancient site by a group that is only concerned with "proving" their own irrational beliefs.

"Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!"
"We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!"

originally posted by: John333

there is good explanation for everything. sufficient that you yourself would have functioned fine and made the same choices as your ancestors. you wouldve sold your daughter, allowed her to marry her rapist etc, and whats more, youd be fine with it. just like ud be fine eating humans if u were brought up in a cannibal tribe. the reason is simple. the people didnt know any better. their behaviour and psychology was different. analysing old documents really requires one to think. but asking the right questions usually helps.

if a man tries to have sex with an animal most will call it beastiality, or rape. because they say, the animal cannot consent to . which would mean that female animals who are mated are raped since they cant consent, and all male animals are rapists? might put things a little in context when primitive man wasnt very far from wild animals. and then you have to teach these wild animals systems of consent, control of desire, emotions and passion. its all in there man. if ud only read it.

I've read it and I have to say so far you're doing just fine explaining it too. Do continue.

what would you say to the children of the future who look back at us and say..

'man, in early 2000s our ancestors were pretty heartless and immoral. theyd pass homeless ppl on the street asking for help and they.. wouldnt help even if they have alot of money'

If there is a future of humanity that is??? Time will tell.

you see, some of us might find grave problems with what some of us consider to be acceptable. sometimes, we do not know or understand the sins we commit or why they are even classed as sin or wickedness. but from the experience of error and correction, we can gain a firm permanent footing. one we can always look back on and always remember while we say.. 'man im glad things arent like that anymore, and we must never let them get b

ack to that point again'

Again, no argument from me there. We were practically animals back then. Morality is subjective and has changed and will continue to change as we lessen our brutality in our opinions. All of which is found in the bible.

but i think a simple focussed cover to cover reading would answer all your questions. everything is always explained. every action and inaction is provided a reason. a reason that you, in their very same shoes would make the very same choice, if you were wise, because there was no wiser choice, however it may appear to you looking back now.

Well, I think the wiser choice is what we've changed since then. But sure if I lived back then I would probably not understand that. I'm not arguing with that. Although some people today are looking like they want to revert back to that kind of thinking and they get their inspiration from the bible and other similar sources. That is a very bad idea IMO. I think that is more to the point that I'm making.

I always hated this story. It always bothered me. Where to start...

So... basically, God told Lot if he couldn't find one good person the whole city would be destroyed...but that includes women, children, small babies, little puppies. Babies aren't born bad. God, of course knows that babies are born innocent. So why would God destroy them with fire. Where's the sense in that?

Then he sends Angels to visit Lot and all the guys in the city want to rape them. That defies belief. Especially since rape and homosexuality are two different things. The whole city was full of psychopaths? The whole city was filled with mentally ill people so God, knowing everything, including that the city was full of mentally ill people, decided to kill them all? How is having a whole city full of mentally ill people even possible, and even if it was possible, why was lots family the only sane one? What's the moral? Where's the sense in that?

Lot, great guy, offers his daughters to be raped int he place of angels? Wow. Where's the sense in that?

So after God kills all the innocent babies and mentally ill people in the city, Lot's wife, turns her head to look back as might a good 70% of us might also do and turns her into salt. not stone, or rock or ashes, but Salt. Where's the sense in that?

Then hiding in a cave Lot's daughters, to repay their father for offering to have them raped, get Lot drunk have sex with him and have his children. It's not to repopulate the world or region. They could have gone far and wide. There must have been trade to those cities.

Wow. And this horrible story was not taken out of the bible because...?

originally posted by: John333

to understand morality you need to understand law. God's law. the laws of the universe which we observe and confirm in the universe' behaviour. the source of law. law has always and first come from God. and is so attributed by every culture. thus atheist didnt create law, they would be like wild animals in the jungle. survival of the fittest types with no time for God. just enjoying life.

u also needto understand necessity. if everyone on earth dies and you and your sister alone are left. you have no choice but to mate with her to try and save the race. the fate of the race will be in your hands at that point. and logically, if she doesnt want to give ull have to rape her. and then if she seems suicidal ull have to tie her up until the baby comes safely etc until she comes to her senses.

now it is a grotesque scenario, which is why i think it makes a good example. but i hope you can see how morality, yes, sort of changes with the scenario based on necessity, importance, urgency. etc. its not completely static. but the static rules are great place to start and make ur home base.

Now this is where you and I start to split ways however. I don't attribute morality or ethics to God but to man. Nature isn't concerned with such things. It simply is and what is just is and what can be probably will be but without any judgement as far as good or bad. What is needed is needed and it's as simple as that.

We have created our own moral codes and ideas in our ongoing process of living lives of complexity other than what nature has provided. I'm not going to say for the better or worse since from the big picture point of view it's all the same anyway. But to us it does seem like progress.

As for my sister and me repopulating. Wouldn't happen. At that point I would simply accept that like countless other species before me my species is now going to die out. I wouldn't feel bad about it one bit either. It's simply is what it is, just like nature provided. The idea that I should do something other than that would just be me interjecting that opinion into the mix so it's really of no more importance that what I choose to think it is.

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: Milah

This find validates The Bible...huge!

Is it possible that this concerns a father and son, or brother and brother, or uncle and nephew..etc, etc, the possibilities are endless;

This is nonsense..

They are simply trying to cash in on the gay bashing again..

a reply to: mOjOm

what a hopelessly depressing outlook. are you even human? i guess im glad that the future of humanity is never going to be placed in your hands. but perhaps she would see the importance in the situation and get you drunk enough to make sure she gets fertilized.

man u realize also, that the choice to not do so can be seen as immoral? because of the nature of the scenario there is flipped polarity to some extent.

i am not so weak however. with the strength of God wth us. we will pray. he will guide us to food and water and all our necessities. we will rebuild. we will repopulate. we will document the errors of the past and move to correct them. we will, save the human race.

see the difference between me n you?

originally posted by: tony9802

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: Milah

This find validates The Bible...huge!

Is it possible that this concerns a father and son, or brother and brother, or uncle and nephew..etc, etc, the possibilities are endless;

This is nonsense..

They are simply trying to cash in on the gay bashing again..

Just as easily could be that they didn't feel like digging two holes (no pun intended...really.) Simple as that.

Harte

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, would you turn down care at Baylor Uni hospital? After all, I'll bet all their health care is based off of trying to prove the ancient remedies out of their holy book ...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, would you turn down care at Baylor Uni hospital? After all, I'll bet all their health care is based off of trying to prove the ancient remedies out of their holy book ...

I certainly would turn Baylor Uni Hospital down if they applied to do archaeology at any ancient site that I was in charge of.

Harte

Unfortunate the bible debate stopped. It was very interesting and informative

a reply to: Akragon

You are right. The sin of Sodam was never stated in the bible as being homosexuality. Nor rape.
It was being inhospitable to travellers.
Rape was of course part of the story of Lot, but so was incest.
Good one Lot :/

originally posted by: John333

what a hopelessly depressing outlook. are you even human? i guess im glad that the future of humanity is never going to be placed in your hands. but perhaps she would see the importance in the situation and get you drunk enough to make sure she gets fertilized.

man u realize also, that the choice to not do so can be seen as immoral? because of the nature of the scenario there is flipped polarity to some extent.

What's so hopelessly depressing about it??? It would seem to me that the inability to accept certain outcomes in life for what they are only leads to conflict. Obviously I'm human and by being human it means I am able to accept my limitations in some events. I would question as to whether you realize you're only human???

Since when did it become my duty to restart the whole of humanity anyway??? Nature makes countless species extinct all the time so why should we be any different??? It's not like we are without our flaws after all. If all humanity was wiped out but myself and my sister it might be time to accept your end with some dignity. Even if we did breed and humanity should somehow multiply fast enough, it's likely I would be birthing a new race of inbred mutants anyway from the lack of genetic variation.

i am not so weak however. with the strength of God wth us. we will pray. he will guide us to food and water and all our necessities. we will rebuild. we will repopulate. we will document the errors of the past and move to correct them. we will, save the human race.

see the difference between me n you?

Well, I suppose we have a different view on what strength is in some situations. I'd also question your reliance on God for guidance being that it would seem that he neglected that responsibility which led to the destruction of humanity in the first place. It's likely you should deal with the fact that you are on your own and have been since the beginning.

originally posted by: Antidisestablishment
a reply to: Akragon

You are right. The sin of Sodam was never stated in the bible as being homosexuality. Nor rape.
It was being inhospitable to travellers.
Rape was of course part of the story of Lot, but so was incest.
Good one Lot :/

I think the sin of Sodom was all of the above. There was not one righteous man in the city. IMO it was implied that there was nothing good coming out of those places. Lot was spared but not even he was good. He was just chosen to be spared.

So, if you can link it to immorality in some way, it likely happened in Sodom, and what happened in Sodom stayed there. The Lord seems to have made sure of that according to the Bible. Whether or not this is actually evidence of it, or the other city found earlier? Maybe, but it's not conclusive.

originally posted by: John333
if you pay attention to the gospels. you may or may not have realised one thing. John is the only one who was actually there. and the gospels are of John's words. copies with probable translations. so you want to hear what matthew mark and luke said john said? or do you want to hear what john said himself?

If this is John's eyewitness account then why are there at least 3 authors who made multiple revisions with the final form of the Gospel being compiled at the tail end of the 1st century? There are very clear differences in the Greek indicating multiple authorship and the tail end of the 1st century attribution is a rather generous estimate based on grammar styles as the oldest actual manuscripts date from the very early 3rd century. There are definitely 'copies and probable translations' involved as you allude to, but within this one Gospel itself, including redactions. Who redacts portions of their eyewitness account? It is many things, but an eye witness account it is not. Bottom line is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in canonical text or contemporaneous Roman documents.

a reply to: Marduk

Even Jesus had to go through the Dark Night of the Spirit

Because it seems that God has rejected it, the soul suffers such pain and grief that when God tried Job in this way it proved one of the worst of Job's trials, as he says: Why have You set me against You, and I am heavy and burdensome to myself? [Jb. 7:20].

www.catholictreasury.info...

St. John Dark Night of The Soul

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, would you turn down care at Baylor Uni hospital? After all, I'll bet all their health care is based off of trying to prove the ancient remedies out of their holy book ...

You are, once again, comparing apples to anvils.

Read the article. It is nothing more than guesswork, or perhaps more accurately, belief-work.

I'm certain it makes perfect sense to you.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

How could you say that the beauty of an angel might not be provocative to mortals? It is likely given their history that they are attractive to humans and vice versa. The Nephilim come to mind for example.

a reply to: mOjOm

why is it not possible for me to give this post an entire constellation of stars
this godless world is a cruel place indeed