Is it possible that conservatives really don't know much about the Bible...

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Gen. 19:4-5 . . .
"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they [the men of Sodom described in verse 4] called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (emphasis mine)

The text is my evidence.

This is a beautiful example of prooftexting; you are taking two verses, and ignoring the verses RIGHT NEXT TO THEM.

Which specific verses are being ignored? And, what is the point(s) in the passages that you think I have missed?

You have read something into the text. The text never indicates that there is any sexual desire. Rape is not generally a question of sexual desire.

I don't think I have read anything into the text at all. The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the two male strangers. The meaning of the word "know" can be clearly seen in Gen. 4:1. Adam "knew" Eve . . . and a baby resulted. Likewise, Cain knew his wife and a baby resulted (4:17). And, Adam knew his wife again . . . and surprise, surprise . . . another baby (4:25). I think it should be rather obvious what the word "know" means.

Now, since we can clearly discern that the men of Sodom desired to have sexual relations with the two male strangers, we have to ask ourselves why. Was it solely to exercise dominance or power over them? Unless I'm badly mistaken, doesn't there have to be some attraction or stimulous for the male equipment to be able to perform sexually. If I wanted to dominate another man, I would have to think of a different way to do it than having sex with him. Unless, of course, I was attracted to men . . . which I'm not. If I was attracted to men, and I wanted to dominate them . . . well, this is what you have in Gen. 19:5. You have to be attracted to men to do what the men of Sodom wanted to do to the two strangers. Simple as that.

Men desiring men is homosexuality.

Men desiring strangers is xenophobia.

Men desiring "male strangers" could be either, and you must study it to find out which.

Good. You finally acknowledged that men desiring men is homosexuality. But, then you messed it up again. What difference does it make if the men they desired were strangers or not? Men desiring men - - whether strange men or men they already knew - - is homosexuality.

Your blatent eisegesis is a stunning condemnation of your supposed respect for the Bible. What you say is, quite simply, not the position that Christians or Jews held on this passage for three thousand years; it is the position that would be useful to you if it were true, and Truth be damned.

Pardon me, but I have yet to see you go to any passage of Scripture to show where I have gotten off-track. Instead, you appeal to the Jews, Christians, Isaiah, Ezekial, and Christ. Do you really think talking in such generalities proves anything? What I am looking for is the passage (or passages) that shows me where my thinking varies from what God's word teaches. Bluntly stated, can you show me where exactly in Isaiah, Ezekial, or in the teaching of our Lord the passages are located that refute what I conclude from Gen. 19:5 and Jude 7 about the men of Sodom? It is one thing to make a charge, but quite another to "back it up." Thus far, you are only a "well without water" (see 2 Pet. 2:17 . . . and its context).

So be it. You may believe whatever you want, but what you believe is achieved only by reading additional thoughts and ideas into the Bible in contradiction of the ones already there. You may believe what you want, but I will trust Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Christ to interpret this passage for me, and believe the truth. You may cling to your lies.

Thank you. My faith is based on Rom. 10:17. I don't base my faith solely on select passages of Scripture will dismissing what others say about the same topic. I firmly believe that all Scriptures that discuss Sodom must be considered to get an accurage picture of what the nature of those people was like - - including Gen. 19:5 and Jude 7.

By the way, you didn't answer my simple questions from the last post about which aspect of Christ was true in Matthew chapter 2 and which aspect of Sodom was true as given in various passages. I am really beginning to understand now why you won't discuss 2 Tim. 3:16a. You really don't believe that all Scripture is inspired, do you? So, can you give us guidance on which ones are?

 

[- DRA -]

To put it in a simpler perspective:

In Judges 19, a similar event happens. Men gang-rape some women.

By your argument, "Men desiring women is heterosexuality." So, is heterosexuality thus condemned?

Nope. Heterosexuality is not condemned. It is how fornication (the Greek word porneia) is avoided - - a man is to "have" his own wife" and a woman her own husband (1 Cor. 7:2).

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is specifically condemned (Rom. 1:26-27). It is a characteristic of a society that has turned away from God (verses 18:-32).

 

[- DRA -]

I guess you're unfamiliar with the phrase "prison b****?"

Male on male rape is exclusively about power and humiliation. The fact that you think rape isn't totally about having power over someone disturbs me. That's a scary mentality for someone to have.

Nope. I am familiar with the term.

Sorry, but I don't buy into your concept that men rape other men exclusively for power and humiliation. If there wasn't something that sexually stimulated the man doing the raping, then the rape wouldn't occur.

I believe rape involves elements of power and humiliation, but rape is still a sexual crime. And sex is involved. And a man is not a machine. There has to be some sexual excitement or arousal for the man to be able to perform. That's just the way "things" work. Without it, "things" wouldn't work - - and there could be no rape at all - - unless a foreign object was used.

 

[seebs]

I think the continued equivocation and games played with human sexuality pretty much speak for themselves. If you have to throw away that much biology to make a position work, it's dead.

 

[- DRA -]

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Maybe in that crowd there were a few "gay men"; but the vast majority would have been straight. Male on male rape is a form of subjugation often practised by an occupying force or an oppressive regime against a dissident minority. In short, it's on a continuum with the kind of sexual humiliation activity American troops recently perpertrated on Iraqi prisoners in AlGhiraib prison. Roman soldiers used it to humiliate the "barbarians" they'd just defeated. Rape is always about power; it is never about "sexual orientation."

I am looking at Gen. 19:4-5, but do not see any evidence to conclude that "there were a few 'gay men'; but the vast majority would have been straight." The wording of the text gives me the direct impression that the opposite of what you describe occurred.

Rape is commonly used by armies or occupying forces upon the conquered people. This is not the issue, although it should be pointed out that in most cases the natural order of sexuality is followed in these types of rapes - - men have sex with the women, not with the men. Also, I don't see that men who use a foreign object to rape another man is the issue. I can envision a heterosexual man doing that to another man to humiliate him. What I cannot envision is a heterosexual man having sex with another man just to humiliate him. I am under the direct impression that a man must be aroused to have sex, and that a man that is aroused by another man is oriented in a way that is unnatural and shameful (Rom. 1:27). Sexual orientation is a factor is these types of rapes. A man that is sexually aroused by another man is oriented to homosexuality.

 

[- DRA -]

I think the continued equivocation and games played with human sexuality pretty much speak for themselves. If you have to throw away that much biology to make a position work, it's dead.

Let's see. I'm sure that 2 Pet. 2:17 says something about a "well without water." Yep. There it is. And, it still applies.

 

[Gish]

I'm confused why you would think this, people on the right wing aren't monsters, and to suggest this is the logical conclusion to their beliefs is...well just wrong.
tulc(and a little inflammatory) (IMHO)

Firstly, being anti-abortion has nothing to do with being politically right-wing, the association comes about because of the connection between the Republican party and conservative Christianity.

There is nothing wrong with the State having control over child rearing, there is no infringement of liberty. See "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, child rearing affects others and is therefore a legitimate area for the government to control.

On that basis it is certainly just and morally right to prevent a women from having a child where Her having that child is likely to be detrimental to society.

The right-wing is supposed to encourage personal responsibility, and not reliance upon the State. If someone has had half a dozen kids and is on welfare, of course its "right-wing" to make sure they don't have any more!!


As far as you using the term "monsters", that is emotive language based on your own set of values.

 

[tulc]

Anyone genuinely right-wing, would not only support abortion, but support forced abortions where the mother is likely unable to raise the child well.

As far as you using the term "monsters", that is emotive language based on your own set of values.

Hmm woman gets pregnant, someone kills the baby because they don't think she can raise it right.....Sound a little monsterous to me. Give me another word for it and I'll use that instead. I'm thinking "I know a lot of right-wing Christians (shoot I used to be one!) and the idea they would support forced abortions is well wrong. (IMHO) I was just afraid of demonizing someone just because they don't agree with my politics.
tulc(oh and sorry, I should have said hello in the first place!
Welcome to CF! )

 

[- DRA -]

DRA,
Hey bro!

I know that some of the Law has been nailed to the Cross with Christ, I was just saying that not all of it has been. Only the parts that needed to have the Messiah fulfill them (the cermonial laws, the sacrificial rituals, the rites of purification [with the exception of Baptism]).

I suggest shying away from the "some" of the Law was nailed to the cross concept. Just use the language that the Bible uses (1 Pet. 4:11a). When I look at Col. 2:14, I don't read that some of the Law was nailed to the cross. The law was nailed to the cross. I urge you to carefully study and consider Gal. 5:1-4. A person finds themself in trouble trying to justify themself or a practice by "some" of the law. It's an ALL or NOTHING proposition. If you're going to keep some of the law, you're indebted to keep the whole law.

I mean Ten Commandment "and such" as in the moral and ethical codes. We are still expected to stay away from sin, and excommunicate unrepentant sinners (I always took "stone to death" as a euphamism for excommunicate or banish).

Agreed. We are indeed still expected to stay away from sin.

Stoning was a way to separate those who were guilty of certain offenses.

It is good for the Christian to be mindful of the consequences of sin under the law of Moses - - stoning. Hebrews 2:1-3 uses the consequences for sin under the Law as a reminder to Christians that they will not escape God's punishment if they "neglect so great a salvation." While they won't be stoned, they still will not escape God's punishment when they neglect the gospel and turn to sin.

I agree with you about the Sermon on the Mount and the OT. I am glad to have another Christian realize this!

My previous post was only to point out to other Christians that we should not think of the Old Testament as an invalid book, we should see it as a foundation on which the New Testament was built.

Excellent point. The O.T. is indeed the foundation of the N.T. While we do not live under the old law today, there are so many things and lessons that we can learn from that law.

P.S.
Thanks for your comment! I turned away from Atheism 3 years ago after being a hard-hearted Atheist for 4 1/2 years. It took alot of prayer, church-going, Bible reading, and being proselytized to, but it worked!

Good. You made it. That's what counts.

 

[CaDan]

Now, since we can clearly discern that the men of Sodom desired to have sexual relations with the two male strangers, we have to ask ourselves why. Was it solely to exercise dominance or power over them? Unless I'm badly mistaken, doesn't there have to be some attraction or stimulous for the male equipment to be able to perform sexually. If I wanted to dominate another man, I would have to think of a different way to do it than having sex with him. Unless, of course, I was attracted to men . . . which I'm not. If I was attracted to men, and I wanted to dominate them . . . well, this is what you have in Gen. 19:5. You have to be attracted to men to do what the men of Sodom wanted to do to the two strangers. Simple as that.

CaDan Court sentences you to read Kinsey before you have any credibility on this issue. Please submit written documentation of your compliance before asking me to believe anything you have to say about human sexuality.

SO ORDERED
/s/
CaDan

 

[Sola Gratia]

I think the continued equivocation and games played with human sexuality pretty much speak for themselves. If you have to throw away that much biology to make a position work, it's dead.

Indeed.

The rectum was created to elimate waste from the human body .

It was never intended to be a receptical . Biology does speak for itself .

That is why one does not need to force a false meaning into the clear words of the bible to know what the "natural use" spoken of in Romans means.

 

[seebs]

That is why one does not need to force a false meaning into the clear words of the bible to know what the "natural use" spoken of in Romans means.

This has a grand total of absolutely nothing to do with the Sodom story, however.

This is the point that was being made; some people are coming to the text with a clear commitment that it must be found to say X, and will search around for things that might hint that someone might have wanted to say X, so maybe they said it here too, rather than just letting the story be what it is.

 

[artybloke]

I am looking at Gen. 19:4-5, but do not see any evidence to conclude that "there were a few 'gay men'; but the vast majority would have been straight." The wording of the text gives me the direct impression that the opposite of what you describe occurred.

Well, I have read the whole passage in several different versions and see no implication whatsoever that they were wholly, or even mainly homosexual. In fact, nowhere in the text does it say anything about the mens' sexuality at all. Not surprising really: the concept of sexual orientation would be an anachronismin in the Bible as it was only discovered in the 19th century. All it says is that they wanted to have sex with the two angels. Considering that in even the most liberal estimates, only 10% of any given population are likely to be homosexual, I can't believe that the whole of the male population of a city would have been gay. What would the women of the city have done? Sucked their thumbs?

This is male rape, pure and simple, about power and domination and nothing to do with homosexuality. It's about what the Roman army (straight men all) did to the barbarians.

 

[- DRA -]

CaDan Court sentences you to read Kinsey before you have any credibility on this issue. Please submit written documentation of your compliance before asking me to believe anything you have to say about human sexuality.

SO ORDERED
/s/
CaDan

Sorry, CaDan . . . but I don't look to Kinsey on matters that God has spoken about. I tend to be of the mindset that God is the authority on such things. God plainly tells us that men desiring other men sexually is unnatural and shameful (Rom. 1:27). It is unnatural and shameful whether it is rape or not. The men of Sodom desired to "know" or have sex with the two male strangers in Gen. 19:5. Enough said. I am not asking you to believe me. I am simply sharing with you God's viewpoint and judgment on this aspect of sexuality. What you decide to do with God's word is up to you.

 

[- DRA -]

Well, I have read the whole passage in several different versions and see no implication whatsoever that they were wholly, or even mainly homosexual. In fact, nowhere in the text does it say anything about the mens' sexuality at all. Not surprising really: the concept of sexual orientation would be an anachronismin in the Bible as it was only discovered in the 19th century. All it says is that they wanted to have sex with the two angels. Considering that in even the most liberal estimates, only 10% of any given population are likely to be homosexual, I can't believe that the whole of the male population of a city would have been gay. What would the women of the city have done? Sucked their thumbs?

This is male rape, pure and simple, about power and domination and nothing to do with homosexuality. It's about what the Roman army (straight men all) did to the barbarians.

Really? Then how did you miss Gen. 19:4-5? . . .
4 "Now before they [the two angels that came to Sodom in verse 1] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter , surrounded the house.
5 And they [the men of Sodom described in verse 4] called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (NKJV- emphasis mine)

Now, let's gather some more evidence before we draw any rash conclusions. Consider the discussion between God and Abraham in Gen. 18:16-33. How many righteous men do you conclude there were in the city? I can definitely conclude that there were less than ten - - by God's promise in 18:32 and the fact that He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in 19:24.

How did these unrighteous men conduct themselves in Genesis 19? The first scene that is brought to our attention is "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter" surrounding Lot's house (verse 4). The text plainly tells us that this was not the action of a few men of the city, but of "all from every quarter." The text then directs us to what the men of Sodom wanted - - they wanted Lot to bring out the "men" who were staying with him. Then, the text tells us what the men of Sodom wanted with the men staying with Lot - - they wanted to "know" them sexually. While verse 1 clearly directly states that the two men who came to Sodom were angels, it is also clearly stated in verse 5 that the men of Sodom thought these were just men - - they did not know they were angels - - by all physical appearances they were men.

Lot tells us his view of what the men of Sodom wanted to do to with what they thought were just two men - - Lot says it is wicked (verse 7).

Lot goes out to the men of Sodom and offers them his two virgin daughters instead of the two men. The men of Sodom reject the offer and decide to take Lot (and threaten to do worse with him than they intended to do with the two strangers) and come near to break down the door (verses 8-9). The two angels intervene . . . they pull Lot inside the house and shut the door. They blind the men of Sodom, but the men of Sodom persist in trying to find the door until they grow weary (verses 10-11). The two angels led Lot, his wife, and his two daughters out of the city the next morning (verses 16). Then the LORD rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah.

Reflecting on these aspects of the story, unless I consider 2 Thess. 2:10-12, I do not see how you can miss the basic facts of this story. The city was wicked . . . and the city was destroyed. The sexual orientation of the men of the city was clear during this event - - they desired the two men (at least, they thought they were men), rejected two women, but then decided to take both Lot and the men. That my friend, whether or not you want to accept it or admit it, is homosexuality - - not heterosexuality.

I don't know how you can conclude from a Bible perspective that sexual orientation was only discovered in the 19th. century. Do you not understand what Adam figured out in Gen. 4:1? And, Cain in Gen. 4:17? And, Adam again in Gen. 4:25? And, Seth (4:26) and the men that follow in Genesis chapter 5?
It seems the early fathers had absolutely no trouble figuring out God's natural orientation for sexuality (Rom. 1:26-27). The first recorded incident we find where men looked to other men for sex is in Genesis chapter 19. I am left with the impression that this was a characteristic of a city that had given itself over to wickedness. While I fully realize there are some other aspects of the people of Sodom that are later revealed by the prophets e.g. Ezekial 16:49-50, I also realize that the Sodomites were indeed a people "given over to sexual immorality" and that they went after "strange flesh" (Jude 7).

The Bible does NOT say the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with two angels. Rather, it clearly tells us what they wanted in Gen. 19:5. - - they wanted the "men." While it is true that these two men were angels (19:1), the men of Sodom did not know that - - they thought they were just men.

Why can't you believe what the Bible tells you about the number of men that were homosexual in Sodom in Gen. 19:4? If faith is based on the "hearing of God's word" (Rom. 10:17), and you listen to God's word but just don't accept it, then what do you call the conclusions you've drawn? Since Jesus tells us the two sources of authority in spiritual matters in Matt. 21:23-27, I'll leave it up to you to determine which category your reasoning falls under.

Let's see now. You want me to think that a man that has nonconsensual sex with another man is heterosexual, but a man that has consensual sex with another man is homosexual. Sorry, but I'm not buying this reasoning. It's unnatural . . . period (Rom. 1:27).

 

[Gish]

Hmm woman gets pregnant, someone kills the baby because they don't think she can raise it right.....

It would be killing an embryo or foetus, not killing a baby.

Sound a little monsterous to me. Give me another word for it and I'll use that instead.

I don't doubt it sounds a little monstrous to you, but I think its a little mischievous to ask for "another word for it"...

If you really want my suggestion, it would be something like "responsible" or "libertarian".

I'm thinking "I know a lot of right-wing Christians (shoot I used to be one!) and the idea they would support forced abortions is well wrong. (IMHO)

I never claimed anything like, "right-wing Christians support forced abortions".

 

[Gish]

Indeed.

The rectum was created to elimate waste from the human body .

It was never intended to be a receptical . Biology does speak for itself .

I have to say that I think sex has a natural social function, that makes talk of "Biology" a little redundant.


(This is in general, and not aimed at the specific point made by Sola Gratia)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

DRA - you spend a great number of paragraphs failing dismally to address artybloke's point that male rape is about power, not sex and is usually done by men whose normal orientation is heterosexual.

And even if the orientation of these men in Sodom (what, all of them???) was homosexual, the fact remains that what they wanted to do would still have been evil had they thought the angels had been women! It is as easy to see the evil being the attempt to take by force, not the sexuality itself.

It still seems to me, despite the many restating of the same points over and over again, that those who wish to turn the Sodom story into a condemnation of love-based homosexual relationships have a mountain to climb, and are currently not even off the tarmac road and lacing up their gaiters.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA - you spend a great number of paragraphs failing dismally to address artybloke's point that male rape is about power, not sex and is usually done by men whose normal orientation is heterosexual.

And even if the orientation of these men in Sodom (what, all of them???) was homosexual, the fact remains that what they wanted to do would still have been evil had they thought the angels had been women! It is as easy to see the evil being the attempt to take by force, not the sexuality itself.

It still seems to me, despite the many restating of the same points over and over again, that those who wish to turn the Sodom story into a condemnation of love-based homosexual relationships have a mountain to climb, and are currently not even off the tarmac road and lacing up their gaiters.

Ever read or consider 1 Pet 4:11a? This seems to be one aspect that you are deficient in.

Can you show from Matt. 19:4-6, 1 Cor. 7:1-9, or Rom. 1:26-27 where "love-based homosexual relationships" are approved by God?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You're going to have to demonstrate to me the relevance of the 1 Peter verse here - in context.

The passages approving loving homosexual relationships are between the ones approving the use of cars and those on international trade rules.