siti
Well-Known Member
Mr. PresidentWhat that word for people who promote risk like it's safe
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mr. PresidentWhat that word for people who promote risk like it's safe
Nice specific, checkable claim. Not in any way vague or shiftable.You think it's not?
One clue is what's on net flicks
Mr. President
You should lay off it.Must be weed induced memory lost
You should lay off it.
I would not normally enter into a thread like this but since you have piqued my curiosity, I would like to address your OP.
In suggesting that the crime of the people of Sodom was "inhospitality, pride, gluttony and apathy and treading on the poor and needy. Not homosexuality." I can only ask how you can come to such a conclusion after reading the whole account in Genesis 19.
From the Tanach....Genesis 19:4-8...
"4 When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end [of the city].
5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them."
6 And Lot came out to them to the entrance, and he shut the door behind him.
7 And he said, "My brethren, please do not do evil.
8 Behold now I have two daughters who were not intimate with a man. I will bring them out to you, and do to them as you see fit; only to these men do nothing, because they have come under the shadow of my roof."
So what does this mean....they wanted to be "intimate" with them? It was obviously an "evil" kind of intimacy because Lot offered his daughters to them in order to protect his divine visitors. Those who came under the shelter of a man's roof were assured of his hospitality and protection.
In offering his virgin daughters (who had never been intimate with a man) Lot showed us the kind of intimacy that the people demanded....not the natural kind with women but the depraved kind involved with homosexual gang rape.
With regard to the scripture in Ezekiel 16:49, you should have included verse 50.
"49 Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom your sister: pride, abundance of bread, and careless ease were hers and her daughters', and she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they became haughty and did abomination before Me, and I removed them when I saw." (Tanach)
Does God consider being inhospitable or neglect for the needy to be an "abomination"?
According to Strongs, "abomination" in Hebrew is.... tôwʻêbah, to-ay-baw'; or תֹּעֵבַה tôʻêbah; feminine active participle of H8581; properly, something disgusting (morally)"
I do not see anything "morally disgusting" in what you suggest was their behavior.....do you?
Regarding the scripture in Matthew
Jude 3-7 makes some interesting clarifications also.
"Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen [shameless] conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5 Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those not showing faith. 6 And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day. 7 In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."
By describing the Sodomites as those engaging in "gross sexual immorality" we find the Greek words...
"ekporneuō" which means "give one's self over to fornication" and it is described as "gross.
It also mentions "unnatural fleshly desires" or as some translation render it "strange flesh". That is "heteros" and it means..."another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different" .
So with all that in mind....what you are suggesting about the people of Sodom is clearly incorrect.
What does the word "sodomy" mean after all? According to Wiki.....
"The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be "unnatural" or immoral. Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality."
So.....I feel that you are flogging a dead horse here.....
When the Prophets reference Sodom some major themes come up, they associate Sodom with pride, apathy, economic exploitation and ignoring or outright hostility towards the poor and the needy. So why no mention of homosexuality if that was the main theme in the Genesis account?
They don't associate it with that because culturally they have always associated Sodom with cruelty, pride and inhospitality. The men of Sodom didn't want to rape those men because the men of Sodom were homosexuals, they wanted to rape them because rape is an act of violence, they wanted to hurt and humiliate them, they wanted to dominate and exploit them, This is the same dynamic one would find in a prison were inmate rapes inmate not for sexual gratification but to kill the spirit of another and dominate them.
The sin of Sodom is cruelty, pride and inhospitality and apathy just like the text says. Now if we look at the New Testament or Greek Scriptures we find that Jesus mentions Sodom a few times but when he does does he associate Sodom with homosexuality? No, he associates with disbelief and inhospitality.
Not exactly a evolutionarily success story
(What that word for people who promote risk like it's safe)
No doubt that the Sodomites were as wicked, if not more wicked than the Canaanites. But the incident concerning Lot's angelic visitors was that they wanted to be "intimate" with the men in Lot's house.....the same kind of 'intimacy' that Lot's daughters had not yet experienced. They only became violent when Lot refused them access to his visitors and offered them females instead.
I have do doubt that they were all of those things.....but that does not alter the fact that they wanted to sodomize the men who came into Lot's house. An act of violence it would certainly have been. But the visitors took care of it themselves and rescued Lot and his family (minus the intended son-in-law) and then he ended up losing his wife due to her disobedience.
What normal man wants to rape complete strangers, and males at that? Why are you defending them? God wiped them off the face of the earth. They were disgusting to him.
The rape is always violent, there whole intent was violence not consensual sexThey only became violent when Lot refused them access to his visitors and offered them females instead.
I am not defending them I am telling you what they were. They were violent and inhospitable and cruel. And that is why according the Prophets God wiped them out. Why would a man want to rape another man in such a way? It is obvious. They were living in a extremely oppressive and cruel dog eat dog society much like a prison and like an inmate in a prison in order for you to feel any power you do acts of violence against other people, just to show them you are in power. In order to show you that I am not a punk, I will make you a punk. That's a prisoner's mentality, the prison rapist doesn't think of himself as homosexual because he isn't a man having sex with another man, he is having sex with something that he doesn't even consider human nor alive. You are just some thing to be used and dominated. That's probably how the men of Sodom were thinking. Rape is always an act of violence not sexuality. To view rape as a sexual act is some seriously backwards 19th century thinking.What normal man wants to rape complete strangers, and males at that? Why are you defending them?
If Sodom was not a city inclined to practice all manner of morally disgusting behavior, then why is the word sodomy (the dictionary definition meaning any degrading sexual practice, all of which were outlined in God's law) associated with that city?
What are you talking about? Bonobos have done fine until humans began destroying their habitats.
They even give Lot the reason why they were doing this, because they want to show Lot who was boss:I find it bizarre that you read a story about a mob wanting to gang-rape travelers, and you come away with the impression that the worst thing about this is that the rape would have been homosexual.
According the Bible the sin of Sodom and the reason for it's destruction was that they weren't very hospitable to the stranger and the sojourner, in fact they were downright hostile towards the strangers and sojourners threatening them with all sort of violence. I need not get into the Genesis account that everyone is familiar with but the Genesis in no way mentions that homosexuality was the reason for Sodom's destruction I think it is apparent within the account why Sodom had to be destroy but Ezekiel clarifies it:
‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Ezekiel 16:49
They full of themselves, fat and apathetic. They refuse to help those in need. Does that sound like a certain apathetic nation filled with obese people who don't care one way or the other because damn it "we're number 1!"? Sounds familiar to me. The crime was inhospitality, pride, gluttony and apathy and treading on the poor and needy. Not homosexuality.
But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
Matthew 11:24
This reminds me of a video from Neil deGrasse Tyson criticizing the concept of intelligent design. He mentioned how stupid it was to place an "amusement park" next to a "sewage plant" or somesuch. Lol. Take it up with your god. He also made anal pleasurable for males by placing the prostate there and making it sensitive.The sacred seed of life was not meant to be placed in a sewerage outlet.
According the Bible the sin of Sodom and the reason for it's destruction was that they weren't very hospitable to the stranger and the sojourner, in fact they were downright hostile towards the strangers and sojourners threatening them with all sort of violence. I need not get into the Genesis account that everyone is familiar with but the Genesis in no way mentions that homosexuality was the reason for Sodom's destruction I think it is apparent within the account why Sodom had to be destroy but Ezekiel clarifies it:
‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Ezekiel 16:49
They full of themselves, fat and apathetic. They refuse to help those in need. Does that sound like a certain apathetic nation filled with obese people who don't care one way or the other because damn it "we're number 1!"? Sounds familiar to me. The crime was inhospitality, pride, gluttony and apathy and treading on the poor and needy. Not homosexuality.
But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
Matthew 11:24
Lol THATS PROOF TEXTING BIBLE ABUSE!!!
Although it is DAMN funny! Personally i think they should Outlaw it. And then it would make it meaningful! Atheists would want to read it even.
lawlessness wickedness or immorality depending on the translation
but lawlessness seems most often the word of choice in translations
(spell check changed mine type morality by mistake which I fixed)