What are your views on sex and marriage?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*cowboymonkey21

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

Now the comment has been removed, shall we actually address the issue? Rather than just calling other people names? :)

So, why exactly do you find it disgusting? As an example, if a mob of people came to 'my' house, and I had a choice - to give them a dog, or a fellow human being, which do you think I would choose? Obviously, I would choose the 'lesser' of the two beings, the dog. 

Sorry if that is unclear BTW. I have a terrible headache right now.

No I didn't . . . . I just explained his possible reasoning.

Justifying rape would be saying that the men were fully entitled to rape Lot's daughters. Which they were not. Rape is wrong, under all circumstances. What I am saying, is that Lot may have considered rape of an Angel (who were messengers of his God), worse than rape of his daughters (who were just human beings). You see?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*cowboymonkey21

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

Now the comment has been removed, shall we actually address the issue? Rather than just calling other people names? :)

So, why exactly do you find it disgusting? As an example, if a mob of people came to 'my' house, and I had a choice - to give them a dog, or a fellow human being, which do you think I would choose? Obviously, I would choose the 'lesser' of the two beings, the dog. 

Sorry if that is unclear BTW. I have a terrible headache right now.

One more thing, why are you condemning Lot's reasoning, when if a non-believer like yourself believes there is no God, moral relativism would be the rule? Surely that would mean that you should not question Lot's reasoning since all reasoning would be subjective and relative? :)

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*Lansdowne5

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

Now the comment has been removed, shall we actually address the issue? Rather than just calling other people names? :)

So, why exactly do you find it disgusting? As an example, if a mob of people came to 'my' house, and I had a choice - to give them a dog, or a fellow human being, which do you think I would choose? Obviously, I would choose the 'lesser' of the two beings, the dog. 

Sorry if that is unclear BTW. I have a terrible headache right now.

One more thing, why are you condemning Lot's reasoning, when if a non-believer like yourself believes there is no God, moral relativism would be the rule? Surely that would mean that you should not question Lot's reasoning since all reasoning would be subjective and relative? :)

I believe morals to be relative. Now let's look at it from your perspective which is "moral is absolute". But at the same time are you not saying since it was done by an angel the act was somewhat less immoral then it would have been in the case of an average human? If so, can you still say morals are not relative?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*7guns

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

Now the comment has been removed, shall we actually address the issue? Rather than just calling other people names? :)

So, why exactly do you find it disgusting? As an example, if a mob of people came to 'my' house, and I had a choice - to give them a dog, or a fellow human being, which do you think I would choose? Obviously, I would choose the 'lesser' of the two beings, the dog. 

Sorry if that is unclear BTW. I have a terrible headache right now.

One more thing, why are you condemning Lot's reasoning, when if a non-believer like yourself believes there is no God, moral relativism would be the rule? Surely that would mean that you should not question Lot's reasoning since all reasoning would be subjective and relative? :)

I believe morals to be relative. Now let's look at it from your perspective which is "moral is absolute". But at the same time are you not saying since it was done by an angel the act was somewhat less immoral then it would have been in the case of an average human? If so, can you still say morals are not relative?

No, I'm not saying that if an angel committed the act it wouldn't be just as immoral. Rape is wrong, in all cases. :) 

[QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*Lansdowne5

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

Now the comment has been removed, shall we actually address the issue? Rather than just calling other people names? :)

So, why exactly do you find it disgusting? As an example, if a mob of people came to 'my' house, and I had a choice - to give them a dog, or a fellow human being, which do you think I would choose? Obviously, I would choose the 'lesser' of the two beings, the dog. 

Sorry if that is unclear BTW. I have a terrible headache right now.

One more thing, why are you condemning Lot's reasoning, when if a non-believer like yourself believes there is no God, moral relativism would be the rule? Surely that would mean that you should not question Lot's reasoning since all reasoning would be subjective and relative? :)

I believe morals to be relative. Now let's look at it from your perspective which is "moral is absolute". But at the same time are you not saying since it was done by an angel the act was somewhat less immoral then it would have been in the case of an average human? If so, can you still say morals are not relative?

No, I'm not saying that if an angel committed the act it wouldn't be just as immoral. Rape is wrong, in all cases. :) 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"]

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*Teenaged

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

Now the comment has been removed, shall we actually address the issue? Rather than just calling other people names? :)

So, why exactly do you find it disgusting? As an example, if a mob of people came to 'my' house, and I had a choice - to give them a dog, or a fellow human being, which do you think I would choose? Obviously, I would choose the 'lesser' of the two beings, the dog. 

Sorry if that is unclear BTW. I have a terrible headache right now.

One more thing, why are you condemning Lot's reasoning, when if a non-believer like yourself believes there is no God, moral relativism would be the rule? Surely that would mean that you should not question Lot's reasoning since all reasoning would be subjective and relative? :)

I believe morals to be relative. Now let's look at it from your perspective which is "moral is absolute". But at the same time are you not saying since it was done by an angel the act was somewhat less immoral then it would have been in the case of an average human? If so, can you still say morals are not relative?

No, I'm not saying that if an angel committed the act it wouldn't be just as immoral. Rape is wrong, in all cases. :) 

But it's not the angel committing the act, is it? It would be the mob. I don't even see why that question was relevant. Let alone why my answer was inconsistent.

[QUOTE="cowboymonkey21"]*comment removed by domatron23*Forerunner-117

Damn, it appears I missed a vital rebuttal! :P

My similar comment equating the bible's ordaining of gender roles to that of racial roles was removed too without my notification.  Clearly my statement was meant as a condemnation of the bible, not any race.    If this is the doing of the officers I would appreciate it if you just leave my comments intact at the risk of being modded.  I stand behind my words and will take it up with them if it comes to that.

But it's not the angel committing the act, is it? It would be the mob. I don't even see why that question was relevant. Let alone why my answer was inconsistent.

Lansdowne5

I got this from wikipedia:

In Gen. 19, when God plans to overturn and destroy the five cities of the plain, he sends angels to the city of Sodom where they meet Lot at the city gates. Lot seems greatly concerned that the angels should spend the night in his house but the angels insist they wish to spend the night in the city street. Lot puts a great deal of pressure on them and eventually convinces them. However all the people of Sodom surround Lots house with intent to meet (in some translations, rape) the angels (19:5). Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8), but the men were not interested. Consequently, an Arabic expression for homosexuals is derived from the name for the people of Lot or Lut(in Arabic).i.e., Luti.

LINK

Is this correct?

If it is, then was it really the mob or Lot himself who is guilty? If he was right in making the judgement only because he was trying to serve the angels but not humans, does it not mean morals are relative?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

But it's not the angel committing the act, is it? It would be the mob. I don't even see why that question was relevant. Let alone why my answer was inconsistent.

7guns

I got this from wikipedia:

In Gen. 19, when God plans to overturn and destroy the five cities of the plain, he sends angels to the city of Sodom where they meet Lot at the city gates. Lot seems greatly concerned that the angels should spend the night in his house but the angels insist they wish to spend the night in the city street. Lot puts a great deal of pressure on them and eventually convinces them. However all the people of Sodom surround Lots house with intent to meet (in some translations, rape) the angels (19:5). Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8), but the men were not interested. Consequently, an Arabic expression for homosexuals is derived from the name for the people of Lot or Lut(in Arabic).i.e., Luti.

LINK

Is this correct?

If it is, then was it really the mob or Lot himself who is guilty? If he was right in making the judgement only because he was trying to serve the angels but not humans, does it not mean morals are relative?

Yes, that is correct. :)

From my view, it was the mob who were guilty. From the other point of view I mentioned however (that of Lot being wrong to offer his daughters) you could say both Lot and the mob were wrong. 

[QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

But it's not the angel committing the act, is it? It would be the mob. I don't even see why that question was relevant. Let alone why my answer was inconsistent.

Lansdowne5

I got this from wikipedia:

In Gen. 19, when God plans to overturn and destroy the five cities of the plain, he sends angels to the city of Sodom where they meet Lot at the city gates. Lot seems greatly concerned that the angels should spend the night in his house but the angels insist they wish to spend the night in the city street. Lot puts a great deal of pressure on them and eventually convinces them. However all the people of Sodom surround Lots house with intent to meet (in some translations, rape) the angels (19:5). Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8), but the men were not interested. Consequently, an Arabic expression for homosexuals is derived from the name for the people of Lot or Lut(in Arabic).i.e., Luti.

LINK

Is this correct?

If it is, then was it really the mob or Lot himself who is guilty? If he was right in making the judgement only because he was trying to serve the angels but not humans, does it not mean morals are relative?

Yes, that is correct. :)

From my view, it was the mob who were guilty. From the other point of view I mentioned however (that of Lot being wrong to offer his daughters) you could say both Lot and the mob were wrong. 

Are you suffering from multiple perspective syndrome? :| :P

Anyway, judging from only one perspective you agree with this: Both the mob and Lot were guilty...

The way I see, marriage is just a title, one that isn't nessary to prove one's love.  I think that, as long as all parties are of consenting age, give consent, and stay within the boundaries of what is legal, premarital sex is absolutely fine. 

[QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

But it's not the angel committing the act, is it? It would be the mob. I don't even see why that question was relevant. Let alone why my answer was inconsistent.

Lansdowne5

I got this from wikipedia:

In Gen. 19, when God plans to overturn and destroy the five cities of the plain, he sends angels to the city of Sodom where they meet Lot at the city gates. Lot seems greatly concerned that the angels should spend the night in his house but the angels insist they wish to spend the night in the city street. Lot puts a great deal of pressure on them and eventually convinces them. However all the people of Sodom surround Lots house with intent to meet (in some translations, rape) the angels (19:5). Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8), but the men were not interested. Consequently, an Arabic expression for homosexuals is derived from the name for the people of Lot or Lut(in Arabic).i.e., Luti.

LINK

Is this correct?

If it is, then was it really the mob or Lot himself who is guilty? If he was right in making the judgement only because he was trying to serve the angels but not humans, does it not mean morals are relative?

Yes, that is correct. :)

From my view, it was the mob who were guilty. From the other point of view I mentioned however (that of Lot being wrong to offer his daughters) you could say both Lot and the mob were wrong. 

Ok, glad you added the second line.  I've always had a big problem with this story and what it means, I see where your coming from now.