Sodom and Gomorrah misinterpreted

[PsychoSarah]

Now, we all know that, it is pretty plain in the bible that the male villagers of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests, the two angels sent from god. Now many people interpret this as an early portrayal of the evils of homosexuality. Here is the problem: angels don't have gender. While the angels in the story are referred by male pronouns such as he, angels are androgynous beings said to be of great beauty (which I find strange, usually people who appear androgynous aren't attractive, but whatever, that is besides the point). I think the big issue is that they wanted to rape angels, really. I mean, it wasn't homosexual because the angels weren't of the same gender as the men.

Also, if the men were homosexual, then why would Lot offer his two virgin daughters to the mob (nice dad, by the way) so that they would get raped instead of the angels? If they were homosexual, there would be no reason for Lot to make such an offer. If they were homosexual, it stands to reason he would have sacrificed himself, or perhaps his son in laws.

Also, anyone notice how all the women of Sodom are killed, even though none of them are shown doing sinful deeds? What about god's promise to spare the non sinners? Those women were never given the chance to prove one way or the other.

But anyway, I stand firm that the big crime of Sodom was the desire to rape angels, not homosexual feelings. Seriously, angel rape? Couldn't the angels have escaped from the crowd anyway? I mean, I know angels aren't as powerful as god, but they are definitely more so than humans.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Here's where your atheist analogy fails.

The men that populated Sodom didn't know the men in Lot's house were angels.

They thought they were men.

 

[Gadarene]

It's misinterpreted even with respect to the rest of the Bible, such as Ezekiel 16:49.

 

[durangodawood]

Would S and G have been laid waste if this whole Lot-event never happened.... just because of the wickedness in the population?

 

[Willie T]

Any Sunday school child knows that the the Bible said the sins of S & G were pride, gluttony and lack of compassion, as Gadarene said above, if I remember correctly.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I thought the problem was that they did not care for the poor.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Genesis 19:5
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.

Demanding Lot bring out the men to the crowd of men outside Lot's home so that those men may know them, is Biblical language used elsewhere in scripture and refers to sex.

As in Genesis 4 when Adam knew his wife. And the Ezekiel 16:49 isn't quite a complete picture of that scripture though in excerpting only one part of it it does help to support the contention of the OP.
When really in context there's no confusion at all reading further about Sodom and the sins there.

Ezekiel 16:49-51 (NIV)

‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done.


That the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the male strangers visiting Lot's house and arrived ready to do violence in order to take them if necessary, was simply the last evidence God needed of the unrighteousness of the city.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have attached what I feel is a great way to show an angel being both androgynous and beautiful. Really, gender is free for interpretation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And how did you know that they were unaware that those visitors were angels? Beautiful people would not have been a common thing in the past. The rough life of a peasant isn't exactly good for the complexion.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, we all know that, it is pretty plain in the bible that the male villagers of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests, the two angels sent from god. Now many people interpret this as an early portrayal of the evils of homosexuality. Here is the problem: angels don't have gender. While the angels in the story are referred by male pronouns such as he, angels are androgynous beings said to be of great beauty (which I find strange, usually people who appear androgynous aren't attractive, but whatever, that is besides the point). I think the big issue is that they wanted to rape angels, really. I mean, it wasn't homosexual because the angels weren't of the same gender as the men.

Also, if the men were homosexual, then why would Lot offer his two virgin daughters to the mob (nice dad, by the way) so that they would get raped instead of the angels? If they were homosexual, there would be no reason for Lot to make such an offer. If they were homosexual, it stands to reason he would have sacrificed himself, or perhaps his son in laws.

Also, anyone notice how all the women of Sodom are killed, even though none of them are shown doing sinful deeds? What about god's promise to spare the non sinners? Those women were never given the chance to prove one way or the other.

But anyway, I stand firm that the big crime of Sodom was the desire to rape angels, not homosexual feelings. Seriously, angel rape? Couldn't the angels have escaped from the crowd anyway? I mean, I know angels aren't as powerful as god, but they are definitely more so than humans.

The main theme of this OP is wrong and has been answered.

Here is a minor mistake, but is an interesting one: There ARE female angels. Why not? Where in the Bible which says/implies angels should be all male, or neutral?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Now, we all know that, it is pretty plain in the bible that the male villagers of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests, the two angels sent from god. Now many people interpret this as an early portrayal of the evils of homosexuality. Here is the problem: angels don't have gender. While the angels in the story are referred by male pronouns such as he, angels are androgynous beings said to be of great beauty (which I find strange, usually people who appear androgynous aren't attractive, but whatever, that is besides the point). I think the big issue is that they wanted to rape angels, really. I mean, it wasn't homosexual because the angels weren't of the same gender as the men.

Also, if the men were homosexual, then why would Lot offer his two virgin daughters to the mob (nice dad, by the way) so that they would get raped instead of the angels? If they were homosexual, there would be no reason for Lot to make such an offer. If they were homosexual, it stands to reason he would have sacrificed himself, or perhaps his son in laws.

Also, anyone notice how all the women of Sodom are killed, even though none of them are shown doing sinful deeds? What about god's promise to spare the non sinners? Those women were never given the chance to prove one way or the other.

But anyway, I stand firm that the big crime of Sodom was the desire to rape angels, not homosexual feelings. Seriously, angel rape? Couldn't the angels have escaped from the crowd anyway? I mean, I know angels aren't as powerful as god, but they are definitely more so than humans.

I'm sorry Sarah.....but, what?

Wouldn't it be easier to just argue that none of the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative actually happened and that we shouldn't even consider what the text implies, rather than fabricating an interpretation that does not consider the narratives fullest context?

I'm pretty sure that the fullest context implies that homosexuality was just one of the many perversions that were thoroughly pervasive in Sodom and Gomorrah. Otherwise, God wouldn't have destroyed it.

This story should send shivers down our spines; it isn't ONLY directed at homosexuals.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Never mind, the angel gender thing is inconclusive, some people say they do have gender, while others say they don't, and additional people say they don't have physical forms and thus if they did have gender, it wasn't in the same way people do, etc. so I guess, in terms of gender, no one is really sure if angels have them or not. Primarily male pronouns are used to describe them, but that may be because the word for angel is masculine in other languages, and this was ignored in the translation process (in other languages, it is not uncommon for the names of objects to have a gender, even though the objects themselves do not have a gender. For example, the word for mouth in Spanish, boca, is a female noun, even though mouths by themselves have no gender). Whatever, I guess I don't care.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm sorry Sarah.....but, what?

Wouldn't it be easier to just argue that none of the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative actually happened and that we shouldn't even consider what the text implies, rather than fabricating an interpretation that does not consider the narratives fullest context?

I'm pretty sure that the fullest context implies that homosexuality was just one of the many perversions that were thoroughly pervasive in Sodom and Gomorrah. Otherwise, God wouldn't have destroyed it.

This story should send shivers down our spines; it isn't ONLY directed at homosexuals.

I don't want the fundamentalists to have a fit about me just saying it didn't happen. This is about what the story represents, not whether or not the events happened.

 

[Paradoxum]

There's alot of crazy immoral stuff going on in the S & G story, but homosexuality isn't the thing that stands out. It doesn't matter if the angels were male or female... the people wanted to rape them. If you read the story and think of homosexuality, rather than how terrible rape is, then you are too obsessed with gay people. It also doesn't matter if it was angels rape... gang rape is bad enough itself.

Also, Lot is supposed to be the good guy in the story, and he offered his daughters to be raped. A pretty bad thing to do in my opinion. It treats the daughters like property... it isn't their choice whether they get raped... it's their fathers. They probably wouldn't survive that rape by so many people either. The angels came to a city, that I assume they knew was rapey. God is supposed to be omniscient, so that was unnecessary. If angels unnecessarily cause a rape mob, they should have to deal with it, not some random innocent girls who would have been fine otherwise.

God then goes on to destroyed the whole city? What about the children?

He then goes on to turn Lots wife into a pillar of salt (what?) for no good reason.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I know, I hate that particular story. Even the "hero" is an immoral piece of crap. Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destruction of the city, after being told "don't look back" by one of the angels. But that's it, they never said anything bad would happen if they looked back. It is kinda just one of those things you say to keep people moving forward. Anyone notice how Lot and his daughters never react to her essentially dying? That I find really strange.

 

[Paradoxum]

I know, I hate that particular story. Even the "hero" is an immoral piece of crap. Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destruction of the city, after being told "don't look back" by one of the angels. But that's it, they never said anything bad would happen if they looked back. It is kinda just one of those things you say to keep people moving forward. Anyone notice how Lot and his daughters never react to her essentially dying? That I find really strange.

It's weird.

Have you watched 'The Bible Reloaded' on youtube?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, greatest thing ever.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am also a fan of darkmatter2525

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know, I hate that particular story. Even the "hero" is an immoral piece of crap. Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destruction of the city, after being told "don't look back" by one of the angels. But that's it, they never said anything bad would happen if they looked back. It is kinda just one of those things you say to keep people moving forward. Anyone notice how Lot and his daughters never react to her essentially dying? That I find really strange.

Hmmm.. Where does it say that Lot is a 'hero'?

Additionally, from my understanding of the text, the original language indicates that she went back into the city and got caught in the conflagration; thus she was 'turned to a pillar of salt.' The story is showing that that is where her 'heart' was. We've seen the 'Bible' movie too many times and think that she simply turned around, with sympathy in her heart for the people, and was unfairly turned to a pillar of salt by God.

NOT. The truth is, she probably had some skanky lover that she kept on the side while married to her husband Lot, and went back to try to find him/her/them.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes, greatest thing ever.

I am also a fan of darkmatter2525

Donna... Donna!

I'm subbed to him too. Do you also know of NonStampCollector? Kinda like darkmatter.

There's also an amusing atheist channel called 'logicked', that I've been watching recently.

Hmmm.. Where does it say that Lot is a 'hero'?

Additionally, from my understanding of the text, the original language indicates that she went back into the city and got caught in the conflagration; thus she was 'turned to a pillar of salt.' The story is showing that that is where her 'heart' was. We've seen the 'Bible' movie too many times and think that she simply turned around, with sympathy in her heart for the people, and was unfairly turned to a pillar of salt by God.

NOT. The truth is, she probably had some skanky lover that she kept on the side while married to her husband Lot, and went back to try to find him/her/them.

Lot is supposed to be the one good guy in the city who was saved.

Can you show the verse which indicates that she went back to the city, rather than looked back? Because from what I've read, she 'looked back'.