A couple of questions I have

[someperson]

Hi Everyone. I have a few questions. So the first is with Genesis 19. Why did God destroy the two cities? I understand that a large part was homosexuality, but if God loves us, why did he kill everyone in those cities. And why were they punished? Why is no one today practicing homosexuality punished like they were? I’m sorry if it’s grammatically incorrect or confusing, I don’t really know how to word these questions. Thanks in advance

 

[stpurl]

If God loves us?

Well, let’s think. Do people die?
They do. Humans are born, live, and die.

Sometimes they die from ‘natural causes’.
Sometimes they die in accidents.
Sometimes they are killed.

Now, does anybody have a right to kill another person?

Well, yes, pace death penalty ‘nays’ but there are people who have authority to kill in certain situations.
Not only that, but any ‘average Joe or Jane’, if they need to defend themselves, can fight back up to and including ‘lethal force’. This also applies to defending the innocent, or one’s country in the event of war.

And those are just ‘other human beings.’

None of us creates our selves.

But God does create us.

As our Creator, He has the right to give us life AND the right to take it away in any way He sees fit.

Now, suppose that God has created someone who is going terribly wrong. As long as that person lives, he’s just going to sit back and enjoy doing wrong. But if he’s in danger of death, he has that ‘second of clarity’ where he realizes, "I’ve done terrible things, God, I’m sorry’. . .and he repents. And God forgives him.

What if God destroyed those cities because that was literally the only way that He could ‘reach them’ and have them recognize their wrongs and repent? What if their physical death (which they all would have died in some way anyway) was the way in which they could come to eternal life in heaven?

Wouldn’t it be worth it to lose one’s life here on earth if in doing so one was able to say “Lord forgive me and take me with You?”

 

[1ke]

I would suggest you purchase or borrow from the library a good Catholic bible study. There are many on “how to study the bible” that would be a good first step, followed by book studies of the individual books.

I recommend starting with the new testament. But if you want to study Genesis specifically, get a good Catholic bible study and commentary. Some suggestions:

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Genesis
Navarre Bible: Genesis
Collegeville Commentary on Genesis
Little Rock Scripture Study: Genesis study pack

 

[KevinK]

Why wasn’t the Bible written so an average person could read and understand it without “commentaries”, exegesis, and interpretation by clerics; no ambiguity, no undecipherable metaphors etc.?

 

[fide]

After struggling with many, many “Why did God…?” questions over the years, I come to this conclusion: only God can answer that question definitively. Anyone can come up with an opinion, but only God can tell you or me “why”. And further, I believe that God wants to be the one to answer the question! Yet when we do actually ask Him, most often we hear no answer, only silence.

And why is this? Why most often, only silence? Because, I come to believe, most often we are not ready for the answer. When we are ready, we will come to know. We are called to trust Him - first - and then His ways become more and more intelligible to us.

 

[Zaccheus]

The earliest books of the Bible were written about three thousand years ago, in a society that no longer exists, in a language most of us can’t understand, for a culture very foreign to us, and under circumstances extremely foreign to us.
What makes you think they should be simple and easy for us to understand without help?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So according to the Bible the issue was with righteousness. Now that’s defined as “the quality of being morally right or justifiable”. It doesn’t say in the story why nearly all of the people in the two cities were not righteous. It could have been the homosexuality. It could have been attempted to have relations with the two angels or making demands of Lot, but it doesn’t specifically say.

What’s interesting is what does and doesn’t qualify as righteous according to the story. The angels were sent because God promised to destroy the cities if there were not 10 righteous people in them. When all is said and done there are four characters besides the mob and the angels.

The two daughters We know nothing about them until after they escape the cities.

Lot Here was a man who, when confronted to release the two angels, offered up his own daughters to be raped by a town full of men. He didn’t pray, ask the angels for help, attempt to bribe the mob, attempt to threaten the mob, or (most tellingly) offer himself in their place. He does something that no true father, no true stranger even, would do. No moral person would do that. But we know that God considered him morally right and justifiable since he was one of the very few allowed to leave.

Lot’s wife We know nothing about her except for two things. One, God considered her morally right and justifiable since she was allowed to begin her escape with her husband and their daughters. Two, by committing the act of looking behind her as fireballs rained from the sky in what was likely utter chaos God killed her. Considering the circumstances as described in the Bible this, to most people nowadays, seems justifiable. God thought otherwise.

So why did God destroy the towns and kill all but three people? Righteousness. Was the unrighteousness homosexuality? Maybe, but based on what we’ve been told the acts each person did was somehow as bad or worse as looking back while fleeing a massacre, yet not as bad as offering up one’s daughters to be raped by a multitude of men.

 

[1ke]

Why wasn’t the Bible written so an average person could read and understand it without “commentaries”, exegesis, and interpretation by clerics; no ambiguity, no undecipherable metaphors etc.?

The bible is not one book. It is many books. Written in various time, places, circumstances, and cultures, some of them several thousand years ago.

We are human, and therefore limited in our knowledge. Divine Revelation comes to us through both the bible and the Church. The Church is our guide.

 

[Dan_Defender]

God gives and God takes away. We can never fully understand the mind of God.

 

[Gorgias]

Why wasn’t the Bible written so an average person could read and understand it without “commentaries”, exegesis, and interpretation by clerics; no ambiguity, no undecipherable metaphors etc.?

Because it was written thousands of years ago, halfway around the world, in a time and in a culture and in languages very different from ours, maybe?

It doesn’t say in the story why nearly all of the people in the two cities were not righteous. It could have been the homosexuality.

That’s a very popular, but unfortunately extremely anachronous, interpretation. Seriously? Are you seriously going to claim that in that time, place, and culture, it was ‘righteous’ to turn guests over to people who wanted to sexually abuse them by virtue of forced homosexual relations?

Either your response isn’t well-thought-out, or it’s disingenuous.

The two daughters We know nothing about them until after they escape the cities.

Not surprising, given the lot of unmarried women in that society.

Lot Here was a man who, when confronted to release the two angels, offered up his own daughters to be raped by a town full of men.

Again, given the culture, not surprising. It was worse to turn over guests for whom one had accepted responsibility than to lose the virtue of one’s daughters. It’s a sad commentary on the time… but that’s the situation in that context.

Considering the circumstances as described in the Bible this, to most people nowadays, seems justifiable.

Many people, ‘nowadays’, think it’s justifiable to ignore God’s warnings. (They would be mistaken. )

 

[Gorgias]

I understand that a large part was homosexuality, but if God loves us, why did he kill everyone in those cities. And why were they punished?

In those days, there was no understanding of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ – that is, of eternal reward or punishment. Rather, the understanding was that, if you were virtuous in life, God would reward you in your life; and if you were evil, God would punish you with physical death.

In this context, then, the story that’s being told is that one cannot escape the notice of God – evil behavior brings divine punishment.

Why is no one today practicing homosexuality punished like they were?

We would tell the story today in a different way, I think. We would talk about the morality of actions, and the impact that these actions can have on our attainment of eternal life in heaven.

 

[PennyinCanada]

When I was in high school there were a couple of guys who were known to love to party. They liked to drink. One guy was in an accident but wasn’t badly hurt. Made a big joke of it and life continued on. Some months later they wrecked the car they were driving and one guy was killed. No one else, thankfully.

Their family was devastated, of course. Such a needless death. Yet many kids realized for the first time that maybe there wasn’t another 70 years in front of them. Maybe in a moment they too could be dead. They started to ask questions about why are we here, is there someplace else we go when we die? For the first time they were open to the Gospel. They were open to praying. They were open to a different way of living, of looking for God’s blessing, and being a blessing to others.

Sometimes pain and loss, that we don’t understand, makes us look up. God is waiting for that moment. He wants to transform our lives and make us ready to respond to Him.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

[
That’s a very popular, but unfortunately extremely anachronous, interpretation. Seriously? Are you seriously going to claim that in that time, place, and culture, it was ‘righteous’ to turn guests over to people who wanted to sexually abuse them by virtue of forced homosexual relations?

Either your response isn’t well-thought-out, or it’s disingenuous.

Are you seriously going to ignore the half dozen things I mentioned that Lot could have done that didn’t involve handing over his guests and didn’t involve having his daughters be gangraped?

You’re ssying my answer isn’t well thought-out or disingenuous, but you weren’t able to answer it. Please don’t dodge the question.

Again, given the culture, not surprising. It was worse to turn over guests for whom one had accepted responsibility than to lose the virtue of one’s daughters. It’s a sad commentary on the time… but that’s the situation in that context.

That is a big old pile of mule muffins. As I mentioned above this isn’t an either-or situation. There were many things Lot could have done. Beyond that only a psychopath would even conceive of having his daughters be raped. More important than providing for one’s family is protecting it. If you want to make the assumption that protecting one’s guests superceded that, it – in no uncertain terms – negates that responsibility of a father to protect his children. I know many fathers and every single one would fight tooth and nail to the death before letting such vileness come up on his own. Again, don’t dodge the question. Don’t make this a false dichotomy and address the other things Lot could have done.

Many people, ‘nowadays’, think it’s justifiable to ignore God’s warnings. (They would be mistaken. )

1. If we replace God’s with “mob boss’s” it fits perfectly. A punishment that greatly outweighs the “crime” of dishonoring the one with the power.
2. Are you saying that if a city were blowing up in a ball of fire and noise behind you that you’re natural instinct wouldn’t be to look back as you’re running? Again, I explained that in my first post. Please address that.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you seriously going to ignore the half dozen things I mentioned that Lot could have done that didn’t involve handing over his guests and didn’t involve having his daughters be gangraped?

Yep. 'Cause, although those are the questions that we would ask today, they aren’t what would have been expected, asked, or even considered in that time or place. We’re talking about a narrative of people in a particular time and a particular place and a particular culture. If you require them to have the sensibilities of folks in other times, places, and cultures, then you’re being unreasonable in your expectations.

You’re ssying my answer isn’t well thought-out or disingenuous, but you weren’t able to answer it. Please don’t dodge the question.

I’m not. I’m answering it in a far more comprehensive and straightforward way than you might want to think is possible.

That is a big old pile of mule muffins.

In the West? In the 21st century? Certainly. In that time and place? Nope.

There were many things Lot could have done.

There certainly are. But, they aren’t things that Lot or his contemporaries would have considered.

Beyond that only a psychopath would even conceive of having his daughters be raped.

Today? Sure. Back then? Women were chattel. Virgin daughters were a source of income. Your inability to appreciate the standards of that culture for what they were is seriously clouding your ability to understand the narrative.

More important than providing for one’s family is protecting it. If you want to make the assumption that protecting one’s guests superceded that, it – in no uncertain terms – negates that responsibility of a father to protect his children.

Yes. ‘Supercedes’, not ‘negates’. That’s precisely what the situation was.

I know many fathers and every single one would fight tooth and nail to the death before letting such vileness come up on his own.

And exactly how many of them are Lot’s contemporaries and neighbors?

Again, don’t dodge the question.

I’m not. I’m telling you that you’re asking the wrong question.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you saying that if a city were blowing up in a ball of fire and noise behind you that you’re natural instinct wouldn’t be to look back as you’re running? Again, I explained that in my first post. Please address that.

I’m saying that, if God told me “whatever you do, don’t look back”, then that’s what I would should do, and I shouldn’t expect it to go well with me if I ignore the warning and disobey the command.

If we replace God’s with “mob boss’s” it fits perfectly. A punishment that greatly outweighs the “crime” of dishonoring the one with the power.

Again… the anachronism is strong in you, young padawan. It’s a story told to an original audience whose understanding was that God rewards virtue with life, health, and wealth, and that God punishes vice with death. Remember – tell the story in the terms that it will be understood. That’s what’s happening here. It was understandable at that time because it was in concord with their worldview. And, it’s understandable to us when we acknowledge the original audience. But, it’s an absurd tale if we fail to realize that the story isn’t being told in the “here and now.”