Was Sodom's sin, "hospitality"?

[seebs]

Today at 12:26 PM Jeffer said this in Post #40 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646625#post646625)

Why would they always be refered to as men then?

Because humans are not well-equipped to understand a "person" who is neither male nor female; in many human languages, there's no way to say "it" that doesn't imply a non-person. Furthermore, if you were appearing to a very patriarchal culture, and needed them to listen to you, you'd probably appear as a male, given the choice.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

They took the form of men. That does not mean that they could not take the form of women if it suited their purposes. Angels don't have bodies of their own and they don't reproduce, so the concepts of male and female are largely irrelevent to them.

 

[kern]

Which is why it's much more likely that Jude's "going after strange flesh" refers to sex with angels rather than homosexual sex.

-Chris

 

[EPHRIAM777]

fragmentsofdreams writes..!

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. [/B]



Eph wonders...

(( How can someone "get" and "read in" all that extra information...from the text as if it's actually provided from the scripture...??? ))

Eph writes...

Nice try Fragg....but I'm not buyin it...! You "assumption" on what scripture says...doesn't mesh with what the scriptures DO say...! The connection you make are therefore unfounded...!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 01:00 PM EPHRIAM777 said this in Post #44 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646686#post646686)

fragmentsofdreams writes..!

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.



Eph wonders...

(( How can someone "get" and "read in" all that extra information...from the text as if it's actually provided from the scripture...??? ))

Eph writes...

Nice try Fragg....but I'm not buyin it...! You "assumption" on what scripture says...doesn't mesh with what the scriptures DO say...! The connection you make are therefore unfounded...! [/B]

Scripture states the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests. It doesn't say why. By looking at history we can see that raping strangers was an act of dominence in parts of the ancient world. It is sensible to conclude that the actions of the men of Sodom were part of this larger phenomenon.

Please point to where my statements contradict Scripture.

 

[jseek21]

Remember guys, the Bible is the final authority, not primates and sociology.

 

[Jeffer]

Angels who fell - sin was related to sex.

Genesis 6
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.



Sodom & Gommorrah.  Sin was also related to sex.
2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

 

 

Jude 1:6   And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7   Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8   Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

 

[caley]

Today at 07:30 AM kern said this in Post #35

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

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[seebs]

Today at 01:19 PM jseek21 said this in Post #46 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646715#post646715)

Remember guys, the Bible is the final authority, not primates and sociology.

Yes, but *understanding* the Bible requires us to have some idea what's going on. If you don't know how the Jews felt about the Samaritans, you won't understand the parable of the Good Samaritan.

 

[seebs]

Today at 01:39 PM Jeffer said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646773#post646773)

Angels who fell - sin was related to sex.

I don't see anything in it saying "sin was related to sex".

Sodom & Gommorrah.  Sin was also related to sex.

Strangely, everyone who believes this seems to carefully avoid responding to Ezekiel's statements on the issue.

2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

Er. Where does that say anything about sex? That description fits what the Bible *SAYS* Sodom is about just as well - pride, laziness, and lack of charity.

Jude 1:6   And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7   Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8   Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Okay, so, out of several commentaries on Sodom, you found *one* that refers to some kind of sexual sin - but "rape" is sexual sin, and fornication, and trying to have sex with angels would be "heteros sarx" indeed.

Still nowhere near any support for that position.

 

[Terri]

Jude1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

This makes it quite clear for anyone looking for the truth!



 

 

[caley]

But the Jude verse does not explicitly state "homosexuality," it states "sexual immorality and perversion." Those words could easily be interepreted as "rape" and not necessarily "homosexuality."

 

[kern]

Depending on the Bible version, it doesn't even say that -- the KJV says "going after strange flesh". The greek words are "sarkos heteras", sarkos = flesh, heteras = different.

It seems like homosexuality would be something like "sarkos homos"

TNIV: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
Nestle 27: ton omoion tropon toutoiV ekinappropriate contenteusasai kai apelqousai opisw sarkoV eteraV
ESV: "...which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,..."
HCSB: "...committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions,..."
KJV: "...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,..."
NASB95: "...indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,..."
NIV: "... gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
NIVI: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and percersion."
NKJV: "...having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh,..."
NLT: "...which were filled with sexual immorality and every kind of sexual perversion."
NRSV: "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust,..."
RSV: "...which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust,..."

"sexual immorality" in this sense more likely means rape than just basic homosexuality.

-Chris

 

[caley]

Today at 03:38 PM kern said this in Post #53

Depending on the Bible version, it doesn't even say that -- the KJV says "going after strange flesh". The greek words are "sarkos heteras", sarkos = flesh, heteras = different.

It seems like homosexuality would be something like "sarkos homos"

TNIV: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
Nestle 27: ton omoion tropon toutoiV ekinappropriate contenteusasai kai apelqousai opisw sarkoV eteraV
ESV: "...which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,..."
HCSB: "...committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions,..."
KJV: "...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,..."
NASB95: "...indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,..."
NIV: "... gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
NIVI: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and percersion."
NKJV: "...having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh,..."
NLT: "...which were filled with sexual immorality and every kind of sexual perversion."
NRSV: "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust,..."
RSV: "...which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust,..."

"sexual immorality" in this sense more likely means rape than just basic homosexuality.

-Chris

Don't fall for this trick of Satan.

 

[Terri]

Today at 03:42 PM caley said this in Post #54

Don't fall for this trick of Satan.

Thanks for that reminder Caley!!

 

[seebs]

Today at 03:26 PM Terri said this in Post #51 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646981#post646981)

Jude1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

This makes it quite clear for anyone looking for the truth!



 

Er. Wouldn't "anyone looking for the truth" start by reading *ALL* of the references, not steadfastly refusing to even admit that Ezekiel and Isaiah existed?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yesterday at 07:52 AM Terri said this in Post #33

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.

Most men who commit rape of other males---whether they are convicts in prison, soldiers in the field, cowboys on the range, or whatever----do not generally perceive of themselves as homosexual.  It is an action of dominance which has a sexual component but is completely separate from sexual orientation.  Interestingly, in severe gay-bashing incidents it has been documented that violent heterosexual young males will often not only brutally rape lesbians, but they will also do the same thing to gay males and often cite Christian beliefs as the reason why they have done so. 

This says absolutely nothing about sexual orientation and loving same gender relationships. 

 

[Terri]

Today at 06:31 PM seebs said this in Post #56

Er. Wouldn't "anyone looking for the truth" start by reading *ALL* of the references, not steadfastly refusing to even admit that Ezekiel and Isaiah existed?

Who has said that Ezekeil and Isaiah don't exist?  Not I--Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly existed and the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly exist! 

If you would like to post some quotes from these books to discuss feel free.

 

[seebs]

Today at 06:45 PM Terri said this in Post #58 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647441#post647441)

Who has said that Ezekeil and Isaiah don't exist?  Not I--Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly existed and the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly exist! 

If you would like to post some quotes from these books to discuss feel free.

I posted them several times already.

Ezekiel 16:47-49

47
Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their
abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast
corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
48
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor
her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters,
neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

---

In this case, we find clearly that any abominations (whether it's sex, shellfish, or mixed fabrics) that Sodom may have committed were *not* the important thing; it was pride, greed, laziness, and lack of charity.

No reference back to the Sodom story ever talks about "homosexual sex". The only that even hints at anything other than general fornication (which, as you may have heard, is most often heterosexual) is Jude, and Jude's reference is almost certainly to the flesh of angels, not the flesh of humans.

The idea that the Sodom story is about male/male sex, instead of all the things the Bible clearly talks about, was not part of the original understanding of the story; it was invented hundreds of years later, and flatly contradicts Ezekiel's description of Sodom's sins.

Christ Himself used Sodom as an examplar of inhospitality. The whole thing about "shake the dust from your feet" is about *inhospitable* people, and Christ uses Sodom as an example of what happens to inhospitable people. Why? Because He, like every other person of His time who read Scripture, thought the story was about gross inhospitality.

 

[Terri]

Seebs, do you really think sexual sins are  less important than other sins?

The Bible says the opposite.

1CO 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

I would say that the fact that all of the men gathered around Lots' and wanted to have sex with what they thought were men does hint at homosexual sex.  It says nothing in the Bible to indicate that these men realized that the men staying with Lot were angels.  They specifically asked for "the men."    

 

Here is another hint:

LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

EZE 16:50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Jesus was not talking about hospitality.  He was talking about those who did not accept the teaching that the Kindgom of God was near. In other words they were rejecting Him.