So, recruit me

[tulc]

1)And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2) And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3) And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4) But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6) And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7) And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Looked like they were trying to rape them to me, why, did you understand it differently?
tulc(still trying to understand)

 

[Zaac]

I am only asking you about the Biblical account, if you cant address what it says I can’t really understand what you think about it.

Yep. First rule of exegesis. Deal with what the text actually says FIRST.

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,
This is pretty much the argument. God’s word says that the ideas of the world are foolishness and that God’s ways are seen as foolish by the world.

Brightmorningstar (interesting screen name, BTW), witches do not exist, and they never have. Bats aren't birds. If God claims either of these things, then there is a serious problem with God.

 

[Andreusz]

To tulc,
As I said it doesn’t mention rape. What is says is the men wanted to know carnally the men.
Well as you can read the angels thought it was bad because they blinded the men of Sodom.

If someone wants to know someone else carnally, and the second person doesn't want to be so known (as you point out the angels did not), and if the first someone is prepared to use force, as the Sodomites seem to have been, then it's intended rape.

 

[KCKID]

To tulc,
As I said it doesn’t mention rape. What is says is the men wanted to know carnally the men.
Well as you can read the angels thought it was bad because they blinded the men of Sodom.

But the Biblical account doesn’t mention angel rape it mentions the desire of the men of Sodom to know carnally the men visitors
I am only asking you about the Biblical account, if you cant address what it says I can’t really understand what you think about it.

Please ...this issue (Sodom and Gommorah) has been debated SO many times previously, not to mention a recent thread specifically devoted to the 'sins' of S&G. Why not bump that thread up, read it from the beginning with an open mind, and make your comments there?

That we keep coming back to this part of scripture and seriously attempt to apply it to homosexual orientation and people of that persuasion who desire a committed relationship with one partner is rather asinine. Honestly, this is one of those areas of scripture where God-given common sense and reasoning is required.

This story of S&G is (obviously?) a fable anyway, much along the lines of the fables of the Arabian Nights, the poems of Homer, and such. Just because it appears in the Bible does not make it any less so.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Brightmorningstar (interesting screen name, BTW), witches do not exist, and they never have. Bats aren't birds. If God claims either of these things, then there is a serious problem with God.

Or the way people have categorised God’s creation over the centuries, I see anomalies with the fossil and DNA record. If you don’t believe the Bible in the first place we aren’t going to agree on very much at all I suspect.

If someone wants to know someone else carnally, and the second person doesn't want to be so known (as you point out the angels did not), and if the first someone is prepared to use force, as the Sodomites seem to have been, then it's intended rape.

But as you see from my previous post above to KCKID, rape isn’t the issue, the homosexual act is the issue.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Looked like they were trying to rape them to me, why, did you understand it differently?

But why do you see it as rape when the rape of the daughters is offered as opposed to the rape of the men? The wicked thing is the rape of the men by the men, so that would leave you trying to explain why homosexual rape is wicked and heterosexual rape is acceptable. This would mean the issue is still homosexual and not rape. But the text says the men wanted to know carnally the men.
To think of this as rape is merely to try and avoid a piece of truth the text is imparting.

Please ...this issue (Sodom and Gommorah) has been debated SO many times previously, not to mention a recent thread specifically devoted to the 'sins' of S&G. Why not bump that thread up, read it from the beginning with an open mind, and make your comments there?

Sorry but I merely responded to tulc’s inaccurate comment about the passage, perhaps you should address that comment to tulc.

That we keep coming back to this part of scripture and seriously attempt to apply it to homosexual orientation and people of that persuasion who desire a committed relationship with one partner is rather asinine. Honestly, this is one of those areas of scripture where God-given common sense and reasoning is required.

We don’t apply it to any committed relationship, you do, we note that the passage about Sodom in Genesis 19 condemns homosexual practice. The only committed union countenanced in the Bible is God’s creation purpose for man and woman, other passages exclude homosexual union as error.

This story of S&G is (obviously?) a fable anyway, much along the lines of the fables of the Arabian Nights, the poems of Homer, and such. Just because it appears in the Bible does not make it any less so.

Well Jesus refers to it as though it literally occurred so what makes you think it didn’t?

 

[KCKID]

Well Jesus refers to it as though it literally occurred so what makes you think it didn’t?

Well, I don't know if Sodom and Gomorrah are fable but I have reason to believe that they are not literal. And yes, Jesus DID refer to Sodom and Gomorrah (in regard to their sin of inhospitality - nothing to do with homosexuality, please note) but he may have been referring to the well-known (to his audience) FABLE of the twin cities. I quickly add, that wouldn't make his point any less real. Jesus also makes reference to a Jewish fable in regard to Abraham's Bosom. Jesus was able to put across an important TRUTH to the Pharisees by referring to a 'place' that is mythical. And, for the record, Jesus' message had nothing to do with a literal 'hell'.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Well, I don't know if Sodom and Gomorrah are fable but I have reason to believe that they are not literal.

Ok on what basis? And why don’t you believe what Jesus said about it? Jesus said that Sodom was destroyed because of sin and you said you think the gospels alone contain all one needs to know about salvation.

And yes, Jesus DID refer to Sodom and Gomorrah (in regard to their sin of inhospitality - nothing to do with homosexuality, please note)

So if you think it’s a fable how does that affect the sin of their inhospitality to you? Does it make any difference to the sin? Furthermore if Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying this to His disciples then, why does Peter refer to sexual immorality in 2 Peter 2? Because there were many sins of Sodom.

 

[tulc]

So God destroyed every man, woman and child of Sodom and Gomorrah because they made a pass at two of the angels?
tulc(that seems...excessive)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,

So God destroyed every man, woman and child of Sodom and Gomorrah because they made a pass at two of the angels?

Definitely not. Firstly Sodom was destroyed because it was sinning greatly and we can see some of the sins were inhospitality and abominations which is probably a homosexual reference, (Ezekiel, Matt 10-11) adultery (Jeremiah) sexual immorality (2 Peter 2 Jude 1) and of course the specific sexual immorality of homosexual practice in Genesis 19. I note also what was described as wicked was the men of Sodom’s pass at the men. You have written that they made a pass at the angels so as to try and avoid the homosexual implication. Yet Lot could have offered himself or even his sons instead of the angels as it was men the men wanted, yet he offered his virgin daughters which of course the men of Sodom turned down.

Now would you like to address my question to you…
So if you think it’s a fable how does that affect the sin of their inhospitality to you? Does it make any difference to the sin? Furthermore if Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying this to His disciples then, why does Peter refer to sexual immorality in 2 Peter 2? Because there were many sins of Sodom.

 

[brightmorningstar]

sorry .. duplicate post

 

[tulc]

To tulc,
Definitely not. Firstly Sodom was destroyed because it was sinning greatly and we can see some of the sins were inhospitality and abominations which is probably a homosexual reference, (Ezekiel, Matt 10-11) adultery (Jeremiah) sexual immorality (2 Peter 2 Jude 1) and of course the specific sexual immorality of homosexual practice in Genesis 19. I note also what was described as wicked was the men of Sodom’s pass at the men. You have written that they made a pass at the angels so as to try and avoid the homosexual implication. Yet Lot could have offered himself or even his sons instead of the angels as it was men the men wanted, yet he offered his virgin daughters which of course the men of Sodom turned down. (emph. added)

So...it was rape they had in mind, right?
As to the bolded part above, you seemed to be saying God destroyed the cities because of them making a pass at the angels, I was just trying to understand your point.

Now would you like to address my question to you…

So if you think it’s a fable

But I don't believe it's a fable, I believe it truly happened.

how does that affect the sin of their inhospitality to you? Does it make any difference to the sin? Furthermore if Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying this to His disciples then, why does Peter refer to sexual immorality in 2 Peter 2? Because there were many sins of Sodom.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here, care to explain?
tulc(going driving, be back later)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,
Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
To tulc,
Definitely not. Firstly Sodom was destroyed because it was sinning greatly and we can see some of the sins were inhospitality and abominations which is probably a homosexual reference, (Ezekiel, Matt 10-11) adultery (Jeremiah) sexual immorality (2 Peter 2 Jude 1) and of course the specific sexual immorality of homosexual practice in Genesis 19. I note also what was described as wicked was the men of Sodom’s pass at the men. You have written that they made a pass at the angels so as to try and avoid the homosexual implication. Yet Lot could have offered himself or even his sons instead of the angels as it was men the men wanted, yet he offered his virgin daughters which of course the men of Sodom turned down. (emph. added)

So...it was rape they had in mind, right?

wrong, it was homosexual practice they had in mind as explained. If you had bothered to address the point I made you would see that Lot makes no mention of the act against his daughters as being wicked, but the desired act against the men as wicked.

As to the bolded part above, you seemed to be saying God destroyed the cities because of them making a pass at the angels, I was just trying to understand your point.

the part you have bolded was what you are seemingly doing, the unbolded part is what I am saying.

My apologies, that was KCKID.

 

[tulc]

wrong, it was homosexual practice they had in mind as explained. If you had bothered to address the point I made you would see that Lot makes no mention of the act against his daughters as being wicked, but the desired act against the men as wicked.

uhmmm he was offering to let them have sex with his daughters instead, that would still have been rape. Just because Lot didn't see that as bad as them raping the angels doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. So either we're back to God destroying Sodom for making a pass at the angels or because (among other things) they were attempting to rape them.
tulc(still plugging away here)

 

[Zecryphon]

So...it was rape they had in mind, right?

I don't know. I just reread it and I think if someone says the mob definitely wanted to rape them angels, they're making a projection based upon the circumstances. All I see is the men of Sodom saying they wished to carnally know the angels, which to me means sex, but that doesn't automatically mean rape. It was only when Lot denied the mob the angels that they turned violent and told Lot they would deal worsely with him than they would with the angels. It is at this point that they started to press against Lot and drew to break down the door, which is when the angels drew Lot back into the house and struck the mob blind.

I think most people conclude a rape was likely to occur because there was a mob surrounding Lot's house and demanding the visitors be brought outside so that they may know them carnally. But rape to me, seems like a stretch.

 

[tulc]

Its been an interesting thread, but I can't contribute here or anywhere else for the next couple of weeks. I'm leaving to go have surgery in 30 mins, and I'll be stuck in bed for a few weeks.

Anyone hear from Caylin about how her surgery went?
tulc(still praying!)

 

[NPH]

To KCKID,
But why do you see it as rape when the rape of the daughters is offered as opposed to the rape of the men? The wicked thing is the rape of the men by the men, so that would leave you trying to explain why homosexual rape is wicked and heterosexual rape is acceptable. This would mean the issue is still homosexual and not rape. But the text says the men wanted to know carnally the men.
To think of this as rape is merely to try and avoid a piece of truth the text is imparting.

You are lacking context. The two men were strangers, men raping male newcomers was an ancient method by which dominance was established, there are many historical incidences of such occurrences. Raping women was more acceptable because they were, after all, just property.

And if you look further in your bible, you will find another very similar story where a (I believe) Levite and his concubine were given refuge and the men of the city (just like in the Sodom story) came and demanded the host to give over the man to them so that they could rape him. In this case the concubine was offered and the men of the city deemed it sufficient and raped her to death.

You have to remember when dealing with historical societies such as this, that women really weren't considered anywhere near the equal of men and usually as nothing more than property. To rape a woman was basically to use another's property, to rape a man was to rape a human being.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with biblical attitudes towards women. Otherwise, why were not Lot's host nor the Levite punished for offering their daughters/concubine up for gang rape?

 

[tulc]

I don't know. I just reread it and I think if someone says the mob definitely wanted to rape them angels, they're making a projection based upon the circumstances. All I see is the men of Sodom saying they wished to carnally know the angels, which to me means sex, but that doesn't automatically mean rape. It was only when Lot denied the mob the angels that they turned violent and told Lot they would deal worsely with him than they would with the angels. It is at this point that they started to press against Lot and drew to break down the door, which is when the angels drew Lot back into the hosue and struck the mob blind.

I think most people conclude a rape was likely to occur because there was a mob surrounding Lot's house and demanding the visitors be brought outside so that they may know them carnally. But rape to me, seems like a stretch.

hmmm so if a mob surrounded brightmorningstars house and demand he send you out (because you just happened to be visiting at the time) so they could have sex with you, and you send word out "Well that's very neighborly of you, but I don't swing like that, so thanks but no thanks!" and brightmorningstar (being a good host) delivers your message to them and offers to let them have sex with his daughters instead, you would be on the other side of the door thinking "Well, thank goodness they don't want to rape me."?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Zecryphon]

hmmm so if a mob surrounded brightmorningstars house and demand he send you out (because you just happened to be visiting at the time) so they could have sex with you, and you send word out "Well that's very neighborly of you, but I don't swing like that, so thanks but no thanks!" and brightmorningstar (being a good host) delivers your message to them and offers to let them have sex with his daughters instead, you would be on the other side of the door thinking "Well, thank goodness they don't want to rape me."?

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that just because the mob wanted to have sex with me, that means they want to rape me. Maybe they wanna take me out for drinks, dinner and some dancing first. Who knows? That conclusion is as much of a projection as saying because they wanted to have sex with the angels that this automatically means rape. Remember that the angels never answered the request of the mob, Lot did. It was only when the mob turned against Lot that the angels intervened. To say that the angels would have accepted or rejected the offer of the mob would be speculation on our part. We can't go beyond what the text says and the text and circumstances depicted there do not amount to a rape situation. A potential rape situation, perhaps, but not a definite rape situation, because the mob never got their hands on the angels.