Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was attempted rape. Not homosexuality. This is also about the breakdown of hospitality. Comments in blue.
Sexual activity outside a Biblical marriage ... man/woman, is fornication and wicked behavior. It matters not homosexual or heterosexual. They wanted it all ways and ..... God condemns that.
Sexual activity outside a Biblical marriage ... man/woman, is fornication and wicked behavior. It matters not homosexual or heterosexual. They wanted it all ways and ..... God condemns that.
Sexual activity outside a Biblical marriage ... man/woman, is fornication and wicked behavior. It matters not homosexual or heterosexual. They wanted it all ways and ..... God condemns that.
There are perfectly rational reasons for waiting until marriage for sexual relations. Fear of being condemned by an invisible man in the sky isn't one of them.
There are perfectly rational reasons for waiting until marriage for sexual relations. Fear of being condemned by an invisible man in the sky isn't one of them.
A word would be nice. A sentence from scripture, such as, "Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the residents practiced homosexuality among other things" would be even better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
The demand to have sex with the two "men" was homosexual activity.
Okay. When a male captor rapes his male prisoner in war time or when a male prisoner rapes another male prisoner in jail ...is THIS "homosexuality"? When a male rapes a female ...is THIS "heterosexuality"? No on both counts. It's "rape" which is sexually aggressive behavior and one's sexuality hardly comes into play here. Sex in these cases is a weapon to defile and degrade another person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
The reality was that the wickedness of the city involved sexual immorality and more. It was not one issue but rampant wickedness even worse than the cities around them. There may have been no "homosexual" men, but the sexual activity involving same sex involvement was there.
I don't know that anyone is denying that - according to the Bible story - the men (and women, and boys and girls and babies?) of Sodom wanted to "demasculinize" Lot's visitors by their apparent intent to rape them. WHY would they want to rape the visitors? Well, it's already been demonstrated in this thread from literature that the people of this city were 'isolationists' and didn't like strangers. Jesus affirms this in Matthew 10:15. Inflicting violence or the threat of violence (as in THIS particular case) would pretty much ensure that an 'intruder' would not return in a hurry. HOWEVER, it's the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that is used most often by mainstream Christians to condemn present-day homosexual people by associating their innate sexuality with a mob of would-be rapists from an ancient story that likely never occurred anyway!
"The Church" needs to be called out on this whenever this crud is preached from the pulpit, or on YouTube videos by the likes of Michael Brown and James White or wherever it's preached!
Hmmm . . .might a 'biblical marriage' be one of the following?
Polygynous Marriage: Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
Levirate Marriage: When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
A man, a woman and her property — a female slave: The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
A male and female slave: A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course …
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage: What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.
Romulus, hi.. What is your interpretation of Genesis 19:4-5 (?)
peace.
Genesis 19:4-5 (KJV):
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:
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.
Well, someone else has already given you quite an in depth run-down of that text but, since you did ask me . . .
Too many people merely give this text a surface reading with nary a thought to question exactly WHAT is going on here. What IS going on? Who were the people of Sodom and what was their culture all about? Why would they WANT to 'know' Lot's visitors? Were ALL of the inhabitants (men, women, children) SO inflamed with lust that night that they wanted to satisfy these desires by having sex with these visitors? Common sense reasoning (sadly, not such a common trait within Christian circles) would indicate that there was something other than this behind these city folks threatening to violate the two men. Ah, THAT's the word ..."violate"!
We've seen literature presented elsewhere on this thread that describes the people of Sodom and Gomorrah as 'isolationists' ...those who did not welcome strangers within their insulated environment. Jesus affirms this in Matthew 10:15. So, when strangers are unwelcome the best way to make sure that they don't return (and to maintain a clear message to others that "WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE!") is to make sure their stay is as unpleasant as possible. So, the threat of rape (and a threat is ALL that it was since the actual act was never realized) would have been enough to deter the visitors from returning to Sodom. FURTHERMORE, it's highly likely that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, due to their penchant for isolation, were inbred so THAT might also speak volumes regarding their rather weird behavior!
Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of Genesis 19:4-5?
Last edited by RomulusXXV; 09-14-2015 at 09:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
