What is your understanding of...

[MacG]

...why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?

Blessings,

MacG

[ActRaiser]

****sexuality is only the straw that broke the camel's back. Not the cause... It was a cause. Not the cause however.

[Columcille]

The text starts in Genesis 18.20-19.29.

The main verse within there is in 18.20-21 and 19.4-8.

Verse four of chapter 19 stats "But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together."

Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's translation of the Septuagint also affirms this:

'But before they went to sleep, the men of the city, the Sodomites, comp***ed the house, both young and old, all the people together."


It seems to me to suggest that the p***age in question, concerning what follows, is quite clear that this is not just a minor group of the city. It is not some sort of straw that broke the camel's back. It is the "men" of the city, "young and old, all the people together." The sin they wanted to commit to the men under Lot's care was ****sexual rape. Of course, the Hebrew word for Sodom, I believe is "scorched." I can look it up on the libronix library. But I feel the context of the p***age demonstrates not only the act of rape, but specifically of ****sexuality. What follows is Lot trying to persuade the men to rape his daughters rather than the men. But they were insistent in raping the men--thus the connection for everyone to see where we got the word Sodomy from, even though the root "Sodom" may in Hebrew just connotate the Lord's destruction of that city.



Just to demonstrate its usefulness to ActRaiser, I wanted to add some words from the OED.

sodomy:

("sQd@mI) Forms: 3–5 sodomye (5 zodomye), 4, 6–7 -ie, 6 -i, 5– sodomy. [a. OF. (also mod.F.) sodomie: see Sodom and -y.]
1. An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.
1297 R. Glouc. (Rolls) 9038 Mid þe vile sunne of sodomye yproued hii were echon. 1387 Trevisa Higden (Rolls) III. 5 Mempricius+forsook his wyf at þe laste, and vsede sodomye as a schrewe schulde. c1440 Jacob's Well 162 Þe xiiij. fote depth is sodomye, þat is, synne aŠens kynde. 1536–40 Pilgr. Tale 407 The prophet+which knew before of there sodomi. 1577 tr. Bullinger's Decades (1592) 236 The abhominable sinne of Sodomie+is plainly forbidden. 1650 Bulwer Anthropomet. 198 Wicked Sodomy, a sin so hateful to Nature it self that she abhors it. 1727 Swift Poisoning E. Curll Wks. 1755 III. i. 151 Heaven pardon me for publishing the Trials of sodomy. 1782 J. Brown Nat. & Revealed Relig. i. i. 23 Polygamy must occasion+sodomy, bestiality, or the like. 1864 tr. Caspar's Forensic Med. III. 336 It is no secret that the unnatural connection of men with animals, sodomy in the restricted sense of the word, still sneaks about. 1395 Purvey Remonstr. (1851) 7 Symonie is gostli sodomie and eresie.

1395 1577 1782
1297 1387 c1440 1536–40 1650 1727 1864




2. An act or instance of this.
1593 G. Harvey Pierce's Super. Wks. (Grosart) II. 271 Agrippa detesteth his monstrous veneries, and execrable Sodomies. 1621 Burton Anat. Mel. i. iii. ii. iv. (1651) 205 Those rapes,+Sodomies, buggeries of Monkes and Friers.
1593 1621

Sodom:

("sQd@m) [The name of the early city beside the Dead Sea, the wickedness and destruction of which are recorded in Gen. xviii-xix.
The Hebrew form of the name is S'dZm; the Sept. has R¾dola, the Vulg. Sodoma, neut. pl. and fem. sing.]
1. An extremely wicked or corrupt place. Freq. coupled with Gomorrah (see Gomorr(h)ean a. and n.), the name of the other of the two wicked cities of the plain in Gen. xviii–xix.
1649 C. Walker Relat. & Obs. ii. 257 To the prejudice of our other New States-men, and their New erected Sodomes and Spintries at the Mulbury-garden at S. James's. a1704 T. Brown Walk r. London, A Tavern Wks. 1709 III. iii. 3 A Tavern is a little Sodom, where as many Vices are daily practic'd, as ever were known in the great one. 1782 J. Brown Nat. & Revealed Relig. v. iv. 461 How could he dwell in a dead carcase, a Sodom of filthiness? 1862 Queen Victoria Let. 7 June in R. Fulford Dearest Mama (1968) 67 It was intended he should come home through Paris stopping only a day in order to have got over his visit to that Sodom and Gomorrah. 1864 Trollope Can you forgive Her? I. xxiii. 179, I always regarded the States as a Sodom and Gomorrah, prospering in wickedness. 1899 Westm. Gaz. 11 Sept. 8/1 Two, even in this military Sodom, had the courage to proclaim Dreyfus innocent. 1972 I. Hamilton Thrill Machine xv. 63 It wasn't exactly Sodom and Gomorrah—the ladies kept their clothes on. 1974 Listener 24 Jan. 121/3 Heliogabalus+reduced Rome to a kind of post-Christian Sodom and Gomorrah.
1899
1782 1864 1974
1649 a1704 1862 1972




2. Sodom apple. a. Apple of Sodom (see apple n. 3). So †Sodom-fruit. Also U.S., the horse-nettle, Solanum carolinense.
1615 R. Brathwait Strappado (1878) 48 See painted Sodom~apples faire to th' eye, But being tutcht they perish instantly. 1654 Whitlock Zootomia 237 They are Sodome Apples, enduring the Eye, not the Touch. 1706 in Phillips (ed. Kersey). [1736 J. Bancks Young's Last Day 22 Through life we chase, with fond pursuit, What mocks our hope, like Sodom's fruit.] 1738 M. Green Spleen 33 And Sodom-fruit our pains deceives. 1855 Mrs. Gaskell North & S. iv, The mocking way in which over-fond wishes are too often fulfilled—Sodom apples as they are. 1905 W. J. Rolfe Shaks. Sonn. 19 The ashes to which the Sodom-apples of illicit love are turned in the end.
1738
1654 [1736]
1615 1706 1855 1905




†b. A variety of cider-apple. Obs.
1676 Worlidge Cyder (1691) 212 The Sodome-apple or Bloudy pippin is a fruit of more than ordinary dark colour.
1676




3. Sodom egg-plant (see quot. and cf. 2a).
1842 Penny Cycl. XXII. 196/1 Solanum Sodomeum, Sodom egg-plant, or apple of Sodom.
1842


MLA format is as follows
"Sodom." The Oxford English Dictionary. CD-ROM. V3.1, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. 2004.

btw, you could probably shorten Oxford University Press to just OUP. It might also be eliminated as demonstrated in the next citation.
I find that MLA citations frequently change the order in different books. I can see using the twelfth edition of Harbrace College Handbook various differences from Joseph Gibaldi's "MLA handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 5th edition." I mean how many editions does it take to get it right the first time?

If you find the OED in the college library, the MLA will be like the following:

"sodomy." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.

One other thing, there is an online version of the OED that most universities and colleges may offer if not copies of the OED CD-ROM.

Since you are thinking about an English major, try to use this dictionary over any other preference. It is the most scholarly.

[asdf]

Ezekiel 16:48-50, 53-54
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen...

However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort.
As I see it, the "sin of Sodom" discussion is like Jesus' ****ogy of the speck vs. beam - if I point in condemnation at "them", I have to deal with my own issues of being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned".

[Columcille]

Ezekiel 16:48-50, 53-54
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 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. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen...

However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort.
As I see it, the "sin of Sodom" discussion is like Jesus' ****ogy of the speck vs. beam - if I point in condemnation at "them", I have to deal with my own issues of being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned".

Verses 44–58, a diatribe comparing Jerusalem to her sisters, opens with an epigram, “Like mother, like daughter,” restates Jerusalem’s Amorite and Hit***e parentage, and moves quickly to an unfavorable comparison of Jerusalem to her two sisters, Samaria and Sodom (vv. 44–46). Jerusalem, the most wicked of the three, is called to blush for her sins (vv. 47–52). Then follows a sequence (vv. 53–58) describing the restoration of Sodom, Samaria, Jerusalem, and their daughters (neighboring cities), and the enduring sense of shame that Jerusalem will experience in the restoration.
Bergant, Dianne ; Karris, Robert J.: The Collegeville Bible Commentary : Based on the New American Bible With Revised New Testament. Collegeville, Minn. : Liturgical Press, 1989, S. 545


The use of Sodom in this p***age is meant to express sever distaste for the present condition from which Jerusalem faces in the days of Ezekiel. It is, like most prophetic utterances, both a condemnation of sin and also one of future hope. How, I ask you, is Sodom restored if it was completely laid waste? It is purely a metaphor as verse 50 demonstrates.

50 Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them.

(Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees ; Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops ; United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board: The New American Bible : Translated from the Original Languages With Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources and the Revised New Testament. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1996, c1986, S. Eze 16:500

[MacG]

49"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.

50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it." NASB

I was wondering if someone would find these verses. The average guy in the pew (especially west bourough baptist) beleives that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah soley because of their ****sexuality. These verses God elaborates on their whole condition. First God points out all of the riches that they had even though they were arrogant and due to the combonation of arrogance and abundant food and careless ease God points out their sin of ommission of not helping the poor and needy. This resulted their being haughty (distainful) of the poor and proceeded to do "detestable" things in their careless ease.

God seems to mention the detestable things as the straw that broke the camels back as it were - not the primary cause. So it is I believe with ****sexuals who genuinely seek first the kingdom of God. ****sexuality may not be the main issue in a guys life. Just like being arrogant towards the poor may be the first concern. The image of the Pharisees comes to mind dropping in their spare gold gobblets in the offering with fanfare while the widow's mite was valued far more. The two men praying before God, the religious ruler who thanked God the he was not like this sinner and the sinner was beating his chest saying "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner". Jesus said he went home justified in the eyes of God.

Zephaniah 2:3
Seek the LORD,All you humble of the earth who have carried out His ordinances; Seek righteousness, seek humility Perhaps you will be hidden in the day of the LORD'S anger.

James 1:21
Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.

Philippians 2:3
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

1 Peter 5:5
You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.

At any rate these are some of the current thoughts I have on the subject by means it is not comprehensive nor set in stone.

Blessings,

MacG

[Columcille]

49"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.

50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it." NASB

I was wondering if someone would find these verses. The average guy in the pew (especially west bourough baptist) beleives that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah soley because of their ****sexuality. These verses God elaborates on their whole condition. First God points out all of the riches that they had even though they were arrogant and due to the combonation of arrogance and abundant food and careless ease God points out their sin of ommission of not helping the poor and needy. This resulted their being haughty (distainful) of the poor and proceeded to do "detestable" things in their careless ease.

God seems to mention the detestable things as the straw that broke the camels back as it were - not the primary cause. So it is I believe with ****sexuals who genuinely seek first the kingdom of God. ****sexuality may not be the main issue in a guys life. Just like being arrogant towards the poor may be the first concern. The image of the Pharisees comes to mind dropping in their spare gold gobblets in the offering with fanfare while the widow's mite was valued far more. The two men praying before God, the religious ruler who thanked God the he was not like this sinner and the sinner was beating his chest saying "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner". Jesus said he went home justified in the eyes of God.

Zephaniah 2:3
Seek the LORD,All you humble of the earth who have carried out His ordinances; Seek righteousness, seek humility Perhaps you will be hidden in the day of the LORD'S anger.

James 1:21
Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.

Philippians 2:3
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

1 Peter 5:5
You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.

At any rate these are some of the current thoughts I have on the subject by means it is not comprehensive nor set in stone.

Blessings,

MacG


I guess you just have to ignore all the literary mechanisms of the genre, because I see no scholarly commentary which would render your opinion.

[asdf]

The use of Sodom in this p***age is meant to express sever distaste for the present condition from which Jerusalem faces in the days of Ezekiel. It is, like most prophetic utterances, both a condemnation of sin and also one of future hope.

Exactly. It's notable, though, that Jerusalem is also condemned for the "sin of Sodom" - arrogance and unhospitality - and that same-sex relations are not mentioned.


How, I ask you, is Sodom restored if it was completely laid waste? It is purely a metaphor as verse 50 demonstrates.

It is indeed a metaphor - just as when Jesus said roughly the same thing as Ezekiel here:

And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
-Matthew 11.23-24

[Columcille]

Exactly. It's notable, though, that Jerusalem is also condemned for the "sin of Sodom" - arrogance and unhospitality - and that same-sex relations are not mentioned.



It is indeed a metaphor - just as when Jesus said roughly the same thing as Ezekiel here:

And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
-Matthew 11.23-24


The fact remains that the story of Sodom in Genesis expresses ****sexual acts and the use of Sodom as a metaphor by both Jesus and Ezekiel does not change the story for your benefit. ****sexuality is still condemned.

[asdf]

The fact remains that the story of Sodom in Genesis expresses ****sexual acts

It expresses attempted gang-rape, both male-male and, as offered by the "righteous" Lot, male-female.


and the use of Sodom as a metaphor by both Jesus and Ezekiel does not change the story for your benefit. ****sexuality is still condemned.

Not as used by Jesus and Ezekiel.

[Columcille]

It expresses attempted gang-rape, both male-male and, as offered by the "righteous" Lot, male-female.



Not as used by Jesus and Ezekiel.

If you want to exegete a p***age, then do so. If you want to spout sentimentality or express your vote, as though God is going to change his position on the basis of what you say rather than the whole of Scripture or on what you may or may not cons***ute as writings from your own "Tradition," then you should then start questioning whether or not the doctrine suites the tickling of your ears or whether its consistent with the historical Christianity.

I want to hear how the Law of Moses to kill ****sexual only applies to Kings or rulers again, especially when the Law was written before Israel had any rulers, with the exception Moses when the law was written. Please, I would love to hear from any writings of your "Tradition."

[asdf]

I want to hear how the Law of Moses to kill ****sexual only applies to Kings or rulers again, especially when the Law was written before Israel had any rulers, with the exception Moses when the law was written.

Wait, what?


Did I say the Torah only applied to "kings or rulers"? If so, where? I don't know what you're talking about.
Am I interpreting your words above correctly that you think ****sexuals today should be killed?


Please, I would love to hear from any writings of your "Tradition."

Yes, I know I've got to get back to the Quadrilateral thread. I'm working on it. My next installment will be on Scripture - it's going to turn into a pretty epic post, I think, so forgive me for taking so long.

[asdf]

If you want to exegete a p***age, then do so. If you want to spout sentimentality or express your vote, as though God is going to change his position on the basis of what you say rather than the whole of Scripture...

By the way, I agree that "sentimentality" or a "vote" is a poor way to do exegesis. Sentimentality and voting don't change the fact that Jesus and Ezekiel (or even Genesis) don't speak of same-sex relations as the reason for Sodom's destruction.

[MacG]

I guess you just have to ignore all the literary mechanisms of the genre, because I see no scholarly commentary which would render your opinion.

That's because I'm not a scholar :) Though my thoughts are the first level of hermanutics - reader response. Perhaps you could enlighten me to another level and tell me which genre the verses (all of them) I cite employ so that I might be better informed.

It seems that God said that they were rich oppressve AND did detestable things. Do you suppose that He would tolerated them longer if they were either/or and not both?

Blessings,

MacG

[Columcille]

By the way, I agree that "sentimentality" or a "vote" is a poor way to do exegesis. Sentimentality and voting don't change the fact that Jesus and Ezekiel (or even Genesis) don't speak of same-sex relations as the reason for Sodom's destruction.

Then do Leviticus 18.22; 20.13


5
Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. I am the LORD.
6
1 "None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.
7
You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her.
8
You shall not have intercourse with your father's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
9
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere.
10
You shall not have intercourse with your son's daughter or with your daughter's daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family.
11
You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father's wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister.
12
You shall not have intercourse with your father's sister, since she is your father's relative.
13
You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister, since she is your mother's relative.
14
You shall not disgrace your father's brother by being intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt.
15
You shall not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, and therefore you shall not disgrace her.
16
2 You shall not have intercourse with your brother's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
17
You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her.
18
While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife.
19
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.
20
You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor's wife, defiling yourself with her.
21
3 You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
23
You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.
24
"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.
25
Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants.


13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.



I gave the longer list for the purpose to show its application. It seems clear to me that verse 13 in Chapter 20 is a willful act and not one of rape.

[asdf]

Then do Leviticus 18.22; 20.13

...

I gave the longer list for the purpose to show its application. It seems clear to me that verse 13 in Chapter 20 is a willful act and not one of rape.

We'll get there. For what it's worth I do agree with you that these prohibitions do refer to consensual acts and not solely rape.

I'm suddenly feeling that we're having the wrong conversation altogether. If I'm interpreting your words correctly here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10269#post10269), you believe that ****sexuality today should be punishable by the death penalty. Please, please, please, correct me if I'm mistaken.

If you don't believe that gay men and lesbians are en***led to the right to life, I really don't know what to say, but I don't think I'll be able to engage your Scriptural arguments any further. I only hope I'm mis-reading your words.

[Columcille]

We'll get there. For what it's worth I do agree with you that these prohibitions do refer to consensual acts and not solely rape.

I'm suddenly feeling that we're having the wrong conversation altogether. If I'm interpreting your words correctly here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10269#post10269), you believe that ****sexuality today should be punishable by the death penalty. Please, please, please, correct me if I'm mistaken.

If you don't believe that gay men and lesbians are en***led to the right to life, I really don't know what to say, but I don't think I'll be able to engage your Scriptural arguments any further. I only hope I'm mis-reading your words.


I believe that God's theocracy dictated the death penalty, in fact, I don't have to believe, I know it as biblical fact!

The theocracy of God demonstrates the heavy burden that the law places on the individual by revealing what sin is. The working of the law were external observances, when it is really meant for inward observances. So the Christian, by seeing that ****sexual acts are do not belong in God's theocratic system also know that the theocracy of God as it moves and is applied to the spiritual kingdom of God applies to the Christian. The theocracy moved from the State to the innerperson. Therefore, ****sexuality cannot be a part of the Christian lifestyle.

[asdf]

I believe that God's theocracy dictated the death penalty, in fact, I don't have to believe, I know it as biblical fact!

The theocracy of God demonstrates the heavy burden that the law places on the individual by revealing what sin is. The working of the law were external observances, when it is really meant for inward observances. So the Christian, by seeing that ****sexual acts are do not belong in God's theocratic system also know that the theocracy of God as it moves and is applied to the spiritual kingdom of God applies to the Christian. The theocracy moved from the State to the innerperson. Therefore, ****sexuality cannot be a part of the Christian lifestyle.

Can you please give a clear, unambiguous answer to the question: Do you believe that any modern government has the right, duty, or obligation to execute people for ****sexuality?

[Columcille]

Can you please give a clear, unambiguous answer to the question: Do you believe that any modern government has the right, duty, or obligation to execute people for ****sexuality?

I am a Catholic, I do not; in fact, I am against the death penalty when the government can afford both protecting victim from the offender and the offender from discrimination, as well as those innocents prosecuted wrongly. However, it was God's covenant with Israel to have a nation of people who would love God and be a moral nation based on the same trust that Abraham had with his God. As such, the law is not done away with. When Christ fulfilled the Law, the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law such as refraining from ****sexual acts. So if you claim to be a Christian, you cannot claim as a person filled with same-sex attraction that God sanctions the acts as pure and wholesome for conditions that are clearly not present in the Law as set by God to Moses. So far, I seem to get a sense that ActRaiser agrees with this ***essment, though I think his idea of loosing or gaining reward is a borderline excuse for some to continue living in licentiousness. Opps, I sinned again... I'll just loose a reward--almost similiar to some cafeteria Catholics who say, its no problem, I'll just go to the priest and have my sins absolved... without ever really repenting of their sins or recanting their support of such immoral evil acts as abortion, euthenasia, etc..

[asdf]

I am a Catholic, I do not; in fact, I am against the death penalty when the government can afford both protecting victim from the offender and the offender from discrimination, as well as those innocents prosecuted wrongly.

Thank you. That does ease my mind.


However, it was God's covenant with Israel to have a nation of people who would love God and be a moral nation based on the same trust that Abraham had with his God. As such, the law is not done away with. When Christ fulfilled the Law, the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law such as refraining from ****sexual acts. So if you claim to be a Christian, you cannot claim as a person filled with same-sex attraction that God sanctions the acts as pure and wholesome for conditions that are clearly not present in the Law as set by God to Moses. So far, I seem to get a sense that ActRaiser agrees with this ***essment, though I think his idea of loosing or gaining reward is a borderline excuse for some to continue living in licentiousness. Opps, I sinned again... I'll just loose a reward--almost similiar to some cafeteria Catholics who say, its no problem, I'll just go to the priest and have my sins absolved... without ever really repenting of their sins or recanting their support of such immoral evil acts as abortion, euthenasia, etc..

I understand that; I think it's a valid approach to Christian morality; I acknowledge that it has been the majority opinion through the years of Christian history; I recognize (and support, even!) the right for Christian communities to determine acceptable moral standards for adherents of those communities. As you said, "the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law..."

My question specifically had to do not with "the people of Christ", but with everybody else. That's why I was referring to modern law and government.

Can't you make a distinction between modern law and spiritual law? Between the "theocracy of the heart" that you believe applies to Christians and the secular rule of law established in modern liberal democracies? Between sinful behavior (as defined by the community) being condemned within the Church itself, and enacting civil/criminal punishments on those outside the moral-religious authority of the Church community?

There's an argument to be had about the civil rights afforded to gay and lesbian people in wider society - which is where I'll be diverted every time you start talking about criminal penalties, e.g., the death penalty, outside the very limited and specific discussion of the role of Mosaic Law.

The argument about the role (if any) ****sexual people are to play in the Church is a completely separate argument. That's the argument I'd like to have - though I understand and respect that some expressions of the Church universal may well never reach agreement on this - but it's going to get sidetracked and derailed if we can't even come to a baseline of agreement wherein gay people are allowed to exist.

[Columcille]

Can't you make a distinction between modern law and spiritual law? Between the "theocracy of the heart" that you believe applies to Christians and the secular rule of law established in modern liberal democracies? Between sinful behavior (as defined by the community) being condemned within the Church itself, and enacting civil/criminal punishments on those outside the moral-religious authority of the Church community?

There's an argument to be had about the civil rights afforded to gay and lesbian people in wider society - which is where I'll be diverted every time you start talking about criminal penalties, e.g., the death penalty, outside the very limited and specific discussion of the role of Mosaic Law.

The argument about the role (if any) ****sexual people are to play in the Church is a completely separate argument. That's the argument I'd like to have - though I understand and respect that some expressions of the Church universal may well never reach agreement on this - but it's going to get sidetracked and derailed if we can't even come to a baseline of agreement wherein gay people are allowed to exist.

The Catholic Church is against ****sexual marriage. The sacrament of marriage is sanctioned by God between husband and wife. This extends to the very reason of marriage which is to establish a family to raise children (whether biological or adopted). ****sexuals already have enough civil rights as it extends to the working environment. I think that battle has already been fought, not only for the ****sexual but for the AIDS patient, as I believe Tom Hank's demonstrated in the movie "Philadelphia," which I believe depicted Geoffrey Bower's life. However, this does not guarantee that the ****sexual will be fired should they initiate sexual har***ment. I worked at a McDonalds in Tacoma and was being sexual harr***ed by a ****sexual in the presence of my coworkers who all said that they would have hit him in the face, whereas, I told the manager and he was fired. Not all ****sexuals are like this, I've worked with other ****sexuals and enjoyed the working atmosphere.

As far as politics is concerned, Christians should be active in their government because we are also a part of the people being governed. As such, prioritizing moral issues in electing officials to office should be as close to the Christian's own moral comp***. This is left to the individual, but as a rule, the Church has stated that knowingly supporting the candidate specifically because they are prochoice, proethenasia, or pro-****sexual is sinful. For people like Trinity, up in Canada, most candidates that run are not pro-life; so he has to weigh in the candidate's moral comp*** to be the most favorable to Christian ethics.


As far as the Mosiac Law, God did establish it for the purpose of his people being a moral people, so the death penalty established by God shows the severity and gravity he has for such acts in his kingdom. If you are a professing Christian, you should at least understand that ****sexual acts are not reasonable in a genuine relationship with God.

So as far as your questions are concerned...(1) making a distinction between modern law and spiritual law.... (A) the distinction already exists within the confines of the definitions. The moral laws existing in both establishments with Man on most instances agreeing with the spiritual laws, but in many cases violating and harming our society because it fails to listen to God.

(2) I believe that the number of books by philosophers of old have attempted to establish an ideal form of government. As many of our forefathers, framers of our cons***ution, the Judeo-Christian ethic was an important aspect in legislating laws that correspond to that moral ethic. George Washington stated the following in his Inaugural Address the following:

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html


I believe therefore that the spiritual law, which in Christ's kingdom is perfect peace, is incorporated into modern law, that the "smiles of Heaven" will bring with it the 'public prosperity." (3)This should be both applied in a Christian gr***roots revival in bringing more people to Christ as simultaniously working in the government for legislative change. But as things exist asdf, the errosion of morality and decay is already moving in your favor. As such, I believe I answered your third question in this paragraph. Just one more retort. All kingdoms are going to fail, so do not put much weight into modern laws, especially if they violate God's approval.

[asdf]

The Catholic Church is against ****sexual marriage.

Indeed. The Catholic Church is also against the use of condoms or other forms of birth control (even going so far as to spread lies that condoms make the problem of AIDS worse). The Catholic Church is also against divorce, and does not recognize marriages of divorcees.

Thankfully, none of these "spiritual laws" that the Catholic Church has every right to impose on her members is enshrined in civil law.


The sacrament of marriage is sanctioned by God between husband and wife. This extends to the very reason of marriage which is to establish a family to raise children (whether biological or adopted).We've been through this before (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7169#post7169), and I still don't buy it.


****sexuals already have enough civil rights as it extends to the working environment. I think that battle has already been fought, not only for the ****sexual but for the AIDS patient, as I believe Tom Hank's demonstrated in the movie "Philadelphia," which I believe depicted Geoffrey Bower's life.All very easy for you to claim that discrimination doesn't exist. It's like an Alabamian flying a Confederate flag claiming that racism is over, since the p***age of the Civil Rights Act. The fact remains that there are 1138 federal statutory provisions (http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/GAOBenefits.pdf) of rights which heterosexual couples have that gay and lesbian couples do not. Including:


The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically ***ume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically ***umes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
The right to pe***ion for same-sex partners to immigrate.
The right to ***ume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a ***.


However, this does not guarantee that the ****sexual will be fired should they initiate sexual har***ment. I worked at a McDonalds in Tacoma and was being sexual harr***ed by a ****sexual in the presence of my coworkers who all said that they would have hit him in the face, whereas, I told the manager and he was fired.Very good. Sexual har***ment, by a gay or a straight individual, should not be tolerated at the workplace.


Not all ****sexuals are like this, I've worked with other ****sexuals and enjoyed the working atmosphere. I don't know whether to be glad that you recognize this or sad that you have to take pains to point it out.


As far as politics is concerned, Christians should be active in their government because we are also a part of the people being governed. As such, prioritizing moral issues in electing officials to office should be as close to the Christian's own moral comp***.I agree, but I believe that a 'moral comp***' should be beneficial to as many people as possible, not just the adherents of one religion (or one stream within a religion). "Of the people, by the people, for the people" should include all people and all faiths - and no faith.


This is left to the individual, but as a rule, the Church has stated that knowingly supporting the candidate specifically because they are prochoice, proethenasia, or pro-****sexual is sinful.My thoughts are mixed on this. I understand that abortion and euthanasia are considered "life-and-death" issues, since it places a primacy of value on the "sanc***y of life", but ****sexuality? What's so threatening about gay people receiving more civil equality that the Church has to draw a line in the sand against political candidates who support those policies?

And why wouldn't the Church make such harsh denouncements against those who would knowingly support torture, or unjust wars, or lack of concern for the poor?


the Judeo-Christian ethic was an important aspect in legislating laws that correspond to that moral ethic. George Washington stated the following in his Inaugural Address the following:
I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html
Washington was a Deist. Part of the American Experiment was for Rationalism and not religious dogma to determine civil law. "The eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained" are decidedly not referring to the doctrines of Christianity - much less Roman Catholic Christianity!

[Columcille]

Asdf, your fellow ****sexual lobbyists are doing their *** for you. You should not be concerned with the far right or the moderate. I always thought that there will be a great falling away, even if it be gradually. You will get your way. I bet the antiChrist himself will approve of ****sexuality in churches.

You have eight bullets.
1-4, 6. Total agreement. The ****sexual should not have these rights. If anything, (1) you should encourage a medical living will. (2) Law needs to be changed here, I would recommend giving people an alloted frequency in which this could be used, and open a door for an individual to appeal for more time depending on circumstances. I would just word it so it includes people living under the same household, which would include dying friends, neighbors, as well as the precious ****sexual who now reside under your roof. (3) resounding NO! this infringes on State rights. (4) I am absolutely against ****sexuals adopting children. (6) Social Security was suppose to be temporary when it was first done. If anything, they need to privatize this because in all the government's wisdom, it cannot get any worse than if we ditch the whole thing and force people to make ammends with family and start relying on what our forefathers had before Social Security came along. Also, the military is staunchly conservative and always makes every effort to segregate male and female. There is no coop living condition, and frankly with public showers in boot camp... it is no place for ****sexuals. Therefore, if they get veteran benefits, it will be based on the conditions set forth when they joined and started collecting. Meaning, tough luck, you knew when you were closeted ****sexual that you would not be able to share these benefits with a ****sexual partner.
5. they should have this right.
(5) This is a matter of fairness for any venture, whether it be domestic or not. Even in marriages, I see at times where there is considerable abuse of this type of law. I had a friend come home from Iraq and got divorced by his cheating wife--who incidently spend all the money and maxed out his credit with the general power of attorney given to her.
7. Get a will.
8. Encourage the free market, if a person wants to spend their hard earned money on insurance for someone else, they should get it. However, I wonder what the insurance companies know about the frequency of AIDS and its costability in the ****sexual circles. Might be too risky to sustain profitability. The free market should be the answer to this and not the government.

[Columcille]

Ps. As far as the other concerns. I think I have answered that in regards to priority. Abortion accounts for more lives taken than what has been sustained by the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan combined for any given year. The life of the unborn is clearly innocent, whereas it is harder to make a case in regards to an "unjust war." As a soldier that has been over in Iraq twice, possibly looking at a third time... the UCMJ is pretty harsh, and we are drilled in our briefings and training the rules of war, current TTPs in regards to Escalation Of Force, and Rules Of Engagement. Our enemies do not abide by such rules, that is one reason we are gaining success in Iraq. Al-Queda uses torture, threats, and even ***asination of the people and their family members of whom they supposedly are helping against the wicked United States. I am against torture, and the uncomfort that some terrorists may feel in our care is better than handing them over to the Iraqi forces, who are not under the Genevia Convention, I might add, and will kill them. Better a living terrorist in our care whom may feel uncomfort than a dead one or one that will suffer real torture. A lot of these issues are real concerns, of which we should attempt to put a stop to, but it is still a matter of prioritizing them... and even if they are minor priority, it is easier to have discussion and change within whatever party is in power.


However, if you want to discuss this further... it has moved away from the story of Sodom... I think you should start a new thread.

[Follower]

The Letter of Jude, alone in all of the Bible, mentions any sexual sin, specifically, when referring to Sodom, (besides Genesis, of course) but he only speaks of their “going after strange flesh… [to]revile Angelic Majesties.” (verses 7 & 8) -- Not Human Men.

Nowhere in all of scripture (NOWHERE!) is “****sexuality” said to be the cause of their doom. The SIN/GUILT of Sodom is NOT ****sexuality. The city's Sin is recorded (as posted by others above, quoting Ezekiel, and by extension Jesus in Matthew) and we err if we presume to know God’s revelation about something which He has NOT revealed.

[Jean Chauvin]

Genesis 19:24 is called a theophany. Meaning, the 2nd person of the Trinity blew up the city.

God the Father (Yahveh is used here) from above sent down fire to God the son from earth, and God the Son then threw it to the direction of this city and we had a bombing.

So, when somebody asks you, "what would Jesus bomb," that's you answer. Genesis 19:24.

It was bombed as an example of God's judgment. Though, other cities were also done away with for various reasons.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[alanmolstad]

...why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Blessings,

MacG

The cities were destroyed because of the GAYs......It will serve throughout the generations as both a warning and example of God's views on the GAYs and their eternal fate.

Sodom and Gomorrah leave no wiggle room....
They are a final statement, Case-closed!

[asdf]

The cities were destroyed because of the GAYs......It will serve throughout the generations as both a warning and example of God's views on the GAYs and their eternal fate.

Sodom and Gomorrah leave no wiggle room....
They are a final statement, Case-closed!

Yawn. Another day, another blustery, ****fixated, oddly capitalized, evidence-free set of ***ertions that have a tenuous grasp on the OP, no grounding in the ensuing conversation and claim to be an unquestionable authority on the views of the Divine based on nothing but alanmolstad's own say-so.

Wake me up when you have something to say.

[alanmolstad]

...why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?

Blessings,

MacG.....I think the Bible tells us the reason....there were some angels sent to the city to see what was going on...They ran into the men of that city that attempted to do ****-rape on them....and the result of this was the fire that came down and consumed them....


So basically God destroyed them due to all the GAYS there...and this sits well in agreement where we learn in the New testament that the GAYS do not enter into the Kingdom.....

[MichaellS]

.....I think the Bible tells us the reason....there were some angels sent to the city to see what was going on...They ran into the men of that city that attempted to do ****-rape on them....and the result of this was the fire that came down and consumed them....


So basically God destroyed them due to all the GAYS there...and this sits well in agreement where we learn in the New testament that the GAYS do not enter into the Kingdom.....

If we willingly transfer those basic ***umptions, exclusivity on every last justification is impossible to ascertain without God. But then, it appears fixations have a foe too.

Here's one you may not have considered, over all the wickedness that He could have taken out the same judgment for, S&G are througout history the guidepost bearing for the moral condition of the culture in which you/they have lived. The more you question that judgement, the further from the proper implementing of those morals you could find yourself.

[alanmolstad]

If we willingly transfer those basic ***umptions,.
....

It's a Bible example of what God thinks.
We dont have to guess what God's views are, the decent of fire onto the city show us clearly God's views.

yes, the people of that city were guilty of many sins....many sins that we are told about and im sure others missing from our account.

But.... BUT, to make sure we dont misunderstand the meaning of the story we have added to this the story of the angels, the fact they they were attacked by Gays, and the judgement that came clearly as a result.

The words and actions of the angels at the moment of this attack were give in this story as a clear warning to all of us who might try to come up with other reasons for the judgement of God against them....

The angels struck the gays with blindness....and in a very real way a type of blindness strikes all who try to defend the sexual lifestyle being condemned by God in this story....The defenders to this very day are "blind" to God's judgement against them.

The judgement fire is also a warning...for that same judgement of fire awaits they who do not repent of the sin of this city.

[asdf]

Gang rape is a bad "sexual lifestyle". I think you will find the vast majority of LGBT people will agree with you.

[MichaellS]

....

But.... BUT, to make sure we dont misunderstand the meaning of the story .

Hello alanmolstad,

Sir, is it possible we both tipped the scales of conveying a point with my use of “***umptions” and your “basically”? But by far most of all mine, for it wasn’t at all up for questioning that which was a foundational (“basically”) corruption of the people. That is, foundational as long as it was used in a thorough context (forgive the mincing), as you later did make that quite plain thank you.

So, the OP-question isn’t so removed from general points of interest nor profitability to the general body. No, I would say it is rather at the top of the list. As I was hoping someone would have picked up a piece of my point which is still not in my mind an unfit declaration for our time. It is this, an exact reasoning for S&G’s destruction is also described by what happened to the children of Israel (1 Corinthians 10:11). But I believe the Lord omitted referencing S&G for a further reason; Paul and the others undoubtedly could have used the S&G account, but enhanced the remark against it by dealing with lesser iniquity. To use it in my thinking would have been absurd to the hearer of that time. In other words, the destruction of S&G stands just as the others do, an example and singularly shameful.

But someone might say, ‘but those people of S&G caught up in that didn’t have the benefit of a cache of history to retain that they might have guarded themselves against. But herein is my simple point, here we are with a treasure trove to recall and what do we rather choose? The same thing they did. In that long forgotten battle of Galatians 5, “the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh”, but we have something better to concern ourselves with don’t we.

We currently may have laws in place to curb deviate activities in public but what about the laws of conscience that have a final say to a once and for all deep-searing on the public’s conscience. Not too much is discussed as relevant when a public’s moral ap***ude is in danger of being “darkened”. For as it is described, if at first entrance of the point of being “darkened”, we don’t “lay aside” (Ephesians 4:22), those things representing our former self, we not only cast off His mercy but repeat the warmed-over old man that ultimately frustrates God’s people, Peter describes as “distressed by the depraved” (II Pt 2:7).

So the shift of conscience that continues to dilute man to this day refuses to acknowledge S&G’s demise is actually God’s hard but merciful example to us. That is what I am saying, and Paul’s description is close enough, that they “happened as examples for us”, ,” and they were written for our instruction” (I Corinthians 10:6, 11). The type of thing the foreknowledge of God thought far more beneficial bringing about the destruction of two cities to awaken a whole world to its self-inspecting mind.

[alanmolstad]

...why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?

Blessings,

MacG

he flooded the earth the last time the gays got out of control like this,,and he said he would not use the flood to kill us anymore...so this time he used some type of fire...

[MacG]

he flooded the earth the last time the gays got out of control like this,,and he said he would not use the flood to kill us anymore...so this time he used some type of fire...

interesting that you blamed the gats fir Noah's flood...and that's more of a how than why.

[alanmolstad]

water was the how.....later it was fire that was the how...

the who is the gays....

[alanmolstad]

...why God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah?

Blessings,

MacGwhen you read the story...and the events of the angels who went there...and you get the feeling that what happens to the angels was not all that different than what had happened to others there...you come to the conclusion that these people needed killing.