So, recruit me

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,

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.

But they didn’t want sex with the daughters they wanted sex with the men whom they did not know were angels. If Lot wished to appease them to protect the angels and visitors he would have offered them men, not daughters, which we know because they didn’t want the daughters! In fact if he had really wanted to protect the visitors he could have offered himself as they said unless Lot got out the way they would treat him even worse. So the issue whether you like it or not is homosexual practice, that’s why it has been clear to Christians and Bible translators throughout the centuries by calling homosexual practice ‘sodomy’.
If you addressed the questions you might realise this. Why do you think your homosexual rape was pronounced wicked and your heterosexual rape wasn’t and was turned down?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To NPH,

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.

But obviously you have missed the essential points. Firstly you are also talking about rape, yet the men wanted to know the men carnally, ‘yada’ just as Adam knew Eve carnally and conceived Cain. If the text had wanted to tell us rape is wicked it would have said ‘alal abuse instead of yada to know carnally. If you look at Judges 19, the concubine was known and abused. Yada and ‘alal. Besides if rape is wicked how come only men raping men is wicked and not men raping daughters?
Secondly whether men did that or not the righteous one was Lot. It was Lot who was not destroyed. Are you looking at this for God’s revelation or a human historical and cultural point of view?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To NPH,

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.

But obviously you have missed the essential points. Firstly you are also talking about rape, yet the men wanted to know the men carnally, ‘yada’ just as Adam knew Eve carnally and conceived Cain. If the text had wanted to tell us rape is wicked it would have said ‘alal abuse instead of yada to know carnally. If you look at Judges 19, the concubine was known and abused. Yada and ‘alal. Besides if rape is wicked how come only men raping men is wicked and not men raping daughters?
Secondly whether men did that or not the righteous one was Lot. It was Lot who was not destroyed. Are you looking at this for God’s revelation or a human historical and cultural point of view?

 

[tulc]

To tulc,
But they didn’t want sex with the daughters they wanted sex with the men whom they did not know were angels. If Lot wished to appease them to protect the angels and visitors he would have offered them men, not daughters, which we know because they didn’t want the daughters! In fact if he had really wanted to protect the visitors he could have offered himself as they said unless Lot got out the way they would treat him even worse. So the issue whether you like it or not is homosexual practice, that’s why it has been clear to Christians and Bible translators throughout the centuries by calling homosexual practice ‘sodomy’.
If you addressed the questions you might realise this. Why do you think your homosexual rape was pronounced wicked and your heterosexual rape wasn’t and was turned down?

To be honest, I thought I was addressing the question. You say they were just looking to say hi to the angels, I say it appears they were trying to rape them. You seem to think God killed them because they were so intent on meeting the strangers that they wouldn't have sex with Lot's daughters.
I say it was because they wanted to rape the strangers to show who were the ones in charge there.
tulc(going to get coffee, back later)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,

You say they were just looking to say hi to the angels,

No I don’t say that nor have I. You have quoted what I say, they wanted sex with the men, the word is yada to know and in this case carnally as in Genesis 4 with Adam and Eve.

I say it appears they were trying to rape them.

As I have said if the text had wanted to stress rape the word ‘alal would have been better, but the word is yada.

You seem to think God killed them because they were so intent on meeting the strangers that they wouldn't have sex with Lot's daughters.

Again firstly you use the word stranger instead of men and meeting instead of knowing. The text says men and to know as in carnally. You seem unable or unwilling to address what the text says because it will show what it means. Secondly you can see why God destroyed Sodom because they were sinning greatly in many ways, you don’t even need to misrepresent what I seem to think.

I say it was because they wanted to rape the strangers to show who were the ones in charge there.

And I can see the text says know instead of rape and men instead of strangers.
So back to my questions, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters if they wanted to rape strangers? And why is rape of strangers wicked and not rape of daughters?
As I said this has been clear to Christians and Bible translators throughout the centuries by calling homosexual practice ‘sodomy’, so if you have a different idea we need to test it out to see if there is any validity.

 

[tulc]

So back to my questions, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters if they wanted to rape strangers?

Because in Lots mind them having sex with his daughters wasn't as bad as being a bad host and letting the crowd rape the people he had taken in?

And why is rape of strangers wicked and not rape of daughters?

Who said it wasn't evil? Well besides Lot, who frankly left much to be desired in the dad department. It was wicked enough that the tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out because of it. I don't know, in my mind? that sounds pretty bad.
tulc(just an opinion)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,
So back to my questions, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters if they wanted to rape strangers?

Because in Lots mind them having sex with his daughters wasn't as bad as being a bad host and letting the crowd rape the people he had taken in?

But that doesn’t answer either of my questions. My question was if they wanted to rape strangers as you said what is the point of offering anyone who is known, they aren’t going to want to rape them are they? And they didn’t. So the question remains. The reason is of course that offering himself or his sons would be equally as wicked because it is homosexual practice and error, and that’s why you wont specifically address that point.

Who said it wasn't evil?

Well you tell me, I am referring to what the text says not what it doesn’t say. The question was why did Lot call the men wanting to know the men wicked but offer the daughters and not describe that as wicked?

Well besides Lot, who frankly left much to be desired in the dad department.

What by saving them from destruction? Is a good dad one who lets his children be destroyed?

 

[NPH]

To tulc,
So back to my questions, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters if they wanted to rape strangers?

Because he didn't want them to rape those who he knew were messengers from god? Seems pretty self-explanatory.

But that doesn’t answer either of my questions. My question was if they wanted to rape strangers as you said what is the point of offering anyone who is known, they aren’t going to want to rape them are they? And they didn’t. So the question remains.

If someone wanted to rape your child, what would be the point of offering yourself to them instead? Because you want to protect someone you whose protection you find to be more important. It doesn't matter that you know they don't want you, you would literally beg them to take you instead, just as Lot begged them to take his daughters.

The reason is of course that offering himself or his sons would be equally as wicked because it is homosexual practice and error, and that’s why you wont specifically address that point.

No, the reason being because men (and messengers from god) were inherently more valuable and actual people in that culture. No matter how much you may want to dismiss the cultural aspects of that civilization, not taking them into context leads only to errors.

As pointed out before, this same story is repeated later in the bible except they take the woman and it's hunky-dory ... until they kill her. Rape's not so wrong to that culture, so long as it's a woman being raped. And not because homosexuality is so bad, but because women are not treated as full people.

Well you tell me, I am referring to what the text says not what it doesn’t say. The question was why did Lot call the men wanting to know the men wicked but offer the daughters and not describe that as wicked?

Because daughters were worth very little! Women were property. Think what you're saying through, ok. You're saying that rape is wicked if it's same-sex rape, but opposite-sex rape is not ... In fact, it's obviously righteous in this case. That doesn't tell you something about homosexuality, it tells you everything about the attitudes towards women in that culture.

 

[NPH]

Because in Lots mind them having sex with his daughters wasn't as bad as being a bad host and letting the crowd rape the people he had taken in?


Who said it wasn't evil? Well besides Lot, who frankly left much to be desired in the dad department. It was wicked enough that the tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out because of it. I don't know, in my mind? that sounds pretty bad.
tulc(just an opinion)

Hey tulc, the difference with the tribe of Benjamin was because they killed the woman. If she had been returned unharmed (rape not being considered harm) they likely would not have been punished as they were. This is the only possible explanation since the Levite was not punished nor did anyone in the story view his actions (in sending the concubine out to be raped to save his own butt) as immoral.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To NPH
.

If someone wanted to rape your child, what would be the point of offering yourself to them instead?

Exactly, and if the men wanted to rape men what would be the point of offering women?

Because you want to protect someone you whose protection you find to be more important.

exactly my point, we know Lot wanted to protect the visitors because it says so, but if the men wanted strangers Lot cant offer any, and if the men wanted men, as the text says, Lot needed to offer men as an alternative but he specifically offered virgin daughters. The daughters were refused yet there is some indication Lot would have been ok as the men threaten to treate him worse.
That means the men either wanted only specifically strangers or specifically men. But by offering known virgin daughters shows us Lot thought or knew the men of Sodom wanted men, and it was this that he pronounced wicked.
Come on, this is how homosexual practice came to be known as Sodomy, those of you here who do not see homosexual practice as wicked seem blind to the obvious… its not difficult

As pointed out before, this same story is repeated later in the bible except they take the woman and it's hunky-dory ... until they kill her. Rape's not so wrong to that culture, so long as it's a woman being raped. And not because homosexuality is so bad, but because women are not treated as full people.

Yes but the text says the wicked men wanted to know the man visitor carnally. The wicked men did not ask to know that concubine woman visitor carnally it was the man visitor they wanted. Again a virgin daughter is offered and the owner of the house ask the wicked men not to do such a vile and disgraceful thing to the man, though he seems content to appease them the females. The key here with your property argument is that although it might well be of less consequence to do such a vile thing to woman, it is nonetheless still a vile and disgraceful thing to want to know the men carnally. QED.

 

[tulc]

To tulc,
So back to my questions, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters if they wanted to rape strangers?

Because in Lots mind them having sex with his daughters wasn't as bad as being a bad host and letting the crowd rape the people he had taken in?
​

But that doesn’t answer either of my questions. My question was if they wanted to rape strangers as you said what is the point of offering anyone who is known, they aren’t going to want to rape them are they? And they didn’t. So the question remains. The reason is of course that offering himself or his sons would be equally as wicked because it is homosexual practice and error, and that’s why you wont specifically address that point.

Who said it wasn't evil?
​

Well you tell me, I am referring to what the text says not what it doesn’t say. The question was why did Lot call the men wanting to know the men wicked but offer the daughters and not describe that as wicked?

Well besides Lot, who frankly left much to be desired in the dad department.
​

What by saving them from destruction? Is a good dad one who lets his children be destroyed?

I'm sorry, you're going to have to spell out exactly what it is you're trying to get me to admit here, because I keep thinking I'm answering and you keep saying I'm not. So what is it I'm dodging?
tulc(doesn't want to chase around this mountain one more time)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,

I'm sorry, you're going to have to spell out exactly what it is you're trying to get me to admit here, because I keep thinking I'm answering and you keep saying I'm not. So what is it I'm dodging?

Ok lets recap. This passage lead to homosexual practice being called sodomy. Its because its obviously after the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with men.
A number of people here seem unable to understand why. The key here is Lot who was righteous and was saved obviously says and does the right things. To the men’s request to want to know the men carnally, Lot says do not do this wicked thing.
Simple.
Now the ‘but ifs’ being presented don’t make sense anyway and they still don’t change the fact that to Lot says what they want to do is wicked. All I am doing is arguing that the ‘but ifs’ being presented don’t have credibility.

 

[brightmorningstar]

two other points. Just because we might decided from scripture something is right doesnt mean we would all go out and do it. i see the problem here as having some who identify with what is being debated and presented as wrong so naturally one asks the question whether those people are really interested in debating the truth or are simply not open to the word of God or the possibilities.
Secondly, the fact is that homosexual practice has traditionally and historically been called sodomy and considered wrong therefore the debate should laregly be focused on presenting from scripture why homosexual practice should be reconsidered. Yet most of the debate is merely attacking the historical biblical position.
much the authority claimed by those who propose homosexual unons comes from the fact they they propose it and not from any biblical substance.

 

[tulc]

To tulc,

Ok lets recap. This passage lead to homosexual practice being called sodomy. Its because its obviously after the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with men.A number of people here seem unable to understand why.

Really who here denied it? Could you show which post they did it in?

The key here is Lot who was righteous and was saved obviously says and does the right things.

Wait are you saying righteous and saved people always do the right thing? Because several righteous people in the Bible did some pretty awful things.

To the men’s request to want to know the men carnally, Lot says do not do this wicked thing.

We agree about that.

Simple.

uhmmm evidently not that simple.

Now the ‘but ifs’ being presented don’t make sense anyway and they still don’t change the fact that to Lot says what they want to do is wicked. All I am doing is arguing that the ‘but ifs’ being presented don’t have credibility.

Let me see if I have it: the men of Sodom attempt to have sex with the strangers in Lots house, Lot offers his daughters they reject them and try and force their way into his house, the angels blind them, save Lot, Lot and family flee, God destroys the cities. Does that sum it up?
tulc(just trying to be clear)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,
Its simple to most people if not to you. The reason I suspect its not simple to you is you never address what the text says where it impacts what you odnt want to hear.

Let me see if I have it: the men of Sodom attempt to have sex with the strangers in Lots house, Lot offers his daughters they reject them and try and force their way into his house, the angels blind them, save Lot, Lot and family flee, God destroys the cities. Does that sum it up?

no. If you read the text and read what I have repeated said you will see that Lot describes the men wanting sex with the men as wicked.
So now you know men wanting sex with men is wicked. ... hence the sin called sodomy.

 

[tulc]

To tulc,
Its simple to most people if not to you. The reason I suspect its not simple to you is you never address what the text says where it impacts what you odnt want to hear.

uhmmm how you know what I don't want to hear? Just curious.

no. If you read the text and read what I have repeated said you will see that Lot describes the men wanting sex with the men as wicked.

...or them wanting to have sex with them by force is wicked?

So now you know men wanting sex with men is wicked.

Well, at least we know that's what you think it says anyway, other people seem to think other things.

... hence the sin called sodomy.

uhmmm ok.
tulc(thinks he's ready for more coffee)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

no. If you read the text and read what I have repeated said you will see that Lot describes the men wanting sex with the men as wicked.
So now you know men wanting sex with men is wicked. ... hence the sin called sodomy.

No. The text describes the mob as wicked, and that the mob wanted to have intercourse with the strangers. There are several assumptions you are making:

• The mob is entirely male. An analysis of the Hebrew shows that, in fact, it was composed of both genders.
• The mob is wicked because they want to have intercourse with the strangers. This is likely the case, but it is quite important to note that the Bible only ever mentions sexual immorality as Sodom's downfall (among other non-sexual things). What this means is anyone's guess.
• The mob wanted to rape the strangers. Consent is not mentioned, so we cannot say whether the mob wanted to woo the strangers, or rape them.
• The 'wickedness' of the mob was exampled by way of their homosexuality. In actual fact, it is the inhospitality that would be seen as abominable, not the fact that two men were having sex (with or without consent).

All of these things must be assumed by you for your condemnation to even begin holding water.

 

[KCKID]

To tulc,
Its simple to most people if not to you. The reason I suspect its not simple to you is you never address what the text says where it impacts what you odnt want to hear.
no. If you read the text and read what I have repeated said you will see that Lot describes the men wanting sex with the men as wicked.
So now you know men wanting sex with men is wicked. ... hence the sin called sodomy.

You know what ...we could find something deep and meaningful in Alladin and His Magic Lamp and ANY NUMBER of similar myths, legends, and fables if we so chose to. Don't you think debating what is quite obviously a fable is REALLY worth the effort? I mean ...in all seriousness where DOES the S&G saga REALLY fit in with the issue of modern-day homosexuality, i.e. same-gender sexual attraction?

The moral behind S&G is this. DISOBEDIENCE causes God to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt ...whatever the heck that is supposed to prove. SO, disobedience to God (whatever THAT entails) is not good. Modern-day example: Whoever dishonors the 7th-day Sabbath is disobedient to God. One could be turned into a pillar of salt. That's 'death' with added effects.

SIN (whatever THAT might entail) causes God to destroy Sodom and Gommorah. SO, 'sinning' (disregarding God's Law?) is also not good. Modern-day example: Again, whoever does not honor God's 4th-command is sinning. One could be destroyed with brimstone and fire ...that's 'death' with added effects.

The more common sense logic I apply to S&G the more I realize that it has NOTHING to do with the issue we're discussing on this subforum. Am I the only one that sees this? By the way, has anyone read Jason and the Argonauts? I just thought that as long as we're serious about fables we might find something there that fits the topic under discussion. Jason is obviously 'gay' or, at the very least, 'bi', and so are the rest of the argonauts who are always needing to prove their brand of masculinity and sexual prowess to one another. And, they all dress SO provocatively! There's 'god' in there too who is always setting them challenges to overcome. Try to catch the old movie (DVD) if you can.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tulc,
so you say

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

No. The text describes the mob as wicked, and that the mob wanted to have intercourse with the strangers. There are several assumptions you are making:

the text does not describe the men of Sodom as a mob, nor does it describe the mob as wicked, it says Lot said dont do this wicked thing. The text does not say the men wanted intercorse with the strangers it says men. By saying strangers it makes it look like the wickedness was against visitors, if you and others admitted what it says, men you cant avoid homosexual.