Was Sodom's sin, "hospitality"?

[jseek21]

Certain theologians these days believe that Sodom and Gommorah's sin was that they were not hospitible. They accept homosexuality as biblical. Do you believe this?

If you ask me, they were the most hospitible people in the bible! Think about it, these people came to Sodom and Gommorah and men young and old from every village came to meet them. hey, and the housekeeper even offered his neighbors his two virgin daughters! If that's not hospitality what is? Yet they went above and beyond and wanted these men sexually.

GROUND RULESM FOR THIS THREAD:
This is a Christian discussion.
We are not bashing homosexuals, or being hateful, yet pointing out possible falsehood, error, and conviction of sin is allowed.
God's Word is the final authority.
Stay within the forum rules.

[SpiritPsalmist]

Hospitality gone to new lengths I would say :D

According to the Bible, I beleive homosexuality to be sin.

[fragmentsofdreams]

jseek21 said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=644621#post644621)

Certain theologians these days believe that Sodom and Gommorah's sin was that they were not hospitible. They accept homosexuality as biblical. Do you believe this?

If you ask me, they were the most hospitible people in the bible! Think about it, these people came to Sodom and Gommorah and men young and old from every village came to meet them. hey, and the housekeeper even offered his neighbors his two virgin daughters! If that's not hospitality what is? Yet they went above and beyond and wanted these men sexually.

GROUND RULESM FOR THIS THREAD:
This is a Christian discussion.
We are not bashing homosexuals, or being hateful, yet pointing out possible falsehood, error, and conviction of sin is allowed.
God's Word is the final authority.
Stay within the forum rules.



Sodom sinned against hospitality. Lot invited the messengers of the Lord to stay in his home. When they accepted his invitation, Lot became obligated to care for and protect his guests. That night, the men of Sodom came to Lot's house in order to show their dominance over the foreigners. Because Lot was required to protect his guests, he pleaded to his neighbors for them to reconsider and offered them his virgin daughters in hope of changing their minds. However, the men of Sodom had no need to show their dominance over a pair of women because women were considered below men in social status. Their desire to show dominance over guests within their city was extremely inhospitable.

[seebs]

These are two very separate questions. Many people who consider homosexuality to be sinful based on other passages still think that the Sodom and Gomorrah story has nothing to do with homosexuality.

There are several references elsewhere in the Bible to the sins of Sodom; in no case is it "gay sex". Hospitality was a big deal.

To better understand the story in Genesis 19 about Lot and the angels, consider two things:

1. How does this relate to the story in Judges 19? Were those people being upheld as an example of morality?
2. If the angels had appeared as women, not men, do you think God would have approved of people gang-raping them?

I think it's pretty clear that the problem here isn't one of sexual orientation.

[Terri]

GE19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX with them."

Sex means Sex!  Since they were all men it would have been homosexual sex.  And yes homosexual sex is a sin!

It is amazing what lengths people will go to in an effort to say that the Bible doesn't say what it plainly says.  Don't fall for this trick of satan.

[seebs]

Terri, have you read Judges 19?

That one's about heterosexual sex, but the story is nearly identical. Do you think the message in Judges 19 is "go ahead, there's nothing wrong with this"?

The question here isn't "is homosexual sex sinful". It's "what were the sins of Sodom that angred God", and I think the Bible's pretty clear on it being mostly a question of inhospitality and lack of charity.

[Terri]

It's "what were the sins of Sodom that angred God", and I think the Bible's pretty clear on it being mostly a question of inhospitality and lack of charity.

That is ridiculous!

 

 

[EPHRIAM777]

[QUOTE][B]Today at 02:53 PM jseek21 said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=644621#post644621)

Certain theologians these days believe that Sodom and Gommorah's sin was that they were not hospitible. They accept homosexuality as biblical. Do you believe this?

If you ask me, they were the most hospitible people in the bible! Think about it, these people came to Sodom and Gommorah and men young and old from every village came to meet them. hey, and the housekeeper even offered his neighbors his two virgin daughters! If that's not hospitality what is? Yet they went above and beyond and wanted these men sexually.


Eph writes...

..Although homosexual relations were "part" of the sin problem...The hospitality of that place was not a part of ...OR a factor in the problem at all...!

Lawlessness and sin abounded there in many ways..!

[seebs]

Today at 04:55 PM Terri said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=644979#post644979)

That is ridiculous!

 

 



So, which part is ridiculous? Isaiah? Ezekiel? Christ?

All three of them refer to Sodom primarily in terms of hospitality.

It's not as if the Bible doesn't have a fair number of references back to Sodom, and they're always in contexts of hospitality, or charity.

It's worth giving it a quick read, and looking at what examples are focused on time and time again in showing the immorality of Sodom.

I don't think you fully understand the scope of "hospitality" in the time when the Sodom story was being written down for the first time. In much of the world, people raped strangers as a way of showing dominance; protecting your guests from this was considered a moral ideal by *many* religions and cultures in the area. This was a real and significant risk of travel. This makes "hospitality" in their context much more than "offering someone some cookies".

[EPHRIAM777]

Today at 04:31 PM fragmentsofdreams said t

Sodom sinned against hospitality. Lot invited the messengers of the Lord to stay in his home. When they accepted his invitation, Lot became obligated to care for and protect his guests. That night, the men of Sodom came to Lot's house in order to show their dominance over the foreigners.



Eph puzzled..ly asks....?

Thats an intresting play on words..you have there...!

""Dominance"" .... in what way did they wish to show their dominance...?

Playing baseball...?

They were way better baseball players...?

They "Dominated" all the other towns that were close by in the same league..?

Intresting use of that word...!

[Jeffer]

Hi, I thought I would post this verse, hope it helps.

 

Ezekiel 16
48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

[seebs]

Yup. And before anyone jumps on "abomination", that word refers to a great number of the Leviticus laws - we have no way of knowing which ones. If the people of Sodom had eaten shellfish, and never done anything else wrong, that part of the passage would be untouched.

Note that "pride" is listed first in this one. I think Isaiah is the one who talks about the hospitality issue.

[Jeffer]

Hi seebs, how are you refering Judges 19 to Sodom?

[seebs]

Today at 05:54 PM Jeffer said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645069#post645069)

Hi seebs, how are you refering Judges 19 to Sodom?




It is entirely possible that I've got my references wrong, but isn't Judges 19 the chapter where we have almost the same exact story - mob comes to rape people, etcetera - but it's heterosexual sex?

[Jeffer]

Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

Judges 19 speaks of  a Levite and his concubine.

[Terri]

Jude1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

To say it was a lack of hospitality and charity is ridiculous!  :D

I repeat:

It is amazing what lengths people will go to in an effort to say that the Bible doesn't say what it plainly says.  Don't fall for this trick of satan.

[seebs]

Today at 06:04 PM Jeffer said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645092#post645092)

Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.


Er, yeah. That says nothing about what their sins *were*.


Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


"heteros sarx", in the Greek. "Other flesh". Not "same flesh".

One way to interpret this rationally would be to ponder the question of whether angels are unlike us.


Judges 19 speaks of  a Levite and his concubine.


Yes.

And Judges 19:22 or so is pretty much the same situation as the thing with Lot's house in Genesis 19.

So, does this tell us that "all heterosexual sex is wrong", or that *something else* is wrong? Perhaps *RAPE*? I know it sounds wacky, but I have come to believe that God may think rape is
wrong *no matter what genders are involved*.

[seebs]

Today at 06:19 PM Terri said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645119#post645119)

[b]Jude1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

To say it was a lack of hospitality and charity is ridiculous!  :D




This is the third time you've refused to discuss Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Christ, all of whom said otherwise. We've even had the posts in this VERY THREAD.

Maybe you're right. Maybe you know God's mind better than Ezekiel did; after all, Ezekiel wasn't even a Christian. And we can throw out Isaiah for the same reason. And hey, Christ only mentioned Sodom in passing, maybe He didn't really know anything about it, and He was just mistakenly using it as a symbol of inhospitality.

However, on the off chance that Ezekiel might have been aware of something, let's look at what he said about this:

Ezekiel 16:47-49
47
Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their
abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast
corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
48
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor
her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters,
neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Hmm. That's odd. It's almost as though pride is a bigger deal to God than whatever else Sodom did. In fact, Ezekiel points out that, while lacking the ritual abominations of Sodom, the Israelites are *MORE* corrupted! More corrupted how? Why, in pride, and laziness, and lack of charity.

One could almost conclude that perhaps God is more concerned with lack of charity than with many other sins; this would explain why Christ preached about it constantly.

But, hey, what do I know, I'm just reading the Bible.

[Live4Jesus]

I'm going to assume that men and women see certain issues differently.

perhaps if they were women, approached by a mob of gang rapers, they would change their minds...

[Terri]

But, hey, what do I know 



We finally agree! :P

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 05:40 PM EPHRIAM777 said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645039#post645039)

Today at 04:31 PM fragmentsofdreams said t

Sodom sinned against hospitality. Lot invited the messengers of the Lord to stay in his home. When they accepted his invitation, Lot became obligated to care for and protect his guests. That night, the men of Sodom came to Lot's house in order to show their dominance over the foreigners.



Eph puzzled..ly asks....?

Thats an intresting play on words..you have there...!

""Dominance"" .... in what way did they wish to show their dominance...?

Playing baseball...?

They were way better baseball players...?

They "Dominated" all the other towns that were close by in the same league..?

Intresting use of that word...!



When young male primates take the female sexual position in the presence of a stronger male, it is not because they are offering sex. They are taking on the position of the female and showing that they are of a lower position than the stronger male. In the same way, the men of Sodom wanted to show their dominance by forcing Lot's guests into the female sexual position, lowering them to the status of women.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 07:11 PM Live4Jesus said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645223#post645223)

I'm going to assume that men and women see certain issues differently.

perhaps if they were women, approached by a mob of gang rapers, they would change their minds...



We are not denying that the men of Sodom intended to rape Lot's guests. We are disagreeing about whether it was for sexual pleasure or social dominance.

[caley]

Terri, you need to learn to back up your arguments with evidence instead of accusing those who disagree with you as "falling for the tricks of Satan." In Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible describes a situation where there is an attempted gang-rape. The implication is that this stuff has been going on for a while and God is sick of it. So he destroys them. That's my reading of it. The fact that it is homosexual gang-rape and not heterosexual gang-rape is inconsequential.

[caley]

Today at 09:18 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645472#post645472)

We are not denying that the men of Sodom intended to rape Lot's guests. We are disagreeing about whether it was for sexual pleasure or social dominance.



Why does it matter?

[Terri]

Today at 10:23 PM caley said this in Post #23 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645629#post645629)

Terri, you need to learn to back up your arguments with evidence instead of accusing those who disagree with you as "falling for the tricks of Satan." In Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible describes a situation where there is an attempted gang-rape. The implication is that this stuff has been going on for a while and God is sick of it. So he destroys them. That's my reading of it. The fact that it is homosexual gang-rape and not heterosexual gang-rape is inconsequential.



Bless your heart-- it clearly states that it is homosexual as my evidence has already shown.

[kern]

A further reference is found in the book of Wisdom chapter 19, which mentions only their inhospitality as the reason for their destruction, as well as Sirach 16 which only mentions pride.

So we have five separate Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah which mention pride, inhospitality, and refusal to help those in need. We have zero Old Testament references to S&G which mention sex of any type, let alone homosexual sex.

Add to this Jesus' words about the cities that are inhospitable to the disciples -- it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for those towns on the day of judgment.

People usually quote around 6 separate places in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned, but not a single one of those mention Sodom and Gomorrah.

How can anyone say it's "nonsense" that S&G's sin was pride or inhospitality? This is not some new theory, it's what the Bible says about S&G!

This is *not* an issue about whether or not homosexuality is condemned by the Bible -- there are other verses you can use besides S&G.

-Chris

[Terri]

Today at 09:18 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645472#post645472)

We are not denying that the men of Sodom intended to rape Lot's guests. We are disagreeing about whether it was for sexual pleasure or social dominance.



http://luvjc.net/emoticons/laughing/0013.gif


I don't think it would have mattered to the victims.

[Terri]

Today at 10:38 PM kern said this in Post #26 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645651#post645651)


So we have five separate Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah which mention pride, inhospitality, and refusal to help those in need. We have zero Old Testament references to S&G which mention sex of any type, let alone homosexual sex.



Your definitely wrong on that!

GE19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX with them."

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 10:24 PM caley said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645632#post645632)

Why does it matter?



It only matters when people think see rape as normal unless the victim is a man.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Terri -

What, according to Scripture, is identified as the sin of Sodom?

[caley]

Today at 10:30 PM Terri said this in Post #25 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645641#post645641)

Bless your heart-- it clearly states that it is homosexual as my evidence has already shown.




I have seen no evidence, simply a repeated bible verse with the words "know them carnally" replaced by the words "have sex with them" (wording that no version of the Bible I know of uses).  Now, if the wording was "have sex with them," and it was originally written in English (which we know it was not), I could understand a "sex is inequal to rape" argument, and you would have something to stand on.  However, the usual interpretation is "know them carnally," and it was not written in English, so we can assume "know them carnally" could mean either sex or rape.  Looking closer at the story, we see that the men were attempting to break down the door to get inside in order to "know them carnally."  I don't understand how someone whose intent was not rape would be trying to break down someone else's door for sex.

[seebs]

Today at 10:30 PM Terri said this in Post #25 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645641#post645641)

Bless your heart-- it clearly states that it is homosexual as my evidence has already shown.



So what?

The only way that allows us to conclude "the story is about how bad homosexuality is", would be if, if we take out the homosexuality, there's no longer anything wrong.

So, for us to be able to draw that conclusion, we'd need to believe that, if a group of men wanted to gang-rape some angels, but the angels had *female* bodies, it would be morally acceptable to God.

Otherwise, we really don't care whether it's homosexual (as in Genesis 19) or heterosexual (as in Judges 19) - when a group of people wants to rape one of your guests, you are obliged to protect the guest, and the group of people can be judged to be acting in an immoral way.

[Terri]

Yesterday at 11:08 PM caley said this in Post #31 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645717#post645717)

I have seen no evidence, simply a repeated bible verse with the words "know them carnally" replaced by the words "have sex with them" (wording that no version of the Bible I know of uses).  Now, if the wording was "have sex with them," and it was originally written in English (which we know it was not), I could understand a "sex is inequal to rape" argument, and you would have something to stand on.  However, the usual interpretation is "know them carnally," and it was not written in English, so we can assume "know them carnally" could mean either sex or rape.  Looking closer at the story, we see that the men were attempting to break down the door to get inside in order to "know them carnally."  I don't understand how someone whose intent was not rape would be trying to break down someone else's door for sex.



So are you saying that if it was rape then it wasn't sex.  I thought when someone was raped that there was sex involved.  Are you saying that rape of one man by another man is not homosexual sex.  What are you saying.

[Terri]

Yesterday at 11:24 PM seebs said this in Post #32 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645753#post645753)

So what?

The only way that allows us to conclude "the story is about how bad homosexuality is", would be if, if we take out the homosexuality, there's no longer anything wrong.

So, for us to be able to draw that conclusion, we'd need to believe that, if a group of men wanted to gang-rape some angels, but the angels had *female* bodies, it would be morally acceptable to God.

Otherwise, we really don't care whether it's homosexual (as in Genesis 19) or heterosexual (as in Judges 19) - when a group of people wants to rape one of your guests, you are obliged to protect the guest, and the group of people can be judged to be acting in an immoral way.



In case it is not clear to you--rape is always wrong whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.

That does not change the fact that homosexual sex is a sin.



 

[kern]

Right, homosexual rape is a sin. But you cannot use the Sodom story alone to say that homosexuality is a sin, because "homosexual rape" and "homosexuality" have the same relationship as "heterosexual rape" and "heterosexuality". So if you could use Sodom as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, then you could use any Biblical story of heterosexual rape (like Judges 19) as a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.

-Chris

[Jeffer]

Angels in the Bible were always male, every time.

[seebs]

Today at 01:52 AM Terri said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645971#post645971)

So are you saying that if it was rape then it wasn't sex.  I thought when someone was raped that there was sex involved.  Are you saying that rape of one man by another man is not homosexual sex.  What are you saying.



I'm saying that, if the only homosexual sex involved is rape, being told that "this was sinful" doesn't tell us anything about homosexual sex.

To learn from a condemnation of a specific action that some component of the action is sinful, we must know that the other components aren't.

[seebs]

Today at 02:03 AM Terri said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645985#post645985)

In case it is not clear to you--rape is always wrong whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.

That does not change the fact that homosexual sex is a sin.





But it does mean that the story of Sodom is talking about rape, not homosexuality. So, the case for considering homosexuality sinful must be based on things other than the Sodom story.

[seebs]

Today at 12:06 PM Jeffer said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646576#post646576)

Angels in the Bible were always male, every time.



Hebrews in the Bible wouldn't have listened to women. I don't think angels actually have gender until they choose one to appear to us.

[Jeffer]

Why would they always be refered to as men then?

[seebs]

Today at 12:26 PM Jeffer said this in Post #40 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646625#post646625)

Why would they always be refered to as men then?



Because humans are not well-equipped to understand a "person" who is neither male nor female; in many human languages, there's no way to say "it" that doesn't imply a non-person. Furthermore, if you were appearing to a very patriarchal culture, and needed them to listen to you, you'd probably appear as a male, given the choice.

[fragmentsofdreams]

They took the form of men. That does not mean that they could not take the form of women if it suited their purposes. Angels don't have bodies of their own and they don't reproduce, so the concepts of male and female are largely irrelevent to them.

[kern]

Which is why it's much more likely that Jude's "going after strange flesh" refers to sex with angels rather than homosexual sex.

-Chris

[EPHRIAM777]

fragmentsofdreams writes..!

When young male primates take the female sexual position in the presence of a stronger male, it is not because they are offering sex. They are taking on the position of the female and showing that they are of a lower position than the stronger male. In the same way, the men of Sodom wanted to show their dominance by forcing Lot's guests into the female sexual position, lowering them to the status of women. [/B]



Eph wonders...

(( How can someone "get" and "read in" all that extra information...from the text as if it's actually provided from the scripture...??? ))

Eph writes...

Nice try Fragg....but I'm not buyin it...! You "assumption" on what scripture says...doesn't mesh with what the scriptures DO say...! The connection you make are therefore unfounded...!

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 01:00 PM EPHRIAM777 said this in Post #44 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646686#post646686)

fragmentsofdreams writes..!

When young male primates take the female sexual position in the presence of a stronger male, it is not because they are offering sex. They are taking on the position of the female and showing that they are of a lower position than the stronger male. In the same way, the men of Sodom wanted to show their dominance by forcing Lot's guests into the female sexual position, lowering them to the status of women.



Eph wonders...

(( How can someone "get" and "read in" all that extra information...from the text as if it's actually provided from the scripture...??? ))

Eph writes...

Nice try Fragg....but I'm not buyin it...! You "assumption" on what scripture says...doesn't mesh with what the scriptures DO say...! The connection you make are therefore unfounded...! [/B]



Scripture states the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests. It doesn't say why. By looking at history we can see that raping strangers was an act of dominence in parts of the ancient world. It is sensible to conclude that the actions of the men of Sodom were part of this larger phenomenon.

Please point to where my statements contradict Scripture.

[jseek21]

Remember guys, the Bible is the final authority, not primates and sociology.

[Jeffer]

Angels who fell - sin was related to sex.

Genesis 6
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.



Sodom & Gommorrah.  Sin was also related to sex.
2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

 

 

Jude 1:6   And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7   Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8   Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

[caley]

Today at 07:30 AM kern said this in Post #35 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646238#post646238)

Right, homosexual rape is a sin. But you cannot use the Sodom story alone to say that homosexuality is a sin, because "homosexual rape" and "homosexuality" have the same relationship as "heterosexual rape" and "heterosexuality". So if you could use Sodom as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, then you could use any Biblical story of heterosexual rape (like Judges 19) as a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.

-Chris



That's what I was trying to say.

[seebs]

Today at 01:19 PM jseek21 said this in Post #46 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646715#post646715)

Remember guys, the Bible is the final authority, not primates and sociology.



Yes, but *understanding* the Bible requires us to have some idea what's going on. If you don't know how the Jews felt about the Samaritans, you won't understand the parable of the Good Samaritan.

[seebs]

Today at 01:39 PM Jeffer said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646773#post646773)

Angels who fell - sin was related to sex.

I don't see anything in it saying "sin was related to sex".


[B]Sodom & Gommorrah.  Sin was also related to sex.

Strangely, everyone who believes this seems to carefully avoid responding to Ezekiel's statements on the issue.


2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)


Er. Where does that say anything about sex? That description fits what the Bible *SAYS* Sodom is about just as well - pride, laziness, and lack of charity.


Jude 1:6   And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7   Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8   Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.



Okay, so, out of several commentaries on Sodom, you found *one* that refers to some kind of sexual sin - but "rape" is sexual sin, and fornication, and trying to have sex with angels would be "heteros sarx" indeed.

Still nowhere near any support for that position.

[Terri]

Jude1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

This makes it quite clear for anyone looking for the truth!



 

[caley]

But the Jude verse does not explicitly state "homosexuality," it states "sexual immorality and perversion." Those words could easily be interepreted as "rape" and not necessarily "homosexuality."

[kern]

Depending on the Bible version, it doesn't even say that -- the KJV says "going after strange flesh". The greek words are "sarkos heteras", sarkos = flesh, heteras = different.

It seems like homosexuality would be something like "sarkos homos" :)

TNIV: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
Nestle 27: ton omoion tropon toutoiV ekporneusasai kai apelqousai opisw sarkoV eteraV
ESV: "...which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,..."
HCSB: "...committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions,..."
KJV: "...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,..."
NASB95: "...indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,..."
NIV: "... gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
NIVI: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and percersion."
NKJV: "...having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh,..."
NLT: "...which were filled with sexual immorality and every kind of sexual perversion."
NRSV: "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust,..."
RSV: "...which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust,..."

"sexual immorality" in this sense more likely means rape than just basic homosexuality.

-Chris

[caley]

Today at 03:38 PM kern said this in Post #53 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647007#post647007)

Depending on the Bible version, it doesn't even say that -- the KJV says "going after strange flesh". The greek words are "sarkos heteras", sarkos = flesh, heteras = different.

It seems like homosexuality would be something like "sarkos homos" :)

TNIV: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
Nestle 27: ton omoion tropon toutoiV ekporneusasai kai apelqousai opisw sarkoV eteraV
ESV: "...which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,..."
HCSB: "...committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions,..."
KJV: "...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,..."
NASB95: "...indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,..."
NIV: "... gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
NIVI: "...gave themselves up to sexual immorality and percersion."
NKJV: "...having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh,..."
NLT: "...which were filled with sexual immorality and every kind of sexual perversion."
NRSV: "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust,..."
RSV: "...which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust,..."

"sexual immorality" in this sense more likely means rape than just basic homosexuality.

-Chris




Don't fall for this trick of Satan.

[Terri]

Today at 03:42 PM caley said this in Post #54 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647014#post647014)

Don't fall for this trick of Satan.



Thanks for that reminder Caley!!

[seebs]

Today at 03:26 PM Terri said this in Post #51 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646981#post646981)

Jude1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

This makes it quite clear for anyone looking for the truth!



 



Er. Wouldn't "anyone looking for the truth" start by reading *ALL* of the references, not steadfastly refusing to even admit that Ezekiel and Isaiah existed?

[Texas Lynn]

Yesterday at 07:52 AM Terri said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645971#post645971)

So are you saying that if it was rape then it wasn't sex.  I thought when someone was raped that there was sex involved.  Are you saying that rape of one man by another man is not homosexual sex.  What are you saying.



Most men who commit rape of other males---whether they are convicts in prison, soldiers in the field, cowboys on the range, or whatever----do not generally perceive of themselves as homosexual.  It is an action of dominance which has a sexual component but is completely separate from sexual orientation.  Interestingly, in severe gay-bashing incidents it has been documented that violent heterosexual young males will often not only brutally rape lesbians, but they will also do the same thing to gay males and often cite Christian beliefs as the reason why they have done so. 

This says absolutely nothing about sexual orientation and loving same gender relationships. 

[Terri]

Today at 06:31 PM seebs said this in Post #56 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647403#post647403)

Er. Wouldn't "anyone looking for the truth" start by reading *ALL* of the references, not steadfastly refusing to even admit that Ezekiel and Isaiah existed?



Who has said that Ezekeil and Isaiah don't exist?  Not I--Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly existed and the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly exist!  ;)

If you would like to post some quotes from these books to discuss feel free.

[seebs]

Today at 06:45 PM Terri said this in Post #58 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647441#post647441)

Who has said that Ezekeil and Isaiah don't exist?  Not I--Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly existed and the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah certainly exist!  ;)

If you would like to post some quotes from these books to discuss feel free.




I posted them several times already.

Ezekiel 16:47-49

47
Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their
abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast
corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
48
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor
her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters,
neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

---

In this case, we find clearly that any abominations (whether it's sex, shellfish, or mixed fabrics) that Sodom may have committed were *not* the important thing; it was pride, greed, laziness, and lack of charity.

No reference back to the Sodom story ever talks about "homosexual sex". The only that even hints at anything other than general fornication (which, as you may have heard, is most often heterosexual) is Jude, and Jude's reference is almost certainly to the flesh of angels, not the flesh of humans.

The idea that the Sodom story is about male/male sex, instead of all the things the Bible clearly talks about, was not part of the original understanding of the story; it was invented hundreds of years later, and flatly contradicts Ezekiel's description of Sodom's sins.

Christ Himself used Sodom as an examplar of inhospitality. The whole thing about "shake the dust from your feet" is about *inhospitable* people, and Christ uses Sodom as an example of what happens to inhospitable people. Why? Because He, like every other person of His time who read Scripture, thought the story was about gross inhospitality.

[Terri]

Seebs, do you really think sexual sins are  less important than other sins?

The Bible says the opposite.

1CO 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

I would say that the fact that all of the men gathered around Lots' and wanted to have sex with what they thought were men does hint at homosexual sex.  It says nothing in the Bible to indicate that these men realized that the men staying with Lot were angels.  They specifically asked for "the men."    

 

Here is another hint:

LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

EZE 16:50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Jesus was not talking about hospitality.  He was talking about those who did not accept the teaching that the Kindgom of God was near. In other words they were rejecting Him.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Saying that homosexual sex is the sin of Sodom is no better than saying the sin of Judas was suicide. It is a sign that you have completely missed the point.

[seebs]

Today at 08:11 PM Terri said this in Post #60 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647638#post647638)

Seebs, do you really think sexual sins are  less important than other sins?




No, I think that, *of the sins for which Sodom was destroyed*, the primary ones are those Ezekiel listed, and that homosexuality was not even on the radar. If no person in Sodom had ever been anything but heterosexual in thought or deed, the city would have been destroyed, and for exactly the same reasons God cited.

To recap:

Ezekiel lists the sins of Sodom. Sexual sins are not prominent in this list, although he mentions them in passing. The sins he focuses on most are also sins Jesus regularly talked about - lack of charity, pride, and laziness.

To say that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality is to flatly contradict Ezekiel's testimony, and to cast doubt on the teachings of Jesus, both of whom used Sodom as an example of a place lacking in hospitality and charity.

If Sodom had been destroyed because of homosexuality, Ezekiel 16:49 would have said "Behold, this was the inquity of thy sister Sodom, men lying with other men". But, see, that's *not* what Ezekiel said. He named pride first.

As to the question of what Jesus meant when He used Sodom as an example, He was talking about how His disciples should deal with people who did not receive them with hospitality, and the example He used to support His point fits that well.

If the men of Sodom had raped the angels, would the sex involved have been homosexual? Probably. But we have no reason to believe that this was *THE* reason it would have been wrong! Rape is wrong for reasons that remain the same whether both parties are the same sex, or whether they're of different sexes.

There are many things described as being wrong about Sodom. However, there is no evidence that homosexuality is even *significant* among them.

If we were to take your argument, and apply it to the story in Judges 19, we would conclude that, since a mob raping a woman is "heterosexual", that the problem with those people was "heterosexual sex". Obviously, this is not the case.

[Terri]

Today at 10:06 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #61 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647919#post647919)

Saying that homosexual sex is the sin of Sodom is no better than saying the sin of Judas was suicide. It is a sign that you have completely missed the point.





Maybe you have missed the point. ;)

Never once have I said that homosexual sex was the only sin in Sodom.  

I am sure they had every sin I can imagine and probably some I can't imagine.  But, I do believe that homosexual sex was one of them. 

 

 

[seebs]

Today at 10:31 PM Terri said this in Post #63 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647979#post647979)



Maybe you have missed the point. ;)

Never once have I said that homosexual sex was the only sin in Sodom.  

I am sure they had every sin I can imagine and probably some I can't imagine.  But, I do believe that homosexual sex was one of them. 




Ahh. I think the point of this debate was that many people believe it was *THE* thing for which Sodom was destroyed. *THE* thing. Not *A* thing. I think this contradicts what the Bible says about the issue.

Personally, I can't find any evidence to support either claim; there is some general commentary about sexual immorality, but rape is immoral enough already that I don't think I can draw any conclusions from it, and there's plenty of other kinds of sexual immorality. There's nothing that is clearly specific to male/male sexual interactions, where it wouldn't have been a problem if it had been male/female, so it's hard to draw useful conclusions.

[Terri]

Yesterday at 10:34 PM seebs said this in Post #64 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=647987#post647987)

Ahh. I think the point of this debate was that many people believe it was *THE* thing for which Sodom was destroyed. *THE* thing. Not *A* thing. I think this contradicts what the Bible says about the issue.

Personally, I can't find any evidence to support either claim; there is some general commentary about sexual immorality, but rape is immoral enough already that I don't think I can draw any conclusions from it, and there's plenty of other kinds of sexual immorality. There's nothing that is clearly specific to male/male sexual interactions, where it wouldn't have been a problem if it had been male/female, so it's hard to draw useful conclusions.



 :D Are you sure that was the point of the debate?  I wasn't debating that point. 

Sometimes it is fun to let people argue against what they think you are saying rather than what you are actually saying. ;)

[fragmentsofdreams]

The OP stated that inhospitality was unrelated to Sodom. That was the point of the debate.

[jseek21]

thx fragment

[Terri]

Could someone plainly state the two sides of the debate so I would know which one I am on? :D

I could also use a definition of inhospitable.  I'm not sure my definition is the same as everyones.

This is what the dictionary says:

1) not showing hospitality: not friendly or receptive 
2) providing no shelter or sustenance

 

[jseek21]

the two camps:
1, hospitality was the fault of sodom which caused their demise
2, homosexuality was

[Terri]

Today at 01:46 PM jseek21 said this in Post #69 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649125#post649125)

the two camps:
1, hospitality was the fault of sodom which caused their demise
2, homosexuality was






 I just can't see what hospitality has to do with it.

So, given those choices, I choose homosexuality. ;) [never thought I would say that :D ]

Does the fact that there is a word derived from Sodom that applies to homosexuality carry any weight?

[seebs]

Today at 01:23 PM Terri said this in Post #68 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649044#post649044)

Could someone plainly state the two sides of the debate so I would know which one I am on? :D

I could also use a definition of inhospitable.  I'm not sure my definition is the same as everyones.

This is what the dictionary says:

1) not showing hospitality: not friendly or receptive 
2) providing no shelter or sustenance

 





That would be it, yes. At the time when these things happened, hospitality included protecting guests, rather than gang-raping them, which was the subtle point the people of Sodom seemed to have missed. (That this was an issue at all is clear when we read of the same abuse occurring in Judges 19.)

[seebs]

Today at 02:11 PM Terri said this in Post #70 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649189#post649189)

 I just can't see what hospitality has to do with it.


There were specific rules of hospitality, which the men of Sodom broke, and thoroughly. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with asserting dominance over strangers - which was, at the time, a practice generally regarded as inhospitable, but widely known to occur anyway.


Does the fact that there is a word derived from Sodom that applies to homosexuality carry any weight?



No, not at all; that derivation occurred only a few thousand years *after* the story was written, and a good solid thousand years after Christ used Sodom as an example of inhospitable people.

[kern]

Today at 02:11 PM Terri said this in Post #70 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649189#post649189)

 I just can't see what hospitality has to do with it.

So, given those choices, I choose homosexuality. ;) [never thought I would say that :D ]

Does the fact that there is a word derived from Sodom that applies to homosexuality carry any weight?



I don't agree with the post you responded to.

I think there are two (perhaps 2 has an a and a b) sides to this debate:

1. The chief sin of Sodom was homosexuality, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a great example of God's displeasure towards homosexual relationships.

2a. Sodom was guilty of many sins, which included inhospitality, pride, idolatry, and "sexual immorality". One of their sins was homosexuality.

2b. Sodom was guilty of many sins, which included inhospitality, pride, idolatry, and "sexual immorality". However, because the story contains only homosexual rape, it cannot be used as proof of God being against homosexuality.

-Chris

[Andrew]

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sodom certainly had all types of sins, but fornication and homosexuality stood out.

[kern]

They stood out to Jude (if you interpret "strange flesh" as homosexuality). Ezekiel and Isaiah don't mention homosexuality, rather they mention pride, idolatry, and inhospitality.

Basically, Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many sins, and different biblical authors chose to emphasize different sins.

But "homosexuality" is simply being attracted to men, and there's no real evidence of that in the S&G story. They were about to rape the angels, but that's not "homosexuality" any more than a man raping a woman is "heterosexuality".

-Chris

[Job_38]

They seemed pretty hospitable to me...eww.

Kern, they thought they were two men...

[seebs]

13th February 2003 at 03:39 AM Andrew said this in Post #74 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650422#post650422)

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sodom certainly had all types of sins, but fornication and homosexuality stood out.


Except that "going after strange flesh" would be bestiality, or perhaps pursuing angels. No one could ever make "HETEROS SARX" into "homosexuality"; it's as far from homosexuality as you can easily express in Greek.

[seebs]

Today at 01:01 AM Job_38 said this in Post #76 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656149#post656149)

They seemed pretty hospitable to me...eww.

Kern, they thought they were two men...


Yes, but Jude didn't, so Jude was probably talking about the angels thing.

As to the men... Prison rape isn't "homosexuality", it's rape. Rape is not about sexual attraction; rape is about asserting dominance. Why would this be any different?

[Jeffer]

13th February 2003 at 09:39 AM Andrew said this in Post

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sodom certainly had all types of sins, but fornication and homosexuality stood out.



Yes In Gods eyes they did.

[kern]

Today at 09:38 AM Jeffer said this in Post #79 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656424#post656424)

Yes In Gods eyes they did.



Prove it. We have showed six biblical references that say S&G's sins were pride, inhospitality, and idolatry. You can find two references that mention sexual sins of any sort, but neither of them are clearly homosexuality.

-Chris

[Jeffer]

[i]10th February 2003 at 07:53 PM jseek21 said this in Post
Certain theologians these days believe that Sodom and Gommorah's sin was that they were not hospitible. They accept homosexuality as biblical. Do you believe this?

If you ask me, they were the most hospitible people in the bible! Think about it, these people came to Sodom and Gommorah and men young and old from every village came to meet them. hey, and the housekeeper even offered his neighbors his two virgin daughters! If that's not hospitality what is? Yet they went above and beyond and wanted these men sexually.

GROUND RULESM FOR THIS THREAD:
This is a Christian discussion.
We are not bashing homosexuals, or being hateful, yet pointing out possible falsehood, error, and conviction of sin is allowed.
God's Word is the final authority.
Stay within the forum rules.



I don't see anywhere in Gods word a reference to Sodoms sin having anything to do with being hospitible or not,  Or how not being hospitible could be a abomination in Gods eyes.

[kern]

Please read all the posts in the thread, then. The scripture references have been posted, and the explanation for why inhospitality is an abomination has been posted as well.

-Chris

[MizDoulos]

Reminder:&nbsp&nbspSince the Non-Denominational Protestant Forum Rules are new, I will post a portion appropriate to this discussion as a reminder to all. Please read them carefully:


1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed members, as well as Non-Denominational Christian members can post fellowship threads here as well as debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Protestant members (eg. Catholic members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Protestant or Evangelical doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Protestant. Any debate posts by Non-Protestants will be deleted or moved to the Interdenominational Doctrine Debate forum. In other words, only Protestant members can debate here.

[kern]

Oops, I didn't even notice this was in the Protestant section. Sorry!

-Chris

[jseek21]

well since I started this thread I would like anyone (protestant, catholic, black, white, blue, green, ect.) to reply to it. whatever section this belongs in put it there. This is kind of an experiment for me; so far it's working well.

[seebs]

16th February 2003 at 11:05 AM Jeffer said this in Post #81 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656502#post656502)

I don't see anywhere in Gods word a reference to Sodoms sin having anything to do with being hospitible or not,  Or how not being hospitible could be a abomination in Gods eyes.


When the standard of "hospitality" is "do not gang-rape strangers", I think it's pretty clear how inhospitality could be an abomination in God's eyes. More generally, the Bible is full of condemnations of people who sit around being proud that they aren't doing anything specifically gross, but who don't clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and generally support those needier than themselves. Indeed, in one of the passages referring to Sodom, the Israelites are told that their lack of charity is *worse* than the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah!

Anyway, if you don't see any references to this, despite having several relevant passages posted a few times in this thread, there's not much I can do for you. It's there. It's been posted. It's been posted more than once. It's been discussed, and analyzed, and pointed out, repeatedly. Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Christ all talk about Sodom. Christ uses it as an example of an inhospitable place. Ezekiel and Isaiah go on about it at length.

If you wish, you can of course ignore these, and make the story be about whatever you want. The chances are that any modern fire-and-brimstone church has a much better understanding of that story than any of God's boring old prophets; you'll show *them* who's boss.

[seebs]

BTW, something that just occurred to me the other day, which I have not seen considered in any of these debates:

If these men were really homosexuals seeking homosexual sex, why didn't they just go rent a room?

They didn't grab Lot when he came out to talk to them. They didn't want his daughters. They didn't want each other.

Whatever they wanted, Lot didn't have it, his daughters didn't have it, and none of *them* had it either. It can't have been "male bodies" or "female bodies". It *must* have been the strangers themselves, not because they were men (men were in plentiful supply in this story), but either because they were strangers, or because they were angels. Those are the only things the strangers had that no one else present had.

Jude argues for the angel interpretation with the reference to "HETEROS SARX" - "other flesh". You could make that fit "strangers" pretty well, too.