Sodomites!!!!

[davedjy]

No, you read it. I already did. How does that apply to the apostates being discussed in the overall context? That they were lusting after angels? No.... that they were lusting after one another like beasts who are driven by instinct.



The use of sexual language referring to Sodom and Gomorrah indicates that this is a sexual kind of corruption. What, or who, were they defiling themselves with?

You clearly don't know the story, here is just some website, but there are many that interpret it that way:

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-bible-and-homosexuality

 

[Der Alte]

Sodomite = inhabitor of Sodom, that's it!

Any other word usage here, is a culture interpretation and nothing more! it does not refer to anal sexual relations, this is some made up word choice here. It derives from the city of Sodom, where the only thing sexually practiced and condemned in Scripture is raping of the visitors, raping of the angelic hosts that came to the City (strange flesh=heteros, another flesh), unwelcoming behavior, and repeated economic crimes. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexual activity, but it was for repeated economic crimes. (See Ezekiel 16:48-50)

Total absolute rubbish.

First, the city of Sodom was slated for destruction long before this homosexual incident. Ezekial 16:48-50 states it clearly, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, 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.”. . .

More absolute rubbish. This statement is false, and you know it is false, yet you post it anyway. And the reason I know you know it is false is because you posted this same rubbish before, I told you then, as I am telling you now.

Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible, about 1200 BC. Ezekiel lived and wrote about 500 years later, about 700 BC.

This post as with all your posts is a constant harangue by unqualified homosexuals defying the Word of God, 2000 years of history, and every rule of Greek grammar, to to justify [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] what the early church called “SODOMY," lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “ shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “ licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc.

To all homosexual who want to twist and corrupt the Word of God, try to twist these words to say pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

Knowing, then, that "God is not mocked," we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. They must not be slanderers, double-tongued, or lovers of money, but temperate in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all. If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, "we shall also reign together with Him," provided only we believe. In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God," nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins also must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved. Now he says that the things which save are the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

Since, therefore, in that passage he recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven. For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.
And regarding lawless conduct, those who have blindly wandered into the choir of philosophy have, almost to a man, spoken with one voice. Certainly Plato, to mention him first who seems to have been the most respectable philosopher among them, expressly, as it were, legislates in his first book,5 entitled The Republic, that the wives of all be common, using the precedent of the son6 of Jupiter and the lawgiver of the Cretans, in order that under this pretext there might be an abundant offspring from the best persons, and that those who were worn with toil might be comforted by such intercourse.7 And Epicurus himself, too, as well as teaching atheism, teaches along with it incest with mothers and sisters, and this in transgression of the laws which forbid it; for Solon distinctly legislated regarding this, in order that from a married parent children might lawfully spring, that they might not be born of adultery, so that no one should honour as his father him who was not his father, or dishonour him who was really his father, through ignorance that he was so. And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering.

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Come, now; who in the world has (ever) redintegrated one who has been "marred" by God (that is, delivered to Satan with a view to destruction of the flesh), after subjoining for that reason, "Let none seduce himself; " that is, let none presume that one "marred" by God can possibly be redintegrated anew? Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God," he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.
In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."​

 

[davedjy]

Total absolute rubbish.

AGAIN, you quote UNINSPIRED documents to make your claims, when I cited with actual Scripture. You are losing, and you don't like it.


49Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food, prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters'; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50And they were haughty and committed abominable offenses before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it and I saw fit.(A)


Ezekiel 16:48-50

INSPIRED SCRIPTURE FROM THE HOLY BIBLE.

 

[davedjy]

Cohabitors of males will not inherit the kingdom of God

Oh, that isn't what the Bible says! and 1 Timothy 1:10 proves you wrong...inconsistent Translations, it says "Sexual pervert" in that verse. There was no such thing as "co-inhabitors of males", you lose on that point alone

BIASED TRANSLATION RUBBISH.

 

[davedjy]

Sodomite = inhabitor of Sodom, that's it!

Any other word usage here, is a culture interpretation and nothing more! it does not refer to anal sexual relations, this is some made up word choice here. It derives from the city of Sodom, where the only thing sexually practiced and condemned in Scripture is raping of the visitors, raping of the angelic hosts that came to the City (strange flesh=heteros, another flesh), unwelcoming behavior, and repeated economic crimes. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexual activity, but it was for repeated economic crimes. (See Ezekiel 16:48-50)

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward. ”

— Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195

nd the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population. ”

— Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202


Let’s first look at the historic context of Sodom and Gamorrah. The story goes that God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that “all of the people from every quarter” surrounded Lot’s house demanding the release of the visitors so “we might know them” or in other words have sexual relations with them. Horrified by this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot refuses to give them over to the angry crowd. Lot flees Sodom with his family and the city it is destroyed by fire from heaven. Literalist and conservatives have contended that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. However, there are at least three reasons why this story is not about homosexuality or its condemnation.

First, the city of Sodom was slated for destruction long before this homosexual incident. Ezekial 16:48-50 states it clearly, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, 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.”

Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house, and in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.

And finally, and most importantly, no other passages in the Bible that refer to the destruction of Sodom ever raise the issue of homosexuality. If indeed the story of Sodom and Gamorrah is about sexual morality, then Lot’s gesture to allow his daughters to be raped by the crowd instead of the visitors should put into question its modern moral value.

.

 

[Der Alte]

AGAIN, you quote UNINSPIRED documents to make your claims, when I cited with actual Scripture. You are losing, and you don't like it.

49Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food, prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters'; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50And they were haughty and committed abominable offenses before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it and I saw fit.(A)

Ezekiel 16:48-50 INSPIRED SCRIPTURE FROM THE HOLY BIBLE.

This is a JOKE! Blatant hypocrisy. How many UNINSPIRED websites, and scribblings have you posted? You must have a reading problem I quoted scripture and you don't like it because scripture PROVES you totally wrong and in sin!

Here are records of ancient Jews, who actually spoke and read Hebrew interpreting the Hebrew scriptures. The name Sodom was associated with homosexuality from the time of Moses.

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

- The dog being an unclean animal, "the breaking of a dog's neck," mentioned as a sacrificial rite in Isa. lxvi. 3 (compare Ex. xiii. 13), indicates an ancient Canaanite practise (see W. R. Smith, "Rel. of Sem." p. 273). The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks κυναίδοι, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), though as the regular name of priests attached to the temple of Ashtoret at Larnaca has been found on the monuments (see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D&search=sodomy

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C&search=sodomy

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE - Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

A manual of instruction for proselytes, adopted from the Synagogue by early Christianity, and transformed by alteration and amplification into a Church manual.
2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . . "Thou shalt not use witchcraft nor practise sorcery" (Ex. xxii. 18; Lev. xix. 26). (This belongs obviously to the eliminated first part comprising the duties toward God.) "Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor shalt thou kill the new-born child" (compare Wisdom xii. 5). (This is the amplification of Ex. xx. 13, and belongs to verse 1.) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" (Ex. xx. 17; see verse 6).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D&search=sodomy

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

On the analogy of this Biblical case the Rabbis decide several others (see Burglary). In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy; and where he seeks to ravish a betrothed damsel; for Deut. xxii. 27 indicates the duty of all that hear her cry to help her.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L&search=sodomy

Jewish Encyclopedia - COMMANDMENTS, THE 613: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C&search=sodomy​

 

[intricatic]

You clearly don't know the story, here is just some website, but there are many that interpret it that way:

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-bible-and-homosexuality

Hi!

I am not talking about Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm talking about Jude 1. Please stay on the same page here. What I'm saying is that if you are to interpret this passage regarding Sodom and Gomorrah in such a manner, you need to harmonize the interpretation with the rest of the context, which everyone thusfar has failed to do - including the fabled homosexual scholars who wove the interpretation in the first place. Jude 1 is not just a one verse book.

 

[Polycarp1]

Jude

Don't take it bad ... Then you can start to make it better.

======

Okay, let's look at this. The apostates in Jude are condemned for, among other things, abusing their liberty in Christ to indulge in lust after "strange flesh" (heteros sarkos), as they did in Sodom and Gomorrah. That is the connection between the two incidents. Therefore, whatever it was that they did, which I think we can concur was some sort of sexual sin, it was the same sort of thing that was done in S&G. Is that talking of homosexuality? Perhaps, but the key point is that Jude condemns the apostates for committing the same sin(s) as those for which S&G were condemned. It remains to figure out what those sins were.

Next: We have a small problem with the texts in Genesis 18-19. When the three figures visit Abraham at Mamre, he understands them as being YHWH. Collectively. Not "God and two angels" -- the text of chapter 18 makes it clear that it's a theophany in which God appears as three men. Many people have taken this as presaging the Trinity, laying the groundwork in patriarchal times for the exposition of that doctrine over a thousand years later in the early Church. YHWH says (v.21) that He will go down to Sodom and find out what all the outcry against Sodom's crimes is about.

Then Abraham and YHWH set out to go towards Sodom, and when they come within sight of it, two of the three men proceed on to Sodom, while Abraham remains 'standing before YHWH' -- presumably in the person of the third man. God then bargains with Abraham not to destroy Sodom if he can find a minyan of just men there.

The beginning of chapter 19 now refers to the two men as 'angels.' At many points in Genesis, it is left unclear in the wording whether a given theophanic occurrence is actually God Himself or an angel doing His bidding, carrying His Word.

It is clear from chapter 18 that God is already determined to destroy Sodom, to judge it for its sins. Before the men come and are threatened by a mob intent on anal rape.

Let's be quite clear on that point: the act proposed is not consensual homosexual carnal relations, but forcible anal rape. Some commentators have noted that this was a common means in ancient cultures of demeaning another, of asserting oneself over another. I don't necessarily buy that that's what is happening in this particular case, but it deserves to be considered as possible cultural background in understanding Scripture.

Now, look at Ezekiel. The prophet quotes God directly as saying that Sodom was condemned for:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezek 16:49-50, NIV)

Sodom was condemned because the Sodomites were arrogant and haughty. Sodom was condemned because it hoarded luxury and did not share. Sodom was condemned because its inhabitants had no concern for others. Sodom was condemned because it did not help the poor and needy. Sodom was condemned because the Sodomites did detestable things before God.

Only the last item here can be construed as having anything to do with homosexuality, and that by taking one among the many things called "abomination" in the Law and focusing on it alone.

Then too there is a cultural concept that we miss. In the time of Abraham, there was no hotel industry -- even the inn where there was no room for the Baby Jesus was over a thousand years in the future. It was a cultural concept in those days that one owed hospitality to the traveler, the stranger among you, and that this was a moral duty, for it might be a life and death situation for him in those days.

There is a tale told of an Arab sheikh who had sworn blood vengeance on an enemy whom he hated bitterly. And one day, that enemy came to his home, the victim of an assault and robbery. And the sheik took him in, tended his wounds, clothed him richly and sat him down as the guest of honor at a feast -- because it was his duty as host to treat a guest in that way, regardless of the other circumstances.

It is in that mindset that we look on the sin of the men of Sodom -- far from welcoming the two young men (angels incognito) and treating them as honored welcome guests, they set about to unman them by forcibly raping them -- because only their own selfish wants mattered to them. Lust may have less to do with it than dominance, as is often the case in forcible rape. But what is clear is that they violated the commandment to treat with charity the stranger among you. And that this was symptomatic of the egocentric, uncompassionate lifestyle of the men of Sodom, among whom not ten could be found that met God's standards for righteousness. It no doubt included the sating of lust through sexual excess. But it was by no means limited to that, nor was it "homosexuality" in the sense in which a modern gay couple would refer to their love life.

God judged the apostate Christians, through Jude, for the sin of Sodom. And He judges us today for the sin of Sodom. But IMO He is much more wrathful, though forebearing in taking judgment, of the family with the $350,000 mini-mansion and the two SUVs, who give $100 a year to charity because it's the socially proper thing to do and it helps keep down their taxes, than he is of the gay couple who claim to love each other with an erotic sort of love.

While you all are looking up terms, check out "scapegoat." Because the people who commit the sin of Sodom today are hellbent to make gay people into just that. And don't you think God doesn't realize that.

 

[Gusoceros]

But IMO He is much more wrathful, though forebearing in taking judgment, of the family with the $350,000 mini-mansion and the two SUVs, who give $100 a year to charity because it's the socially proper thing to do and it helps keep down their taxes, than he is of the gay couple who claim to love each other with an erotic sort of love.

The penalty of sin is death.

Are you railing on prosperity, or giving?

 

[intricatic]

Um, brotherman, Jude isn't talking about financial sins of excess or greed, he's talking about a sexual sin.

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
(Jude 1)

And for that matter, it was sensual indulgence;

16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. 17 But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: 18 how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. 19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
(Jude 1)

As has been pointed out, this book (Jude) has a lot of similarities with 2 Peter, so I like to look at that particular book to get a good bearing on what's being discussed here.

In 2 Peter, we see a sum of different evils being described in the same vein as in Jude, such as;

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
(2 Peter 2)

And further, we see reference to the sin of Balaam (whatever that may be);

12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
(2 Peter 2)

Of course, there are also a mingling of sexual sins referenced here that are only vaguely addressed, we can understand that the greatest thing being spoken against is the fact that these apostates were leading people astray, which led to their indulgence in sexual sin. But it's clear what sin they're discussing in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah; it's not rape, it's something obviously consensual that these apostates were indulging in with one another. Be that in the context of idolatry (as there are inferences to that idea in the text), or just reveling in shameful lusts, we can't tell for certain, but it wasn't rape. Another thing to point out is that inhospitality is a distinct part of the problem;

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
(Jude 1)

But singling out any one part of the text is to miss the context it's presented within.

 

[davedjy]

Of course, there are also a mingling of sexual sins referenced here that are only vaguely addressed, we can understand that the greatest thing being spoken against is the fact that these apostates were leading people astray, which led to their indulgence in sexual sin. But it's clear what sin they're discussing in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah; it's not rape, it's something obviously consensual that these apostates were indulging in with one another. Be that in the context of idolatry (as there are inferences to that idea in the text), or just reveling in shameful lusts, we can't tell for certain, but it wasn't rape. Another thing to point out is that inhospitality is a distinct part of the problem;

Yes, let's not change what it TRULY is about, and that is promiscuity, raping of the angelic visitors, and inhabitants as well as prostitution. Sodom and Gomorrah being an example of condemned homosexual, MONOGAMOUS, loving, same-sex relationships, is a joke at best.

 

[kiwimac]

According to Ezekiel 16:49, the sins of the people of Sodom were having 'plenty of food, peace and security and not helping the poor and needy.'

 

[intricatic]

Yes, let's not change what it TRULY is about, and that is promiscuity, raping of the angelic visitors, and inhabitants as well as prostitution. Sodom and Gomorrah being an example of condemned homosexual, MONOGAMOUS, loving, same-sex relationships, is a joke at best.

I'm not talking about Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm talking about the letter of Jude. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with raping angelic visitors. I'm sorry. It's not a chapter talking about Sodom and Gomorrah. It's talking about the conditions of the early Church. It's really not that hard.

 

[davedjy]

I'm not talking about Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm talking about the letter of Jude. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with raping angelic visitors. I'm sorry. It's not a chapter talking about Sodom and Gomorrah. It's talking about the conditions of the early Church. It's really not that hard.

Is this thread about Jude? What is the Opening Post about? Let's keep this on track, THAT isn't that hard, which is technically called
hijacking of a thread.

 

[Gusoceros]

According to Ezekiel 16:49, the sins of the people of Sodom were having 'plenty of food, peace and security and not helping the poor and needy.'

You just need the context:

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

[davedjy]

You just need the context:

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

The detestable things are already mentioned, read verses 49 and 50 for what is "detestable". Rocket Science!

 

[Gusoceros]

The detestable things are already mentioned, read verses 49 and 50 for what is "detestable". Rocket Science!

No, those things are covered with haughty.

G

 

[davedjy]

No, those things are covered with haughty.

G

Oh really...care to share with us the detestable things mentioned in the chapter?

Even if you are proving the other "detestable" things, it is about rape, promiscuity/prostitution and nothing more. Unless of course you are affiliated with the mainstream churches who read more than what is there and love to be spoonfed like baby food doctrine handed to you on a plate...

 

[Gusoceros]

Oh really...care to share with us the detestable things mentioned in the chapter?

Even if you are proving the other "detestable" things, it is about rape, promiscuity/prostitution and nothing more. Unless of course you are affiliated with the mainstream churches who read more than what is there and love to be spoonfed like baby food doctrine handed to you on a plate...

The word used is: tow`ebah {to-ay-baw'} or to`ebah {to-ay-baw'}

• 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
  • a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
    b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

It is the same word used in Lev 18:22, 20:13 to describe the abomination of the same sex act, as well as the ritual defilements.

G

 

[intricatic]

Is this thread about Jude? What is the Opening Post about? Let's keep this on track, THAT isn't that hard, which is technically called
hijacking of a thread.

Sodom and Gomorrah. I was discussing the relevant scripture to the account. All I'm asking is that people actually read it in context and not single out one passage and then selectively interpret it.