Anyone remember "sin of Sodom and Gomorrah"?

[JoeB131]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

Um, yeah... They were not friendly to strangers right after they fought off an invasion two chapters earlier...

Imagine that.

Just remember, God did had to save the guy who offered his daughters up for gang rape before having drunken sex with them himself..

Because you know, "Family values'.

 

[Meriweather]

Um, yeah... They were not friendly to strangers right after they fought off an invasion two chapters earlier...

Imagine that.

Just remember, God did had to save the guy who offered his daughters up for gang rape before having drunken sex with them himself..

Because you know, "Family values'.

Obviously, Lot's visitors were not part of any invasion; they were guests of a citizen of that town. Second, we see the lengths Lot is willing to go to protect his guests. Third, pointing out the story is much more than a condemnation of homosexuality, does not make homosexuality any less of a sin. Compare this to the New Testament story of he woman caught in adultery. Pointing out that the men were trying to set up Jesus; that they had numerous sins of their own; that Jesus forgave the woman does not make adultery any less of a sin.

All I have been pointing out is that some people see more in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah than just the sin of homosexuality. I am astonished at the anger encountered here because others want to insist it is ONLY about homosexuality and nothing more.

 

[hobelim]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

So hospitality is more important than getting your fudge packed?

In scripture, there is only a single biblical injunction against homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality.

In the same scripture, there are three separate prohibitions of the mixing dairy products with meat at the same meal.

So, on the face of it, going to Burger King is three times as wrong, scripturally speaking, as man-on-man sex.

The command is against a man lying down with another man as if with a woman. A person who immediately assumes the subject of condemnation is about sexual activity thinks that way because of an existing perversion dwelling within their own minds..

There is a priestly class of men who forsake natural sexual relations with woman and submit to the authority of another man for life as if they were married that has nothing whatever to do with sex.

There are many male politicians out there, ball-less wonders, who are setting aside their professed dedication to God and country and like a bunch of degenerate perverts are publicly lying down or bending over for trump on national TV every day as if they were his woman and many probably haven't had any sex with their own wives for years.

The shame of it all!

In the same way the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about sex.

Violence as in rape robbery and murder was clearly identified as the cause of their destruction.

 

[GreatestIam]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

So hospitality is more important than getting your fudge packed?

In scripture, there is only a single biblical injunction against homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality.

In the same scripture, there are three separate prohibitions of the mixing dairy products with meat at the same meal.

So, on the face of it, going to Burger King is three times as wrong, scripturally speaking, as man-on-man sex.

Well also in the Bible, it definately said that man on man sex was a great sin, and was in the 10 commandments..

Tha'll shalt not covet your neighbors ass.

What do you make of this history?

WHEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS A CHRISTIAN RITE1

Regards
DL

This is conjecture concocted by people willing to distort fact in an effort to cover their own butts. Same sex marriage was never a "Christian" rite. All sexual impropriety was always considered wrong and to be abstained from.

You accuse without providing proof of the distortion, which make you look the liar more than the authors of what I put.

You forget the loose sexual history of Christianity who invented and used the Temple Prostitute.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

so ya got nothing,,,,,,,,but conjecture unsupported by scripture

If you say so. Others may agree it is conjecture, but it is supported by scripture. Also, I am not the first to "conjecture" this, so others have also seen support in scripture.

No its not. Saying it is is a lie......

Homosexual acts are not guiltless. And to suggest that the Bible is not clear on this subject is to try to deny sin of any sort even exists.

Sins have victims. Who is the victim in an adult mutually desired gay sexual encounter?

And who in hell are you to put sex above love and deny people life long loving relationships because of your own sexual fears?

Regards
DL

 

[Manonthestreet]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

Um, yeah... They were not friendly to strangers right after they fought off an invasion two chapters earlier...

Imagine that.

Just remember, God did had to save the guy who offered his daughters up for gang rape before having drunken sex with them himself..

Because you know, "Family values'.

Lot was spared because of prayers of Abraham

 

[hobelim]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

Um, yeah... They were not friendly to strangers right after they fought off an invasion two chapters earlier...

Imagine that.

Just remember, God did had to save the guy who offered his daughters up for gang rape before having drunken sex with them himself..

Because you know, "Family values'.

Lot was spared because of prayers of Abraham

It wasn't because he was a righteous man?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

so ya got nothing,,,,,,,,but conjecture unsupported by scripture

If you say so. Others may agree it is conjecture, but it is supported by scripture. Also, I am not the first to "conjecture" this, so others have also seen support in scripture.

No its not. Saying it is is a lie......

Homosexual acts are not guiltless. And to suggest that the Bible is not clear on this subject is to try to deny sin of any sort even exists.

Sins have victims. Who is the victim in an adult mutually desired gay sexual encounter?

And who in hell are you to put sex above love and deny people life long loving relationships because of your own sexual fears?

Regards
DL

Who is the victim in an adult mutually desired gay sexual encounter?

Usually the one who is the victim is the one who ends up with HIV... Then it is boohoo, cry from me, and pay for my meds because I was stupid enough to poke a place that is rife with disease...

Again if the pervert wants to infect himself with anal diseases, that is his CHOICE, but dont come to me begging for me to pay for your meds...

 

[ding]

Not personally.

 

[ding]

It seems to me that the lesson to be learned from the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is that failed behaviors lead to failure.

If I am not mistaken that theme is repeated throughout the OT, especially by the prophets.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

read the rest here:

The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation | My Jewish Learning

Commentary on Parashat Vayera, Genesis 18:1 - 22:24

Two cosmic catastrophes unfold in the book of Genesis. The first, the flood, in which God brings waters down from the Heavens to destroy almost all life. The second, the utter devastation of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which an area previously known as a fertile and lush “garden of Hashem” (Genesis 13:10) becomes a desolate land “that cannot be sown, nor sprout, and no grass shall rise up upon it, like the upheaval of Sodom and Gomorrah…which God overturned in His anger, and His wrath” (Deuteronomy 29:22).

One of the connections we see between these two events is the word the

employs in both cases, lihashcheet–to destroy. When God relates to Noah that He will bring the flood He says, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with robbery through them; and, behold, I am about to destroy (mashcheetam) them from the earth” (Genesis 6:13).

In the case of Sodom we see the same word applied, “…when God destroyed (beshachet) the cities of the plain…” (Gen. 19:29). The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: “Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy” (16:49).

What Did They Do?
The prophet’s description combined with what the Torah reveals to us gives us the following picture: the people of Sodom insisted on preserving their high quality of living to such an extent that they established a principle not to let the poor and homeless reside in their city. Consequently when a destitute person would come seeking help, they would revoke his right to any welfare–public or private! By doing this they figured they would preserve an elite upper class community who would monopolize the profits that the bountiful land offers without having to distribute any revenues to a “lower class” of people.

An opinion in the Mishnah in

5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours.” The
decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.

Interestingly, the Sages of the

did not merely draw attention to the relationship between the economic injustices of the generation of the flood and the social depravity of Sodom. The Torah narrative concerning Sodom reveals something deeper. “They called out to Lot, ‘Where are the men that came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them!'” (Gen. 19:5) Indeed, the men demanded to relate to Lot’s male guests sexually. According to the
in Genesis Rabbah 28:8, the destruction caused by the flood also shared a similar cause:

“Rabbi Azariyah said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua son of Simon, every creature had been corrupted in the generation of the flood. The dog would mate with the wolf, the hen with the peacock. For it is written, ‘All flesh was corrupted.’ ‘All mankind was corrupted’ is not written, rather ‘All flesh was corrupted.’ (Thereby coming to include all flesh, both human and animal.) Rabbi Luliyani son of Tavrin said in the name of Rabbi Isaac, ‘Even the land became corrupt as they would sow wheat and the land would sprout degenerate wheat.'”

Sins Against the Environment
Until now, we have dealt with sins between people and God (sexual immorality) and between people and society (robbery, excluding the poor) — yet our Torah portion even makes references to sins between man and his environment. The Torah again uses the verb hashchata in relation to the wanton destruction of fruit trees: “When you besiege a city to seize it, do not destroy (tashchit) its trees by swinging an axe against them, for from it you will eat, and you shall not cut it down; is the tree of the field a man that it should enter the siege before you?” (Deut. 20:19)

A final example: the same Hebrew verb hishchit is used in regards to the widely accepted Law delineated in the Book of Mitzvot not to destroy any part of our world. Under the above-stated commandment not to destroy fruit trees in a siege, comes a further negative commandment where we are forbidden to waste.

For example, we must not tear or burn clothing or break or discard dishes for no reason. About all of these issues or any other issues of wanton destruction, the Sages of blessed memory said in the Talmud, “And he has transgressed the sin of being a wasteful man” (The Book of Mitzvot #529).

A very well thought out and cogent piece of research. The lessons here are probably lost among this crowd. For most of them..the second you mentioned 'environment' they dismissed you as a liberal. Not to mention..the quoting of both the Torah and the Talmud marked you as a Jew in their eyes..and thus thus..you are dismissed as a Jewish Liberal..LOL!

I applaud your effort. I'm not a believer, but I do like it when someone who is actually makes sense.

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously, Lot's visitors were not part of any invasion; they were guests of a citizen of that town.

except Lot himself was a visitor, and you read the verse, the people were pretty pissed off they were telling them what to do.

Second, we see the lengths Lot is willing to go to protect his guests.

Which again, kind of makes him an asshole. What kind of asshole offers his VIRGIN daughters up for gang rape? Or lies about them being virgins, because the same chapter also mentions their husbands. Or maybe there were additional daughters who didn't get out.

Then he got drunk out of his mind, and fucked them. TWICE.

Remember, kiddies, this is the "Good Man" God had to save. Can't save your mom from Cancer, but he'll make extensive efforts to save this piece of shit

Third, pointing out the story is much more than a condemnation of homosexuality, does not make homosexuality any less of a sin.

again, the bible says a whole bunch of stuff are "sins" (working on Sunday, eating Shrimp) that really shouldn't be, but says that things that truly are evil aren't. (Slavery, Genocide). I think we can safely dismiss the Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales as a source of "morality".

So please tell me why homosexuality is a "sin". Valid answers do not include "The Bible Says it's bad" or "I think it's icky."

I'll wait.

Compare this to the New Testament story of he woman caught in adultery. Pointing out that the men were trying to set up Jesus; that they had numerous sins of their own; that Jesus forgave the woman does not make adultery any less of a sin.

Maybe Jesus should have minded his own fucking business. What's fucked about that story is no one ever stoned men for adultery. (It's unlikely they were still stoning people in the first century, either, but that's an aside.) It's just more misogyny from the bible about keeping women in their place.

All I have been pointing out is that some people see more in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah than just the sin of homosexuality. I am astonished at the anger encountered here because others want to insist it is ONLY about homosexuality and nothing more.

Actually, what make me angry is that you guys selectively read the bible, sanitize the stories in a way that would make Disney blush, and try to claim this is a source of morality when it is anything but.

 

[JoeB131]

Usually the one who is the victim is the one who ends up with HIV... Then it is boohoo, cry from me, and pay for my meds because I was stupid enough to poke a place that is rife with disease...

Again if the pervert wants to infect himself with anal diseases, that is his CHOICE, but dont come to me begging for me to pay for your meds...

so by that same logic, we need to let all you fat ass white trash that ate fatty foods, smoked cigarettes and drank beer all your lives die, too. Why should I pay for your meds because you didn't take care of yourself.

 

[Meriweather]

except Lot himself was a visitor, and you read the verse, the people were pretty pissed off they were telling them what to do.

Genesis 19:2 (Lot) said, "Please, gentlemen, come aside into your servant's house for the night, and bathe your feet..."

 

[Meriweather]

So please tell me why homosexuality is a "sin".

The definition of sin is missing the mark, or the ideal. The ideal for sex is between a man and a woman who are married and open to having children, for the purpose of sex is procreation. The man and woman become part of the experience of creation.

Adultery misses the mark because children are not wanted, and the two are not as one (i.e. sharing all parts of their lives together). Sex outside of marriage misses the mark for the same reasons. Pregnancy outside of marriage has led to problems facing a single mother, including poverty. It has also led to abortion.

Homosexuality misses the mark because it is not part of a creation experience. It may cause health problems. Also, even in countries where homosexuality has been long accepted, widely accepted, these health problems include more instances of depression and mental health issues.

I've used this analogy before: Moral Law is not a reason for God to zap sinners; rather Moral Law is God posting signs such as, "Danger! Quick Sand."

Another problem with sex outside of marriage is that it start us down that slippery slope: If heterosexuals break the boundaries into sex for sexual pleasure only, than why shouldn't homosexuals see sex the same way--for pleasure. When pleasure becomes the goal, it opens the door to bisexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, or even gender change. More recently we see the story of a man who feels if people can change genders, they should also be able to change their age. So here we go into so on and so forth.

We see people who are against homosexuality. We should also see the heterosexuals who cheer it on because sex for pleasure is what it is all about, and to each his own. People who are against homosexuality should first and foremost better proclaim the value of all sexual boundaries beginning with hetero sex. This cannot be open season for heteros, but closed to all others. Doesn't work that way. Heteros who condemn homosexuality would be better served to call upon their own community to end divorce and all sex outside of marriage. Once they clean their own house (or remove the beam from their own eye) will they be able to talk about helping their brother remove a small splinter from his.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, what make me angry is that you guys selectively read the bible, sanitize the stories in a way that would make Disney blush, and try to claim this is a source of morality when it is anything but.

Not at all. But nor is our perspective loaded with bitterness, anger, hate, and contempt of God. The accounts detail man's experiences with God. One of the main cultural differences between then and now, is that we are reading stories by people whose perspective is of man failing in his responsibilities, and how they see God having to continually clean up afterwards. They see how humans mess things up so badly that only removing man and giving him a fresh start is the only way to remove all of the stench. They see things such as the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as God-given opportunities.

Our culture, of course, is always on the hunt for someone else to blame--not our responsibility, not our guilt, someone else is always at fault. This, of course, is why you, JoeB, dump everything on God. You want us to see God as you do. But what we see is you and the relationship you built with God.

Today, we see evidence that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a purely natural disaster. We see how two girls believed it was the end of the world, and shouldered the responsibility of repopulating the world in the only way they saw possible. We read Jewish commentaries set forth by Rabbis centuries ago that note the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah extended well beyond sexual practices. Amidst all of this, shines divine intervention, not for all, but for Abraham's family, the family that followed (to the best of their abilities) the ways of God.

 

[hobelim]

Which again, kind of makes him an asshole. What kind of asshole offers his VIRGIN daughters up for gang rape? Or lies about them being virgins, because the same chapter also mentions their husbands. Or maybe there were additional daughters who didn't get out.

Then he got drunk out of his mind, and fucked them. TWICE.

Remember, kiddies, this is the "Good Man" God had to save. Can't save your mom from Cancer, but he'll make extensive efforts to save this piece of shit

You need to get a better sense of ancient Hebrew humor.

The older daughter conceived Moab lit., "from the father" , father of the Moabites: the younger conceived Ben-Ammi ("Son of my people"), father of the Ammonites.

The whole point of the story was to mock and deride their traditional enemies as the descendants of drunken incest.

 

[Faun]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

So hospitality is more important than getting your fudge packed?

In scripture, there is only a single biblical injunction against homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality.

In the same scripture, there are three separate prohibitions of the mixing dairy products with meat at the same meal.

So, on the face of it, going to Burger King is three times as wrong, scripturally speaking, as man-on-man sex.

Well also in the Bible, it definately said that man on man sex was a great sin, and was in the 10 commandments..

Tha'll shalt not covet your neighbors ass.

Are you a trump voter...?

Trump : "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."​

 

[Taz]

Sodom and Gomorrah greater sin was their lack of hospitality.

So hospitality is more important than getting your fudge packed?

In scripture, there is only a single biblical injunction against homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality.

In the same scripture, there are three separate prohibitions of the mixing dairy products with meat at the same meal.

So, on the face of it, going to Burger King is three times as wrong, scripturally speaking, as man-on-man sex.

There is more than one injunction against gay sex in the Bible.

But the sin of Sodom was even greater because these guys essentially would gang rape new comers to their city.

Pretty sick bunch.

When the angels were sent down, the inhabitants tried to rape them, thus proving that the city needed to be cleansed of not only the immoral actions of the people, but all the excrement left on the streets.

Sounds just like San Fransicko...may they burn in hell with those of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So why did god make immoral actions to start with?

 

[K9Buck]

Trump : "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."​

Nobody said that Trump should be Pope. If you want the nicest person in America to be president, nominate Richard Simmons.