Gottle of Geer said:
## The problem there, is that one has to ask, not only “Is there any record in the Bible of that sort of activity ?”, but also, “If such activity does appear - what is its purpose?” That kind of thing is found
- in cultic contexts: sacred sodomy was quite widespread in the ancient near east
- in descriptions of activity intended to humiliate, by casting doubt on the virility of one of those involved;
- in descriptions of gang-rape
Since plenty of homosexuals are no more in favour of gang-rape (which is so largely a power issue anyway; not one of affection and love in any form) than anyone else, passages condemning the use of sex for what they too regard as repugnant are going to mean very little.
Homosexuality, like sexuality in general, has had many functions in history: the Spartans encouraged it in the interests of military cohesion - if men were fighting not just to protect friends, but lovers, they would fight better. It worked too. IOW - not all descriptions of homosexuality in the Bible or outside of it, describe what Western homosexuals today do. That is why the question of purpose is so important in a text. Sometimes, Biblical passages don’t mean what it would be helpful for them to mean. ##
Hi, Gottle of Geer.
I think that you are over-intellectualizing.
A title “sons of belial” given by an ancient Hebrew writer to a group of homosexuals is
surely an insult addressed to homosexuals. The New Testament Committee, in its footnote, said that “sons of belial” inferred that these were homosexuals given to “extreme perversion.”
Whether the evil society in which these “sons of Satan” lived regarded sodomy as “sacred” or a mere expression of another’s non-virility is
non-relevant. The question is, What did God’s Old Testament Church, the Hebrews, think of homosexual activity?
The doers were called “sons of belial.” That’s pretty clear.
You also seem to mix up the gang rape with the title “sons of belial.” What makes you think that the author called them “sons of belial”
because of the gang rape? I don’t see that in the story.
Look at the text. A group of homosexual men come to the house, and say, “Bring out your guest, that we may
yada him.”
Yada simply means “know.” In the current context it is that same
yada employed when the Bible says that “Adam
yada’d his wife Eve,” Genesis 4:1. He “sexed” her, would be a good translation.
Well, these men were proposing that they “sex” the Levite of Ephraim.
How does the owner of the house, inside the house, react to their homosexual proposal respecting his male guest?
Remember,
he isn’t yet aware that a gang rape is coming. He says, “No, my brothers; do not be so
wicked.” What is “wicked”? A man “y
ada-ing” a man. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this
crime." What is a “crime”? Their proposal that they “
yada” the male guest.
Nah, the context is clear enough. These guys are “sons of belial”
because they “
yada” men.
