Sodom and Gomorrah misinterpreted

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum

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?

'Sold to sin' is a vague statement, and I don't know what it means.

The Bible is multiple books, so don't know if there really is one message. It also depends what you mean by biblical. Christians who don't think the Bible is infallible might say that sex outside marriage is biblical, because the old prohibitions are incorrect, that that 'love your neighbour' doesn't prohibit it.

It all interpretation.

So I don't know if it is biblical that sin lead to suffering and death. My position as a Christian was that sin was immoral, and lead to separation from God, not suffering and death, which are natural regardless of sin.

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

I don't know... God doesn't seem all that concerned, depending on your theology. Again, it seems to come down to interpretation, so I feel no need to take a position.

If I were a Christian, I'd probably say that God is concerned about people being moral, or their hearts being inclined towards the good.

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.)

I think allowances for some types of suffering are okay even if there is no resurrection. I don't think resurrection changes anything.

If I were in possession of the power of God, I'd be obligated to heal people and keep them alive until they were into old age. Whether they will go to heaven is irrelevant. High levels of suffering definitely wouldn't be okay.

So I definitely disagree here.

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

Yup, sometimes.

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

I'm not sure I agree. If the killing isn't necessarily, then it probably is murder, or at least close to murder.

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).

We trifle with nature all the time. God is meant to be a good loving being, so I don't agree. Just because God is big and powerful doesn't make his murder any more okay than a human murdering.

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?

Lock them up if they violate the law, socially shun them if they harm people in a non-illegal way, or try to emphasise the benefits of being moral.

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

Well it says the fool says in their heart there is no God. I suppose you could say that non-fools also say that. But not all fools are atheists. So then I don't understand what the point of the verse is.

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 don't really know what coherentism is, but I have a horrible feeling you are going to say that you just make stuff up, and then base your beliefs on the stuff you just made up without justification.

If that's true, it just sounds like a way to hold on to something that you know you can't defend.

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.'

Bible, church, books, experience.

I always believed in some sort of morality, and that developed and changed as I thought about it more.

 

[jennimatts]

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?

Transsexuality and homosexuality are different topics; one is not simply an extreme of the other.

I may be confused as to just what you are trying to say... Are you saying a homosexual person had a sex change and was again homosexual after their sex change?

I do not believe transsexuality or homosexuality are a psychological disorder any more than it's a psychological disorder for a straight person to be attracted exclusively to the opposite sex. Non-conformance with societal norms does not equate to a psychological problem.

 

[JGG]

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.

But in the Christian nomenclature, sodomite does not refer to a rapist, does it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But in the Christian nomenclature, sodomite does not refer to a rapist, does it?

A sodomite is one who practices sodomy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Non-conformance with societal norms does not equate to a psychological problem.

Homosexuality and other aberrances are non-conforming to biological norms, and are likely more 'disturbing' to heterosexuals than to LBGT's.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paradoxum

'Sold to sin' is a vague statement, and I don't know what it means.

Para, its simply a play on words which, as you know, are evident in the New Testament (ala Paul).

The Bible is multiple books, so don't know if there really is one message.

Yes, it is multiple books, but like a Venn Diagram of overlapping circles, there is a common core, even if the circles don't always lay upon each other.

It also depends what you mean by biblical. Christians who don't think the Bible is infallible might say that sex outside marriage is biblical, because the old prohibitions are incorrect, that that 'love your neighbour' doesn't prohibit it.

Well, they need to stop reading Harvey Cox.

It all interpretation.

Perhaps, but there are only just so many ways it can be interpreted; we're not talking infinite possibilities for meaning here.

So I don't know if it is biblical that sin lead to suffering and death. My position as a Christian was that sin was immoral, and lead to separation from God, not suffering and death, which are natural regardless of sin.

So, you haven't read the Gospels, Romans, James, Peter, John, Hebrews, Revelation? Sin leads to death, my dear. It actually does say that.

I

don't know... God doesn't seem all that concerned, depending on your theology. Again, it seems to come down to interpretation, so I feel no need to take a position.

No...He only sent His Son to die. You're right...doesn't sound like much concern is there.

If I were a Christian, I'd probably say that God is concerned about people being moral, or their hearts being inclined towards the good.

He's actually more concerned about them being Holy and gaining a restored relationship with Him.

I think allowances for some types of suffering are okay even if there is no resurrection. I don't think resurrection changes anything.

Sure it does. No one else can do that--Resurrection changes EVERYTHING.

If I were in possession of the power of God, I'd be obligated to heal people and keep them alive until they were into old age. Whether they will go to heaven is irrelevant. High levels of suffering definitely wouldn't be okay.

So I definitely disagree here.

Yeah, I guess you do.

Yup, sometimes.



I'm not sure I agree. If the killing isn't necessarily, then it probably is murder, or at least close to murder.

Doesn't sound like you're for certain on this.

We trifle with nature all the time. God is meant to be a good loving being, so I don't agree. Just because God is big and powerful doesn't make his murder any more okay than a human murdering.

Fortunately for us, God doesn't murder.

Lock them up if they violate the law, socially shun them if they harm people in a non-illegal way, or try to emphasise the benefits of being moral.

Why punish anyone at all?

Well it says the fool says in their heart there is no God. I suppose you could say that non-fools also say that. But not all fools are atheists. So then I don't understand what the point of the verse is.

The point of the verse is to say that a person is pretty much scraping the bottom of the empirical barrel when they deny God existence.

I don't really know what coherentism is, but I have a horrible feeling you are going to say that you just make stuff up, and then base your beliefs on the stuff you just made up without justification.

Actually, no. I'm surprised that you aren't familiar with coherentism, being you have a philosophy degree. It is one of the main epistemological positions, along with Foundationalism, Reliablism, and Pragmatism

If that's true, it just sounds like a way to hold on to something that you know you can't defend.

Not.....exactly.

Bible, church, books, experience.

I always believed in some sort of morality, and that developed and changed as I thought about it more.

Well, through all that we've discussed, I'm glad at least to know that you're a gracious and moral person. There aren't enough people in the world like that. Stay good!

 

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum

Para, its simply a play on words which, as you know, are evident in the New Testament (ala Paul).

Sorry, I meant that I didn't know what it meant for the world to be sold to sin.

Yes, it is multiple books, but like a Venn Diagram of overlapping circles, there is a common core, even if the circles don't always lay upon each other.

Maybe you are right.

Well, they need to stop reading Harvey Cox.

I don't know who that is.

Perhaps, but there are only just so many ways it can be interpreted; we're not talking infinite possibilities for meaning here.

Sure, there aren't infinite ones, but there are very different ones.

So, you haven't read the Gospels, Romans, James, Peter, John, Hebrews, Revelation? Sin leads to death, my dear. It actually does say that.

I've read at least some of them, or bits of all of them. Of course you could say that they mean spiritual death. If they mean physical, I'd think that is obviously incorrect, because people die for physical reasons.

INo...He only sent His Son to die. You're right...doesn't sound like much concern is there.

It depends on your theology. If you have to believe in Jesus, then God has done a terrible job of convincing people that Jesus died for them. He also doesn't seem to interact with people in a concrete personal way.

I can see how you could argue that God cares though.

He's actually more concerned about them being Holy and gaining a restored relationship with Him.

If you are holy, does that mean you are moral? Maybe the Bible, according to your interpretation, says that God wants us to be friends with him... or however you define that relationship. Ok.

Sure it does. No one else can do that--Resurrection changes EVERYTHING.

Why does it change anything?

Doesn't sound like you're for certain on this.

I haven't thought alot about the exact definitions of things compared to capital punishment, because we don't have it in the UK.

Fortunately for us, God doesn't murder.

There seems to be alot of random pointless murders and genocides in the Bible commanded by God.

Why punish anyone at all?

There are probably different answers that can be given. Laws are needed for a society to function, for example. We should allow people to live their lives without being violated by others.

The point of the verse is to say that a person is pretty much scraping the bottom of the empirical barrel when they deny God existence.

I see no good reason to believe in God. I also don't believe in fairies. I don't mean that in an offensive way. My point is just that your claim of a God is little different than claiming fairies exist, from my point of view.

Actually, no. I'm surprised that you aren't familiar with coherentism, being you have a philosophy degree. It is one of the main epistemological positions, along with Foundationalism, Reliablism, and Pragmatism

Didn't do a module on epistemology. I focused more on things like ethics and law.

Not.....exactly.

Fair enough.

Well, through all that we've discussed, I'm glad at least to know that you're a gracious and moral person. There aren't enough people in the world like that. Stay good!

Well I'd like to hope I'm a decent person anyway. I think most people try to be decent.

 

[JGG]

A sodomite is one who practices sodomy.

So sodomy means rape? When Christians refer to opposing sodomite marriage, they mean marriage between two rapists?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So sodomy means rape? When Christians refer to opposing sodomite marriage, they mean marriage between two rapists?

Rape means forced or non-consensual sex . Sodomy most often takes place between consenting individuals.

 

[JGG]

Rape means forced or non-consensual sex . Sodomy most often takes place between consenting individuals.

So then from the Christian perspective, the story of Sodom has nothing to do with a way to intimidate, demean, subjugate, and brutalize strangers (with some gratification as well), much like prison rape today. It has to do with what Sodomites were consenting to. That's where the word comes from, right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So then from the Christian perspective, the story of Sodom has nothing to do with a way to intimidate, demean, subjugate, and brutalize strangers (with some gratification as well), much like prison rape today. It has to do with what Sodomites were consenting to. That's where the word comes from, right?

I assume the term comes from the Biblical Sodom and what we believe about their practices. However, the term has more meanings than are generally thought. Bestiality is a form of sodomy, as is oral sex. Basically any aberrant sexual act can be defined as 'sodomy'. But because of the widespread acceptance of oral and anal sex sodomy is most often thought of as forced anal sex. Christians who refer to homosexual marriages as 'Sodomite' marriages are actually quite correct, as they do not accept these practices as 'normal'.

 

[JGG]

I assume the term comes from the Biblical Sodom and what we believe about their practices. However, the term has more meanings than are generally thought. Bestiality is a form of sodomy, as is oral sex. Basically any aberrant sexual act can be defined as 'sodomy'. But because of the widespread acceptance of oral and anal sex sodomy is most often thought of as forced anal sex. Christians who refer to homosexual marriages as 'Sodomite' marriages are actually quite correct, as they do not accept these practices as 'normal'.

So we're agreed that it would be wrong to call rapists sodomites. We wouldn't want to associate rapists with a group of people God hated so much as to incinerate them. That would be disrespectful.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the story of Gib'e-ah, yes? Here, like in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, we have a traveler accompanied with his concubine who comes to the city of Gib'e-ah. He plans to spend the night in the square and a good man tells him not to but instead follow him to his abode. Once again, we have an angry mob form. However, unlike the Sodom story in which Lot asks that they have sex with his virgin daughters instead of the angels but the mob rejects this, here they rape the man's concubine and murder her.

What are we to conclude from this story? That heterosexuality is wrong too because the men gang-raped a woman?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So we're agreed that it would be wrong to call rapists sodomites. We wouldn't want to associate rapists with a group of people God hated so much as to incinerate them. That would be disrespectful.

Rapists are also sodomites as rape is an aberrant behavior.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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 call dibs on "Angel Rape" as a band name!

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Sodom was not about Homosexuality for the sin of Sodom could be be found in EZk not only that but it wasn't men for enoshwe is commonly used for both gender.Not only that but there is a similar story found inthe bible. Gibhed. Not only that but God was already going to destroy Sodom before the man came into town.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Also Lev can't look at by just one verse. When we look at the verse before it is not speaking of children but of mloech temple ritual. For Zara was not common for children in fact it means seed. It was used mean times has seed or sperm. Not only that but Deut does not copy Lev however temple prostitutes are.

 

[DannyB]

Here's some truth I would like you all to consider. Jesus was pretty hard on the pharisees for sitting around arguing the finer points of the letter of the law. His message was pretty clear in the sermon on the Mount and people even find ways to be legalistic with that as well. The message Jesus preached was on condition of the heart. It was never about the rules. It was never about picking at words in ancient text. That is why Jesus said the fulfillment of the entire law was to love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here's some truth I would like you all to consider. Jesus was pretty hard on the pharisees for sitting around arguing the finer points of the letter of the law. His message was pretty clear in the sermon on the Mount and people even find ways to be legalistic with that as well. The message Jesus preached was on condition of the heart. It was never about the rules. It was never about picking at words in ancient text. That is why Jesus said the fulfillment of the entire law was to love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself

We still have to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Timothy 2:15

 

[DannyB]

We still have to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Timothy 2:15

So, study. What's the problem?