This would be a good time to:
As I begin to make an example out of you, I hope that it will continue to be obvious to members who read this forum, the extent to which such passages of scripture have been mutilated and ripped from the contextual facts that accompany the Sodom account. Your post above only highlights and exemplifies the biblical ignorance and the distorted prespective that many religious authorties conveniently maintain, and will soon no longer be able to get away with!
And according to Genesis, what do you gather the men of Sodom wanted to do to Lot?
The term “abomination” appears in that passage, and as others have shown, the thrust of that story includes homosexual behavior. In scripture, “abomination” refers to cultic error and often equates idolatry with adultery and also with homosexual acts.
Using your words you claim that “homosexual behavior” is an “abomination”. Once again I will ask, where does the Genesis account refer to “homosexual behavior”?
If you want to skim the surface of particular bible translations, fine continue on. However as any Christian will tell you, you cannot turn a blind eye to the original languages and context of Scripture itself! Well, you could, but then you’re reduced to your post above.
Others on this thread have shown the homosexual content of the Sodom story. Are you suggestng by this question that homosexual desires alone qualify as “abominations”? Or are you suggesting that the rest of Scripture should not weigh into the discussion?
You tell me, another poster said it was the men of Sodom’s “homosexual behavior” that was the “abomination”, So you’re suggesting now that it wasn’t thier “homosexual behavior”, especially given the fact that the Genesis passage mentions none, and that now it was their “homosexual desires”, that was the abomination. Which is it?
We are actually confusing two things and talking about two things. The illustrative story of Sodom tells us that something “abominable” that includes attempted homosexual behavior.
So you think this incident with the angels was the first time?
To support your argument, don’t forget that God couldn’t find ten righteous people in Sodom. Ten righteous people!
I have to disagree. Sodomy is a sexual activity that is condemned in the Bible. Although it is a primary behavior in the practice of homosexuality, it is not relegated to it. It is widely practiced in heterosexuality. It is condemned as a sexual perversion because it is not open to the transmission of life. Like rape, it is an act of submission and violence.
Well you’re right. It’s an abomination for the reasons you presented. But if all they wanted to do was sodomize someone, why didn’t they accept Lot’s daughters!
So what you are slowly admitting to is what I have been saying all along, namely that the passages in Genesis, do not describe any type of “homosexual behavior”. Is this correct?
First off, your use of the term “sodomize” is an unscriptual, preconceived invention of men. In fact, the actual Sodom story pre-dates that word by nearly 5000 years. Your use of it, especially in reference to the passage in Genesis, brings with it the tainted exploits of the Traditions of men centuries later. So you can keep that!Well you’re right. It’s an abomination for the reasons you presented. But if all they wanted to do was sodomize someone, why didn’t they accept Lot’s daughters!
Evidently the saying, “Any port in a storm will do” did not apply to those in Sodom!
“Or better yet, why didn’t the crowd accept each other? Or consider this even, what would an entire city want from two angelic outsiders that they couldn’t provide to each other.”
And according to you, what was the “worse” thing the mob was going to do to Lot, as recounted in Gen 19:9?
**A bit of attitude there? **
