Sodom and Gomorrah

[ViaCrucis]

lol you guys are making no sense.

What I don't get is, I know what Sodom was famed for, but nobody really talks about Gommorah. Maybe it was its lesbian counterpart, or it could have been gonnorea.

Yeah...see in the biblical story the cities aren't destroyed because there were dudes who liked other dudes. The cities were destroyed because they were utterly and completely corrupt--how were they corrupt? Fortunately the Bible actually tells us:

"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it." - Ezekiel 16:49-50

According to the ancient rabbis they told a story about the corruption of Sodom, that when a hungry person came into the city and asked for food, they would be given a specially marked coin. When trying to use this coin to purchase food, the merchants would refuse to sell it, inevitably the person would end up starving to death in the streets, and the person could go and retrieve their coin. Because the rabbis understood the point of the story, they understood that the story of Sodom exists as the antithetical counterpart to the story of Abraham's generosity.

You see in the story that immediately precedes that of Sodom three angelic visitors come and pay Abraham a visit, and he welcomes them in and prepares a luxurious feast for them, they are honored guests and treated well. In the story of Sodom, however, angelic visitors come to Sodom, and how are they treated there?

For ancient people the focus of the story wasn't that the mob consisted of males who wanted to do naughty things with other males, the focus of the story was the mistreatment of strangers. The sexual proclivities of the mob really doesn't come up in ancient commentaries on the story, that's simply not how ancient people, Jews or Christians, read it.

And yet in modern times our particular cultural hangups and peculiarities has led us to think that this was the focus of the story, when it's really quite peripheral to the story. I would also point out that, in Hebrew, the word used for men is a more generic word speaking of human beings more generally, אַנְשֵׁ ('enowsh) rather than males specifically (זָכָר, zakar); and indeed speaks of the whole people acting in concert here by the word עַם ('am). This was a mob, most likely (at least) predominantly male, but the point of the text isn't to say these were males seeking males, but that a mob formed of the people of Sodom to act violently and violate the visitors. The point seems to be made, this wasn't a few bad eggs in Sodom, the entire city and its population was rotten to the core; whereas Abraham represents the hospitality of the people of God, the mob represents the inhospitality--even extremely violent and in a massively graphic way--of the people of Sodom.

Don't miss the forest for the trees, and don't imagine trees where none exist.

This episode has been read so wrongly for a long time, and that is wrong because there actually is a valuable lesson to be learned when the episode is read within the proper literary and cultural context in which it was written. The lesson isn't "gay people will be destroyed" or "gay people are super bad", the lesson is that a fundamental part of the identity of the people of God, the people who God would call and make a covenant with at Sinai, was that they were to be a people who were a light among the nations, where the foreigner would be welcome, the poor would be taken care of, and the hungry would be fed. As Christians we understand that these values are intrinsic to ourselves as the Church, even as we--in Jesus--have been called the children of Abraham, and that the promises made to ancient Israel point toward the realities of God's promises for His Church in Jesus, and what the Church is supposed to be for and in the world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

That's an interesting perspective. I actually consider myself to be high in restraint and self-control. I personally wouldn't associate that with submission.

It's the same difference between passive and active pacifism: using force to solve a problem when necessary is not the same as just accepting everything and being a doormat. Self control isn't submission, it's personal discipline. Submission is a dynamic between people or ideas.

 

[muichimotsu]

Need I remind, of course gently, that this is a Christian Forum site and this post is not Biblical. Please know that there is a huge difference in a worldly submission vs what the Bible states as submission. Opinions are welcome of course, I'm only stating that there is a big difference in the word.

Point to me in the rules where every post has to be supporting whatever "Biblical" position you think exists, especially in a forum where no such constraints are implicit by the nature of what is being discussed.

Patriarchal submission is unconscionable because it regards women as little more than moral patients and not possesing any kind of autonomy that isn't granted by a male authority. Saying there's a difference between the 2 doesn't negate that the position of "Biblical" submission is rooted in an incompatible dynamic where people in a relationship are not in a dynamic of power, but an equal partnership, the logical result of such a thing rather than someone being dominated in an unhealthy and irrational notion of love

 

[muichimotsu]

Whatever. If you on a christian forum i would think you would be unless you say otherwise or just obviously show you arent. Sorry.

You dont really have a right to comment if you not part of the church then. You dont belong so why would you think you can make it better? Christians dont try to reform buddhism, so why would buddhists want to reform christians? Its a spiritual matter obeying the Lord, not the things we do in the flesh. If you dont know the Lord then you wouldnt understand what it means to submit to Him.

Ah, passive aggressive tactics now, hm? This subforum has no religious constraints, deal with it. I'm not being harassing or insulting, I'm saying that the notion a poster put forward is reprehensible and repressive to females, as if they cannot be in an equal relationship with a man without them being the softer and weaker sex, the relationship that traditionally existed, but was no more justified than marriage as a system of lineage rather than expressions of voluntary love.

I have every right to comment within the rules: expressing an opinion that's different than yours is not repressive unless you reify your beliefs as if they're sacrosanct or constitute such a part of you that insulting them is insulting you, both of which are facile and absurd.

I'm not talking about Christianity or Buddhism, I'm talking about human ethics: treating someone like chattel and like their only worth is being obeisant and submissive to someone because of their sex is inhumane and a violation of basic autonomy and respect of the individual.

Your obedience has no basis in going so far that you reduce yourself to nothing, as if you have no freedom, no will of your own. You want to create a self loathing perspective, keep going, but I seriously doubt any deity worth its salt would want its creations to regard themselves as unworthy of anything when they exist in themselves even if they were created.

 

[Cearbhall]

Eventually one of the generations will be right and maybe it will be mine.

Well, a broken clock is right twice a day...

 

[James of Arc]

.

 

[Goodbook]

Isnt las vegas called Sin City? And its in the middle of a plain? I sometimes wonder why God doesnt smite certain towns.

 

[blackribbon]

Isnt las vegas called Sin City? And its in the middle of a plain? I sometimes wonder why God doesnt smite certain towns.

Because there are good people living in that city too.

 

[Goodbook]

Well, can you show me ten righteous people? Id like to know. Lol.

 

[Goodbook]

I mean christchurch was flattened and it wasnt anything like Las Vegas lol. But I did know it was kinda corrupt, even though it was so picturesque. The worst kind of crimes happened there. Paedophilia etc. whenever there was a shocking crime, it always seemed to come from chch.

 

[blackribbon]

Well, can you show me ten righteous people? Id like to know. Lol.

I know one family of 4...a friend who is a police officer and his wife and kids...

 

[Cearbhall]

I mean christchurch was flattened and it wasnt anything like Las Vegas lol. But I did know it was kinda corrupt, even though it was so picturesque.

It's not like God did it...

 

[CCHIPSS]

Submission in itself is not abusive, yet encouraging submission when it isn't necessary could be easily construed and argued to be abusive anyway. Not all women are submissive by nature, nor should they be.

My mother is the breadwinner and arguably an equal to my father in the household I was raised in. He provided for us when she was the stay at home mother, of course, but that doesn't mean she was content to just stay and home and waste away and not use her "God given" potential to better the world. To say my mother is going against God's plan is insulting, especially when my family, myself excluded obviously, is quite faithful Christians, though I can see people easily tearing them down because of various reason (they don't go to church, for example, they just seem to pay lip service)

How about a relationship where the two people involved are basically equals even if they have different capacities? AS in, the woman is not submissive to man entirely, because, arguably, the man can submit to women's judgment in spite of the persistent myth that women shouldn't educate men in any way, which is patently false, considering most of the best teachers I've had in my life are women, as well as some of the smartest people I know

And what would you know about a woman's happiness as a man? Also, this dichotomy you create is nonsensical: a relationship is not founded on dominance, it's founded on mutual respect. My parents can argue, but they nonetheless respect each other and acknowledge their faults and their skills, they complement each other in that sense. My mother doesn't overpower my father and my father doesn't overpower my mother, they are a pair, they are an equal union. No relationship worth having is based on one submitting to the other in a sense that isn't mutual and informed by basic logic of human dynamics, which don't involve a pure one sided relationship of power.

Seems to me you have a skewed notion of what a woman should do in a relationship, rather than having some humility and possibly acknowledging that woman can also teach you things.

1) I am not against women working at a job. I don't think I indicated as such.

2) I am not against women speaking their opinion to men or women must always keep silence. In fact it was women who found the empty tomb and tell the men about it. If women must never speak to men, then the women were sinning for telling the men about the empty tomb.

Another obvious example would be a Christian woman speaking to a non-Christian man. Or a 40 year old Christian woman speaking to a brand new 3 days old Christian man. If a woman must never speak to a man, then she cannot even spread the gospel to him or teach him anything.

Some people can be very legalistic when it comes to verse 34, since it mention "churches". So they assume all churches in everything. However when the women ran to tell the Apostles about the empty tomb, was that not the church? And when later Jesus directly told Mary Magdalene to tell (or teach) the Apostles about the resurrection (John 20:17-18), was that not the church? I think that was the church, and Jesus outright told a woman to teach men about Jesus' resurrection in church. So it cannot mean that.

Here is my take: What the bible said in (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) was actually that women should keep silence during church service when the pastor was speaking a sermon. And they should ask their questions after the sermon. As you know, today even men keep silence during sermons. So there really isn't an bias. This is just basic respect toward the pastor when he was speaking. If not the sermon will never be finished and the pastor will keep on having to defend himself.

As we read in 1 Corinthians 5, the Corinthian Church was getting way too lenient with sin. If someone proudly sleeps with his father's wife and boast about it in church, kick him out! Come on even non-believers know this is wrong! The church should have grace and mercy, but not to the point where a so-called believer can be so proud of their sins.

In 1 Corinthians 14 we read that the church was too lenient with chaos and disorder in church. Once again grace and mercy have to be applied with common sense. This is the context. We don't know exactly the situation, but whatever the Corinthian women were doing they were disrupting church service. That's why Paul tell them to stop. If today you see anyone (men or women) obviously disrupting church service, please stop them. This should be common sense.

(This reminds me of Pentecostal churches, where anyone can stand up and start dancing, shaking and screaming during a sermon. And these are not only accepted, but encouraged by these churches. These chaos and disorder shouldn't be allowed. That's why I disagree with the Pentecostal churches.)

3) My point on submission stands. There is no such thing as a equal marriage. One person will always have to take the lead, either the husband or the wife. You might not realize it. But your mother look up to your father. And your father respect her for it.

I have yet to see a happy marriage where the wife constantly look down on her husband as a failure. He is never good for anything. When he does something good, that is expected or still not good enough. When he does one thing bad, he is a terrible husband and the wife generalize him in the worst light possible in all things.

The wife has every right to be disappointed in particular things. The husband promised to lose weight but didn't, etc. But if the wife starts being disappointed in her husband as a person (e.g. He, everything about him, is such a disappointment!!!), then that marriage will not be happy. She gains nothing by looking down on him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isnt las vegas called Sin City? And its in the middle of a plain? I sometimes wonder why God doesnt smite certain towns.

Tell you what, once you're without sin, then you can cast the first stone.

Those who think God should be in the smiting business rarely consider that, perhaps, they would be on His smite list.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Cearbhall]

3) My point on submission stands.

Why? Because you say so?

There is no such thing as a equal marriage. One person will always have to take the lead, either the husband or the wife. You might not realize it.

And here we have a grand example of tearing others down instead of lifting oneself up, and also denying reality when its convenient instead of adjusting one's worldview. Just because you've given up on being capable of such a relationship doesn't magically erase from existence the equal relationships in the world.

But your mother look up to your father. And your father respect her for it.

That's just a weird thing to say. We learn from other people all throughout our lives, of course, and we should surround ourselves with people who motivate us to be the best we can be, but I wouldn't say that I "look up to" a friend, romantic partner, or anyone else who is on the same level as me. I realize it's just a figure of speech, but how could two people look up to each other?

 

[CCHIPSS]

And here we have a grand example of tearing others down instead of lifting oneself up, and also denying reality when its convenient instead of adjusting one's worldview. Just because you've given up on being capable of such a relationship doesn't magically erase from existence the equal relationships in the world.

Do you know a real life example where a woman constantly look down on her husband as a failure, yet she is really having a happy marriage?

I have seen plenty of woman in very happy marriages who poke fun at their husbands for being fat, for being messy and for being careless. About how they have to keep encouraging him to lose weight, to clean up and to pay attention to details. However they were just poking fun at him and laughing about it. These women are not actually disappointed in their husbands as a person. In fact they actually look up to their husband.

When a woman's remarks against her husband becomes very mean-spirited, you know that marriage is in deep trouble. Divorce comes from the heart. Cheating comes from the heart. When the heart is filled with disappointment, it is only a matter of time before real action happens.

 

[blackribbon]

That's just a weird thing to say. We learn from other people all throughout our lives, of course, and we should surround ourselves with people who motivate us to be the best we can be, but I wouldn't say that I "look up to" a friend, romantic partner, or anyone else who is on the same level as me. I realize it's just a figure of speech, but how could two people look up to each other?

How sad for you....but you are still young and haven't found your life partner yet. I admired and looked up to my husband and he admired and looked up to me. We brought different talents and knowledge into the partnership of marriage. We were equal as people but someone has to make the decisions in the end...especially when you don't agree. I chose to submit to his leadership as the head of our family but that doesn't mean he didn't put a lot of decision making power in my hands and when he did that, he never asked to micromanage those decisions. The decision was simply to delegate it to me and trust that he picked his wife wisely.

 

[Cearbhall]

I have yet to see a happy marriage where the wife constantly look down on her husband as a failure.

Ok. What does that have to do with this topic? Did anyone propose that as a successful marital model? Whom are you arguing against?

Do you know a real life example where a woman constantly look down on her husband as a failure, yet she is really having a happy marriage?

Seriously, what are you even talking about? Of course not. Why do you keep bringing up marriages on the other extreme end of the spectrum to try to prove your point? They don't cancel each other out.

How sad for you....but you are still young and haven't found your life partner yet. I admired and looked up to my husband and he admired and looked up to me.

In that case, it's not the kind of "look up to" that I'm talking about, nor the kind that I imagine CCHIPSS was talking about, going by his posts. Like I said, it's figurative, but I was challenging his usage of it.

You can skip the condescension next time.

We brought different talents and knowledge into the partnership of marriage. We were equal as people but someone has to make the decisions in the end...especially when you don't agree.

Is that not exactly what I advocated for in my post?

 

[CCHIPSS]

Ok. What does that have to do with this topic? Did anyone propose that as a successful marital model? Whom are you arguing against?

Seriously, what are you even talking about? Of course not. Why do you keep bringing up marriages on the other extreme end of the spectrum to try to prove your point? They don't cancel each other out.

Alright let's define the terms. How would you define looking up to? Who do you look up to in your life? Why?

 

[Cearbhall]

Alright let's define the terms. How would you define looking up to? Who do you look up to in your life? Why?

I'm more curious about how you were defining it, because I was adopting your usage for the sake of communication, and it's possible I misunderstood. My bone to pick is that you only mentioned it going one way in a marriage. You only mentioned him respecting her for looking up to him.

If I looked up to my husband, but he didn't have any reason to look up to me, then that would be an uneven relationship. He should have found someone who had something to offer him in that regard.