Thats a good question Redy and I dont know why he did that. Its also never clearly stated that the sin of Sodom was anything even remotely to do with homosexuality. When I really started looking, I could not find one thing that mentioned homosexual sex except for the fact that the angry mob came for the angels to "know them" which probably was eluding to raping them. But we all know that rape is a crime of power and control and less to do with the actual sex act. So in that case, Lot probably figured they would take his daughters so the angels could make their escape.

This was all I could locate about the "sins" of the Sodomites.

Ezekiel 16:49
This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

They were not charitable people. Nothing about being gay however..

I have removed several posts from this thread. Please discuss the topic in a civil manner.

Thank you,

Mark

finally after 5 pages of so not the truth....a little of the truth...going to read rest then respond...

Were you going to comment Deb?

Thank you........


now people read and understand......It is not God that disobeys it is the people....and do so and pay the price...and again people you can say....ohhhhh whaaa whaa the injustice of it all..But the fact is it doesn't change what is. God has his way....go against it and pay the price...pretty simple....

Miles said:



Deb this was pulled from Miles' post. I agree. This is why I do not understand why on earth god would refer to Lot as a "Just" and "Righteous" man after he offered up his daughters to the angry mob.

Clues from the Text

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not just from the Genesis account, but also from the Prophets and the New Testament books 2 Peter and Jude. These give a sense of how ancient Jewish thinkers steeped in Jewish culture understood these texts.

First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, "And the Lord said, 'The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.'" Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.

Second, it seems the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter."

Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh."[4] Peter wrote that Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10).

Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment.

Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.

What do we know about the conduct of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?

Just a Couple of Questions

Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels)? The answer is obviously no. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.[5]

Was this a mere interrogation? Though the Hebrew word yada ("to know")[6] has a variety of nuances, it is properly translated in the NASB as "have [sexual] relations with."[7] Though the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot's response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"—makes it clear they had other intentions.

In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe the daughters who had not "known" a man and who were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying, "Please don't question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead. They've never been interviewed"?

Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah for inhospitality? Is it true that God's judgment was not for homosexuality per se, but because the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors, violating sacred sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them? A couple of observations raise serious doubt.

First, the suggestion itself is an odd one. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime.

Second—and more to the textual evidence—it doesn't fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath: a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which the men went after strange flesh.

Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There's no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense?

The Only One That Fits

The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot's visitors violated the Mid-East's high code of hospitality (19:9). This inhospitality, however, is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself.

Further, the inhospitality charge is dependent upon—and eclipsed by—the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one.

We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter" (19:6), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels.

Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the "grave," "ungodly," "lawless," "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard" it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went after "strange flesh."

In their defense, some will cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." No mention of homosexuality here.

Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That's not in question. Our concern here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn't contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail.

Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God's wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word "abominations." This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an "abomination" in God’s eyes.

Leviticus

The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.[9] It is an abomination [toebah][10] ." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

The Hebrew word "toebah," here translated "abomination," does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.

Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed.

Others have added that many details of the Mosaic Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn't mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be punishable offenses today.

This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such "diversity" as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah's proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway.

Second, it's a serious error in thinking to conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies. "It is one thing not to put a Torah punishment into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin." (emphasis in the original

Third, it's true that much of the Law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct.

Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The toebahof homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech's altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple?

More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).

The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:

But as for you [the "sons of Israel" (v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)

Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, and even by every visitor.

Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews ("aliens"). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came.

Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.

Some have suggested the sin was seeking sexual union with angels ("strange flesh"). Though this is a possible interpretation, there's no indication the men knew Lot's visitors were angels. Jude's point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, "did not keep to their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode" (v. 6). "Strange flesh"—the improper domain—wasn't angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.

The rejoinder that homosexual rape could still qualify as the ongoing activity fails to convince. Who would be the ongoing victims? Not the townspeople. Because of their sexual proclivity they would not likely resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be the target. But if newcomers were molested “day after day,” I’m sure this
would put a crimp in the tourist trade. The steady supply
of sexual candidates would dwindle rapidly once word got around, with most making a wide berth around the area.

It's curious that some choose to conclude homosexuality was a minor crime because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Both were capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment He requires.

Okay we will take this one first. What was their sin exactly? I have already posted all that I was able to locate in Ezekiel. It never clearly states in the actual story of Sodom and Gomorrah what these people were guilty of.

So let me know.

Look through all the scriptures I posted...they were out of control...First God blinded them...and they knew it was God because he told them so...but still they did things there way.....So what is God to do.....They basically made their bed so now they pay the price for their rebellion.....its that simple.



Here are a few of them to help out...They were out of control with everthing....and the bad part was that even for Lot and seeing it day in and day out got numb to it......sounds a lil like today to me.


Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh."[4] Peter wrote that Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10).

Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment.

Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.

Okay but still it never comes out and says what they were doing wrong exactly. In Ezekiel, all it says is that they were uncharitable basically and inhospitable people. That would also partly explain why Lot would have taken it upon himself to help out the angels and bring them under his roof. He might have assumed that no one else would take them in.

There would appear to be substantial evidence to support that just assuming that the sin was rampant homosexuality is jumping to conclusions. The book of Genesis simply says that God had resolved to destroy Sodom (and its sister city Gomorrah) because its sin was "very grievous" (Genesis 18:20) and its people were "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (13:13). It does not, however, specify the nature of this sin. All they do is use a lot adjectives to describe it as bad but they never come out and say it was this or that in explicit detail. Going after "strange flesh." might have been referring to the angels because they were not human.

Going after "strange flesh." might have been referring to the angels because they were not human.

That's a very good observation Krisma Thanks...Shalom..

P.S. I tried doing the quote thing like you said for just a partial quote. I am still doing something wrong..Miles

Would it be more logical to explain, that a natural disaster has wiped out a population and the explanation for looking for a "why" came later?
Look at Hurricane Katrina for example. If it's God, that wants to destroy wickedness, I could list much better targets, which would still look like a natural disaster with a scientific explanation, to keep people in doubt and religous.

But anyway...we believe, whatever floats our boat..

Miles you have to take out the spaces. Look here.

[ quote ] The cow jumped over the moon [ /quote ]

You do the straight brackets and then write the word "quote" but on the end of the text you want to quote you have to include / before the word quote. That lets the forum know its at the end. But then remove all spaces. The only reason I have to use spaces in order to show you is because it will quote and you wont be able to see it.

I don't like saying "whats the deal"?I always say "whats the dill,pickle"?

I was actually attempting to sound like Seinfeld.

I agree with you and I feel that the article that you posted was probably the most likely scenario and what occurred and was later documented in the bible. The Sumerians also witnessed this cosmological event though they existed during the late 6th millennium, ages before the bible was written down. But its very possible that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was nothing more than what the Sumerians had written down on their giant stone tablets and then later, once they were conquered by the Akkadians who were a people that were Semitic in origin, that created the link that would explain the passage of these stories down to the Hebrews to include them in the OT eventually.

Makes perfect sense to me from a anthropological/ historical standpoint.

No, Im sure I mean "written down"

I have to say that the people back then were certainly afraid of this God more than a concern for belief, if one would do such a despicable thing.

I am not wanting to start a fight here just saying what I feel about what he did.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would frankly be more likely to go with instinct to protect my daughters. If there were angels there, then I would wager they could have flown away unharmed.

God or no, I am going to prevent my daughters from being raped and beaten. It's obvious even now that some men still find the rape of women trivial in comparison to what they find right and wrong.

If that God didn't respect the love and concern and responsibility I had for me daughters then he or she is no God in my book.

Nor would I respect a god that played sick games and expected me to harm my son, then back off at the last minute? Please, what kind of sick god is that?

Why would anyone want to praise a god that needed that kind of sick loyalty and adoration.

I can't believe that especially in todays world we wouldn't question that kind of loyalty.

It amazes me that anyone would fear a god, that would ask his children to do such things. The is exactly why I find the bible is reflective of a violent and immature society, that thought an act of nature was really and act of god....A people that felt the need to pass on this sickness to future generations. We should be smarter than that now but it seems we are not.

I would have to wonder if we are worshiping a god at all. I would say if there is such a thing as a devil, it's more likely that he/she would be the one to ask such sick loyalty.

And I am bashing no one here, I am just expressing my astonishment at such an idea of such a god that would require this.

And this is the same story that is supposed to be about homosexuality, hardly believable, any more than any other version of the same story, it's all weirdness.

Women that have been molested by their father's down through time, and millions have been, it's more likely that the father initiated the act, but of course being a man's world, they would have naturally accused and blamed the daughters. Dang they couldn't catch a break even back then..

Your missing the point Krisma....It was overall all the sin not just a specific sin. It was actually a sin for Lot not to keep the angels safe....Then you throw in the homosexuality.....look at it as more an out of control all over sinful people....if only 10% were doing right in God's eyes. As for Lot because he was around the sin so much he was hardened to it.....Which for God also was a sin and what he wanted Lot to understand. No assuming with God ever.

And again get of the just homosexuality as the only sin here....It was not...It was an overall rebellious people. And this can be applied to guess what? RIGHT NOW

And bet when the Lord say grievous that is exactly what it mean....very very very bad sin. Sin is sin so to me to say does not specifically describe is a lame excuse for just what is.

When it speak in Ezekiel about inhospitable people...The law requires all new people to the cities to be brought in and fed and taken care....this is important...kind of like treat your neigbors as you would have them treat you.