Was Sodom's sin, "hospitality"?

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 05:40 PM EPHRIAM777 said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645039#post645039)

Today at 04:31 PM fragmentsofdreams said t

Sodom sinned against hospitality. Lot invited the messengers of the Lord to stay in his home. When they accepted his invitation, Lot became obligated to care for and protect his guests. That night, the men of Sodom came to Lot's house in order to show their dominance over the foreigners.



Eph puzzled..ly asks....?

Thats an intresting play on words..you have there...!

""Dominance"" .... in what way did they wish to show their dominance...?

Playing baseball...?

They were way better baseball players...?

They "Dominated" all the other towns that were close by in the same league..?

Intresting use of that word...!

When young male primates take the female sexual position in the presence of a stronger male, it is not because they are offering sex. They are taking on the position of the female and showing that they are of a lower position than the stronger male. In the same way, the men of Sodom wanted to show their dominance by forcing Lot's guests into the female sexual position, lowering them to the status of women.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 07:11 PM Live4Jesus said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645223#post645223)

I'm going to assume that men and women see certain issues differently.

perhaps if they were women, approached by a mob of gang rapers, they would change their minds...

We are not denying that the men of Sodom intended to rape Lot's guests. We are disagreeing about whether it was for sexual pleasure or social dominance.

 

[caley]

Terri, you need to learn to back up your arguments with evidence instead of accusing those who disagree with you as "falling for the tricks of Satan." In Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible describes a situation where there is an attempted gang-rape. The implication is that this stuff has been going on for a while and God is sick of it. So he destroys them. That's my reading of it. The fact that it is homosexual gang-rape and not heterosexual gang-rape is inconsequential.

 

[caley]

Today at 09:18 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #22

We are not denying that the men of Sodom intended to rape Lot's guests. We are disagreeing about whether it was for sexual pleasure or social dominance.

Why does it matter?

 

[Terri]

Today at 10:23 PM caley said this in Post #23

Terri, you need to learn to back up your arguments with evidence instead of accusing those who disagree with you as "falling for the tricks of Satan." In Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible describes a situation where there is an attempted gang-rape. The implication is that this stuff has been going on for a while and God is sick of it. So he destroys them. That's my reading of it. The fact that it is homosexual gang-rape and not heterosexual gang-rape is inconsequential.

Bless your heart-- it clearly states that it is homosexual as my evidence has already shown.

 

[kern]

A further reference is found in the book of Wisdom chapter 19, which mentions only their inhospitality as the reason for their destruction, as well as Sirach 16 which only mentions pride.

So we have five separate Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah which mention pride, inhospitality, and refusal to help those in need. We have zero Old Testament references to S&G which mention sex of any type, let alone homosexual sex.

Add to this Jesus' words about the cities that are inhospitable to the disciples -- it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for those towns on the day of judgment.

People usually quote around 6 separate places in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned, but not a single one of those mention Sodom and Gomorrah.

How can anyone say it's "nonsense" that S&G's sin was pride or inhospitality? This is not some new theory, it's what the Bible says about S&G!

This is *not* an issue about whether or not homosexuality is condemned by the Bible -- there are other verses you can use besides S&G.

-Chris

 

[Terri]

Today at 09:18 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #22

We are not denying that the men of Sodom intended to rape Lot's guests. We are disagreeing about whether it was for sexual pleasure or social dominance.

I don't think it would have mattered to the victims.

 

[Terri]

Today at 10:38 PM kern said this in Post #26


So we have five separate Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah which mention pride, inhospitality, and refusal to help those in need. We have zero Old Testament references to S&G which mention sex of any type, let alone homosexual sex.

Your definitely wrong on that!

GE19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX with them."

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 10:24 PM caley said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645632#post645632)

Why does it matter?

It only matters when people think see rape as normal unless the victim is a man.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Terri -

What, according to Scripture, is identified as the sin of Sodom?

 

[caley]

Today at 10:30 PM Terri said this in Post #25

Bless your heart-- it clearly states that it is homosexual as my evidence has already shown.

I have seen no evidence, simply a repeated bible verse with the words "know them carnally" replaced by the words "have sex with them" (wording that no version of the Bible I know of uses).  Now, if the wording was "have sex with them," and it was originally written in English (which we know it was not), I could understand a "sex is inequal to rape" argument, and you would have something to stand on.  However, the usual interpretation is "know them carnally," and it was not written in English, so we can assume "know them carnally" could mean either sex or rape.  Looking closer at the story, we see that the men were attempting to break down the door to get inside in order to "know them carnally."  I don't understand how someone whose intent was not rape would be trying to break down someone else's door for sex.

 

[seebs]

Today at 10:30 PM Terri said this in Post #25 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645641#post645641)

Bless your heart-- it clearly states that it is homosexual as my evidence has already shown.

So what?

The only way that allows us to conclude "the story is about how bad homosexuality is", would be if, if we take out the homosexuality, there's no longer anything wrong.

So, for us to be able to draw that conclusion, we'd need to believe that, if a group of men wanted to gang-rape some angels, but the angels had *female* bodies, it would be morally acceptable to God.

Otherwise, we really don't care whether it's homosexual (as in Genesis 19) or heterosexual (as in Judges 19) - when a group of people wants to rape one of your guests, you are obliged to protect the guest, and the group of people can be judged to be acting in an immoral way.

 

[Terri]

Yesterday at 11:08 PM caley said this in Post #31

I have seen no evidence, simply a repeated bible verse with the words "know them carnally" replaced by the words "have sex with them" (wording that no version of the Bible I know of uses).  Now, if the wording was "have sex with them," and it was originally written in English (which we know it was not), I could understand a "sex is inequal to rape" argument, and you would have something to stand on.  However, the usual interpretation is "know them carnally," and it was not written in English, so we can assume "know them carnally" could mean either sex or rape.  Looking closer at the story, we see that the men were attempting to break down the door to get inside in order to "know them carnally."  I don't understand how someone whose intent was not rape would be trying to break down someone else's door for sex.

So are you saying that if it was rape then it wasn't sex.  I thought when someone was raped that there was sex involved.  Are you saying that rape of one man by another man is not homosexual sex.  What are you saying.

 

[Terri]

Yesterday at 11:24 PM seebs said this in Post #32

So what?

The only way that allows us to conclude "the story is about how bad homosexuality is", would be if, if we take out the homosexuality, there's no longer anything wrong.

So, for us to be able to draw that conclusion, we'd need to believe that, if a group of men wanted to gang-rape some angels, but the angels had *female* bodies, it would be morally acceptable to God.

Otherwise, we really don't care whether it's homosexual (as in Genesis 19) or heterosexual (as in Judges 19) - when a group of people wants to rape one of your guests, you are obliged to protect the guest, and the group of people can be judged to be acting in an immoral way.

In case it is not clear to you--rape is always wrong whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.

That does not change the fact that homosexual sex is a sin.



 

 

[kern]

Right, homosexual rape is a sin. But you cannot use the Sodom story alone to say that homosexuality is a sin, because "homosexual rape" and "homosexuality" have the same relationship as "heterosexual rape" and "heterosexuality". So if you could use Sodom as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, then you could use any Biblical story of heterosexual rape (like Judges 19) as a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.

-Chris

 

[Jeffer]

Angels in the Bible were always male, every time.

 

[seebs]

Today at 01:52 AM Terri said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645971#post645971)

So are you saying that if it was rape then it wasn't sex.  I thought when someone was raped that there was sex involved.  Are you saying that rape of one man by another man is not homosexual sex.  What are you saying.

I'm saying that, if the only homosexual sex involved is rape, being told that "this was sinful" doesn't tell us anything about homosexual sex.

To learn from a condemnation of a specific action that some component of the action is sinful, we must know that the other components aren't.

 

[seebs]

Today at 02:03 AM Terri said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645985#post645985)

In case it is not clear to you--rape is always wrong whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.

That does not change the fact that homosexual sex is a sin.

But it does mean that the story of Sodom is talking about rape, not homosexuality. So, the case for considering homosexuality sinful must be based on things other than the Sodom story.

 

[seebs]

Today at 12:06 PM Jeffer said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646576#post646576)

Angels in the Bible were always male, every time.

Hebrews in the Bible wouldn't have listened to women. I don't think angels actually have gender until they choose one to appear to us.

 

[Jeffer]

Why would they always be refered to as men then?