Wow. Talk about distortion of Scripture.

[Hadron]

http://www.taac.us/wiki/index.php/On_Inclusiveness

...But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them. And Lot went out to the door to them, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, brothers, do not act evilly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man. I pray you, let me bring them out to you, and you do to them as you see fit. But do nothing to these men, for this is why they came under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back! And they said, This one came in to stay, and must he judge always? Now we will deal worse with you than with them. And they pressed hard upon the man, Lot, and came near to breaking the door. But the men put out their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves to find the door...

In this passage, people assume that "to know" means "to have sexual relations with" a person or in this case, to have homosexual relations with Lot's visitors. The Hebrew word here is yada. This word is literally translated, to know, to have knowledge of, to understand, to be introduced to, etc. None of the definitions of the word yada refer to sexual contact of any kind.

If that is so, then why in the next few lines after the bolded part (bolded by the author of the article) does it completely contradict that very statement about "knowing" someone?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man. I pray you, let me bring them out to you, and you do to them as you see fit. But do nothing to these men, for this is why they came under the shadow of my roof.

And why does Lot say not to act evilly to the men if they simply wanted to be introduced to the strangers??

Sheesh. Does anyone else here see someone making the Bible read what they want it to say?

 

[Rmered]

If that is so, then why in the next few lines after the bolded part (bolded by the author of the article) does it completely contradict that very statement about "knowing" someone?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man. I pray you, let me bring them out to you, and you do to them as you see fit. But do nothing to these men, for this is why they came under the shadow of my roof.

And why does Lot say not to act evilly to the men if they simply wanted to be introduced to the strangers??

Sheesh. Does anyone else here see someone making the Bible read what they want it to say?

What I've done here is a complete cut and paste job, but rather than give you a link and have you wade through the rest of the information, here is the logical answer to your question.

Critics admit that the word used (the very common yada) does at times refer euphemistically to sexual activity, but that this is seldom the case. However, Wold points out that the presence of a mixed group, as opposed to merely elders, speaks against this being any sort of "welcoming committee" (for elders had that role in an ancient village or city [82ff -- there is no evidence, Wold notes, for the claim that Lot violated hospitality by not getting permission to have a guest; no such custom is known]). Critics also fail to consider the full semantic field: In other languages of the period, there are equivalent verbs to yada (in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Akkadian) which are clearly used with a sexual connotation. In addition, critics admit that yada means sexual intercourse in Judges 19:25, a story which scholars unhesitatingly identify as having used Gen. 19 as a literary model. It is also clear that yada is used sexually of Lot's daughters in 19:8. Finally, the LXX translators used a Greek verb which clearly indicated that they understood yada in 19:5 in a sexual sense (hence, it is false to claim that no Jewish scholars read the text this way prior to Christianity).

Short answer, it does mean to have sex, as a euphamism.
In the same way a screw is something you use to fix one to another.

And further, what logical sense does it make to say "you can't meet my guests, but you can meet my daughters who have never met a man before"?

Homosexual advocates have been using this for some time to try and justify their actions.
But it just doesn't fly. You can cook beans, fry, boil and bake 'em, they're still beans. Same with homosexuality, you can talk about love for one and another and so on, but God obviously says it's wrong.

 

[Joykins]

yada, yada, yada

The question is if the sin of Sodom is actually and exclusively homosexuality, why women were offered at all.

 

[Rmered]

yada, yada, yada

The question is if the sin of Sodom is actually and exclusively homosexuality, why women were offered at all.

Because rape, which is what is suggested here, is not about sex, but about power.
And offering a young girl (or girls in this case) while completely inappropriate today, and probably then too, was all Lot could think of to do at the time.
Just shows you what a messed up place it was.

 

[Joykins]

Then the sin of Sodom is rape, not homosexuality.

 

[indra_fanatic]

yada, yada, yada

The question is if the sin of Sodom is actually and exclusively homosexuality, why women were offered at all.

The sin of Sodom wasn't exclusively homosexuality, but it was obviously a big part. Lot attempted to offer the women to them because he was hoping that would quell their sexual desires. That was the custom of the day. There was not a realization yet of what constituted rape; it never entered the equation.

 

[California Tim]

Perhaps we could simply say the sin of Sodom was "sexual perversion". That pretty much sums it up.

 

[praying]

There was not a realization yet of what constituted rape; it never entered the equation.

What are you basing this on?

Rape has nothing at all to do with sexual desire.

 

[GenemZ]

yada, yada, yada

The question is if the sin of Sodom is actually and exclusively homosexuality, why women were offered at all.

The truth be known.... the women were turned down. Weren't they?

Lot was desperate and in a panic. Not thinking rationally. He himself could not fully comprehend the homosexual desire. So, in desperation he offered his daughters.

And, just maybe it was a stall tactic. He might have known his daughters would have been turned down. He may have been stalling for time.

Either way you slice it. The men of Sodom were "sodomites." God first blinded them, then burned them to a crisp. God loves homosexuality. "Well done, not rare."

It says that Sodom served as an example of God's attitude towards such sin.

2 Peter 2:6 niv
"if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly."

Today its in "vogue" for those who conform to the world to see homosexuality as a viable way of sexual expression. The conformist to the cosmic system see themselves as "hip and informed" by accepting homosexual relations as a norm. This must come to pass. For when the AntiChrist appears on earth, he will be homosexual. He will be adored and loved by those who love the world.

Daniel 11:37 (New American Standard Bible)
"He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all. "

By time he gets here, the gay liberation front will have made the path cleared for his acceptance. Those today who think homosexuality is OK are being sucked into the cosmic system...... the world's way of thinking.

Romans 12:2 niv
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

When that was written, the world saw homosexuality as simply an alternative outlet for sexual expression. As Christianity grew throughout the world homosexuality's acceptance diminished amongst cultures containing a strong contingency of believers. Today's drive for the acceptance of homosexuality is (believe it, or not) a sign that the AntiChrist is soon waiting in the wings. Maybe in a few generations the world will be ready for him.

But, then again. All Christians will be removed from this earth before He makes his entrance. Maybe, the world is ready for him today. Who would have thought that a culture would have accepted a man like Hitler? They did. With cheers and tears of joy....... Man is depraved. Needs to be saved. Totally enslaved. But smarter than the Bible believing Christian (so they think).

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[wblastyn]

Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)

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.

Doesn't mention anything about sex....

 

[Crazy Liz]

The truth be known.... the women were turned down. Weren't they?

Lot was desperate and in a panic. Not thinking rationally. He himself could not fully comprehend the homosexual desire. So, in desperation he offered his daughters.

And, just maybe it was a stall tactic. He might have known his daughters would have been turned down. He may have been stalling for time.

Either way you slice it. The men of Sodom were "sodomites." God first blinded them, then burned them to a crisp. God loves homosexuality. "Well done, not rare."

Now let me get this straight. You are saying the point of this story is that them men of Sodom were more evil than the men of Gibeah, because in similar circumstances the men of Gibeah accepted the woman who was thrown out to them to sexually abuse and murder. Is that what you meant to say?

 

[Rmered]

Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)

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.

Doesn't mention anything about sex....

You've missed a bit. The very next bit, in fact.
Eze 16:50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw {it.}Eze 16:51 "Furthermore, Samaria did not commit half of your sins, for you have multiplied your abominations more than they. Thus you have made your sisters appear righteous by all your abominations which you have committed.

The abominations are sexual immorality, namely, homosexual acts.
The word is exactly the same as was used in Lev 18:22 to mean abomination, when specifically referring to lying with men as with women.

Don't quote it out of context, it says exactly what everyone knows it says.
God thinks the act of homosexuality is an abomination.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Perhaps we could simply say the sin of Sodom was "sexual perversion". That pretty much sums it up.

Not really. Sodom was a wicked city. God was prepared to destroy it in Genesis 18, before this incident occurs. It doesn't say what its sins were in Genesis, but references to Sodom in Isaiah, Ezekial, and Matthew reveals a consistent wickedness toward those who cannot depend themselves: the widows, the orphans, and the foreigners.

Rape isn't a sexual perversion. It is a violent act that uses sex to hurt someone.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)

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.

Doesn't mention anything about sex....

Nice but you skipped the next verse:

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

The NT says they "went after strange flesh" -- a distinct sexual reference.

Homosexuality is a "detestible thing" (a.k.a., abomination) in God's book.

 

[AngelusSax]

The word is exactly the same as was used in Lev 18:22 to mean abomination, when specifically referring to lying with men as with women.

As well as not wearing blended clothing and eating certain foods... why doesn't God ever burn anyone to a cinder for wearing a poly/cotton blend while eating shrimp?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

As well as not wearing blended clothing and eating certain foods... why doesn't God ever burn anyone to a cinder for wearing a poly/cotton blend while eating shrimp?

Actually, no. The word used in Ezekial and Lev 18:22 is not used to condemn mixed fabrics:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08441&version=kjv

 

[kdet]

What are you basing this on?

Rape has nothing at all to do with sexual desire.

If rape had NOTHING to do with sexual desire then there would be no sex act. just a beating.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If rape had NOTHING to do with sexual desire then there would be no sex act. just a beating.

Rape is to sex what biting someone is to eating.

 

[Eruliel]

Well the men of sodom weren't exactly being kind to the aliens who had come in their midst. If they were that way to strangers (I guess being kind to strangers in the Middle East was just as important as taking care of your own family), then they must not've been kind to the widows and orphans. Perhaps the reason God couldn't find 10 holy people within the limits of the city is because the people of Sodom made it so he couldn't...in other words killed 'em. They did say they were going to do worse to Lot... either way Sodom's gone, whether they ate shrimp while wearing a linen/wool blend, or whether they were perverse sexually, they're gone.
Slainte!
Eruliel

 

[Rmered]

If rape had NOTHING to do with sexual desire then there would be no sex act. just a beating.

Not neccessarily.
Just because it was designed as a pleasurable activity, and being married with 4 kids let me just say "nice work God", but also it's been perverted into a way to control, humiliate, and punish people. The rapist gains as much, or more perverted pleasure from that as he does the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] he has.
And I doubt there'd be much worse humiliation or punishment than being sodomised by a gang of men.

And this is why Lot protected his guests.

I can see where you're coming from, but, had it been about sex, then Lot's daughters would have been acceptable to the gang.