Sin & The Sodomites

[Floatingaxe]

According to alkl Bibles, monogamous intimacy is a good thing.

Rape is a bad thing. The sin of Sodom was wanting to RAPE strangers. their geneder of the attackers and their intended victims is irrelevant. As you say, context is everything. Raping guests is BAD.

According to God, he says that marriage betweeen a woman and a man is good, and that is the place wherein sexual relations occur and nowhere else. Monogamous intimacy takes place ONLY between one man and one woman. Anything else is a perversion of God's design and is the sin of fornication at the very least.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain was manifold. They were godless and evil through and through.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God never says marriage is only between a man and a woman. Nor does the Bible.

The sins of the cities of the plan may very well have been manifold. That doesn't mean you get to accuse them of crimes that aren't specifically mentioned, the best you can do is conjectural.

All we KNOW, is that some of Sodom's citizens allegedly wanted to rape some angels. Therefore, the only specific sin of which they are specifically accused is homosexual rape (or maybe only angelic rape, since I am not convinced that the story makes it clear that raping angels is the same as raping same sex victims)

So, if you want to use the Sodom story as a basis for condemning homosexual rape, be my guest. To base any other condemnation on this story is to build on a false premis.

 

[Floatingaxe]

God never says marriage is only between a man and a woman. Nor does the Bible.

The sins of the cities of the plan may very well have been manifold. That doesn't mean you get to accuse them of crimes that aren't specifically mentioned, the best you can do is conjectural.

All we KNOW, is that some of Sodom's citizens allegedly wanted to rape some angels. Therefore, the only specific sin of which they are specifically accused is homosexual rape (or maybe only angelic rape, since I am not convinced that the story makes it clear that raping angels is the same as raping same sex victims)

So, if you want to use the Sodom story as a basis for condemning homosexual rape, be my guest. To base any other condemnation on this story is to build on a false premis.

Yes, God says so, and Jesus reiterates the fact that one man and one woman make a marriage.

It matters not what I believe that the cities of the plain were guilty of. Many of their sins are very evident. Homosexuality is one of them. They were godless people and acting out of that lack of the knowledge of God.

Matthew 19:4-54
"Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’

 

[EnemyPartyII]

One man and one woman make a marriage. The Bible also refers to several examples of one man and several women making a marriage. The Bible NEVER says that either or both of these paradigms are the ONLY ones acceptible to God. You put the word ONLY in there, not the Bible.

How is it evident that homosexuality is one of the sins of the cities of the plain when ther isn't any... you know... evidence? I get that you want to believe it, really I do, but where's the evidence? Biblical OR archaeological?

 

[Floatingaxe]

One man and one woman make a marriage. The Bible also refers to several examples of one man and several woman making a marriage. The Bible NEVER says that either or both of these paradigms are the ONLY ones acceptible to God. You put the word ONLY in there, not the Bible.

How is it evident that homosexuality is one of the sins of the cities of the plan when ther isn't any... you know... evidence? I get that you want to believe it, really I do, but where's the evidence? Biblical OR archaeological?

God's plan for man and woman is to be married to each other: one man and one woman. That has not changed. Nor will it. Just becasue there are instances of men keeping concubines in the ancient world and it is recorded in Scriptures doesn't mean that God had changed his design. It merely means that man has stepped out of God's will, and instituted his own little design into it. That is pollution, sin. (It's like peeing in the pool...you no longer have clean water.)

One man and one woman united in marriage is the only basis for family in God's design for us.

Knowing God through Jesus Christ means that He lives in us--therefore we can know His Word and what it means. It's a no-brainer in this matter.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You are making claims that aren't in the Bible. There is nothing wrong with homosexual intimacy conducted within a consenting, supportive, loving framework. God approves of this. I see nothing anywhere to suggest that a loving, giving God would disaprove of this.

Again, any factual evidence that homosexuality was part of the sinful behaviour of Soddom? Anywhere?

 

[Maren]

The established union that was created and approved by God is one man and one woman as established in Genesis, which definitely precedes Sodom. There are no scriptures that point to any other union as being either created by God or approved by God. My argument against same-sex sex is hardly from silence.

Actually, the Bible does talk of multiple wives being created and approved by God, 2 Samuel 12:8 is a good example. After David had Uriah killed so that he could take Bathsheba, Nathan the prophet came to David to deliver the Lord's message. Nathan started by explaining how the Lord had given David his wives and that if it had not been enough that the Lord would have given him more. In essence, God told David that rather than commit murder to add a wife that David merely needed to ask God and another wife would have been provided to him. The Lord approved of David's first seven wives and would have given him more, a clear indication the Lord has never stated (despite from how you attempt to interpret Genesis 2) that marriage is solely one woman and one man.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

If you have such scriptures please provide them. God says in Jude1:7 that Sodom and Gomorrah were engaged in sexual immorality. For something to be declared immoral there has to be a command about what is moral already given.
​

I have no need to as I am not putting forth the assertion that same-sex sex is okay with God. Since that seems to be your assertion, provide the scriptures. I've already pointed to what God created in Genesis as the proper union for sexual relations. You need to provide scriptures where God has said that same-sex sex or a same-sex union is good.

Sorry, but this is simply a straw man. We aren't trying to talk about every single sin that may have been committed in Sodom. We are discussing the sins for which Sodom was destroyed, which the Bible clearly lays out. As such, whether or not homosexual sex is a sin is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

We see God's clear design for human sexual relations in Genesis, that a man shall leave his parents and be joined to a wife and the two shall become one flesh. There is nothing in there that designates same-sex sex as being okay with God. The first couple God made were one male and one female. Now if same-sex couples were okay and God wanted a helper for Adam in the Garden of Eden, it probably would make more sense that that helper be a male. But that's not what God decided to do. One reason, and I know the homosexuals hate to hear this, is that two males can not populate the earth. God wanted the earth populated. You need one of each sex for that to happen. So, the first couple is male and female and the first institution that is created is one of marriage, not consensual and monogamous same-sex sexual unions.
​

Hardly. Here are the scriptures that support God's design for human sexuality as being one man and one woman joined in marriage.

Again, the Old Testament shows your assertion not to be true. Also, if the Lord's goal was to populate the Earth, then one man many women is much more efficient -- which may partially explain part of why it was so common in the Old Testament.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The sins of Sodom were many. You're convinced, for some unknown reason, that I'm saying that the sole sin that Sodom was destroyed for was same-sex sex. That is not what I'm saying.

I'm not imply any such thing. I'm merely stating that nowhere is homosexual sex listed as the reason for Sodom being destroyed. You keep trying to argue from silence that it was one of the reasons.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Yep, abominations, in the plural. Since same-sex sex is also called an abomination elsehwere in scripture, you would need another abomination to add to the abomination of idolatry to get abominations.
​

Implies idolatry? You mean it's not even clear if it is idolatry or not? Yeah, that's a slam-dunk counter argument you've got there. But let's use your interpretation here. How does this make same-sex sex okay?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You previously brought up the use of the word abomination in Deuteronomy 29. I pointed out, in fact, that the use of abomination there was actually a different Hebrew word than the one you say is used for homosexual sex, and that in fact that entire chapter instead talks of idol worship and that is why Sodom was destroyed.

Now, Ezekiel uses the other word that means abomination. The problem for you however, is that the word simply means "detestable" and implies that the detestable thing is tied to idol worship. And beyond that, there are a whole laundry list of items in the Bible that are called "abominations". So, it makes sense -- and fits other verses of the Bible better -- to understand the abominations Ezekiel mentions are the same idol worshiping abominations that Moses mentions in Deuteronomy. Either way, to claim that "abominations" in Ezekiel includes homosexual sex is an argument from silence -- it cannot be supported from the Bible that it was one of the abominations mentioned.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You have no evidence to make the statement that same-sex sex was definitely not the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. The text simply does not say that and that statement must be read into the text.
​

Saying that since same-sex sex is never mentioned as one of the sins of Sodom, and therefore is not the reason it was destroyed is arguing from silence.

This would only be true if the Bible never mentioned the reasons why Sodom was destroyed. Since the Bible clearly states the reasons why Sodom was destroyed, it is not an argument from silence.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

I'm not in the camp that's saying that same-sex sex was the only reason that city was destroyed. I'm saying same-sex sex is a sin.
​

Of course it doesn't, because you're focused on addressing a statement I'm not even making.

You're saying you aren't trying to argue that same-sex sex is a sin? I could swear that is exactly what you said, "I'm saying same-sex sex is a sin."

I'm merely saying it isn't pertinent to our discussion whether homosexual sex is a sin. Unless you are claiming that Sodom was destroyed because of every sin -- though again, the Bible does not support that claim.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon 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?
​

And we see from the account of Sodom's destruction that there was a mob that wanted to have sex with the angels. So sexual perversion was also a sin in Sodom.
​

And they clearly weren't interested in heterosexual rape, because Lot offered his daughters to them for that. So what does that leave? Hmmm? Real head scratcher there. Does the intent behind the act change whether or not the act itself is a sin?

Sorry, you are making an assumption here that you don't have the evidence for. You act as if the men of the city merely wanted to rape any man, yet the evidence does not support that. They specifically wanted the angels and only the angels. If someone they knew would have been acceptable, they just would have raped each other. More to the point, if they just wanted homosexual sex, as you have seemed to claim multiple times, they would have simply had sex with each other. Since they didn't, it becomes clear they didn't want men to rape, or homosexual sex, or that they didn't want women; rather it was they specifically wanted the angels, the strangers in town.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

Rape is about control, violation of people and dominance. If this was their motive, why not have at Lot's daughters? Why the need to have sex with the angels? I don't think the angels would have had any sex with them and therefore struck them blind.
​

Fine, but to rape anyone, you have to have sex with them. In this case, it would be same-sex sex which is a sin. Let's not forget also, that judgment had already been passed on the city. This little rape party just goes to show how wicked and corrupt that city was and how depraved the people living there truly were.

So we agree the men wanting to "know" the angels is not the reason the city was destroyed.

 

[Maren]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Fine, but for a man to rape another man, he must engage in homosexual sex and that is a sin.
​

So basically, any rape is a sin, but same-sex sex isn't a sin? Does that about sum up your position here?

I'm saying that rape is a different sin than having consensual sex. I'm not making any claims about whether homosexual sex is a sin.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Also, if you remember Jesus teaching on adultery in Matthew 5:27-28, he said that all a person had to do to commit that sin was to look upon a woman with lust. So, if someone simply desired in their heart to have sex with another person, regardless of whether or not it was consensual, it would still be a sin, since God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
​

Lust can definitely be a component of rape. If someone sees a woman that they lust after and they want her sexually, they can rape her to get that sex.

Yet there is no evidence that lust was a factor in the men wanting to "know" the angels. Just like in Judges, it is doubtful that the men of Jebus lusted after the elderly Levite. Instead, they appeared to have different motivations; the evidence supports it was to exert their dominance over the visitors.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

That's true for human travellers. We're dealing with angels here. What are their food and water requirements for a day?
​

That's funny, I don't see anything in my statement that addresses the gender of the angels. Yet here we see you coming to the conclusion that they definitely weren't male. How does that work exactly? Especially when you realize that in verse 2 of chapter 19, Lot refers to the angels as "lords", which is a masculine title. So the suggestion that they were male as opposed to not male, is made early on in the story.

Well, to start with I'm working from the believe of most Christians that angels are genderless (often supported by Matthew 22:30). But even if you don't believe that, it doesn't matter.

You pointed out that angels don't require food and water; so you do recognize that angels aren't human. But then you try to argue that having sex with one would be the same sin as having sex with human males. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the angels were not human males and so having sex with them is not homosexuality. If you want to argue that the men of Sodom believed them to be men, then all of my arguments fit. If you want to argue the men of Sodom knew they were something other than men, it changes the motivations of the men of Sodom completely. In fact, then to "know" the angels may have been nothing more than to figure out exactly what the angels were.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

To rape another person of the same sex, you have to engage in homosexual sex and that is a sin. Try and rationalize it away however you like, you can't get away from the fact that same-sex sex is a sin.
​

Are you seriuosly asserting that rape is not a sexual sin? I haven't given you my definition of rape yet. I've commented on possible motives behind rape. There's a difference.

And I'm stating that historically, the reasons for raping a man in this period of history was to show power and control and not for lust. It was to show the men they were little better than property -- and they were often made property (a slave) after the rape.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

The men outside the door of Lot's house had no interest in heterosexual sex. That's clear from the text because they rejected Lot's daughters. Lot was inside his house, and was heterosexual, because he had a wife and daughters. That proves that not all of the people in Sodom were homosexual, which I have never asserted. You're arguing against a statement I've never made and trying to accuse me of wanting to have it both ways. I suggest you get your facts about me straight before posting to me and looking stupid.
​

So a guy who lives in Sodom is not typically counted among the men of Sodom? How does that work logically? I agree with your last statement, yeah, they didn't wish to rape Lot's daughters, which means they wished to rape the angels. To clarify, they wished to have sexual relations by force with angels whom Lot referred to as "lords" which means they were most likely in the form of men at the time.

But again, you are the one that argued that they did not need food or water. So you seem to recognize they are not men (human).

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

Then why does Lot say "Up!"? If they were part of the mob they would already be up.
​

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm asking a question. I've looked this word up in Strong's and here is what I've found:

H6965
קוּם
qûm
koom
A primitive root; to rise (in various applications, literally, figuratively, intensively and causatively): - abide, accomplish, X be clearer, confirm, continue, decree, X be dim, endure, X enemy, enjoin, get up, make good, help, hold, (help to) lift up (again), make, X but newly, ordain, perform, pitch, raise (up), rear (up), remain, (a-) rise (up) (again, against), rouse up, set (up), (e-) stablish, (make to) stand (up), stir up, strengthen, succeed, (as-, make) sure (-ly), (be) up (-hold, -rising).

It seems that this word could go either way. It could mean to "get up from a lying position" or it could be a "call to action" as you suggest.



Again I was asking a question, not grasping at straws. Apparently you can't tell the difference between the two.

And I answered the question. It appears from Genesis 19 that the men of Sodom became wearied and that eventually they slept -- if so "Up!" to both Lot and the son-in-laws could have been to wake them up. The fact is, however, we can't be sure of which was meant, the Hebrew is not clear, and it doesn't matter either way. What we do know is that the sons-in-law were "men of Sodom" and so, per Genesis 19, were clearly part of the mob wanting to "know" the angels.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

And for a man to rape another man, you have to engage in homosexual sex, which is a sin.
​

Except that Lot referred to the angels as "lords" which is a masculine term, and the angry mob wished to have sex with his guests. Yeah other than that, there's no evidence whatsoever that homosexual sex was a sin that Sodom was destroyed for.

And that fits with the Bible, where authoritative figures (which these angels of destruction were) are always referred to as male, just like God is. Yet it is typically accepted that angels, like God, do not have a gender.

Well since that's my position, it would seem that you and I should have no further need to post to each other. It's been fun. See ya around.

And hopefully you understand my position. There is no evidence that homosexual acts were a sin for which Sodom was destroyed. The only way to claim it is to argue from silence.

 

[Maren]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Fine, but for a man to rape another man, he must engage in homosexual sex and that is a sin.
​

So basically, any rape is a sin, but same-sex sex isn't a sin? Does that about sum up your position here?

I'm saying that rape is a different sin than having consensual sex. I'm not making any claims about whether homosexual sex is a sin.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Also, if you remember Jesus teaching on adultery in Matthew 5:27-28, he said that all a person had to do to commit that sin was to look upon a woman with lust. So, if someone simply desired in their heart to have sex with another person, regardless of whether or not it was consensual, it would still be a sin, since God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
​

Lust can definitely be a component of rape. If someone sees a woman that they lust after and they want her sexually, they can rape her to get that sex.

Yet there is no evidence that lust was a factor in the men wanting to "know" the angels. Just like in Judges, it is doubtful that the men of Jebus lusted after the elderly Levite. Instead, they appeared to have different motivations; the evidence supports it was to exert their dominance over the visitors.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

That's true for human travellers. We're dealing with angels here. What are their food and water requirements for a day?
​

That's funny, I don't see anything in my statement that addresses the gender of the angels. Yet here we see you coming to the conclusion that they definitely weren't male. How does that work exactly? Especially when you realize that in verse 2 of chapter 19, Lot refers to the angels as "lords", which is a masculine title. So the suggestion that they were male as opposed to not male, is made early on in the story.

Well, to start with I'm working from the believe of most Christians that angels are genderless (often supported by Matthew 22:30). But even if you don't believe that, it doesn't matter.

You pointed out that angels don't require food and water; so you do recognize that angels aren't human. But then you try to argue that having sex with one would be the same sin as having sex with human males. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the angels were not human males and so having sex with them is not homosexuality. If you want to argue that the men of Sodom believed them to be men, then all of my arguments fit. If you want to argue the men of Sodom knew they were something other than men, it changes the motivations of the men of Sodom completely. In fact, then to "know" the angels may have been nothing more than to figure out exactly what the angels were.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

To rape another person of the same sex, you have to engage in homosexual sex and that is a sin. Try and rationalize it away however you like, you can't get away from the fact that same-sex sex is a sin.
​

Are you seriuosly asserting that rape is not a sexual sin? I haven't given you my definition of rape yet. I've commented on possible motives behind rape. There's a difference.

And I'm stating that historically, the reasons for raping a man in this period of history was to show power and control and not for lust. It was to show the men they were little better than property -- and they were often made property (a slave) after the rape.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

The men outside the door of Lot's house had no interest in heterosexual sex. That's clear from the text because they rejected Lot's daughters. Lot was inside his house, and was heterosexual, because he had a wife and daughters. That proves that not all of the people in Sodom were homosexual, which I have never asserted. You're arguing against a statement I've never made and trying to accuse me of wanting to have it both ways. I suggest you get your facts about me straight before posting to me and looking stupid.
​

So a guy who lives in Sodom is not typically counted among the men of Sodom? How does that work logically? I agree with your last statement, yeah, they didn't wish to rape Lot's daughters, which means they wished to rape the angels. To clarify, they wished to have sexual relations by force with angels whom Lot referred to as "lords" which means they were most likely in the form of men at the time.

But again, you are the one that argued that they did not need food or water. So you seem to recognize they are not men (human).

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

Then why does Lot say "Up!"? If they were part of the mob they would already be up.
​

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm asking a question. I've looked this word up in Strong's and here is what I've found:

H6965
קוּם
qûm
koom
A primitive root; to rise (in various applications, literally, figuratively, intensively and causatively): - abide, accomplish, X be clearer, confirm, continue, decree, X be dim, endure, X enemy, enjoin, get up, make good, help, hold, (help to) lift up (again), make, X but newly, ordain, perform, pitch, raise (up), rear (up), remain, (a-) rise (up) (again, against), rouse up, set (up), (e-) stablish, (make to) stand (up), stir up, strengthen, succeed, (as-, make) sure (-ly), (be) up (-hold, -rising).

It seems that this word could go either way. It could mean to "get up from a lying position" or it could be a "call to action" as you suggest.



Again I was asking a question, not grasping at straws. Apparently you can't tell the difference between the two.

And I answered the question. It appears from Genesis 19 that the men of Sodom became wearied and that eventually they slept -- if so "Up!" to both Lot and the son-in-laws could have been to wake them up. The fact is, however, we can't be sure of which was meant, the Hebrew is not clear, and it doesn't matter either way. What we do know is that the sons-in-law were "men of Sodom" and so, per Genesis 19, were clearly part of the mob wanting to "know" the angels.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

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.
​

And for a man to rape another man, you have to engage in homosexual sex, which is a sin.
​

Except that Lot referred to the angels as "lords" which is a masculine term, and the angry mob wished to have sex with his guests. Yeah other than that, there's no evidence whatsoever that homosexual sex was a sin that Sodom was destroyed for.

And that fits with the Bible, where authoritative figures (which these angels of destruction were) are always referred to as male, just like God is. Yet it is typically accepted that angels, like God, do not have a gender.

Well since that's my position, it would seem that you and I should have no further need to post to each other. It's been fun. See ya around.

And hopefully you understand my position. There is no evidence that homosexual acts were a sin for which Sodom was destroyed. The only way to claim it is to argue from silence.

 

[KCKID]

I feel a mix of amusement and bemusement over this issue concerning the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah. With all of this accumulated knowledge, intelligence, and reasoning skills on the forum has no one even considered that this entire account is merely a fable? I mean, come on! Are we to actually believe that thousands (?) of men thronged outside Lot's home to have sexual relations with Lot's visitors? I don't intend to get graphic but you can picture all by yourselves just how unfeasible and unlikely such a scenereo would be, can't you? I mean ...surely!?

And, of course, later in the story during the upheaval and the destruction of the cities Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt by God. A pillar of salt, no less! No one questions this? Not even a teensy-weensy bit? "Hey, did you hear that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed the command of an angel?" "REALLY?! Oh wow! When did that happen? . . .was it on the 6 O'Clock News? POOR Mrs Lot!" In all seriousness, how CAN we put a 21st-century slant on this ancient story? And yet, most of you - of either side of the homosexual debate - appear to be doing this.

Perhaps there IS a helpful message within the fable (if it is indeed a fable) of Sodom and Gomorrah but it surely has nothing to do with homosexuality in any way, shape, or form. THAT is a fallacy! Perhaps the message is little more than that God is quite capable of destroying evil and will do so again if need be. If so, I wonder how WE have managed to escape the wrath of God thus far?

Questions, questions.

 

[Floatingaxe]

You are making claims that aren't in the Bible. There is nothing wrong with homosexual intimacy conducted within a consenting, supportive, loving framework. God approves of this. I see nothing anywhere to suggest that a loving, giving God would disaprove of this.

Again, any factual evidence that homosexuality was part of the sinful behaviour of Soddom? Anywhere?

There is everything wrong with consenting same-sex arrangements. It is sin and both people are guilty of it before the Lord God Almighty. There is no whitewashing what God has already stated clearly is an abomination to Him.

God does not approve. Be careful of what you approve.

Romans 1:32
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Zecryphon]

I feel a mix of amusement and bemusement over this issue concerning the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah. With all of this accumulated knowledge, intelligence, and reasoning skills on the forum has no one even considered that this entire account is merely a fable?

There's absolutely no reason to consider that it's a fable. The biggest argument against that stance is that it's not written in the literary style of a fable. Why is it that every story you have a problem with in the Bible has to be a fable?

I mean, come on! Are we to actually believe that thousands (?) of men thronged outside Lot's home to have sexual relations with Lot's visitors?

You're assuming it was thousands of men, that number is never mentioned in the text. In fact, no exact number is mentioned in the text. The text says that "all the people, to the last man surrounded the house." It's not so hard to believe that all people of the city, with the exception of Lot, his family and guests, were outside Lot's door. We see the same situation in Judges 19, with the Levite and the concubine.

I don't intend to get graphic but you can picture all by yourselves just how unfeasible and unlikely such a scenereo would be, can't you? I mean ...surely!?

Your intentions are clear, to cast as much doubt as you can upon all the parts of the Bible you don't like. There's no mystery as to what's going on here.

And, of course, later in the story during the upheaval and the destruction of the cities Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt by God. A pillar of salt, no less! No one questions this? Not even a teensy-weensy bit? "Hey, did you hear that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed the command of an angel?" "REALLY?! Oh wow! When did that happen? . . .was it on the 6 O'Clock News? POOR Mrs Lot!" In all seriousness, how CAN we put a 21st-century slant on this ancient story? And yet, most of you - of either side of the homosexual debate - appear to be doing this.

Why do you need any kind of a slant on this story? Obviously you don't believe God can turn a person into a pillar of salt. What else can't God do, according to your 21st-century mind?

Perhaps there IS a helpful message within the fable (if it is indeed a fable) of Sodom and Gomorrah but it surely has nothing to do with homosexuality in any way, shape, or form. THAT is a fallacy! Perhaps the message is little more than that God is quite capable of destroying evil and will do so again if need be. If so, I wonder how WE have managed to escape the wrath of God thus far?

You seriously don't know? I'll give you a hint, it's called grace. You won't escape forever though, and when I say you, I'm speaking of a general collective you, not you specifically. Remember, there is a day of judgment to come, when God will judge both the wicked and the righteous and punish the wicked for their sins and reward the righteous.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Other than some people don't approve for reasons they continue to be unable to clearly explain, OTHER than that... there is nothing wrong with consentual homosexual relationships, and God approves of them.

Why wouldn't he? He loves us. He loves us the way he made us, he wants us to be happy, and if he made us homosexual, and having normal relationships makes us happy, it follows he approves of our relationships

 

[KCKID]

There's absolutely no reason to consider that it's a fable. The biggest argument against that stance is that it's not written in the literary style of a fable. Why is it that every story you have a problem with in the Bible has to be a fable?

There is EVERY reason to believe that it's a fable. Furthermore, other than the biblical account there is no evidence that these cities even existed. Yes, I DO believe that there are many fables in the Bible. Does that make me evil?

You're assuming it was thousands of men, that number is never mentioned in the text. In fact, no exact number is mentioned in the text. The text says that "all the people, to the last man surrounded the house." It's not so hard to believe that all people of the city, with the exception of Lot, his family and guests, were outside Lot's door. We see the same situation in Judges 19, with the Levite and the concubine.

And, of course, ALL the people could be simply figurative for 'quite a few' people couldn't it? Hanging on to every single word as if being literal is foolhardy. The Bible doesn't read that way. In any event even 'quite a few' men would surely have problems raping the angels. What would they do, take it in turns? Wouldn't that take several days, depending on how many there were? We also need to bear in mind that it (the rape) didn't happen so everything is speculation anyway.

Your intentions are clear, to cast as much doubt as you can upon all the parts of the Bible you don't like.

My intentions are to get to the facts. All I've heard from Christianity on this issue for as many years as I can remember are lies, lies, lies. And, just for your information, I am not gay and have no cause to rid the Bible of any verses pertaining to homosexuality. I just don't believe that the Bible addresses AT ALL the issue of homosexuality that we're discussing on this forum. Savvy?

There's no mystery as to what's going on here.

You're right, there is no mystery at all. It's almost an every day occurrence that we hear about hoardes of males surrounding houses to rape angels. Not to mention, of course, disobedient wives being turned into salt.

Why do you need any kind of a slant on this story? Obviously you don't believe God can turn a person into a pillar of salt. What else can't God do, according to your 21st-century mind?

Because it doesn't MAKE SENSE, Zecryphon!! Or, perhaps I'm simply being too logical. Logic is something that I have to learn to suspend in issues such as this. My bad.

You seriously don't know? I'll give you a hint, it's called grace. You won't escape forever though, and when I say you, I'm speaking of a general collective you, not you specifically. Remember, there is a day of judgment to come, when God will judge both the wicked and the righteous and punish the wicked for their sins and reward the righteous.

Could be. But this has nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah and homosexuality - I mean, the homosexuality that we're discussing on the subforum - right?

 

[Zecryphon]

there is nothing wrong with consentual homosexual relationships, and God approves of them.

I've previously asked you for scriptural support for this statement. Do you have any? If you do, could you kindly point me to the post where you have posted it?

Why wouldn't he? He loves us. He loves us the way he made us, he wants us to be happy, and if he made us homosexual, and having normal relationships makes us happy, it follows he approves of our relationships

Just because He loves you does not mean he approves of your sin and if you want to argue that same-sex sex is not a sin, fine, you're still guilty of adultery. Does God approve of that sin? It seems that the litmus test for whether or not an action is a sin or not, is not what God has said on the matter, but what makes you happy. God is just, and as such, He cannot tolerate sin from anyone, whether they're gay or straight is irrelevant. If you sin, you've incurred God's wrath.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I've previously asked you for scriptural support for this statement. Do you have any? If you do, could you kindly point me to the post where you have posted it?

Sermon on the Mount lays the framework for the full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals.

David and Jonathon and the Centurian and his servant also strongly suggest that homosexuals could be considered persons of utmost righteousness

Just because He loves you does not mean he approves of your sin and if you want to argue that same-sex sex is not a sin, fine, you're still guilty of adultery. Does God approve of that sin? It seems that the litmus test for whether or not an action is a sin or not, is not what God has said on the matter, but what makes you happy. God is just, and as such, He cannot tolerate sin from anyone, whether they're gay or straight is irrelevant. If you sin, you've incurred God's wrath.

I agree that sexual intimacy should not be entered into lightly, and is suitable for married people, OR people in marriage like relationships. Since the Bible never explicitly defines what a marriage is in terms of ceremonies or recognition, any two people who consider themselves in a long term, monogomous, loving, intimate relationship, for my purposes, and I believe for God's purposes, are married. thus monogomously partnered homosexual people are not contravening God's law against sex outside marriage.

See, the thing is, you need to try to understand WHY the Bible says what it says, not just parrot it blindly

 

[Zecryphon]

There is EVERY reason to believe that it's a fable. Furthermore, other than the biblical account there is no evidence that these cities even existed. Yes, I DO believe that there are many fables in the Bible. Does that make me evil?

Okay, why don't you list some reasons why you think this is a fable, other than you don't get it? There is archaeological evidence that these cities did exist, I've already posted that elsewhere. Since you think there are many fables in the Bible, is the story concerning your salvation in Christ also a fable? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You're assuming it was thousands of men, that number is never mentioned in the text. In fact, no exact number is mentioned in the text. The text says that "all the people, to the last man surrounded the house." It's not so hard to believe that all people of the city, with the exception of Lot, his family and guests, were outside Lot's door. We see the same situation in Judges 19, with the Levite and the concubine.
​

And, of course, ALL the people could be simply figurative for 'quite a few' people couldn't it? Hanging on to every single word as if being literal is foolhardy.

Hardly. It's dealing with the text as it is presented. You're the one being foolhardy here, inserting numbers of people at will and not dealing with what the text clearly says.

The Bible doesn't read that way.

Um, actually it does, until a literal reading doesn't make sense, like where a metaphor or a symbol is used.

In any event even 'quite a few' men would surely have problems raping the angels. What would they do, take it in turns?

Sure, why not?

Wouldn't that take several days, depending on how many there were? We also need to bear in mind that it (the rape) didn't happen so everything is speculation anyway.

The rape didn't happen because the angels struck the mob blind. There's no reason to conclude that anything in that story is speculation, unless you're talking about the conjecture you're asking for in your previous statement about how the rape would occur. I don't know how it would occur, I don't rape angels or men or women. Is there a rapist in the house, who could clear this up for KC?


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Your intentions are clear, to cast as much doubt as you can upon all the parts of the Bible you don't like.
​

My intentions are to get to the facts.

Yeah right and I've got some oceanfront property I'd like to sell you in Arizona.

All I've heard from Christianity on this issue for as many years as I can remember are lies, lies, lies. And, just for your information, I am not gay and have no cause to rid the Bible of any verses pertaining to homosexuality. I just don't believe that the Bible addresses AT ALL the issue of homosexuality that we're discussing on this forum. Savvy?

Ooooh! Where have you been? I've been telling everybody to stop using the word "homosexuality" and start using "same-sex sex" instead, as that is clearly dealt with in the Bible. As long as people continue to use the word "homosexuality" the pro-gay side of this debate will keep uttering the same tired line that you do about homosexuality never being mentioned in the Bible, since that's a sexual orientation, and these debates will continue to go nowhere.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

There's no mystery as to what's going on here.
​

You're right, there is no mystery at all. It's almost an every day occurrence that we hear about hoardes of males surrounding houses to rape angels. Not to mention, of course, disobedient wives being turned into salt.

Mockery? Is this the best you've got? Why am I not surprised.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Why do you need any kind of a slant on this story? Obviously you don't believe God can turn a person into a pillar of salt. What else can't God do, according to your 21st-century mind?
​

Because it doesn't MAKE SENSE, Zecryphon!! Or, perhaps I'm simply being too logical. Logic is something that I have to learn to suspend in issues such as this. My bad.

Oh, so since YOU don't get it, the Bible can't possibly be true. How post-modern of you.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You seriously don't know? I'll give you a hint, it's called grace. You won't escape forever though, and when I say you, I'm speaking of a general collective you, not you specifically. Remember, there is a day of judgment to come, when God will judge both the wicked and the righteous and punish the wicked for their sins and reward the righteous.
​

Could be. But this has nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah and homosexuality - I mean, the homosexuality that we're discussing on the subforum - right?

You asked why hasn't God dealt with sinners yet in your previous post and my answer above goes to that question. Your question was not about Sodom and Gomorrah, but about God's wrath. Don't blame me for answering questions you ask that are not on topic for this subforum. And will you PLEASE make up your mind. Up above you're complaining about people discussing homosexuality in this forum, when the Bible never mentions it, and here you are saying that the very topic of this subforum is homosexuality, which you define as a sexual orientaiton. This subforum is set up to discuss all things related to homosexuality, that includes both activity and the sexual orientation, from a Christian perspective.

 

[Zecryphon]

Sermon on the Mount lays the framework for the full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals.

Then you'll have no problem posting the relevant scriptures. And if I recall correctly, the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus' most condemning sermon ever. Exactly where in there do you see full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals?

David and Jonathon and the Centurian and his servant also strongly suggest that homosexuals could be considered persons of utmost righteousness

We've been through the "David and Jonathan are gay" scenario already and your case fell flat on its face.

Just because He loves you does not mean he approves of your sin and if you want to argue that same-sex sex is not a sin, fine, you're still guilty of adultery. Does God approve of that sin? It seems that the litmus test for whether or not an action is a sin or not, is not what God has said on the matter, but what makes you happy. God is just, and as such, He cannot tolerate sin from anyone, whether they're gay or straight is irrelevant. If you sin, you've incurred God's wrath.
​

I agree that sexual intimacy should not be entered into lightly, and is suitable for married people, OR people in marriage like relationships.

Nope, the standard is marriage, not your best attempt at a marriage, which woudl be a marriage like relationship.

Since the Bible never explicitly defines what a marriage is in terms of ceremonies or recognition, any two people who consider themselves in a long term, monogomous, loving, intimate relationship, for my purposes, and I believe for God's purposes, are married.

Yeah, but what you believe to be a marriage is not binding upon God. It's what God says that matters and He has said that a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh. One man, one woman. Not two men, two women in a marriage like relationship.

thus monogomously partnered homosexual people are not contravening God's law against sex outside marriage.

Yeah, they are. Marriage is one man and one woman. Show me an example in scripture of any other marriage that did not involve one person of each sex. And before you bring up the guys who had many wives, remember that those marriages too, started out as one man and one woman.

 

[Archer93]

No conservative Christian I have met or talked to on here will ever say homosexuals are sinners, but they themselves are not. The Bible is clear all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I don't want to kill homosexuals or ban them from the church. In fact, I'd love it if they would sit next to me in Sinner's Row when I'm in church on Sunday morning so they will hear a good law and gospel sermon. Sinner's Row is the back row of any church and is where I always sit.

Must be a very crowded back row, if it's the only place where sinners can sit....
If 'to know' is to be read as having a sexual connotation, then either the mob intended to have sex with the angels against the angels' wills (making it rape) or they had reason to believe that the angels were up for it. Which I think, personally, is unlikely- they were there to pass on a message, not for a bit of R&R.
And it's fairly safe to say that rape is a sin, in both the Old and the New Testaments, as it in the first instance robs a father of the full value of his property and in the second does not demonstrate love.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Then you'll have no problem posting the relevant scriptures. And if I recall correctly, the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus' most condemning sermon ever. Exactly where in there do you see full acceptance of all sorts, including homosexuals?

That whole blessed are the meek, blessed are the persecuted, do unto others, love one another as i have loved you bits.

We've been through the "David and Jonathan are gay" scenario already and your case fell flat on its face.

It did? I must have missed it. Why is it that these are the only two men in the history of the planet who can be known to have kissed cuddled, snuck around each other's tents at night, loved one another more than any woman, kissed on the lips, been naked together, and NOT be considered homosexual? Methinks me hears special pleading.

Nope, the standard is marriage, not your best attempt at a marriage, which woudl be a marriage like relationship.

Says you.

The Bible never really defines marriage, and historically its a shifting norm... what we consider marriage today is not the same institution as what was considered marriage a thousand years ago. Indeed, once upon a time, say, for commoners any time greater than 500 years ago, all it took to be considered married was for the couple to consider themselves married and be accepted in the community as a couple. Just like homosexuals and common law/ de facto couples today.

Yeah, but what you believe to be a marriage is not binding upon God. It's what God says that matters and He has said that a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh. One man, one woman. Not two men, two women in a marriage like relationship.

Sadly for the side trying to justify irational hatreds and condemnation, nowhere does God make any comment on his thoughts on the matter.

Yeah, they are. Marriage is one man and one woman. Show me an example in scripture of any other marriage that did not involve one person of each sex. And before you bring up the guys who had many wives, remember that those marriages too, started out as one man and one woman.

Such descriptions are normative, not proscriptive.

Same way that I could say to you "show me one person in the bible who is Chinese, they aren't they're all Middle Eastern/African". That does NOT mean that the Bible is only applicable to those groups, or that God somehow dislikes Chinese people. The scriptures were written within the normative framework of the time. Just because they do not explicetly condone something does NOT automatically mean they are condemned. Although I'm sure you will respond shortly to tell me why homosexuality is a special case, its lacking of an accepted example in the Bible demands it be condemned, while the lack of an accepted example of computer use in the Biblke doesn't mean that what you are doing right now is a sin.

special pleading for the win.