one MEEN Ag said:

---

I also think there is incredible irony the political landscape of #pride. They picked the rainbow, which was God's literal bow he set down vowing to never judge the world of its wickedness as a whole again until the end of time. They picked pride which is at its core the most deadly of sins to stand in front of God with pride. It was satan's pride and envy that led to him to rebel and be cast out.

---

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - but is there evidence that the rainbow was chosen specifically as an attack against Christians? The story I've heard uses a justification for the use of the rainbow that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, I feel like a rainbow is a fairly ubiquitous thing. No one owns rainbows, right?

dermdoc said:

---

And as far as the OT killings and whatever, Jesus and the cross changed everything. Man is reconciled to God.

---

Then why does the OP, and large parts of the Christian faith, keep bringing them up as examples of what may/should happen? The OT is an enigma through Christianity..... it's noted constantly when it's beneficial, but almost immediately claimed is irrelevant when it's problematic

I'm also curious why an omnipotent being needed a bloody and brutal sacrifice( willing or otherwise) to save its followers from...well itself. Why did it require murder, torture etc?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I also think there is incredible irony the political landscape of #pride. They picked the rainbow, which was God's literal bow he set down vowing to never judge the world of its wickedness as a whole again until the end of time. They picked pride which is at its core the most deadly of sins to stand in front of God with pride. It was satan's pride and envy that led to him to rebel and be cast out.

---

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - but is there evidence that the rainbow was chosen specifically as an attack against Christians? The story I've heard uses a justification for the use of the rainbow that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, I feel like a rainbow is a fairly ubiquitous thing. No one owns rainbows, right?

---

Also, and I know this may come as a complete shock to the Christians on this board, not everything and everyone is considering Christian theology when they pick symbols and select titles.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

---

I've found the vast majority of LGBT people to be far more hospitable and kind than dedicated Christians. Probably because they are used to being shown horrible treatment by those who think God favors them.

A lot of modern Christianity is borderline Marcionite in how they handle the OT. Thats a fair observation.

That being said, I think a lot of it comes from ignorance of the OT and the idea that Christianity is a new religion rather than a continuity of a first century Judaism. The NT is a commentary on and application of the Torah. The gospel preaching of Christ is all about the Torah. His disputes with the Pharisees are about interpreting and applying the Torah. The preaching of Christ is the Torah. You can't read a disjunction back into it.

But, that is evidence itself that the Torah can be abused and misunderstood even with the best of intentions. And especially with the worst.

Quote:

---

I'm also curious why an omnipotent being needed a bloody and brutal sacrifice( willing or otherwise) to save its followers from...well itself. Why did it require murder, torture etc?

---

I think this is a modern question that presumes a modern and incorrect understanding of the word "sacrifice". Ancient sacrifices were not about torture, or blood, or even death per se. Death was incidental to animal sacrifice and not ritualized. The common thing with sacrifice is hospitality, particularly food. They are offerings, but the "value" is in the offering, not the death. Killing and butchering is how you make an animal into food.

God did not "require" murder, and torture. Jesus came to show the nature of God, and the true nature of Humanity in Himself. Accepting that death was the fulfillment of the prophecy to Abraham. It was also to show us what love and humility looks like. The icon we have of Christ wearing the crown of thorns is called the bridegroom, and extreme humility.

But why death? Because in dying, Jesus destroyed the power of death over human nature. He laid down His life willingly - no one took it from Him. This is why we sing, over and over again, "Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life".

I do think that modern Christianity's understanding and explanation of all of this is muddled.

Quote:

---

I do think that modern Christianity's understanding and explanation of all of this is muddled.

---

Hello understatement! At least from the evangelical Protestant point of view. God loves you and wants you to be happy and prosperous. We're also horrible corrupt abominations encased in flesh. God wants nothing more than to completely wipe us out. But instead He has us kill His son so that son could absorb all the awfulness like a sponge, and then that son can act as a shield against God's everlasting disgust and anger at us.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And as far as the OT killings and whatever, Jesus and the cross changed everything. Man is reconciled to God.

---

Then why does the OP, and large parts of the Christian faith, keep bringing them up as examples of what may/should happen? The OT is an enigma through Christianity..... it's noted constantly when it's beneficial, but almost immediately claimed is irrelevant when it's problematic

I'm also curious why an omnipotent being needed a bloody and brutal sacrifice( willing or otherwise) to save its followers from...well itself. Why did it require murder, torture etc?

---

Who told you the Old Testament is an enigma? Anyone proclaiming to be a Christian should tell you the Old Testament can only be viewed correctly though the lens of the Resurrection. The Old prophesies the New, and the New is revealed in the Old.

For your 2nd question, I'm glad you asked. 'Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for a friend' the only way to repair a rift caused by a supreme act of disobedience is through a supreme act of love. The form it took was the form it took, that was the way people were killed back then, and I have no doubt the people who glorified in the torture of Christ were under demonic influence and were reveling their "15 minutes of fame" before He neutralized them forever.

With regards to the sacrifice itself, only a being that was simultaneously fully man and fully God would be able to adequately redress the imbalance. God, who was wronged would not be recompensed by sacrificing himself, nor would a mere man sacrificing his life through an act of total obedience fill the void; but the insane paradox of a man who was God, willfully taking on the sin of all creation WHILE STILL BEING HUMAN and able to feel all the pain, and agony, and despair that comes with that humanity and doing it anyway? That's a supreme act of love, and that neutralizes the extreme act of selfishness, which is the opposite of love, in the Garden.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

---

I've found the vast majority of LGBT people to be far more hospitable and kind than dedicated Christians. Probably because they are used to being shown horrible treatment by those who think God favors them.

---

It's probably because you're a liberal who goes out of your way to antagonize Christians and pander to the LGBT people, just my 2 cents.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And as far as the OT killings and whatever, Jesus and the cross changed everything. Man is reconciled to God.

---

Then why does the OP, and large parts of the Christian faith, keep bringing them up as examples of what may/should happen? The OT is an enigma through Christianity..... it's noted constantly when it's beneficial, but almost immediately claimed is irrelevant when it's problematic

I'm also curious why an omnipotent being needed a bloody and brutal sacrifice( willing or otherwise) to save its followers from...well itself. Why did it require murder, torture etc?

---

To throw in another $0.02, the OT and NT are equally bloody, brutal, and vicious in their narratives. The only way one would think of a tone shift between the two is that the NT is mostly letters and instructions while the OT is a much longer narrative. After all the OT narrative covers an epoch, while the NT narrative covers a few years. There is a common theme in both OT and NT that God cares very little about prolonging our mortal life or preventing bodily suffering. Christians make sense of this by being focused on the eternal afterlife. Of course, to an atheist who believes that this mortal life is all that matters, this seems horrific.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

---

I've found the vast majority of LGBT people to be far more hospitable and kind than dedicated Christians. Probably because they are used to being shown horrible treatment by those who think God favors them.

---

Yeah those sodomites really exemplified that didn't they? (since this is all stems from your comment on Ezekiel).

Quote:

---

Christians make sense of this by being focused on the eternal afterlife. Of course, to an atheist who believes that this mortal life is all that matters, this seems horrific.

---

Pretty succinct description of the differences. I think one added thing from the atheist's perspective is it also seems horrific spending eternity with something that cares very little about prolonging mortal life or preventing bodily suffering despite being able to do so.

Serviam said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

---

I've found the vast majority of LGBT people to be far more hospitable and kind than dedicated Christians. Probably because they are used to being shown horrible treatment by those who think God favors them.

---

It's probably because you're a liberal who goes out of your way to antagonize Christians and pander to the LGBT people, just my 2 cents.

---

Lol. Arguing with people on this forum who are here to argue is about the extent of my antagonism. I don't talk theology in class and I don't care what someone believes unless they are physically preventing me from doing something. But you seem like someone who MUST be the victim at all times.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

---

I've found the vast majority of LGBT people to be far more hospitable and kind than dedicated Christians. Probably because they are used to being shown horrible treatment by those who think God favors them.

---

Yeah those sodomites really exemplified that didn't they? (since this is all stems from your comment on Ezekiel).

---

It's interesting. You were provided evidence suggesting gay sex was not the issue in Sodom and so you've responded by pretending it's still all about gay sex. It's not.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

---

I've found the vast majority of LGBT people to be far more hospitable and kind than dedicated Christians. Probably because they are used to being shown horrible treatment by those who think God favors them.

---

Yeah those sodomites really exemplified that didn't they? (since this is all stems from your comment on Ezekiel).

---

It's interesting. You were provided evidence suggesting gay sex was not the issue in Sodom and so you've responded by pretending it's still all about gay sex. It's not.

---

I presented counter evidence from Jude and referenced the Torah to point out other things a good Jew would read into that account (since sexual mores are reflected in it). It's not an either or thing. It's a both and thing, as is the case for much of theology, hence we don't have to decide on a 'right' interpretation. That's just not how it works and even you know that. You don't think their desire for other men led them to want to 'know' them and forsake hospitality? It's interwoven.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I also think there is incredible irony the political landscape of #pride. They picked the rainbow, which was God's literal bow he set down vowing to never judge the world of its wickedness as a whole again until the end of time. They picked pride which is at its core the most deadly of sins to stand in front of God with pride. It was satan's pride and envy that led to him to rebel and be cast out.

---

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - but is there evidence that the rainbow was chosen specifically as an attack against Christians? The story I've heard uses a justification for the use of the rainbow that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, I feel like a rainbow is a fairly ubiquitous thing. No one owns rainbows, right?

---

I don't know the history of the formation of the pride flag. But I'd be hard pressed to believe that if there was a specific intent to chip away at Christian symbolism, the 'official' story would own up to it.

But from a Christian perspective, flags represent nations which represent people groups. The final fall of angels were the 70 (or 72) high level angels whose job were to guide and lead the first nations of this world towards God. These angels all accepted human worship of themselves (didn't correct them to worship God) and became demons. These demons are still around today. I like to say (in a not deeply theological manner) that there are no flags in heaven but there are certainly flags in hell.

I wouldn't put it past satan to see God move from nations to forming His own nation (through Abraham) and trying to invert it. From my perspective, I see a people group called from all nations (like how Christianity is), united under a symbol of God (the rainbow), but its all about being in defiance of God. Thats satan at work.

Happy "Pride Month is over" day!

I assume you're mocking the premise of demons and that if a demon doesn't walk around like the satan character in South Park it doesn't exist. What is your actual question? Do you want to know how people wind up being led by demons? Where it starts? What possession looks like?

Generally, the underlying premise of being led astray by demons is to accept the same presuppositions they did. That you are the arbiter of your own morality and have no obligations to your creator (which leads to rebellion). Usually it starts innocent enough just like how innocent it seemed for Adam and Eve to take a bite of a simple apple. But skip to the end of the journey of rejecting God, accepting your own morality and placing your own sensuality as the highest purpose in life and witness the full measure of depravity it brings.

To the topic of demons -

Judging someone and their actions based on presuppositions that they do not accept is an interesting thing. We all do it, of course. But, I feel like we owe it to do so with enough honesty to be self aware and to consider the perspective of those that we are judging. In the case of this thread - I do not think I am reaching when I suggest that those who support or accept LGBTQ persons and their lifestyle do not actively believe that they are being led by demons. I would expect that most do not believe these demons are real.

For me, intention is critical on topics like this. A gay person living as such is not motivated by hate or resentment or defiance of the Christian God. And a Christian worshipping the Christian God is not motivated by hate and defiance of some other God. Both can be motivated by love and good intentions. Now, someone might be right and someone might be wrong. Or both could be wrong. But, there is exactly as much evidence that the gay pride movement is led by demons as there is that Christianity is led by demons.

Arrogance is the conviction of our own infallibility to know what is true or right. And for all the talk of atheists and demons wishing to be the arbiters of their own morality, it continues to be shocking to me that Christians and religious persons fail to equate their accusations of others being their own God with their own presumed infallibility in knowing the mind of God. Humility is being willing to admit to being wrong and being willing not to judge others who reach different conclusions.

Being willing to admit you may be wrong about moral truth, makes it easier to be less judgmental toward those that reach different conclusions. And to those who KNOW for a fact that they understand moral truth, how are you at any better than those fallen angels that wished to be their own God? Shifting the origin of that judgement to the will of an abstract and unverifiable God does NOT excuse you from the responsibility of that judgement or the arrogance of pretending you know better than everyone who disagrees with you.

I'm scratching my head at your replies here. Are you trying to understand exactly what demon is leading the way of pride parades? Are you chastising the bible for not being a dungeons and dragons manual on demons? Do you accept anything about the spiritual world outside of the western protestant 66 canonical books as able to shed light on the spiritual world?

If you want to learn more about how demons work, how they destroy, and how they are ultimately chained as the left hand of God, I recommend listening to what Father Ripperger has to say about demons as he does a lot of exorcisms for the Catholic church.



If you want to learn how demons and satan fit into the christian worldview as revealed in scripture and preserved apocryphal sources, the Lord of Spirits podcast just put out an episode on the devil(s).

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/45803-the-devils/

As far as my understanding goes (and anyone please correct me if in error). In general, both Catholic and Orthodox priests perform exorcisms. All orthodox priests perform them as part of the baptismal sacrament. Catholics generally have an exorcists specialist as an extra office/duty. The orthodox (as far as I know) do not have a more formalized office for exorcising demons. The orthodox priesthood are equal opportunity demon removers.

None of what I just shared means that people who participate in pride are demonically possessed, but they do unwittingly (or maybe wittingly) align themselves with demons and against God. If you listen to enough of Father Ripperger he does go into the major demonic identities and what their preferred method of creating chaos and distruction in your life is. That might scratch your D&D fantasy itch.

Rongagin71 said:

---

I might agree with you if I knew what you define as "homosexuality".
There are some who include things like pedophilia in homosexuality.

---

I do NOT consider pedophilia as a part of homosexuality.

edit: I do not consider pedophilia as any more a part of homosexuality than I consider it a part of heterosexuality. That is to say, both can be pedophiles. Maybe you could say pedophilia is a small subset of both heterosexuals or homosexuals, but I see no reason to assign it only to one. And I reject any argument for moral equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality.