Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

Arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

the only difference, as he points out, is that the entire society is not punished.

---

No, no, no...the town is, indeed, destroyed. The town sinks and becomes a lake (yet another flood myth). Only the hovel of Baucis and Philemon is spared and from that place the temple is established.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dear crashfrog; More proof that common sense isn't common any more. There was a provision for everyone to know and understand what was the intent of the law.
(Nehemiah 8:7-8) "even the Levites, were explaining the law to the people, while the people were in a standing position. And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the law of the [true] God, it being expounded, and there being a putting of meaning [into it]; and they continued giving understanding in the reading." Only because you don't understand the context. See the last post in the previous thread and see also (Judges 19:22-25) "the men of the city, mere good-for-nothing men, surrounded the house, shoving one another against the door; and they kept saying to the old man, the owner of the house: "Bring out the man that came into your house, that we may have intercourse with him." At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: "No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUR eyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing." And the men did not want to listen to him. Hence the man took hold of his concubine and brought her forth to them outside; and they began to have intercourse with her," If you are arguing that it is an inherited condition, then it certainly would be, I believe it is a learned behaviour. (Romans 1:27) "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"
(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. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."
(1 Corinthians 6:9) "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,"
(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."Those who unrepentedly practice homosexuality which the Bible calls obscene, detestable, unnatural, will under go the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. The Bible does condemn homosexuality. People like you do homosexuals a great disservice by lying to them and letting them believe that what they do is OK with God, when they should be warned that unless they repent, they are facing God's wrath. (Ezekiel 3:18) "When I say to someone wicked, 'You will positively die,' and you do not actually warn him and speak in order to warn the wicked one from his wicked way to preserve him alive, he being wicked, in his error he will die, but his blood I shall ask back from your own hand."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

So homosexual rape or something akin to it is basically what you are saying the Greek word arsenokoites means. I can see how you have come to your conclusion. But all Bible translations render it as homosexual or use a term that can be understood as referring to it.. No doubt part of the reason they do so is the context, the Bible is very clear on condemning Homosexuality, and it would be illogical for Paul to condemn homosexual rape or whatever and not condemn heterosexual rape in the same verse.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "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."
(1 Timothy 1:8-10) "Now we know that the Law is fine provided one handles it lawfully in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching."Considering that Paul listed all these sins, if in both verses he had indeed been referring to homosexual rape rather than just homosexual acts, why didn't he include rape? Now the argument I have been rebutting, is that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, which as you undoubtedly know is a ridiculous argument. Now considering that fact that homosexuality is condemned as a sin in the Bible, I can't see Paul listing homosexual rape and not mentioning other homosexual acts. So a limited application of the word would run contrary to the intended meaning of the verse, and is probably part of the reason why no translation renders it that way.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

You're going to have to explain to me how that addresses my question. Don't see how the context helps. It doesn't make sense to propose that the inhabitants of Sodom were gay, and then, in the story, Lot, who presumably would have known that the Sodomites were gay, offers to distract them with heterosexual intercourse.So clearly the men of Sodom were not gay. And how could they be? How could you have a city composed entirely of gay people? That would last one generation. It certainly would not be. Homosexuality is inherited and is not pathological. We're not talking about behavior, though. Behavior is irrelevant; even straight men can and do have gay sex. What we're talking about is orientation, and orientation is not learned, its innate. You're born with it, and it's apparently inherited.We're not talking about behaviors, here. That's a strawman. Sorry, but either the Bible is wrong, or you're reading it wrong. And don't get me wrong - I can see how you would easily misunderstand it. The passages are quite tricky. But its clear that homosexuality is not wrong, it's not unnatural - it's just people being who God created them to be. You were quite right to say that God would not condemn people for how he created them; hence, the Bible must not condemn homosexuality if it's the word of God.But I understand your confusion, as its easily misunderstood. Nonetheless a little research into how human sexual orientation works makes it abundantly clear. Repent of what? Being the way God made them? Hardly a sin, as you yourself have pointed out.

wmscott responds to me:

quote:

---

I assume you are getting all this from some book

---

This is a problem? That's how a lot of learning is done: By reading books. I studied the material and learned what it had to say.

quote:

---

well that book or what ever is dead wrong and I mean wrong.

---

Be specific. I quoted to you the original Hebrew. Could you please tell me where we find the reference to sexual intercourse? I even compared it to another verse from the Bible that is clearly indicative of sexual contact between Adam and Eve (since after Adam "knew" his wife, she gave birth to Seth) and asked you to show me where the context of the use of "yada" in Gen 19 is comparable to the use of "yada" in Gen 4 such that one could reasonably state that Gen 19 is talking about sex.Where is it? Step up to the plate. You do have some understanding of Hebrew, do you not?

quote:

---

For starters, for your theory to be correct, everyone else would have to be wrong.

---

And that's impossible because of what, precisely? Remember, for centuries, the average person was not allowed to read the Bible. The mere translation of the Bible out of Latin (which it wasn't written in) and into "common" languages like English was a huge controversy. In the course of this, many people have imposed their viewpoint of what the text is "supposed" to say and since they tended to be the heads of the church, those attitudes have expanded out to the masses who don't have access to the originals or even the ability to analyze them if they did.How good is your Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Have you even seen a copy of the texts in their "original" languages (and I put original in quotes because even the copies we have aren't the first versions but are copies of copies of transcriptions of oral traditions.)

quote:

---

I mean that all christian religions over the past two millenniums and the Jews for even longer before that, would have to be completely wrong on their interpretation of whole sections of the Bible.

---

Huh? Judaism doesn't consider the sin of Sodom to be homosexuality. It considers it to be inhospitality and pride.

quote:

---

We are talking about a very basic point here,

---

Yes, we are.Do you seriously think that King James didn't have a say in the translation that bears his name? That he had no influence in making sure that the Bible supported the divine right of kings?

quote:

---

one that if you took christian religions that disagree on major issues like the Trinity, hell fire, immortality of the soul, you name it, but they would all agree on this one issue.

---

But they don't.

quote:

---

Plus you would have to add a whole list of Bible scholars and translators that all conflict with what you are saying.

---

Yep. It's called "bias." You read what you want to read. The text doesn't say, "have sex with them." It says, "know them." It just so happens that the verb "yada" in Hebrew can mean "have sex with," but it needs to be phrased in a very specific way. That way is not used in Gen 19:5. Therefore, one has to wonder why someone would ever translate it as "have sex with."And notice, you don't see it translated as "have sex with" until recent times...by people who have axes to grind with regard to those who aren't heterosexual. Even the King James translates it as "know them."

quote:

---

There must be a basic reason why they all disagree with your interpretation, the only answer that I can see is that you are wrong.

---

Right. It couldn't have anything to do with expectations. "Everybody knows" that passage refers to sex so the fact that it doesn't actually say, "have sex with," simply means they were being polite. The fact that EVERY OTHER TIME you see the phrasing used you NEVER translate it as "have sex with" is not indicative of anything. It's just a coincidence.

quote:

---

Incorrect, Leviticus 18 is a listing of individual commands,

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously saying that each verse has absolutely no connection to any other verse? The whole of Levitius 18 is about sex! No sex with your father or mother or father's wife or sister or half-sister or granddaughter (why not the grandson?) or aunt or uncle or daughter-in-law (why not son-in-law?) or sister-in-law on your brother's side (why not brother-in-law). No sex with a woman and her daughter or the woman's granddaughters (why not the grandsons?) No having sex with your wife and her sister while they're both still alive. No having sex when the woman is menstruating. No ritualistic sex.It's all about sex.

quote:

---

just look at Leviticus 18:24 "'Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things," or are you going to say that the very next verse was only wrong in connection with false worship but is acceptable in itself?

---

I'm saying that you cannot say that it is bad because the reference is specifically to the iconic practice of false worship. Temple prostitution also included heterosexual sex. Are you saying that because temple prostitution is forbidden, that would include heterosexual sex, too? Of course not.

quote:

---

At Leviticus 20:13 where the prohibition against homosexuality is repeated,

---

And again, it is in reference to temple prostitution.Strangely, though, there is no mention of lesbianism in Lev 20. Does the mean it's OK for women to be gay?

quote:

---

it also states (Leviticus 20:12) "And where a man lies down with his daughter-in-law, both of them should be put to death without fail. They have committed a violation of what is natural." Are you going to tell me it is OK for your father to have sex with your wife as long as it is not part of temple prostitution?

---

(*sigh*)Does the word "context" mean anything to you? I'm not saying that the whole chapter is about temple prostitution. I'm saying that the passages in question, given the words used and the context in which they were said, was about temple prostitution. The whole point of Leviticus in general is to define the ways in which the Jews are distinguished from pagans. And one of those ways was the practice of ritualistic sex.Question, if I were to talk about the "evangelists," what would I be talking about? Would it not be safe to assume that I am most likely referring to Protestant Christian preachers? Even though I didn't actually say "Christian," that's a pretty good bet, wouldn't you say? There is a cultural context here such that we all know what I'm talking about even though I didn't come right out and say it, right? So why are you so shocked to consider that certain turns of phrase might be in reference to a specific practice?You seem to have a very black-or-white, all-or-nothing attitude. But at the same time, you have a hard time maintaining it consistently. You started off by saying that Lev 18:22 is absolutely unconnected to anything else and now you are arguing that all of the verses of Lev 20 are connected to each other. Well, which is it? Do verses get to be connected together or do they remain completely independent?

quote:

---

Notice the use of the word natural again.

---

Indeed. And since homosexuality occurs in nature, one wonders what is "unnatural" about it. Are you claiming that dogs deliberately defy the will of god? Or are they possessed by devils? Why would two dogs of the same sex regularly have sex with each other to the exclusion of having sex with dogs of the opposite sex?

quote:

---

You could probably find an analogy for this in the animals, would that make it OK?

---

Excuse me, but you are the one claiming that "natural" is OK. Therefore, if we can determine that homosexuality is "natural," then by your own logic, it must be "OK."

quote:

---

There is nowhere in the Bible that a temple is even mentioned as being in Sodom.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Because the Bible doesn't talk about any temples in Sodom, that means they didn't have any? THAT is your argument? Jude has to be talking about homosexuality because it doesn't say anything about pagan rituals?

quote:

---

If that was the 'real' meaning, it would certainly have been at least mentioned.

---

No, that's my argument to you. If the passage had meant homosexuality, it would certainly have been at least mentioned. It wasn't, so what makes you think it means that?

quote:

---

While what we do have in Jude 7, is the use of the Greek word porneia which basically refers to sex outside of marriage, and the phrase 'flesh for unnatural use' which older bibles sometimes render as 'strange flesh' and modern Bibles render more clearly as relating to homosexual acts and other sexual perversions.

---

Ahem. You don't see the problem here? "Modern Bibles"? Who wrote these "modern Bibles"? Oh, that's right...people who have axes to grind against gay people. Don't you think that might have a teensy weensy bit of effect upon their attitude toward certain passages?Take, for example, the notorious NIV. They deliberately rewrote the Bible to take care of "problems in the text."

quote:

---

In none of these translations or any translation for that matter, is there any mention of this sexual misconduct being done in connection with temple prostitution.

---

And in none of those translations, or any translation for that matter, is there any mention of this sexual misconduct being homosexuality.So why are you so sure that it has to be about homosexual sex rather than something else? Especially since the turns of phrase used are typically those that are associated with discussions about pagan rituals? Especially since there is no such thing as the concept of "homosexuality" as we understand it at the time?

quote:

---

In giving the reasons for the destruction of Sodom, the sexual misconduct is listed at Jude 7 as the reason the citys were destroyed,

---

Perhaps. But where is the indication that it was homosexual sexual misconduct? There's nothing in Jude 1 that says it was and Gen 19 is quite clear that the crowd wasn't looking for sex at all and, in fact, were outrageously offended when Lot tried to buy them off with sex. So while we might say that Sodom had some issues regarding sex and morality, there is no indication that homosexuality was rampant there.

quote:

---

According to Jude, the reason Sodom was destroyed was for the rampant immorality and sexual perversions.

---

But where's the reference to homosexuality?

quote:

---

And when the FBI surrounds the house, they bring their young boys with them.

---

Huh? Now you're saying that because the entire town showed up, that means they were pedophiles as well? Oh, that's right...homosexuality equal pedophilia, right?

quote:

---

Why did the boys come but not one woman was in the crowd,

---

Um, they did come. Why are you selectively reading the text? Here's the whole passageGenesis 19:4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:Now tell me what "all the people from every quarter" might possibly mean?

quote:

---

And if they truly only wanted to know who the two strangers were, why didn't they ask them when they were in the city gates earlier, the important men of the town generally sat in the gates.

---

(*blink!*)You didn't just say that, did you?Did you even read the chapter?Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;The reason why is because LOT was at the gates and LOT brought them in.By your logic, if these people were going to rape the angels, why didn't they rape them at the city gates?

quote:

---

That was where Lot met the angels, and talked to them, if the leading men of the city wanted to ask them anything, they could have easily done so right on the spot.

---

(*blink!)You did not just say that, did you?Didn't you read your own sentence? That's where Lot met the angels. It was LOT at the gates. The reason why the angels weren't questioned at the gates is because LOT was the one at the gates.

quote:

---

You are also goofing up here too, it seems like you are merely trolling when you see a sexual context on the part of Lot's offer of his daughters, but don't see one on the part of the men of Sodom.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did you bother to read the chapter?Genesis 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.Don't you see the point? "He will needs be a judge." What do you think that means? The mob comes to interrogate the strangers. Lot tells them not to and tries to distract them with sex. They are highly insulted by this and are now even more agitated than they were before because now it seems that they have a traitor in their midst...and Abraham's relative, at that (the Bible can't figure out exactly what the relationship is between Lot and Abraham.)

quote:

---

Like I stated above in my post to Crashfrog, if by your crazy logic, the men of Sodom were only asking to talk to the two men, then Lot must have been merely saying don't bother my tried guests, talk to my daughters instead who never get to talk to men.

---

Huh? Once again, you've got to look at the actual text:Genesis 19:8: hi.ne-na li she.tei va.not a.sher lo-yad.u ish o.tsi.a-na et.hen a.lei.khem va.a.su la.hen ka.tov be.ei.nei.khem rak la.a.na.shim ha.el al-ta.a.su da.var ki-al-ken ba.u be.tsel ko.ra.ti:Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'The phrase you are looking for is "lo-yadu ish" for "not known man." That is the phrasing used when someone is using "yada" to talk about sex. Again, compare to Genesis 4:Genesis 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:And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'Again, we see "yada ishto." That's the way you phrase "yada" to mean sex. But look at Lot's statement:Genesis 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.'Where is the phrasing that indicates the mob is talking about sex?

quote:

---

Animals are not intelligent and have no free will as man does, so they can not willfully work against God. Gay animals? or just observation basis. Just confused animals, they don't know any better, we do.

---

Huh? "Confused"? How can they be confused? You just said they don't have "free will." So how can they possibly be confused? Why would we find animals that stubbornly refuse to have sex with members of the opposite sex? Why do we find birds that mate for life who will take eggs from other nests or find abandoned eggs and have the two pairbonded males hatch them and raise them? These are "confused" animals? How could they possibly be confused?

quote:

---

They also eat their young, commit incest, and eat their own poop, do you wish to justify any of that behaviour as being fine for humans too?

---

I never said it did. I'm merely pointing out that your claim of it being "unnatural" isn't justified. Your claim was that it wasn't found in nature because it was bad. Well, it is found in nature. That doesn't necessarily make it good, but it does mean that it isn't unnatural.So make up your mind. Is "natural" good or bad?

quote:

---

I doubt that Paul made up the word "arsenokoitai,"

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Have you done any research on this at all? Paul made up this word. It appears nowhere else in any ancient Greek text. The only place it appears is in the Bible and there it shows up exactly twice.

quote:

---

the meaning is:

​

733 arsenokoites-one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite

---

And this meaning is wrong. The word literally means "male temple prostitute" as it is a compound word of "arsen" for "male" and "koitai" for "temple prostitute."

quote:

---

Now even if Paul or somebody else made up the word, the word is made up from two base words; (730 arrhen- a male) and (2845 koite-cohabitation or sexual intercourse) which gives the meaning of a male who has intercourse with another male, a homosexual.

---

No, not "cohabitation." "Prostitute." Technically, "couch," but that's a slang term. It is of the exact same concept as the Greek words "arsenomorphos." If Paul had meant for the word to be reflexively referring to the prefix, he would have used "arren" rather than "arsen."

quote:

---

So even merely putting the two root words together gives the same meaning that is given for the word as a whole, plus even a reference to a 'sodomite', how much plainer could it be?

---

It would help if you knew Greek.Do you?

quote:

---

As for your 'theory' that Paul really meant male temple prostitutes, the Greek word 'malakos' or prostitute appears in the verse at 1 Corinthians 6:9 but appears ahead of the term 'arsenokoites' and is separated by the Greek word rendered 'nor' making it a separate offense.

---

Yes. Why is this a problem? Not the prostitutes nor the male prostitutes. Why is this problematic?

quote:

---

In both verses Paul is discussing sinful conduct, there is no mention in ether chapter of false temple worship or temple male prostitutes, that subject wouldn't even make sense if the term 'male temple prostitute' was pasted into the verse.

---

Incorrect. Why do you think the verse translates so bizarrely in typical translations? Because they're trying to make it sound like it's referring to homosexuality when it doesn't.And once again, you seem to think that because the word "temple" doesn't appear, that means that isn't the point. Are you seriously saying that if I were to talk about "evangelists," I wouldn't be talking about Christians because I didn't use the word "Christian"?

quote:

---

As for your argument that if it fits, it is natural and is OK, the same argument can be, and has been used by child molesters to justify their actions.

---

Huh? Have you see the physical damage that happens during rape? That's because it doesn't fit. People who have anal sex, on the other hand, don't wind up damaged. Don't tell me you believed Cameron and his mythic "gay bowel syndrome." There is no such thing.

quote:

---

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.

---

I never said you should.What I said was that those who claim "it doesn't fit" are clearly wrong. It obviously does fit or people would be physically incapable of engaging in it. They would suffer physical damage if they tried. Since they are capable of doing so and emerge from the experience completely unscathed, it is quite clear to all but the most obstinate observer that it does fit.

quote:

---

You can stick your finger or whatever, in a light socket, do you want to argue that is 'Natural' and is the thing to do too?

---

Huh? When did we find light sockets in the wild?

quote:

---

You have become 'branded' or burned in your conscience so that it has become insensitive or burned out, so that you no longer have an accurate feeling for what is right or wrong. You have lost your moral compass and have been mislead by "teachings of demons".

---

I love this. This is followed by:

quote:

---

Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

---

Yeah, right. "Sincerely." You condemn me as a psychotic and then try to get all polite.I most certainly have not lost my moral compass. You're pegging it to the max.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

wmscott writes:

quote:

---

If you are arguing that it is an inherited condition, then it certainly would be, I believe it is a learned behaviour.

---

Then what would it take to make you gay?What sort of man turns you on? Do you go for the big bears? Gym rats? Twinkies? Does a guy in a suit really float your boat? You into sweat socks?If it's learned, what would it take for you to learn?

quote:

---

People like you do homosexuals a great disservice by lying to them and letting them believe that what they do is OK with God, when they should be warned that unless they repent, they are facing God's wrath.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, wmscott. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, wmscott has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, wmscott gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?Sincerely yours....

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

i think it's more on the rape or statutory rape definition, but that the usage came to mean an older man and a younger boy. and just because no bible translation renders it that does not mean it's incorrect. bible translations only tell us what people thought the world meant at a specific time, not what it actually means. context is a much better indicator. paul is not what i would call logical. but what if the word simply means "rapist" and has nothing to do with the gender of the rapist and the victim? there's nothing in the context that indicates that it HAS to be homosexual, is there?it's just that only other instances of the word (outside of the bible) have to do with older men and younger boys. words also change meaning. homosexual, as today's definition and strictest biblical standards (ie leviticus) would have to fall under fornicators. why have a separate word for it? they're not talking about consentual relationships. who said he didn't? in fact, your point still stands even if it does mean homosexual in today's meaning: why didn't he include rape? only partly. the bible does fail to condemn lesbians. it's very specific that men should not have sex with men (at least in the levite tribe), but it doesn't say anything about women. paul condemns ALL sexuality. a good point to remember. skip ahead a chapter in corinthians, and you'll find his opinions on heterosexual sex. it may also be that the only sort of homosexual relationship at the time was the older-men/younger-boy relations, and two grown males was just unheard of. or at least not "out" in public. so "homosexual" may indeed be a correct rendering for the word. but it does not seem to be talking about the kind of homosexual relationship we read it as today.

oh. i must have missed that. been a while since i read any greek mythology, but i did think that was the case. allow me to refer contracycle to this post, and then ask him why the genesis story isn't the same exact thing.

why is it unsustainable? i've shown proof that societal generalization is common in genesis, that this story is similar to many other myths that are all obviously about hospitality, and, oh look, i was wrong, the offending town IS destroyed in the greek myth:rrhain's post #61 in this very thread.
EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19now, what are you're objections? and destruction of a "corporation" is a foreign concept to heroic cultures? or just that they would be held responsible, in this case for all of their own individual crimes as the story makes clear.in the greek story, everyone else is destroyed. there are mesopotamian myths that involve everyone being destoryed (such as the story noah was copied from). in gilgamesh story, a very obviously heroic tale, utnapishtim is a past hero, if ONLY because he survived the destruction of everyone else. this is not an unusual tale.and what exactly ARE you arguing, anyways? if their crime is homosexuality, isn't it the same issue of corporate responsibility? i know how the "real" sodom and gomorrah were destroyed. and it was conquest, as you say. they were both burnt the ground, actually. it had nothing to do with inhospitality or homosexuality, or anything. if the hebrew tale is based on these two sister cities, they've clearly but their moralistic spin (and cultural prejudice) on the story. welcome to traditional fiction.however, we are talking about THE STORY ITSELF. what does it mean? what is it saying? if it's not dealing with some kind of corporate responsibility, what IS IT dealing with? you're refuting a story as culturally inappropriate, but have failed to proved any explanation for the fact that it EXISTS.someone wrote this story, at some point in time. if they're not talking about hospitality, or even homosexuality, and some kind "corporate responsibility" for a city depicted as full of sinners, what is it talking about? show me another way to read it.if you're issue is the reality of the situation -- ignore it. it's fiction. treat it as such. i know a city couldn't possibly be full of only people who do evil their entire lives, but that IS the way the story is written. what does hospitality have to do with foriegners? helping the needy wh oare from the city and helping the needy from outside the city are essentially the same. in the story, the angels are in need of shelter for the night, and food. how is that different than a homeless man? no, apparently, you are not. you're basically denying a story exists, because for whatever reason it doesn't make sense. the story says the entire city was punished. when god's chatting with abraham, he speaks of the sin of THE ENTIRE CITY. if you're so familiar with it, please do tell what it's about, in terms other than "corporate responsibility."otherwise, if you can't find an alternative, stop arguing. yes, maybe i will. but i don't have much of a chance to get to library tonight at 2 am, and it's not on the internet.

Arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

oh. i must have missed that. been a while since i read any greek mythology, but i did think that was the case.

---

I didn't mention it and I see that in the process of my response, I may have been unclear.That is, you had said that there was a Greek myth where the gods went to town, got treated poorly except for one couple, so they destroyed everything in a flood and the couple repopulated the earth by planting bones to turn in more people.I pointed out that you had mixed up two myths. The first part of the gods being treated poorly is of Baucis and Philemon while the part of the world being destroyed in a flood and the survivors repopulating the earth by tossing stones over their shoulders is of Deucalion and Pyrrha.I had neglected to point out that in the B&P myth, the town got destroyed...in a flood, which may be why you mixed them together.My apologies for not giving all the details.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

paul is not what i would call logical. but what if the word simply means "rapist" and has nothing to do with the gender of the rapist and the victim? there's nothing in the context that indicates that it HAS to be homosexual, is there?

---

In "arsenkoitai"? Well, "arsen" means "male." And "koitai" literally means "couch" but it is a common euphemism for having sex, much like "bedding" means having sex in English.The question becomes, is this a term referring to what kind of sexual activity, who is doing it, and who is it being done to? There isn't much to indicate that it means what we would call "gay" by today's standards. Somewhere in the picture, a man is involved.And of course, for the umpteenth time, there was no word in Ancient Greek for the concept of what we call "homosexuality" today. How do you talk about something you don't have any words for?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

not up much on greek, sadly. (one of these days maybe i'll take a class...)but i did gather that much from the thread after posting. any ideas? i like the typical older man, younger boy idea myself. no, i suspect not. did they HAVE homosexual relationships like we have today?

er, i think that was someone else who had it mixed up.i was just pretty sure that gods did punish the inhospitable town (but not the rest of the world...) and got confused by you sorting out the other person.

As opposed to, of course, the Notorious B.I.G.:

quote:

---

why is it unsustainable? i've shown proof that societal generalization is common in genesis, that this story is similar to many other myths that are all obviously about hospitality, and, oh look, i was wrong, the offending town IS destroyed in the greek myth:

---

Its unsustainable becuase your claim is that this is one example of a thread of storytelling in which whole settlements are punished collectively for a lack of hospitality. There is no such strand in Heroic cultures. Even the Greek myth shows INDIVIDUALS being REWARDED for their PERSONAL generosity. Even if this myth was construed as being about corporate responsibility toward hospitality, it would be only one example, and insuffient support for your claim that the story is "obviously" one of "thousands" of "similar" stories.

quote:

---

and destruction of a "corporation" is a foreign concept to heroic cultures? or just that they would be held responsible, in this case for all of their own individual crimes as the story makes clear.

---

They would be held responsible for individual sins. So, if anyone had gone around claiming that god had wiped out Sodom for the sins of SOME of its citizens, that would have been perceived as an example of an unjust god, in the regional context. Thats exactly why the bible tries to make the whole city population individually sinful.

quote:

---

in the greek story, everyone else is destroyed. there are mesopotamian myths that involve everyone being destoryed (such as the story noah was copied from). in gilgamesh story, a very obviously heroic tale, utnapishtim is a past hero, if ONLY because he survived the destruction of everyone else. this is not an unusual tale.

---

I have dealt with the greek myth above - you are equally mistaken about the Mesopotamian myth. The key lies in Untapisthims actual involvement in the flood incident himself, not his subsequent appearance in Gilgamesh. The gods decide to extermiunate humanity as humans are making too much noise and hassle; Enlil resolves to do this via a flood. But Ea has a soft spot for humans and sends Ut. a vision warning him of wehat is going to happen. Ut. builds his boat and survives, but when Enlil finds this out he is enraged. But Ea argues back that such a mass punishment was wholly innapropriate, and argues instead:Ea opened his mouth to speak,
Saying to valiant Enlil:'Thou wisest of the gods, thou hero,
How couldst thou, unreasoning, bring on the deluge?
On the sinner impose his sin,
On the transgressor impose his transgression!(Yet) be lenient, lest he be cut off, Be patient,
lest he be dislodgedInstead of thy bringing on the deluge,
Would that a lion had risen up to diminish mankind!
Instead of thy brining on the deluge,
Would that a wolf had risen up to diminish mankind!
Instead of thy bringing on the deluge,
Would that a famine had risen up to lay low mankind!
Instead of thy bringing on the deluge,
Would that pestilence had risen up to smite down mankind!Thus, ea's argument is precisely that natural justice should have taken its the course and the individual sinner been individually punished, not all humanity wiped out. Furthermore, Ea goes on to escape Enlils wrath by pointing out that he didn't tell Ut. directly but instead sent him a vision - and Ea cannot be held responsible for Ut. correctly interpreting the vision.Theres no trace of colelctive responsibility in this myth - what it actually does is establish personal, rather than corporate, accountability as the right way to proceed.

quote:

---

and what exactly ARE you arguing, anyways? if their crime is homosexuality, isn't it the same issue of corporate responsibility?

---

The sum total of my argument is that it is invalid and wrong to claim that the biblical story of sodom is one of a series of stories about corporate responsibility, and so a corporate failure of hospitality cannot be construed as a satisfying reason for the events, whatever they were.

quote:

---

however, we are talking about THE STORY ITSELF. what does it mean? what is it saying? if it's not dealing with some kind of corporate responsibility, what IS IT dealing with? you're refuting a story as culturally inappropriate, but have failed to proved any explanation for the fact that it EXISTS.

---

Its a rationalisation of conquest, as you and I agree. Thats all that needs to be said. All the "moral turpitude" stuff is rationalisation. But it is still wrong to see this story as making an argument about corporate responsibility, becuase it is not.

quote:

---

someone wrote this story, at some point in time. if they're not talking about hospitality, or even homosexuality, and some kind "corporate responsibility" for a city depicted as full of sinners, what is it talking about? show me another way to read it.

---

"They were evil-doers and got what they deserved"

quote:

---

what does hospitality have to do with foriegners? helping the needy who are from the city and helping the needy from outside the city are essentially the same.

---

No, they are very very very far from the same thing. An outsider is not One Of Us. Those of us who are poor deserve to be poor. Those whom we encounter, and do not know to be justly poor, may have a claim on our duty of hospitality. Thats doesn't apply to enemy groups of course, but thats partly the point - hsopitality has quite a restricted context.

quote:

---

no, apparently, you are not. you're basically denying a story exists, because for whatever reason it doesn't make sense.

---

Thats total nonsense - all I have objected to is YOUR interpretation of what the story means. And I have objected on the basis that your proposed interpretation is at odds with regional cultural values, and would not have been recognised by people who lived at that time.

quote:

---

the story says the entire city was punished. when god's chatting with abraham, he speaks of the sin of THE ENTIRE CITY. if you're so familiar with it, please do tell what it's about, in terms other than "corporate responsibility."

---

Thats right, becuase they were ALL individually sinful, as the story strives to make plain. Its exactly NOT a story of corporate responsibility.

quote:

---

in the story, the angels are in need of shelter for the night, and food. how is that different than a homeless man?

---

In the local culture, only people with wealth travelled. Homeless people had to look after themselves - hospitality is a kind of political act. Travelling nobles can and do claim hospitality - the local poor are ignored, because they are deserving of their poverty.

quote:

---

otherwise, if you can't find an alternative, stop arguing.

---

I have done so repeatedly - the story is NOT a moral homily about the duty of hospitality, it is an assertion that the sinful suffered their deserved fate.