Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[BCP1928]

So I think its wrong to just dismiss all that history as myth, fables of a more backward time and now we are so much more wise and together. In fact I think the key to our survival, to living together has already been played out over and over again through our lived experiences. This is the best source of knowledge and truth.

I doubt that we are any more wise and together than we ever were, but myths and fables come and go. One doesn't have to be exceptionally wise and together to see that it's time for the myth of the innate superiority of Western Christian culture to go.

 

[stevevw]

No, you can't "catch the gay" (or "the trans"). These are not social contagions.

I'm not sure about that. Its no different to other ways humans transmite behaviour. Certainly for gender non congruence it can be. The basic idea is that the person self identifies based oin feelings and a sense about themselves.

There is no objective basis and its a subjective determination so at the very least there is a chance of false positives by the simple fact there is no objective basis between someone believing so but later realising they were wrong and those who may truely have some underlying basis for their incongruence.

This has been verified by the increase in Trans regret and how even some Gender Clinics admitted they rushed people through and many were known to have underlying psychological problems and were not actually Trans. This included Gays and some with Autism who were wrongly diagnosed as Trans.

Its also evident in the large spikes that have occurred in recent years of sudden onset gender dysphoria where spates of young people especially females identified as opposite sex but were not trans and often lesbians or had psychological issues with their bodies.

What we are now seeing from rise of identity being a real aspect of humans is also an increase in people identifying as other things like the increasing list of gender identities or with animals, Furries, different ages, races, ethnic groups, social groups and all sorts of various metaphysical identities that the person actually embodies and develops language, mannerisms and become that identiity.

Even mainstream identities have taken on different meaning for many young people. They are not just happy with themseves but have to add something to make their identity special. Thats not saying individuals are not special as they are. And thats the point. It seems people are not happy with just who they are.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not sure about that. Its no different to other ways humans transmite behaviour. Certainly for gender non congruence it can be. The basic idea is that the person self identifies based oin feelings and a sense about themselves.

That is true for everybody. It's basic human nature.

There is no objective basis and its a subjective determination so at the very least there is a chance of false positives by the simple fact there is no objective basis between someone believing so but later realising they were wrong and those who may truely have some underlying basis for their incongruence.

This has been verified by the increase in Trans regret and how even some Gender Clinics admitted they rushed people through and many were known to have underlying psychological problems and were not actually Trans. This included Gays and some with Autism who were wrongly diagnosed as Trans.

Its also evident in the large spikes that have occurred in recent years of sudden onset gender dysphoria where spates of young people especially females identified as opposite sex but were not trans and often lesbians or had psychological issues with their bodies.

What we are now seeing from rise of identity being a real aspect of humans is also an increase in people identifying as other things like the increasing list of gender identities or with animals, Furries, different ages, races, ethnic groups, social groups and all sorts of various metaphysical identities that the person actually embodies and develops language, mannerisms and become that identiity.

Even mainstream identities have taken on different meaning for many young people. They are not just happy with themseves but have to add something to make their identity special. Thats not saying individuals are not special as they are. And thats the point. It seems people are not happy with just who they are.

This comes under the category of "If I just found out about it, it must have just started, and if it seems to me that there is more of it around it must be getting worse."

 

[Hans Blaster]

But there is no book like the Bible in how it accounts for that order and not just divine or but reality.

THe problem with that statement is that the Bible doesn't do that, or at least not very well.

It doesn't "account for [the] order" of the universe. Not in the slightest. I doesn't even describe reality well. Reading the bible can lead you to finish *less* informed about natural things.

As for the divine, the story keeps changing as you read it. Different theologies appear at different places in the texts; Texts get reinterpreted; etc. The variety of theological interpretations of the texts staggering.

A big chunk of the text is historical in nature (the historical books). History is important to understanding the nature of how things are, but the historical parts are just about one small, and unimportant nation on the edge of the Med. (It is after all, the collective religious texts of a small, unimportant nation.) If history is important to this understanding, the bible provides a very, very narrow scope of history.

As for the moral teachings, they tend to be limited in scope and mostly just pronouncements without elaboration or commentary.

I'm sure you will disagree.

Yes but that doesn't mean it was Gods order. Humans and nature can become disordered. Trans is not part of natural human behaviour, Humans are not designed to have a different identity to their physical sex reality. Its conflicting with how the body is meant to be.

Humans have reproductive systems that enable us to continue to procreate and survive. Often what we find with those who experience gender incongruence is a mismatch between physical development and brain sex hormones. They are seperate areas of development and due to various reasons they misalign from what is the normal deveopmental trajectory.

Otherwise there is often an underlying psychological problem/s where some reject their bodies and not just Trans but also other forms of Body Dysmorphism. Or Autism and other psychological issues which once address the person often realigns with their nate gender.

There are only two genders related to sex biologically. What is known as Intersex is not about gender but physical anomelies related to the development of normal physical sex. As well as variations in genitals, homones and chromosomes there are other complications that are comorbid which shows its not a normal human variant but that something happened during normal development.

Pretending that it is would be like saying other anomelies in development are normal variations of humans.

Most of what has been referenced from the Bible in this entire, lengthy thread, could probably be written on a few standard Bible pages. For the text above the only relevant (and very short) text is summarized: "Don't dress like a woman." That's all the Bible has to say on this topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not sure about that. Its no different to other ways humans transmite behaviour. Certainly for gender non congruence it can be. The basic idea is that the person self identifies based oin feelings and a sense about themselves.

Go read some stuff, because you are clearly wrong. Sexual identity/preference is not transmitted. The scientific literature is quite clear. Gender identity is a bit more complicated, because all gender identity is based on reference to cultural gender norms. Certainly one must observe gender identity in action to sort out ones own identity, but the evidence does not support the notion that non-conforming gender identity is contagious.

 

[stevevw]

Go read some stuff, because you are clearly wrong. Sexual identity/preference is not transmitted. The scientific literature is quite clear. Gender identity is a bit more complicated, because all gender identity is based on reference to cultural gender norms. Certainly one must observe gender identity in action to sort out ones own identity, but the evidence does not support the notion that non-conforming gender identity is contagious.

I think you may need to do some reading. I am not sure what you mean by sexual identity. This seems to conflate gender and sex which is often part of why it can be confused as far as gender identity and what leads to people believing unreal ideas about themselves and the world.

As with most human behaviour it is not entirely culturally or naturally based and is a bit of both. The idea that gendered behaviour is entirely culturally or socicall constructed is actually not based in science. But this socially constructed idea is the very basis for why subjective identity can be a form of social contagon to varying degrees because its shared culturally and socially.

If its not a form of social contagion then why all the young people especially females identifying as Trans only to change their mind later. Why do these young people identify in spates. Similar to suicide spates with Indigenous youth where it seems this tendency rubs off, causes others within the community to copycate the behaviour.

I mean why on earth would a society create such an idea that people are in the wrong bodies in that it would cause so much suffering and conflict.

All gender identity is not just based on reference to cultural gender norms and what generally is has a natural basis. For example the idea that boys play with trucks and girls dolls has a biological basis. Culture just builds on this and varies it even if that is opposite sex behaviour.

Masculline and Femine is not socially contructed. These are natural sexed aspects of the brain due to hormones. They have an influence on our thinking and expression of gender. You can't socially reconstruct a male to become feminine nor feminine to be masculline.

Just like you can't phsyically reconstruct a male to be a female or a female to be a male in the true sense. That is the unreality of making identity, a subjective determination completely detached from physical and objective reality the True measure of social reality. It doesn't work and we have seen this in real life situations and don't need anymore evidence. It defies reality and when we do that reality has a way of coming back to bite us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is that the deal then? That if being gay is a sin then it has to be a choice?

Your question doesn't really follow the context of what I thought I was answering.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think you may need to do some reading. I am not sure what you mean by sexual identity.

I literally put "/orientation" right after identity (sexual identity/orientation) and I had said in the immediate prior post about not "catching the gay". It is pretty obvious.

 

[stevevw]

How? By gender nonconformity in dress?

We all know its more than that. Just read the bodfy language.

You think drag queens read to kids because it arouses them sexually? That you are willing to entertain such a fantasy should be disturbing to you

Well then I am in the same company as most people. It would seem anyone who supports this idea are the disturbed ones. There is always a sexual aspect to it. Its not kids pantomine as the Woke claim. It has obvious sexual undertones. Put it this way a fair percentage of Drag Queens are autogynephilic so we cannot assume that this is all about DEI.

This is the problem that the Woke automatically assume anything that resembles DEI is nobel no matter what. Its the same thinking where the LBGTIQ+ community include groups like Hamas under DEI ideology and overlook the terror they cause. Or how they force women to accept males into their spaces and roll back their rights.

 

[stevevw]

I literally put "/orientation" right after identity (sexual identity/orientation) and I had said in the immediate prior post about not "catching the gay". It is pretty obvious.

It wasn't that clear as you also linked Trans and Gay which is not necessarily the case as far as identity. Identity and sex are not always the same. The LGB part of the LGBTIQ+ community actually are in conflict with the 'T' within the community. The 'T' also conflates the 'I' (intersex) with Trans when its not the case for the vast majority as they identify with their nate gender.

Sexual orientation is often based on biology and the sexed brain where imbalances in the expression of sex hormones causes opposite sex orientation. But if its not otherwise based in biology then does that mean its created due to culture, due to social constructions about what is male and female. That theres no real differences and humans can be recreated to be attracted to the opposite sex due to social conditioning.

That seems like other cultural and social influences a social influence similar to how groups can influence peoples beliefs and mindsets into behaviours. If thats the case then though not a contagion it is similar in that its brought on by social and cultural influences that have no basis in anything objective. Similar to how culture or social influences can influence irrational behaviour like cults or ideologies that are unreal.

Where do you draw the line. How do you even tell the difference between someone who may truely be orientated towards something due to some objective basis as opposed to those who are creating this in their heads without any basis in reality. There has to be some grounding otherwise we could think any behaviour is normal and ok.

 

[BCP1928]

It wasn't that clear as you also linked Trans and Gay which is not necessarily the case as far as identity. Identity and sex are not always the same. The LGB part of the LGBTIQ+ community actually are in conflict with the 'T' within the community. The 'T' also conflates the 'I' (intersex) with Trans when its not the case for the vast majority as they identify with their nate gender.


Where do you draw the line. How do you even tell the difference between someone who may truely be orientated towards something due to some objective basis as opposed to those who are creating this in their heads without any basis in reality. There has to be some grounding otherwise we could think any behaviour is normal and ok.

No we couldn't. Behavior is judged on it's own merits. The reasons for it only become important if the behavior is harmful.

 

[BCP1928]

We all know its more than that. Just read the bodfy language.

Well then I am in the same company as most people.

Most people don't think that drag queens are sexually aroused by reading to children.

It would seem anyone who supports this idea are the disturbed ones. There is always a sexual aspect to it. Its not kids pantomine as the Woke claim. It has obvious sexual undertones. Put it this way a fair percentage of Drag Queens are autogynephilic so we cannot assume that this is all about DEI.

This is the problem that the Woke automatically assume anything that resembles DEI is nobel no matter what. Its the same thinking where the LBGTIQ+ community include groups like Hamas under DEI ideology and overlook the terror they cause. Or how they force women to accept males into their spaces and roll back their rights.

LGBTs are in league with Hamas?

 

[stevevw]

That he rambles and talks in circles? It's hard to watch his content and think he is concise and straightforward speaker. (And don't blame this on his status as "an academic". I know a lot of "academics" and the vast majority are far more concise and straightforward in their words than Peterson.)

I am not sure what content you have watched. But the lecture linked is exactly about talking out the thinking behind the behaviour as its a academic class. Its not just about being concise but explaining the rational or irrational thinking behind behaviour for learning purposes. I understood what he was saying and appreciated the elaboration as it helps get good insights.

But it depends on what you watch as much of what he says is concise and right on point. Like the Rules for life such as stand up straight with shoulders back because posture reflects the mindset as far as being positive or negative in your outlook on life. Sure theres more to say on this. But the fundemental principle is simple and straightforward. A lot of his work is like this.

It may be that you miss much of what he says because its over your head. You don't have an appreciated for psychology and human behaviour and how this fits with life.

I can think of no better example of this than the repeated, multi-minute failures to answer the simple question: "Do you believe in god?" that occurred in many a debate or conversation when he was taking what is usually the "pro-god" side. It was like he was scared to say "yes" or "I'm not sure" or even "no" (but given the response, "no" seemed unlikely). I think he was trying to "politician" his biggest fans because his "divine beliefs" were a bit unorthodox all while praising the virtues of traditional religion.

Actually thats a good example of how he thinks on his feet and doesn't contrive answers or promote agendas. He is being honest and as he is a clinical psychologist it is obvious that he is not going to answer that with a simple yes or no reply as its too simple and doesn;t reflect what belief represents.

Often he replies "what exactly do you mean by belief" which is a fair question as many assume that what people say is what they believe. He thinks belief is what you actually do. So he could or any person could just say "yes I believe in God" but actually not support that in how they behave.

I think this is a much richer answer as it brings up a good point about belief and behaviour and how what people say is different to how they behave. If anything he says he behaves like a Christian as he thinks this is a productive and healthy way to behave. He sees the psychological and behavioural benefits of acting like a Christian.

I'd like to see those who think his speaking style isn't rambling.

I guess that would be the 100s of thousands he has helped in his clinical work, lectures, papers, books and podcasts. Obviously he has hit a note with many who relate and derive benefit from what he has to say.

Why Dr. Jordan Peterson matters to young men

Why Dr. Jordan Peterson matters to young men

By Jonathon Van Maren Dr. Jordan Peterson is once again traveling the continent giving lectures on his 2021 book Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. In response, the Jordan Peterson explainers are popping up in the papers, with various pointy-headed pundits attempting to articulate why...

thebridgehead.ca

Do they ramble? iI so, they might also be insufferable, but it would be a mistake to assume so. You do know I wasn't referring to the content (such that it is) of his talks when I called him insufferable, but to his style, right?

Ok yeah he can come across as miserable and irritable. But when you knw the man behind the persona then he is not like that. In fact it is that public display of being himself, and even critiquing his own behaviour warts and all that make him interesting and different to others that may have agendas. He doesn't cancel people and allows all questions even to the point of others rideculing him.

The classic example was the famous interview between Peterson and Cathy Newman was having a go at him for his views that to have free speech to establish the truth we have to also risk offending some while she was offending him in order to find the truth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am not sure what content you have watched. But the lecture linked is exactly about talking out the thinking behind the behaviour as its a academic class. Its not just about being concise but explaining the rational or irrational thinking behind behaviour for learning purposes. I understood what he was saying and appreciated the elaboration as it helps get good insights.

I said that I'd seen him in debates and interviews and the like. He rambles.

But it depends on what you watch as much of what he says is concise and right on point. Like the Rules for life such as stand up straight with shoulders back because posture reflects the mindset as far as being positive or negative in your outlook on life. Sure theres more to say on this. But the fundemental principle is simple and straightforward. A lot of his work is like this.

His rules are pointless and dumb. My posture has nothing to do with my mindset or outlook. This is Peterson presenting conformity talk.

It may be that you miss much of what he says because its over your head. You don't have an appreciated for psychology and human behaviour and how this fits with life.

Nice jab.

Actually thats a good example of how he thinks on his feet and doesn't contrive answers or promote agendas. He is being honest and as he is a clinical psychologist it is obvious that he is not going to answer that with a simple yes or no reply as its too simple and doesn;t reflect what belief represents.

When a man won't answer a simple question...

Often he replies "what exactly do you mean by belief" which is a fair question as many assume that what people say is what they believe. He thinks belief is what you actually do. So he could or any person could just say "yes I believe in God" but actually not support that in how they behave.

Which is a very dumb way to answer. His non-answers to the 'god-belief" question were quite clearly designed to avoid having to actually answer it. You don't need to be a psychologist to see that.

I think this is a much richer answer as it brings up a good point about belief and behaviour and how what people say is different to how they behave. If anything he says he behaves like a Christian as he thinks this is a productive and healthy way to behave. He sees the psychological and behavioural benefits of acting like a Christian.

I guess that would be the 100s of thousands he has helped in his clinical work, lectures, papers, books and podcasts. Obviously he has hit a note with many who relate and derive benefit from what he has to say.

"Blah blah blah" --- that's what I get from Peterson. A dope who thinks he's really clever and likes to hear himself talk.

 

[stevevw]

I said that I'd seen him in debates and interviews and the like. He rambles.

You call it rambling others don't. Perhaps its more about ideological outlook than content.

His rules are pointless and dumb. My posture has nothing to do with my mindset or outlook. This is Peterson presenting conformity talk.

He starts with the posture as this is the physical manifestation of the mindset at least for those who don't have any physical disabilities. But we know that psychology is behind many physical manifestations. He then elaborates how this is related to mind, the psyche. This is psychology 101.

Body Posture Affects Confidence In Your Own Thoughts, Study Finds
The results show how our body posture can affect not only what others think about us, but also how we think about ourselves,

Body Posture Affects Confidence In Your Own Thoughts, Study Finds

Sitting up straight in your chair isn't just good for your posture -- it also gives you more confidence in your own thoughts, according to a new study. Researchers found that people who were told to sit up straight were more likely to believe thoughts they wrote down while in that posture...

www.sciencedaily.com

Heads Up! Good Posture Helps Both Your Mind and Your Body
Slouching can be hazardous to your mental health as well as to physical health.

Heads Up! Good Posture Helps Both Your Mind and Your Body

Would you like a simple way to look better, feel better, and improve your mood? Practicing good posture has both mental and physical health benefits.

www.psychologytoday.com

Nice jab.

Well I am not sure why else you would make this objection. Perhaps you take a more a reductivist and behaviouralist view that everything is conditioned or physically caused.

When a man won't answer a simple question...

But the point is these are not simple questions. To say that they are is perhaps the problem. Expecting a simple answer to a more complex issue is unreal.

Which is a very dumb way to answer. His non-answers to the 'god-belief" question were quite clearly designed to avoid having to actually answer it. You don't need to be a psychologist to see that.

No I don't think he is avoiding any answer. I mean this is an either/or fallacy that people must answer yes or no to whether they believe and if they don't answer clearing with a yes or no they are avoiding the answer.

For some it is a case of they are just not sure, agnostic and have a more nuanced answer.

"Blah blah blah" --- that's what I get from Peterson. A dope who thinks he's really clever and likes to hear himself talk.

Well your dislike comes through. It seems more than just his content and more a personal difference.

 

[stevevw]

Most people don't think that drag queens are sexually aroused by reading to children.

I am not sure of that. And its the experts and not the Woke who go along that should be the determining factor. As at least a fair % of Drag Queens do suffer from autogynephilia this is just plain scientific fact that there will be some who are getting off on all of this. But in some ways the entire culture is geared towards expression and performance of sex. That is the whole point and to deny that is unreal.

By its very nature, drag is already unsuitable for children, based on the culture it flourished in and the way the artform communicates to its audience. It barely translates outside of the LGBTQ cultural bubble. The more you remove these elements, the less it resembles drag and the more it looks like advocacy for something kids just shouldn't be exposed to. You take away the cursing, the sexual inuendo, the revealing clothes, the provocative dress and the sharp political commentary, and you are left with an adult man in a dress mocking women and trying to convince children he is an ambassador for an entire community. It just doesn't work. It cannot work. '

Some cultural experiences are simply meant for adults and drag is one of them. They are not clowns or cartoon characters. They are not educators or counselors. They are entertainers. Their job is to take obscenity and irreverent humor and make it as glorious and exaggerated as their wigs and makeup.

Drag Is Never Appropriate for Kids

Some cultural experiences are simply meant for adults and drag is one of them. They are not clowns or cartoon characters.

www.newsweek.com

LGBTs are in league with Hamas?

Yes with groups like Gays and LGBTIQ+ for Palestine. They are among the many groups that protest against Isreal and chant from the "river to the sea Palestine will be free'. Which basically means wiping out the Jews and aligning with Hamas. In fact many say that Hamas is not terrorism but ligitimate resistence. Thats the unreal mentality.

Queers for Palestine: Identity Politics at Its Most Absurd
Leftists in English-speaking nations tend to see Palestinians (including Hamas) as an oppressed, brown victim class, whose freedom-fighting “resistance” against their oppressive, white, US-backed colonizers in Israel is a righteous cause with which to stand in solidarity. This facile view of the long-standing conflict in the Middle East leads to confused and contradictory thinking, as seen in the incoherent slogan (and now meme) “Queers for Palestine,” emblazoned on banners brandished at anti-Israel rallies.

The slogan has been widely satirized. Variations like “Chickens for KFC” and “Blacks for the KKK” highlight its proponents’ basic lack of awareness of just how incompatible the values of the Western left are with those of the Islamic right they so readily champion. The reality of the situation could not be starker. Though there is room for improvement in Israeli attitudes towards these issues, Israel is at the forefront of LGBT rights in the Middle East. In Israel, LGBT people are visible members of society with legal protections and civil rights, and are accepted by a plurality of its citizens.

Queers for Palestine: Identity Politics at Its Most Absurd

In Palestine, they’d be killed.

quillette.com

So what we seehere is how ideology can cause some to actually advocate for groups who want to dismantle their own rights and go against those who support them all for the sake of some simplistic ideological Marxist belief that sees the world as oppressors and victims while overlooking reality itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is that the deal then? That if being gay is a sin then it has to be a choice?

... the problem with this thread by Steve is that its reference point of "Sodom and Gomorrah" is ambiguous and centers too much on merely one aspect of what early Christians like Paul the Apostle cite as the wide corpus of "world sins."

The truth is, Modern Secular Society doesn't hinge on "being gay," but somehow this one single issue has become the supreme bogey-man and the primary target of those who think they can renovate society in a more or less militantly "Christian" way. Then, there's kick-back from those who adopt revolutionary modes of counter-force via Marxist/Communist lines of social philosophy.

As for the issue of being gay, I think there is a range of reasons as to why individuals identify in this way: some are born that way, while others experience social circumstances and influences that sway them into that direction. Not everything in the world is a clear case of "EITHER/OR."

 

[BCP1928]

You call it rambling others don't. Perhaps its more about ideological outlook than content.

He starts with the posture as this is the physical manifestation of the mindset at least for those who don't have any physical disabilities. But we know that psychology is behind many physical manifestations. He then elaborates how this is related to mind, the psyche. This is psychology 101.

Body Posture Affects Confidence In Your Own Thoughts, Study Finds
The results show how our body posture can affect not only what others think about us, but also how we think about ourselves,

Body Posture Affects Confidence In Your Own Thoughts, Study Finds

Sitting up straight in your chair isn't just good for your posture -- it also gives you more confidence in your own thoughts, according to a new study. Researchers found that people who were told to sit up straight were more likely to believe thoughts they wrote down while in that posture...

www.sciencedaily.com

Heads Up! Good Posture Helps Both Your Mind and Your Body
Slouching can be hazardous to your mental health as well as to physical health.

Heads Up! Good Posture Helps Both Your Mind and Your Body

Would you like a simple way to look better, feel better, and improve your mood? Practicing good posture has both mental and physical health benefits.

www.psychologytoday.com

Well I am not sure why else you would make this objection. Perhaps you take a more a reductivist and behaviouralist view that everything is conditioned or physically caused.

But the point is these are not simple questions. To say that they are is perhaps the problem. Expecting a simple answer to a more complex issue is unreal.

No I don't think he is avoiding any answer. I mean this is an either/or fallacy that people must answer yes or no to whether they believe and if they don't answer clearing with a yes or no they are avoiding the answer.

For some it is a case of they are just not sure, agnostic and have a more nuanced answer.

Well your dislike comes through. It seems more than just his content and more a personal difference.

What I get from his content is that he realizes that the old "masculine" stereotype isn't working out for men the way it used to. His excuse is not that it doesn't work any more but that it isn't being taught properly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But the point is these are not simple questions. To say that they are is perhaps the problem. Expecting a simple answer to a more complex issue is unreal.

Belief/non-belief generally isn't a "complex issue". Do you believe? Yes or no?

For most people this isn't a hard question to answer (or at least know the answer), though often we do not want to admit the answer. For some there is an ambiguity or indecisiveness and so the answer might be "I'm not sure". But, Peterson doesn't answer with the "not sure" answer, instead he avoids answering the question itself.

No I don't think he is avoiding any answer. I mean this is an either/or fallacy that people must answer yes or no to whether they believe and if they don't answer clearing with a yes or no they are avoiding the answer.

For some it is a case of they are just not sure, agnostic and have a more nuanced answer.

If that were Peterson's position on the issue no one (including I) would be bothered by it. (OK, the zealots that want Peterson to agree/disagree with them would be bothered, and that, I think is his motivation for prevarication. He doesn't want his biggest fans to think his religious position is different from theirs, so he lets them fill in the gap between his verbal dodges.)

 

[Halbhh]

I am interested in this as I was speaking to some friends the other day about how especially in the media, Hollywood, Music and entertainment there seems to be this pagan or even Satanic ritualistism going on. Things like wearing these head dresses with goat horns and other pagan symbols. Its always very provocative and sexual as well. Almost a celebration of our animalistic side.

I think I know what is happening. Just like in the days when people defied God they turned to nature, to animals and nature itself like Stone idols. Now that modern society is rejecting God this same belief is coming back. It may seem natural for people to worship nature as god. But primarily when this happens its not really about gods in nature but the self as god, about worship our naturalistic side.

Also in those times people were made gods when theres no transcendent God. As self is god desires and feelings and self experience becomes godlike in status. Therefore comfort, pleasure and all the good feelings are moral and the aweful feeling ones are sin similar to Hedonism

So are we seeing a repeat of the down fall of society like Sodom and Gormorrah or like with how Empires have fallen where morality breaksdown and where the created is worshipped and not the Creator which undermines Gods natural order into entropy and chaos as has happened before except on a much bigger scale.

Few know that later God Himself revealed the actual evils that merited the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God literally Himself speaks and says the reasons. (but not in Genesis...)

a) not caring about the poor and needy (that is, not giving food to the hungry), and ...

ok, I just realized it's better to just quote the words from God about why/what, because then anyone can see it for themselves:
------------

49 “‘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. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

-- The Lord God, speaking to Ezekiel (chapter 16)

(The words of God Himself speaking are in red)

-------
So, that's it. No other reasons were key. These are the key reasons.

If you hear someone claiming it was simply for various other stuff -- like promiscuous homosexuality, or the somewhat better informed reading of Genesis: for homosexual rape and likely intended murder -- even with that more informed version, someone saying these were the reasons is simply unaware of what God said are the reasons He destroyed these cities.

Of course every city on earth has had some promiscuous homosexuality, and has rapes, and has murders..... Obviously God did not destroy every city on Earth. We should trust God's words instead to be the why.