Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

quote:

---

there were several specific examples talked about above.

---

None relevant to the idea of CORPORATE responsibility

quote:

---

you make the mistake of thinking in modern individualized terms. yes, heroes were expected to demonstrate certain qualities. but that does not mean that other people were not.

---

No I am not - that is specifically why I referred to the Heroic cultures. They ARE individualist cultures, and they predate the corporate cultures by some way.Re leviticus quote: This is irrelevant; Irish law up until the C19th made everyone responsible for prividing a traveller with food and "whiskey to his need". That does NOT imply that whole settlements would be held collectively responsible for one persons failure - quite the opposite.

quote:

---

it's not an unsupported claim. you're welcome to go look up hospitality myths in stith thompson's book. i'll leave it up to you to tell me exactly how unsupported this claim is. how many entries are there? notice always that the virtuous characters are NEVER heroes of any sort. lot is an average family man. so is the guy in greek legend.

---

The answer is "it is entirely unsupported". You are now retreating from your position - allegoriews and parables concering hospitality as avirtue do not in any way accord with whole settlements being wiped out becuase of one individuals failings.Please support your argument or withdraw it.

yes, well, the authors of genesis are racists. what do you want? they have a tendancy to make fun of societies as a whole, often by making fun of just the eponymous parent of that society. although destruction of the society as a whol is rare in hospitality myths, it's NOT rare in other kinds of myths (like flood myths) and certainly not out of place in genesis. that's nice and all, but they also predate genesis. lot is not a person i would call a hero. maybe abraham if i stretch the definition a little. but not lot. but we're not speaking about the outcomes and results of the expectations. we're talking about the expectations themselves. they do support the idea that hospitality was a commonly expected virtue. and sodom was not wiped out due to one person's failings. the story says quite the opposite. it was wiped out in spite of one person's success.

Dear Rrhain; My mistake, yes this is a reference to Sodom and their sins in reference to Jerusalem and their sins. Did you read verse 50? (Ezekiel 16:50) "And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]." The Revised Standard reads "abominable things", this verse is a reference to the homosexual practices of Sodom. Yes there is, you just missed it.
(Jude 7) "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."The phrase 'gone out after flesh for unnatural use' refers to homosexuality, which is why some Bibles are more direct in the wording used here in this verse.-- Living Bible
Jude 1:7 "And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men."Hope that is plain enough for you. In the Bible homosexual acts are stated to be unnatural or contrary to nature.(Romans 1:26-27) "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."In the Bible homosexuality is considered unnatural and obscene, and is an 'error' for which punishment is due, and those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men," (1 Corinthians 6:9)While Sodom's homosexuality was certainly not the city's only sin, it certainly was a sin in the eye's of God, and is listed in Jude as one of the main reasons why the city was destroyed. An interesting point on Jude 7, is that the inhabitants of Sodom are stated to have undergone "judicial punishment of everlasting fire" which means that they were destroyed for all time and have no hope of a resurrection. Their sinfulness merited not merely death, but the second death or eternal death. So the collective sins of Sodom were extreme in God's eyes and not a little matter that can be overlooked as many today seem to think.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

You don't find that rather circular? To assert that the Bible views homosexuality as detestable, and to support that with an assertion that whenever the Bible says "detestable", it means "homosexuality?" They're clearly not, though. If the Bible is inerrant, then the Bible simply can't be saying that homosexual acts are unnatural, because they do occur in nature. Either the Bible is wrong, or you're reading it wrong.

better said by another.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-05-2005 12:00 AM

i'm sure he has an opinion as to why san francisco keeps having earthquakes and fires. and i bet it has nothing to do with the city's unlucky geological placement or overpopulation.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-05-2005 12:00 AM

Dear Crashfrog; (Leviticus 18:22) "'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."
(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing."In the Bible, Homosexuality is a detestable thing, as the above verses show. But you are incorrect in assuming that I am saying that is the only sin referred to by the word 'detestable' in the Bible. (Proverbs 3:32) "For the devious person is a detestable thing to Jehovah," All sinful conduct is detestable to God. To understand what the detestable thing was referred to in Ezekiel 16:50 that they carried on in Sodom, one merely needs to look up Jude 7 "Sodom . . . had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use," or Genesis 19:4-5 "the men of Sodom, surrounded the house . . . "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." or you could just look the word 'sodomy' up in the dictionary. (Romans 1:26-27) "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are unnatural or contrary to nature. Paul here isn't saying that it never happens in animals, he is saying it isn't natural, or in harmony with the way God designed us. (Matthew 19:4-5) "Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh'?" God designed humans male and female, to be husband and wife, anything else in terms of 'alternative life styles' is unnatural and contrary to nature or the way God intended for us to live.As for the arguments justifying homosexuality based on animal behavior, how moral is it to base one's sexual habits on the conduct of animals? Wouldn't you be putting your conduct on the level of an animal? You can see animals do all sorts of really disgusting things, does that make it all right for you to do it too? I mean it is bad enough if you have to chase the neighbor's dog off your front yard.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

So do it standing up. God apparently doesn't have a problem with that. "Intercourse", i.e. speech, interaction. Circular definition, again. It's hardly the case that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Yet, it occurs in nature. So either the Bible is wrong, or you are. But obviously God designed some of us to be gay, just as he designed some animals to be gay. Again, either the Bible is wrong, or you are. What could be more natural than that we find in nature? I eat food; animals do to. Does that put me on the level of an animal? I have sex; animals do to. Does any sex whatsoever put me on the level of an animal?You'll have to do way better than pointing out similarities between animal and human behavior in order to make the argument that I'm putting my conduct on the level of an animal.

Dear Crashfrog; I hope you are just joking, or I am truly wasting my time trying to explain anything to you if you don't understand such a basic point. The term "to lie down with" is a phrase used to refer to having sex, it isn't limited to literally lying down. So no, standing up doesn't make it all right. (Genesis 4:1) "Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant." in both verses the word intercourse is used in the sexual sense of the word. Any more lamebrain comments? As I stated in my last post in the very next sentence as a matter of a fact. To rephrase the above in simpler terms, the biblical viewpoint of homosexual acts being unnatural is not a statement that they never occur in the animal kingdom, it is a statement that such acts are contrary to our design of being male and female. In the design sense, some animals do things that are unnatural or even self destructive, they were not meant or even sometimes not even designed to do such actions. While such actions can be said to be natural in the sense that an animal does them, they are not natural in the sense of natural normal healthy behaviour. Such animal actions are said to be unnatural behaviour. No he did not, that is just a lame excuse used by some to justify their deviant conduct. God could not have designed anyone to be gay, since in the Bible it is a sin, and designing someone in such a way would in itself be a sin, and God can not sin. (Psalm 18:30) "As for the [true] God, perfect is his way;" Perfection means that he is completely free of sin.There once was a argument in the scientific world that some homosexuality was caused by a brain defect, and as you can imagine this argument was soundly rejected by the gay community and was not supported by the evidence as being a general cause. But even if the argument was true, it would be a defect and not part of our original design, no more that any of the other inherited genetic diseases are. A possibly inherited physical cause also raised the possibility that deviant homosexual behaviour could be cured through correction of the supposed defect. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour, and anything that can be learned, can be unlearned or changed. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were." Some of the people to whom Paul wrote to had been homosexuals, but they no longer were, they changed what they were and that change was necessary to inherit the kingdom. If your justification for your conduct is that an animal does it, you have by definition, put your conduct on the level of an animal.Wm Scott Anderson

I don't understand why God would employ euphemisms for something as important as "what not to do or else you'll go to hell." So I see two obvious solutions:1) It doesn't say what you say it says;
2) It wasn't written by God. No; it clearly means "speech, interaction" in the verses that refer to the inhabitants of Sodom. But what else would "unnatural" mean? What else is natural besides that which we find in the natural world? You're free to redefine "natural" and "unnatural" as you see fit for your own purposes, but why should I play along? Oh? You asked God? You're suddenly the expert on what God did and didn't do?The Bible doesn't say that he didn't, only that he doesn't like unnatural things. But anything he designed, and is found in nature, can't be against his will. Unless God is an asshole, which is possible I suppose. If God did it, and he obviously did, then it isn't a sin. Since God cannot sin. But here's what we've learned since: being gay is biological, it's not a voluntary choice, and it's not a defect. Any more than red hair is. It's simply one more trait in which humans vary amongst themselves. There's absolutely no scientific debate about this. The consensus is clear - sexual orientation is non-voluntary. Neither is it a defect. It's simply part of God's design, much as he designed some of us to have red hair. My conduct? When was it established that I was gay? I would think my wife would be interested to know.Nonetheless, this is not my "justification" for homosexuality; that justification is that God designed some people to be gay, even though Paul doesn't like it. The evidence for this is that some animals are gay as well, by design. And that there's a kin selective effect for genetic lines that include homosexuality. God clearly has a plan for gay people, because the natural mechanisms he created, like natural selection and random mutation, make sure that homosexuality persists in populations.Again, either the Bible is wrong, or you are. Your statements simply don't reflect reality.

wmscott responds to me:

quote:

---

Did you read verse 50? (Ezekiel 16:50) "And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]."

---

Indeed.Since when did the word "detestable" become a synonym for "homosexuality"? What, specifically, makes you think this is a reference to homosexuality?

quote:

---

The Revised Standard reads "abominable things", this verse is a reference to the homosexual practices of Sodom.

---

Why? Ever stop to consider the possibility that the translation is wrong? That the only reason why everybody seems to think that it means homosexuality is because everybody keeps saying that it is, not because of anything inherent in the text?Prove me wrong. Where, specifically, do we find sufficient context to determine that the word "toevah" means "homosexuality"? My Strong's Concordance can only seem to manage a definition that refers to ritual uncleanliness or ethical digression. Neither of those things seems to refer to homosexuality. Temple prostitution, on the other hand, is an unclean ritual. It's the worshipping of another god that is not Jehovah. First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Pretty big violation, wouldn't you say?That said, where is the indication that this passage is in reference to sex at all? It simply says that they were in violation of ritual/ethic standards. That could mean anything from eating shellfish to wearing clothes of linen and flax in a single garment.Considering that the verse just in front of the one in question is "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy," how do we get to "sex" from "pride" and "haughtiness"? It seems that Eze 16:49 and 16:50 are both talking about how Sodom's sin was being too big for its britches.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your analysis of Jude 7 is off, too. There is no mention of homosexuality there. Fornication, yes. Temple prostitution, yes. But homosexuality, no.

---

​

Yes there is, you just missed it.
(Jude 7) "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."

---

Since when did that mean homosexuality and not temple prostitution?Be specific. You seem to be saying that the only reason it's "homosexuality" is because you were told it was. But considering that there was no concept of "homosexuality" as we understand it in Ancient Greek, how does this phrase come to mean "homosexuality" as opposed to temple prostitution, which was known to be a significant problem of the time regarding ritualistic practices?

quote:

---

-- Living Bible
Jude 1:7 "And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men."

​

Hope that is plain enough for you.

---

Yep.It is plain that you have a mistranslation. There is nothing in the original Greek that is indicative of homosexuality:wV sodoma kai gomorra kai ai peri autaV poleiV, ton omoion tropon toutoiV ekporneusasai kai apelqousai opisw sarkoV eteraV, prokeintai deigma puroV aiwniou dikhn upecousai.Why does "opiso sarkos eteras" mean "homosexuality" when there were all sorts of ways to talk about men who have sex with men in Greek...none of which match such a construction?

quote:

---

In the Bible homosexuality is considered unnatural and obscene

---

Incorrect. In the Bible, homosexuality is never mentioned. The closest it comes is the story of David and Jonathan.

quote:

---

While Sodom's homosexuality was certainly not the city's only sin

---

But Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality. It is never mentioned in the story of Lot nor is it ever referenced as such when talking about the sins of Sodom. Tell me you didn't fall for the claim of "so that we may know them" meant "so that we may have sex with them."For the third time, in order to understand Gen 19, you have to read Gen 14.Here's an example, suppose Iraq kicked our butts in the latest war in the Gulf. Not too long after, while we're licking our wounds, we find that there is an Iraqi national in Washington DC who has managed to take in Uday and Qusay Hussein and that they got into the country with absolutely no immigration examination.Do you really think that when the FBI surrounds the house and demands that the owner brings out the two men "so that we may know them," they really mean to have sex with them? Of course not. They want them out in order to interrogate them.Remember, the ENTIRE TOWN is outside Lot's door. Are you saying that the entire town is gay? And remember, if the entire town is gay, why would Lot proffer up his daughters to the mob in order to be sexually assaulted? And if the crowd were after sex, why do they summarily refuse the offer and get even angrier with Lot for having the temerity to use sex as a distraction from their real purpose?That's what happened. Sodom was in a war. They had their butts handed to them on a silver platter. The only reason they have anything left is because Abraham got involved and in the process, he absolutely humiliated the king. Now, while Abraham certainly promised not to kick Sodom when it was down, Lot (some kind of relation to Abraham...the Bible contradicts itself on this matter) made no such promise. And now we find Lot harboring strangers in his home.What on earth would be your reason for pounding on his door that night? How would you react if the guy told you to leave them alone...here, rape my daughters?Isn't this a crystal clear example of mistrust on the part of the town? That they are so self-centered and prideful that they cannot look beyond themselves to see what they are doing to one of their own inhabitants?

quote:

---

So the collective sins of Sodom were extreme in God's eyes and not a little matter that can be overlooked as many today seem to think.

---

Whether or not I agree with your final analysis, the question remains:Where on earth do we find any indication that the sins of Sodom had anything to do with homosexuality?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

wmscott writes:

quote:

---

The term "to lie down with" is a phrase used to refer to having sex, it isn't limited to literally lying down.

---

Yes, but it isn't in reference to just any sex in this context. It is in reference to temple prostitution. Look at what Leviticus says just before 18:22:Lev 18:21: And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.That's ritualistic sex. This entire section is about sex in a ritualistic sense. And same-sex sex was an archetype of the fertility cults of the area and thus the passages are referring to temple prostitution.Your translation that seems to think Genesis 19 actually says "bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them" is grossly mistaken.The verb in question is "yada" which, indeed, can mean sexual intercourse. However, in order to make it mean sexual intercourse, it needs to be phrased in a very specific way. That phrasing does not exist in Genesis 19. Compare:Gen 19:5: va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam:And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'Now, compare this to Genesis 4:Gen 4:1: ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-a.do.nai:Notice how inflected the verb is in Gen 19 and how it isn't in Gen 4.In fact, the exact phrasing used in Gen 19 is used elsewhere in the Bible in over 300 places and yet the only time that phrasing is translated to mean "sexual intercourse" is in Gen 19. Don't you find that odd?In English, we can use the word "know" to mean "sexual intercourse," too. But like Hebrew, you need to phrase it in a certain way such as "know carnally" or "know in the Biblical sense." Now, if you were to tell your new love that you'd like to set up a dinner with your parents in order for him to "get to know them," don't you think it would be an extreme misunderstanding on the part of your new beloved to think that you were setting up an orgy? While "know" does mean sex, you certainly didn't phrase it correctly to mean sex and the phrasing you did use pretty much always means "to learn about."So why is it that Gen 19:5 is about sex when nothing in the context indicates that it does and the very phrasing is indicative of learning about or interrogation?

quote:

---

To rephrase the above in simpler terms, the biblical viewpoint of homosexual acts being unnatural is not a statement that they never occur in the animal kingdom, it is a statement that such acts are contrary to our design of being male and female.

---

But animals are also male and female and yet there are gay animals. So were they "taught" to be gay? In fact, pretty much every mammalian species we have ever observed seems to have gay members.Are you saying male and female animals are going against god's plan willfully?

quote:

---

In the design sense, some animals do things that are unnatural or even self destructive, they were not meant or even sometimes not even designed to do such actions.

---

Huh? "Not even designed"? If it wasn't designed to that, then you couldn't do it at all. It is obvious to all but the most casual observer that someone who says "a penis wasn't designed to go into a rectum" has simply never engaged in penis/rectum sex. It goes in there just fine as seen by all the people who engage in anal sex without any difficulty whatsoever.So unless you are saying that the only purpose of sexual activity is to attempt to procreate, then you must allow that all sorts of non-procreative sexual activity such as masturbation and oral sex is perfectly fine with god and you are going to have to come up with some good reason why anal sex is off the list.Especially since so many heterosexual people do it.And if you claim that there has to be the "potential" for children, then that must mean that you think sterile people should never have sex, either. That a man who has had a vasectomy or orchiotomy can never have oral sex with a woman. That a woman who has gone through menopause or had a hysterectomy cannot have vaginal sex with a man.

quote:

---

While such actions can be said to be natural in the sense that an animal does them, they are not natural in the sense of natural normal healthy behaviour.

---

Huh? If an organism leads a happy, productive life filled with love and joy, how can you claim that it is not "normal, healthy behaviour"? Isn't that the goal?You seem to be running in circles. Pick a reason and stick with it.

quote:

---

God could not have designed anyone to be gay, since in the Bible it is a sin

---

Where? Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about homosexuality. Temple prostitution, yes, but the only people who have sex because of the church seems to be the priests.

quote:

---

But even if the argument was true, it would be a defect

---

Huh? Why is it a "defect"? Is being left-handed a "defect"? Is being blond a "defect"? Is having blue eyes a "defect"? Is having pale skin a "defect"? All of these things seem to have biological origins and all are in the minority, but nobody seems to think of them as "defects."Why are you picking on someone who doesn't have sex the way you want him to? I don't recall your opinion being solicited. Are you incapable of saying, "No, I'm not interested"?

quote:

---

Some of the people to whom Paul wrote to had been homosexuals

---

No, Paul made up the word "arsenokoitai," yes, but it doesn't mean "homosexual." It means "male temple prostitute." Literally.

quote:

---

If your justification for your conduct is that an animal does it, you have by definition, put your conduct on the level of an animal.

---

Since humans are animals, why should they behave differently?Is there something shameful about being an animal?Oh, I get it! You seem to think that all animals act the same and thus humans are somehow "above" that! Well, dogs don't act like cat and cats don't act like birds and birds don't act like snakes and snakes don't act like fish and fish don't act like.... And yet, they're all animals.So if we don't expect the other animals to act the same, why should we expect humans to behave as anything other than humans?And there are gay humans. Why is that surprising? There are other gay animals, so why is it so surprising to find that humans can also be gay?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The question that can be asked is this: What IS the goal that God has for His creation? Seeing as how I know that you love Paul, what do you make of Rom 1:21-27? Now, I know that you do not think that the Bible...Paul specifically...is inspired or is any more worthy of consideration than a basic Marlo Thomas Free to be you and me video.We disagree because you think that normal and healthy are to be determined by humanity, whereas a believer would look to God to show us what normal and healthy really are. Sexual attraction is not the issue. I may find someone of either sex attractive to my desires, but how can I justify fullfilling my desires as the highest and noblest form of human good?Could it be that indeed Paul is right and that humans sought completion through worshipping images...which led to deification of the human form and an idolatry which was definitely NOT the highest and noblest form of human good?It is a slippery slope from "platonic to erotic."This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-07-2005 02:05 AMThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-07-2005 02:07 AM

quote:

---

they do support the idea that hospitality was a commonly expected virtue. and sodom was not wiped out due to one person's failings. the story says quite the opposite. it was wiped out in spite of one person's success.

---

At no point did I dispute such hospitality was seen as virtuous, did I? What I disputed that it was an established mythology applying to corporate guilt. You said: "inhospitality to guests." was the reason that Sodom was destroyed, and supported this by claiming:

quote:

---

you can find thousands of other similar tales around the world. one in every nearby culture, for sure. in fact, there's even another (less famous) identicaly story elsewhere in the bible.

---

So where are they? You claim that this is a widespread cultural phenomenon, and yet cannot cite a single supporting case. If there are so many, and it really is such a widespread meme, please show other examples. If you cannot do so, then this claim should be withdrawn as having anything to do with the mythical destruction of Sodom.

None of your quotes demonstrate your claim that Eziekel was usign SODOM to mean something other than SODOM.Yes, arrogance was the sin of Judah, and Eziekel was comparing the sins of Judah with Sodom, and pointing out the penalty that God did for Sodom, as a warning it might happen to Judah too.