R
rlg94086
Guest
No, it is referring to the angels, but the Sodomites think they are men. That is why they asked for the “men,” not the “angels” in Gen 19:5. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
- Status
T
truagape
Guest
No gymnastics here. The truth is built on facts. And that is the only thing that I am interested in.
So are you saying that if the mob had succeded in attacking the angels, God’s messangers, the rape still would have been homosexual only because the mob thought they were men?
The fact remains that the messangers were angles. The mob contained men within the audience and they were interested in mistreating the strangers. Regardless of what the mob had in mind for the angels, rape or some other type of violation, Gen 19:9 makes it clear that they were going to do worse to Lot if he stood in their way.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Actually, I really don’t care what you would call it. I’m not sure why you are fascinated with that distinction, as it has no bearing on the mob’s desire to homosexually rape men.
And this is important because?
T
truagape
Guest
Whats important is your response more than anything. You have trivialized the details within the sodom and gomorrah story, and totally subversed the narrative to extract erroneous claims to support the notion that Sodom and gomorrah was destroyed because of SSA.
Just stop and listen to yourself “desire to homosexually rape men” (your words). What in the world does that mean?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Why are you even resorting to this argument? The sin here is inhospitability and crime towards strangers in their city, it’s not about gay vs. straight vs. angel sex. It’s about the people of sodom raping their visitors.
T
truagape
Guest
I completly agree with you! And even the details within the Genesis account compile to tell the same story.
R
rlg94086
Guest
What narrative have I “subversed?” (sic) I have looked at the passages in Genesis 19:4-9, and took them for what they say. A mob of “townsmen” surrounded Lot’s house and demanded the two “men” who were guests, so they could have sex with them.
The fact that these “men” were actually angels is absolutely irrelevant to what the townsmen were asking to do.As far as claiming that S & G was destroyed because of SSA, I have claimed nothing of the sort. You are mischaracterizing my posts. In fact, I even agreed with you in post #29 that the reason that God was destroying S & G probably wasn’t due to the events in Gen 19:4-9, as God had already told Abraham that he was going to destroy S & G before the event happened.
Also, SSA is not mentioned. However, the idea of committing homosexual acts is certainly clear. There is a difference. For all we know, these townsmen didn’t have SSA, but were just interested in brutally raping these men (similar to what happens in prison with erstwhile “straight” convicts).
It means they wanted to commit homosexual acts with the two visitors they thought were men.
What don’t you understand?
T
truagape
Guest
Are you in complete agreement with post #46?What narrative have I “subversed?” (sic) I have looked at the passages in Genesis 19:4-9, and took them for what they say. A mob of “townsmen” surrounded Lot’s house and demanded the two “men” who were guests, so they could have sex with them.
As far as claiming that S & G was destroyed because of SSA, I have claimed nothing of the sort. You are mischaracterizing my posts. In fact, I even agreed with you in post #29 that the reason that God was destroying S & G probably wasn’t due to the events in Gen 19:4-9, as God had already told Abraham that he was going to destroy S & G before the event happened.
Also, SSA is not mentioned. However, the idea of committing homosexual acts is certainly clear. There is a difference. For all we know, these townsmen didn’t have SSA, but were just interested in brutally raping these men (similar to what happens in prison with erstwhile “straight” convicts).
It means they wanted to commit homosexual acts with the two visitors they thought were men.
M
mark_a
Guest
This sure sounds like rape to me. This makes me wonder what kind of mob would demand strangers, male or female, for sex?
T
truagape
Guest
Me too and that is the point! Regardless of sexual orientation the act of raping someone is destatable regardless of the sex of the offender and victim. Especially when such a disrespect is shown to the very messangers God is using to warn people with.
And all Christians gay or straight should find the sin of sodom abhorent.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I don’t know for certain and can’t know for certain from the event at Sodom and Gommorah, whether homosexual acts were part of the reason that God destroyed S & G. The Jewish traditional understanding was that the reason S & G was destroyed is due to their wickedness in general, especially in their treatment of guests:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=878&letter=S&search=pentapolis
This does not mean that homosexual acts are not sins though, which I’m assuming is your point with this thread. The treatment of homosexual acts can be found in other parts of the Bible.
M
mark_a
Guest
There’s a thread floating around here where someone mentions the “old fashioned” understanding of sodomy used by many states years ago (or possibly still). It wasn’t just homosexuality, but even hetero sex that involved most things considered completely “normal” today.
R
rlg94086
Guest
It isn’t an “old fashioned” understanding, it is a definition:
webster.com/dictionary/sodomy
It isn’t considered “normal” by everyone, but you are correct that sodomy (with the exception of animals) is considered “normal” by our fallen society today. That doesn’t mean it is no longer a sin.
T
teachccd
Guest
O.K. so the destruction had nothing to do with homosexuality, let’s say that even though it is mentioned as the intention of those men, but let’s say that it is not. Are you condoning homosexuality and trying to find that homosexual acts are permitted in Scripture? I’m just curious as to your focus on this one particular account and its pertinence to homosexuality.
You are adamant that homosexuality played no part in this destruction. O.K. then, so now what??? Homosexual activity is acceptable behavior and welcomed by God?? Now what??
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Maybe the purpose of the intended action was not sexual at all - maybe the sin described was intended gang-rape, not intended homosexual copulation as such; sex can perfectly well be used a weapon for humiliating others so that they lose status.
This is not the same as- homosexual copulation;
- or as consecrated male prostitution (which is condemned in 2 Kings).
Homosexual activity has had several functions in various societies - not just one.
- 18 & 19 - Abraham & Lot & their offspring & visitors
- 9 & 19 - Noah & Lot & their respective offspring
- 13 & 19 - the land of Sodom compared to “Eden, the garden of God”
- 1 & 19 - the primeval blessing of God on human fertility
- Gen. 19 & Judges 19 (the gang-rape of a concubine)
As for “angels” - this is malakhim in Hebrew; which can mean “angelic” or human messengers (so can angelos). It’s not clear that the men of Sodom thought they were trying to deal with superhuman beings - that they were ignorant of their true character may be part of the literary meaning of the narrative.
T
truagape
Guest
What are the Greek and Hebrew words for “Sodom” and “Gomorrah”?
R
rlg94086
Guest
T
truagape
Guest
What is the Greek and Hebrew word for “sodomite”?
R
rlg94086
Guest
I have no idea…you tell me. Would you get to your point?
T
truagape
Guest
i think i just made it.
- Status