Sodom-Gomorrah----99.9% Gay. Proves socially learned/acquired sin

[PrayRosary]

Not 10 straights / righteous could be found. So between 1-9 …lets take 5 as ave.

5 towns composed Sodom-Gomorrah metropolis. Give each 1000 adult souls …probably few children offspring given their SSA proclivities.

U do the math. 5000/5 = 99.9% homosexuals …more or less

Makes perfect sense. Thank you for clearing that up for everyone…

 

[agnes_therese]

God & Abraham used righteous…to mean heterosexuals. Unrighteous to mean homosexual. See. GENESIS account of in scriptures…

Please enlighten the ignorant among us by pointing out the specific chapter and verse where that is stated. Thank you.

 

[adrift]

Genesis says nothing of the kind. At the time Genesis was written, the concepts “heterosexual” and “homosexual” would not yet exist for hundreds of years.

I am not sure what you mean by “concepts” . They understood however, that to sleep with the same sex as to sleep with the opposite sex was wrong.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I am not sure what you mean by “concepts” . They understood however, that to sleep with the same sex as to sleep with the opposite sex was wrong.

What’s being overlooked here is that what the Sodomites were interested in doing to the strangers in their midst was not some mutual sexual pleasure seeking. This wasn’t about the Sodomites wanting to “sleep with” the strangers. This was about violent gang rape. The modern correlative to the sin of Sodom is not so much a same-sex couple as it is Abu Ghraib or the treatment of Abner Louima (sodomized with a broomstick by NYPD officers in 1997) or the relatively more common sexually-inflected hazing rituals in which some fraternities and groups of “good old boys” engage which establish dominance and “authority” through sexual humiliation and violence. Keep in mind that there is the suggestion that the people gathered at the door of Lot’s home were not just the males, but all the people of Sodom, young and old. Keep in mind, too, that Lot must have had good reason to believe that his virgin daughters would have satisfied the wickedness of the crowd, otherwise he wouldn’t have offered them. Keep in mind that the way in the people of Sodom characterize what they are planning to do with the strangers is in terms of abuse (“we will deal worse with you than with them” doesn’t suggest they had anything pleasant in mind for the strangers). Same-sex attraction as we understand it is not on the Sodomites’ collective mind. But sexual violence certainly is.

That’s not to say that the Bible has anything good to say about same-sex (particularly penetrative) sexual activity. But it is to say that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about the dangers of homosexuality, let alone same-sex attraction, as we understand such things today. The story is about human sexual violence and humiliation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[adrift]

That’s not to say that the Bible has anything good to say about same-sex (particularly penetrative) sexual activity. But it is to say that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about the dangers of homosexuality, let alone same-sex attraction, as we understand such things today. The story is about human sexual violence and humiliation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Much of what you say is true. It is a much better explanation than " the sin of Sodom & Gommorah was inhospitality."

However, as good as your explanation is it is not definitive on what the sin was that was so grievous that God destroyed them. I tend to side with Jeremiah others may side with the traditional view.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Or, did they run off all the straights ?

What lineage were they from …Ammorites ?

Are you an atheist who is trying to make Catholics look like crazy people?

Much of what you say is true. It is a much better explanation than " the sin of Sodom & Gommorah was inhospitality."

However, as good as your explanation is it is not definitive on what the sin was that was so grievous that God destroyed them. I tend to side with Jeremiah others may side with the traditional view.

It was inhospitality, but on an inconceivable level, see the Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud
Sanhedrin 109:

There were four judges in Sodom, [named] Shakrai, Shakurai, Zayyafi, and Mazle Dina.1 Now, if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say [to the husband], ‘Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee.’ If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s ***, they would order, ‘Give it to him until it grows again.’ If one wounded his neighbour they would say to him [the victim], ‘Give him a fee for bleeding thee.’ He who crossed over with the ferry had to pay four zuzim, whilst he who crossed through the water had to pay eight. On one occasion, a certain fuller happened to come there. Said they to him, ‘Give us four zuzim [for the use of the ferry].’ But, protested he, ‘I crossed through the water!’ ‘If so,’ said they, ‘thou must give eight zuzim for passing through the water.’ He refused to give it, so they assaulted him. He went before the judge, who ordered, 'Give them a fee for bleeding and eight zuzim for crossing through the water. Now Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, happened to be there, and was attacked. When he went before the judge, he said, ‘Give them a fee for bleeding thee.’ Thereupon he took a stone and smote the judge. ‘What is this!’ he exclaimed. He replied, ‘The fee that thou owest me give to this man [who attacked me], whilst my money will remain in statu quo.’ Now, they had beds upon which travellers slept. If he [the guest] was too long, they shortened him [by lopping off his feet]; if too short, they stretched him out. Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, happened to go there. Said they to him, ‘Arise and sleep on this bed!’ He replied, ‘I have vowed since the day of my mother’s death not to sleep in a bed.’ If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a denar, upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given him. When he died, each came and took back his. They made this agreement amongst themselves: whoever invites a man [a stranger] to a feast shall be stripped of his garment. Now, a banquet was in progress, when Eliezer chanced there, but they gave him no bread. Wishing to dine, he went and sat down at the end of them all. Said they to him, ‘Who invited thee here?’ He replied to the one sitting near him, ‘Thou didst invite me.’ The latter said to himself, ‘Peradventure they will hear that I invited him, and strip me of my garments!’ So he took up his raiment and fled without. Thus he [Eliezer] did to all, until they had all gone; whereupon he consumed the entire repast. A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, [hiding it] in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great:2 whereon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: On account of the maiden [ribah].3

come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_109.html

 

[markeverett49]

Maybe they feel different, because they fixate/fantasize on SS thoughts …and their perceptions become reality,… learned behaviorism.

I don’t think it is normal for five- and six-year old children to do this. Frankly, I think this is a rhetorical claim meant to cut off discussion of the origins of homosexuality. As I said in another thread, I have heard this from several gay people and each time they tell me this, I ask them what that means and they change the subject.

 

[adrift]

It was inhospitality, but on an inconceivable level, see the Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud

come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_109.html

The sin is not mentioned. The Talmud is only an opinion that has no authority. It was written sometime between the 3rd and 5th century. Of course all you have to do is provide the scripture that says it was inhospitality.

In other words, this is just another interpretation.

There is Scripture that address this which seems to have been ignored.
Again from footnotes

6 [20] Israelite tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. According to the present account of the Yahwist, the sin of Sodom was homosexuality (⇒ Genesis 19:4-5), which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to Isaiah (⇒ Isaiah 1:9-10; ⇒ 3:9), it was a lack of social justice; Ezekiel (⇒ Ezekiel 16:46-51) described it as a disregard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah (⇒ Jeremiah 23:14) saw it as general immorality.

That they wanted to commit homosexual acts on the angels is undeniable hence we have the word sodomy. Jeremiah saw it as general immorality of which homosexuality was part of it.

 

[Michael1966]

I’ve never thought Sodom-Gomorrah was about loving same-sex relationships.

 

[brb3]

What are Sodomy Laws ? Where did they get their name ?

Inhospitality … yes, and much more. Homosexual rape to be specific.

 

[Publisher]

It’s important to recognize that the ancient world didn’t have an understanding of sexual orientation. Although there is no doubt that homosexual acts are sinful, it’s equally important to recognize that the sin of Sodom & Gommorah was inhospitality.

And one of the most heinous of crimes against hopsitality was gang rape and victimization of the “stranger within one’s gates”.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The sin is not mentioned. The Talmud is only an opinion that has no authority. It was written sometime between the 3rd and 5th century. Of course all you have to do is provide the scripture that says it was inhospitality.

In other words, this is just another interpretation.

There is Scripture that address this which seems to have been ignored.
Again from footnotes

That they wanted to commit homosexual acts on the angels is undeniable hence we have the word sodomy. Jeremiah saw it as general immorality of which homosexuality was part of it.

You know Sola Scriptura is heretical right?

And one of the most heinous of crimes against hopsitality was gang rape and victimization of the “stranger within one’s gates”.

Well, rape of males was a common tactic to break and destroy them.

 

[John_of_Woking]

I’ve never thought Sodom-Gomorrah was about loving same-sex relationships.

How can a same sex relationship be truly loving though? If it corrupts the soul and often the body aswell? I am being sincere .

 

[brb3]

Please enlighten the ignorant among us by pointing out the specific chapter and verse where that is stated. Thank you.

Gen. 18:20 Then the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom & Gomorrah is great and their sin is ‘very grave’, …
Gen. 18:23 Then Abraham drew near, and said, "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Gen. 18:32-33 … Suppose ten are found there ? He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” … And the Lord went his way…
Gen 19:4-5 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, ‘all the people to the last man’, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot …“Bring them out to us, that we may ‘know them’ [sexually implied here].”

[the fact Lot offered them his daughters … speaks to the sole sexual intentions of the Sodomites ---- who didn’t desire the women, but only the males … and they declined Lot’s offer] /// also, it says ‘all the people, to the last man’ …were unrighteous and preying on Lot and family. So it was 100 % corruption of the inhabitants of city. Not one was righteous.

Gen. 19:13-14 … “for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

[so only Lot, his wife, and his daughters left] … the sons-in-laws remained, perhaps having already been corrupted by the Sodomizers, and they too perished. We can understand now why Lot’s wife looked back … wondering if perhaps the sons-in-law escaped ahead of the city’s destruction. But, having disobeyed God … she too perished. ]

So, 100 % of the city’s inhabitants were homosexual. Thus, it cannot be explained as acquired by birth, genetics. It’s certainly learned, very grave, sin … for which God will not excuse.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Maybe I’m wrong on this, but Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the very few passages in the Bible I have a lot of trouble accepting – I understand the debates over just what the “sin of Sodom” is, but the part that I cannot accept is that in a culture that highly prized virginity (to say nothing of the moral qualms) that Lot would say “don’t sexually assualt these men – here are my two daughters. Sexually assault THEM.” And nobody looked at him and said “What? No, really – WHAT? What the heck, “hero”?”

Same question has been raised enought times, also in this forum.

The Q&A below:

Question

Was it right for Lot to offer his daughters to be raped?

Share on twitter Share on linkedin Share on email Share on print Share on gmail More Sharing Services
Full Question

I don’t think Lot offering his virgin daughters to be raped (Gen. 19) was anything to be celebrated, despite his motivation to protect his visitors, do you?

Answer

No. Lot offered his daughters to the Sodomites in order to protect his guests. In doing so, he was choosing to commit one evil in order to avoid another; the Church clearly teaches that this is wrong: “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (CCC 1789).

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lot explains: “Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mistake of placing them above his duties as a father by offering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites.” A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture agrees: “Lot cannot be praised. He chose what he considered the less of two evils” (195).

Answered by: Jim Blackburn

 

[adrift]

You know Sola Scriptura is heretical right?

.

I take this to mean I don’t have an answer so I’ll sling mud.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I take this to mean I don’t have an answer so I’ll sling mud.

So you aren’t Sola Scriptura believing, but you are a Bible Alone person?

 

[aspirant]

I am not sure what you mean by “concepts” .

The idea of categorizing people in these ways never occurred to people before quite recently. Sexual activity between two people of the same sex (two males, two females) is not new, but the idea of “a homosexual identity” or “a homosexual person” originated about a hundred years ago.

 

[SuzanneD]

I felt “different” at an early age, too - it turns out it was because I could speak French and most other people in my group could not. (I was about eight or nine years old before I realized that most other people in my area could not speak French. I was amazed to find out that my own parents could not! I learned it from my next door neighbor and his family - that’s what they spoke at their house, and I learned to speak it by listening to them and speaking to them.

That is cool.

 

[jmcrae]

I felt “different” at an early age, too - it turns out it was because I could speak French and most other people in my group could not. (I was about eight or nine years old before I realized that most other people in my area could not speak French. I was amazed to find out that my own parents could not! I learned it from my next door neighbor and his family - that’s what they spoke at their house, and I learned to speak it by listening to them and speaking to them.

That is cool.

Yes - yes it is - it’s very cool. Thank you!