Sin & The Sodomites

[Floatingaxe]

The mob never said "we wish to rape your guests". Maybe they just wanted to take them for a drink. We don't know.

The Scriptures say that the huge mob wanted to have sex with the angels. Intentions were very clear.

Genesis 19:4-5
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."

 

[David Brider]

A homosexual worships something else.

Many of the homosexuals (and lesbians and bisexuals) on this forum worship Jesus, the same as you do.

David.

 

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

KC seems to be largely arguing from silence here. For instance in Genesis 13:13 the men of Sodom were called wicked and sinners, yet not one sin is mentioned.
​

Except you ignore that other scriptures do state the sin of Sodom, in particular Ezekiel, and none of them mention homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 states,

The phrase you're looking for is "same-sex sex", not homosexuality as that word didn't come into existence til many centuries later. Why are you trying to take a modern term and backtrack it to the Biblical times? That just creates confusion.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
​

Now, the abominations in Ezekiel is "toevah", and as such it is the word that is used for twenty sins listed in the Old Testament. So, while it is possible homosexuality is being mentioned here as a secondary sin, it seems odd if homosexuality was the primary reason Sodom was destroyed that it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Bible as the reason.

So, same-sex sex was a sin in Sodom. Thank you.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

So according to KC, who needs proof for every statement in the Bible, Genesis 13:13 can't possibly be true, since no sins were listed that the men of Sodom committed. Also, if Sodom was not destroyed because of same-sex sex, why is the destruction of Sodom not provided in this post as proof of the OP's point?

For anyone who needs a refresher here is the story of the destruction of Sodom.

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth
Gen 19:2 and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square."
Gen 19:3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
Gen 19:9 But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
Gen 19:10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.
Gen 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.
Gen 19:12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place.
Gen 19:13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
Gen 19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city."
Gen 19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.
Gen 19:17 And as they brought them out, one said, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away."
Gen 19:18 And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords.
Gen 19:19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.
Gen 19:20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there--is it not a little one?--and my life will be saved!"
Gen 19:21 He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
Gen 19:22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
​

I might point out that, as you say, this is the story of the "Destruction of Sodom", that the angels were sent to warn Lot to leave and then destroy the city. These events were not the reason for the destruction of Sodom but rather occurred when the sentence of destruction was being carried out.

So what's the reason for the destruction of Sodom? Gang rape? Couldn't be, that didn't happen until the visitors showed up. The city was destroyed because it was wicked and as I recall God said He would not destroy that city if just 10 righteous people could be found. Guess they didn't even have that many righteous people there. Are you willing to admit that same-sex sex was a sin in Sodom?

You really need to read Judges 19. In this chapter of the Bible we have a story very similar to the story of Sodom except the visitor is a Levite traveling with his concubine. The men of the city surround the house where the Levite is staying and call for the Levite to be brought out. Like Sodom, the man of the house refused to send the Levite; unlike Sodom, the man was old and had no daughters to send. So, instead of offering the man's daughters they offered the Levite's concubine, which the crowd accepts. They rape the concubine all night long and she finally dies about the time the sun is coming up.

I've read it and I don't think you can really compare the two because the mob in the case of Judges 19 was satisfied with "knowing" a woman, whereas the mob in Genesis was not, they clearly wanted men.

Judges 19 helps to reinforce Ezekiel's statement of the sin of Sodom, the inhospitality. In the case of Lot's daughters, the men rejected them because they did not desire to hurt the people of Sodom -- which the daughters were -- they wanted to hurt the strangers.

Where is this conclusion supported in the text I quoted? All we know is they desired the angels and wanted to know them. There is no proof that the reason the mob rejected Lot's daughters is because they were citizens of Sodom. Perhaps the reason they rejected Lot's daughters is because they were women and the mob wanted to have sex with men.

Last, it is worth pointing out that we know the men of Sodom were not all homosexual; if nothing else how would the city continue if they were not have children because they were all homosexual.

I've never seen anyone assert that all the people in Sodom were gay. The text itself denies this assertion by you, because we know Lot had daughters, so he clearly wasn't gay, yet he was a citizen of Sodom.

But more to the point, Lot's daughter's were engaged to men of Sodom, and these were men that were at Lot's house and scoffed at the message of the angels. This again reinforces the point that Lot's daughters were refused because not only would raping them hurt Lot but also hurt the men in the crowd that were engaged to these girls.

Here are some scriptures that disprove your assertion that the men Lot's daughters were engaged to were part of the mob.

Gen 19:12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place.
Gen 19:13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

The text doesn't say that Lot went to the mob to warn his sons-in-law to leave Sodom, it just says he went out and told them this. That they were part of the mob is a conclusion you're jumping to, it's not explicityly stated. In fact, since Lot had to tell them "Up! Get out of this place..." it would suggest that they were sleeping. If they were part of the mob why would he tell them to get up? Your reading of the text doesn't make sense.

Judges 19 provides a context for the story of Sodom's destruction and helps to show that the moral of the story is not rape, it was their pride, contempt for strangers, and inhospitality; in short it was their lack of Love for God and their fellow man, the two greatest commandments according to Christ.

But we are constantly told that the sin of Sodom was rape, not same-sex sex. So you too are challenging the defense put forth by many in this forum. Good to know.

 

[David Brider]

The Scriptures say that the huge mob wanted to have sex with the angels. Intentions were very clear.

Genesis 19:4-5
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."

As was pointed out right at the start of this thread, the word translated as "to have sex with" in that particular translation is a word which in most situations is translated as simply "to know".

David.

 

[Floatingaxe]

As was pointed out right at the start of this thread, the word translated as "to have sex with" in that particular translation is a word which in most situations is translated as simply "to know".

David.

As everyone should know, the verb used in the passage, "to know" is the same verb used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate conjugal relations! You cannot snow us with the argument that it is a literal "knowing".

 

[Zecryphon]

The Scriptures say that the huge mob wanted to have sex with the angels. Intentions were very clear.

Genesis 19:4-5
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."

Here's how the ESV presents it:

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,

Here's how the American Standard Version presents it:

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; Gen 19:5 and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Gen 19:6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him.

Here's how the KJV 1611 presents it:

Gen 19:4 But before they lay downe, the men of the citie, euen the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and yong, all the people from euery quarter.
Gen 19:5 And they called vnto Lot, and said vnto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out vnto vs, that we may know them.
Gen 19:6 And Lot went out at the doore vnto them, & shut the doore after him,

It seems you're using the NIV, I myself prefer translations that are word-for-word translations and not thought-for-thought translations.

 

[Floatingaxe]

I use the Scriptures, period, and "to know" has to do with sexual intercourse.

Genesis 4:1
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

Genesis 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

Judges 11:39
And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel

Judges 19:25
But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.

1 Samuel 1:19
Then they rose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD, and returned and came to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the LORD remembered her.

 

[Zecryphon]

What a simple way for one to acquire salvation.

Actually, one does not acquire salvation through works, that's heresy. What Jesus is doing in those scriptures is showing the rich young ruler, that he did not love God above all things as the first commandment demands. He went away sad because he could not part with his riches. He loved money more than God.

Please note that none of the pre-requisites for the gift of eternal life from the mouth of Jesus include one's having to be heterosexual according to this scripture. Seems as though a homosexual could have come up to Jesus, asked the same questions, and received the same answer.

So, where does one's sexual orientation figure in the scheme of things?

For salvation, sexual orientation doesn't figure in to the equation. Heterosexuals can sin sexually in the eyes of God as well. What we can not do is to continue in sin after receiving the gift of faith in Christ. Homosexuals by having sex with each other, commit adultery, as they are not married to a person of the opposite sex.

 

[Zecryphon]

I use the Scriptures, period, and "to know" has to do with sexual intercourse.

My point was that coming to the conclusion that the sin of Sodom was rape and not same-sex sex is a conclusion that the text does not provide for. You used the NIV translation of the scriptures, period.

 

[Zecryphon]

I use the Scriptures, period, and "to know" has to do with sexual intercourse.

Genesis 4:1
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

Genesis 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

Judges 11:39
And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel

Judges 19:25
But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.

1 Samuel 1:19
Then they rose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD, and returned and came to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the LORD remembered her.

You used a translation of the scriptures. The scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Do you have such an obsessive need to be right, that you're gonna get into a Bible translation debate now? Let it go.

 

[Floatingaxe]

I will NOT let it go. It is widely known that the verb "to know" used in Scripture has to do with sexual intercourse. It is basic. You have merely been corrected.

 

[David Brider]

As everyone should know, the verb used in the passage, "to know" is the same verb used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate conjugal relations! You cannot snow us with the argument that it is a literal "knowing".

This particular issue was addressed in the very article which KCKID cited at the top of the thread:

But we're not done yet. The traditional concept of the sin of Sodom arises from the fact that the Hebrew word here translated as "to know" (yadha) is used by itself in ten places in the Old Testament to denote heterosexual intercourse. In five additional texts it is used in conjunction with mishkabh (in this context, "to lie") to mean the same thing. But yadha appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual connotation, to simply mean "get acquainted with" or "learn of."

On a paltry fifteen occasions it's used to refer to sexual relations, whereas on 943 occasions it's used to refer to knowing in a nonsexual sense. So which is the more likely interpretation in the Sodom account?

David.

 

[Zecryphon]

This particular issue was addressed in the very article which KCKID cited at the top of the thread:



On a paltry fifteen occasions it's used to refer to sexual relations, whereas on 943 occasions it's used to refer to knowing in a nonsexual sense. So which is the more likely interpretation in the Sodom account?

David.

That's a good question. If the mob in Sodom wasn't after sex, why would Lot's daughters not have satisfied them? Why did the angels strike the mob blind, if all the mob wanted to do was see them?

 

[Where]

Why does "being more likely" make a difference. If we guessed on everything in scripture we would really be in the hole.

Shouldn't the context of Genesis 19:5 be taken in to account?

19:8
8"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Why would Lot emphasize that his two daughters were virgins and that the men could do whatever they like with them? If hospitality were the issue, then how would Lot offering his two daughters to the mob quench their anger? Hypothetically,that would go like this....

Mob=angry and feeling unhospitable
Lot=offers his two virgin daughters
Mob=are appeased by virgin daughters

See, that wouldn't make sense, so why would Lot have offered?

It is clear this is a sexual issue. A sex hungry mob, one would think, would be quite appeased by two virgin daughters....this is why he said basically "Oh take them but leave these men alone!". Instead, the mob wanted to have sex with the men. Either way it would have been sin, with the daughters or the angels. But the fact they wanted the angels shows it is an issue of wanting to have sex with the same gender. Same-sex sex, as Zecryphon has been putting it. Sex-sex sex is a homosexual act, therefore it is impossible not to think these verses condemn homosexuality.

-Where

 

[Zecryphon]

Why does "being more likely" make a difference. If we guessed on everything in scripture we would really be in the hole.

Shouldn't the context of Genesis 19:5 be taken in to account?

19:8
8"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Why would Lot emphasize that his two daughters were virgins and that the men could do whatever they like with them? If hospitality were the issue, then how would Lot offering his two daughters to the mob quench their anger? Hypothetically,that would go like this....

Mob=angry and feeling unhospitable
Lot=offers his two virgin daughters
Mob=are appeased by virgin daughters

See, that wouldn't make sense, so why would Lot have offered?

It is clear this is a sexual issue. A sex hungry mob, one would think, would be quite appeased by two virgin daughters....this is why he said basically "Oh take them but leave these men alone!". Instead, the mob wanted to have sex with the men. Either way it would have been sin, with the daughters or the angels. But the fact they wanted the angels shows it is an issue of wanting to have sex with the same gender. Same-sex sex, as Zecryphon has been putting it. Sex-sex sex is a homosexual act, therefore it is impossible not to think these verses condemn homosexuality.

-Where

You've got to be careful here. Homosexuality is a word that refers to a sexual orientation, the sin here is same-sex sex. You said earlier in your post that if the mob had sex with Lot's daughters that too would have been a sin. Since that would have been heterosexual sex, does that make being of the heterosexual orientation, a sin as well? You've gotta be consistent. Forget sexual orientations. They just add confusion to the Biblical texts as these are ideas that were not known to the people living in these times. Focus on the acts.

 

[Caylin]

Yes so they said they wanted to have sex with the angels. They would know the angels didn't want to have sex with them. Thats called rape.

 

[Maren]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

KC seems to be largely arguing from silence here. For instance in Genesis 13:13 the men of Sodom were called wicked and sinners, yet not one sin is mentioned.
​

The phrase you're looking for is "same-sex sex", not homosexuality as that word didn't come into existence til many centuries later. Why are you trying to take a modern term and backtrack it to the Biblical times? That just creates confusion.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
​

So, same-sex sex was a sin in Sodom. Thank you.

No, now you are the one trying to argue from silence. We have no idea if there were commands against same-sex sex in the time of Sodom, as the law in Leviticus, and not even the Ten Commandments had been given yet. After all, isn't this how many Christians justify Lot sleeping with his daughters after Sodom is destroyed, because the Law had not been given yet?

All we know is that God said that Sodom had committed "abominations", which if you learn about the Hebrew word "toevah" basically means "detestable" or "disgusting". It also appears to often (and some would argue always) refers to idolatry. As such, abominations there likely does not refer to same-sex sex, but rather the things the Lord found "detestable" that had been previously mentioned by Ezekiel.

Regardless, trying to claim that same-sex sex was a sin in Sodom is to argue from silence. While it is possible it was one of the sins, that it was not directly mentioned would tend to show it wasn't a primary reason Sodom was destroyed.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

So according to KC, who needs proof for every statement in the Bible, Genesis 13:13 can't possibly be true, since no sins were listed that the men of Sodom committed. Also, if Sodom was not destroyed because of same-sex sex, why is the destruction of Sodom not provided in this post as proof of the OP's point?

For anyone who needs a refresher here is the story of the destruction of Sodom.

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth
Gen 19:2 and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square."
Gen 19:3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
Gen 19:9 But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
Gen 19:10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.
Gen 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.
Gen 19:12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place.
Gen 19:13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
Gen 19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city."
Gen 19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.
Gen 19:17 And as they brought them out, one said, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away."
Gen 19:18 And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords.
Gen 19:19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.
Gen 19:20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there--is it not a little one?--and my life will be saved!"
Gen 19:21 He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
Gen 19:22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
​

So what's the reason for the destruction of Sodom? Gang rape? Couldn't be, that didn't happen until the visitors showed up. The city was destroyed because it was wicked and as I recall God said He would not destroy that city if just 10 righteous people could be found. Guess they didn't even have that many righteous people there. Are you willing to admit that same-sex sex was a sin in Sodom?

God says in Ezekiel exactly why Sodom was destroyed, or at least what the sins were: "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

I've read it and I don't think you can really compare the two because the mob in the case of Judges 19 was satisfied with "knowing" a woman, whereas the mob in Genesis was not, they clearly wanted men.

Why? If the mob in Genesis only wanted men, why would they not be happy simply to have sex with each other? In that case, there would be no need to have sex with the angels or the Levite, nor would they have wanted sex with the Levite's concubine. Further, it wasn't sex they wanted but rape, unless you think that after the mob tried to break down the door because the angels did not want to go out they still expected the angels to have consensual sex with all of them? Rather, the motive appears to have been to hurt the strangers, to be inhospitable, just as Ezekiel clearly states fits with the sins of Sodom.

History reinforces the idea they wanted to hurt the strangers. A primary reason men raped other men, as the men in Sodom appear to have wanted to do with the angels, was to dehumanize other men. It was commonly done in Old Testament times with captured soldiers, they were raped by other men as evidence that their status was no higher than women, and since women were considered property at the time it was to show them they were no better than property, a slave.

That the men of Sodom (and the men of Jebus) merely shows they were inhospitable to strangers; the needy. And strangers in that day were needy. It was impossible to take a long trip and take enough food and water for the trip through the desert. As such, travelers depended on the ability to get food and water as they traveled through the desert at the towns where they stopped.

Where is this conclusion supported in the text I quoted? All we know is they desired the angels and wanted to know them. There is no proof that the reason the mob rejected Lot's daughters is because they were citizens of Sodom. Perhaps the reason they rejected Lot's daughters is because they were women and the mob wanted to have sex with men.

Again, if they merely wanted sex with men they would have had sex with each other. That they continually wanted the "men" indicates that they wanted something other than same-sex sex. That they refused Lot's daughters would indicate they wanted something different than to merely rape others. As such, that they wanted to rape strangers becomes the most logical, plus it fits both the story of Sodom and the story in Judges, not to mention fitting in with other historical stories where men were inhospitable to strangers by dominating them.

I've never seen anyone assert that all the people in Sodom were gay. The text itself denies this assertion by you, because we know Lot had daughters, so he clearly wasn't gay, yet he was a citizen of Sodom.

Except you just tried to argue that the men had no interest in heterosexual sex, you claimed that is the reason the rejected Lot's daughters (unlike in Judges). You can't have it both ways.

Here are some scriptures that disprove your assertion that the men Lot's daughters were engaged to were part of the mob.

Gen 19:12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place.
Gen 19:13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

The text doesn't say that Lot went to the mob to warn his sons-in-law to leave Sodom, it just says he went out and told them this. That they were part of the mob is a conclusion you're jumping to, it's not explicityly stated. In fact, since Lot had to tell them "Up! Get out of this place..." it would suggest that they were sleeping. If they were part of the mob why would he tell them to get up? Your reading of the text doesn't make sense.

No, it is what the scripture clearly states. Go back and read Genesis 19:4: "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. That Lot had to go outside his house indicates that they had not been inside the house, thus they were part of "all the people" that were at Lot's door. Further, that Lot could go out the door to get to his sons-in-law, especially since it mentions that the men of Sodom "wearied themselves" in verse 11, indicates that the men of the city at some point slept that night.

But we are constantly told that the sin of Sodom was rape, not same-sex sex. So you too are challenging the defense put forth by many in this forum. Good to know.

No, I'm not. Again, rape of other men was historically a way to demean another man, to show the man's only worth was property; it was a means of taking advantage of the poor and needy. As such, this interpreation fits exactly into what the Lord, through Ezekiel, said the sin of Sodom was.

 

[Polycarp1]

But don't you see? If it can be maintained, in the face of Ezekiel 16, all the other cites in the first two posts, and reasoned argument, that what brought God's wrath down on Sodom was gay sex, not forcible gang rape of strangers, not a haughty life without thought of God or fellow man, not an unwillingness to sacrifice for the sake of others in need, then the "good Bible-believing Christians" have themselves a scapegoat, because they can cast off all the blame for the sins on them there gays.

Because they don't ever have any desires for same-sex sex. Whereas they might just have a desire for dominance, or for luxury in the face of want, or for xenophobia against those refugees pardon me illegal aliens, and not want that unwelcome feeling that their conscience is telling them to repent of the sins that God condemned Sodom for. If we can just find someone else to blame, maybe God won't notice.

And as for the people who see modern homosexual couples as committing the exact sin of Sodom (in their eyes), I frankly and sincerely want them locked up for life, or at least until two or more shrinks certify them no longer sociopathic. Anyone who finds it impossible to draw a distinction between mutually desire consensual sex and violent forcible gang rape should not be allowed on the streets.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Seriously guys, whats the problem?

I can buy the idea that in the Sodom story the Sodom people wanted to homosexually rape the angels. What's wrong with that?

Homosexual rape is an abomination, and I can understand why God would be suitably peeved about people wanting to do that to his emisaries.

Of course, being mad at a group of people for wanting to rape someone is VERY different to being mad at someone for simply wanting to have sex.

Short version,

Homosexual rape is a BAD thing, of which God disaproves.
Consentual homosexual sex is a GOOD thing, of which God approves, when conducted along the same guidlines as acknowledged as appropriate for heterosexual Christians.

There. All nicely sorted. Shall we move on?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,
All these issues have been raised before and have been challenged as flawed. All you have done is challenge the passages offered to show sodomy is sin.
Which still leaves you with nothing to support your argument.

But I don’t think anyone has disputed any of the sins of Sodom such as homosexual practice (genesis 19, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1), adultery (Jeremiah 23), inhospitality, (Ezekiel 16, Matthew 10-11) except those who are pro homosexual practice.
Seems to me people who have a vested interest in homosexual practice don’t want to admit it’s a sin. A nice encouragement for the adulterers and the greedy to do the same.