The Strange Case of Sodom and Gommorah

[c4ts]

OK, I've read Genesis for the umpteenth time now, and I still can't find any evidence suggesting that Sodom was a city of homosexuals. So where do Jack Chick and company get the idea that it was?

[no one in particular]

I believe this is the particular bit of nonsense in G, 19.4 and 19.5, that they think refers to homosexuals: 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:

19.5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Pretty flaccid-er, um, flimsy, that is, actually.

[c4ts]

They surrouded the house and asked to see the men. That doesn't necessarily mean they were homosexuals who were going to rape him. They may have been planning some other form of violence.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by c4ts
They surrouded the house and asked to see the men. That doesn't necessarily mean they were homosexuals who were going to rape him. They may have been planning some other form of violence.
Don't forget the Biblical meaning of "know", as in Adam knew Eve, and she begat him a son, or whatever. You're right, it's flimsy.

[no one in particular]

19.5 Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. I guess it depends on who the speaker is, that is, who “us” is. If “us” includes males, then it would imply a big ‘ol orgy of males with maybe some females. Like I said, it is flimsy, but it rationalizes hate for folks that enjoy hate.

I’ll give the good folks of Sodom and Gomorrah this: they could party.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Don't forget the Biblical meaning of "know", as in Adam knew Eve, and she begat him a son, or whatever. You're right, it's flimsy.

So when Adam "knows" good and evil... is that philosophical rape?

[Ladewig]

I don't ever think I'll understand a religious text in which the good guys offer their virgin daughters to be raped by a mob (Gen. 19:8).

Modern scholars interpret the sin of Sodom to be inhospitableness.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by c4ts


So when Adam "knows" good and evil... is that philosophical rape?

c4ts has a point...there isn't one specific "biblical" definition of the word - the bible uses several definitions.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by no one in particular
I believe this is the particular bit of nonsense in G, 19.4 and 19.5, that they think refers to homosexuals:Pretty flaccid-er, um, flimsy, that is, actually.

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:

19.5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

This story is of 2 angels who came to the city and the home of Lot. In the story Lot offered his young daughter to the angry crowd of men rather then these 2 angels.

The angry crowd of men wanted not sex with these angels but to humiliate them the way which was custom at that time, when in or after battle Jewish “solders” and others of that time would rape the captured solders or enemies to humiliate them.

This story has nothing to do with gay people or the gay way of life of which sex is but a tiny % in all reality just as sex is only a tiny part of the day with anyone here and their mate, it had to do with humiliation of the captured solders or enemies.

The crucifying of people at that time was the same thing, most were tied to crosses and made fun of not nailed to. These were always political prisoners and never 2 thieves as in the Christian account as thieves had their fingers or hands chopped off they were not crucified.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

This story is of 2 angels who came to the city and the home of Lot. In the story Lot offered his young daughter to the angry crowd of men rather then these 2 angels.

The angry crowd of men wanted not sex with these angels but to humiliate them the way which was custom at that time, when in or after battle Jewish “solders” and others of that time would rape the captured solders or enemies to humiliate them.

This story has nothing to do with gay people or the gay way of life of which sex is but a tiny % in all reality just as sex is only a tiny part of the day with anyone here and their mate, it had to do with humiliation of the captured solders or enemies.

The crucifying of people at that time was the same thing, most were tied to crosses and made fun of not nailed to. These were always political prisoners and never 2 thieves as in the Christian account as thieves had their fingers or hands chopped off they were not crucified.

And you wonder why it never gets explained this way in Sunday School?

[Pahansiri]

Very true Diogenes also what is not is that the 2 daughters Lot offered to these men ( sad) were later impregnated by their Father Lot. This father who was seen as a close and chosen one by God

1- offered his little girls to be harmed rather then just asking these angels to disappear as they are beings that if true could not know physical harm.
2- This father did not do what any good father should do and offer his life for his family.
3- This father later in the story had sex with his own children yet we do not see people who use this story to condemn homosexuality use it to condemn having sex with your own children or pedophilia.

So much for family values.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
This father later in the story had sex with his own children yet we do not see people who use this story to condemn homosexuality use it to condemn having sex with your own children or pedophilia.

So much for family values.

Yea, but the girls got him drunk - those little mixes!!!

;)

19:30
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Man - first it's half the town of Sodom and then their own Father!! It's a biblical version of "Girls Gone Wild"!

Barkhorn.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pahansiri
Very true Diogenes also what is not is that the 2 daughters Lot offered to these men ( sad) were later impregnated by their Father Lot.

The daughters got Lot drunk and made him play 'hide the salami' with them.

[Dancing David]

Typical feminazi myth, Lot has no choice, it's not his fault, yeah right, I wonder what some of the original stories said.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Typical feminazi myth, Lot has no choice, it's not his fault, yeah right, I wonder what some of the original stories said.

Original text:

"Yea, and Lot gazed upon his daughters, and revelled in their flesh, their booty so fine. And Lot said unto himself:
"I must get me a piece of that."

Whereupon he taketh their clothing off, and knocketh their boots, until the sun rose again, and the girls were wickedly pregnant, yet with smiles upon their wicked faces."

[Pahansiri]

While I do not drink I have in the past and been pretty drunk, never on wine but I never confused my children with some babe.

There are many things to look at with this story.

1-If Sodom was a city of homosexuals. It would die out in one generation as simple biology tells us the same sex can reproduce.

2- But the Bible says really it was a city of sin as there were all people having all kind of sex not just gay sex and really speaks more about hetro sex and drinking etc.

3- Drinking was part of what this city was “destroyed “ for yet Lot and the girls it seemed took a lot of wine with them when they took off and I do not believe they pored the wine down their father I do not believe they forced him to get drunk as if he were a young teen.

4- It would seem if this city was one of much “sin” of course a all knowing God would have known this long before he created it so how could be angry after the fact when that fact was always known to him. This is like me baking a cake using all chocolate ingredients then becoming angry at the cake after it was done because it was not an apple pie.

5- It is not logical that ALL people there were “bad” , there is a rehash of the flood story where an angry God can only find one way to fix a situation, that is kill everything the young and old, the good and bad just kill. That is also of course a contradiction of the older flood story as at the end of that the God said he would never do that again.

It is also illogical that this God would find sex or sex outside of marriage bad or more so a double standard as there are many examples of his angels who the OT refers to as his sons, coming to earth and having sex with humans and getting them pregnant then leaving them with the children.

But more shocking is we find in In Ezekiel 23, for instance, God is stated to have had children by two
prostitutes: ... 'The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying: Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth; there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister; and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters.' (Ezekiel 23:1-4)

The children he had by them were named Samaria Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

In (Ezekiel 23:5) we find this. 5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

Here we find God angry these sisters were whores yes he has sex with them both, has children with them both. Clearly is not an involved father and no record of child support can be found and worse we see in 23:5 he has sex with his daughter Aholah. He also later sets her up to be killed by a lover.

Again so much for family values.

[Dancing David]

"And lo upon the morn, he did repent of his wickedness, though his manhood did say twas a foolish regret.
The spiriT of the lard came unto him and said "It shall be the wine which made you do it.
And it came to apss that as evenong settled across the lan , Lot call forth to his servants to bring him his cups and wine, and they did serve him in his tent as he lay upon the carpets.."

[Roadtoad]

Soddom and Gommorrah were destroyed for far more than sexual sin. It also says the outcry against those cities was great, which could easily mean any number of things. This could include slave trading, banditry, or who knows what else?

Hey, it sells Chick Tracts, so Jack is happy.

The sad thing is that Jack Chick's work used to be more about simply telling people Jesus loved them.

[triadboy]

But, of course there is no Sodom and Gommorah and never was. This is a 'just so' story to explain:

1) An area around the Dead Sea that looks to have been burned.

2) The numerous salt pillars one can find around the Dead Sea.

3) How the enemies of Israel, the Amorites(?) and the Moabites came to be. They were the product of an incestual relationship.

I'm tellin' ya - it's goofier than a $3 bag of hair.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
5- It is not logical that ALL people there were “bad” , there is a rehash of the flood story where an angry God can only find one way to fix a situation, that is kill everything the young and old, the good and bad just kill. That is also of course a contradiction of the older flood story as at the end of that the God said he would never do that again.

If I recall correctly, God was quoted as having made a covenant with Noah that He would never end mankind with a flood again.

Originally posted by triadboy
But, of course there is no Sodom and Gommorah and never was. This is a 'just so' story to explain:

Wait!!! It is considered by some to be quite plausible that the ancient ruins of the towns known now known as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira are in fact the cities referred to as Sodom and Gomorrah, respectively, in the Bible. Those two cities, along with the cities of Safi, Khanazir, and Feifa on the Plain of Siddim near the Dead Sea, show evidence of actually having been destroyed by fire. Surrounding geology indicates a shift in the earth around the time of the destruction of the cities; it's possible that an earthquake may have released and ignited some explosive gasses, which in turn "flash burned" and caught the cities on fire. I remember reading about it in Archaeology. Unfortunately, all the 'net links I found are run by pro-Christian sites, which quote "respected archaeologists" who provide us with wisdom like

"It is possible that God caused petroleum deposits under the earth to escape though the earthquake's fault lines, after which they were ignited and then fell back down onto the cities."

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let me introduce you guys to a wonderful Bible resource.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

All you have to do is enter the verse in question, and it will give you several options, including a concordance (with Hebrew or Greek translations) when it calls the verse up.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Wait!!! It is considered by some to be quite plausible that the ancient ruins of the towns known now known as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira are in fact the cities referred to as Sodom and Gomorrah, respectively, in the Bible. Those two cities, along with the cities of Safi, Khanazir, and Feifa on the Plain of Siddim near the Dead Sea, show evidence of actually having been destroyed by fire.

I could believe that, but what does that have to do with god? Are we going to be so ridiculous as to pin natural disasters on an angry god? (Oh wait!...I guess that's what we did)

If a town is suddenly destroyed by fire and you are an ignorant nomad with one huge all-encircling eyebrow - how do you explain it? God did it. Why? (It depends on whos telling the story and what their agenda is)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by triadboy


I could believe that, but what does that have to do with god? Are we going to be so ridiculous as to pin natural disasters on an angry god? (Oh wait!...I guess that's what we did)


It probably has nothing to do with any god. However, my point was only that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah did exist, and were apparently burned to the ground.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


It probably has nothing to do with any god. However, my point was only that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah did exist, and were apparently burned to the ground.

And that is exactly what a 'just story' is. It takes an oddity/tragedy/phenomenon whose cause is outside the memories/knowledge of the inhabitants. Then a story is constructed to 'explain' the oddity.

As I mentioned before, there are pillars of salt around the Dead Sea. The nomads certainly couldn't explain what they were. So they were worked into this tale. (Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt) I'm sure, none of the intelligent xians reading this won't for a minute think Lot's wife actually turned into a pillar of salt?

[shemp]

There's a very simple solution to all of this: The Bible was written by idiots who couldn't get their story straight.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by shemp
There's a very simple solution to all of this: The Bible was written by idiots who couldn't get their story straight.

Also, the bible is interpreted by idiots who can't get their story straight.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by c4ts


Also, the bible is interpreted by idiots who can't get their story straight.

I must disagree with you here, c4ts. I think modern history tends to show that the Bible is usually interpreted by extremely clever folks how tell the story just the way it needs to be told - and they're listened to by idiots who go along with it.