Sodom and Gomorrah

[Sky Dancer]

This thread makes interesting reading.


Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50


No mention of homosexuals or lesbians.

 

[Dragon]

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?

False dilemma. There may have been courses of action other than giving the mob EITHER the strangers OR his daughters to gang-rape, to wit:

1) Slip out the back way with all parties and escape.
2) Barricade the doors and windows, take up arms, and discourage the mob by violent means.

Either of those would have been a better moral choice than offering his daughters to be gang-raped.

Lot was not a good man. He was a monster. There is simply no other possible interpretation of what he attempted to do. He was a monster and an incestuous creep, the crowd consisted of monsters, his daughters were degenerates, and the angels were terrors who punished the innocent along with the guilty. There were no good people in this story art all.

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.

I would say that we are presented with a spectrum of choices here. At one extreme is what the fundamentalists say: that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, and every word is true. At the other extreme is the position where the Bible has no authoritative power but is treated with respect and used selectively for inspiration.

The closer we come to the fundamentalist position, the more we run into problems like this passage, or the apparent approval by God of Joshua's genocide, or other truly appalling acts of the Children of Israel which met with divine approval. To say nothing of the passages that run counter to science, such as the miracle of the sun stopping in the sky. (This goes beyond such miracles as the fall of the walls of Jericho or Jesus' healing miracles, in that they require only the insertion of an unrecognized divine force, while the sun-stopping business would require that the sun actually move through the sky rather than the Earth around the sun.)

If we move far enough away from the fundamentalist position that this sort of thing no longer presents a problem, then we reach a point where the Bible has no significance other than sentimental attachment and a few passages that seem enlightened and wise -- of which there are indeed many.

But that's the dilemma. Either the Bible is of no authority, or it is a monstrosity.

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.

Maybe so. I agree about the Council of Nicaea that established the canonical New Testament; however, it did not establish the canonical Old Testament as that had already been settled by Jewish religious authorities. All those details about the birth of Jesus, while they may be valid points, strike me as not very important. Does it really matter whether Jesus was born in a stable or in someone's spare room?

Any such linguistic concerns also run into the fact that all of the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, but Jesus actually taught in Aramaic, which is a very different language. So even the original Greek Gospels are only an approximation of what he taught and probably miss a lot.

 

[JoeB131]

There were no good people in this story art all.

Well, that's not fair. Lot's wife didn't seem like a bad person. All she did was look back while her home was being destroyed. And she got turned into a pillar of salt for her troubles.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here ya go.........it's from a scholar site called Sacred Texts Archive.........

And no, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't being gay, it was something else.......

The Sin of Sodom
Then there is the story of the destruction of the city of Sodom, (Genesis 18:16-19:29). Sodom has given its name to the now somewhat quaint-sounding term 'Sodomy', which originally meant a specific male homosexual sex act. Eventually it was expanded to mean any form of sexual expression which happened to be illegal, including things that married heterosexual couples do every day.

However, a close reading reveals the name to be a bit of a misnomer. To start off, Sodom is described simply as a 'wicked' place. Lot, Abraham's nephew, goes to live there to see if even one righteous person can be found there. The sexual theme starts when two disguised angels visit Lot. A mob, described as consisting of the men of the city, 'both young and old', attacks Lot's house and demands that Lot allow them to 'know' (in the language of the KJV) the two men. To 'know' is, of course, the famous KJV circumlocution for having sexual intercourse.

The next passage bears closer examination. Lot (Gen 19:8) asks the mob to 'do' his two virgin daughters instead, but not the two guests, 'for ... they came under the shadow of my roof.' The rest of the story is well-known: divine wrath ensues, the mob is blinded, the cities of the plain are destroyed by fire and brimstone while Lot and his family flee, Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt because she looks back, and only Lot and his daughters escape. In an often ignored coda to this story, Lot's daughters have incest with him by getting him intoxicated, (Gen 19:31), presumably to repopulate the country; a similar motif is found in the story of Noah. As in other Biblical narratives, even the heroes end up committing horrendous sins, driven by circumstances. But many ignore the entire context of the story in the rush to justify their own bigotry.

The sin of the city of Sodom was the originally considered to be the violation of the rights of Lot's guests. Defining the 'sin of Sodom' to be male homosexuality was a later interpretation, which was made by medieval Jewish and Christian writers, as a reaction to Pagan acceptance of homosexuality. Near Eastern hospitality, to this day, implies a responsibility to protect guests under one's roof. The fact that Lot was ready to make a huge sacrifice by offering up his virgin daughters to the mob instead of his guests underlines this.

There is abundant Haggadah, ancient Jewish folklore, which tells of the cruelty of Sodom to strangers, and their mistreatment of the poor and homeless. Among other stories, travelers are given gold but not food; when they starve to death, everything is stolen including the gold and the clothes off their backs, and their bodies are left to rot. One of Lot's unfortunate daughters is burned to death for the crime of giving a starving man food. Another woman who assists a poor man is smeared with honey and left to be stung to death by bees. Some of these stories are suffused with dark comedic twists. A poor man is assaulted and robbed. Eliezar, a servant of Abraham, is hit on the head when he intervenes. A judge rules that he must pay his assailant for medical treatment! (Bleeding was considered a surgical procedure). Eliezar then hits the judge on the head, drawing blood, and tells the judge to pay his fine. See Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews and Polano's The Talmud: Selections, for many more stories along the same lines. After reading these, I guarantee you'll be rooting for the Lord to rain down the brimstone on the cities of the plain...

There are also numerous Biblical passages warning about mistreating strangers, (with the story of Lot being implied), for instance this one in the NT: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [Heb. 13:2]

Between the original concept of a violation of the law of hospitality and the medieval focus on a particular sexual act, there is an intermediate stage where Sodom was criticized for other reasons entirely. Where Sodom is mentioned in later books of the Tanach and in the New Testament, it is used as an example of a city which was corrupted by luxury, lacking in values such as charity and humility. Nowhere is this made clearer than in Ezekiel 16:48-50, where Ezekiel, speaking for 'the Lord God', enumerates the sins of Sodom: "Saith the Lord GOD...Behold, this was the iniquity of ... Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good".

Note that in this context 'abomination' means human sacrifice and idol worship, not shared tax breaks for long-term same-sex couples, or sexual practices you can see on cable after 10 o'clock. Furthermore, 'abomination' is at the end of the laundry list. The primary sin of Sodom, by this account, was that their society was materialistic, greedy and uncharitable. Social and economic justice is a thread that runs through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament alike, and it is not difficult to extrapolate this to modern struggles for equality, such as those of LGBT people. When governmental and religious institutions and their leaders perpetuate oppression, it would not be farfetched to say that they are committing the actual sin of Sodom.

Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

The main problem with those 2 cities was their treatment of others who weren't of their city. Remember, hospitality was something REALLY big in the OT, because without proper treatment of travelers, how would the human race have expanded?

 

[FactFinder]

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?

No! Picking and choosing is for those who are trying to deny faith. You may do so but at your peril. The Bible is complete and not made up of parts but one congruent continuous whole. To extract parts to prove a point is frankly heretical. It is a journey of man and in particular a journey of man's relationship to God. It reflects man's growing understanding of God and what becomes a right relationship with Him. God did not change. Man did. This is reflected in your outrage at Lot's behaviour.

 

[hortysir]

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.

So left-wing Dem-bulbs don't believe in God?

 

[hortysir]

S&G happened in Genesis.

Incest wasn't forbidden until Leviticus

 

[Foxfyre]

S&G happened in Genesis.

Incest wasn't forbidden until Leviticus

Well that assumes that YHWH started dictating the Bible to some scribe at Genesis 1 and continued right through the Bible in the order in which it appears in the "Christian" Bible all the way through Malachai. But since you have stories repeated, parallel passages, and obvious problems with datelines, that doesn't seem logical does it?

Most Bible scholars, for instance, believe that the First Chapter of Genesis is one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament while the second chapter of Genesis--the second Creation story--is indeed one of the oldest. And you have the problem of people practicing certain aspects of the rituals and law before the giving of those rituals and laws appear in the Bible.

So it is logical to believe that over two thousand years or so, many, many manuscripts were written on the ancient scrolls and after the Disapora when the Jews were cut off from the Temple and were being heavily influenced by the cultures in which they found themselves. . . .

. . . .The time came when Jewish elders came together with as many of those scrolls as they could find, used their best judgment about which were inspired by YHWH and which probably were not, and edited them together to form a canonized collection of manuscripts to be used by all Jews everywhere. In that way the culture, laws, customs, and traditions of Judaism would be preserved and practiced no matter how scattered the people were.

To understand both the Old Testament and New Testament, you have to read it through the eyes of the people who penned the scrolls. If you try to read it with 21st Century eyes, you're gonna get it wrong a lot of the time.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Gee, isn't that special. By wrong, they mean "something that we haven't declared to be true." And you're right, I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years, and realized the bullshit pretty early. For instance, Bible clearly says "No Graven Images", but you have all sorts of statues in any given Catholic Church of the saints you are supposed to pray to.

(Praying to Saints- Kind of to Polytheism what nicotine gum is to smoking.)

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.

Oooooh, I love when they compare me to "the devil" because I point out the insane crap in their own holy book.

Okay, let's take this silliness one step further. This is always one of my favorite arguments from Bible Thumpers. "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT".

That would assume that Jesus (who is God) actually would have disapproved of God's (which is to say his) handling of the whole S&G fiasco....

But the problem is, he didn't.

Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

So the only person who Jesus/God was really okay with Punishing was Lot's wife, who let's not forget, only committed the horrible sin of looking back when her home was destroyed (which I think any of us would do), while he had no problem with Lot pimping his daughter or having drunken sex with them.

Also, I'd have to wonder why God would 1) Screw up his own creation so bad that it was so evil and 2) Wait 2000 years before putting in the fix of sending Jesus down to be a kinder, gentler Sky Pixie after torturing his followers for all those years.

 

[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.

Gee, isn't that special. By wrong, they mean "something that we haven't declared to be true." And you're right, I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years, and realized the bullshit pretty early. For instance, Bible clearly says "No Graven Images", but you have all sorts of statues in any given Catholic Church of the saints you are supposed to pray to.

(Praying to Saints- Kind of to Polytheism what nicotine gum is to smoking.)

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.

Oooooh, I love when they compare me to "the devil" because I point out the insane crap in their own holy book.

Okay, let's take this silliness one step further. This is always one of my favorite arguments from Bible Thumpers. "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT".

That would assume that Jesus (who is God) actually would have disapproved of God's (which is to say his) handling of the whole S&G fiasco....

But the problem is, he didn't.

Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

So the only person who Jesus/God was really okay with Punishing was Lot's wife, who let's not forget, only committed the horrible sin of looking back when her home was destroyed (which I think any of us would do), while he had no problem with Lot pimping his daughter or having drunken sex with them.

Also, I'd have to wonder why God would 1) Screw up his own creation so bad that it was so evil and 2) Wait 2000 years before putting in the fix of sending Jesus down to be a kinder, gentler Sky Pixie after torturing his followers for all those years.

As I suspected, and like I said, you didn't want to discuss Sodom and Gomorrah, you just wanted to start a fight.

I will not defend my faith to you. I will not defend the Bible. It is as you interpret it to be, it is as I interpret it to be. I sure as heck am not going to defend the Church to you, I don't even belong to one. I have my own faith.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We understood his interpretation, idiot. (As though any of us needed the likes of YOU to explain such sophomoric tripe as though it was "too deep" to comprehend.) The part I missed is where anyone ASKED him to interpret anything, or for that matter, asked him what he thought. If he thinks our beliefs are so stupid and inexplicable, how's about he just DOESN'T SHARE THEM and keeps his fat mouth shut? Do you see ME starting threads about how stupid atheists are? No, I don't think so, which is pretty interesting, since I thought it was CHRISTIANS who were supposed to be all evangelistic about their beliefs.

The day I turn to a bunch of non-believing deadheads with nothing better to do than mock and belittle others' beliefs and say, "Oh, please, would you explain MY OWN BELIEFS to me and tell me what they mean?" is the day I become so stupid that I'm mistaken for your twin.

By all means, hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Gee, isn't that special. By wrong, they mean "something that we haven't declared to be true." And you're right, I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years, and realized the bullshit pretty early. For instance, Bible clearly says "No Graven Images", but you have all sorts of statues in any given Catholic Church of the saints you are supposed to pray to.

(Praying to Saints- Kind of to Polytheism what nicotine gum is to smoking.)



Oooooh, I love when they compare me to "the devil" because I point out the insane crap in their own holy book.

Okay, let's take this silliness one step further. This is always one of my favorite arguments from Bible Thumpers. "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT".

That would assume that Jesus (who is God) actually would have disapproved of God's (which is to say his) handling of the whole S&G fiasco....

But the problem is, he didn't.

Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

So the only person who Jesus/God was really okay with Punishing was Lot's wife, who let's not forget, only committed the horrible sin of looking back when her home was destroyed (which I think any of us would do), while he had no problem with Lot pimping his daughter or having drunken sex with them.

Also, I'd have to wonder why God would 1) Screw up his own creation so bad that it was so evil and 2) Wait 2000 years before putting in the fix of sending Jesus down to be a kinder, gentler Sky Pixie after torturing his followers for all those years.

As I suspected, and like I said, you didn't want to discuss Sodom and Gomorrah, you just wanted to start a fight.

I will not defend my faith to you. I will not defend the Bible. It is as you interpret it to be, it is as I interpret it to be. I sure as heck am not going to defend the Church to you, I don't even belong to one. I have my own faith.

I just point out whats in there. If you consider it "picking a fight" to ask valid questions about a story that is being used to base morality on, then maybe you all shouldn't try to base morality on that story.

 

[Againsheila]

Gee, isn't that special. By wrong, they mean "something that we haven't declared to be true." And you're right, I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years, and realized the bullshit pretty early. For instance, Bible clearly says "No Graven Images", but you have all sorts of statues in any given Catholic Church of the saints you are supposed to pray to.

(Praying to Saints- Kind of to Polytheism what nicotine gum is to smoking.)



Oooooh, I love when they compare me to "the devil" because I point out the insane crap in their own holy book.

Okay, let's take this silliness one step further. This is always one of my favorite arguments from Bible Thumpers. "But that's the OLD TESTAMENT".

That would assume that Jesus (who is God) actually would have disapproved of God's (which is to say his) handling of the whole S&G fiasco....

But the problem is, he didn't.



So the only person who Jesus/God was really okay with Punishing was Lot's wife, who let's not forget, only committed the horrible sin of looking back when her home was destroyed (which I think any of us would do), while he had no problem with Lot pimping his daughter or having drunken sex with them.

Also, I'd have to wonder why God would 1) Screw up his own creation so bad that it was so evil and 2) Wait 2000 years before putting in the fix of sending Jesus down to be a kinder, gentler Sky Pixie after torturing his followers for all those years.

As I suspected, and like I said, you didn't want to discuss Sodom and Gomorrah, you just wanted to start a fight.

I will not defend my faith to you. I will not defend the Bible. It is as you interpret it to be, it is as I interpret it to be. I sure as heck am not going to defend the Church to you, I don't even belong to one. I have my own faith.

I just point out whats in there. If you consider it "picking a fight" to ask valid questions about a story that is being used to base morality on, then maybe you all shouldn't try to base morality on that story.

No, you didn't want to start a fight...you just wanted to have a "discussion" where you criticize anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

And for the record, I speak for myself.....I don't speak for Christians on the whole as I don't belong to their churches...my belief is a bit different..but that's okay, you can call me "you all" if you like...it makes me feel as if I'm a lot more important than one person.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

We understood his interpretation, idiot. (As though any of us needed the likes of YOU to explain such sophomoric tripe as though it was "too deep" to comprehend.) The part I missed is where anyone ASKED him to interpret anything, or for that matter, asked him what he thought. If he thinks our beliefs are so stupid and inexplicable, how's about he just DOESN'T SHARE THEM and keeps his fat mouth shut? Do you see ME starting threads about how stupid atheists are? No, I don't think so, which is pretty interesting, since I thought it was CHRISTIANS who were supposed to be all evangelistic about their beliefs.

The day I turn to a bunch of non-believing deadheads with nothing better to do than mock and belittle others' beliefs and say, "Oh, please, would you explain MY OWN BELIEFS to me and tell me what they mean?" is the day I become so stupid that I'm mistaken for your twin.

By all means, hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Duly noted you didn't answer the mans legit questions...

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Try this; point 1: Women in that day were consideded by man, not God, low class beiings. Saving the Angles was more noble. Not saying it was right, just the way it was. 2: Lot was drunk because his daughters wanted to have children got him drunk. 3: If God deems someone to be righteous, they probably are. With God it is more what you believe not do that makes you righteous. Like I said before, stop twisting scripture to support your lies.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Try this; point 1: Women in that day were consideded by man, not God, low class beiings. Saving the Angles was more noble. Not saying it was right, just the way it was. 2: Lot was drunk because his daughters wanted to have children got him drunk. 3: If God deems someone to be righteous, they probably are. With God it is more what you believe not do that makes you righteous. Like I said before, stop twisting scripture to support your lies.

The excuse to blame man for the low status of women is a bit silly. First, Greek and Roman women enjoyed greater freedom and status than Hebrew/Judean women did. So essentially, how is it that the Hebrews, who were talking to the "real" God while the Greeks and Romans who were talking to false gods, got it more right on how women should be treated. (In fact, women were probably set back horribly when the Abrahamic religions became dominant.

There really is no interpretation of that story that Lot Looks good in, which is why the Churches like to gloss over the "offering them up for gang rape" and "having drunken incest" aspects of the story. Nope, the important thing to remember about the Sodom folks is they were "sodomites", and it's become the justification for 2000 years of homophobia.

The problem with bible morality is that it reflects not the wisdom of a benificent god, but they bias of angry bronze age savages who were being knocked around by their neighbors for centuries. If we lose a war, have a plague, or a famine, why it must because we aren't following the silly rules close enough.

A "righteous" God would not invoke a rule against eating shellfish without addressing the obvious fact that one human being owning another is wrong.

In the context of the time, it makes sense. The Shellfish Rule probably got invoked because someone one ate one, and had a severe allergic reaction. That must have "angered god". Today, we have tests for that. And primitive societies without technology can't function without slavery, unfortunately.

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

Cammmpbell/Molotov.

 

[JoeB131]

Not sure where you are going, Curley, and not sure I want to know...

 

[JoeB131]

As I suspected, and like I said, you didn't want to discuss Sodom and Gomorrah, you just wanted to start a fight.

I will not defend my faith to you. I will not defend the Bible. It is as you interpret it to be, it is as I interpret it to be. I sure as heck am not going to defend the Church to you, I don't even belong to one. I have my own faith.

I just point out whats in there. If you consider it "picking a fight" to ask valid questions about a story that is being used to base morality on, then maybe you all shouldn't try to base morality on that story.

No, you didn't want to start a fight...you just wanted to have a "discussion" where you criticize anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

And for the record, I speak for myself.....I don't speak for Christians on the whole as I don't belong to their churches...my belief is a bit different..but that's okay, you can call me "you all" if you like...it makes me feel as if I'm a lot more important than one person.

Wow, you seem fixated on certain words, don't you?

Instead of whining about how I use "mean words", actually address the point.

How is a man who offers his daughters for gang rape and has drunken incest with them less sinful than some poor woman who just looked over her shoulder when everything she had or known was being burned?

Just because you don't go to a building where that crap is being disseminated, doesn't make you any less culpable for it.

 

[hortysir]

Okay, I apologize for simply going on the word of a non-believer and responding to his edited scriptures.

I had to go read 18 and 19 for myself.

I say "edited" because our beloved OP-er conveniently left out any mention of Lot's son-in-laws or how they were sent away into the city before Lot and his family managed to escape.

I can't speak to why Lot would've offered his daughters as "not been with a man" to the hoodlums at his door except maybe as a lie and a trap since his sons-in-law were in the house as well.

As to his daughters getting him drunk in order to lie with him?
Their husbands were gone. Their mother was a "condiment". And, as far as they knew, they were the only survivors on earth.

I made mention, earlier, how this story appears in Genesis.
I said that because the human race hadn't been "leavened" with sin.
We were still "purebreds" populating the planet.
After the corruption of sin came the laws against incest.