|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
translation:
i don't mean what i say i mean. signed,god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
while a better rendering of the meaning of the verse would be, NWT-Exodus 7:3 "I shall let Pharaoh's heart become obstinate," try again. in exodus 7:3, the verb אַקְשֶׁה (make hard) is a hiphil verb, which indicates CAUSE. the verse clearly indicates with its grammar that it is god manipulating pharoah. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-12-2005 23:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The reference on David that you are thinking of is -- King James 2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." Now the question is who is the he in this verse? The NWT again has a better rendering "And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: "Go, take a count of Israel and Judah." While in the KJV the sentence structure certainly makes it sound like God is the he while the NWT speaks of 'one' which is someone else other than God doing the inciting. The NWT has the correct rendering as shown by what is stated at; 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel." So the he in 2 Samuel 24:1 is not God but Satan. The only way God can be said to have incited David, is in allowing Satan to test David. that's reading a lot into it. again, the hiphil tense indicates that david's action was in some way caused by the anger of the lord. grammar is not on your side today. the introduction of satan occurs later, in order to rectify the very problem we're talking about -- god making people sin. that's the reason for the contradictions, and why your bible tries to sort it out. but that's not how the hebrew reads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Repetition of nonsense does not strnegthen your argument.
quote: No, idiot, only that it is a PERSONAL virtue in those societies.
quote: This appears to be idiocy for idiocies sake.
quote: Your are arguing your conclusion again, and giving me my argument at the same time. The sin of Sodom CANNOT be hospitality because hospitality cannnot be applied to a whole group collectively. *I* did NOT bring up the idea of them being held acocuntable together, I pointed out that was implicit in your argument.
quote: Yes - thats exactly why you can't get away from the collective. COLLECTIVE blame is the centre of your argument - and that is why it is invalid.
quote: Yes thats right - thats exactly why we know that the issue could not have been inhospitality - becuase the authors were able to generalise it to all citizens.
quote: Yes thats right - thats why we can be confident that thatever the sin is, its not hospitality.
quote: No no - I am well aware that heroic societies have MANY MANY hopsitality stories of one sort or another. But they are all about the PERSONAL virtues of the individual. YOU are the one claiming that there are THOUSANDS of cillective hospitality myths, and yet when challenged it turnes out you cannot name any nor recount their details and instead refer to a book you once browsed in the library. Your alleged collectiviost hospitality myths remains conspicuous by their absence. On that grounds alone your claim is shown to be spurious - your claim this phenomenon is common, but can't identify any instances of it occurring.
quote: Both have most certainly NOT been shown to be wrong, as demonstrated by your construction above. What do you mean by "the hebrews were not collective"? Of course they were, in the way of nomadic peoples all over. On the other hand, they are a Heroic culture - these are not contradictory. And whats more, I have already debunked the alleged "identical" tale showing it to be nothing like identical.
quote: No, YOU have been shown to be wrong. You;re the one interested in sin here, you select another.
quote: All I know is, the bible does not appear to refere to their sins explicitly, merely says they were sinful. From that lack of evidence, I do NOT feel entitled to suck definitions out of my thumb, as you and the homophobes appear all too keen to do. I don't feel threatened by the lack of detail.
quote: And debunked pages ago.
quote: Completely certain that it DOES have myths in which whole cities are destroyed for sundry sins, quite certain has NONE in which that sin is inhospitality. The Norse poem Grimnisnall, for example, has allegations of inhospitality as a central issue, but the inhospitable one meets a gory end alone. [quotes] whereas, i have demonstrated:* the hebrew authors generalized on the basis of ethnic origins, especially in genesis (and later refer to sodom as a single entity) * hospitality does not have be collective * hospitality myths are not absent from even heroic cultures * this myth is identical to a greek hospitality myth that makes you wrong in about every way possible, you have failed to substantiate your case.[/quote] Thats good acid your're dropping, apparently.1) of courese the hebrew authors generalise, that has never been chaallenged and is thereforte irrelevant. * I never claimed that hospitality myths were absent en bloc, I said COLLECTIVE hospitality myths are absent, so this is also irrelevant, * and it is NOT identical to the greek myth IMO, as no collective punishment occurs - instead an individual reward is received, just like my model of hospitality myths would predict. So not only are two of your alleged "proofs" irrelevant, the last is wrong.
quote: Nonsense and you know it. IF a creationist COULD poke a hole in it, then there would be a hole, period. Who made the hole is irrleverant, and making such a whole would not necessarily support creationism. A theory has to stand up to all comers. Yours can't.
quote: Thats nonsense, I fear. And particularly poisonous, as you are dismissing legitimate archeology mertely becuase you find it displeasing. Showing that a city called Sodom existed and was destroyed would NOT validate the bible in an of itself. It's harder to explain the myths purely as constructs. Thats aid I am not even claiming this argument is true - only that it fits with the prominence of the account and the attribution of godly vengeance better than mere conquest.
quote: Except that I approach anthropology as a structuralist, and the structuralists insist that no society maintains useless structures.
quote: Indeed. And yet, the myth doesn't appear to have anything to do with hospitality or lack thereof.
quote: I don't know, and to be honest, don't particularly care. I'm not sure one is strictly required - if there were some sort of natural disaster, then it could be safely presumed they were guilty of something; this would accord with the biblical account, which refers to but does not discuss their sin. But I am confident that attributing this assumed sin to collective inhospitality is grossly anachronistic and IMO impossible as an interpretation of what the authors meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Repetition of nonsense does not strnegthen your argument. nor do arguments without evidence, and ignoring the evidence presented against your case.
No, idiot, only that it is a PERSONAL virtue in those societies. you were the one saying it was not. however, the city is painted as sinful as a whole: every individual citizen in the wrong. the sin demonstrated is a breaking of guest-host relations.
This appears to be idiocy for idiocies sake. you claimed that people then viewed the poor as responsible for their own poverty. that's social darwinism by definition, which neccessitates a capitalist economy. it's a blatantly anachronistic way to view this book.
Your are arguing your conclusion again, and giving me my argument at the same time. The sin of Sodom CANNOT be hospitality because hospitality cannnot be applied to a whole group collectively. *I* did NOT bring up the idea of them being held acocuntable together, I pointed out that was implicit in your argument. and you have repeatedly been shown proof that inhospitality CAN and IS applied to a whole group in this and other stories. you have also been shown proof that whole groups are often generalized far beyond the bounds of reality in the book of genesis, so this is nothing unusual.
Yes - thats exactly why you can't get away from the collective. COLLECTIVE blame is the centre of your argument - and that is why it is invalid. no, it's not the center of anything. it's quite common in genesis. how about pride? is pride a collective sin? all of humanity is punished for their pride in genesis.
Yes thats right - thats exactly why we know that the issue could not have been inhospitality - becuase the authors were able to generalise it to all citizens. where do you get the notion that hospitality can't be collective anyways? you sure as hell haven't shown any evidence, and have ignored the evidence to the contrary.
No no - I am well aware that heroic societies have MANY MANY hopsitality stories of one sort or another. But they are all about the PERSONAL virtues of the individual. and yet punish the inhospitable group AS A WHOLE. go back and read rrhain's post which you've STILL ignored.
YOU are the one claiming that there are THOUSANDS of cillective hospitality myths, and yet when challenged it turnes out you cannot name any nor recount their details and instead refer to a book you once browsed in the library. have you bothered to go and look if you're so sure of your case?
Your alleged collectiviost hospitality myths remains conspicuous by their absence. On that grounds alone your claim is shown to be spurious - your claim this phenomenon is common, but can't identify any instances of it occurring. one more time, for the record.
quote: http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 -->EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19
quote: http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 -->EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 are you REALLY not paying attention? i've pointed this out a number of times and you've never responded. how is the greek myth, blatantly about hospitality, any different than the hebrew tale? both towns are destroyed as a whole.
Both have most certainly NOT been shown to be wrong, as demonstrated by your construction above. What do you mean by "the hebrews were not collective"? Of course they were, in the way of nomadic peoples all over. On the other hand, they are a Heroic culture - these are not contradictory. so, they're collective, but don't have hospitality as a collective virtue? evidence, please.
And whats more, I have already debunked the alleged "identical" tale showing it to be nothing like identical. let's see. greek tale:* two heavenly visitors, disguised as men * rejected by town, taken in by a couple. * couple rewarded * town destroyed. hebrew tale:* two heavenly visitors, disguised as men * taken in by family, harassed by town * family allowed to live * town destroyed. now, how are they different exactly? maybe i'm not paying attention here -- where did you debunk it? also, curiously, there's a theme of transformation. in one, lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt. in the other, the two are turned into a tree. both tall standing objects.
No, YOU have been shown to be wrong. You;re the one interested in sin here, you select another. the story is making an accusation against a people, for whatever reason. i'm not the one interested in sin, the people who wrote the darned story are, and OP was. i just provided the best scholarly guess as to what it is, based on surrounding culture and context. you think i made this up?
All I know is, the bible does not appear to refere to their sins explicitly, merely says they were sinful. but it does. the citizens of sodom DO something in the story that inspires the angels to think lot's the only one worth saving. what do they do? the story is clearly making a coherent accusation directed at sodom. that's like getting caught with blood on your hands and saying "i never SAID i murdered anyone!"
And debunked pages ago. i don't see that post. direct me to it? was it before or after rrhain noted that the town in greek myth was destroyed? because i see one before that no longer applies.
1) of courese the hebrew authors generalise, that has never been chaallenged and is thereforte irrelevant. not irrelevant, and definitally not irrelevant on the sole basis of it not being challenged. generalization leads to applying individual standards and qualities to a group. making your idividual virtues collective. or at least making the individual LACK of a virtue collective. that's the point. i apologize for not explicitly stating my logic in a manner kindergarteners can follow.
* I never claimed that hospitality myths were absent en bloc, I said COLLECTIVE hospitality myths are absent, so this is also irrelevant, and yet this is still wrong. the greek hospitality myth clearly indicates inhospitality as a collective sin, even is hospitality is a collective virtue.
* and it is NOT identical to the greek myth IMO, as no collective punishment occurs - instead an individual reward is received, just like my model of hospitality myths would predict. quote: hypothesis rejected.
So not only are two of your alleged "proofs" irrelevant, the last is wrong. uh. no. please actually read the post i've directed you to a half dozen times, and quoted TWICE in this post alone.
Nonsense and you know it. IF a creationist COULD poke a hole in it, then there would be a hole, period. Who made the hole is irrleverant, and making such a whole would not necessarily support creationism. A theory has to stand up to all comers. Yours can't. "show me the transitional species!""here's one." "that doesn't count!" "here's another." "that neither!" you don't suppose that the creationists honestly think they really are poking holes, do you? just as you think you're doing. but you're both wrong.
Thats nonsense, I fear. And particularly poisonous, as you are dismissing legitimate archeology mertely becuase you find it displeasing. Showing that a city called Sodom existed and was destroyed would NOT validate the bible in an of itself. It's harder to explain the myths purely as constructs. Thats aid I am not even claiming this argument is true - only that it fits with the prominence of the account and the attribution of godly vengeance better than mere conquest. yes, it certainly does. but i'm not dismissing it becuase it's displeasing. i'd like very much for archaeology to validate the bible, i really would. it'd make things nice and tidy. i reject it on the basis that it's bad archaeology. it's one person (probably on the history channel) looking at the city and going "oh look, signs of fire. sulfur vents, and geothermal activity next door. maybe that's how god worked his miracle!" it's a supposition, and ignores the fact the city does not show signs of immediate destruction, but a war. they had time to properly bury their dead, for instance. so yeah, a geological explanation for raining fire and brimstone would be nice, but that doesn't seem to be what happened at this particular city. and that's supposing the city IS even the historical basis for sodom. it might not be. it might be several cultural mythologies removed. or the story could be a complete work of fiction. i'm more concerned with what the story means than any real-life counterpart.
Except that I approach anthropology as a structuralist, and the structuralists insist that no society maintains useless structures. and in this case a useless structure would be? remember, genesis was likely written at a time of little to no church leadership, and no state. i'm of educated opinion that it was assembled during or just after the babylonian exile (fits all of the anachronisms and coincidences). during this time, a collective mentality would be a needed structure.
I don't know, and to be honest, don't particularly care. I'm not sure one is strictly required - if there were some sort of natural disaster, then it could be safely presumed they were guilty of something; i thought you weren't aware of the "shit happens" philosophy of literature?
this would accord with the biblical account, which refers to but does not discuss their sin. except for, you know, the stuff they actually DO in the store. but nevermind that. i'm sure they meant to accuse sodom of a multitude of sins, and not one for the whole city, but the fact remains: the citizens are shown participating in one particular sin in the story. the harass the visitors. what would you call that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: How so? Lot fulfills his host obligations perfectly - the guests were previously going to reside in the city square. There was no violation of hospitality in the story. I'm afraid you are suvcking this interpretation out of your thumb. It has no basis in the text or the context.
quote: I'm afraid that is just completely insanely absurd. IIRC the bible says "the poor will always be with us". Social Darwinism is not in any way causally linked with Capitalism - it is much, much older than that and is expressed quite openly by the medieavl church - the lord in his castle, the peasant at his gate, the lord god raised them high or low and ordered there estate. Merely becuase YOU are only familiar with the ideas of social darwinism in capitalism does NOT mean thats the only place they were expressed. And my hostility to capitalism arises at least in part because it keeps these ancient theological shibboleths hanging around.
quote: WHERE is it aplied to whole groups in other stories? I have done a net serach to check - all I get is people making THIS argument. Where are these multiple stories? Give me names, give me details. You nkeep asserting this stuff exists SO WHERE THE FUCK IS IT? Put up or shut up. And I have NOT disputed generalisation, I repeat. Please address the issue, and stop attacking straw men.
quote: Yes, its plausible for pride, not for hsopitality. This is ebcuyase hospitality is an economic action and that action has to be credited to an author.
quote: Thats becuase you have not SHOWN any eviodence to the contrary despite mny repeated requests. And it comes from my familiarity with bronze age cultures and the role of hospitality in those Heroic cultures. For example, the way in ancient Ireland someone could embarras a lord by whom they were wronged by starving themselves to death at the lords doorstep, thus impugning his hospitality. It would be senseless to see this as applied to the settlement as a whole - its a person to person transaction. And I am not aware of ANY circumstances in which this is not the case. Its completely contrary to the structure of Heroic societies in the bronze age and therefore requires sound evidence for the claim. Your whole model is anachronistic.
quote: Ah, so proof positive after all that you DON'T bother to read my posts. I have dealt with this: the populace are not the Subject of the story, they play a bit part. The whole story highlights the virtues of PERSONAL genoristy, and the rewards attendant on those who are so virtuous. you are massively over-interpreting the content to indicate this is a message about collectievity, when it is in fact a message about indivduality. Nonetheless, your argument would be much more compelling if you could show other precedent. The very similarity of this story and the biblical story raise doubts as to provenance and authenticity. So if, as you claimed, there was a broad-based tradition of collective responsibility stories related to hospitality, it would or should be easy to show the similarities. So why can't you produce any of these thousands for comparison? EVEN IF I granted your one, lonely story shows what you claim it shows - which I certainly do not - it would still only stand as an exception to the general case absence of such stories.
quote: Don't be pathetic - there is no comparison because unlike other data supporting evolution, there is NO data supporting you. Further, your argument relies on facts that are not in evidence.
quote: No - YOU are advancing the claim, YOU provide the evidence in support of your claim. Your argument is sturctured as follows:- there is a known corpus of collective hospitality myths - this myth is observably similar to those myths. How can you possibly support your claim without showing a) that such a corpus exists and b) what the similarities are? there is NO basis from the text to support interpreting it in the way your propose. There is NO corpus that makes this obviously the member of a set. There is NO basis for this argument apart, as far as I can tell, from attacking certain Christian ideas.
quote: And again, you leap to assumptions about work you have not examined merely because it does not fit your preconceptions. And if this is supposed to be christian apologetics, why does Ron Wyatt insist the city is not under the dead sea but somewhere else? I'm even quite willing to accept that archeological speculation of this kind can never be conclusive, but I do NOT reject the argument out of hand as "bad archeology".
quote: Yes. Becuase it is totally without precedent, and not at all scholarly.
quote: Actually, they don't mention Lot being worthy of anything - they merely give him due warning. And seeing as he was an alien living in Sodom, and known to them, its far more reasonable to see this as an alliance rather than a moral judgement. And the sin attributed to Sodom is attributed long before the angels arrive and meet lot.
quote: Correct. Myths that say "they must have deserved it" are the opposite of "shit happens".
quote: Warfare. Anyway, the citizens are NOT shown triggering their own demise becuase the angels set off with the intent of smiting the city beforehand. Your interpetation of the biblical sotry is mistaken; your interpretation of the greek story is mistaken; your alleged corpus does not exist; thus no similarity with the corpus can be shown. Your argument has no evidence - it is a joke. Put up or shut up. This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-15-2005 04:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
How so? Lot fulfills his host obligations perfectly - the guests were previously going to reside in the city square. There was no violation of hospitality in the story. except in that the city disturbs and harasses the visitors.
It has no basis in the text or the context. you know, exept for all the stuff people have posted in this thread.
I'm afraid that is just completely insanely absurd. i agree!
Social Darwinism is not in any way causally linked with Capitalism please take a history class before you open your mouth.
it is much, much older than that and is expressed quite openly by the medieavl church - the lord in his castle, the peasant at his gate, the lord god raised them high or low and ordered there estate. divine right of kings. similar idea, but under a feudal state. in this case, the difference is that this philosophy is explicitly religious in nature, and the only person "raised high" is done so by blood and not income. and there are VASTLY more poor than rich. the philosophy is not about spurning the needy, it's about accepting your lot in life, which is a fundamental difference. like i said, take a history class. or two.
Merely becuase YOU are only familiar with the ideas of social darwinism in capitalism does NOT mean thats the only place they were expressed. yes, and i'm SURE they were expressed in ancient israeli myths.
WHERE is it aplied to whole groups in other stories? I have done a net serach to check wow, google is not your friend. start with this thread, genius. go back and READ that greek myth one more time, because still seem to miss the fact that inhospitable city is punished as a whole. do i need to link you again, or can you find it on your own?
all I get is people making THIS argument. Where are these multiple stories? Give me names, give me details. You nkeep asserting this stuff exists SO WHERE THE FUCK IS IT? Put up or shut up. i gave you the reference. go look it up.
And I have NOT disputed generalisation, I repeat. Please address the issue, and stop attacking straw men. actually, no. your argument was that hospitality as a virtue was not generalized to the city level.
Yes, its plausible for pride, not for hsopitality. This is ebcuyase hospitality is an economic action and that action has to be credited to an author. actually, i would call building a giant ziggurat an economic venture. in fact, the sole person responsible for funding its rebuilding ~623 bc was king nebuchadnezzar. it's his name that claims responsibility on the plaque at bab-el. now, look at how the bible portrays the same tower: built by all humanity. in other texts it even directs commentary to nebuchadnezzar specifically. the famous lucifer verse, about building a throne above god, and god toppling it? that's probably a reference to bab-el. but GENESIS portrays it as a generalization. genesis generalizes individual sins.
Thats becuase you have not SHOWN any eviodence to the contrary despite mny repeated requests. this is getting really annoying. you don't read the posts i direct you to, do you? BAUCIS AND PHILEMON. http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 -->EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 the inhospitable town is destroyed as a whole. your point is wrong. get over it.
And it comes from my familiarity with bronze age cultures and the role of hospitality in those Heroic cultures. For example, the way in ancient Ireland someone could embarras a lord by whom they were wronged by starving themselves to death at the lords doorstep, thus impugning his hospitality. It would be senseless to see this as applied to the settlement as a whole - its a person to person transaction. And I am not aware of ANY circumstances in which this is not the case. Its completely contrary to the structure of Heroic societies in the bronze age and therefore requires sound evidence for the claim. Your whole model is anachronistic. yes, and i'm well aware it's anachronistic.
quote: quote: quote: these three verses are also anachronisms. genesis is full of them. they indicate genesis had to have been written at least in part during or after the foundation of israel as a state. the chaldeans occupied ur from about 900-600 bc. due to all of babylonian references in the text (bab-el, one of the creation stories, noah) i'm tempted to bet that it was at the end of that range, near the start of the exile. when an entire society is opressed, as strangers in a land not their own, that changes the nature of how hospitality is viewed, does it not? it's quite plausible that sodom is a code for babylon. (and i suspect the same for egypt, actually. but that's a different thread)
Ah, so proof positive after all that you DON'T bother to read my posts. I have dealt with this: the populace are not the Subject of the story, they play a bit part. so does the population in the lot story. granted, they play a bit more of a role, but not a lot. i mean, two speaking lines?
The whole story highlights the virtues of PERSONAL genoristy, and the rewards attendant on those who are so virtuous. you are massively over-interpreting the content to indicate this is a message about collectievity, when it is in fact a message about indivduality. i've heard people refer to genesis as tales about personal morality. in fact, i think millions of hebrew school children read it that way. when they read the story, they most certain focus on lot. however, i don't think the condemnation is something you're reading into it. but like i said, genesis does that. alot. and it does it whole groups. all of mankind twice, the ammonites, edomites, all of the arabic speaking people, etc. in fact, "they were mean to angels" is the most coherent attack. mostly, it just calls whole groups of people illegitimate bastards.
Don't be pathetic - there is no comparison because unlike other data supporting evolution, there is NO data supporting you. Further, your argument relies on facts that are not in evidence. i sure haven't seen any transitional fossils! they were all created that way! don't be ridiculous. i gave you a place to go look up the stories. that's like me telling a creationist to go to a natural history museum.
No - YOU are advancing the claim, YOU provide the evidence in support of your claim. Your argument is sturctured as follows:- there is a known corpus of collective hospitality myths - this myth is observably similar to those myths. How can you possibly support your claim without showing a) that such a corpus exists and b) what the similarities are? yes, and we've advanced the most commonly known one, and explained its blatant similarities. and i've shown where you can go look the rest up.
And again, you leap to assumptions about work you have not examined merely because it does not fit your preconceptions. And if this is supposed to be christian apologetics, why does Ron Wyatt insist the city is not under the dead sea but somewhere else? I'm even quite willing to accept that archeological speculation of this kind can never be conclusive, but I do NOT reject the argument out of hand as "bad archeology". it's not a preconception. like i said, i'd feel nice and secure in my religion is it rained fire and brimstone and destroyed a city god says we're supposed to hate. but if we're referring to the same two cities, they had time to bury their dead. instruments of war were found. no, i haven't gone and read journals on it. nor have i been to site and investigate myself. but those simple facts indicate that that is not what happened there. and i don't really care to try to rectify a very fictionalized set of ancient mythology with a real place. it might not even be the SAME place, as there's nothing to really indicate that it is. people just jumped to that conclusion when they found two cities within a few miles of each other that both burned down at about the same time. THAT is bad archaeology.
Yes. Becuase it is totally without precedent, and not at all scholarly. ok, show me some scholarly work on it. i'm very willing to read some actual scholarly opinion on the matter, even if it differs with my views. i'm even known to change those views sometimes as a result. so uh, put it up.
Actually, they don't mention Lot being worthy of anything - they merely give him due warning. interesting. same with noah, i suppose, except the bit about "finding favor with the lord."
Correct. Myths that say "they must have deserved it" are the opposite of "shit happens". no no no. one follows from the other: shit happened -> they must have deserved -> because they did [this] wrong. so what did they do wrong?
Anyway, the citizens are NOT shown triggering their own demise becuase the angels set off with the intent of smiting the city beforehand. here's the question: god says if ten righteous men can found, he won't destroy the city. were the angels there to check, or did they already know and just came to get lot? you might be right, it might be the second. but either way, the story is still accusing the people of sodom. and re-reading it, i think it might be something just a little different. i don't think it's accusing them of a LACK of hospitality, but not recognizing the hebrew hospitality protocol. the words "the fellow came here as an alien, but already acts as a ruler!" stick out in my mind. it seems that it might not be talking about them not meeting standards as whole or individually or whatever, but them not recognizing and allowing hebrew customs. a kind cultural tolerance bit. granted, heavily related to hospitality. but maybe different enough that you'll let it get by.
Your interpetation of the biblical sotry is mistaken; your interpretation of the greek story is mistaken; your alleged corpus does not exist; thus no similarity with the corpus can be shown. Your argument has no evidence - it is a joke. Put up or shut up. get lost. the greek story is not a matter of interpretation. the people who do not demonstrate hospitality are all punished. and you've been directed to the index of other such stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6278 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Crashfrog;
An entire city of bisexuals? Where did they all come from? You're telling me there were no straight or gay people in the city at all? It defies sense. Actually we know that there were at least 4 straight people living in the town at the time, Lot's family. Considering that all of the men and young boys showed up to participate in a homosexual gang rape of the two visitors, that would pretty much eliminate the possibility of any other straight men being in town. In the case of the women, we are not told, so maybe they were all straight, we are not told one way or the other. My guess would be that as Sodom became 'gayer' some people left the town while others may have thought, 'while in Rome' so to speak. Since you see being 'gay' as genetic, this would be impossible, while if a matter of choice and the influence of culture, it is very possible. I wonder if we are seeing the same process of change in our world today, with possibly the same end result.
One is a homosexual if one is sexually orientated to members of the same sex. Just as one is heterosexual if one is sexually orientated to members of the opposite sex. It's entirely possible to be a celibate homosexual, just as one can be a celibate heterosexual. By your definition, it's impossible for a virgin to be heterosexual or homosexual; according to your usage the sexual orientation reported by people who have not had sex is irrelevant, is meaningless. In other words your terminology reflects a usage contradicted by the reported experience of sexual human beings. Orientation is orientation, acts are acts, you don't truly become thing until you do it. One can have as you say a homosexual orientation and not act on it, while the person still has that orientation, he may not want to be that way and maybe working to change and would not consider himself homosexual. Many young men I hear may go through a period when they maybe attracted to other men, if they do not follow such desires because they don't want to, they are certainly not homosexual, just young. It does support what I am saying that it is a matter of choice, and with effort or in the case of the young just the passing of time, can change the orientation.
[Such people with effort over time have changed there orientation and many are now happily heterosexuals] -This is a common myth.
Actually I have read and heard a number of people relate their personal life story of how they changed from being a homosexual to a well adjusted heterosexual. I have a few accounts at hand here, but they are published copyrighted material so I can't post them, but I could e-mail them to you if you wish to read them.
So what would it take to turn you gay? What would it take for you to find other men sexually attractive, if you don't now, already? Why is it that being heterosexual is a choice for everyone but you, for whom its no choice at all? Are we really supposed to believe that you're the only person born straight, and who didn't have to choose one or the other? Why should we believe such an unlikely story? First off, you can't make any one gay, it is a matter of personal choice. As for physiological factors that predispose some towards homosexual orientation, lack of a strong male role model is a frequently cited factor. But no doubt there are quite a number of environmental factors that can effect one's sexual orientation while growing up. As for adults, while we may view ourselves as our sexual orientation being 'cast in concrete', that is not the case as there is considerable plasticness to the human mind. Our out look is shaped by the things we experience as is seen in cultural assimilation, how a person slowly becomes an integral part of a new culture over time. People like to think that they can watch or read what every they want without any effect on themselves, but that is not true. Over time what we expose ourselves to does have a changing effect on us. So basically if you surf enough gay sites, see enough gay films, and hang out with enough gay friends, it will have an effect on you. There is the very real possibility that enough exposure to this sort of thing could alter your orientation. But as I said it is a matter of choice, and even with heavy exposure, a person could still reject it of course, but the environment can be a powerful influence, just look at war fever for example.
Straightforward would be "thou shalt not have gay sex." That's not what it says. Of course not, they probably didn't have a word for it, and even if there was it probably wouldn't have meant anything to them. Hence the expression not to lay with a man like you would with a woman.
Gay men can't "lay down" the same as they would with a woman, for two reasons: 1) They wouldn't "lay" with a woman in the first place; 2) Neither of them have a vagina. Now you are just splitting hairs. 'To lay with' was a general reference to sexual acts, Rather than make a list of homosexual acts and forbid them one by one, which could have created the mistaken impression that any homosexual act not expressly forbidden was OK, a general reference to sex was used which would include all sex acts between two people of the same sex.
[If heterosexual sex outside of marriage was forbidden, why is the law silent on homosexual acts outside of marriage and why is there no menton or regulation of 'gay marriages' or whatever?] -What about a gay marriage would be different? So you are saying that the following laws would be just as applicable to Gay 'married' couples? (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) "In case a man takes a wife and actually has relations with her and has come to hate her, and he has charged her with notorious deeds and brought forth a bad name upon her and has said, 'This is the woman I have taken, and I proceeded to go near her, and I did not find evidence of virginity in her'; the father of the girl and her mother must also take and bring forth the evidence of the girl's virginity to the older men of the city at the gate of it; and the girl's father must say to the older men, 'I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, and he went hating her. And here he is charging her with notorious deeds, saying: "I have found your daughter does not have evidence of virginity." Now this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they must spread out the mantle before the older men of the city. And the older men of that city must take the man and discipline him. And they must fine him a hundred silver shekels and give them to the girl's father, because he brought forth a bad name upon a virgin of Israel; and she will continue to be his wife. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days. "If, though, this thing has proved to be the truth, evidence of virginity was not found in the girl, they must also bring the girl out to the entrance of her father's house, and the men of her city must pelt her with stones, and she must die, because she has committed a disgraceful folly in Israel by committing prostitution in the house of her father. So you must clear away what is bad from your midst. "In case a man is found lying down with a woman owned by an owner, both of them must then die together, the man lying down with the woman and the woman. So you must clear away what is bad out of Israel. "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst. "If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case. For it was in the field that he found her. The girl who was engaged screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. "In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl's father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days." (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) "In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange man's outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her. And it must occur that the firstborn whom she will bear should succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel." So you believe that the above standards applied equally well to Gay couples, so no special mention of such was needed in the law code, which is why they are not mentioned in the law? That would be ridiculous in the extreme, just think of a married man taking his gay brother's partner to perform 'brother-in-law marriage', that would make great sense now wouldn't it! So as I said before, the total lack of laws governing homosexuals clearly shows that they were not allowed under the law code. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6278 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Brennakimi
translation: i don't mean what i say i mean. signed, god. Let us see what God really said on the matter of the reliability of his word.(Isaiah 55:10-11) "For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout, and seed is actually given to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results," (Titus 1:2) "upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting," (Hebrews 6:13-19) "For when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could not swear by anyone greater, he swore by himself, saying: "Assuredly in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply you." And thus after [Abraham] had shown patience, he obtained [this] promise. For men swear by the one greater, and their oath is the end of every dispute, as it is a legal guarantee to them. 17 In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, stepped in with an oath, in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to lay hold on the hope set before us. This [hope] we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm," What Joshua said about the reliability of god's word.(Joshua 23:14) "YOU well know with all YOUR hearts and with all YOUR souls that not one word out of all the good words that Jehovah YOUR God has spoken to YOU has failed. They have all come true for YOU. Not one word of them has failed." What Jesus said about his father's word. (John 17:17) "your word is truth." Jehovah God's word is more solid than diamond. It is just that some have no faith. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6278 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Arachnophilia;
yes, very plausible. and i have shown why, with the context of the word in other literature. Yes, but you have failed to adequately consider the context of the word's usage in the Bible, and the way it is translated in many Bibles is still consistent with the usage in the literature you cited.
i beg to differ. the people who translate bibles are generally religiously biased. i have seen different translations say very different things. and it's usually not the position the scholars take either. Yes this certainly happens and is a problem, which is why it is wise to use more than one translation. I don't believe it is a factor in this case, because it is not a doctrinal matter, which is what usually alters the perceived context that the translator is working with.
several times i've re-translated biblical greek myself, by hand, with only a greek dictionary, and it say different stuff than the modern text. usually just in tone, though. paul's wording tends to sound more authoritative and harsh in greek, for instance. Of course it is going to sound different, you can't do a proper translation with just a dictionary, a translator has to take into consideration the context of what the writer was trying to say and how to best express the thought in another language, it is an art not a science. If it was a simple word for word thing, computers would have completely taking over the job long ago. A good example of this is the Greek word "proskyneo" which is generally rendered as 'worship' or as obeisance', the word structure is of little or no aid in determining which English word to use. The translator has to look at the over all context, for example if it is being used in regard to a humans 'obeisance' is generally used while 'worship' if it is used in reference to God. The tricky part is when it is used in regard to Jesus, if the translator is a trinitarian he will tend to use 'obeisance' since he believes that Jesus is God, while a non Trinitarian will probably use 'obeisance' since he doesn't view Jesus as God, but as God's son. There is no way just using a Greek dictionary and looking at the Greek wording used in the verse is going to by itself decide which word to use, the overall context of the entire Bible has to be considered. In this example, the context of translating "proskyneo" in reference to Jesus, one has to consider if Jesus is God or not and if it is in harmony with the whole context of the Bible to translate a verse so that 'worship' is directed to Jesus when Jesus himself said (Matthew 4:10) "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" So the determination of how to render a Hebrew or Greek word can be affected by what is said on that issue in another part of the Bible. That is why the dictionary approach doesn't work, the Bible is far too complex and the topics covered have such fine shades of meaning. Just rendering "proskyneo" as 'worship' at Matthew 28:16-17 is used by many to support the Trinity doctrine which the Bible of course doesn't support, which high lights why Bible Translators have to be very careful how they render the Word of God. And as you pointed out there are translations that for the very same reason; to support no-biblical doctrines, use wording that their readers want to read, but is not in harmony with the context of the Bible. By doing this they also tend to create contradictions in their translations, with one verse saying one thing and other saying the opposite. Think of how often you read something that seemed to be saying one thing, but when you got to the end you realized it meant something else altogether and you had to go back and reread the whole thing from the beginning and it suddenly made much better sense. (some jokes are written that way on propose.) It just highlights why I don't find your way of translating very reliable or impressive. Frankly, you don't know what you are doing and are out of your league, you probably know far more Hebrew and Greek than I, but I know better to try and do what you are doing, and foolishly think that I could get better results than the scholars themselves. Unless you can show solid evidence that they are wrong and you are right, you have nothing, and so far you haven't done that. Your evidence isn't solid or convincing and you have failed to overturn the rending of "men who lay with men" .
my suggestion is that it applies to a very SPECIFIC kind of homosexual relationship. i'm not sure they had modern homosexual relationships in ancient greece. anyone know for sure? Paul in using the word obviously would have been referring to the whole thing and not just part, since all sex outside of marriage was forbidden. Since you as pointed out, homosexual acts would have at least been classed as fornication, and all acts of fornication was condemned, it would make no sense for Paul to condemn only a specific type of homosexual relationship. His list of sins in both verses is a sort of catch all, he wasn't trying to list all possible sub types or combinations or situations. So a very narrow interpretation of the word makes no sense in the two verses where Paul used it.
he obviously looks on sexuality as a bad thing, and marriage a necessary evil. (like i said, the english calms paul down a bit) and if you don't believe me, look at the influence on the modern christian church. you can't tell me otherwise, i have very close friends who are messed up because of pauline sexual taboo. Or better translating merely renders Paul closer to the way he wrote than a Greek dictionary word by word approach would do. Paul does view singleness as superior to marriage, but he in no way looks down on or condemns marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:38) "Consequently he also that gives his virginity in marriage does well, but he that does not give it in marriage will do better." (1 Corinthians 7:28) "if you did marry, you would commit no sin." Paul's two reasons for viewing singleness as being better, was greater freedom to serve God, and being free of martial problems and stresses. The Bible actually speaks highly of sex, (just read the book of Solomon) after all God invented it. The whole sex=sin thinking is a creation of the Catholic Church, this particular perversion was even specifically warned about by Paul. (1 Timothy 4:1-3) "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry," So Paul wasn't against marriage, he even said that those who would later forbid marriage, would be following the teachings of demons. Sorry to hear Paul's logic is going over your head, he does take awhile to understand even if you are a 'spiritual man' as Paul would say. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
#1.
do you trust everyone who say that they never lie? #2. you just got done telling me that the bible doesn't mean what it says. if the book says god hardened the man's heart then it means it. it may be wrong, but it means what it says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Except in cases like Isaiah 55:10-11 where it is simply wrong. LOL
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
as i said. it means what it means. sometimes it may be wrong lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Yes, but you have failed to adequately consider the context of the word's usage in the Bible, and the way it is translated in many Bibles is still consistent with the usage in the literature you cited. quote: quote: and that's all the bible writes. the context of BOTH is a list of kinds of sinners, and that's all. neither verse is surrounded by any description of sexual sins. it's conspicuously absent when paul talks about homosexuality:
quote: the outside contexts are all older male and younger boy. so no, not consistent at all. and like i said, i don't care if paul is condemning consenting homosexual relationships. he clearly is in the romans verse. but i'm not so sure he is in the other two.
Yes this certainly happens and is a problem, which is why it is wise to use more than one translation. I don't believe it is a factor in this case, because it is not a doctrinal matter, which is what usually alters the perceived context that the translator is working with. do you live in america? homosexuality certainly is a doctrinal matter. so is evolution.
Of course it is going to sound different, you can't do a proper translation with just a dictionary, a translator has to take into consideration the context of what the writer was trying to say and how to best express the thought in another language, it is an art not a science. If it was a simple word for word thing, computers would have completely taking over the job long ago you can find bad translation software on the internet. i'm reasonably sure good translation software could be written, and probably is. it's just not free. however, you missed the point of what i was trying to say. christian translators seem to be toning dowm paul a little to make him more appealing.
A good example of this is the Greek word "proskyneo" worship is one of those words that's been used so often it's lost meaning. in reality, worship and obeisence should mean the same thing.
That is why the dictionary approach doesn't work, no, i know. and bible dictionaries should usually not be trusted. but when you look up words like "paradidomi" and discover the greek has absolutely no connotations of betrayal, it sort of changes how the book is read, doesn't it? it hints at jesus orchestrating his own martyrdom. but for various religious reasons, this word will still be translated as "betray."
It just highlights why I don't find your way of translating very reliable or impressive. Frankly, you don't know what you are doing and are out of your league, you probably know far more Hebrew and Greek than I, but I know better to try and do what you are doing, and foolishly think that I could get better results than the scholars themselves. no. my point was that "scholars" and "people who translate the bible" are not one and same. most people who translate published editions of the bible have religious goals. there are some scholarly translation i've seen that often say very, very different things. for instance, the hebrew of genesis 1 does not have god creating the universe. and yet every translation i've read seems to indicate that he did.
Unless you can show solid evidence that they are wrong and you are right, you have nothing, and so far you haven't done that. Your evidence isn't solid or convincing and you have failed to overturn the rending of "men who lay with men" someone before showed how that wouldn't be fitting with grammar, and uses the wrong case of arren. i've also demonstrated that a cler meaning cannot be determined from context alone, and provided evidence that all other usage applies to a specific type of homosexual relationship. i'm just saying it should mean "men who lay with boys."
Paul in using the word obviously would have been referring to the whole thing and not just part, since all sex outside of marriage was forbidden. yes. and oddly, sex out of wedlock isn't mentioned in either verse. (fornicators in the corinthians verse is "pornos" or prostitutes)
His list of sins in both verses is a sort of catch all, he wasn't trying to list all possible sub types or combinations or situations. So a very narrow interpretation of the word makes no sense in the two verses where Paul used it. yet he is only listing specific sins. THREE of which are sexual in nature. if he was trying to be general he could have just said "those who sin in a sexual manner" and saved some time. no, he's picking random specific examples, and probably tailoring them to what he thinks are the city's biggest problems.
Or better translating merely renders Paul closer to the way he wrote than a Greek dictionary word by word approach would do. Paul does view singleness as superior to marriage, but he in no way looks down on or condemns marriage. i was just reading the english. he does say being single and celibate is better.
The whole sex=sin thinking is a creation of the Catholic Church, this particular perversion was even specifically warned about by Paul. uh, no, it's based heavily on 1 corinthians 7. i've literally seen its impact first hand in churches i've attended. because it's not ALL sex=sin. but it is strongly taboo.
(1 Timothy 4:1-3) "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry," So Paul wasn't against marriage, he even said that those who would later forbid marriage, would be following the teachings of demons. that verse is not talking about the catholic church. note the word "forbidding."
Sorry to hear Paul's logic is going over your head, he does take awhile to understand even if you are a 'spiritual man' as Paul would say. his logic is not going over my head. you can argue the finer points of what he says, and be a paul apologist all you want. but the fact remains. i have seen the effect of these verses firsthand. and they are not inconsistent with paul's teachings. but paul is inconsistent with jesus's teachings, and the entire history of the jewish church. i didn't mean to say he "condemns" marriage and heterosexual sex in terms of it being sinful. he just recommends against it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, and even more curiously, no reason was given. And, why should a city have any obligation NOT to harass visitors?
quote: ... which does not stand up to scrutiny. This looks more and more like an urban legend to my eyes - everyone "knows" it but cannot explain how they came by that knowledge. That SHOULD set off a bunch of alarm bells.
quote: Ha ha ha. Now thats arrogant indeed - I have taken many.
quote: There are similarities, but Divine Right is a specific doctrine and cannot be conflated with the general case of the lord god making people rich or poor. That is, the manifest destiny doctrine can coexist with, or exist independantly of, divine right of kings. You might know that if you took the odd history lesson. Ands its not by blood necessarily - Wulfnoth Cild was a sussex thegn of no reputation; his son Godwine become a powerful landholder through loyal service to the king; his son Harold become king of England briefly. Where's the blood? What determined Harolds candidacy was wealth and power.
quote: Why would I, when I'm whipping you with one hand tied behind my back?
quote: Duh, of course they were: # 2 Samuel 12:4"Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him." Proverbs 10:4Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 22:2 Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all. 7 The rich rule over the poor,and the borrower is servant to the lender. Jeremiah 5:4I thought, "These are only the poor; they are foolish, for they do not know the way of the LORD , the requirements of their God. 5 So I will go to the leaders and speak to them; surely they know the way of the LORD , the requirements of their God." Now admittedly, most of the bibles references to the poor are sympathetic, but Calvinism is easily able to support its social darwinism from biblical references.
quote: And its not acceptable - I am not going to go running around just becuase you can't be bothered to do the necessary research. I already know what the conclusion will be, after all. YOU are presenting the arguemnt - YOU have to support your argument. Anything else is intellectually dishonest. The fact of the matter is you CANNOT support your claim. You have been caught out propagating an urban legend you adopted uncritically.
quote: I never claimed it did not. Hospitality, however, is not among them, and cannot be.
quote: So withdraw the claim then.
quote: No - why would it? Such a change would require quite a lot of "social engineering" and I do not see that. Furthermore, as a rule oppressed societies don't have much room to construct an ideology. And thirdly, your argument now requires many many assumptions not in evidence - that the whole story is anachronistic, thats its a different city, that its a different political context. Thats too much special pleading, especially when your claim is that it is OBVIOUS that this is one of a (non-existant) mass of hospitality myths.
quote: And, I have already explained why this does not constitute a rebuttal: my claim is not "generalisation never happens", it is that "hospitality is not generalisable in bronze age societies". You are attakcing a straw man again - please stop doing so and stick to the issue.
quote: And as I have already told you - I HAVE looked, and there AREN'T ANY. You are trying to lecture the curator of the museam as to what the museum contains.
quote: At this point it is the ONLY known one, ever - and you have mistaken its interpretation, and continue to do so despite being corrected. All I have asked you to do is justify why you think there are so many, when none can be found.
quote: Indeed. And UNLESS you CAN say that the city found WAS Sodom, specifically, the presence of weapons in the found sity is not conclusive. Its clear to me know that we are referring to different investigations; that is not surprising. What is surprising is that you seem to cite a "real" Sodom when it suits our argument, and deny Sodom existed at all when it suits your argument. And its not even particularly relevent, except inasmuch as you affected incredulity regarding the recording of natural disaters.
quote: Ha hah ha - here you persistently refuse to show your own work, demonstrate the invisible evidence you claim exists, and yet you are arrogant enough to demand evidnece from me? My doesn't that remind you of someone demanding that evolutinists myst definitely disprove god, and that theists have no necessity to prove god at all? YOU are advancing the claim - YOU must support it. I do not have to take your claim seriously, and neither does anyone else, until such time as you can show that it is even plausible at all, let alone true. Inasmuch as this argument appears to be advanced to "prove" that the sin committed by Sodom was not homosexuality it is manifestly failing, because no other precedents for this kind of alleged myth can be found. You cannot make your case as it stands - as this poor argument must necessarily strengthen the other position. This argument is bogus.
quote: Now you are playing linguistic games. "shit happens" is mostly iused to dismiss concern about an event. But nevermind. Why do you expect me to be able to tell you what the alleged sin was if it was not mentioned specifically in the bible? Once again, I do not need to do so to debunk the silly notion that the alleged sin was hospitality, because you simply cannot support that claim. This is an urban legend, as far as I can tell.
quote: That seems even weaker to me. They seem to be saying that Lot, as an incomer, has not right to go telling the locals how to behave. "They come over here and take our jobs and run the place" yada yada. But, then again, there is no expectation whatsoever in the region that cultural tolerance is a virtue. So, the suggestion that Sodom's sin was "cultural insenstitity" cannot fly without some sort of support to show that is a reasonable conclusion. There isn't any. The sin of Sodom simply cannot be said to be hospitality with any honesty. The text itself cannot be read that way; there is no supporting data; its anachronistic to the region and culture. It Cannot Be. so uh, put it up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024