Sodom and Gomorrah misinterpreted

[2PhiloVoid]

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.



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'.

Ok, Para...you got me on this!!!!

It appears I will have to PARTIALLY retract my previous post, and I'll give a quick explanation and clarification.

In regard to Lot, although he is described as a righteous person, we shouldn't take this to mean that he was a really good guy. It's more like he was the equivalent of a Christian who lived a mediocre Christian life. He was good enough to be rescued from S&G, but he was a bit greedy and really had shown a lack of wisdom by choosing to live among the sinful people of S&G in the first place; this is what the text of Genesis implies (Gen. 13), thus his own life and family were all negatively affected by his 'crappy' choice.

Now. About Lot's wife. My personal interpretation above is conditional, and it might be off since I based it on something I heard in a class back in 1988...and I've slept since then, as we sometimes say.

So, from looking at currents in Jewish and Christian commentaries, it seems that Lot's wife did simply turn around rather than running back to the city. However, I am correct in asserting that this implies her heart wasn't in the right place with God. Thus, she was turned to salt in judgement, which is why Jesus tells us to "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32).

See...I can admit when I'm wrong.

 

[JGG]

I have always taken the fact that Christians point at this story as condemning homosexuality as a passive way of condoning rape.

 

[Paradoxum]

Ok, Para...you got me on this!!!!

It appears I will have to PARTIALLY retract my previous post, and I'll give a quick explanation and clarification.

Fair enough.

In regard to Lot, although he is described as a righteous person, we shouldn't take this to mean that he was a really good guy. It's more like he was the equivalent of a Christian who lived a mediocre Christian life. He was good enough to be rescued from S&G, but he was a bit greedy and really had shown a lack of wisdom by choosing to live among the sinful people of S&G in the first place; this is what the text of Genesis implies (Gen. 13), thus his own life and family were all negatively affected by his 'crappy' choice.

Still, I'd hope an average Christian wouldn't give their daughters to be raped... probably to death. I just read Gen 13, and I didn't feel that it implied what you said. I'd agree that living in Sodom sounds terrible, but I don't see the text saying that. Is there a verse you mean?

Now. About Lot's wife. My personal interpretation above is conditional, and it might be off since I based it on something I heard in a class back in 1988...and I've slept since then, as we sometimes say.

If the text requires such difficult interpretation, is it really an infallible book from God? I know that all things can be explained way with mental gymnastics, but I'd think that God would be able to get a decent book written, if it's meant to be followed centuries into the future.

So, from looking at currents in Jewish and Christian commentaries, it seems that Lot's wife did simply turn around rather than running back to the city. However, I am correct in asserting that this implies her heart wasn't in the right place with God. Thus, she was turned to salt in judgement, which is why Jesus tells us to "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32).

It doesn't matter if her heart wasn't in the right place. Turning around isn't bad, and a good God wouldn't do that to someone. If a human did that we would say they were evil. If there is a God, I don't believe he so horrible as he is shown in the OT.

I used to try tu justify these horrible things, but I got to a point where I could see that the immoral things in the Bible really are immoral. Personally, I believe in decent morality more than I could believe a book is infallible. I don't think that people should be treated like rubbish to be thrown away, whether the judge is a human or a God.

See...I can admit when I'm wrong.

Yup, it's good to be able to admit that.

 

[Sayre]

In genuine curiosity I ask... why do you care how Christians interpret a bible you don't believe in? Why would you argue for them to interpret it correctly?

 

[Gadarene]

In genuine curiosity I ask... why do you care how Christians interpret a bible you don't believe in? Why would you argue for them to interpret it correctly?

Well, if a Christian's belief in the claim that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is influencing a strong anti-homosexuality stance, then I will quite happily throw an Ezekiel shaped spanner in the works.

They may not change their mind, but it will damage their credibility somewhat.

 

[Paradoxum]

In genuine curiosity I ask... why do you care how Christians interpret a bible you don't believe in? Why would you argue for them to interpret it correctly?

I don't know if you're talking to me, but:

How Christians interpret the Bible can affect other people. It could affect people being bullied, or people being denied rights or liberties.

It's good for people not to believe immoral things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paradoxum

Still, I'd hope an average Christian wouldn't give their daughters to be raped... probably to death. I just read Gen 13, and I didn't feel that it implied what you said. I'd agree that living in Sodom sounds terrible, but I don't see the text saying that. Is there a verse you mean?

You’ve got a compassionate heart, Para, and I appreciate that!

Let’s deal with the first comment you replied with,” I'd hope an average Christian wouldn't give their daughters to be raped... probably to death.” I heartily agree! That would be an awful thing to happen, especially if a Christian did that. However, while the average Christian parent might spank their children, they aren’t going to give them as victims to sexual perpetrators. It’s unimaginable. I think that kind of thing could only happen if a Christian becomes either severely mentally ill or perhaps traumatized under long-term duress. For instance, if a Christian became schizophrenic, then many immoral things might unfortunately become a possibility. It might also be the case if a Christian is oppressed or tortured for a long time. As for Lot, I want to clarify that he would have been the equivalent of a mediocre Christian…GOING INTO Sodom and Gomorrah, not after having lived there for some time. Lot’s willingness to give his daughters to be raped shows that something seriously wrong manifested in his mind, and it is this context that the S&G passage demonstrates. Moreover, I am only willing to qualify Lot as ‘righteous’ because this is stated in 2 Peter 2:6-8.

More importantly, Lot got saved not because he was a hero, but because he was the only one in the city with even a smidgeon of faith left in his heart, AND because Abraham asked God to spare any ‘righteous’ people present in the cities (Gen. 20:29). Without Abraham’s intercession especially, Lot and his family could have been destroyed as well because they were beginning to have moral failures.

I think that when Lot chose to settle near and in S&G, he was making a bad decision. This is obviously implied in Genesis 13 (verses 10 and 13) by the fact that the writer chose to ‘foreshadow’ the nature of S&G. The writer makes comments that are contextually important, coloring our understanding of just what Lot was getting himself (and his family) into. He already knew, along with Abram, that he was moving himself within proximity of cities with questionable inhabitants. It is this kind of thing which Paul was citing when he said that “Bad company corrupts good morals.” So, Lot gradually became more soiled in his thinking as he lived among those in S&G, and we get his panicked (and stupid) response of offering his daughters to the people of Sodom.

I’ll take up your other comments later.

Peace

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, Para...you got me on this!!!!

It appears I will have to PARTIALLY retract my previous post, and I'll give a quick explanation and clarification.

In regard to Lot, although he is described as a righteous person, we shouldn't take this to mean that he was a really good guy. It's more like he was the equivalent of a Christian who lived a mediocre Christian life. He was good enough to be rescued from S&G, but he was a bit greedy and really had shown a lack of wisdom by choosing to live among the sinful people of S&G in the first place; this is what the text of Genesis implies (Gen. 13), thus his own life and family were all negatively affected by his 'crappy' choice.

Now. About Lot's wife. My personal interpretation above is conditional, and it might be off since I based it on something I heard in a class back in 1988...and I've slept since then, as we sometimes say.

So, from looking at currents in Jewish and Christian commentaries, it seems that Lot's wife did simply turn around rather than running back to the city. However, I am correct in asserting that this implies her heart wasn't in the right place with God. Thus, she was turned to salt in judgement, which is why Jesus tells us to "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32).

See...I can admit when I'm wrong.

Good, we should all be willing to recognize that we aren't always correct. Still, odd that her family didn't even acknowledge the loss. And then Lot is raped by his daughters. Which by the way, wouldn't have worked, Lot was too old to, uh, "preform" while that intoxicated (alcohol makes that more difficult, and at the levels he was supposed to be drunk, literally impossible at his age).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

PsychoSarah

Good, we should all be willing to recognize that we aren't always correct.

Yep...that would be fitting for a person who is attempting to be humble (unless humility isn't a part of one's moral code.)

Still, odd that her family didn't even acknowledge the loss.

Right. It is odd. And that is the implication and influence of living in S&G. One's moral sense is challenged and even eroded over time.

And then Lot is raped by his daughters.

Sure, when moral apathy reigns, all kinds of things are possible. Just watch the 9 o'clock news where I live; very strange things are reported every day.

Which by the way, wouldn't have worked, Lot was too old to, uh, "preform" while that intoxicated (alcohol makes that more difficult, and at the levels he was supposed to be drunk, literally impossible at his age).

That actually is dependent on a person's individual genetic makeup, and as to how much is drank. For some people, a reasonable dose of alcohol actually fires things up a bit. And we don't know exactly what the daughters were doing to get him aroused... I imagine that in S&G, a person could learn all kinds of things.

 

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum

You’ve got a compassionate heart, Para, and I appreciate that!

Thanks!

Let’s deal with the first comment you replied with,” I'd hope an average Christian wouldn't give their daughters to be raped... probably to death.” I heartily agree! That would be an awful thing to happen, especially if a Christian did that. However, while the average Christian parent might spank their children, they aren’t going to give them as victims to sexual perpetrators. It’s unimaginable. I think that kind of thing could only happen if a Christian becomes either severely mentally ill or perhaps traumatized under long-term duress. For instance, if a Christian became schizophrenic, then many immoral things might unfortunately become a possibility. It might also be the case if a Christian is oppressed or tortured for a long time. As for Lot, I want to clarify that he would have been the equivalent of a mediocre Christian…GOING INTO Sodom and Gomorrah, not after having lived there for some time. Lot’s willingness to give his daughters to be raped shows that something seriously wrong manifested in his mind, and it is this context that the S&G passage demonstrates. Moreover, I am only willing to qualify Lot as ‘righteous’ because this is stated in 2 Peter 2:6-8.

More importantly, Lot got saved not because he was a hero, but because he was the only one in the city with even a smidgeon of faith left in his heart, AND because Abraham asked God to spare any ‘righteous’ people present in the cities (Gen. 20:29). Without Abraham’s intercession especially, Lot and his family could have been destroyed as well because they were beginning to have moral failures.

I think that when Lot chose to settle near and in S&G, he was making a bad decision. This is obviously implied in Genesis 13 (verses 10 and 13) by the fact that the writer chose to ‘foreshadow’ the nature of S&G. The writer makes comments that are contextually important, coloring our understanding of just what Lot was getting himself (and his family) into. He already knew, along with Abram, that he was moving himself within proximity of cities with questionable inhabitants. It is this kind of thing which Paul was citing when he said that “Bad company corrupts good morals.” So, Lot gradually became more soiled in his thinking as he lived among those in S&G, and we get his panicked (and stupid) response of offering his daughters to the people of Sodom.

I’ll take up your other comments later.

Peace

I don't know... Lot does seem to be presented as the good guy in the story. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree. God's perfect book doesn't seem to covey the point very well, if you are right. I just don't get why you would defend the Bible. It clearly has immoral things done and commanded by 'God'. You can still use the Bible as a guide, even if it is fallible.

Also as I may have said before, I also have problems with God destroying the city anyway. God could have done other things to get the people to change for the better.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I take the sodomy committed in this story as a way to intimidate, demean, subjugate, and brutalize strangers (with some gratification as well), much like prison rape today. Hardly the 'homosexuality' normally thought of.

 

[Sayre]

I take the sodomy committed in this story as a way to intimidate, demean, subjugate, and brutalize strangers (with some gratification as well), much like prison rape today. Hardly the 'homosexuality' normally thought of.

I fully agree. In fact, much of the homosexuality spoken of and against in the bible bears no resemblance to the modern day homosexual relationships. Most of the marriage relationships also bear no resemblance to the type of marriages we have today. Oh, the places we could go.

 

[DannyB]

Look, justify all you want but the Scriptures definitely condemn homosexualality. Luckily for some God hates sin but not the sinner. Arguing that Angels don't have gender to support the belief that the Bible somehow condones homosexualality is ridiculous. Look up the nephilim. That should clear up any question you have about angel's gender.

 

[DannyB]

Homosexuals range in extremes. There are lots of cases, though not even close to all, where homosexuals underwent transgender surgery only to find they are now attracted to their current same sex which suggests that these are not truly homosexuals but people with psychological disorders. I have personally witnessed women trapped in men's bodies so to speak. These people are unable to do anything about their homosexuality. We're not talking about a lifestyle choice at this point. They can no more help that they are attracted to men than heterosexual males can help being attracted to women. No one will ever convince me that is just a preference or choice. Who would choose that considering how society has treated homosexuals?

That being said, I can't find fairness in God's condemning of homosexuals. I just don't understand it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks!



I don't know... Lot does seem to be presented as the good guy in the story. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree. God's perfect book doesn't seem to covey the point very well, if you are right. I just don't get why you would defend the Bible. It clearly has immoral things done and commanded by 'God'. You can still use the Bible as a guide, even if it is fallible.

Also as I may have said before, I also have problems with God destroying the city anyway. God could have done other things to get the people to change for the better.

In general, I defend the bible BECAUSE of the argument from evil, the very argument which leads the epistemological construct of many unbelievers. In a Christian universe, I expect the world to look as it historically has appeared and as it does now.

Yes, we can agree to disagree; in fact, I didn't share my short story in my previous post to move any cognitive barriers on your part.

As far as the Bible being clearly immoral, I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is that you have underlying assumptions about morality that are not necessarily part and parcel of physics, biology, or human nature. You are merely assimilating the world's assumptions in its ongoing construction of moral concepts which are being 'logically' packaged and disseminated.

But, I'm 'open' minded. If I'm a fool, I challenge any and all atheists to PLEASE fill me in on the axioms and arguments that I am missing. Please show me where we MUST begin in our thinking to arrive at the modern/post-modern mindset. Maybe I'll realize I'm wrong...

 

[Paradoxum]

In general, I defend the bible BECAUSE of the argument from evil, the very argument which leads the epistemological construct of many unbelievers. In a Christian universe, I expect the world to look as it historically has appeared and as it does now.

How is that possible? There is alot of suffering that God does nothing about. He also doesn't make his existence obvious. If I was so apathetic towards the suffering of others I'd be a terrible person. It seems to me then, that there is no loving God capable of helping us.

As far as the Bible being clearly immoral, I'm not seeing it.

God telling people to murder other people for stupid reasons like picking up sticks. Or God murdering first born sons in Egypt. The acceptance of slavery, and beating slaves. The list of immoral things would be long if I went through the whole Bible.

It has good bits too, sure.

What I am seeing is that you have underlying assumptions about morality that are not necessarily part and parcel of physics, biology, or human nature. You are merely assimilating the world's assumptions in its ongoing construction of moral concepts which are being 'logically' packaged and disseminated.

What I am seeing is that you are assuming that I am making assumptions.

I'm not merely accepting the assumptions of others... I try to figure out what is moral by thinking about it.

But, I'm 'open' minded. If I'm a fool, I challenge any and all atheists to PLEASE fill me in on the axioms and arguments that I am missing. Please show me where we MUST begin in our thinking to arrive at the modern/post-modern mindset. Maybe I'll realize I'm wrong...

Unlike the Bible, I try not to say someone is a fool just because they disagree with me.

I lost faith because I found my previous reasons for believing to not justify belief. So I need your reasons for believing to be able to say what I think is wrong with them, if anything. You can give a reason you believe, in more detail, if you want?

I also came to see that the world looks like there is no God. All interactions with God are just psychological. God never gives any concrete reason to believe in him. People suffer and die, and God doesn't help them. A good person would help them.

 

[Autumnleaf]

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.

Fool! Angels do have gender. They impregnated beautiful human women to make the race of the Nephilim. The giants.


Genesis 6:1-22 ESV / 62 helpful votes

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fool! Angels do have gender. They impregnated beautiful human women to make the race of the Nephilim. The giants.


Genesis 6:1-22 ESV / 62 helpful votes

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Autumnleaf,

While I agree that you have the privilege of standing up and asserting our Christian faith, please don't call people 'fools'. That is unbecoming of a Christian.

Peace

 

[keith99]

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.

If I recall correctly the word translated as angel is simply 'messenger', the doctrine about beautiful angels is more medieval than anything else. Not unlike blond haired and blue eyed portrayals of Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paradoxum

How is that possible? There is alot of suffering that God does nothing about. He also doesn't make his existence obvious. If I was so apathetic towards the suffering of others I'd be a terrible person. It seems to me then, that there is no loving God capable of helping us.

1) Para, can we agree that the Bible states that the world is sold to sin and that the biblical view regarding sin is that it leads to suffering and death?

2) Can we agree that the Bible indicates that God is primarily concerned with the issue of humanities' separation from Him?

3) Can we agree that if you had the power of resurrecting other people into an immortal and invulnerable state then allowances for suffering can be made? (Example: You could tell Paul that you're not going to heal him of a painful affliction, but you could still expect him to honor you as Lord.)

4) Can we agree that a responsible person will sometimes allow others to see the consequences and ramifications of their choices and actions?

God telling people to murder other people for stupid reasons like picking up sticks. Or God murdering first born sons in Egypt. The acceptance of slavery, and beating slaves. The list of immoral things would be long if I went through the whole Bible.

It has good bits too, sure.

1) Can we agree that capital punishment is not murder? (Which I understand might be difficult since you hail from Britain/Europe.)

2) Can we agree that God is not human and should only be trifled with in the same way that we might trifle with nature? (i.e. at our peril).

What I am seeing is that you are assuming that I am making assumptions.

I'm not merely accepting the assumptions of others... I try to figure out what is moral by thinking about it.

Ok. I'm glad that you are using your own mind in working to think through various moral issues. What I'd like to know is, once you get your moral system in place, how will you deal with sociopaths, egregious deviants, and/or recalcitrant deliquents?

Unlike the Bible, I try not to say someone is a fool just because they disagree with me.

The bible doesn't say that people are fools because they simply disagree.

I lost faith because I found my previous reasons for believing to not justify belief. So I need your reasons for believing to be able to say what I think is wrong with them, if anything. You can give a reason you believe, in more detail, if you want?

Well, again, I can explore specific issues with you, but my theology is not going to be demonstrable to you by today's standards. Moreover, my epistemology is coherentism, not foundationalism, so you're just going to become frustrated with me (i.e. if you are taking (atheist) Peter Boghossian's recommendations).

I also came to see that the world looks like there is no God. All interactions with God are just psychological. God never gives any concrete reason to believe in him. People suffer and die, and God doesn't help them. A good person would help them.

Ok. What might be helpful, then, is to know how you derived your original ideas of God when you were a Christian, and how you arrived at an idea of 'the good.'