Sodom and Gomorrah

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
It ahs always been a mystery to me as to why Christians bring up the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no way to make this story into anything good.



according to the myth Lot is the only moral man in Sodom and that is why he gets his ticket out of town before the fire works start. So after the angels arrive to warn Lot supposedly every man (and they are supposedly all gay) in town gets horny and starts banging on Lots door demanding that the angles come out for an orgy and a Pampered Chef party. For some reason Lot (the only moral man around remember) offers these supposedly gay men his virgin DAUGHTERS for their sexual pleasure. Despite this act he is still somehow considered to be a good man and still gets a free ride out of Dodge. To top it off on the way out Lot’s wife commits the worst sin possible, upon hearing the screams of pain from the city she turns around and as punishment for being actually compassionate she is turned into a pillar of salt.



No matter how you slice it the God here comes off bad. He is so impotent he lets things get horribly bad in S&G in the first place, and then he is powerless to do anything about it so he decided to just smash the towns he doesn’t’ like. It also seems this God can’t figure out who is good and who is not good, (unless someone is willing to argue that the brutal rape of children by a mod is a moral thing).



Talk about a fable that should have been edited out a long time ago.
 
Upvote 0

Evee

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2002
9,239
309
USA
Visit site
✟11,098.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I find it odd that lot would offer his virgin daughters.
I would have hated to have him for a father.

God also beside Lot found Noah, David, Abraham and others worthy in his eyes.
It does seem strange but God sees something worth salvaging.
 
Upvote 0

gee

Legend
Dec 11, 2004
409,128
4,902
✟448,887.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Velos - sorry you don't have relationship with God, or believe the Bible - which is full of world history - just as real as American Independence or Henry VIII. We're not living in a perfect world, and certainly not the world God planned for us to live in. I'd like to hope you see that one day.:)

Evee - an interesting site is at http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm. I don't know all about the site or the author(s) so I'm not saying it's 100% - I just don't know.... Looks interesting though.



[Edited to add the link above as I reached the 15 posts necessary to post a link!]
 
Upvote 0

gee

Legend
Dec 11, 2004
409,128
4,902
✟448,887.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Remember that it wasn't God that told Lot to give his two daughters. It was Lot's idea, but not a wise one. Like Evee - who would have wanted to be Lot's daughters? What would have they been thinking when they heard their father say this? They must have been horrified and fearful.

Lot knew the two men were from God as he got up to meet them and bowed with his face to the ground (Gen 19:1). Maybe in his pride (he chose to live in Sodom) he was trying to make Sodom look better to the angels so that they wouldn't destroy his home. It was after all where his family was and his (future) sons-in-law. It was where his home was. He didn't want to see it destroyed, yet as the NT says, he knew the evil there was and daily it caused him pain.

Or he considered the fact that the "men" had come under the protection of his roof of greater value than his daughters? That was horrible too.

Or maybe he thought that the crowd would go away when he refused to send the men out.

I don't know - Lot was probably so worried / tense / fearful and not thinking rationally. Whatever, if he was trusting in God, He would have known that God could deliver from that situation. And you see that God did - the crowd were blinded and Lot's family could escape.

So once again it wasn't God's idea to send out Job's daughters...
 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
gee said:
Velos - sorry you don't have relationship with God,
Sorry to disappoint…but I have a long standing personal relationship with the Divine thank you very much.



This of course has nothing to do with the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah.



or believe the Bible - which is full of world history - just as real as American Independence or Henry VIII.
The Oddyssy and the Ilaid are also filled with world history. What is your point?


We're not living in a perfect world, and certainly not the world God planned for us to live in. I'd like to hope you see that one day.:)
If you are truly concerned about the state of the world perhaps instead of lamenting about its supposed imperfections you might try actually doing something to make it a better place.
 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
gee said:
Remember that it wasn't God that told Lot to give his two daughters. It was Lot's idea, but not a wise one.
If we go along with the myth and say that in the view of the god in the story Lot was a moral man then the question becomes just why would a moral man propose the gang rape of his daughters? Either Lot was not moral after all in which case the god in the story would have withdrawn his blessing form Lot or the brutal rape of children was not considered immoral by the god in the story.



And what of the angles present at the offering of the children to the randy gang of men? They don’t seem to care much about the offer of the children. as representatives of the supposedly moral God should they not have intervened on behalf of the children?
 
Upvote 0

gee

Legend
Dec 11, 2004
409,128
4,902
✟448,887.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hi Volos, I think I answered your first Q. in your last post before.

should they not have intervened on behalf of the children?
I thought they did....! It's man who sinned and brought corruption to the world. God loves sons and certainly daughters too. Do you think God enjoys the world as it is, and seeing the pain and suffering? I believe that God is in control yet does not always stop bad things happening. But that's another topic!

But maybe if God was completely inactive as you hint - and that He did not restrain sin to a degree - we would all be dead, or live in a complete anarchy.


The Oddyssy and the Ilaid are also filled with world history. What is your point?
My point is you say the story of S&G is myth! Myth and history aren't the same thing! I have discussed lots of things on forums and I know many people who don't believe all the Bible as being actual events. However, I'm one of those who do believe that the whole Bible is true! :eek: But I hope you understand I don't mean to put you down at all Volos.
 
Upvote 0

pro_odeh

-=Disciple of Jesus Christ=-
Nov 18, 2004
9,514
2,295
✟27,458.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Volos said:
If we go along with the myth and say that in the view of the god in the story Lot was a moral man then the question becomes just why would a moral man propose the gang rape of his daughters? Either Lot was not moral after all in which case the god in the story would have withdrawn his blessing form Lot or the brutal rape of children was not considered immoral by the god in the story.



And what of the angles present at the offering of the children to the randy gang of men? They don’t seem to care much about the offer of the children. as representatives of the supposedly moral God should they not have intervened on behalf of the children?

So a moral man can never make an unmoral descision? Lot still believed in God, and he saw that what was going on around him was evil. He didnt want to accept it, but still he was tempted. Why do you think he lived there? actually, Lot lived outside the city, but moved in after a while, because of the temptations. Its not bad of him to still manage to keep faith in a place like that. But still, he did wrong things like the rest of us..

The angels didnt intervene? read the story again.. :)
God bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
60
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟10,967.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

Yes, I believe that the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah (et. al.) "really happened" and that ol' Mrs. Lot really was turned into a pillar of salt. I've seen her! During Hanukkah, DW & I took Da Boyz down (literally!) to the "Flour Cave" (http://www.ohav.org/travel/flourcave.html & http://www.jnf-canada.org/jnf/sedom.html) by the southern end of the Dead Sea. There's one particular pillar of salt there that is reputed to be Mrs. Lot & has been so reputed for a very long time (Josephus talks about it). Da Boyz were fascinated. I've tried to attach a photo of her/it (if the attachment doesn't work, it's in the second of the above links).

People who see the Bible as an adult version of a first grade reader, i.e. with everything very simply/simplistically laid out & spelled out, no depth, no use of simile, metaphor & allegory, no layers of meaning, and with shallow, uncomplex, made-out-of-cardboard characters who never have mixed motives, will break their teeth on Lot. Lot fascinates me precisely because he is complex and tragic, and because he can teach us a great deal, even though he was a fairly minor supporting player.

We met first meet Lot towards the end of Genesis 11 where he is depicted as having been taken along by his grandfather Terah, on the latter's journey from Ur to Canaan. He next appears in Genesis 12. Terah has died & Lot's Uncle Abram is now looking out for him:

So Abram went, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son...
Lot dutifully trudges along with his uncle. There is yet no hint of the trouble that is to come. When do we get that first hint that something is going awry, that a minor fissure, which will soon become a chasm, has appeared?

Lot next appears in Genesis 13:1

And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the South. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold...
Ah, here it is, that first sign that Lot is veering off the path. Previously, in Genesis 12:4, the Hebrew word translated as "with" (as in "Lot went with him") is et. But here, in 13:1, the Hebrew word translated as "with" (as in "and Lot with him") is im. Pharoah had made Abram rich (actually, Abram was rich to begin with, Pharoah just made him even more rich). Our Sages teach that Lot looked at Abram's wealth and thought All of this wealth, it will all be mine one day. Abram & Sarai are old and childless. I'm their nephew and, as such, their heir. All Uncle Abram's wealth will one day be mine. The conflict that would soon break out into the open (between Lot's shepherds & Abram's shepherds) first manifested itself in Lot's heart, whetted as it was by greed, as they returned from Egypt.

Regarding the clash between the shepherds, our Sages say that Lot's herdsmen were encroaching on the grazing areas that Abram's herdsmen were using, and that Lot's people said: "Your master [i.e. Abram] is an old mule (mules, of course, are sterile). All that belongs to him will one day belong to our master, so we'll just help ourselves now since it's going to be ours anyway." Abram sees this conflict and bids that he & his nephew separate.

Our Sages notice that after God spoke to Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, He didn't speak to him again until after he and Lot had parted ways (in Genesis 13:14, "And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him: 'Lift up now thine eyes..."). One of my rabbis writes:

One commentary says that although Avra[h]am knew that his spirituality was compromised by Lot's presence, he nonetheless did not chase Lot away until he had no choice. Avra[h]am felt a moral obligation to take care of Lot (including saving him after they parted) even though he knew that G-d was "keeping His distance" with Lot around. There are some interesting ramifications for us, of this behavior of Avra[h]am's. How to we view time spend doing chessed [acts of kindness]; and kiruv [drawing non-religious Jews towards our faith], at the expense of personal growth. Think about it.
Abram bids Lot to choose where he will go. Lot sees the wealth of Sodom and its environs and moves to Sodom.

Lot wanders, first with grandfather Terah from Ur to Haran, then with Uncle Avram from Haran to Canaan to Egypt & back to Canaan gain. Then he goes off to Sodom. Then he is taken captive and rescued by Uncle Abram. Then he goes back to Sodom. Then he is forced to leave Sodom. His physical wandering is matched by his spiritual wandering. Lot's not at home with godly Uncle Abram because there's too much of ungodly Sodom in him. But neither is Lot really at home in ungodly Sodom there's too of godly Uncle Abram in him. Lot is torn & is at home nowhere.

Rabbi Ari Kahn writes:

Lot, the nephew of Avraham, is a strange and tragic figure. His uncle was the greatest man of the age, yet Lot was unable to get along with him. We are taught that after Lot's father passed away, Avraham adopted him and took him under his tutelage. The childless Avraham must have had a special place in his heart and home for his orphaned nephew, yet Lot was unable or unwilling to work on this relationship. Even after Lot and Avraham part ways, Avraham remains concerned and leaps into action when Lot gets into trouble and is kidnapped.

The most famous and tragic story of Lot is his part in the destruction of Sodom. Lot escapes, though not unscathed, as his adopted city crumbles behind him. His behavior in Sodom, and the manner in which he takes leave of the city, draw our attention; viewing this episode in its chronological context may afford us insight to its inner meaning.

(...).

Lot's practice would be more difficult to explain. We could say that as a follower of Avraham he simply mimicked Avraham's lofty deeds. Let us return to the text:

And there came two angels to Sodom at evening; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face to the ground. And he said, 'Behold now, my lords, turn in, I beseech you, to your servant's house, and remain all night, and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early, and go on your way.' And they said, 'No; we will stay in the street all night'. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in to him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and baked Matzot, and they ate. (Genesis 19:3)
Lot's behavior requires analysis: First of all, he sits at the gate of the city. This is reminiscent of Avraham sitting in the opening of his tent. As Avraham waits for guests to serve, so does Lot. The main difference is that Avraham lives alone while Lot lives in a most inhospitable city. A second connotation to the gate of the city is a common reference in Chumash to the gates of a city as the place of judgment, or the locale of the Judges.4 In fact, later on in the narrative Lot is attacked by his neighbors for placing himself as judge upon them.

And they said again,

'This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he wants to be a judge; now will we deal worse with you than with them.' (Genesis 19:9)
Here we have the first clue to the tragedy of Lot. Rather than be second to Avraham, Lot strikes out on his own. He craves "top billing" as a leader in Sodom, and not just leader but judge. While it is true that to be a judge is an honorable position, judge of Sodom does seem to be an unfortunate career choice, at best. It must not have been easy to be constantly and totally over-shadowed by his illustrious uncle; Lot decided to make it on his own, and while he tries to be like his uncle, he always seems to fall short. With guests entering his (empty?) courtroom, Lot has an opportunity to be like Avraham. Here is a chance to extend hospitality and kindness. There is only one problem: the people of Sodom will not tolerate this type of behavior, and Lot knows it. Time is of the essence. We hear it in his words; he welcomes his guests, and he discusses their departure before they even agree to stay.

And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I beseech you, to your servant's house, and remain all night, and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early, and go on your way.
Lot wants to do the right thing; he wishes to perform chesed. The text indicates that these visitors were angelic. He knows what he has to do, but he sounds scared. He wants them to leave before they step in the door. This is why he makes them Matzah [i.e. unleavened bread, of the kind we eat on Passover] - it is the fastest type of bread! Unleavened bread - doesn't even have time to rise. Based on the narrative, that would seem to be the sad reason that Lot gives his guests Matzah: Not because he is celebrating the Seder, but because he is scared and he wants them out as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, Lot did rise to the occasion. He convinced them to stay; he made a feast. Soon enough, there was knocking on the door.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot, and said to him, 'Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.' (Genesis 19:4,5)
Maybe taking them home was not the best idea; not in Sodom, not even for the judge. Make no mistake: the mob outside was not the 'chesed committee' welcoming guests. This was a group of Sodomites, looking for a "good time". They wanted to get to "know" them better (keep in mind that this is the Bible, making it superfluous to say that they wanted to know them in the Biblical sense). Lot was now in trouble. His celestial guests were about to be abused in his front yard. He probably wondered what Avraham would do in a situation like this.

Lot acts heroically yet tragically; he offers the men a better deal:

And Lot went out the door to them, and closed the door after him, and said, I beg you, my brothers, do not do so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me, I beg you, bring them out to you, and do to them as is good in your eyes; only to these men do nothing; seeing that they have come under the shadow of my roof.' (Genesis 19:6-8 )
Lot's interpretation of chesed took a remarkable wrong turn: Rather than endanger his guests he offers his virginal daughters to the mob. "Do what you wish" he tells them, "just don't harm my guests". Something seems terribly wrong. This is not what chesed is supposed to be about. Lot's behavior is morally outrageous. Then again, Lot was never more than a pretender to Avraham's greatness. He paled in comparison to Avraham, which is why he came to Sodom in the first place. Now, the judge of Sodom makes a most injudicious decision that sets the stage for an exodus.
And when they angels come to save him from the impending annhilation of Sodom, Lot lingers, such that the angels had to grab him and throw him out of the being-destroyed city (why did they do this? Because, as Gen. 19:16 tells us, God had mercy on him).

Rabbi Kahn writes:

The aftermath of Lot's liberation is particularly sordid and tragic:

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and lived in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to live in Zoar; and he lived in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, 'Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also; and you go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moav; the same is the father of the Moavites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Benammi; the same is the father of the Ammonites to this day.
The connection of this episode to the exodus from Sodom is not immediately clear. Are we being given insight into the lasting moral effects of life in a corrupt society upon the younger generation? Lot is anything but an impressive character: He drinks himself into a stupor and commits incest (though unaware, which is not a glowing testimonial, either!). Are the children solely to blame? Perhaps Lot himself was not fully aware of the repercussions his choice of neighborhood would have on his family, and eventually on the history of nations. Here, then, is a completely different type of plague of the firstborn.

(...).

One eventual result of this tryst is the birth of David: King David, the chosen, progenitor of the Messiah. Long before the enslavement in Egypt, God prepared the building blocks for the Messianic redemption.
But, as Samson says, from the bitter comes forth the sweet. There was a spark of Abrahamic holiness in Lot. In order for the Children of Abraham to be whole, in order for their redemption to be complete, this spark had to be reunited. Lot was the ancestor of Moab and Ammon. The latent, hidden, spark of Abrahamic holiness in Moab was embodied in Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David. The latent, hidden, spark of Abrahamic holiness in Ammon was embodied in Naamah, the wife of King Solomon & mother of Rehoboam. Between them, Ruth and Naamah, the descendants of irresolute, wandering Lot, are the mothers of the Messiah.

Lot, the bit player, still has his part to play.

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 

Attachments

  • sedomlot.gif
    sedomlot.gif
    84.6 KB · Views: 43
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
gee said:
My point is you say the story of S&G is myth!
It is a myth


Myth and history aren't the same thing!
Yes I know. History actually happened and there is evidence to support its happening (the Destruction of Hiroshima). Myth is a colorful antidote that often (thought not always) has elements in it that defy logic and has no actual corroborating evidence to support it.(the destruction of Sodom)
 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
pro_odeh said:
So a moral man can never make an unmoral descision?

There is a significant difference between thinking about brining home office supplies form work and offering your children up to be raped.


Lot still believed in God, and he saw that what was going on around him was evil. He didnt want to accept it, but still he was tempted.

It wasn’t temptation it was advocating that his young daughters be raped and tortured.

He not only accepted it but was helping it along.



And again we are back to the anti-gay message some Christians attempt to put into this story. No one has ever answered the question why if the mod of men were homosexuals bent on having a fun time with the angles why would Lot offer up his daughters to them?



But anyway…

Despite all of this Lot was somehow still a moral man?

Sorry. Moral men protect their children, they don’t try to have their children molested.


Why do you think he lived there? actually, Lot lived outside the city, but moved in after a while, because of the temptations.
Well that makes perfect sense :doh:
 
Upvote 0

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Volos said:
Yes I know. History actually happened and there is evidence to support its happening (the Destruction of Hiroshima). Myth is a colorful antidote that often (thought not always) has elements in it that defy logic and has no actual corroborating evidence to support it.(the destruction of Sodom)

Volos - Most of history was once unsupported by evidence, (hence the reason for sciences such as Anthropology). As a student of history, one must understand that moving backwards in times creates challenges for an accurate portrayal of history as technologies didn't exist to record them (such as Hiroshima), printing presses weren't available to replicate, writings were not able to be preserved, ancient libraries were destroyed. Much of ancient history that we understand was later recorded by way of oral tradition. A comparison of an event that happened 50 years ago with one that happened many hundreds of years ago is poor logic.

The bible is accepted by many historians as a very good reference tool for ancient history. Many who do not see it as divinely inspired use it with a critical eye but it is one of the most used references for the period. Besides my faith in God as the author of the story of Sodom and nothing indicating it was an analogy or parable, I can accept the written account in scripture as evidence that it happened because it is recorded in a historical book.

You are of course welcome to believe that Sodom was a myth but you can not say with certainty that it did not happen. Much of scripture defies human logic. The use of logic is wonderful (as God created us with a thinking mind) but is likely to be flawed and incomplete. Logic once stated with absolute certainty that the sun rotated around the earth and the earth was flat. At the time, based on what was available, this made logical sense. Further advancement allows us to see a different logic. How much of what we assume "logically" today will be viewed as "silly" in decades to come?
 
Upvote 0

Space Ghost

Active Member
Dec 22, 2004
30
2
68
Kentucky
✟15,161.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
i am sure more than one type of sin was the cause.... The best we can hope is that maybe there were a lot of last second plea's of forgiveness before they perished.... We should wish for the conversion and salvation of all lost souls, should we not?....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Neenie said:
It wasn't just all sexual sin. Greed played a big role too...

Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
In reading this post, I began to grow frustrated that the sin of Sodom seems to elude so many people reading the bible. Thankfully, Neenie saved a portion of my sanity by showing that an explicit reason was stated.

I have always found it interesting that people will use Sodom as the ultimate defense of anti-homosexual positions. The proof offered is always the attempted gang rape of the angels. I believe homosexuality to be a sin based on scripture and in a belief about God's design for sexual relationships. Still, a forcible rape of foreigners by the entire city does not stand as a good defense of the wrongness of homosexuality as a whole. Judges 19 has a very similar picture of an inhospitable rape that began as homosexual in intent but ended with a heterosexual rape.

As unpleasant as it sounds, this was not an uncommon practice in those days (forcible rape of outsiders) as a means of humiliation and warning to others to stay away. Are we to assume the common practice of homosexual rape in the prison system is indicative of a homosexual pandemic in the prisons?

Sodom was going to be destroyed prior to the attempted rape of the angels. Saying this was the reason for their destruction is like saying a man who curses his executioners on his way to the electric chair is being put to death for cursing his executioners. Is his cursing wrong and immoral, yes, but it cannot serve as proof of the reason for his death sentence.

Jude does serve as reason to suggest that sexual immorality was a major problem in Sodom. Still, there is only one place that gives an explicit reason for Sodom's destruction - Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Sodom's sins were pride, laziness, and gluttony, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and did loathsome things, so I wiped her out, as you have seen." (NLT)

These were not just common sins that everyone faces and mentioned only for interest sake. Ezekiel specifically shows that these are the reasons it was destroyed. It is more likely that other references to Sodom that imply sexual sin are discussing other sins that existed in Sodom. Why do I say this? Because Ezekiel is the only place that gives us a direct statement of the sins committed that caused it to be destroyed and homosexuality or other sexual sins are not explicitly stated. Even Jude 1 which directly links sexual immorality with the warning of Sodom does not list or state all the reasons for its destruction, it simply discusses the destruction of evil people citing their sexual sin as indicative of those who do not remain faithful to God.

Those who want to see homosexuality as the primary sin have to make an extraordinary stretch to do so. Was homosexuality a problem in Sodom? Certainly. I am sure many forms of sexual immorality were rampant. Sexual sin tends to be an effect of an affluent nation that boasts about its success denying the influence of God (Idolatry). America suffers from this same affliction. We were intended to be warned by Sodom. Unfortunatly, many view this warning as a reason to condemn homosexuals rather than see the true warning of idolatry which led to pride, laziness, gluttony, unconcern for the poor, arrogance and "loathsome things" (which included sexual immorality as Jude explains).

Idolatry was the consistent problem addressed with many nations in the OT. Many were brought to destruction by the armies of Isreal. Sodom served as a particular example of this Idolatry and apparently worthy of God's direct hand in its destruction and explicit warning of what Idolatry can lead to. Focusing on one sin as the only reason, elevating it above all others (especially when other sins are explicitly stated) seems indicative of a society focused on self interest rather than God's will.

Sodomy in English refers to homosexual acts. Many simple-minded people use this as proof that homosexuality was the intended warning. The sins were committed long before English was being developed and unfortunately, a misapplied cultural hatred of those struggling with one particular sin was assumed to be the basis for the creation of a new word.

Should not sodomy more appropirately denote pride, arrogance, gluttony, laziness, and those who show unconcern for the poor? How many in America would then be appropriatley labeled sodomites and worthy of destruction by fire? Unfortunately, those who developed the language decided to ignore the explicit warning stated in Ezekiel just as so many professed Christians do today.

Once again, thank you Neenie for not missing this point.
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

<font size="3&quot ;>DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
pro_odeh said:
Look at how socioty is today, and you have your answer!
God bless!
The citizens of Sodom were idol worhippers. Literally, worshippers of literal images. That might be in our society today, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

<font size="3&quot ;>DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
Evee said:
JUD 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Maybe it is sexual sins.
Sounds as if it is.
Now, what in this verse refers to committed same sex relationships?
 
Upvote 0

Norea

Active Member
Oct 16, 2004
214
7
Somewhere
Visit site
✟379.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
The fact there were two cities doesn't mean they were destroyed because some Sky-Daddy didn't like male-on-male pokery but was more than likely that of a volcano erupting. People tend to attribute divine powers to things they do not understand. If you didn't understand how a car or airplane works then more than likely you would declare it was either magic, and thus evil, or declare it was the work of God, and thus good. Contexts of the events in question are clearly not appended to the opinions presented. First being that there's no evidence Lot literally existed. Lot has much chance of existing as King Arthur does. Which is slim to none. It's easier to declare a natural cause to natural events rather than invented unnatural causes to so-called unnatural events. :p

-- Bridget
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
leecappella said:
Now, what in this verse refers to committed same sex relationships?

JUD 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
In my opinion, it is a more a question of God's design than an explicit statement condemning an act. If the bible were to explicitly state all things regarding God's will, it would take infinite volumes to contain.

I think it is entirely possible that Jude 1:7 reference to strange flesh was a reference to an attempted rape of angels (non human beings) rather than homosexual acts being strange flesh. This is one interpretation.

Another is that the concept of "one flesh" had a very distinct purpose and meaning and anything outside of that "one flesh" concept is "strange".

If one does not believe that God's design for sex is intended to be used only in a married relationship, there is not much to debate. I don't find a lot of distinction between sexual sins outside of God's design - all are outside of God's design and consequently sin. This would include any sexual act outside of what God designed it for (within marriage).

One may not find an explicit verse condemning committed same sex relationships but one will also not find a passage addressing its acceptance. There are two examples in the OT that many will offer but both are a stretch and nothing indicates marriage was present or ordained by God or that sexual activity was even present (a close intimate relationship does not imply sexual relations). There is also very little support that any sexual activity outside of marriage is within God's design (same sex or not).

In Genesis, we get a picture of God's creation and how he created one man and one woman to be one flesh. Jesus discussion of marriage and divorce in Matt 19 makes no reference of anything but man and woman. 1 Cor 7 and Ephesians 5 both have discussions of marriage and provide a guide to God's design for committed sexual relationships (one flesh relationships). None of these makes any references to same sex relationships.

Anything that is out of God's character or out of God's design is sin. References to sexual immorality in scripture are understood to include homosexuality because there is little defense of its practice being acceptable to God. I have spent much time considering the defense offered by those who view same sex committed relationships as acceptable to a loving God. There is a lot of defense regarding each reference a conservative would use to condemn homosexuality and I would see many as plausible defenses.

My question is, if it were an acceptable practice, why is there no discussion of a healthy practice in scripture (such as exists in 1 Cor 7 or Ephesians 5)? Heterosexual marriages need this kind of instruction/guidance. At the very least, I would assume the authors would use more gender neutral terms in both of these passages so as not to leave the impression they are out of God's design.
 
Upvote 0