Sodom and Gomorrah

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Norea said:
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
You say it is more than likely a volcano that destroyed Sodom. I don't disagree that it could have been exactly that or perhaps a strange meteor shower or some other less than common catastrophic event. I am just not entirely sure how this proves there was not divine intervention. I believe God to be the author of the universe. I am confident he could use a natural disaster to impose his judgment.



It is easy to claim that any story from ancient times (whether Lot or King Arthur) is simply an embellished story. What can't be known, without evidence or revelation, is whether the story is based in fact. One would have to consider what is accepted historically because they are less likely to know at a later date in history than those who were closer in time to the events the story is based on.



The bible has proven itself to be a historically accurate book (much to the dislike of those who don't care for what its "stories" imply). As an example, the Old Testament mentioned a people known as the Hittites many times. For centuries, historians questioned the Bible because they had discovered no evidence of any Hittite people. In 1906, however, the Hittite capital was uncovered about 90 miles east of Ankara, the capital of Turkey. In another example, the discovery of tablets in the ancient city of Ebla in northern Syria has shown significant historical evidence that supports the biblical record.



More importantly, to me at least, than the evidence that is being provided to show the historical accuracy of the bible is that there is very little evidence contracting its accuracy. Nelson Glueck, a Jewish archeologist, said, "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference" (Rivers in the Desert: History of Neteg, p.31).



This being the case, the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom does have a historical basis because it is recorded in what has proven to be a historically accurate book. Until further evidence comes along contradicting the Genesis account, I see no reason to assume the story is not historically accurate.
 
Upvote 0

Norea

Active Member
Oct 16, 2004
214
7
Somewhere
Visit site
✟379.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
John832 said:
You say it is more than likely a volcano that destroyed Sodom. I don't disagree that it could have been exactly that or perhaps a strange meteor shower or some other less than common catastrophic event. I am just not entirely sure how this proves there was not divine intervention. I believe God to be the author of the universe. I am confident he could use a natural disaster to impose his judgment.
Nope.
It is easy to claim that any story from ancient times (whether Lot or King Arthur) is simply an embellished story. What can't be known, without evidence or revelation, is whether the story is based in fact. One would have to consider what is accepted historically because they are less likely to know at a later date in history than those who were closer in time to the events the story is based on.
Actually most of the order of the Bible is incorrect with regard to the so-called events.
The bible has proven itself to be a historically accurate book (much to the dislike of those who don't care for what its "stories" imply). As an example, the Old Testament mentioned a people known as the Hittites many times. For centuries, historians questioned the Bible because they had discovered no evidence of any Hittite people. In 1906, however, the Hittite capital was uncovered about 90 miles east of Ankara, the capital of Turkey. In another example, the discovery of tablets in the ancient city of Ebla in northern Syria has shown significant historical evidence that supports the biblical record.
Wrong again. :)
More importantly, to me at least, than the evidence that is being provided to show the historical accuracy of the bible is that there is very little evidence contracting its accuracy. Nelson Glueck, a Jewish archeologist, said, "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference" (Rivers in the Desert: History of Neteg, p.31).
A jewish archaelogist? What about an American archaelogist with a major in Theology or Anthropology? Hmmm? Most don't agree with such claims as this man.
This being the case, the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom does have a historical basis because it is recorded in what has proven to be a historically accurate book. Until further evidence comes along contradicting the Genesis account, I see no reason to assume the story is not historically accurate.
Actually most of the city destruction wasn't even meteoric or volcanic. It was simply abandoned. Also many people claim the mass of graves implies they were buried at the same time which is false too. Neither city was absolutely destroyed. They simply dried up like many ghost towns in the US during the Manifest Destiny era. :p

-- Bridget
 
Upvote 0

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Norea said:
I am sorry, it was unclear what the nope was referring to. Nope, God is not the author of creation or nope the author of creation has no power over catastrophic events?
Norea said:
Actually most of the order of the Bible is incorrect with regard to the so-called events.
Based on what empirical measure as a standard? Which so called events is the order of the bible incorrect about? Some specifics would give your position some credibility.
Norea said:
Wrong again.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were judging the accuracy of my statements. Since you say it is wrong, I stand corrected. :sorry: Just to be clear, I am wrong that historians used to discount the Hittite civilization as a biblical myth (which they did) but stood corrected based on the discovery of their capital and records in Bogazkoy,Turkey or I was wrong that the tablets found at Ebla provided evidence of biblical historical accuracy?

Try browsing christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html sometime to give you a starting point. If you find something interesting, spend some time surfing the net to see what you can find... I am quite confident you will be surprised.

Norea said:
A jewish archaelogist? What about an American archaelogist with a major in Theology or Anthropology? Hmmm? Most don't agree with such claims as this man.
So an American archeologist with a degree in Theology or Anthropology is more qualified than a Jewish archeologist when the evidence in question is near the Dead Sea in Jordan? That is pretty presumptive about the superiority of American scientists.

Since you don't like a Jewish archaeologist (who by the way is American)...

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." Dr. William F. Albright - Archeologist and PhD in Semitic Languages from Johns Hopkins - one of the most well respected archeologists in history

"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics." Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University

Can you tell me of someone else's work on this subject since you clearly seek to discount Nelson Glueck – one of the world’s foremost experts on biblical archaeology? Nelson Glueck is credited with uncovering over 1000 ancient sites in Palestine and the Near East. He was credible enough to make the cover of Time magazine in 1963. Before you discount his statement, you might consider reading his work (which I am confident is more credible than your opinion about his work).

Norea said:
Actually most of the city destruction wasn't even meteoric or volcanic. It was simply abandoned. Also many people claim the mass of graves implies they were buried at the same time which is false too. Neither city was absolutely destroyed. They simply dried up like many ghost towns in the
Norea said:
US during the Manifest Destiny era.

Can you tell me which site you are referring to or what archeologist is declaring they found, beyond doubt, the site of Sodom and that it was simply abandoned? This would easily put Nelson Glueck, Dr. William Albright and Dr. Millar Burrows (all very well respected archeologists) squarely in their place.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Evee said:
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.
Recall what the relationship between Lot and his daughters became after the destruction ie they got him drunk and he father the nations of Moab and Ammon as a result.

I have always understood these two subplots to be related. The daughters of Lot wanted to be fruitful, to be mothers; but because of the degenerate nature of Lot, no man capable of fatherhood, and all that that entailed, was to be found.

Offering his daughters to the men at the door, what was being offered was a chance to become a part of Lot's family.
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

<font size="3&quot ;>DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
John832 said:
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.
You may be right. BTW, the quote box you replied to in post #40 is not my quote. Or, atleast, you didn't include my own personal text:)

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.
This has been said. I would agree with that interpretation. 'Strange flesh', in the greek, means 'different flesh'. 'Different' describes and/or refers to the flesh. I would conclude that angelic flesh is what is different as opposed to the flesh of a male or female, whom share the same kind of flesh.

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".
Personally I believe that any two persons who come together sexually are becoming one, regardless of physical gender. When a group of humans come together (non sexually) for the common good of mankind, as in 9-11, they become one. It's humanity becoming one. I understand the concept of two persons becoming one flesh in regards to a union of two spirits, but I don't limit that to only something a male and female can only do.

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).
That may be debatable, but you have a right to your biblically interperative view. You can believe that, but gays are not able to marry legally. Is a marriage only a marriage when it is legalized?

One may not find an explicit verse condemning committed same sex relationships but one will also not find a passage addressing its acceptance.
Which leads one to draw his or her own conclusions in regards to this issue, wouldn't you think? Not saying that I agree with you in your quote here. Matthew 19:12, I believe, is a good example of possible acceptance of gay relationships. At most, an acknowledgement of their existence. You will have to look deeper at the words and their definitions in the before mentioned verse. David and Jonathan are another possible example. Even if their relationship was not sexual, it does reveal the possiblity of love between persons of the same outward gender. Daniel and the eunuch is also another. Consider what the eunuch did for Daniel despite the already given instructions to what food Daniel and the others should eat.

There is also very little support that any sexual activity outside of marriage is within God's design (same sex or not).
Again, this brings up unions that are not legalized. Is a marriage only a marriage to you if it is accompanied by papers and certificates? Were these present in the creation story?

In Genesis, we get a picture of God's creation and how he created one man and one woman to be one flesh.
The creation story can be interpreted many ways. Literally, one man and woman was created. Or, figuratively, it is telling us something. If you believe that since the creation story speaks of one man and one woman and its purpose is to tell us the only acceptable union, then surely since the creation story speaks of being fruitful and multiplying, that means ALL married persons HAVE TO be fruitful and multiply, yes?

Jesus discussion of marriage and divorce in Matt 19 makes no reference of anything but man and woman.
Sure it does. It's what those he was speaking to could relate to. However, Jesus also says that there are those for whom his words are not for: eunuchs. You might think that eunuchs have nothing to do with this issue, but I disagree. Look deeper:)

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.
There are many topics that the bible does not specifically address that did not exist during the time that now exist during our time.

Anything that is out of God's character or out of God's design is sin.
I'm sure Peter thought his vision and the words, "Kill and eat" were also outside of God's character and design, but it was God!

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.
There are plausible defenses on both sides. Consider the context of each same sex reference in the bible. Loving or not loving?

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)?
Here, I will take you back to the very first quote in this post that I responded to. Specifically, your quote. Needless to say, the bible does not always come right out and say something. Implications are there as well. Just because somehting is not mentioned or is omitted does not AUTOMATICALLY render it not of God.
 
Upvote 0

pro_odeh

-=Disciple of Jesus Christ=-
Nov 18, 2004
9,514
2,295
✟27,458.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Just a little comment to DONNA SUMMER's post..
Every sexual activety outside the marriage is adoultary.
The most importaint thing abou marriage is that you make a vow to all the people and to God that you will stay by each others side forever. Untli death do you part. When God gives His blessing to the marriage, then its a marriage. And its written that marriage is between man and woman. nothing else! not two persons of any sex. if that was the idea, god would have put it like that! no, marriage is between man and woman! period...
God bless!
 
Upvote 0

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
leecappella said:
Personally I believe that any two persons who come together sexually are becoming one, regardless of physical gender. When a group of humans come together (non sexually) for the common good of mankind, as in 9-11, they become one. It's humanity becoming one. I understand the concept of two persons becoming one flesh in regards to a union of two spirits, but I don't limit that to only something a male and female can only do.


It is not a question of ‘one intent’ or ‘one purpose’... the discussion is regarding ‘one flesh’. Jesus said it quite directly in Matt 19 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”. You don’t limit it to only something a male and female can do but that does not mean God does not.

leecappella said:
That may be debatable, but you have a right to your biblically interperative view. You can believe that, but gays are not able to marry legally. Is a marriage only a marriage when it is legalized?


In my opinion, the act of marriage is something created and endorsed by God. It is a covenant made between a man, his wife and their Lord. When I was married to my wife there were really two parts – the legal civil union recognized by the state (certificates and paperwork) and the marriage covenant created by God. I personally have no issue with same sex civil unions because I don’t think they relate to marriage covenants. I personally don’t believe that God would create or honor a true marriage between same sex couples but this is not for me to decide or to judge because I am not God.

This is one of the reasons I read Matt 19 quite directly… marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman because that is how God created it. It was not only a discussion of rightful divorce (because in Christ’s eye it was never intended to be); it was really a discussion of God’s design for marriage and the permanence of one flesh.


leecappella said:
Which leads one to draw his or her own conclusions in regards to this issue, wouldn't you think? Not saying that I agree with you in your quote here. Matthew 19:12, I believe, is a good example of possible acceptance of gay relationships. At most, an acknowledgement of their existence. You will have to look deeper at the words and their definitions in the before mentioned verse.


The discussion of eunuchs (along with those who renounce marriage) in Matt 19 is clearly a discussion of abstinence from sexual relations. The context of Matt 19 is the connection between sex (one flesh) and the permanence of marriage. Sex was intended to be used inside of marriage. There are some who choose to abstain from the complications that come from this type of relationship. Jesus is clearly giving the direction that some are called to a life of abstinence and those who are not should follow God’s design for marriage. 1 Cor 7 only confirms this idea and further ties sexual desires to the need fulfill it appropriately in a marriage covenant which he clearly discusses between a man and a wife.

leecappella said:
David and Jonathan are another possible example. Even if their relationship was not sexual, it does reveal the possiblity of love between persons of the same outward gender. Daniel and the eunuch is also another. Consider what the eunuch did for Daniel despite the already given instructions to what food Daniel and the others should eat.


I never questioned that love shouldn’t exist between persons of the same gender. I have very deep love for several men but this can never be confused with God’s purpose for sexual relationships. The fact that there was nothing sexual between David and Jonathan or Daniel and the eunuch is rather the point.

I am also quite confident that there are many who feel a very strong love for members of the same sex and even feel compelled to experience a sexual bond with that person. Many heterosexual couples face a very strong compulsion to experience this same physical intimacy outside of marriage. They are just as wrong for acting on those compulsions because it is not in God’s design.

leecappella said:
Again, this brings up unions that are not legalized. Is a marriage only a marriage to you if it is accompanied by papers and certificates? Were these present in the creation story?


No, they were not present at creation because there was not a legal state to recognize the union. I think it is unfortunate so many people think God is forced to honor man’s systems rather than the other way around.

leecappella said:
The creation story can be interpreted many ways. Literally, one man and woman was created. Or, figuratively, it is telling us something. If you believe that since the creation story speaks of one man and one woman and its purpose is to tell us the only acceptable union, then surely since the creation story speaks of being fruitful and multiplying, that means ALL married persons HAVE TO be fruitful and multiply, yes?


That was the specific command given to Adam and Eve so for them yes. Whether that command is given to all married people is another issue. My personal opinion doesn’t hold relevance because that is a conviction each married person must respond to God about. Yet, in the creation story, throughout biblical history (where homosexuality was not uncommon), into the Roman period (in a society where homosexuality was very common) there is no provision discussed for a one flesh relationship between same sex couples.

leecappella said:
Sure it does. It's what those he was speaking to could relate to. However, Jesus also says that there are those for whom his words are not for: eunuchs. You might think that eunuchs have nothing to do with this issue, but I disagree. Look deeper


I fear I am at an impasse. Could you please enlighten me on the deeper meaning of Matt 19:12? Divorce between same sex couples was not discussable in Matt 19 because marriage was not acceptable under Mosaic Law. But he isn’t giving a list of acceptable divorce reasons in Matt 19, he is discussing God’s covenant of one flesh and how it was never meant to be separated. He doesn't take this opportunity to suggest that one flesh can exist between anything but man and wife. We are left understanding that 1) in the beginning, the creater made them male and female 2) his design is that a man would be united with his wife and become one flesh 3) God joins these two into one 4) no man is to separate what God has put together.

Once again, his word was related to marriage (one flesh). When asked by his disciples if it was better not to marry, Jesus replies that not everyone can accept this word (remaining single) but for some it is better not to marry (enter into a one flesh relationship).

leecappella said:
There are plausible defenses on both sides. Consider the context of each same sex reference in the bible. Loving or not loving?


I believe all of the scripture to be loving. Unfortunately, many of its readers try to apply their side in condemnation of others. Just to be clear, my opinions expressed are my beliefs and study of God’s word. I personally could care less whether same sex unions are legal in our country or whether they call it marriage (although I would prefer if they didn’t because God authored it). My covenant marriage is not threatened by someone who practices something differently. However, if the question is one of God’s design, I will openly discuss it in an appropriate forum (which this seems to be one) because I do not see any support or feel any compulsion to believe God would create a marriage covenant between same sex couples.

leecappella said:
Here, I will take you back to the very first quote in this post that I responded to. Specifically, your quote. Needless to say, the bible does not always come right out and say something. Implications are there as well. Just because somehting is not mentioned or is omitted does not AUTOMATICALLY render it not of God.


I don’t disagree. At the same time, it is dangerous (at least in my opinion) to assume God’s endorsement of a practice if there is no mention or hint of its existence. There are those who will interpret acceptability out of anything that was not specifically forbidden in scripture (although I believe same sex acts are specifically forbidden - along with any other sexual acts outside of marriage). I personally use God’s word as a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. I look for God’s design in that word. That is the basis for my opinion. I can not say absolutely that God would not endorse a same sex union because I am not God. I feel confident in saying I don’t see any scriptural reference hinting or suggesting God would.

Really it comes down to how a marriage covenant between same sex couples is defended scripturally. Obviously it is easy to defend marriage (a one flesh relationship) between heterosexuals. Is there any suggestion or hint in the entirety of scripture that a one flesh relationship can exist between same sex couples?
 
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
jesusfreak3786 said:
sodom, sodomy, sodom sodomy, hmmm they are realy close arn't they?
You are aware that the English language was developed well after the story of Sodom, right? This does not serve as proof that Sodom's sin was homosexuality but rather that the progression of the English language had a distinct bias when understanding the account of Sodom. They apparently were myopically focused on one event that happened in Sodom rather than reading the entire scriptures do determine whether an explicit reason was given.

Based on Ezekiel 16:49:50 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to assume a Sodomite was one who was arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned? Sure detestable things might include homosexual acts but the word should rightly mean much more unless we are willing to dismiss Ezekiel as wrong. Why is this passage so easily dismissed when it does give a very explicit reason for Sodom's destruction?

By setting up a straw man - sodomy = sodom = homosexual acts = destruction by fire, it is easy for a condemning view of homosexuals. Rather than use an obvious bias in the progression of the english language as proof of Sodom's sin, can you offer some scriptural proof that the primary reason (or even only reason to some) Sodom was destroyed was homosexuality?

Why do you think the men from Gibeah described in Judges 19 were not judged similarly? This account is almost identical to what happened in Sodom and yet is not mentioned or used as reference in other passages. If you will spend some time researching you will find that male rape was not uncommon as a form of humiliation and torture in those times (very much like it is used in our prison system today). I have no doubt that homosexuality was likely present in Sodom but the story in Genesis 19 does not stand as a very good example of the problem of homosexality. Rape is very rarely sexual in nature, it is an issue of control, power and fear more than anything.

How can we assume from this story that an attempted gang rape of angels serves as the best indication that homosexuality is wrong? I think there is ample discussion in scripture regarding it being out of God's design but I think those who want to read the story of Sodom and use it as proof they are justified in their condemnation are reading something into the text that isn't there.

Go to biblegateway or some other bible reference site, look up Sodom, read all of the passages that refer to it and see if you get a picture that homosexuality was the major issue. If you can, I am very curious to hear it.
 
Upvote 0
Genesis 19 is the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The focus of the case against homosexuality is presented in these seven verses:

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 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. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
Archeological evidence shows that Sodom was most likely destroyed around the 20th century BC, and that it was located in an area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. (Harper's Bible Dictionary, Bible-History.com) At this time, Greek was beginning to rise from humble origins and was gaining power throughout the Mediterranean.

The Greeks had a very strong custom called xenia. This was a custom of hospitality that was strictly enforced throughout the Greek nation. Namely, it dictated a guest-host relationship in which the host was required to take in any guest that arrived at his home at any time, exchange gifts, and, of utmost importance, protect the guest under any and all circumstances. This custom was often enforced by death to the violator, and probably came about due to the scarcity of communication between the Greek Isles; whatever information there was was brought by travelers, and they needed to be able to count on a place to stay wherever they went. (You can check my definition of xenia here, but the rest of the information about xenia came from my learnings of the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If you can identify any problems with it, please let me know.)

This concept of xenia worked so well for the Greeks that versions of it can be found among many other cultures and nations of the time. This is where we come back to scripture. For those who have trouble slogging through scripture, a summary of Sodom's destruction follows.

Lot was sitting outside the gates of Sodom when two angels of God arrived. Lot introduced himself and offered the angels a berth for the night. They refuse, and he offers again. They accept Lot's offer and follow him to his home. Once there, he feeds them, washes them, and offers them a bed for the night. An excellent follower of the xenic principle. At this point the evening turns sour. The townspeople gather around Lot's house and demand that he hand over his guests so that they could rape them. Lot refuses and does something that modern society would consider appalling: he offers his two virgin daughters in the angels' stead. Remember, though, the xenic custom placed the safety of the guest over everything else. The townspeople refuse and begin battering down the door. At this point, the angels step in, blind the attackers, and send Lot and his family out to another town, at which point they destroy Sodom.

This leaves a bit of ambiguity as to the actual reason behind Sodom's destruction, in my opinion. For more insight, we have to look at the three verses that explicitly state Sodom's sin. These are:

Jeremiah 23:14

14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem

I have seen something horrible:

They commit adultery and live a lie.

They strengthen the hands of evildoers,

so that no one turns from his wickedness.

They are all like Sodom to me;

the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah."
Jude 1:7

7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Ezekiel 16:49-50

49Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
These all contain a similar vein: sexual immorality or perversion. Ezekiel goes a bit further, however, and details the Sodomite's inhospitality to visitors and to their own people. Could it not be that the crime of Sodom was not so much men having sex with men, but townspeople regularly raping visitors to the town and disobeying the sacred law of xenia?

The Talmud, a record of the discussions of many rabbis on Jewish laws and ethics (Fact-Index), concurs with Ezekiel's descriptions of Sodom's crimes:

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of traveling in our land.

There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbor's wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbor's ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.


Source
In modern terms, the Talmud suggests that the Sodomites were condemned for restricting immigration...for institutionalizing the law of "might makes right"...and perversion of justice.
Source

In fact, throughout the Talmud, the term middat Sdom is used, which translates to "the way Sodom thought". It is used to indicate inhospitality, arrogance, or lack of charity.
Religioustolerance.org

In Isaiah 1:1-31, Isaiah lists out the sins of Judah and Jerusalem, and likens them to the people of Sodom:

Isaiah 1:10

Listen to the LORD, you leaders of Israel! Listen to the law of our God, people of Israel. You act just like the rulers and people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
He goes on to tell their crimes: rebellion against God (Isaiah 1:4), idolatry and meaningless worship (Isaiah 1:13), injustice, lack of charity (Isaiah 1:17), murder and corruption (Isaiah 1:21-23).

Nowhere does Isaiah list homosexuality as a sin of Sodom, Judah, or Jerusalem.

Some people point to the fact that since the rapists were males and the intended victims were male, too, it must have been for the intended homosexuality that Sodom was destroyed. Let it be pondered, then: If either party had been female, would God have looked on it differently?

Sodom and Gomorrah were perpetrators of many, many sins, rape and inhospitality foremost among them. That this is an argument against homosexuality takes the story a perhaps a step further than it was intended.
 
Upvote 0

Norea

Active Member
Oct 16, 2004
214
7
Somewhere
Visit site
✟379.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
John832 said:
I am sorry, it was unclear what the nope was referring to. Nope, God is not the author of creation or nope the author of creation has no power over catastrophic events?
Both because God cannot violate natural law and at the same time God cannot exist because we have natural law.
Based on what empirical measure as a standard? Which so called events is the order of the bible incorrect about? Some specifics would give your position some credibility.
If I remember correctly, a few rabbis stated the order between numbers and kings was off. I forget why they said it was off but they said the kings between those two books were out of order according to archaelogical evidence.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were judging the accuracy of my statements. Since you say it is wrong, I stand corrected. :sorry: Just to be clear, I am wrong that historians used to discount the Hittite civilization as a biblical myth (which they did) but stood corrected based on the discovery of their capital and records in Bogazkoy,Turkey or I was wrong that the tablets found at Ebla provided evidence of biblical historical accuracy?
There's been no evidence of a 100% correct Bible in the history of the world. Not one. For example, Medigo is called a 'small town' in the Bible but when it was uncovered, it was founed to be a metropolis of its day. Errors such as this clearly indicate a BIAS on the author of the Torah and Bible, modern.
Try browsing christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html sometime to give you a starting point. If you find something interesting, spend some time surfing the net to see what you can find... I am quite confident you will be surprised.
Dot Coms are not valid or sound sources. Try InfoTrac or your local university library to dig up copies of an anthropology or archaelogy journal. Until then, remember, Dot Coms, Orgs, Nets and etc are UNETHICAL SOURCES. Thankyou.
So an American archeologist with a degree in Theology or Anthropology is more qualified than a Jewish archeologist when the evidence in question is near the Dead Sea in Jordan? That is pretty presumptive about the superiority of American scientists.
The biggest contention is that he or she called him/herself JEWISH before ARCHAELOGIST. You cannot have dual allegiences. You either support science and reason or you support faith and evil. That is how I cut it.
Since you don't like a Jewish archaeologist (who by the way is American)...

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." Dr. William F. Albright - Archeologist and PhD in Semitic Languages from Johns Hopkins - one of the most well respected archeologists in history
That's good but not good enough. That's an opinion not a journal quote. :)
"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics." Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University
Again, quote not journal reference to evidence or citations. Etc Etc. It's rather simple, kiddo, follow ethical means to prove your point or don't post.
Can you tell me of someone else's work on this subject since you clearly seek to discount Nelson Glueck – one of the world’s foremost experts on biblical archaeology? Nelson Glueck is credited with uncovering over 1000 ancient sites in Palestine and the Near East. He was credible enough to make the cover of Time magazine in 1963. Before you discount his statement, you might consider reading his work (which I am confident is more credible than your opinion about his work).
Biblical Archaelogy? What tripe! Come on, there's Archaelogy and Not-Archaelogy. You can't have little flavours of the science with pseudo-scientific drivel running through it. It's like saying 'Ancient Astronaut'-archaelogy is a 'science' when no evidence has been provided there were 'ancient astronauts.' :p

So until you get some ethical sources, I can pretty much sum up your argument, "Because some religious nutter declares himself right therefore it must be right! Authority is real but reason and logic are not!" :p

-- Bridget who's getting tired of people posting DOT COMs.

 
Upvote 0

Iron Sharpens Iron

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
120
9
54
✟295.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Norea said:
So until you get some ethical sources, I can pretty much sum up your argument, "Because some religious nutter declares himself right therefore it must be right! Authority is real but reason and logic are not!" :p

-- Bridget who's getting tired of people posting DOT COMs.


What I find interesting in Norea's continual dismissal of others' posts is that she doesn't follow her own "rules" of debate. Where is YOUR documentation and supporting evidence?

Summarily dismissing "DOT COMS" is summarily without merit. There are many "ethical" online resources that would pass any reasonable standard of authority on a subject. Just because it's available in cyberspace doesn't automatically disqualify it. In my readings of late, including within the academic and esteemed professions, documentation of online sources has become an accepted resource.

I'm uncertain what contemporary standards/sources you are pointing to that "forbid" online referencing as a viable source of information. And, I'm not sure how you became the final judge of what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.

My impression is that this is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Upvote 0

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Norea said:
That's good but not good enough. That's an opinion not a journal quote. :) Again, quote not journal reference to evidence or citations. Etc Etc. It's rather simple, kiddo, follow ethical means to prove your point or don't post.
Such a rude response from a free thinker. Kiddo? Pretty presumptive.

I am sorry I missed the quotes to journal references you made or any sort of "ethical" source - you seemed to be making general assertions of opinion and asking me to accept them as fact. Ethical? I would ask you to follow your own advice - follow ethical means to prove your point or don't post.

Thankfully, I am free to post my opinion and use whatever source I choose to. For the sake of brevity, I offered the (apparently evil) dot com as a point of reference. Feel free to dismiss it. I think using the term "unethical" for any basis of any opinion is a bit of a reach.

Since your battle seems to be science and logic vs faith and evil, it is odd to me why you would choose to participate in a Christian forum site. I am willing to accept your disbelief as a valid choice, why belittle someone's faith as illogical and unreasoned?

Since your response was pointed and clearly desiring no futher discussion of science (at least according to your rules), I will leave it at that.
 
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
Norea said:
There's been no evidence of a 100% correct Bible in the history of the world. Not one. For example, Medigo is called a 'small town' in the Bible but when it was uncovered, it was founed to be a metropolis of its day.
Decided not to leave it at that. You made accustations about my lack of support and apparent inability to use reason and accusations about the accuracy of scripture. Can you give me a scriptural reference for the small town of Medigo? I looked up the word and couldn't find it. I even looked for references to small towns and didn't find anything that resembled Medigo.

I am willing to consider your critique but without a source, it is difficult to research a town I can't find mentioned in the bible. Perhaps the journal you are quoting misspelled it.:p

Are you referring to the Valley of Megiddo? If so, where is it referred to as a small town?
 
Upvote 0

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Norea said:
Biblical Archaelogy? What tripe! Come on, there's Archaelogy and Not-Archaelogy. You can't have little flavours of the science with pseudo-scientific drivel running through it. It's like saying 'Ancient Astronaut'-archaelogy is a 'science' when no evidence has been provided there were 'ancient astronauts.' :p
Granted you will find it outrageously unethical but I will use another dot source (org this time). Quoting Wikipedia (which doesn't have any apparent religious motives as far as I know)

Archaeological research is sometimes categorised according to the time period that it studies

A selective list of sub-disciplines distinguished by time period or region of study is given below.

African archaeology
Archaeology of the Americas
Biblical archaeology
Australian archaeology
Environmental archaeology
European archaeology
Industrial archaeology
Landscape archaeology
Maritime archaeology
Near Eastern archaeology
Medieval archaeology
Post-medieval archaeology
Modern archaeology

Certain civilizations have attracted so much attention that their study has been specifically named. These sub-disciplines include Assyriology (Mesopotamia), Classical archaeology (Greece and Rome), and Egyptology (Egypt).

Tripe?
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

<font size="3&quot ;>DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
pro_odeh said:
Just a little comment to DONNA SUMMER's post..
Every sexual activety outside the marriage is adoultary.
The most importaint thing abou marriage is that you make a vow to all the people and to God that you will stay by each others side forever. Untli death do you part. When God gives His blessing to the marriage, then its a marriage. And its written that marriage is between man and woman. nothing else! not two persons of any sex. if that was the idea, god would have put it like that! no, marriage is between man and woman! period...
God bless!
Don't get me confused with the dance music diva Donna Summer. I am leecappella. My favorite artist is Donna Summer. Also, we are spirits in a human body and God is not concerned with the outward appearance of one's gender.
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

<font size="3&quot ;>DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
jesusfreak3786 said:
sodom, sodomy, sodom sodomy, hmmm they are realy close arn't they?
It has been said of history, in relation to natural eunchs, that if a male (in ancient times defined as one who is innately attracted to females and okay with having sex with them) has sex with a like male (in ancient times defined as one who is innately attracted to females and okay with having sex with them) then this is sodomy. If a male (in ancient times defined as one who is innately attracted to females and okay with having sex with them) has sex with a natural eunuch (in ancient times defined as a male who is not innately attracted to women and who is not okay with having sex with females, but was known for having sex with men) then this is not sodomy. Natural eunuchs were not considered males. Much like gay males today are oftentimes looked upon as women. Just my two cents.
 
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

Norea

Active Member
Oct 16, 2004
214
7
Somewhere
Visit site
✟379.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Iron Sharpens Iron said:
What I find interesting in Norea's continual dismissal of others' posts is that she doesn't follow her own "rules" of debate. Where is YOUR documentation and supporting evidence?
Simple, look it up. This isn't a formal debate. And to my knowledge, the moderators don't have the time to maintain one. This isn't Internet Infidel's debate forum. ^^;
Summarily dismissing "DOT COMS" is summarily without merit. There are many "ethical" online resources that would pass any reasonable standard of authority on a subject. Just because it's available in cyberspace doesn't automatically disqualify it. In my readings of late, including within the academic and esteemed professions, documentation of online sources has become an accepted resource.
In University, most websites are considered unethical unless they are parallel between a printed referreed journal. As such, most online sources don't follow this guideline, and they can't be used as ethical or reliable sources.
I'm uncertain what contemporary standards/sources you are pointing to that "forbid" online referencing as a viable source of information. And, I'm not sure how you became the final judge of what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.

My impression is that this is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Nope, it's called taking the cautious road as opposed to accepting other people's word as canon truth. :p

-- Bridget
 
Upvote 0