Welcome to Gaia! ::


Edit: Addressed more calmly in the next post.
Like Whoa!
Deep Vermillion
Like Whoa!
Brynn Marcus
And besides- this whole thread is irrelevant since God had decided to destroy the cities BEFORE the whole gangrape incident. Though Abraham was arguing against it.


..what? he destroyed it because it was a consistent behaviour.
Yes, consistent behaviour of:

"pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Note the singular form in: "50They were haughty and did an abomination before me."

Likewise, Brynn makes an excellent point. Genesis 19:13 "[...]The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.". They had come to destroy it, they didn't decide to destroy it while there.

that is because they were committing homosexuality consistently, and it was not as a direct consequence to this partcular incident.


Historical evidence flatly declares that you are wrong. Martti Nissinen, in his research on the subject of Homoeroticism in the Biblical World remained biblically conservative in his view that biblical attitudes condemn homosexuality. However, his evidence on many points is of immense value in understanding such things as Canaanite attitudes towards sexuality. (You know, the things you COMPLETELY IGNORED)

What does he say of gay sex in Mesopotamia?

"Ancient Near Eastern sources document same-sex erotic interaction meagerly and ambiguously. The available material comes mostly from Mesopotamia. With regard to other significant cultures of that area, those of Egypt and Ugarit, for instance, we are left almost entirely in the dark."

He goes on for pages on the matter. Some dissaproved, most said next to nothing, some approved. And these are the societies after the period of Sodom and Gomorrah. If foundational beliefs had held universally that such behavior was condemnable, then more would be available on the subject. Instead, spotty records with mixed reviews crop up.

You're flat wrong.
Like Whoa!
as for that, it is absolute opinion - rather than looking at the actual information we do have straight from the book, its making guesses at how life and social structure probably was at the time it was written, and factoring those guesses in to make a final product that can only be made with the use of speculation.


Oh the delicious irony, coming from the lips of someone whose opinion is that Enosh = Ish. *spits* You have no right to pull this claim, you who butcher the Hebrew language.

Your attacks are nothing but personal opinion, unfounded by anything remotely akin to basic Hebrew knowledge. You flunk Hebrew. Congratulations.
Does it matter what your book says? Why should it. If you havea couple of hundred other texts which one is by god? Look beyond the words in your book, realise god doesn't care a monkey's toss for what humanity does - god is humanity, god is everything - realise this, so when somone is homosexual they are god and when somone is an ignorant book bashing homophobe they are still god. I find any postion based on the bible indefensible as first you have to prove that their is a single god entity and that these are his words.
Asharu
lavothas
i was saying that to believe paradise lost is the truth is ludacris


I hate to nitpick, but would it kill you to spell the word properly?

Ludicrous.

Unless you seriously mean to tell us that believing such things is the rapper.


heh, sorry, my type quality goes down quite a bit the faster i type but yeah i did meen ludicrous

*heads off to correct posts
Frog-dancer
Does it matter what your book says? Why should it. If you havea couple of hundred other texts which one is by god? Look beyond the words in your book, realise god doesn't care a monkey's toss for what humanity does - god is humanity, god is everything - realise this, so when somone is homosexual they are god and when somone is an ignorant book bashing homophobe they are still god. I find any postion based on the bible indefensible as first you have to prove that their is a single god entity and that these are his words.
Comments of "Does it matter what your book says?" are useless in a discussion of the particulars of that book. Further, there is one primary text and a host of derived texts with a limited number of fringe texts that contradict the primary and are of dubious origins. So "hundred other texts" isn't particularly accurate.
Hundreds of other books refers mainly to Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Islamic, ect books. I just think it's insane to make an argument about wether or not something is right according to the paticulars of a book which has debatable relevance. Especially since god is not one single entty and therefore cannot speak with a single voice into a single text. But If I were to be arguing within the constrains of your fairytales about an angry god punishing sinners, then quite frankly I couldn't cvare less either way.
Like Whoa!
Ok, so people are rationalizing that Homosexuality is not banned by the bible. that Sodom and Gomorrah was not burned down because of the act of homosexuality. well, im going to show, the pure words straight from the book itself, here and now, thoroughly. observe, and argue if you possibly can.


Quote:
Many people carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the city of Sodom because of homosexuality. A careful look however, reveals that this is unlikely.

Two angels were sent to Sodom by God, where Lot, Abraham's nephew, persuades the divine travelers to stay in his home. It is important to note that travelers depended on the kindness of strangers. Ancient hospitality codes required people to offer food, shelter and protection to people who were traveling. Without these codes travel would have been difficult, if not impossible.

After the Angels ate and were preparing for bed, all of the people of Sodom converged on Lots home, demanding that the angels come out so that the towns people might know(rape) them. In an effort to protect his guests, Lot denies the angry mob access to the angels, but offers his two virgin daughters instead. This suggests Lot knew his neighbors to be heterosexual. The townspeople refuse, and charge at Lot in an attempt to gain access to the angels. At this point the angels pull Lot back inside the house, and render the angry crowd blind so they can not find the door. The angels then warn Lot to gather his family and leave the city because it will soon be destroyed.

Taken from here.


starting with the quoted Passage, which (if you cant tell from the page i linked it to) is from a gay site, which rationalizes for the mistranslation of the bible.
Beginning with, Lot awaited these two angels(and yes, he did know they were Angels.) at the city gates. He convinced them to stay in his home, rather than in the city square, because of the reasons stated about ancient hospitality in the above paragraph (which are true). he cooked them a meal, and gave them a place to sleep. as they prepared for sleep, the men of sodom came for the two strangers so that they could rape (yes rape - the angels were not willing to have sex with the men) them. now, let us observe a passage from the Bible of what happens next:

Genesis 19:6
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."


So, lot offers his daughters up to the men in exchange they leave the Angels alone. This demonstrates in what an exalted place he held his guests and gave them his protection under his roof as Messengers of God. though, im sure we all agree that angels could (and did) take care of these men of soddom on their own, the whole scenario is demonstrative of Lot's loyalty to god that he would offer up his most precious thingsn(whether emotionally or from a financial standpoint, no matter how you cut it two virgin daughters is precious) in order to protect these visitors.
i think it is obvious to say that this did not "prove that Lot knew his neighbors to be heterosexual" because that statement is flawed in two ways:
A.) the men could have been committing the sin of Homosexuality and still enjoy having sex with women, so it proves nothing really if they are bi-sexual. because they were STILL committing homosexual acts.
B.) The next thing the men of soddom did was reject the Virgins in favor of raping the men. which i dont think requires any explanation.

so after the Men refuse the virgins in favor of the Men (angels), they begin pressuring Lot until the men (angels) grab him back inside and shut the door against the pursuers. they then strike the mob blind so they cannot see the door. then, the men (angels) say this:
Genesis 19:12
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

now, english will tell you that the aforemetion and boldened Place is the owner of that also boldened "its" meaning the people of Soddom were going to be destroyed because of their acts.
thus ensues Lot and his family's escape from Soddom and the destruction of Soddom. i will post the whole of God's Word in the matter without commentary for discussion purposes in a separate post.

* please not that this thread is not to discuss whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong - theres plenty of threads elsewhere about that. its not to discuss my Personal beliefs, either. it is simply to end people saying :WELL THE BIBLE DOESNT SAY SO ANYWAY YOU ******** CHRISTIAN BIGOT: because i hear that WAAY too often and i think its time we disspell that, because its not true and highly misrepresentitive.

So you don;'t believe that the 'sinful act' was to be non-hospitable to the messengers or simply raping them?

Fashionable Fairy

11,650 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Tooth Fairy 100
  • Elocutionist 200
Frog-dancer
Hundreds of other books refers mainly to Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Islamic, ect books. I just think it's insane to make an argument about wether or not something is right according to the paticulars of a book which has debatable relevance.

Except this debate is about Leveticus specifically, as the original poster framed it.

Frog-dancer
Especially since god is not one single entty and therefore cannot speak with a single voice into a single text.

Prove it.

Frog-dancer
But If I were to be arguing within the constrains of your fairytales about an angry god punishing sinners, then quite frankly I couldn't cvare less either way.

Insulting a religion in a discussion about the particulars of that religion is usually considered bad form. If you want to insult Christianity as "fairytales about an angry god punishing sinners," then please go elsewhere. In a forum on religion, dismissing an entire religion based on you (extremely badly supported) opinion of it is unwelcome.
I do believe the original poster has had her "arguments" been run into the ground. Pity I didn't find the thread in time to take part in the dismantling. Lesson learned to you, Like Woah!, should you look this topic's way again: Do not presume to know biblical text to such an extent that you feel able to present quotes from it in a debate. At least, not until you do one of two things: learn Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and translate the original text through an objective lens; or research both sides of the argument, as the arguments you have portrayed have already been deconstructed time and time again. The English translations in common circulation have a tendency to be very subjective, as previous posts have made clear.
Frog-dancer
Hundreds of other books refers mainly to Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Islamic, ect books. I just think it's insane to make an argument about wether or not something is right according to the paticulars of a book which has debatable relevance. Especially since god is not one single entty and therefore cannot speak with a single voice into a single text. But If I were to be arguing within the constrains of your fairytales about an angry god punishing sinners, then quite frankly I couldn't cvare less either way.


To the Jewish and Christian cultures there is little debate outside of fringe groups such as the Qumran population as to the relevance of the OT Hebrew text over and above all others. Your argument is smoke and mirrors.

Further, your commentary on the multiplicity of God is not held by the OT. A singular deity is worshipped and acknowledged as speaking there. Factoring in Christian interpretations and the NT, that deity is triune, having three persons but one unified essence. One God, three persons and such. Nevertheless, it remains a unified voice.

And as to your views of YHWH, they are not mine. I am not your typical Christian, and you can frankly take your personal opinions of what you view as fairy tales and shove them and your half-baked two-bit mysticism where the sun doesn't shine.

Your commentary remains, as before, imatterial to the discussion at hand.
Ananel
Edit: For the sake of virgin ears, I'm going to try to clean this up in accordance with anti-flame policy. We'll see how well I do it now that I've calmed down slightly.
Like Whoa!
Genesis ch. 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 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."


Congratulations. You lasted less than a page. You get a Hebrew lesson, b***h, because you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm sick of this crap. This is only going to get worse, because your attitude is REALLY horking me off.

Point one: From the Stuttgartensia, with one MAJOR variation, the word you are looking at, that is bolded, is enosh (Aleph, Nun, Sin). It is in the plural conjugation.

By the way, the variation? It's out of the Pentateuch Hebraeo-Samaritanus collection of 1914-1918, a limited number of fragments. I'll save you the trouble of asking what it is. It's translated as ANGEL. It's from the root for messenger. Melochim. Angels. *bristles* I acknowledge that it is by far the lesser of the two, but the only variant directly contradicts you, and we're about to find out how little Hebrew you know concerning enosh and gender.

From R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke's Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, volume 1 (Aleph through Mem):
Quote:
(enosh) man, mortal man, person
The basic meaning of enosh is 'man' in the sense of 'mankind.' The word can refer to an individual only in the most general sense (e.g. 'blessed is the man who does this [Isa 56:2]) and thus likes the specificity of 'ish. It is used mainly in the poetic material.


I could go on. It's a long entry, but I'll spare you. The gender non-specific, neuter form of PERSON which gets translated in English as MAN because of our lack of a gender neuter personage and you turn this into clarity that they understood the angels were male? At this point I am livid with rage. You cannot do this. It is an abuse to the language, an affront to exegesis, hermaneutics and translation. You do not know the first thing of which you speak and you presume to come here and lecture us regarding translations. It took me all of five minutes to CRUSH YOU.

If you would like to speak on what the Hebrew says, learn Hebrew. If you do not, do not speak as to mistranslations, as you have offered no translational insight to date, and have now received confirmation of your complete ignorance on basic Hebrew Vocabulary.


Ananel, if you dont mind, would you list your educational credentials, thanks.

Liberal Member

3,450 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Person of Interest 200

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum