Sodom and Gomorrah

[JoeB131]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

 

[Mr. H.]

I just about got kicked out of a college class when the Prof. was discussing S&G.
I asked "weren't they two of the Marx Brothers?"

 

[Granny]

SF and LA??

 

[AmericanFirst]

I love it when people try to disprove God and use the Bible even when they have no clue what the Bible says.

 

[Marie888]

I love it when people try to disprove God and use the Bible even when they have no clue what the Bible says.

Yep, they have no understanding of many things as they do not yet have His Spirit...yet. Never know when!

1 Cor 14

10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

.

 

[Dragon]

I notice that those who say "they don't understand this" have offered no interpretations of the passage to explain how it should be understood. Marie offered a completely different and unrelated passage of scripture, and AmericanFirst offered nothing.

Here is the OP's interpretation in a nutshell:

1) Lot offered to let a crowd gang-rape his virgin daughters rather than his guests.

2) Lot, in a drunken daze, later had incestuous sex with those same daughters, apparently on their instigation so they could get pregnant.

3) Lot was described as a "righteous" man, which, given the above, calls into question just what standard of "righteousness" is being advocated.

Now: just exactly how and why is that interpretation wrong? No platitudes, no unsupported statements, no reference to "the Holy Spirit" -- explain why and how the OP got it wrong. If you can't, you're just dodging.

 

[Marie888]

I notice that those who say "they don't understand this" have offered no interpretations of the passage to explain how it should be understood. Marie offered a completely different and unrelated passage of scripture, and AmericanFirst offered nothing.

Here is the OP's interpretation in a nutshell:

1) Lot offered to let a crowd gang-rape his virgin daughters rather than his guests.

2) Lot, in a drunken daze, later had incestuous sex with those same daughters, apparently on their instigation so they could get pregnant.

3) Lot was described as a "righteous" man, which, given the above, calls into question just what standard of "righteousness" is being advocated.

Now: just exactly how and why is that interpretation wrong? No platitudes, no unsupported statements, no reference to "the Holy Spirit" -- explain why and how the OP got it wrong. If you can't, you're just dodging.

What good does it do to try to explain it to you?

Why do I ask that?.. Because here is my understanding from your posts; what you say.

1. Either you've already made up your mind and you've denied Christ, or even if I tried to get into it deeper, you still wouldn't accept Him (His Word) or understand it. (That is why I posted the verses above which are totally relevant)

This doesn't mean I'm "worldly" smarter than you at all; probably the opposite, lol. I'm NOT into an intellectual competition here. In other words, I don't think I know better or more than you. But to understand the things of God, we need His Spirit. Even then, there are some things revealed to some people, and some people not. Everyone in the church is "one body". All different parts, but one body and each part of the body is needed and has it's uses.

Until you KNOW the Lord (ie., have His Holy Spirit) you cannot possibly understand. Knowing Him is when we start to learn from Him.

How can we learn from any teacher if one, we don't believe them...two, we just kick against them?

Know what I mean?


.

 

[Marie888]

Or maybe I could put it another way:

When you want to learn something that someone else has written; who do you go to to understand?

The One Who Wrote it. Ask Him.



.

 

[Dragon]

What good does it do to try to explain it to you?

I have a mind and a good understanding of the English language and logical arguments.

It's really quite simple. Offer an interpretation of that passage of Genesis that doesn't make it look as if a barbarous standard of morality is being advocated, one in which a man may be "righteous" who first offers his virgin daughters for gang-rape to a gang of thugs, and second impregnates those same daughters himself while intoxicated. I don't know about you, but I don't consider either of those actions particularly "righteous."

It should not be hard to explain this, if there IS an explanation. Be my guest.

But to understand the things of God, we need His Spirit.

I don't dispute this. What I dispute is that the Bible, or at least this passage of it, is among "the things of God." And it is precisely the Spirit, in part, which leads me to that conclusion.

 

[Marie888]

What good does it do to try to explain it to you?

I have a mind and a good understanding of the English language and logical arguments.

It's really quite simple. Offer an interpretation of that passage of Genesis that doesn't make it look as if a barbarous standard of morality is being advocated, one in which a man may be "righteous" who first offers his virgin daughters for gang-rape to a gang of thugs, and second impregnates those same daughters himself while intoxicated. I don't know about you, but I don't consider either of those actions particularly "righteous."

It should not be hard to explain this, if there IS an explanation. Be my guest.

But to understand the things of God, we need His Spirit.

I don't dispute this. What I dispute is that the Bible, or at least this passage of it, is among "the things of God." And it is precisely the Spirit, in part, which leads me to that conclusion.

Before we even get into a theological discussion on the OP verses, we'd have to agree that His Word (The Bible) is of God.

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

.

 

[Againsheila]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

 

[Dragon]

Before we even get into a theological discussion on the OP verses, we'd have to agree that His Word (The Bible) is of God.

Since that's precisely what's under dispute, what you are suggesting is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

 

[Dragon]

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

I understand that, and it makes perfect sense if and only if we are dealing here with a historical account written by barbarians and showing forth a barbaric moral perspective. But the claim made for the Bible is that it presents us with a moral perspective that is timeless and as appropriate for today as for those barbaric times and peoples.

 

[Againsheila]

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

I understand that, and it makes perfect sense if and only if we are dealing here with a historical account written by barbarians and showing forth a barbaric moral perspective. But the claim made for the Bible is that it presents us with a moral perspective that is timeless and as appropriate for today as for those barbaric times and peoples.

I don't think that claim is meant to be taking parts of the Bible as morally appropriate today, but the book as a whole. For many years, Catholics were told not to even read the Bible as they might interpret it wrong.

Then there is the saying "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

This is just another anti-Christian thread meant to attack Christians and their beliefs, which is kind of ironic since it's using the Old Testament to attack Christians.

Christ came and changed things long after Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Dragon]

I don't think that claim is meant to be taking parts of the Bible as morally appropriate today, but the book as a whole. For many years, Catholics were told not to even read the Bible as they might interpret it wrong.

Then there is the saying "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

This is just another anti-Christian thread meant to attack Christians and their beliefs, which is kind of ironic since it's using the Old Testament to attack Christians.

Christ came and changed things long after Sodom and Gomorrah.

Very well, then let's follow this reasoning (which I can't fault in itself) up a bit further.

You apparently agree that Lot was not, in any terms we would recognize today, a righteous man or a good man; that his behavior was execrable although not by the standards of his own time and culture -- which amounts to an indictment of that culture.

You say that Jesus' ministry and/or his sacrifice changed things and obviated the old rules, the old law, replacing it I would presume with Jesus' own teachings. Indeed one can see such a discrepancy, in that Jesus reduced the Law to two commandments, when it is by no means obvious that the Law can in fact be so reduced. So in essence, he changed the Law.

You further acknowledge that the Bible is not to be taken piecemeal, and imply that its reading may in fact mislead; you point out that the Catholic Church discouraged reading of Scripture for a long time. (What changed that was surely that it is no longer possible to do so.)

All of this is logically sound. But does it not lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not "God's word" in the sense that most Christians mean by that phrase? If we cannot take each passage of the Bible as both factually true and morally enlightening, are we not left with something from which we can pick and choose, being inspired by the passages that inspire us and disregarding the rest?

 

[JoeB131]

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

Those were his daughters. Sorry, anyone who would offer his daughter up for gang rape is depraved, no matter what time he lived in.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

I would have to wonder just how drunk you could possibly get to have sex with your daughter- twice!

I do think this passage is more propaganda than history. The MOabites and Ammonites claimed descent from Terah, the father of Abraham... so the incest thing is just a slander.

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

Oh, I do agree that the bible was written by men. The inspired by God part is what I think is bullshit.

I am not talking about whether the story is true, I doubt it is. I just wonder about the standard being laid down.

 

[JoeB131]

I love it when people try to disprove God and use the Bible even when they have no clue what the Bible says.

Yes, there's that old standby when you can't argue the point, isn't there.

"WHy, you just don't understand the point, because you need to let JAY-A-ZUS into your soul."

I ask a simple question. Why did God act in such a depraved manner.

"Well, I'm going to kill all these gay dudes, and the babies and children and puppies and kitties... but I'm going to let Lot live, so he can screw his daughters and father nations that will irritate Israel in the future."

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[rdean]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

Trying to reason with rightwingnuts who believe Bible fables are literal truth is a lost cause. The only thing we can do is keep them from doing even more damage than they already have.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't think that claim is meant to be taking parts of the Bible as morally appropriate today, but the book as a whole. For many years, Catholics were told not to even read the Bible as they might interpret it wrong.

Then there is the saying "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

This is just another anti-Christian thread meant to attack Christians and their beliefs, which is kind of ironic since it's using the Old Testament to attack Christians.

Christ came and changed things long after Sodom and Gomorrah.

Very well, then let's follow this reasoning (which I can't fault in itself) up a bit further.

You apparently agree that Lot was not, in any terms we would recognize today, a righteous man or a good man; that his behavior was execrable although not by the standards of his own time and culture -- which amounts to an indictment of that culture.

You say that Jesus' ministry and/or his sacrifice changed things and obviated the old rules, the old law, replacing it I would presume with Jesus' own teachings. Indeed one can see such a discrepancy, in that Jesus reduced the Law to two commandments, when it is by no means obvious that the Law can in fact be so reduced. So in essence, he changed the Law.

You further acknowledge that the Bible is not to be taken piecemeal, and imply that its reading may in fact mislead; you point out that the Catholic Church discouraged reading of Scripture for a long time. (What changed that was surely that it is no longer possible to do so.)

All of this is logically sound. But does it not lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not "God's word" in the sense that most Christians mean by that phrase? If we cannot take each passage of the Bible as both factually true and morally enlightening, are we not left with something from which we can pick and choose, being inspired by the passages that inspire us and disregarding the rest?

Getting back to Lot...he was a good man. He offered to give up his daughters to the crowd in order to save the strangers.....if he had just given them the strangers do you think his daughters would have been safe? In fact, if he had given them the strangers, EVERYBODY would have died, including Lot and his daughters. Lot was following the laws and the customs at the time. The fact that those aren't the customs today doesn't mean that he wasn't a good man, or a righteous man. Anyway you look at the story....if Lot had acted differently, he and his daughters would have died that day.

Now as to the Bible, it's open to interpretation...all of it. You interpret it your way and I'll interpret it my way. The Bible is as close as we can get to "God's Word" today, unless you actually hear him talking to you. You also have to take into account that there were several books that were never entered into the Bible. This was decided by convention in Constantinople, I believe. I know some people believe the Bible is THE WORD of God, but I don't think they realize how it's been changed and interpreted over the centuries. I don't think you can really understand it unless you can go back and read the original scrolls in their original languages. Historians are now saying that the stable Jesus was born in was a misinterpretation. That the word also meant "spare room". They also say that they may have stayed with the animals, on the bottom floor of the domicile...they lived differently back then. I think you just want to pick a fight. How's that going for you, btw?

 

[Foxfyre]

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of those stories that gets caught up in the lore and, because it was told over and over in the oral tradition, did wind up written down on a scroll at some point and then was edited into the documents that became the Jewish Torah and/or what became the Christian Old Testament.

The lessons in it are pretty clear to objective historians. There is no reference to gay love or anything remotely close to that or any other kind of love, but you have a rather lewd and lacivious, sometimes brutal lust of the type you see in prisons where heterosexual men commit sodomy on a weaker prisoner just because they can. The O.T. YHWH ("God") took strong exception to such behavior when it displaced all that was good and honorable. The story of Lot being willing to sacrifice his daughters to the mob not only illustrated the lowly status of women in that culture but more importantly illustrated the moral obligation to be hospitable to ones guests including providing food, shelter, and protection.

The larger story is a metaphor or illustration, depending on whether one chooses to take it all literally or not, that whatever the more evil intentions of humankind, God is still in control, he does protect and save those who honor Him, and He brings destruction to those who do evil.

Attempting to make more of the story than what is there can be fun, but in my opinion would also be in error.