Sodom and Gomorrah misinterpreted

[2PhiloVoid]

DogmaHunte

No. Atheism = without theism = rejection of theistic claims.

Not believing a god exists is NOT THE SAME as believing NO gods exist.

The first is the rejection of a claim. The latter is a claim on its own.

First, I didn't say gods(s), but god...singular. You said gods, thus creating the tactical opening for your mental twerking.

Well...it appears that the typical usage for the term "atheism," as reported in Webster's Dictionary, corroborates what I stated in the previous post.

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See any similarity in the structures above to what I said.

That depends... When it comes to literalist religious claims like the flood of noah for example, then yes... Science tells me that that claim is nonsense. So if a certain religion is based on such a claim, I will consider that specific religion to be falsified by science, yes.

Ok. So we know that you are a 'philosophical naturalist' rather than a 'methodological naturalist'. Am I wrong here?

But a more important point here is the false dichotomy hiding in your question.
You seem to deny the possibility that gods COULD exist, while every single religion known to mankind is completely wrong.

That statement makes little sense. Of course, I deny that god(s) COULD exist; that's the point of monotheism. You also deny this, so it is superfluous to even bring up the point if you don't believe it.

There are 1000s of different religions. Most of them are mutually exclusive. At best, only 1 can be correct. But ALL can be wrong.

Uh...yeah. So what?

Having said that, my atheism isn't the result of my scientific knowledge. I have always been an atheist as far back as I can remember. Long before I knew anything about biology, physics, chemistry etc. While science certainly reinforced my ideas about religions, my atheism is not a direct result of scientific knowledge

.

So, if you knew NO science at all, you hypothesize that you'd still be an atheist.

My atheism is a direct result of the obvious nonsense that religions try to sell me.

It's not really THAT obvious, assuming that the Judeo-Christian God is going to utilize, was suppose to utilize, as well as condescend, to your assumed epistemological view.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'd like to point out that a Christian telling an atheist what atheists believe is backwards. You are an expert on your beliefs, not the beliefs of others.

Also, it's a bit of a derail, isn't it? We were talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[morningstar2651]

Here's a random tangential question I have related to the discussion.

When it comes to Sodom & Gomorrah, Sodom is sometimes referenced independently of Gomorrah. There is a fruit referred to as the Apple of Sodom, and Sodom is the root of the derogatory word Sodomite.

Why is it that nobody talks about Gomorrah independently of Sodom? It's like Gomorrah is the mostly forgotten sidekick of Sodom. Google ngrams confirms that Sodom appears in print more often than Gomorrah and that Gomorrah appears almost exclusively in the phrase "Sodom and Gomorrah". Why do we focus so much on one of the two cities to the exclusion of the other?

 

[Cute Tink]

And part of those collections of sins was immoral fornication. The men of the town Sodom sought the strangers visiting Lot's home so that the men of the town could know them. That did not mean they wanted a formal introduction to new arrivals in Sodom. It means they wanted to have sex with them.

Do you think they wanted to take them to dinner and a movie, try to slip their arms over their shoulders after a fake yawn and stretch and then hope the night ended with them bedding down and making love?

Because the situation strikes me far more as a gang rape than the assembled men of the town wanting to "have sex" with them. There is a difference between homosexual sex and gang rape.

 

[FuzzyBunnySlippers]

Do you think they wanted to take them to dinner and a movie, try to slip their arms over their shoulders after a fake yawn and stretch and then hope the night ended with them bedding down and making love?

Because the situation strikes me far more as a gang rape than the assembled men of the town wanting to "have sex" with them. There is a difference between homosexual sex and gang rape.

But there is no difference in gang rape being committed by straight men or gay men.

In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, if you want to take it there, then what scripture describes is the intention of the towns men to commit gay gang rape on the men in Lot's house.

 

[Gadarene]

Do you think they wanted to take them to dinner and a movie, try to slip their arms over their shoulders after a fake yawn and stretch and then hope the night ended with them bedding down and making love? Because the situation strikes me far more as a gang rape than the assembled men of the town wanting to "have sex" with them. There is a difference between homosexual sex and gang rape.

But it's gay gang rape. Eeeeeeew! That is like so much worse!

At least when Lot's daughters committed incestual rape (which is totes fine or at least doesn't involve punishment by precision orbital strikes or turning people into a pillar of condiment) they were committing it with someone of the opposite sex. /sarcasm

 

[Cute Tink]

But there is no difference in gang rape being committed by straight men or gay men.

In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, if you want to take it there, then what scripture describes is the intention of the towns men to commit gay gang rape on the men in Lot's house.

And why is gay gang rape so much worse than straight gang rape? Seems to me once you've crossed over into rape, you are just a sick, twisted person no matter who you are attacking.

 

[Mark51]

This is a response to only part of your post.

To begin with, it should be noted that rather than condoning or condemning Lot’s actions, the Bible simply reports what took place. The Bible also does not tell us what Lot was thinking or what motivated him to act as he did.

Lot was placed in a difficult situation. By saying that the visitors had “come under the shadow” of his roof, Lot indicated that he felt compelled to provide protection and refuge for them. Jewish historian Josephus reports that the Sodomites were “unjust towards men, and impious towards God .[bless and do not curse].[bless and do not curse]. They hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices.”

Instead of questioning his motives, consider some possibilities. First of all, Lot may well have acted in faith. No doubt Lot was aware of how Jehovah had protected Sarah, the wife of Abraham, Lot’s uncle. Recall that because Sarah was very beautiful, Abraham had asked her to identify him as her brother, lest others kill him in order to take her. Subsequently, Sarah was taken to the household of Pharaoh. Jehovah, however, intervened, preventing Pharaoh from violating Sarah. (Genesis 12:11-20) It is possible that Lot had faith that his daughters could be similarly protected. Significantly, Jehovah through his angels did intervene, and the young women were kept safe.

Consider another possibility. Lot may also have been trying to shock or confuse the men. He may have believed that his daughters would not be desired by the crowd because of the homosexual lust of the Sodomites. (Jude[bless and do not curse]7) In addition, the young women were engaged to men of the city, so relatives, friends, or business associates of his prospective sons-in-law might well have been in the crowd. (Genesis 19:14) Lot may have hoped that by reason of such ties, some men in that mob would speak up in defense of his daughters. A mob thus divided would not be nearly so dangerous.

In view of this account, God inspire Peter to call Lot a “righteous man.”

 

[morningstar2651]

This is a response to only part of your post.

To begin with, it should be noted that rather than condoning or condemning Lot’s actions, the Bible simply reports what took place. The Bible also does not tell us what Lot was thinking or what motivated him to act as he did.

Lot was placed in a difficult situation. By saying that the visitors had “come under the shadow” of his roof, Lot indicated that he felt compelled to provide protection and refuge for them. Jewish historian Josephus reports that the Sodomites were “unjust towards men, and impious towards God .[bless and do not curse].[bless and do not curse]. They hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices.”

Instead of questioning his motives, consider some possibilities. First of all, Lot may well have acted in faith. No doubt Lot was aware of how Jehovah had protected Sarah, the wife of Abraham, Lot’s uncle. Recall that because Sarah was very beautiful, Abraham had asked her to identify him as her brother, lest others kill him in order to take her. Subsequently, Sarah was taken to the household of Pharaoh. Jehovah, however, intervened, preventing Pharaoh from violating Sarah. (Genesis 12:11-20) It is possible that Lot had faith that his daughters could be similarly protected. Significantly, Jehovah through his angels did intervene, and the young women were kept safe.

Consider another possibility. Lot may also have been trying to shock or confuse the men. He may have believed that his daughters would not be desired by the crowd because of the homosexual lust of the Sodomites. (Jude[bless and do not curse]7) In addition, the young women were engaged to men of the city, so relatives, friends, or business associates of his prospective sons-in-law might well have been in the crowd. (Genesis 19:14) Lot may have hoped that by reason of such ties, some men in that mob would speak up in defense of his daughters. A mob thus divided would not be nearly so dangerous.

In view of this account, God inspire Peter to call Lot a “righteous man.”

...it's righteous to offer your daughter to be raped by a mob if you don't think they'll actually do it?

 

[CryOfALion]

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.

Angels can transsubstantiate, otherwise a similar argument could be made about how eating was possible, or how the fallen were able to mate with females in the antediluvian world.

But yes, the people were just nasty - as long as there was a hole - and sexually aggressive. But, the culture was reflective of their behavior.

Angels are beautiful, and chances are the people were filled with even more sexual aggression because of that beauty, despite the angels existing in human for at that time.

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.

They were hedonistic, so yeah it wasn't so much about homosexuality as it was about their incredible lust for any flesh. For what it is worth, I am glad the angels acted, and God didn't allow lot to actually give his daughters - they were so focused on the angels. I always cringe at that bit as a future father.

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.

Abraham pleaded with God that, if 50

Then 45

Then 40

Then 30

Then 20...

...were found worthy and righteous, do not destroy the city. God entertained him, and there was none found. So, they had chances, and choices. Clearly they were so into their culture that besides Abraham and Lot, and their family, none were found worthy of escaping destruction. Even Lot's wife missed the life she had back in the city, and "looked back." That very physical event of fleeing the destruction was also symbolic for focus and worship of God. You can't serve two masters; this is the same mistake the Hebrews in the exodus made. They worked/gathered every day - even the Sabbath - like back when they were slaves. They groaned about the sweetness of manna - literal angel food God gave them - and longed for their meat and onions like in Egypt. They built an idol despite the fact that God literally delivered them to safety. The verses are pithy, but they definitely weren't innocent.

If they really cared about repenting, they would have done like Nineveh.

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 angels blinded the people, then destroyed the city. They owned the lot of them with ease.

The problem was sodomy, witchcraft and other practices. They were already on "destruction watch" for their practices - that is why the angels came in the first place. Their lust - indiscriminate of gender (and technically species) - sealed the deal for their destruction. I would say it was a combination of things - especially actions supplementing their religious practices. But, it was definitely more than their lack of hospitality.

 

[poolerboy0077]

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 know how you take a case of attempted gang rape and conclude that the aberration was that they were about to perform said rape homosexually. Would it have been more palatable had the rape of the angels been heterosexual? Or that they should have taken up Lot on raping his daughters? That seems to be the least salient point of the story, yet it is touted as the central one by contemporary followers. Not even the Bible itself when quoting back on this story does it say that the sin of Sodom was because the attempted rape would have been carried out homosexually.

 

[Colter]

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.

Meteorite exploded over Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing supernatural about it. The Hebrew authors of scripture incorporated the story into their miraculous fiction about the history of the Israelites.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's the consensus of most moderate or liberal Christians: Sodom and Gomorrah is not a story about God condemning homosexuality

 

[CryOfALion]

That's the consensus of most moderate or liberal Christians: Sodom and Gomorrah is not a story about God condemning homosexuality

There was definitely homosexual activity of which God disapproved. But, what likely made Him go from patience for repentance, to wrath was that in addition to homosexual activity, Sodomites participated in a great number of sexual lasciviousness, and used it in conjunction with the worship of other gods - like having an organization after sacrificing a person to a god - and then bathing in the person's blood. Stuff like that. We can tell there was more to it than homosexuality when Job offers his "virgin" daughters instead of the people "knowing" the angels.

It wasn't like God made Sodom FUBAR because it was a city of monogamous, well-to-do same sexual couples who respected other people sexually, and didn't try to rape whatever flesh they saw. He would have sent a prophet to get them to repentance if it was just sin - as opposed to grotesque, mockingly evil sin that was Sodom. I know He doesn't have a qualification, or hierarchy for sin, but He is also merciful and patient. Moses killed a man. David sent his own mate into war hoping he would die so he can steal his wife. Adam disobeyed God's directive that introduced this situation. Paul killed Christians. If He was as hot tempered as many would have us believe, we would likely have only a number of prophets and heroes that we can count on one hand.

Sodom was too far gone.

 

[FireDragon76]

When the Prophets talk about Sodom and Gomorrah they never mention sexual sins of the cities as being offensive to God, they talk about the cities injustice and exploitation of the vulnerable. My guess is medieval, sex-starved monks and priests read all the wrong things into the stories in Genesis. This is not uncommon, one of the Popes read Mary Magdalene as a repentant hooker even though this account is unbiblical, it has stuck in Church tradition. Some tradition are wrong.