Was Sodom and Gomorrah----

  • Thread starter Thread starter oneofmany
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lot offers his virgin daughters to “all the men from every part of the city”, for gang rape and worse (“you can do what you like with them”). With a father like that raising them, it’s not surprising that the daughters later get him drunk so they can have sex with their dad.

This horrible story isn’t about being gay, as gay men don’t gather from every part of a city to gang rape, any more than straight men do, and the understanding that it’s about hospitality is certainly not new. Around 1750, in his Exposition of the Old Testament, the theologian John Gill writes of Lot’s offer: “the laws of hospitality being reckoned sacred and inviolable, a man’s house was accounted an asylum for strangers when taken into it”. Breaking the laws of hospitality is also how Sodom is referenced in Matt 10 (“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet”).
I’m sorry, but your premises are wrong. Sure, we don’t see that kind of behavior today, but if you believe in the Bible then we quite clearly see it in Sodom and Gomorrah.
4
Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house.
5
They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.”
How can you possibly say that homosexuality is not at issue here? It is one of many issue, definitely, but you cannot deny the prominence of the sexual sin in this narrative.

As for Matthew 10:
14
Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.
15
Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
This does not indicate that hospitality was at issue in S & G, more so it indicates that rejection of God is what’s at issue, hospitality is only one small part of it. All this passage indicates is that the people of Christ’s time will suffer more severely than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, not that S&G suffered specifically due to in-hospitality or as a rejection of God’s message.
 
Wait a second. This story is retold in Judges albeit with a slightly different cast and outcome. In Judges a Levite is the one traveling with his concubine and comes upon a down that is inhabited by Benjamites. The same scene occurs as the fellow Hebrew people want the Levite as he is very attractive. Again a repeat of the host offering his virgin daughter but this time with the concubine thrown in. Mob accepts the concubine and abuse her until morning where she is passed out, maybe dead unsure, on the doorstep. The Levite then takes her home and dismembers her to send to the other tribes. The town, Gibeah, is not destroyed by God for the sin of homosexuality.

I bring this up because the story is a retelling of Genesis. Both mobs were being inhospitable to the visitors, what ever sexual thing they wanted was second only to them being rude.
No it isn’t. It’s definitely about sex and rape.

Here is the Levite story:

Judges 19New International Version (NIV)

A Levite and His Concubine

19 In those days Israel had no king.

Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. 4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.

5 On the fourth day they got up early and he prepared to leave, but the woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Refresh yourself with something to eat; then you can go.” 6 So the two of them sat down to eat and drink together. Afterward the woman’s father said, “Please stay tonight and enjoy yourself.” 7 And when the man got up to go, his father-in-law persuaded him, so he stayed there that night. 8 On the morning of the fifth day, when he rose to go, the woman’s father said, “Refresh yourself. Wait till afternoon!” So the two of them ate together.

9 Then when the man, with his concubine and his servant, got up to leave, his father-in-law, the woman’s father, said, “Now look, it’s almost evening. Spend the night here; the day is nearly over. Stay and enjoy yourself. Early tomorrow morning you can get up and be on your way home.” 10 But, unwilling to stay another night, the man left and went toward Jebus (that is, Jerusalem), with his two saddled donkeys and his concubine.

11 When they were near Jebus and the day was almost gone, the servant said to his master, “Come, let’s stop at this city of the Jebusites and spend the night.”

12 His master replied, “No. We won’t go into any city whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah.” 13 He added, “Come, let’s try to reach Gibeah or Ramah and spend the night in one of those places.” 14 So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin. 15 There they stopped to spend the night. They went and sat in the city square, but no one took them in for the night.

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the inhabitants of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, “Where are you going? Where did you come from?”

18 He answered, “We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the Lord.[a] No one has taken me in for the night. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, the woman and the young man with us. We don’t need anything.”

20 “You are welcome at my house,” the old man said. “Let me supply whatever you need. Only don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

**22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!**
 
From Abraham’s perspective, he was bargaining. From God’s perspective, there was no bargain to be had because He knew the hearts of the people, and knew that none of them would meet the criteria. As for the babies argument, there’s really nothing to indicate that there were any. We assume that there were, and I’m not saying it’s a bad assumption, but it’s not a knowable fact. If there were any innocent children, we can reasonably assume that God would not allow them to suffer eternally for the sins of their parents.
As for why God bothered to hear Abraham out, that was for Abraham, not for God. You must consider the context of the OT. **In Abraham’s times, the “gods” were violent, angry, big humans. In all known non-Jewish/Christian cosmologies (writings on their belief structure), humans were either created accidentally, or as laborers. The ‘gods’ were cruel, and would wipe out life without any reason simply because they felt like it. ** This was the context in which God revealed Himself to Abraham. In talking with Abraham, and allowing Abraham to bargain as He did, God is trying to make a few points:

#1: Those who reject Him will suffer the effects of their choice, and those effects will be violent and painful (the end result of cutting yourself off from the source of all good).

#2: God does not take His wrath lightly. It was not just some passing whim that He wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah, it was the end result of them losing every last drop of Godliness.

#3 God is merciful. He gave Abraham every opportunity to save the city, stating that even a single righteous individual would warrant sparing it. The fact that Abraham could not find that one individual does not change the fact that God would have spared the entire city on account of one person. All this in spite of the fact that every other person would have continued to engage in unspeakably evil acts directly opposed to Him and everything He created us to be. (You could also say that S & G were in direct opposition to Christ in terms of symbolic meaning. S & G lacked a single righteous individual, and were not saved. Christ, on the other hand, was perfectly righteous, and brought salvation to all people)

I hope this helps ^^
I made bold parts I wish to bring up. In the OT God had no problem with harming the children of any sinner. Take for example David whom had Uriah killed in battle. David didn’t suffer for his actions but his first born was killed right then and there. So it is conceivable for God to nuke Sodom and the youth inside of it but that also means that this place was doomed from the very start even though they helped Abraham before. Wow that is messed up when I think about it.

Yes in ancient times the gods were fickle and cruel. The ancient Hebrews were polytheistic for a very long time. So in a way it makes sense that, in the story, God was being fickle and cruel because it was part of the times.
 
I made bold parts I wish to bring up. In the OT God had no problem with harming the children of any sinner. Take for example David whom had Uriah killed in battle. David didn’t suffer for his actions but his first born was killed right then and there. So it is conceivable for God to nuke Sodom and the youth inside of it but that also means that this place was doomed from the very start even though they helped Abraham before. Wow that is messed up when I think about it.

Yes in ancient times the gods were fickle and cruel. The ancient Hebrews were polytheistic for a very long time. So in a way it makes sense that, in the story, God was being fickle and cruel because it was part of the times.
I didn’t mean physical suffering, I meant spiritual suffering, eternal torment. Keep in mind that as Christians, we do not believe that bodily death is the worst thing that can happen to us. The people of S&G certainly did suffer physically, as did the children, if there were any (discounting the possibility of an instantaneous death, but that is not the point). Certainly, those presumed children died physically, and there’s a definite chance they underwent pain in the process; but if they were innocent (as we assume most children to be) they would not suffer eternally as we can reasonably presume their parents would. The same can be said of David’s child, or the firstborn of the Egyptians. (Although, no stipulation was made to age in that one, so there may well have been firstborn adults who’s lives were ended.)

As to your comment about it being “doomed from the start,” it was, in a sense. God knew Abraham would not be able to find anyone that warranted mercy because God knows the hearts of all men. That does not mean that God made them the way they were, that was still the result of their free will. He allowed Abraham to realize on his own that God’s actions were warranted, as he desperately searched for even one person worthy of the slightest mercy. God was patient, and kind, and never turned down Abraham as the number of required innocents dwindled from one-hundred down to one. It was only after Abraham had exhausted his search that he assented to God’s decision, and only then did God go through with it. God wanted to make sure that Abraham had absolutely no doubt about the fact that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah was the result of their decision to completely abandon their human dignity. This is in stark contrast to the “cruel and fickle” actions of ancient ‘gods’, who slew out of blood lust or boredom, or due to some slight disrespect, and even the occasional slip of the tongue.

You’ll have to cite your source for the ancient Hebrews being polytheistic. That’s a claim I’ve heard bantered about frequently, and while certain segments of the Jewish population fell into idolatry, there’s nothing to indicate that belief in YHWH was ever mixed with polytheistic beliefs.

That aside, as I’ve said; God was not being fickle, nor cruel. The people of S&G has chosen to completely abandon their human dignity. They spread their evils from generation to generation, and to the cities their people visited. God chose to make an example of them and to show Abraham, and through Abraham His chosen people, the consequences of wholesale rejection of His laws.

I’m out for the evening, so I will not be able to respond.
 
I didn’t mean physical suffering, I meant spiritual suffering, eternal torment. Keep in mind that as Christians, we do not believe that bodily death is the worst thing that can happen to us. The people of S&G certainly did suffer physically, as did the children, if there were any (discounting the possibility of an instantaneous death, but that is not the point). Certainly, those presumed children died physically, and there’s a definite chance they underwent pain in the process; but if they were innocent (as we assume most children to be) they would not suffer eternally as we can reasonably presume their parents would. The same can be said of David’s child, or the firstborn of the Egyptians. (Although, no stipulation was made to age in that one, so there may well have been firstborn adults who’s lives were ended.)

As to your comment about it being “doomed from the start,” it was, in a sense. God knew Abraham would not be able to find anyone that warranted mercy because God knows the hearts of all men. That does not mean that God made them the way they were, that was still the result of their free will. He allowed Abraham to realize on his own that God’s actions were warranted, as he desperately searched for even one person worthy of the slightest mercy. God was patient, and kind, and never turned down Abraham as the number of required innocents dwindled from one-hundred down to one. It was only after Abraham had exhausted his search that he assented to God’s decision, and only then did God go through with it. God wanted to make sure that Abraham had absolutely no doubt about the fact that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah was the result of their decision to completely abandon their human dignity. This is in stark contrast to the “cruel and fickle” actions of ancient ‘gods’, who slew out of blood lust or boredom, or due to some slight disrespect, and even the occasional slip of the tongue.

You’ll have to cite your source for the ancient Hebrews being polytheistic. That’s a claim I’ve heard bantered about frequently, and while certain segments of the Jewish population fell into idolatry, there’s nothing to indicate that belief in YHWH was ever mixed with polytheistic beliefs.

That aside, as I’ve said; God was not being fickle, nor cruel. The people of S&G has chosen to completely abandon their human dignity. They spread their evils from generation to generation, and to the cities their people visited. God chose to make an example of them and to show Abraham, and through Abraham His chosen people, the consequences of wholesale rejection of His laws.

I’m out for the evening, so I will not be able to respond.
Here is the best I can find at the moment about the ancient Jewish people being polytheistic: huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/polytheism-and-human-sacr_b_777340.html

Another thing. The ancient Jewish people didn’t believe in an afterlife like Christians today do. So once those kids were killed that was it. No happiness for them they were gone. Abraham wanted to save a city, probably because they helped him before, so he brought up an ever decreasing number of “good” people. Why Lot was considered good is beyond me but not the point here. Remember that at the time women and children were considered property of the men so they would not be included in “good” people. God destroyed two cities with many people in them so it can be safe to assume that innocent people were smited.
 
Here is the best I can find at the moment about the ancient Jewish people being polytheistic: huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/polytheism-and-human-sacr_b_777340.html

Another thing. The ancient Jewish people didn’t believe in an afterlife like Christians today do. So once those kids were killed that was it. No happiness for them they were gone. Abraham wanted to save a city, probably because they helped him before, so he brought up an ever decreasing number of “good” people. Why Lot was considered good is beyond me but not the point here. Remember that at the time women and children were considered property of the men so they would not be included in “good” people. God destroyed two cities with many people in them so it can be safe to assume that innocent people were smited.
Yes but the point is Homosexuality and rape are Wrong.
 
Jude mentions Sodom and Gemorrah as well.

“As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”‭‭ (St Jude‬ ‭1:7‬)
 
If God killed all of the adults who would take care of the babies and children?

Lot did show the angels hospitality since they wanted to sleep in the square but he insisted they come into his home. He knew they were unsafe.

Also, some say homosexuals do not rape, only straight men do. ??? I would say if a man rapes another man he is homosexual but some say no. That is how much gays are now protected plus they can’t be pedophiles, only straight men are pedophiles wanting young children.

On the story of S&G they said ALL the people of the city came to Lot’s home so that would include the women as well so that proves more was involved than sex. What, I don’t know.

Also, the proposition was put forth that when strangers came to a city they were raped to keep them away as protection to the town people. They did not want any strangers coming to town. How does that make sense when travelers were passing through cities on their route all the time? Plus didn’t people trade goods back and forth with travelers?
 
If God killed all of the adults who would take care of the babies and children?

Lot did show the angels hospitality since they wanted to sleep in the square but he insisted they come into his home. He knew they were unsafe.

Also, some say homosexuals do not rape, only straight men do. ??? I would say if a man rapes another man he is homosexual but some say no. That is how much gays are now protected plus they can’t be pedophiles, only straight men are pedophiles wanting young children.

On the story of S&G they said ALL the people of the city came to Lot’s home so that would include the women as well so that proves more was involved than sex. What, I don’t know.

Also, the proposition was put forth that when strangers came to a city they were raped to keep them away as protection to the town people. They did not want any strangers coming to town. How does that make sense when travelers were passing through cities on their route all the time? Plus didn’t people trade goods back and forth with travelers?
Good post, I agree with you on all points.
 
Here is the best I can find at the moment about the ancient Jewish people being polytheistic: huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/polytheism-and-human-sacr_b_777340.html

Another thing. The ancient Jewish people didn’t believe in an afterlife like Christians today do. So once those kids were killed that was it. No happiness for them they were gone. Abraham wanted to save a city, probably because they helped him before, so he brought up an ever decreasing number of “good” people. Why Lot was considered good is beyond me but not the point here. Remember that at the time women and children were considered property of the men so they would not be included in “good” people. God destroyed two cities with many people in them so it can be safe to assume that innocent people were smited.
At the time of Abraham there were no “Jewish people,” at least not in terms of an organized religious culture. Also, just because Abraham may not have believed in an afterlife (we don’t know if he did or didn’t.) doesn’t mean that the fates of the children were any different. As another person pointed out, by allowing the children to die with their parents, they were spared from the horror that often awaited orphaned children in the ancient world (a lifetime of slavery being a prominent outcome for children with no protectors.)

As for Lot, he wasn’t considered good or righteous, he was saved on account of his familial bond with Abraham.

As for your assertion that “innnocent” people were slaughtered, you are wrong. I can say that with absolute certainty. None of us are innocent, we have all sinned in our lives. While some sins are worse than other, this false notion that we somehow deserve to be spared from the consequences of our sin has no bearing. It is only through Christ’s sacrifice and effort as our advocate that we are spared. Beyond that, just because it was the men who received the focus in the story, it does not follow that the women were innocent of wrongdoing, nor even that the children of proper age were innocent either.

Also, just a small aside. The past tense of “Smite” is “Smote.” I only bring this up because “Smote” is a funny sounding word to me.
 
At the time of Abraham there were no “Jewish people,” at least not in terms of an organized religious culture. Also, just because Abraham may not have believed in an afterlife (we don’t know if he did or didn’t.) doesn’t mean that the fates of the children were any different. As another person pointed out, by allowing the children to die with their parents, they were spared from the horror that often awaited orphaned children in the ancient world (a lifetime of slavery being a prominent outcome for children with no protectors.)

As for Lot, he wasn’t considered good or righteous, he was saved on account of his familial bond with Abraham.

As for your assertion that “innnocent” people were slaughtered, you are wrong. I can say that with absolute certainty. None of us are innocent, we have all sinned in our lives. While some sins are worse than other, this false notion that we somehow deserve to be spared from the consequences of our sin has no bearing. It is only through Christ’s sacrifice and effort as our advocate that we are spared. Beyond that, just because it was the men who received the focus in the story, it does not follow that the women were innocent of wrongdoing, nor even that the children of proper age were innocent either.

Also, just a small aside. The past tense of “Smite” is “Smote.” I only bring this up because “Smote” is a funny sounding word to me.
Alright how about this. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was used to describe why the ancient Jewish people found some things distasteful as well as to explain things they didn’t understand at the time. Example: “Father why do we not like that tribe over there?” “Well a long time ago…” put in the story to explain a tribe brought about by Lot.
 
I’m sorry, but your premises are wrong. Sure, we don’t see that kind of behavior today, but if you believe in the Bible then we quite clearly see it in Sodom and Gomorrah.
An entire city populated only by homosexual rapists? There would be no children of course, so the city wouldn’t have lasted very long.

You also seem to be asserting that all gay men everywhere used to be rapists, but there’s no evidence for that at any time in the entire history of the world.

Seems a bit far fetched. An alternative to believing every bible story is literally true is that sometimes, just as today, authors may have been bright enough to use allegory.
How can you possibly say that homosexuality is not at issue here? It is one of many issue, definitely, but you cannot deny the prominence of the sexual sin in this narrative.
Let’s just say anyone who reads the story and ignores every man in the city demanding publicly to be a rapist, and ignores the dad offering his virgin daughters up for gang rape, and instead thinks the story is about normal gay men, might just have his moral priorities a tiny bit skewed.
*As for Matthew 10:
This does not indicate that hospitality was at issue in S & G, more so it indicates that rejection of God is what’s at issue, hospitality is only one small part of it. All this passage indicates is that the people of Christ’s time will suffer more severely than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, not that S&G suffered specifically due to in-hospitality or as a rejection of God’s message.*
🙂 “Shake off the dust from your feet - The Jews thought the land of Israel so peculiarly holy, that when they came home from any heathen country, they stopped at the borders and shook or wiped off the dust of it from their feet, that the holy land might not be polluted with it. Therefore the action here enjoined was a lively intimation, that those Jews who had rejected the Gospel were holy no longer, but were on a level with heathens and idolaters.” - John Wesley’s Notes
 
You bring up solid points. My comparing to the story in Judges was meant to show that it is the hospitality that was infringed upon. In Judges the mob cares not if it is male or female being thrown to them where in Genesis the genderless angels are what the mob wants.
Oh, I didn’t realize angels have no gender. You’re absolutely right, it says so here on Catholic Answers: catholic.com/quickquestions/can-angels-be-male-or-female

That answer says “according to their immaterial nature, they have no visible or physical forms at all” which would make it a bit difficult for the men of the city to even know they were in Lot’s house, let alone their gender.
 
@inocente: We also know that in the story the angels are fully capable of defending themselves. My hypothesis is that the story was used to tell how two other tribes came about as well as a natural rock formation that appeared to be a person and why the ancient Jewish people disliked homosexuality.

As a side I do love the points you bring about.
 
Here is the best I can find at the moment about the ancient Jewish people being polytheistic: huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/polytheism-and-human-sacr_b_777340.html

Another thing. The ancient Jewish people didn’t believe in an afterlife like Christians today do. So once those kids were killed that was it. No happiness for them they were gone. Abraham wanted to save a city, probably because they helped him before, so he brought up an ever decreasing number of “good” people. Why Lot was considered good is beyond me but not the point here. Remember that at the time women and children were considered property of the men so they would not be included in “good” people. God destroyed two cities with many people in them so it can be safe to assume that innocent people were smited.
Really? I beg to differ as do my Orthodox Jewish sources. Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

The scriptures are pretty clear about homosexuality. Don’t forget St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 1

Note especially the following:
***[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. ***
Alright how about this. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was used to describe why the ancient Jewish people found some things distasteful as well as to explain things they didn’t understand at the time. Example: “Father why do we not like that tribe over there?” “Well a long time ago…” put in the story to explain a tribe brought about by Lot.
Pretty thin re/misinterpretation. Why don’t you simply accept what it says?
 
Church Militant;13284969:
Really? I beg to differ as do my Orthodox Jewish sources. Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

The scriptures are pretty clear about homosexuality. Don’t forget St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 1

Note especially the following:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Pretty thin re/misinterpretation. Why don’t you simply accept what it says?
Fair enough. I don’t mind being wrong and after a quick Google search I will revise my statement.

We don’t know what the ancient Jewish people believed about the afterlife and can only assume it is roughly the same as their current belief. Still it is different than the Christian belief.

So what you are saying is to take the story literally despite there being little to no evidence of it being true. I don’t see what it needs to be taken literally so I am fine in seeing it as a story that describes how an ancient people viewed their world and explained things around them. 🙂
 
An entire city populated only by homosexual rapists? There would be no children of course, so the city wouldn’t have lasted very long.
No, an entire city populated by God-less people who, much like the people of today, engage in any manner of sexual activity that seems pleasurable to them. There’s nothing to indicate that their actions were limited to only homosexual acts, or to indicate that there were no children born. Also, you say that as if it isn’t possible. I’m sorry, but that is simply not an assertion you can make. We can’t really conceive of it, that’s true, but we are also living 2,000 years after Christ in a culture which has been heavily, HEAVILY, influenced by Judaeo-Christian beliefs. We can look to certain modern societies who have rejected the Christian influences to get some idea of what it as like, but I don’t think anything in our modern world can really compare to what it was like before God revealed himself to us.
You also seem to be asserting that all gay men everywhere used to be rapists, but there’s no evidence for that at any time in the entire history of the world.
I am making no such assertion. I am making a specific statement about the individuals who inhabited the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as indicated by scripture.
Seems a bit far fetched. An alternative to believing every bible story is literally true is that sometimes, just as today, authors may have been bright enough to use allegory.
I am far from a Biblical literalist, however, this story deals directly with God’s interactions with Abraham as He established His covenant. If you accept that Abraham is a real individual then there is no reason to conclude that any of the stories involving him are not also real. If you do not believe that Abraham is a real individual then there is no reason to believe any of the rest of the Bible, because the whole of salvation history is based on Abraham and his faith in God.
Let’s just say anyone who reads the story and ignores every man in the city demanding publicly to be a rapist, and ignores the dad offering his virgin daughters up for gang rape, and instead thinks the story is about normal gay men, might just have his moral priorities a tiny bit skewed.
No one is ignoring anything, at least not as part of this discussion. We are also not saying that all homosexuals are violent rapists, or that Lot was right in what he did. We are just pointing out that homosexual acts are included in the list of abominations committed against God by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. If they were an abomination then, they are an abomination now, regardless of if they are undertaken by force or not.
🙂 “Shake off the dust from your feet - The Jews thought the land of Israel so peculiarly holy, that when they came home from any heathen country, they stopped at the borders and shook or wiped off the dust of it from their feet, that the holy land might not be polluted with it. Therefore the action here enjoined was a lively intimation, that those Jews who had rejected the Gospel were holy no longer, but were on a level with heathens and idolaters.” - John Wesley’s Notes
I don’t see how this has any impact on the validity of what I wrote. Shaking the dust from their feet has nothing to do with the main point about Sodom and Gomorrah not being strictly about homosexuality or hospitality.
 
No, an entire city populated by God-less people who, much like the people of today, engage in any manner of sexual activity that seems pleasurable to them. There’s nothing to indicate that their actions were limited to only homosexual acts, or to indicate that there were no children born. Also, you say that as if it isn’t possible. I’m sorry, but that is simply not an assertion you can make. We can’t really conceive of it, that’s true, but we are also living 2,000 years after Christ in a culture which has been heavily, HEAVILY, influenced by Judaeo-Christian beliefs. We can look to certain modern societies who have rejected the Christian influences to get some idea of what it as like, but I don’t think anything in our modern world can really compare to what it was like before God revealed himself to us.
No doubt kids in the Soviet Union were told lurid tales of supposed Western immorality. No doubt Islamists radicalize suicide bombers with lurid tales of supposed Christian immorality.

It ain’t necessarily so. If non-Hebrew cultures were and are so immoral there would be mountains of evidence outside of a few tales in Genesis. China wasn’t Jewish yet people didn’t run around raping each other.
*I am making no such assertion. I am making a specific statement about the individuals who inhabited the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as indicated by scripture. *
It’s not even certain those cities existed.
*I am far from a Biblical literalist, however, this story deals directly with God’s interactions with Abraham as He established His covenant. If you accept that Abraham is a real individual then there is no reason to conclude that any of the stories involving him are not also real. If you do not believe that Abraham is a real individual then there is no reason to believe any of the rest of the Bible, because the whole of salvation history is based on Abraham and his faith in God. *
:ehh: Are you saying that a thousand years from now, when people dig up a copy of ‘Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’, everyone will have to believe Lincoln slayed vampires or they’ll have no reason to believe the United States ever existed?
No one is ignoring anything, at least not as part of this discussion. We are also not saying that all homosexuals are violent rapists, or that Lot was right in what he did. We are just pointing out that homosexual acts are included in the list of abominations committed against God by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. If they were an abomination then, they are an abomination now, regardless of if they are undertaken by force or not.
Before Elton John married his longtime partner David Furnish, Lot implored them, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them."
I don’t see how this has any impact on the validity of what I wrote. Shaking the dust from their feet has nothing to do with the main point about Sodom and Gomorrah not being strictly about homosexuality or hospitality.
Here’s an alternative view:

*"To me, it is clear that the real sin of Sodom is radical inhospitality, or turning one’s back upon the strangers and the neediest in our midst. Rather than welcoming traveling sojourners into their homes and feeding them, the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them and exert their power over them.

…] In fact, the Bible itself expressly describes the sin of Sodom elsewhere as radical inhospitality. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the real “guilt” of the Sodomites was the fact that, although they had “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,” they “did not aid the poor and needy” and were “haughty” (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Similarly, the Letter to the Hebrews warns Christians by alluding to the true sin of the Sodomites as inhospitality: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2).

Even St. Jerome, the distinguished fourth-century Doctor of the Church, biblical translator, and author of the Vulgate Bible, described the primary sin of Sodom as “pride, bloatedness, the abundance of all things, leisure and delicacies.” (See “Commentaria in Hiezechielem” 5.16.48-51, as translated by Mark D. Jordan in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997], at 33 n.11.).

…] So, who are the real Sodomites today? Who are the people who turn their backs on the strangers and the least among us? Ironically, I believe that anti-gay Christians are often the ones who are most guilty of committing the true sin of Sodom." - huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/what-was-the-real-sin-of_b_543996.html*

🙂
 
That would seem really harsh for God to rain fire down on 2 cities just because they weren’t hospitable to strangers. If that was the case most cities at the time would have been destroyed.
 
That would seem really harsh for God to rain fire down on 2 cities just because they weren’t hospitable to strangers. If that was the case most cities at the time would have been destroyed.
👍 The Jews weren’t exactly hospitable to other people who weren’t Jewish for heaven’s sake.

I think the Levite story and Sodom and Gomorrah are about the atrocities of rape and wrong use of sex. And yes Sodom and Gomorrah were very corrupt cities, sort of like how corrupt Rome was before it’s fall. God doesn’t like all that nastiness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top