Sodom

  • Thread starter Thread starter SHAKA_MAKA1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m more interested in the word “did”. Where in the Genesis account did they do the abominable, “particularly homosexual acts”, as you say?
You’ve been pretty argumentative and persistent on this, dismissing all the evidence presented to you.

I’m seriously starting to wonder about your agenda. Perhaps you have some personal reason for wanting to deny that Sodom was connected to homosexual acts?

Undoubtedly, homosexual acts weren’t the only sin they were guilty of. The definition of “sodomy” encompasses unnatural copulation with either gender and (to a lesser extent) bestiality. Homosexual acts were the biggie, though.

You want to believe that Sodom’s sin was simply lack of hospitality? What do you suppose that means? That no one except Lot offered the two angels milk and cookies and fresh hay for their reindeer?

Not hardly.

You want to believe that because Genesis 19 says ‘the men of Sodom, the men, particularly the men, (and everyone else came out to see too)’ that homosexual rape was not their intent? I’m sure voyeurism was another one of the Sodomites sins, and the women (alluded to but not really specified and then only in an aside), if they were there, got perverse joy at watching.

Take another look at the Letter of Jude:

Jude 6-7 And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

What do you suppose the terms"unnatural lust", “licentiousness” and “defiling passion” mean? Sodom’s sin is further explained in 2nd Peter:

2 Pet 2:6-10 If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes God condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
 
PART 3 -

Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That’s not in question. Our concern here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn’t contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail.

Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God’s wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word “abominations.” This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an “abomination” in God’s eyes.

The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female*.“Lie” is the Hebrew word shakab meaning “lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to having sexual relations as in Genesis 19:32: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012). *
] It is an abomination [toebah]*Strong’s *#8441.
] .” Leviticus 20:13 says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.”

John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:

The Hebrew word “toebah,” here translated “abomination,” does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft…, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.Boswell, 100.
]
Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed.

Others have added that many details of the Mosaic Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn’t mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be punishable offenses today.It’s curious that some choose to conclude homosexuality was a minor crime because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Both were capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment He requires. ]

This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such “diversity” as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah’s proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway.

Second, it’s a serious error in thinking to conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed, “It is one thing not to put a Torah punishment into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin.”[Dennis Prager, “Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis,” The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.] [emphasis in the original]

Third, it’s true that much of the Law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct.

Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The toebahof homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech’s altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple?

More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the “sons of Israel” (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).

The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:

But as for you [the “sons of Israel” (v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)
Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, and even by every visitor.

Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews (“aliens”). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came.

Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.
Out of all the biblical passages this paper references to promote the Sin of Sodom as being homosexuality, not one of those passages ever refers back to the city of Sodom to make it’s point. Not even One! What a testament to what I and others have been saying all along! This is a perfect example of walking backwards in the wrong direction of time!
 
Take another look at the Letter of Jude:

Jude 6-7 And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

What do you suppose the terms"unnatural lust", “licentiousness” and “defiling passion” mean?
Perhaps you should take another look at the phrase “unnatural lust” and compare that to the actual Greek “sarkos hetras” literrally “flesh different”. You’ll see the consistency that the original language maintains in referring to the victims of the mob in Genesis as the materialized angels they were. And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me what the commentary in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (by the way, a Catholic translation) has to say on this passage. Even better still, find me one “Church Father” that used the Greek word arsenokoite(s) in reference to homosexuality, which some faulty translations render as “sodomite”, (found in 1. Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10). And to finalize this process, you find me one of the so called “anti-gay” pages that ever refers to the Sodom story for support. One! You are admant about letting the influence of cultural ideologies take precident over the pure and remarkably consistent language of scripture! That is a problem!
 
You are admant about letting the influence of cultural ideologies take precident over the pure and remarkably consistent language of scripture! That is a problem!
You remain argumentative and persistent on this, still dismissing all the evidence presented.

Since you missed the question, I’ll repeat it a little more clearly:

Do you have a reason for denying that Sodom’s sin was homosexual acts?
Are you a homosexual?
 
Do you have a reason for denying that Sodom’s sin was homosexual acts?
Yes I do have a reason for that. And it should be the same for ever Christian: The quest for Truth and its power to set one free from that which isn’t.
 
still dismissing all the evidence presented.
No buddy, that would be you. Your “evidence” is everthing that pro-ceeds the original manuscrips of scripture. And it’s easily nullifed when you have the actual language of the manuscripts themselves, revealing your faulty impression of so-called “evidence”.
 
Howdy! It’s nice to hear from you again!

I am and its a work in progress. I do not see myself reading the books you suggested anytime soon, though. In time, I may. But regardsing the topic of “homosexuality”, the authority of the church, and the authority of scripture differ. One relies on the unchangable inerrant word of scripture, while the other allows influences from the traditions of men, outside the setting of scripture.

Based on the exposure I have regarding the Church’s biblically approved authority in general though. I am far from convinced.

Again, it’s nice to hear from you!
HUH? I guess the last thing to know it’s in water is a fish.🤷
 
Perhaps you should take another look at the phrase “unnatural lust” and compare that to the actual Greek “sarkos hetras” literrally “flesh different”. You’ll see the consistency that the original language maintains in referring to the victims of the mob in Genesis as the materialized angels they were. And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me what the commentary in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (by the way, a Catholic translation) has to say on this passage. Even better still, find me one “Church Father” that used the Greek word arsenokoite(s) in reference to homosexuality, which some faulty translations render as “sodomite”, (found in 1. Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10). And to finalize this process, you find me one of the so called “anti-gay” pages that ever refers to the Sodom story for support. One! You are admant about letting the influence of cultural ideologies take precident over the pure and remarkably consistent language of scripture! That is a problem!
Oh come on now! They had no idea they were angels. That’s just silly. I’m out of here.

God Bless
 
Oh come on now! They had no idea they were angels. That’s just silly. I’m out of here.

God Bless
Oh so if the angels appeared to be women, what then would you claim the mob would be guilty of? And consider this, in Noah’s day materialized angels married the daughters of men. Would you suggest that because the materialized angels were men and the mortals were women that such an encounter was a hetrosexual one?
 
Oh come on now! They had no idea they were angels.
So what? Their intent was abuse! It dosen’ t change the fact that they lived up to their indictement of inhospitableness by trying to attack the strangers in their misdt and being willing to do even worse to Lot! You are trying to read “homosexuality” into the story and that is dishonest to say the least.
 
So what? Their intent was abuse! It dosen’ t change the fact that they lived up to their indictement of inhospitableness by trying to attack the strangers in their misdt and being willing to do even worse to Lot! You are trying to read “homosexuality” into the story and that is dishonest to say the least.
Agenda alert!

Having had a stroll through the various threads truagape has been posting in, it’s fairly obvious that he is a homosexual trying to convince us that there is nothing particularly disordered about homosexual acts, and that homosexuals should be allowed to marry just like men and women can marry.

Here’s the Catholic position on homosexuality. Truagape, you don’t have to like it, but it is what it is. If you want to continue arguing with me, don’t. I’m just the messenger.

2357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, (Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.) tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (CDF, Persona humana 8) They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
 
To Truagape: I understood homosexuality to be same sex relations involving wnking, oral and anl sex. Unless you think those shrill young men are just holding hands in the public toilets?

Frankly I’m bored with Protestants promoting:
  1. Their personal interpretation …
  2. Of English translations of …
  3. Greek and Hebrew texts …
  4. Which were written to supplement, not embody,** a living faith …
… promulgated by a line of priests **consecrated by Jesus Himself, and who manifest spiritual powers, so much so that in some cases they are called saints, even while still living.

Nitpicking over the Bible and waving it in my face is like someone who’s memorised a car manual saying they know how to drive. Excuse me if I don’t go for a spin with you.

Aside: I wonder what all those dear old ladies who admire artists like Liberace would think of them if they knew the details what they did for fun on a Friday night?
 
Don’t waste time arguing with truagape, it’s like talking to a brick wall. He’s just cutting and pasting stuff from gay agenda sites like this one and when his “arguments” are refuted he just repeats them, then plays a little game where he asks stupid questions and we’re supposed to answer them.

If I had to guess, I’d say he’s a member of the Metropolitan Community Church and he’s been reading this pamphlet.

Here’s a site that refutes the main arguments of the gay agenda (it’s written from an Evangelical viewpoint, but most of the arguments are valid). Here’s what it says about the Greek word arsenokoite that truagape keeps harping on.
Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament. The terms do not, because they are original, significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.
Nor is it remarkable he would have coined this one, considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint):
meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos
(Lev 18:22)
hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
(Lev 20:13)
In other words, when Paul adopted the term arsenokoite, he took it directly from the Levitical passages-in the Greek translation- forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer: Though the term is unique to Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.
As for the inference that it applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. ‘Arsene,’ as mentioned earlier, appears few times in the New Testament, always referring to “male.” ‘Koite’ appears only twice in the New Testament, and means “bed,” used in a sexual connotation:
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and debauchery… (Rom 13:13)
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)
The two words combined, as Paul used them, put “male” and “bed” together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make arsenokoite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top