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 likely myth of Lot, the angels and the men of Sodom who were intent on raping the angels, has led to an almost unshakable mindset by TOO MANY Christians that God CLEARLY hates gay people ...even though homosexuality per se has nothing to do with this strange, STRANGE story.
Yes, this highly weird tale is most always the favorite Bible story of the anti-gay Christian. They can't help themselves. And yet, it's highly likely that many of them have never actually read - and, if so, have not critically evaluated - the story of S&G for themselves. More than likely they are simply regurgitating what they’ve heard so many times from the guy behind the pulpit who is just as ignorant as they are. Many Christians put their trust in their minister since he is, after all, considered to be the mouthpiece of God.
Yes, even the term ‘sodomite’ – a term not used in the Bible to identify a person from the city of Sodom – is a label often applied to a homosexual person. And, while some may disagree with this definition as per the King James Bible, a ‘sodomite’ was, apparently, a male temple prostitute.
In 1 Kings 14:24 we read:
24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
Is this ^ saying that there were also people from the city of Sodom in the land? No, it does not. As said, the people of Sodom are never referred to as ‘sodomites’ in the Bible. And so the passage cannot mean this. No, this passage of scripture is telling us that there were temple prostitutes who ‘did (performed) abominations’, the same for which God threw those other nations out of Israel.
In the next chapter (1 Kings 15:12) we are told:
12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
We can clearly see here ^ the connection between ‘sodomite’ and pagan idolatry. ALSO - and please apply some brain-power here - the use of the term 'abomination' when describing 'idolatry'!
Should any of you either participating in or otherwise visiting this thread belong to a church that is still teaching that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of rampant homosexuality – or/and that the Bible refers to homosexuals as ‘sodomites’ and therefore condemns them - then do the right thing and depart from that church. They are preaching lies!
Incidentally, we know from the story of S&G that Lot offered his daughters to the men who had congregated at his door demanding to ‘have their way’ with the angels. It may be of interest to know that ‘God’ (the Bible) is quite okay for women who had never previously been intimate with a man to be raped if given permission by their father. The daughter (a mere chattel of the father) would also not dare to object because she knew her place. So, it was perfectly 'okay' for Lot to offer his daughters! The same is true for Lot's wife having paid the penalty for her disobedience. She was a woman. She should have obeyed!
How many of you are still keen to use the story of S&G as your 'go to scripture' for your moral authority??
You know, while I firmly believe (by using a logical approach) that the actual account of Lot, the angels and the men of Sodom is a tale of fiction, many Christians (who often DON'T use a logical approach) believe it to have been an actual account. And so, we who don't believe this to be the case may be required to play the devil's advocate and play along for the sake of debate. This is pretty much what I am doing.
And so, assuming the story having been an actual historical event, why do we also assume that ALL the people of Sodom - young and old - were seen to be worthy of destruction? I mean, all we're told PRIOR (< 'prior' is important) to the Lot, the angels and the people of Sodom story is that they were 'wicked'. What 'wicked' things were they doing that so angered God, where not even 10 people - men, women, children, babies - were found to be worthy of being spared God's IMPENDING (<'impending' is important) wrath? Would those of you participating or visiting this thread consider the general cultures of our day as being 'wicked'? Would God find 10 'righteous' people among the population of our cities if He were to ask? According to Paul (Romans 3:10) NO ONE is righteous so I guess we have our answer to that question.
While in the pondering mode, WHY have we come to assume that the people of Sodom were wanting to have sex with Lot's visitors? We are not told this in so many words. And, 'to know them' could mean a bevvy of different things ...look up the Hebrew term ('yada' - 3045) in Strong's Concordance if you care to. These men (not known as angels by the people) were strangers who had been given refuge in the home of someone (i.e. Lot) who was not a born and bred resident of Sodom himself. How dare he! It seems clear from the passage that he was not accepted by the people of Sodom and that there may have been previous conflict between he and they.
While I always thought that 'to know' may mean 'to interrogate Lot's visitors' was kinda weak, I could now give this meaning at least some merit. It actually DOES fit the situation quite well. Actually, MUCH MORE SO than the entire populace of Sodom wanting to have sex with the visitors! <Unless to intimidate or/and to emasculate the visitors so that they will never return to Sodom, the entire populace of Sodom wanting to have sex with the visitors doesn't make a lick of sense! I mean, come on ...think about it!!
Actually, 'we' assume that the people of Sodom wanted to have sex with the visitors based SOLELY on Lot's later telling the crowd that they could have his daughters in lieu of the men 'to do with as they wish'. This appears to imply (and we to infer) that 'sex' WAS the motive behind the 'welcome wagon'. Really? What does this part of the story have to do with ANYTHING? If the men DO want sex with the men (angels) then offering up the daughters certainly will not suffice. They want the men. On the other hand, if the men DO want to interrogate the visitors then Lot's offering up the daughters will likewise ALSO not suffice. They want the men. So, what is the point of this odd inclusion into into an already odd story?
Is there anyone out there who can make a believer out of me when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
You know, while I firmly believe (by using a logical approach) that the actual account of Lot, the angels and the men of Sodom is a tale of fiction, many Christians (who often DON'T use a logical approach) believe it to have been an actual account. And so, we who don't believe this to be the case may be required to play the devil's advocate and play along for the sake of debate. This is pretty much what I am doing.
And so, assuming the story having been an actual historical event, why do we also assume that ALL the people of Sodom - young and old - were seen to be worthy of destruction? I mean, all we're told PRIOR (< 'prior' is important) to the Lot, the angels and the people of Sodom story is that they were 'wicked'. What 'wicked' things were they doing that so angered God, where not even 10 people - men, women, children, babies - were found to be worthy of being spared God's IMPENDING (<'impending' is important) wrath? Would those of you participating or visiting this thread consider the general cultures of our day as being 'wicked'? Would God find 10 'righteous' people among the population of our cities if He were to ask? According to Paul (Romans 3:10) NO ONE is righteous so I guess we have our answer to that question.
While in the pondering mode, WHY have we come to assume that the people of Sodom were wanting to have sex with Lot's visitors? We are not told this in so many words. And, 'to know them' could mean a bevvy of different things ...look up the Hebrew term ('yada' - 3045) in Strong's Concordance if you care to. These men (not known as angels by the people) were strangers who had been given refuge in the home of someone (i.e. Lot) who was not a born and bred resident of Sodom himself. How dare he! It seems clear from the passage that he was not accepted by the people of Sodom and that there may have been previous conflict between he and they.
While I always thought that 'to know' may mean 'to interrogate Lot's visitors' was kinda weak, I could now give this meaning at least some merit. It actually DOES fit the situation quite well. Actually, MUCH MORE SO than the entire populace of Sodom wanting to have sex with the visitors! <Unless to intimidate or/and to emasculate the visitors so that they will never return to Sodom, the entire populace of Sodom wanting to have sex with the visitors doesn't make a lick of sense! I mean, come on ...think about it!!
Actually, 'we' assume that the people of Sodom wanted to have sex with the visitors based SOLELY on Lot's later telling the crowd that they could have his daughters in lieu of the men 'to do with as they wish'. This appears to imply (and we to infer) that 'sex' WAS the motive behind the 'welcome wagon'. Really? What does this part of the story have to do with ANYTHING? If the men DO want sex with the men (angels) then offering up the daughters certainly will not suffice. They want the men. On the other hand, if the men DO want to interrogate the visitors then Lot's offering up the daughters will likewise ALSO not suffice. They want the men. So, what is the point of this odd inclusion into into an already odd story?
Is there anyone out there who can make a believer out of me when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Its more likely they would have taken EITHER to have sex with, (the angels or the daughters of Lot), it probably made no difference to them, as long as they got to have sex with something.
Its somewhat interesting though, back then, Lot was viewed as a hero, (for offering his young daughters to strangers, to be used as sex toys)...but if that happened today, the father would be totally vilified and made out to be horrible...although I guess the reaction would vary, depending on the reason for a father offering his daughters like that.
Its more likely they would have taken EITHER to have sex with, (the angels or the daughters of Lot), it probably made no difference to them, as long as they got to have sex with something.
The real issue here is literal interpretations of metaphorical & allegorical literary texts that are representative and not "documentary" and/or actual accounts of occurrences & scenarios.
That is 100% fully the answer...to ALL these kind of critiques & questionings.
But...if it is viewed from a literal standpoint, the writings also provide any and all answers: The Omnimax Powered God that knows everything and can do anything, whos thoughts and ways are above ours did and/or sanctioned all these things.
Also...any critique or questioning of it is wrong too...because the writings tell you that you are not to lean upon your own understanding, but just completely defer to God.
I actually would say the main thing in a literal interpretation, is the directive not to try to critique it, arbitrate it, or question it in any way.
Because that essentially is blasphemy...as you are judging God...and must place God as subordinate to do that. And that is the ultimate sin.
According to literal interpretations.
Just lurking / browsing through this thread out of interest. I have no knowledge of the subject matter so I won't stick my oar in where it's not wanted.
Not picking on you particularly but I'm always struck when people make this kind of comment about 'not questioning God'.
Whether taken literally or metaphorically you are questioning these texts.
It's not possible to not interpret them in one way or another.
You can either:
Take them as the literal word of God but take them in the context of when they were written, because a lot of the content would be seen as immoral by today's standards, and leave them in the past
Or
Take them as the literal word of god but pick out the good bits and reinterpret them for today's society
Or
Take them as written by men as a sort of moral guide of the time
Or
View them as complete but beautiful works of fiction that belong in a display case.
One way or another they are an interpretation - you have to pick a side because were are not living in the year 60AD. We've moved on so you need to pick a context in which to view them and all of the above cases you've used you brain to question which context you are going to view them in.
A few posters think Sodam and Gomora as a tale. However, you can go visit the 4,000 year old cities today which is covered in sulfur balls, with structural rememnants and even bones.
Writings from 2,000 years ago, discuss how you can still see some ruined structure from the Dead Sea.
A few posters think Sodam and Gomora as a tale. However, you can go visit the 4,000 year old cities today which is covered in sulfur balls, with structural rememnants and even bones.
Writings from 2,000 years ago, discuss how you can still see some ruined structure from the Dead Sea.
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.
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.
