Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The crime in Sodom was allegedly more than mere homosexuality. There was a crowd of men who wanted to gang rape two angels.
People fixate on the homosexuality aspect and ignore the gang rape, threats of violence against Lot's family, and the fact that the crowd wanted to rape angels.
Even if the human-angel sex had been consensual, you would still have the problem of giants. Well not in the case of Sodom, I guess...
That said the poster after you is mistaken that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality (although it falls much more heavily on male-male relations.) It does so in many places. Christians who try to fudge scriptural adherence and the acceptance of homosexual relations are probably falling short of both standards.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality or gang rape. That's just a plot point along the way.
Lot and his family are living in Sodom.
Sodom has to be destroyed to get Lot and his family to leave and be separated from the rest of humanity.
There has to be a reason for God to destroy Sodom to move the story forward; hence the angels and the nasty mob coming to rape them.
Lot's wife has to be removed to move the story forward, so she is disobedient and looks back and gets turned into a pillar of salt.
All this brings us to the punch line of the story. Lot is now isolated in the mountains with just his two daughters, who are lamenting the fact that they have no children because there are no men with whom they can have sexual relations, because, God knows, child-bearing is the only reason for women's existence in the eyes of the men who wrote this story.
The daughters get their father drunk and have sex with them on two consecutive nights. Both women become pregnant. One gives birth to a son named Moab, one gives birth to a son named Ammon.
These children become the founders of the Moabites and the Ammonites, arch-enemy tribes of the Israelites, whose story this is.
The point of the whole story:The Moabites and Ammonites are descended from a couple of in-bred bastids.
***
As somebody once said, there were likely some ancient city ruins nearby, and on a long winter night around a fire, a story was told about what might have happened to them.
But, in 2019, nobody cares about Moabites and Ammonites, so people focus on the part of the tale that says "God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because there were nasty rapists there who wanted to pork the angels, and we think homosexual relations are icky so we're going to emphasize that."
Meh don't really care, one of the bonuses of being an atheist is you can watch all the religious squabbles and infighting from the sidelines, munching popcorn. Yes, yes let's all describe how we are the ones that are right about something imaginary. All those OTHER groups are all completely wrong about that imaginary thing, the stupid fools!
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality or gang rape. That's just a plot point along the way.
Lot and his family are living in Sodom.
Sodom has to be destroyed to get Lot and his family to leave and be separated from the rest of humanity.
There has to be a reason for God to destroy Sodom to move the story forward; hence the angels and the nasty mob coming to rape them.
Lot's wife has to be removed to move the story forward, so she is disobedient and looks back and gets turned into a pillar of salt.
All this brings us to the punch line of the story. Lot is now isolated in the mountains with just his two daughters, who are lamenting the fact that they have no children because there are no men with whom they can have sexual relations, because, God knows, child-bearing is the only reason for women's existence in the eyes of the men who wrote this story.
The daughters get their father drunk and have sex with them on two consecutive nights. Both women become pregnant. One gives birth to a son named Moab, one gives birth to a son named Ammon.
These children become the founders of the Moabites and the Ammonites, arch-enemy tribes of the Israelites, whose story this is.
The point of the whole story: The Moabites and Ammonites are descended from a couple of in-bred bastids.
***
As somebody once said, there were likely some ancient city ruins nearby, and on a long winter night around a fire, a story was told about what might have happened to them.
But, in 2019, nobody cares about Moabites and Ammonites, so people focus on the part of the tale that says "God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because there were nasty rapists there who wanted to pork the angels, and we think homosexual relations are icky so we're going to emphasize that."
I buy it. And don't forget that the Canaanites could be enslaved because Ham saw his dad in his birthday suit.
Do you have any problems with churches letting in adulterers? How about fornicators? Gluttons? Greedy? Misers? Divorced? How about letting in people that wear garments made from more than one fiber? Or those that eat pork, or shellfish? Men that cut the hair on the sides of their head? Women that don't cover their hair in church? Do you have problems with any of these people being "allowed" into church?
You say you don't "do" organized religion, but for someone who is not a member of any church, you sure have a very rigid, dogmatic, literalist interpretation of scripture. Your God quote is especially amusing. Where, exactly, does he say that? You do realize that the word "homosexuality" never occurs in the bible in its original languages, don't you?
I realize that different people have different interpretations of scripture. I also realize that traditionally, Christians have taught against same sex relations. But just like some Christians in the past taught that the bible permits or even encourages slavery, this was more the result of reading the bible thru the lens of their own culture rather than the clear teachings of scripture. As a Christian, I believe the writers of the books of the bible were inspired, but they were also men of their times, and they often wrote from their own cultural perspective. The important thing is not to pour over the bible and look for that single passage or small group of passages that just so happen to confirm our own prejudices, but to look and read and study and apply the bible AS A WHOLE to one's life. Obviously, I don't adhere to the literalist, inerrant, view of scripture. I think when one reads the bible that way, one loses sight of the big picture- that God loves us and wants us to love each other.
Good post, and I second just about everything in here. I don't think it is valid that people cherry pick out the verses about homosexuality to proclaim "this is the law," but ignore all the rest of the law in the old testament. As Methodists, we are asked to read the Bible and to use our own experience and reason to find its relevance in our lives, to discern how God is speaking to us. It is totally legitimate to realize that the laws in the old testament were made for reasons that were relevant and needed at that time, but are no longer laws that will help us to guide our lives. We can look at them as a guide to those people and gain understanding of how early peoples tried to stay close to God. But I don't think God would want us to use those ancient laws to separate and alienate people now. Jesus didn't speak about homosexuality, but he did speak about not judging others, about loving and accepting people. In my world, Jesus has the final word.
This is true. The Methodist Church split before the Civil war because churches in the south did not want slavery to be condemned by the Church, but those in the north wanted to make the Church solidly against it. In addition, some did not want to admit black people into the church. That's why you see churches like the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Methodist Church. Many small denominations were brought back together in the late 1960s when it became the United Methodist Church.
The United Methodist church I now belong to is small, but very diverse, mission driven and welcoming to all. I believe most would call it a liberal church. I once belonged to a church that was sent (from the Conference) a very conservative pastor. It took two years of justification, but we did finally kick him out. I believe he became the pastor of a non-Methodist church that was more conservative.
I don't see Christ kicking anyone's ass out of church who wants to be there. I don't know why someone being gay is such an issue with folks.
I would not think that Christ would "value" one group over another based on race, economics, social status, whatever............................
I think its because the homosexual relationship cannot bear children,(sex during marriage in the bible, is mostly for procreation).
Plus, there is that verse where Jesus calls it an abomination for a man to lye with another man (as a women would), (an abomination is something that offends God).
I think its because the homosexual relationship cannot bear children,(sex during marriage in the bible, is mostly for procreation).
Plus, there is that verse where Jesus calls it an abomination for a man to lye with another man (as a women would), (an abomination is something that offends God).
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Mark 10:2-12
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The foundational text of the Bible says its wrong to get a divorce and then get remarried (but today's churches accept people who have been divorced and remarried.)
No doubt, today's churches consider homosexuality to be a heck of a lot worse sin before God than adultery.
This is true. The Methodist Church split before the Civil war because churches in the south did not want slavery to be condemned by the Church, but those in the north wanted to make the Church solidly against it. In addition, some did not want to admit black people into the church. That's why you see churches like the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Methodist Church. Many small denominations were brought back together in the late 1960s when it became the United Methodist Church.
The United Methodist church I now belong to is small, but very diverse, mission driven and welcoming to all. I believe most would call it a liberal church. I once belonged to a church that was sent (from the Conference) a very conservative pastor. It took two years of justification, but we did finally kick him out. I believe he became the pastor of a non-Methodist church that was more conservative.
This is what I was vaguely remembering. So, if it split again it would be along similar lines. Would it become the "Deunited" Methodist church then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.