So, recruit me

Wiccan_Child · Aug 19, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
Ok so you believe it was mistaken and I dont.

At least we agree on this.

brightmorningstar said:
No it does not. The text references I have provided do not say mob or strangers, Again please provide an example. Until you can support what you are claiming we cant continue.

*sigh* I was paraphrasing. The text alludes to a large group (either all the men of the city, or all the people of the city) congregating around Lot's house. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a mob. Call it what you want, but 'mob' is a short word that fits the bill. The text also alludes to two people visiting the town, the identity of whom was not know to the mob (nor, I'd wager, to Lot). This would qualify them as strangers, yes?

brightmorningstar · Aug 20, 2008

To Wiccan_Child,
No it does not. The text references I have provided do not say mob or strangers, Again please provide an example. Until you can support what you are claiming we cant continue.

*sigh* I was paraphrasing. The text alludes to a large group (either all the men of the city, or all the people of the city) congregating around Lot's house. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a mob.

Sounds like men to me, it says men.

Call it what you want,

No, I want to know what God’s revelation actually is, not what I think it should be. It says the men said bring the men out so they can know them carnally. It one assumes mob and strangers it makes it sound like a gay and lesbian argument to avoid the condemnation of men with men being wicked. Yes?

EnemyPartyII · Aug 20, 2008

Anything to avoid agreement

brightmorningstar · Aug 20, 2008

I agree. Everyone can see what the texts quoted say, Wiccan_Child needs to come up with a source to bakc up her claim.

tulc · Aug 20, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
Sounds like men to me, it says men.

Uhmmm you could try a parallel translation:

Genesis 19: 4 said:
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Before they had gone to bed, all the young and old male citizens of Sodom surrounded the house.
King James Bible
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:
American King James Version
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:
American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
Bible in Basic English
But before they had gone to bed, the men of the town, all the men of Sodom, came round the house, young and old, from every part of the town;
Douay-Rheims Bible
But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together.
Darby Bible Translation
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from the youngest to the oldest all the people from every quarter.
English Revised Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
Webster's Bible Translation
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
World English Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.
Young's Literal Translation
Before they lie down, the men of the city -- men of Sodom -- have come round about against the house, from young even unto aged, all the people from the extremity;

So 9 of the 12 translations say it was all the people young and old.
tulc(just thought you'd like to know)

brightmorningstar · Aug 20, 2008

To Tulc,
All the passages say men, all the people both young and old therefore must be men, otherwise Lot would not have offered virgin daughters.
All the passages say men and people none say mob, if you were really interested in debate you would have challenged the posts that claim it says mob.
This just shows that pro-homosexual arguments are not open to any possibility that any part of any of the texts might possibly condemn homosexual practice. Such is the level of disbelief.

David Brider · Aug 20, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
This just shows that pro-homosexual arguments are not open to any possibility that any part of any of the texts might possibly condemn homosexual practice. Such is the level of disbelief.

Even if the text could be read as describing a kind of homosexual practice*, you'd have to admit that it's a very extreme kind of homosexual practice. I don't know about you, but the gay people I know aren't in the habit of getting together in large gangs and attempting to rape a couple of complete strangers. Indeed, I suspect that sort of behaviour is something of which they'd be highly condemnatory themselves.

David.

*i.e., assuming that the crowd were all male and that the word "to know" actually does have a sexual connotation in this passage.

brightmorningstar · Aug 20, 2008

To David Brider,
This just shows even more what I mean.

Even if the text could be read as describing a kind of homosexual practice*,

Men wanting sex with men is homosexual practice, I don’t think there is any question about that whether you think it is extreme or not

I don't know about you, but the gay people I know aren't in the habit of getting together in large gangs and attempting to rape a couple of complete strangers.

Again you use ‘rape’ and ‘strangers’ yet tulc has shown you these words don’t appear.

David Brider · Aug 20, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
To David Brider,

brightmorningstar said:
This just shows even more what I mean.
Men wanting sex with men is homosexual practice...

Male/male sex is a tiny part of what homosexuals do.

...I dont think there is any question about that whether you think it is extreme or not.

Sure it's extreme. With the caveat that we haven't yet established with absolute certainty that "to know" in this context means "to have sex with", nor that the word translated as "men" wasn't in fact a more general, less gender-specific term in the original Hebrew; we've got a situation where the whole city, or at least the male population thereof, descends on Lot's house and attempts to force themselves sexually* on two men who are unknown to them**. That's extreme. That's totally unrepresentative of the sex lives of homosexual men. If what you want us to believe is that it's wrong for men to get together in large crowds and rape strangers, then I'd agree with you 100%. If what you want us to believe is that is somehow typical of the sex lives of homosexual men, then no, you're utterly wrong.

Again you use rape and strangers yet tulc has shown you these words dont appear.

It doesn't take a great deal of insight to understand that that's what the passage is referring to, despite not featuring those specific words.

David.

*i.e., try to rape.
**i.e., strangers.

lucyclaire · Aug 20, 2008

In many cultures, there was a practice of men, using sex with other men as away to assert power, like in prisons.in the 21st century..The men of Sodam where exerting their power by showing how was boss and raping of men, had more value to them than raping women. The man that is most feared the most powerful men in prison well rape the other man to show his power. The story of Sodom is about unconcensiual sex which is rape or using sex for power and dominance. Raping woman would have been less valuable because they were given up and had no rights anyway.
In classical literate such as Homer and in Roman society it was common for men is power to have young men as lovers and servents.. This is the society of homosexuality that was a problem, it has nothing to do with conseual sex between two people that love each other...

BTW: I am bisexual, I knew I liked my own sex at an early age, there were no Lesbians around me, unless you count Martina Navratilova, who visited my hometown every Jume... I have never been a part of the "gay community" as I am not a great fan of night clubs and I still like men. So who recruited me?

tulc · Aug 20, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
To Tulc,
All the passages say men, all the people both young and old therefore must be men, otherwise Lot would not have offered virgin daughters.
All the passages say men and people none say mob, if you were really interested in debate you would have challenged the posts that claim it says mob.
This just shows that pro-homosexual arguments are not open to any possibility that any part of any of the texts might possibly condemn homosexual practice. Such is the level of disbelief.

uhmmm well it does condemn men raping men, would that count? One of your points was that the "plain reading" indicated only men, I was pointing out that the "plain reading" said "people". As for using of the word mob what word would you like people to use? I know when I read

Genesis 19: 4-5 said:
Before they had gone to bed, all the young and old male citizens of Sodom surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to [stay with] you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

the word "mob" springs to my mind, but I'd be willing use the word you think that better describes everyone in town surrounding your house and asking to have sex with your guests.
tulc(always tries to help if he can)

Wiccan_Child · Aug 20, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
No it does not. The text references I have provided do not say mob or strangers, Again please provide an example. Until you can support what you are claiming we cant continue.

You can support that. I did it in my previous post, for goodness' sake. The text states that a large number of people ("all the people of Sodom") gathered around Lot's house. That, is a mob.

But if the word offends your sensibilities, we can use a different word. 'Group', 'gathering', or even "all the people of Sodom", if you want to use bulky language.

With all due respect, what do you think you are doing? Our discussion is on whether Genesis 19 implies that homosexuality, same-sex sex, and/or same-sex marriage is a sin. What does it matter whether we call the group of people a mob?

brightmorningstar said:
Sounds like men to me, it says men.

Let's go over this one more time. Genesis 19:4 states:

ד טֶרֶם, יִשְׁכָּבוּ, וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל-הַבַּיִת, מִנַּעַר וְעַד-זָקֵן: כָּל-הָעָם, מִקָּצֶה.

The phrase in question is emboldened. It transliterates to:

Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom

And it means either "Men of the city, even the men of Sodom", or "People of the city, even the people of Sodom".

In other words, this phrase refers to all the people in the town, or just the males.

But which? Well, let's look at the context. The entire verse can be translated as:

But before they [Lot and the Angels] lay down, Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom, gathered around the house, both the young and the old, all the people from every quarter.

Notice how the verse puts emphasis on how everyone gathered round. Every quarter, every age, and (presumably) every gender.

So show me again how you know the Hebrews were talking about just the men of Sodom?

brightmorningstar said:
No, I want to know what God’s revelation actually is, not what I think it should be. It says the men said bring the men out so they can know them carnally.

It says nothing of the sort. It's written in Hebrew, not English.

brightmorningstar said:
It one assumes mob and strangers it makes it sound like a gay and lesbian argument to avoid the condemnation of men with men being wicked. Yes?

No. Even the most homophobic scholar agrees that it was a mob that gathered around Lot's house, and that the two people in his house were strangers. It was a mob: a mob is a large group of belligerent people. They were strangers: I don't really know how to make this more explicit. You know what a stranger is, right?

But if the words 'mob' and 'stranger' scare you, we can replace them with 'Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom' and 'Angels', respectively.

brightmorningstar said:
I agree. Everyone can see what the texts quoted say, Wiccan_Child needs to come up with a source to bakc up her claim.

I'm a boy . There's a little

symbol and everything.

BigBadWlf · Aug 20, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
To Tulc,
All the passages say men, all the people both young and old therefore must be men, otherwise Lot would not have offered virgin daughters.
All the passages say men and people none say mob, if you were really interested in debate you would have challenged the posts that claim it says mob.
This just shows that pro-homosexual arguments are not open to any possibility that any part of any of the texts might possibly condemn homosexual practice. Such is the level of disbelief.

Well if the myth of Sodom had anything to do with homosexualitywhy did Lot offer up his daughters to the mod of supposedly gay men?

This just shows that pro-hate arguments are not open to any possibility that any part of any of the texts might possibly condemn contradict their desire to justify their personal prejudices. Such is the level of disbelief.

BigBadWlf · Aug 20, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
You can support that. I did it in my previous post, for goodness' sake. The text states that a large number of people ("all the people of Sodom") gathered around Lot's house. That, is a mob.

But if the word offends your sensibilities, we can use a different word. 'Group', 'gathering', or even "all the people of Sodom", if you want to use bulky language.

With all due respect, what do you think you are doing? Our discussion is on whether Genesis 19 implies that homosexuality, same-sex sex, and/or same-sex marriage is a sin. What does it matter whether we call the group of people a mob?

Let's go over this one more time. Genesis 19:4 states:

ד טֶרֶם, יִשְׁכָּבוּ, וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל-הַבַּיִת, מִנַּעַר וְעַד-זָקֵן: כָּל-הָעָם, מִקָּצֶה.

The phrase in question is emboldened. It transliterates to:

Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom

And it means either "Men of the city, even the men of Sodom", or "People of the city, even the people of Sodom".

In other words, this phrase refers to all the people in the town, or just the males.

But which? Well, let's look at the context. The entire verse can be translated as:

But before they [Lot and the Angels] lay down, Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom, gathered around the house, both the young and the old, all the people from every quarter.

Notice how the verse puts emphasis on how everyone gathered round. Every quarter, every age, and (presumably) every gender.

So show me again how you know the Hebrews were talking about just the men of Sodom?

It says nothing of the sort. It's written in Hebrew, not English.

No. Even the most homophobic scholar agrees that it was a mob that gathered around Lot's house, and that the two people in his house were strangers. It was a mob: a mob is a large group of belligerent people. They were strangers: I don't really know how to make this more explicit. You know what a stranger is, right?

But if the words 'mob' and 'stranger' scare you, we can replace them with 'Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom' and 'Angels', respectively.

I'm a boy . There's a little

symbol and everything.

Great job presenting the facts

BigBadWlf · Aug 20, 2008

tulc said:
uhmmm well it does condemn men raping men, would that count? One of your points was that the "plain reading" indicated only men, I was pointing out that the "plain reading" said "people". As for using of the word mob what word would you like people to use? I know when I read
the word "mob" springs to my mind, but I'd be willing use the word you think that better describes everyone in town surrounding your house and asking to have sex with your guests.
tulc(always tries to help if he can)

Which is interesting considering the bible generally approves of and even encourages heterosexual rape

Wiccan_Child · Aug 20, 2008

BigBadWlf said:
Well if the myth of Sodom had anything to do with homosexualitywhy did Lot offer up his daughters to the mod of supposedly gay men?

Didn't the mob reject the daughters, though?

brightmorningstar · Aug 21, 2008

To lucyclaire,

This is the society of homosexuality that was a problem, it has nothing to do with conseual sex between two people that love each other...

On the contrary we know from Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5 etc that God made woman to be united with man and from Levictucus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 etc that what you say is not the case.
The gay and lesbian argument is disbelief of a passages based on assumptions made following disbelief of all passages. Leviticus says a man must not lie with another man as with a woman, that’s what the pagans do and God people must not do this.

brightmorningstar · Aug 21, 2008

To David Brider,

Male/male sex is a tiny part of what homosexuals do.

Whatever, but as I said Men wanting sex with men is homosexual practice... and that’s why it is wicked and that’s what the Bible translations say.

With the caveat that we haven't yet established with absolute certainty that "to know" in this context means "to have sex with",

Well I have, and the Bible texts says that so you don’t believe the Bible. I see no possible way yada is anything but to know something or someone including carnally. I cant see how knowing someone socially can be wicked and what the virginity of the people has to do with it. You have provided no alternative meaning or reasoning so we have established nothing.

Yet even though you don’t believe what the Bible actually says, there is a fatal flaw in the reasoning behind your disbelief.

That's totally unrepresentative of the sex lives of homosexual men.

‘Homosexual men’? we haven’t established there is such a thing as homosexual men, not in the Bible, you are using a human idea to dispute the Bible. Furthermore, it would be extreme for any group of people to rape virgin women as well, yet what Lot describes as wicked is the men wanting sex with the men.

It doesn't take a great deal of insight to understand that that's what the passage is referring to, despite not featuring those specific words.

On the contrary it doesn’t take much to realise the wicked acts is men with men as the text says.

Andreusz · Aug 21, 2008

brightmorningstar said:
On the contrary it doesnt take much to realise the wicked acts is men with men as the text says.

So _why_ is it a wicked act? I haven't seen anyone give me a staisfactory answer to this question yet. Consensual homosexual sex doesn't harm anyone, and it's not unnatural, as it occurs in nature. So what is God's reason for condemning it?

brightmorningstar · Aug 21, 2008

To tulc,

uhmmm well it does condemn men raping men, would that count?

Why are ypou trying for it not to say what it says? Even if it said rape, it says men raping men is wicked but offers men to rape women instead of the wicked men raping men act. So the implication is not the rape that’s wicked but the homosexual element. We have been through this already. The Bible is correct and so is mainstream Christian belief, Genesis 19 implicates homosexual practice as wicked.

the word "mob" springs to my mind, but I'd be willing use the word you think that better describes everyone in town surrounding your house and asking to have sex with your guests.

I don’t want to use the word I think best describes the men, I want to use what the word of God says., men.

So, recruit me

Contributor

brightmorningstar

Guest

Well-Known Member

brightmorningstar

Guest

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

brightmorningstar

Guest

Well-Known Member

brightmorningstar

Guest

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Contributor

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Contributor

brightmorningstar

Guest

brightmorningstar

Guest

Newbie

brightmorningstar

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency