I do not want this post to turn into a hate thread. I just want a clarification on something.

In the bible, two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah (pardon my spelling if I misspelt it), were destroyed by god because the people in there were sinful. We all know the story about Abraham (I think) begging god not to destroy them if there were even 5 good men in there, but there were not 5 good men, so it was destroyed (I'm sorry if I'm mixing this up with another story). I was told by someone that the two cities were "sinful" because Sodom and Gomorrah allowed gay marriage. Is this true or false? Please show me proof and cite it.

Firstly I should state that I am currently going through an Atheist phase, due to various theological inconsistencies, although I could possibly return to Theism at some future date.

There has been a lot written about S & G over the years.  It all centres on the attitude of the townspeople of Sodom to Lot's guests, apparently angels, although this is actually irrelevant.

Apparently some of the male population wanted to rape them,( thereby treating  men as  women) which in the absence of any known tribe certain to avenge this, was  the most shameful thing that could have happened to them, in that time and culture.   

In the Middle East of that time, and even today, hospitality to strangers is a social obligation of the highest order, and transgressing this is a serious matter.  In a desert environment, hospitality to travellers could be a matter of life and death, as a favour given would no doubt be returned at some time in the future.

Basically Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, because their behaviour would have spread and caused a major catastrophe in the future, as each village looked after itself to the exclusion of all others.  War would probably have resulted, destroying any future Israel.

That is a summary of what I have read on the story. 

Karen.

Bible is quite clear on Sodom and Gomorrah being full of gay and lesbians pursuing indiscriminate same-sex sex.  So the two cities had to go.

The stories in Genesis are all rather extreme.

According to the account in Genesis:

Lot handed over his two daughters to the mob, to be gang raped, to save his two male guests, even though the guests were complete strangers and Lot had just met them.

Later, when Lot and his two daughters, (who presumably had survived the gang rape), had to flee the town and shelter in a cave, the two daughters got their revenge on their dad, by having sex with him.

I'm sure that some happy clappy could find a way to twist that piece of nonsense into a justification for his own pointless existence at other's expense!

It is probable that most of the OT was indeed written by a succession of writers from one tribe, Israelites, as a record of their history. That is all it is though and the lessons are no more important than some detail of kings Henry the IV or Duncan II are to those of us living in the British Isles.

But Genesis was almost certainly compiled from many different traditions. Most probably originating from some of the many, diverse ethinic groups that followed Moses when he left Egypt.

As Christians, all we need to concern ourselves with are the actual teachings of Jesus. If someone else contradicts those teachings, judging us for example, then we can safely ignore them.

To fail to do this is to say that we regard Jesus as of lesser importance.

Wonder what the happy clappys would say to that?

The Torah tells us the story of the rise and downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah. To the non-believer, the Biblical story seems so incredible that it must be relegated to the realm of myth and fantasy. The 20th-century German Bible critic, Theodor Noldeke asserted that "The whole story of Sodom and Gomorrah is unhistorical and comparatively late in origin." J. Maxwell Miller of Emory University boldly claims, "These narratives of Sodom and Gomorrah are purely products of the storyteller's art, which of course raises serious questions about their usefulness for historical reconstruction." John H. Hayes, a colleague of the aforementioned J. Maxwell Miller, confirms Professor Miller's belief. [1] Are the assertions of these skeptics based on facts or are they merely the distorted opinions of non-believers? Let us examine the facts of the case and see for ourselves......

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html

Happy readings

Perhaps it was sinful, but sin had been around a long time and is actually described as any shortfall from absolute perfection, which we know human beings aren't capable of achieving anyway. What was probably the most egregious offense was the indiscriminate, any port-in-the-storm attitude of sexual perversion where there was no commitment between couplings and love wasn't a part of the equation. That manifested itself dramatically when the locals insisted on having sex with the angelic visitors like Justmeinoz pointed out.

I won't waste my time on this thread because I can see where it's leading already. Suffice it to say that there is always a huge crowd of educated naysayers to anything biblical, however the archeological site has been located some time back. The story holds up perfectly on it's own weight as it's typical of human nature.

Sexual Nature of Sin

Throughout history, Sodomite society has been used as metaphors for rape, homosexuality, sexual immorality, and sexual deviance. The English word, "Sodomy", is derived from "Sodom", and means non-vaginal intercourse, as well as bestiality.

The Catholic Church pounced on this passage, as well as other New Testament passages, to support the Church's claim that acts of homosexuality are to be considered "acts of grave depravity".

Proponents of this theory point to the apparent demand by the men of Sodom for Lot's strangers to come out of the house, so they can forcibly have homosexual intercourse with them.

In other words, the Sodomite men want to rape the angels in Lot's house. However, there are scholars who claim that this passage is not referring to rape, or any acts of sexual immorality at all. The sin of Sodom, according to these people, is their inhospitable attitude towards strangers.

The crux of this division rests in the interpretation of the word, "Know".

"Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. -- Genesis 19:5

The Hebrew word for "Know" appears over 900 times in the Bible. Proponents of a non-sexual view hold that, of the 900 appearances, only 1 percent of the time is it used with sexual connotations. They argue that in this passage, the men of Sodom wanted to interrogate the men in Lot's house, not rape them.

However, one of those few sexual connotations occurs three verses later, when Lot offers up his two daughters to the Sodomite men, in exchange for the safety of the two angels.

"Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known man..."

Proponents of a sexual-nature of sin, point to the context which "Know" is used within the passage as evidence of sexual immorality.

If this passage remains vague still, there is a passage in the book of Jude which specifically names the sins of the Sodomite society.

http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/sodomite.html#<b>Sexual Nature of Sin</b>

I guess the answer is: NO. It seems the crime was cruelty, arrogance, intolerance, and selfishness

the answer is actually 'don't know'  as there isn't any evidence of marriage or cohabiting of same sex couples - only that there was pretty indiscriminate homosexuality/lesbianism.

Thanks. I just wanted to see different arguments/POVs people have and be more informed because I was not satisfied taking my homophobic friend's -possibly- twisted view on it. =)

Idk but you should listen to this lovely and topical song while you ponder the issue. Forgive the stupid video.

Ezekel 16:49-50:

"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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

Seems like people were even then asking, "What was the sin of Sodom?"  It is interesting that being arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, and unwilling to help the poor and needy were the sins mentioned.  Woe to the church who thinks hating gays is the most important thing to do and that rich people deserve all of their money and have no obligation to the poor.

That chapter goes on to imply that Sodom will be restored.

Sodom will be restored

And this time we'll call it California.

Quote from: tekla on March 05, 2012, 12:16:27 AM
Sodom will be restored

And this time we'll call it California.

ROFL that killed me xD

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 03, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Bible is quite clear on Sodom and Gomorrah being full of gay and lesbians pursuing indiscriminate same-sex sex.  So the two cities had to go.

As someone who studied the Bible academically for almost a decade, this is furthest from the truth about what scriptures says concerning the cities....u may want to reread it.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 03, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Bible is quite clear on Sodom and Gomorrah being full of gay and lesbians pursuing indiscriminate same-sex sex.  So the two cities had to go.

This brings up so many questions.

On a totally unrelated note, anybody else intrigued by biblical references to purple? Purple was like salt back in the day, or like rare earth metals are now. Special stuff.

Purple was expensive because it was a colour-fast dye and only available from the shell of the Murex sea-snail.  Tyre had a monopoly, hence "Tyrean Purple" used on Consul's togas in Rome.  Apparently Tyre also stank.

Karen.

Quote from: Annah on March 12, 2012, 01:12:24 AM
As someone who studied the Bible academically for almost a decade, this is furthest from the truth about what scriptures says concerning the cities....u may want to reread it.

hmm I don't wanna read your bible as this seem perfectly uneqivocal to me how can it be read any different? : 
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 12, 2012, 01:57:01 PM

hmm I don't wanna read your bible as this seem perfectly uneqivocal to me how can it be read any different? : 
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

that still does not imply, in no way, that it was homosexuality. You said you do not read the bible and yet you try to argue its claims?

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were -punished because of the way they treated people. In that culture, mistreating your guests were about as offensive as spitting on the face of God.

Furthermore, The New Testament talks about Sodom and Gomorrah being punished, not only because of how they treat their guests but because they were after strange flesh. Strange flesh, in the greek, is not homosexuality...or anything sexual for that matter. The strange flesh in koine greek referred to something that is not of this place, not standard, something higher than anthro (humanity).....which makes sense because it was Angels.

This parallels to the first fabled destruction of humanity when humanity and angels (strange flesh) procreated, giving birth to giants of the land which resulted in nothing but evil thoughts in the land.

So, yeah. It has nothing to do with homosexuality...at all.

You cant read something in the Bible (or on the internet) and just assume what you read and interpret is the only way. You cannot read a text at face value and disregard any cultural, social, historical, mythical, legendary, and theological implications in which the text was written.

Reading ancient text is not like reading the Cosmopolitan. It doesn't work that way.