Does God Hate Bisexuals and Homosexuals?

[Aselia]

Frankly i think religion is a bunch of bullshit. That being said, I think that people who think that god hates bisexuals and homosexuals are just afraid of someone or something different than themselves and they need to learn to get the hell over it and get with the times. contrary to popular belief by many overly religious people, homosexuality isn't going to go away, and homosexuals aren't going to change to being straight just because some crazy person tries to push their beliefs on them. Case in point: the passage of Gay Marriage laws in California. California is among the first states to take a step in the right direction and recognize the right of two people who are in love to be able to marry, regardless of sexuality or gender, and the Mormons are all up in arms about it, and the higher up Mormons are calling on all Mormons in California to fight the gay marriage laws and try and get the law to be abolished. My question is what right do they have trying to interfere in something that doesn't concern them other than the fact that they are told by their "God" or their bible or what the fuck ever that homosexuals are sinners and should be stricken down and sent to hell.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is if "god" was all loving or whatever, then he wouldn't have a problem, but the crazy people who misinterpret things do.

 

[Lirael]

From a Christian perspective, it can truly be argued either way. Common belief is that homosexuality is immoral, but that those who are homosexual should be helped and reached out to. However, there is evidence in the Bible - select evidence - that homosexuality is acceptable. I remember studying this in Ethics. I can't pull out quotes now but, believe me, they are there. HOwever, there are also quotes which give evidence that damns homosexuals.

The Bible contradicts itself in almost eeeeeverything.

And, as for my personal opinion... I don't believe that heaven or hell are literal, so I don't think God hates or damns homosexuals. I think heaven and hell are to do with your frame of mind. If you are selfish you will naturally be unhappy eternally 'cause you won't co-operate with others. I develoepd this idea from a story I was once told in primary school, where there are 2 sets of tables, each with long forks. Those who are selfish only feed themselves. Those who are not feed one another. As a result, those who are selfish starve, for they are unable to think about those around them. :/ So, from that idea, homosexuals can't be damned or punished.

Anyway, I agree with SorceressEdea. If God is all-loving, and all-forgiving, he will forgive people for following their heart. It doesn't harm other people!

But then I guess one could argue that people like Hitler only followed their heart...

Also, on another note... by common belief, God doesn't hate anyone. He just dislikes their actions. And if heaven and hell ARE literal...well, think of it like a parent punishing her child... They punish out of love, so they can learn. So, no: God doesn't hate homosexuals.

However, eternal damnation is terribly unfair for a bit of immorality in a short life by comparison, one might claim...

Mm, Philosophy and Ethics has made me open to every idea I can get a hold of! xP

 

[der Astronom]

Frankly i think religion is a bunch of bullshit. That being said, I think that people who think that god hates bisexuals and homosexuals are just afraid of someone or something different than themselves and they need to learn to get the hell over it and get with the times. contrary to popular belief by many overly religious people, homosexuality isn't going to go away, and homosexuals aren't going to change to being straight just because some crazy person tries to push their beliefs on them. Case in point: the passage of Gay Marriage laws in California. California is among the first states to take a step in the right direction and recognize the right of two people who are in love to be able to marry, regardless of sexuality or gender, and the Mormons are all up in arms about it, and the higher up Mormons are calling on all Mormons in California to fight the gay marriage laws and try and get the law to be abolished. My question is what right do they have trying to interfere in something that doesn't concern them other than the fact that they are told by their "God" or their bible or what the fuck ever that homosexuals are sinners and should be stricken down and sent to hell.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is if "god" was all loving or whatever, then he wouldn't have a problem, but the crazy people who misinterpret things do.

They might as well make it illegal to not be Mormon as well, since intolerance is one of the things that's written of in the bible. So they'll leave atheists alone, but they won't leave homosexuals alone. In either case, they consider both to be sinners.

Believe what you will of homosexuals. But I think that trying to use the bible to excuse your reasons of not supporting homosexuality is not a good idea, particularly because it contradicts itself.

 

[The Messenger]

They might as well make it illegal to not be Mormon as well, since intolerance is one of the things that's written of in the bible. So they'll leave atheists alone, but they won't leave homosexuals alone. In either case, they consider both to be sinners.

Believe what you will of homosexuals. But I think that trying to use the bible to excuse your reasons of not supporting homosexuality is not a good idea, particularly because it contradicts itself.

I would like to see know where, in the bible, you say all this is found. There is a possiblity you are viewing it in a different context than it is given.

 

[der Astronom]

There are so many of them that it would be difficult to believe that all of them would be taken out of context.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:43, 46
Isaiah 3:9
Romans 1:26 - 28 1:31-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10
...
I could list more, but that wouldn't be the point. The "context" is not necessarily the problem here, but in how people interpret the bible. There is no such thing as "the" interpretation, and if people believe that's what the bible says, that's their interpretation--if you believe that's not what it says, then that's your interpretation. However, since I do not use the bible to disapprove of homosexuality, it would be better that you ask the people who do use the bible to condemn homosexuality why they believe that's what the bible says.

I do not condemn homosexuals because of what the bible says; I don't condemn them because I don't see any reason why I have to; they're minding their own business, and I'm minding my own.

 

[The Messenger]

There are so many of them that it would be difficult to believe that all of them would be taken out of context.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:43, 46
Isaiah 3:9
Romans 1:26 - 28 1:31-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10
...
I could list more, but that wouldn't be the point. The "context" is not necessarily the problem here, but in how people interpret the bible. There is no such thing as "the" interpretation, and if people believe that's what the bible says, that's their interpretation--if you believe that's not what it says, then that's your interpretation. However, since I do not use the bible to disapprove of homosexuality, it would be better that you ask the people who do use the bible to condemn homosexuality why they believe that's what the bible says.

I do not condemn homosexuals because of what the bible says; I don't condemn them because I don't see any reason why I have to; they're minding their own business, and I'm minding my own.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - explains that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not the person. Now the people who are doing homosexual things are punished because of them doing it. Not for any other reason. This is easily misinterpreted.

1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:43, 46 - the people who followed this particular practice the people of Judah created worshipped this. Just because they worshipped it, doesn't mean that they are that though. Again, it's all in the context.

These next few verses are showing that they accept the way they are, again, not saying that they are what they are doing.

Isaiah 3:9 - People can interpret this wrong because it is what they are doing is being shown on their faces. But if you look further in the verse, it is the sin that is showing. Again, nowhere does it say it is what they are.

Romans 1:26 - 28 1:31-32 - It is saying that if the person accepts what they are doing, despite that it is wrong, then God let's them go, but He waits for their return.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Again, those who practice these things, and do it in acceptance of it, will not get into heaven. Still does not say if you practice homosexuality you are one. They are still human, just like the rest of us.

1 Timothy 1:10 - This goes into shortened, but detailed explanations. The laws written there are for those who PRACTICE it. Still no evidence of it saying that they are what they practice.

Most people take the bible word for word, which is not the best way to do it. That is why they say things like they are homosexual. There is no proof of it saying that they are.

Where are the contradictions? I am interested in those as well.

 

[Rockman X]

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - explains that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not the person. Now the people who are doing homosexual things are punished because of them doing it. Not for any other reason. This is easily misinterpreted.

Right. In 18:22 it says a man lying with another man as he would a woman is detestable. In 20:13 it expands on this by saying that they must be put to death. Do you want the quote so you can see it and not try to twist it?

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Misinterpreted my ass, it's clear as day. Homosexuality is such a "detestable" sin that there is to be no compassion or lenience for the gay lovers, they must be murdered. If you don't want to believe me and think I'm making it up, there are probably at least 20 Bibles in this house and I could easily scan the page. As a matter of fact, that whole chapter is terrible, it talks about punishments for various sins (many sexually related), and often times the punishment is death.

And just a chapter back, in Leviticus 19:19, it's discussing various laws, and bluntly says "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Should I not wear half polyester, half cotton clothes anymore? If we go back to chapter 15, it discusses that special time of the month women have. To sum it all up, the woman who is on her period is considered unclean, anything she touches is unclean, anyone who touches her is unclean. And this bit is so ridiculous I'd just like to quote it:

(28)When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean.
(29) On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
(30) The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
(31) You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.

So apparently, a woman is actually sinning by having a natural period, and you must keep people away from women on their periods lest it kill the others with its horrid uncleanliness. Are you telling us that we should actually seriously consider the Bible's views on homosexuals when it tells us this kind of stuff?

These are all outdated, sexist, barbaric laws for a tribe of people living in the desert a few thousand years ago who used "Jehova" as an excuse for murder or segregation when they didn't like something.

 

[The Messenger]

Prince Vegeta, the point that was being made was that nowhere in the Bible does it say WORD FOR WORD, that what sin you commit is what you are. That was the whole point I was getting at. People misinterpret it as the otherway around.

 

[Rockman X]

Prince Vegeta, the point that was being made was that nowhere in the Bible does it say WORD FOR WORD, that what sin you commit is what you are. That was the whole point I was getting at. People misinterpret it as the otherway around.

I understood fully what your point was. You were trying to go for that whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy. Unfortunately for you, the Bible doesn't support this. You did read the passages I quoted, right? It makes no differentiation between homosexuals and the act of homosexuality. There is no forgiveness, just a blatant order to kill them. It did not say that a woman's period is unclean, it said that the woman herself was unclean. There is absolutely no differentiation between the sin and what you are. It's right there, clear as the fucking Bible I have in my hand. I'm not misinterpreting anything, you're just trying to make it look as if I am so you don't have to admit I proved that the Bible is outdated barbaric bullshit.

 

[The Messenger]

Another thing you should note, Prince Vegeta. Leviticus was written BEFORE Jesus died for us, the old testament. Before Jesus died, those were the laws God had made for that time, as well as sacrifices. Now, since the time Jesus has died for our sins, that is no longer something that needs to be done. Jesus paid the price with His own death, therefore, making the death penalty no longer a factor.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Another thing you should note, Prince Vegeta. Leviticus was written BEFORE Jesus died for us, the old testament. Before Jesus died, those were the laws God had made for that time, as well as sacrifices. Now, since the time Jesus has died for our sins, that is no longer something that needs to be done. Jesus paid the price with His own death, therefore, making the death penalty no longer a factor.

Hey Hows it going, I don't think we've met,

No offense dude, but Vegeta is right. The bible is the damn bible. What difference does it make when the laws were made, your basically saying that the Ten Commandments, which God gave to Moses in Exodus isn't valid because it was made before Jesus's time.

The 10 commandments are a very good source for morality, while you don't have to follow the theological aspects of it, respect your parents, dont kill, etc are very valid paths to follow.

The death penalty? That has nothing to do with this debate, and as such is an invalid point.

 

[Rockman X]

Another thing you should note, Prince Vegeta. Leviticus was written BEFORE Jesus died for us, the old testament. Before Jesus died, those were the laws God had made for that time, as well as sacrifices. Now, since the time Jesus has died for our sins, that is no longer something that needs to be done. Jesus paid the price with His own death, therefore, making the death penalty no longer a factor.

Please don't lecture me on the Bible, my mother is a devout Christian and I grew up in church. There's a fair chance I know more about the Bible than you do. But if you wanna talk New Testament, then let's.

(9)Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
(10)nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(11)And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Now, that part actually does differentiate between the sinner and sin. So I would now like to call upon your logic and reason to look at this from an objective standpoint.

The Bible is a complete book, is it not? The Old Testament is thrown in with the New. The New focuses on the Gospel whilst the Old focuses mainly on the history of the Jews. People always accuse the Bible of being inconsistent, but let's look at the biggest inconsistency of all: the Old Testament Jehova is almost completely different from the New Testament one. In the Old, he is almost always a horribly cruel god who thinks it perfectly acceptable to kill homosexuals, shun women on their periods, and condones mass plunder and rape simply because other people "sin" and believe in a different god. There is hardly any speak of trying to convert these poor "sinners" and sway them to Judiasm, or give them time to atone.

Yet, in the New Testament, suddently he becomes a loving God who cares about everyone so much that he sends his son to die for everyone. He's practically a different god. And even still, this love he shares for people is inconsistent. He loves everyone, yet he cannot allow someone into heaven unless they have accepted Christ so he can cleanse them of their sins. Since he's holy, he can't be around impure people. Makes enough sense. So Jesus states that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him. This brings two questions to mind:

1. Why do we need Jesus for that? If God is God, can't he just cleanse people in the first place and let them into heaven?

2. What of the people who never get the chance to hear about Jesus? What of people in locations so remote that no missionary will ever reach them? God is supposedly just, so this would conflict his nature if he let these people go to hell.

The answer to that second one is of course natural revelation. Theoretically, a human is going to look at the world, at everything around him, and think to himself "there has to be a God who created this" and that will be enough to allow him entrance into heaven. Of course the biggest flaw in that is that, while he may have a vague idea of god, he is going to know nothing of Jehova, of Jesus and his sins that must be cleansed. So assuming God is just and allows for this natural revelation, it makes Jesus a liar because there are other ways into heaven besides him.

So I ask you this: why believe such a silly, inconsistent book's view on homosexuality?

 

[The Messenger]

To Vegeta: Again, the bible does not say that what you do is what you are, therefore, the, what you call love the sinner, hate the sin, is true. Where does it say that what we do is what we are?

Hey Hows it going, I don't think we've met,

No offense dude, but Vegeta is right. The bible is the damn bible. What difference does it make when the laws were made, your basically saying that the Ten Commandments, which God gave to Moses in Exodus isn't valid because it was made before Jesus's time.

The 10 commandments are a very good source for morality, while you don't have to follow the theological aspects of it, respect your parents, dont kill, etc are very valid paths to follow.

The death penalty? That has nothing to do with this debate, and as such is an invalid point.

Hello Kuja. I am good.

There is no theological anything in this. The Ten Commandments were for the non-believers. The ones who believe in Jesus were to already know of these and were already be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. I do agree that the moral in the Ten Commandments are very good. They are vital to life as we know it.

On the Debate at hand, the time period of when the laws were written are, in fact, a factor to consider. If Jesus had not died for our sins, we would still be killing someone for doing sexually immoral things, as well as, we would be doing other things.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Hello Kuja. I am good.

There is no theological anything in this. The Ten Commandments were for the non-believers. The ones who believe in Jesus were to already know of these and were already be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. I do agree that the moral in the Ten Commandments are very good. They are vital to life as we know it.

Fair enough, but didn't God give the Ten Commandments to Moses for the people to follow non-believers included? Also how could people believe in something that was non-existant until years later(jesus) ? Unless I missunderstood u.

On the Debate at hand, the time period of when the laws were written are, in fact, a factor to consider. If Jesus had not died for our sins, we would still be killing someone for doing sexually immoral things, as well as, we would be doing other things.

Im a philosophical person, what you say is your opinion, and who am I to say your wrong. I support the Death Penalty from a moral standpoint, but oppose it from a pragmatic standpoint.

Nice debating with ya

- Kuja

 

[Rockman X]

To Vegeta: Again, the bible does not say that what you do is what you are, therefore, the, what you call love the sinner, hate the sin, is true. Where does it say that what we do is what we are?

I conceded the fact that the New Testament goes by the philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Nice job ignoring the rest of what I was getting at.

There is no theological anything in this. The Ten Commandments were for the non-believers. The ones who believe in Jesus were to already know of these and were already be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. I do agree that the moral in the Ten Commandments are very good. They are vital to life as we know it.

And here you show how little you actually know of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were specifically given to Moses to give to the Hebrews. Or are you referring to when the Hebrews made the golden calf and Aaron condoned it? I scarcely think that makes them "unbelievers."

On the Debate at hand, the time period of when the laws were written are, in fact, a factor to consider. If Jesus had not died for our sins, we would still be killing someone for doing sexually immoral things, as well as, we would be doing other things.

If that is the case, then why do Christians regard the Old Testament as part of the Bible and selectively pick and choose laws and morals from it to uphold?

 

[The Messenger]

I conceded the fact that the New Testament goes by the philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Nice job ignoring the rest of what I was getting at.




And here you show how little you actually know of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were specifically given to Moses to give to the Hebrews. Or are you referring to when the Hebrews made the golden calf and Aaron condoned it? I scarcely think that makes them "unbelievers."



If that is the case, then why do Christians regard the Old Testament as part of the Bible and selectively pick and choose laws and morals from it to uphold?

To answer the second paragraph: I am referring to that whole situation as well as for others, outside the Hebrews, more along modern times. As a Christian, we are expected to follow these commandments, hence why they are more for those who don't believe in God.

To answer the last question, because the laws that were given then are also morals that are used in today's society.

 

[Rockman X]

To answer the second paragraph: I am referring to that whole situation as well as for others, outside the Hebrews, more along modern times. As a Christian, we are expected to follow these commandments, hence why they are more for those who don't believe in God.

Now you are really starting to slip. The Ten Commandments are for people outside the Hebrews and in MODERN times? The were written over two thousand years ago for the Hebrews. Honestly man, if you want to argue the Bible, that's fine with me, but try to actually read it and know what the hell you're talking about. This is when Jehova spoke to Moses initially, before Moses got everyone to crowd around Mt Sinai as God dictated the Ten Commandments:

(3)Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:
(4) 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
(5) Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
(6) you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Also I would like to point out that as a Christian you have already broken the fourth commandment, because the Sabbath is on a Saturday and Christians worship on Wednesdays and Sundays (although a few select churches do hold Saturday evening services).

To answer the last question, because the laws that were given then are also morals that are used in today's society.

No. They are the morals used in some societies. I'm fairly sure nobody (except maybe devout Jews) today goes by the "don't wear clothes of two fabrics" rule, or considers themselves unclean if they happen to touch a woman having her period. You really should just go ahead and concede, your arguments are only getting worse and worse.

 

[Donald Trump]

2. What of the people who never get the chance to hear about Jesus? What of people in locations so remote that no missionary will ever reach them? God is supposedly just, so this would conflict his nature if he let these people go to hell.

The answer to that second one is of course natural revalation. Theoretically, a human is going to look at the world, at everything around him, and think to himself "there has to be a God who created this" and that will be enough to allow him entrance into heaven. Of course the biggest flaw in that is that, while he may have a vague idea of god, he is going to know nothing of Jehova, of Jesus and his sins that must be cleansed.

The answer, is that they all go to hell. I'm not sure if you've read Dante's inferno, I'll presume you haven't. As Dante and Vergil travel through the first circle they see Vergil and all the other famous Greek/Roman writers, philosophers etc. They all go to hell because basically they believed in other gods. This was written in 1314 I think, I'm not sure what the pope would say today, he'd probably avoid the question.

As VR says, the god of the old testament and the new testament may as well be different.
YHWH sees jomosexuality as a sin, but does the new testament god?
If he does it would be almost impossible for gay people to enter heaven as they would have to repent for their lifestyle.
So do we assume that all gay people go to hell. Also does god hate everyone that is in hell?
Sorry if this doesn't maek sense but it is very early.

 

[Rockman X]

The answer, is that they all go to hell. I'm not sure if you've read Dante's inferno, I'll presume you haven't. As Dante and Vergil travel through the first circle they see Vergil and all the other famous Greek/Roman writers, philosophers etc. They all go to hell because basically they believed in other gods. This was written in 1314 I think, I'm not sure what the pope would say today, he'd probably avoid the question.

Nope, I haven't read it, but as it is a work of fiction and not considered part of Biblical doctrine I disregarded it.

As VR says, the god of the old testament and the new testament may as well be different.
YHWH sees jomosexuality as a sin, but does the new testament god?
If he does it would be almost impossible for gay people to enter heaven as they would have to repent for their lifestyle.
So do we assume that all gay people go to hell. Also does god hate everyone that is in hell?
Sorry if this doesn't maek sense but it is very early.

They are very different gods, but the New Testament god is still just as intolerant and does indeed dislike homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. And here I'll quote a different NT passage:

(8) But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
(9) knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10) for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
(11) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Now of course that term sodomites comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I touched on that story a few pages back, but I would like to go over it again and just say how entirely ridiculous it is. I'll outline it for you, if you want to read it yourself the story begins in Genesis 18.

1. Jehovah is chatting with Abraham, telling him Sodom and Gamorrah have become so wicked that they must be destroyed.

2. Abraham pleads with God, saying "if there's 50/20/10/5/1 righteous man in the city will you spare it?" and God actually shows some compassion here by saying he'd even spare the cities if he found a single righteous person.

3. Abraham's nephew (or something, he's related somehow) Lot is living in Sodom at the time. So the Lord decides to send two angels to the city to scout it for righteous people, Lot invites them to stay with him.

4. Before long, all (I stress all because the passage indeed does say all) the men in the city come to Lot's house and ask him to bring out the two angels so they can have sex with them.

5. Lot pleads with them not to, and even offers them his two daughters instead (what a great father). They yell at Lot and say they'll do even worse to him than the angels (even worse gang rape), the angels make all the rapist gays blind, then tell Lot to gather up his family and leave the city because it's going to be destroyed.

I think it's fairly apparent that this story is completely fabricated. For one thing, gays are no more/less horny than straight people, they don't want to rape every man they see. But that an entire city would come together to rape two men is insane. If I told you that I'd gone to a neighboring town and EVERY single man in the town came out to rape me, would any of you believe me? No. Then why do Christians believe this? The only way I can see a whole town coming together to rape two men is if all the gays in the town had severe psychological issues, in which case they make no accurate representation of homosexuals.

Sadly, the effects of this story still persist to this day. People act fearful around gays. They'll say stuff like "I don't mind gays so long as they don't hit on me" as if gay people have no control over their hormones. If you tell a homophobe one of your friends is gay, they'll immediately worry about your safety. It's disgusting.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

1. Jehovah is chatting with Abraham, telling him Sodom and Gamorrah have become so wicked that they must be destroyed.

2. Abraham pleads with God, saying "if there's 50/20/10/5/1 righteous man in the city will you spare it?" and God actually shows some compassion here by saying he'd even spare the cities if he found a single righteous person.

3. Abraham's nephew (or something, he's related somehow) Lot is living in Sodom at the time. So the Lord decides to send two angels to the city to scout it for righteous people, Lot invites them to stay with him.

4. Before long, all (I stress all because the passage indeed does say all) the men in the city come to Lot's house and ask him to bring out the two angels so they can have sex with them.

5. Lot pleads with them not to, and even offers them his two daughters instead (what a great father). They yell at Lot and say they'll do even worse to him than the angels (even worse gang rape), the angels make all the rapist gays blind, then tell Lot to gather up his family and leave the city because it's going to be destroyed.

Hi Vegeta, I bolded the part that I'm a bit confused about. You see in my bible(I own it for the sake of owning one), it says spanish-english "The men of Sodom knocked on Lots door, and asked if he had any male residents staying with him, Lot replied "yes", and the men asked if the residents could spend some time with them, The men of sodom wanted to have sex with them."

Theres no mention of any angels, only that the City of Sodom and Gommorah(spelled wrong prolly) were to be destroyed because of homosexuality, Lots wife was also killed, because she looked back after God said not to.

So you claim you own alot of bibles, could you look into that? I only own one, and thats what it says, which is what leads to these arguments, since their all translated differently. Either though your point is valid.

- Kuja