Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

Dear Brennakimi; God hardening Pharaoh's heart is commonly misunderstood as a direct act of God when it can be said that God hardened his heart by allowing him to do so. King James Exodus 7:3 "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart," does give that impression, while a better rendering of the meaning of the verse would be, NWT-Exodus 7:3 "I shall let Pharaoh's heart become obstinate," which is of course what happened as shown by, Exodus 8:15 "When Pharaoh got to see that relief had taken place, he made his heart unresponsive; and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had spoken." Most translations will get this verse right, but many still mess up this next verse, here is a correct rending from the NWT (Exodus 9:12) "But Jehovah let Pharaoh's heart become obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had stated to Moses." while many Bibles still have Jehovah hardening Pharaoh's heart, when he merely let Pharaoh harden his heart. God can be said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart only in the sense that he let him, for Jehovah can easily cause a King to do was he wants him to do.(Proverbs 21:1) "A king's heart is as streams of water in the hand of Jehovah. Everywhere that he delights to, he turns it." Jehovah could have directed Pharaoh to do what ever God wanted him to do, but instead he allowed Pharaoh to be obstinate so he had the opportunity to show his power in delivering his people.The reference on David that you are thinking of is -- King James 2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." Now the question is who is the he in this verse? The NWT again has a better rendering "And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: "Go, take a count of Israel and Judah." While in the KJV the sentence structure certainly makes it sound like God is the he while the NWT speaks of 'one' which is someone else other than God doing the inciting. The NWT has the correct rendering as shown by what is stated at; 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel." So the he in 2 Samuel 24:1 is not God but Satan. The only way God can be said to have incited David, is in allowing Satan to test David.(James 1:13-14) "When under trial, let no one say: "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Crashfrog; Actually we know that there were at least 4 straight people living in the town at the time, Lot's family. Considering that all of the men and young boys showed up to participate in a homosexual gang rape of the two visitors, that would pretty much eliminate the possibility of any other straight men being in town. In the case of the women, we are not told, so maybe they were all straight, we are not told one way or the other. My guess would be that as Sodom became 'gayer' some people left the town while others may have thought, 'while in Rome' so to speak. Since you see being 'gay' as genetic, this would be impossible, while if a matter of choice and the influence of culture, it is very possible. I wonder if we are seeing the same process of change in our world today, with possibly the same end result. Orientation is orientation, acts are acts, you don't truly become thing until you do it. One can have as you say a homosexual orientation and not act on it, while the person still has that orientation, he may not want to be that way and maybe working to change and would not consider himself homosexual. Many young men I hear may go through a period when they maybe attracted to other men, if they do not follow such desires because they don't want to, they are certainly not homosexual, just young. It does support what I am saying that it is a matter of choice, and with effort or in the case of the young just the passing of time, can change the orientation. Actually I have read and heard a number of people relate their personal life story of how they changed from being a homosexual to a well adjusted heterosexual. I have a few accounts at hand here, but they are published copyrighted material so I can't post them, but I could e-mail them to you if you wish to read them. First off, you can't make any one gay, it is a matter of personal choice. As for physiological factors that predispose some towards homosexual orientation, lack of a strong male role model is a frequently cited factor. But no doubt there are quite a number of environmental factors that can effect one's sexual orientation while growing up. As for adults, while we may view ourselves as our sexual orientation being 'cast in concrete', that is not the case as there is considerable plasticness to the human mind. Our out look is shaped by the things we experience as is seen in cultural assimilation, how a person slowly becomes an integral part of a new culture over time. People like to think that they can watch or read what every they want without any effect on themselves, but that is not true. Over time what we expose ourselves to does have a changing effect on us. So basically if you surf enough gay sites, see enough gay films, and hang out with enough gay friends, it will have an effect on you. There is the very real possibility that enough exposure to this sort of thing could alter your orientation. But as I said it is a matter of choice, and even with heavy exposure, a person could still reject it of course, but the environment can be a powerful influence, just look at war fever for example. Of course not, they probably didn't have a word for it, and even if there was it probably wouldn't have meant anything to them. Hence the expression not to lay with a man like you would with a woman. Now you are just splitting hairs. 'To lay with' was a general reference to sexual acts, Rather than make a list of homosexual acts and forbid them one by one, which could have created the mistaken impression that any homosexual act not expressly forbidden was OK, a general reference to sex was used which would include all sex acts between two people of the same sex. So you are saying that the following laws would be just as applicable to Gay 'married' couples?(Deuteronomy 22:13-29) "In case a man takes a wife and actually has relations with her and has come to hate her, and he has charged her with notorious deeds and brought forth a bad name upon her and has said, 'This is the woman I have taken, and I proceeded to go near her, and I did not find evidence of virginity in her'; the father of the girl and her mother must also take and bring forth the evidence of the girl's virginity to the older men of the city at the gate of it; and the girl's father must say to the older men, 'I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, and he went hating her. And here he is charging her with notorious deeds, saying: "I have found your daughter does not have evidence of virginity." Now this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they must spread out the mantle before the older men of the city. And the older men of that city must take the man and discipline him. And they must fine him a hundred silver shekels and give them to the girl's father, because he brought forth a bad name upon a virgin of Israel; and she will continue to be his wife. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days. "If, though, this thing has proved to be the truth, evidence of virginity was not found in the girl, they must also bring the girl out to the entrance of her father's house, and the men of her city must pelt her with stones, and she must die, because she has committed a disgraceful folly in Israel by committing prostitution in the house of her father. So you must clear away what is bad from your midst. "In case a man is found lying down with a woman owned by an owner, both of them must then die together, the man lying down with the woman and the woman. So you must clear away what is bad out of Israel. "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst. "If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case. For it was in the field that he found her. The girl who was engaged screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. "In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days."(Deuteronomy 25:5-6) "In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange man's outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her. And it must occur that the firstborn whom she will bear should succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel."So you believe that the above standards applied equally well to Gay couples, so no special mention of such was needed in the law code, which is why they are not mentioned in the law? That would be ridiculous in the extreme, just think of a married man taking his gay brother's partner to perform 'brother-in-law marriage', that would make great sense now wouldn't it! So as I said before, the total lack of laws governing homosexuals clearly shows that they were not allowed under the law code.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Brennakimi Let us see what God really said on the matter of the reliability of his word.
(Isaiah 55:10-11) "For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout, and seed is actually given to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results,"
(Titus 1:2) "upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting,"
(Hebrews 6:13-19) "For when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could not swear by anyone greater, he swore by himself, saying: "Assuredly in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply you." And thus after [Abraham] had shown patience, he obtained [this] promise. For men swear by the one greater, and their oath is the end of every dispute, as it is a legal guarantee to them. 17 In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, stepped in with an oath, in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to lay hold on the hope set before us. This [hope] we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm,"What Joshua said about the reliability of god's word.
(Joshua 23:14) "YOU well know with all YOUR hearts and with all YOUR souls that not one word out of all the good words that Jehovah YOUR God has spoken to YOU has failed. They have all come true for YOU. Not one word of them has failed."What Jesus said about his father's word. (John 17:17) "your word is truth."Jehovah God's word is more solid than diamond. It is just that some have no faith.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; Yes, but you have failed to adequately consider the context of the word's usage in the Bible, and the way it is translated in many Bibles is still consistent with the usage in the literature you cited. Yes this certainly happens and is a problem, which is why it is wise to use more than one translation. I don't believe it is a factor in this case, because it is not a doctrinal matter, which is what usually alters the perceived context that the translator is working with. Of course it is going to sound different, you can't do a proper translation with just a dictionary, a translator has to take into consideration the context of what the writer was trying to say and how to best express the thought in another language, it is an art not a science. If it was a simple word for word thing, computers would have completely taking over the job long ago. A good example of this is the Greek word "proskyneo" which is generally rendered as 'worship' or as obeisance', the word structure is of little or no aid in determining which English word to use. The translator has to look at the over all context, for example if it is being used in regard to a humans 'obeisance' is generally used while 'worship' if it is used in reference to God. The tricky part is when it is used in regard to Jesus, if the translator is a trinitarian he will tend to use 'obeisance' since he believes that Jesus is God, while a non Trinitarian will probably use 'obeisance' since he doesn't view Jesus as God, but as God's son. There is no way just using a Greek dictionary and looking at the Greek wording used in the verse is going to by itself decide which word to use, the overall context of the entire Bible has to be considered. In this example, the context of translating "proskyneo" in reference to Jesus, one has to consider if Jesus is God or not and if it is in harmony with the whole context of the Bible to translate a verse so that 'worship' is directed to Jesus when Jesus himself said (Matthew 4:10) "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" So the determination of how to render a Hebrew or Greek word can be affected by what is said on that issue in another part of the Bible.That is why the dictionary approach doesn't work, the Bible is far too complex and the topics covered have such fine shades of meaning. Just rendering "proskyneo" as 'worship' at Matthew 28:16-17 is used by many to support the Trinity doctrine which the Bible of course doesn't support, which high lights why Bible Translators have to be very careful how they render the Word of God. And as you pointed out there are translations that for the very same reason; to support no-biblical doctrines, use wording that their readers want to read, but is not in harmony with the context of the Bible. By doing this they also tend to create contradictions in their translations, with one verse saying one thing and other saying the opposite.Think of how often you read something that seemed to be saying one thing, but when you got to the end you realized it meant something else altogether and you had to go back and reread the whole thing from the beginning and it suddenly made much better sense. (some jokes are written that way on propose.) It just highlights why I don't find your way of translating very reliable or impressive. Frankly, you don't know what you are doing and are out of your league, you probably know far more Hebrew and Greek than I, but I know better to try and do what you are doing, and foolishly think that I could get better results than the scholars themselves. Unless you can show solid evidence that they are wrong and you are right, you have nothing, and so far you haven't done that. Your evidence isn't solid or convincing and you have failed to overturn the rending of "men who lay with men" . Paul in using the word obviously would have been referring to the whole thing and not just part, since all sex outside of marriage was forbidden. Since you as pointed out, homosexual acts would have at least been classed as fornication, and all acts of fornication was condemned, it would make no sense for Paul to condemn only a specific type of homosexual relationship. His list of sins in both verses is a sort of catch all, he wasn't trying to list all possible sub types or combinations or situations. So a very narrow interpretation of the word makes no sense in the two verses where Paul used it. Or better translating merely renders Paul closer to the way he wrote than a Greek dictionary word by word approach would do. Paul does view singleness as superior to marriage, but he in no way looks down on or condemns marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:38) "Consequently he also that gives his virginity in marriage does well, but he that does not give it in marriage will do better." (1 Corinthians 7:28) "if you did marry, you would commit no sin." Paul's two reasons for viewing singleness as being better, was greater freedom to serve God, and being free of martial problems and stresses. The Bible actually speaks highly of sex, (just read the book of Solomon) after all God invented it. The whole sex=sin thinking is a creation of the Catholic Church, this particular perversion was even specifically warned about by Paul.(1 Timothy 4:1-3) "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry,"So Paul wasn't against marriage, he even said that those who would later forbid marriage, would be following the teachings of demons.Sorry to hear Paul's logic is going over your head, he does take awhile to understand even if you are a 'spiritual man' as Paul would say.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Brennakimi God never lies, and there are people who never lie. If it can be shown that they never lie, why shouldn't they be believed?
You apparently don't understand what interpretation is. The word interpret is defined as "to conceive in the light of individual belief." When people read something or hear something, they interpret it to themselves in terms of what they believe. Like when the wife's husband phones home and states that he will be working late, she is going to interpret that statement in light of her belief about what he may really be doing. Reading the Bible has some of the same problems of interpretation, people who have preconceived ideas or strongly held doctrines, tend to interpret things in the Bible in a very different way than one would who reads the same verse without those preconceptions.Now lesson one, God is said to things that occur naturally without any direct action on his part because he created them and they continue to operate according to the laws he established.(Psalm 104:14) "He is making green grass sprout for the beasts, And vegetation for the service of mankind, To cause food to go forth from the earth,"
(1 Corinthians 3:7) "so that neither is he that plants anything nor is he that waters, but God who makes [it] grow."
(Matthew 5:45) "he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous."Now as you know, plants grow, rain falls and the sun rises each day with out a direct command from God, yet God can be and is spoken of as doing or causing these things to occur.Lesson two, God is also said to have caused things that he permits to happen. Such as each time he is said to have destroyed Jerusalem and caused the Israelites to be taken captive, he didn't do it, he merely allowed it to happen. It is the same with the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, God let him harden his heart, but he didn't make him do it. If you reread my post on this, you will see that in one verse God is said to have harden Pharaoh's heart, and in the next Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart. God hardening Pharaoh's heart is a figure of speech, for God allowing Pharaoh's heart to harden. Just as God can be said to make the sun rise every day and the plants grow, God is sometimes said to have done things that he allows to happen and doesn't directly cause to happen.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,"
(1 Timothy 1:10) " fornicators, men who lie with males,"Fornication- consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other. Merriam-Webster dictionary.So yes sex out of wedlock is mentioned in both verses. Now I know you will go on about the Greek word used and claim that it means only prostitution while ignoring the fact that nearly all translations use the rendering of fornicator. It seems that you constantly reject established translations, claiming that they are biased, and when the definition given in the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries disagree with you, they are biased too. It seems that nobody but you knows what they are doing when it comes to biblical translation. I just find that ridiculous to the extreme. Both the Greek dictionaries and many Bible translations use homosexual or 'men who lie with men' rather then your choice of 'men who lay with boys', in fact no translation that I know of uses your wording. If you gave that answer in a biblical Greek class, you would probably be flunked out. If you don't know the difference between obeisance and worship especially in reference to the Bible, you are totally unqualified to be even having any debates over word usage in the Bible, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Then there is your statements that Paul contradicts what Jesus taught, and other such non sensical statements.So considering the magnitude of the obvious bloopers on your part, in the future you will need to quote references to support your opinions since your judgment and opinion on these matters is clearly worthless.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Crashfrog; They don't want to take responsibility for their actions. By defining it. (Romans 1:26-27) "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; The Greek word 'pornos' occurs 10 times in the NT, and is rendered as fornicator or such by most Bible translations. Paul used the term 8 of those 10 times, and he clearly used the term to refer to fornicators. (Hebrews 13:4) "Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators [pornos] and adulterers." As I stated two posts back "Greek word "proskyneo" which is generally rendered as 'worship' or as obeisance'" in English, my point was and is, that you don't understand the importance of which word is used in translating proskyneo into English. If you want to play dictionary Bible translation, this is a very basic point and you don't even get it. The fact that you think that there is a conflict between these two verses highlights how little you know. Look at the Jesus' statement for the reason he shared the meal with 'sinners', to act as their spiritual physician, he wasn't there just to hang out with them. Jesus was talking about preaching the good news of the Kingdom to people who need to hear it. Paul was talking about 'brothers' or members of the Christian congregation who had become wicked in their conduct and had become bad associates. Paul was telling the congregation not to continue to associate with those in the congregation who practiced sinful conduct. Jesus was talking about witnessing to sinners so that they could become part of the congregation, while Paul was talking about the need to stop associating with those who were already in the congregation but had go back to acting like the world.Your 'conflicts' only exist in your mind because you don't understand what the Bible is talking about as demonstrated by the above example.The bible's clear condemnation of homosexuality shown by (Romans 1:27) "even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." considering the fact that such conduct was viewed as sinful, even obscene, it is hard to conceive that Paul in listing sins at 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 would only refer to only certain types of homosexual relationships. I will say again that your rendering is obviously wrong.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Rrhain; While the main focus of Jewish though on the sin of Sodom is on inhospitality, the reason for that seems to be a desire to avoid talking about things some didn't feel comfortable talking about. This following quote from a Jewish web site was informative on this tendency of avoidance."I pressed him and asked just what the Sodomites meant to do with the guests in Lot's abode and why he offered his daughters in exchange, I was met with evasion and a sudden change of subject. "It's all very complicated," on of Dad said, concluding the conversation. Matters sexual were not discussed in our home." Page not found - Temple IsraelApparently this Jewish avoidance of talking about the sexual nature of Sodom's sin and instead focusing on the inhospitality, has caused some to perhaps mistakenly believe that they didn't believe Sodom's sins included sexual sins. It is clear that at least part of the Jewish community of Jewish scholars believe that the sin of Sodom included homosexual acts as shown by the two rendering of Genesis 19:5 in the Torah."Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them" translation was taken from the JPS Tanakh. http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/parashah/jpstext/vayera.shtml"Bring them out to us, that we may rape them." Parshah Summary Just a moment...Below is another quote from a Jewish site discussing the sins of sodom and once again focusing on their inhospitality, but while admitting their sin included sex."Within the narrative in Bereshit it would seem that sexual immorality is only part of the evil of Sodom. Contrary to popular usage it is also clear from the reading of the narrative that it is not homosexuality that is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (though Jerry Fallwell and others might disagree). The people of Sodom did demand that Lot (Abraham and Sarah's nephew) hand over the strangers in their house (actually messengers of God sent to tell Lot of the impending doom) so that "we may know them," which is clearly a sexual reference in terms of biblical Hebrew. However, what makes them sinful according to our Sages is not sexual desire or lust, but rather their desire to abuse and humiliate other human beings because they are strangers in their midst."
Forbidden First the Hebrew word used, 'yada' or in English 'know' can also have the meaning of knowing in the sexual sense as stated in Strong's definition for the word "lie by man" or to be known by a man. That is the usage used in Genesis 4:1 and in Genesis 19:5 "And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them."" or known them sexually. (Genesis 18:20) "The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy." (Genesis 13:13) "And the men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah." The context in Genesis is that the Sodomites were guilty of extreme sinfulness, being "gross sinners against Jehovah". Their sinfulness was not merely a lack of hospitality, it clearly went far beyond that. Failure to show hospitality would be lack of a positive quality, their sinning against Jehovah clearly shows that their sin was a strong negative action. That is the context, so after dark when an all male crowd angrily demands that the two angels be brought out to them so they can "know them", it clearly has a sexual context and show by Lot's response. (Genesis 19:7-8) "Please, my brothers, do not act badly. Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man." Clearly the type of knowing that the Sodomites wanted to do was 'bad' and raping Lot's daughters would be a lessor sin. The Sodomite 'known" was clearly homosexual rape, it is obvious from the context in Genesis and is strongly supported by NT references. Paul used a Greek word for homosexual twice and did quite well condemning it even without it at Romans 1:26-27 "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." So if you were in any doubt about how God feels about same sex acts, he inspirited Paul to write that they are "contrary to nature" and "obscene" and those doing such things would receive "the full recompense, which was due for their error." Plus we have all the other scriptures which condemn men who lay with men. Over two hundred years ago same sex acts were a crime in most if not all christian countries, so you idea sounds more than half baked. To be frank, I don't believe you. You will need to back this up with some quotes and references. And even if you are right, it would only add to the sins of the Catholic Church. Yes I am not the "Head Honcho", I only work for him and I am just doing the job he gave me to do. (Ezekiel 3:18) "When I say to someone wicked, 'You will positively die,' and you do not actually warn him and speak in order to warn the wicked one from his wicked way to preserve him alive, he being wicked, in his error he will die, but his blood I shall ask back from your own hand." (Acts 2:38) "Peter [said] to them: "Repent," You are misinterpreting Matthew 7:1-2, Jesus is speaking in the sense that we should not condemn others, looking down on them. He wasn't saying that we shouldn't warn people that they needed to repent of their bad acts. Jesus preached that people should repent and taught his disciples to teach the same message. (Matthew 4:17) "Jesus commenced preaching and saying: "Repent, YOU people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." So I am just doing my job telling you that you need to repent. I don't judge you, for I don't have the authority do say that you are going to be killed by Jesus for this or that sin. What I do have authority to say is that if you keep unrepentantly practicing this or that sin, you are at risk since those who practice such things are to die for their errors. In regard to your second post You just shot yourself in the foot big time. I have been arguing that orientation while possibly influenced by inherited factors, orientation is mainly effected by environmental factors and is a matter of personal choice. Identical twins have the same identical genetic code and inheritance, if their orientation was totally controlled by their genes, then they would both ALWAYS have the same orientation. Any rate less than 100% shows that the environment and personal choice are factors, that people do have a choice. So even the evidence you cite refutes your position. Sure there have been quite a number, I have read a number of life stories of people who have done just that. The accounts that I have at hand are copyrighted so I can post them, but I could e-mail them to you if you would like to see them. It is also stated in the Bible that people can stop being homosexual. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God."" yet that is what some of YOU were" past tense, they no longer were what they were before, with the help of the holy sprit they changed. That is what God requires of us, that we repent and change. People who refuse to do so, do not inherit the kingdom.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Brennakimi;You have been proceeding from a false assumption, I am not what you apparently think I am. I have let it go because it is off topic and well people make up their own minds anyway sometimes regardless of the evidence or the lack there of. Here is quote from something I wrote. I also don't hate homosexuals or any one else for that matter, I regard that type of hate a waste of one's mind and is harmful like acid that sours a person's personality.But I do follow the biblical command to hate what is bad.(Amos 5:14-15) . . ."'Search for what is good, and not what is bad, to the end that YOU people may keep living; and that thus Jehovah the God of armies may come to be with YOU, just as YOU have said. Hate what is bad, and love what is good,"(Psalm 97:10) "O YOU lovers of Jehovah, hate what is bad."
(Proverbs 8:13) "The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad."
(Romans 12:9) "Abhor what is wicked, cling to what is good."Hating what is bad, means hating sinful acts and conduct, it does not mean hating people, rather they are to be shown love and mercy.
(Jude 23) "But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while YOU hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh."The reason why we need to hate bad things, is because God hates them and those to continue to do such things will not inherit the kingdom.(Luke 13:23-24) "Lord, are those who are being saved few?" He said to them: "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell YOU, will seek to get in but will not be able,"
(Luke 13:27-28) "'I do not know where YOU are from. Get away from me, all YOU workers of unrighteousness!' There is where [YOUR] weeping and the gnashing of [YOUR] teeth will be, when YOU see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves thrown outside."Of course those who do lawless deeds, includes those who claim to serve Jesus and yet do bad things.(Matthew 7:21-24) "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness. "Therefore everyone that hears these sayings of mine and does them will be likened to a discreet man, who built his house upon the rock-mass."As Jesus stated, we need to not just hear his sayings, we have to do them, we need to live by them and not do bad things. If we continue to practice the things the Bible condemns, we will not inherit the kingdom. Since that is what is required of us, it would be unloving not to tell those who are doing such things that they are in danger.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Berberry; Actualy I am not a "right-wing christian" while the "idiot" part is often a matter of debate.Yes homosexuality is a matter of choice and people can and have changed their orination. The following is a quote from the abstract for a scientific paper on people changing their sexual orientation from same sex to heterosexual, so it is possible to change. Since it is possible to change, it is a matter of choice. Link to paper:While there maybe some inherited factors that can predispose one towards a homosexual orientation, there are important environmental factors that effect the out come. Any environmental effect is a matter of choice, in that it is not "in our genes" and can be controlled. Link to paper:Being homosexual or bisexual is not healthy and is bad for one's mental health. Link to paper: Link to paper:Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Berberry; Here reread the part that was posted already. My point wasn't that change is easy or universal, just that it is possible. I couldn't have but better words into your mouth to prove my point if I tried. Yes I agree that is probably part of the problem. Yes it is a shame that people can't learn to agree to disagree. Everyone should learn to treat others with dignity, but is unlikely to happen since you can't even seem to be able do it yourself.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott AndersonThis message has been edited by wmscott, 03-21-2005 04:38 PM

Dear PaulK; The fact that change is possible, proves that it is a matter of choice. Some were able to change and they changed because they made a decision to do so. As you can see from Berberry's post, he is what he is, because he has no desire to change. Change is of course, pretty much impossible for those who don't want to change.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

To all concerned, I am making a last post on this thread, demands on my time will keep me too busy to post again until after April 15th.I would like to restate that homosexuality is a choice, as shown by scientific studies and this scripture from the Bible. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God."Here right in the Bible we have an inspired record that, people who had been homosexuals, had with the help of the holy spirit, had changed and were no longer homosexuals. The reason for why they had to make the change is also clearly stated, if they didn't, they would not inherit the kingdom. To gain God's approval, a person must stop doing what God considers wrong. (Duh!)Some on this board have foolishly attempted to say that in the above verse that the word translated as "men who lie with men" should really be translated as 'male temple prostitute' or 'men who lay with boys' which would restrict Paul's condemnation to certain homosexual situations instead of homosexuality in general. Their arguments of course failed because they had no merit, they were simply wrong. As shown by the fact that nearly all modern Bible translations render the term as 'homosexual' or an equivalent phrase. The word twisting argument also fails due to the following scripture were Paul didn't even use the Greek word in question, but instead spelled out 'same sex acts' and condemned them.(Romans 1:24-27) "Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."Paul clearly stated that such acts were "contrary to nature" or unnatural and "obscene". Those who persist is such conduct will receive the "full recompense" "for their error." And to keep any heterosexuals form getting too smug, those who engage in any sexual activity outside of marriage are listed at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 right along side the homosexuals as not inheriting the kingdom. To inherit the kingdom far more than merely not doing bad is required, and even being a person of good principles and having great knowledge of God is not enough by itself, or we would be like the slave who buried his master's money and did nothing with it. (Matthew 25:14-30) " . . . But the one that received just one went off, and dug in the ground and hid the silver money of his master. "After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. . . . his master said to him, 'Wicked and sluggish slave, . . . throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.'" Far more than merely being a "good person" is required if we wish to have God's favor, so don't let any feel smug thinking that they are righteous just because they are not a homosexual. To serve God we actually have to serve him, which of course requires actual actions. but that is another topic.I see that my pointing out the fact that being gay is a choice, and that the Bible condemns all sex acts outside of marriage (not going to get into the issue of marital oral & anal sex, since that has to be inferred by deducing general biblical principles.) has raised the blood pressure of a few. Which is to be expected since those facts are in conflict with what some people want to believe. There is no point in my arguing in post after post that the sky is blue, since in the end, people believe what they want to believe. The evidence I have presented speaks for it self, the scriptures are clear and to the point. Those who wish to ignore them will do so any way, regardless of what I could post in a hundred more posts. So since the evidence has been presented, it is pointless to engage in an endless debate with those who simply don't want to accept it no matter what. Everyone is free to live their own life, but in the end we all have to answer for our actions.(Romans 14:12) "each of us will render an account for himself to God."(Matthew 12:36-37) "I tell YOU that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgment Day; for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson