- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You seem to be telling others that study isn't important. I'm just reminding them that it is.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, study. What's the problem?
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.
Why are people reading the text as if S&G actually happened?
How would anyone know whether it did or didn't happen?
I don't think it actually happened because
- we have no evidence of it occurring, and
Do you believe it actually happened? If so, why?
I don't think it actually happened because
- we have no evidence of it occurring, and
- it occurs in the bible in the midst of other mythic and legendary accounts, and
- it occurs in other mythical writings in slightly different ways which give credence to the idea of it being a story delivering a message rather than a piece of history.
I don't know if it actually happened or not. The story could reflect the remnants of some kind of event.
"We have no evidence of it occurring." This may be true, but just because something happened in the world doesn't mean that there will be evidence.
"It occurs in the bible in the midst of other mythic and legendary accounts"
We should be careful to presume that we absolutely know the extent of what is or isn't mythical in the bible. As for me, even though we don't seem to have corroborative evidence of the sort we'd like, I typically only relegate Genesis Chapters 1-11 as De Facto myth; however, this is not to say that the stories themselves don't reflect some kind of historical phenomena that may have actually taken place at those times. You allude to something of this nature in your 3rd bullet point above.
Yes, in general, the book of Genesis may have been meant to serve as some kind of theologized historical account. And what you've said above seems to mostly coincide with the "cosmogonic" structure that the late theologian Conrad Hyers promoted. However, we should not fail to notice that there is an indication in Josephus that some Jewish interpreters, at least during the first century, thought that the creation stories served more philosophical purposes than historical ones.Every single story of the Book of Genesis was originally meant to be historical. Even if some of the stories spawned from earlier Sumerian versions, the people who included them in the Book of Genesis were trying to tell a story that their audience would believe as true, whether or not each individual relaying the story thought is was true or purposely added what they knew to be fiction or not.
No, its a lot different. If history tells us anything, the Jews weren't slapdash with their oral or written traditions.It's no different than when someone hears a story they believe to be true and tells another, and that person tells another, and that person exaggerates a little bit to another, and that person adds a little personal propaganda and tells another, and so forth.
In line with what I was telling Sayre, we don't have enough evidence to tell us either way. And as far as your view of Jesus' coming on the clouds, its fulfillment depends on your interpretive framework.Lot and Moses are on equal footing, regarding their possible historicity, which currently falls within the "myth category" until we can dig up some evidence of these people. No matter how unlikely it is that we will ever dig up some evidence, the possibility of this is waaaay more probable than Jesus coming in the clouds, let me tell ya.
I appreciate that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but as a part of a cumulative argument - if something appears mythical then lack of evidence increases the likelihood that it is myth rather than historical. Congruence between the biblical account and other known mythologies increase the likelihood that the biblical account is based in mythology.
You're almost there.
All you have to do is become an atheist, and you can start winning some arguments.
Aren't you just about sick of getting beaten up and down these threads by all the atheists?
I mean, I've gotta hand it to ya. You have the impossible task of trying to defend "1 + 1 = 3". Kudos to you.
All I have to do is argue that "1 + 1 = 2".
Aren't you tired of trying to drag initially coherent debates into the realm of "anything goes", in order to try to level the playing field? Aren't you tired of trying to ignore one blatant fact while sweeping another obvious observation under the rug? Don't you get sick when your fellow Christians start arguing that "1 + 1 = five"?
Man . . . I've got it easy.
You also have to assume that you know which of the dozens upon dozens of brands of Christianity you're dealing with. You also have to assume which atheistic point of view you will take in regard to the Nature of Science (N.O.S.). There is more than one.
That's "the truth"? You do know that it is against scripture to add to the Bible, correct?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.
Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
This makes no sense.
Atheism has nothing to do with science or any scientific point of view.
Atheism is only about the rejection of theism.
It's not about the acceptance of something else. The word "atheist" doesn't tell you what I DO believe... It only tells you what I don't believe.
Genesis 19:8 is where he offers his virgin daughters up for gang rape.Hmmm.. Where does it say that Lot is a 'hero'?
Sure the word "atheist" tells me something; it tells me that you DO believe that there is no god.
So...do you mean to tell me that science plays absolutely no part in your perceptions and understandings of religion, even as an atheist? Honestly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?