Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

yes. It was about the rampant immoral behavior, not one act.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus 18:22 is pretty explicit on this point.

You missed the point of OP's post. What does that passage in the original Hebrew text?

From a linguistic standpoint, Leviticus 18:22 is also in question as to the current translation. From a scholar who studied the language at the time including the usage of similar words in the Hebrew version of the Bible, it seems that Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of incestuous male intercourse, rather than homosexual intercourse.

Here is an article about that:
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/

PP here.. thank you. This is what that other PP needs to understand.

Scholars today understand a lot more about the cultural context and original Hebrew and Greek texts than they did back in the 17th century when King James had his scholars translate the Bible to their English.

I'm a Christian, and my understanding of the Bible has also evolved after 40+ years of attending church and reading the Bible.

Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

Anonymous wrote:Really entertained by the Protestantism in this thread. Holy Tradition is a thing too guys.

FYI I (who have made some of the same points about guest rape) am a Conservative Jew. I am not sure of the midrash on Genesis, much more familiar with that on leviticus, as that is the basis for subsequent Jewish law and recent controversies. Don't know a think about the Greek scriptures, so have not said anything about them.

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus 18:22 is pretty explicit on this point.

Which point? Leviticus is clear that male male sex (of some kind) is sinful, yes. But it makes no reference to homosexuality as a condition. If anything it reads as a warning against male male sex by men who also have sex with women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

Yes, they were men wanting to have sex with the male guests. Lot offered his daughters but they didn't want them. Clear as day what the offense in God's eyes was.

Isn't it a sin to offer your daughter up for non-consensual sex?

Usually it would be. If a crowd is around your house, and threatening something worse in your culture (raping your guests) maybe you are justified. The text does not answer this question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

Er, yes, for the violation of hospitaly. By raping guests. Pretty damned serious. (and Lot's daughters were NOT guests).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus 18:22 is pretty explicit on this point.

You missed the point of OP's post. What does that passage in the original Hebrew text?

From a linguistic standpoint, Leviticus 18:22 is also in question as to the current translation. From a scholar who studied the language at the time including the usage of similar words in the Hebrew version of the Bible, it seems that Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of incestuous male intercourse, rather than homosexual intercourse.

Here is an article about that:
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

Yes, they were men wanting to have sex with the male guests. Lot offered his daughters but they didn't want them. Clear as day what the offense in God's eyes was.

No. they were trying to RAPE male guests.

Right. Presumably it would have been o.k. if they were female since Lot offered his daughters.

You think the daughters would be ok with a gang rape?

People need to understand the cultural context of that time period when they read the Bible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

OP back.

The issue for Lot is that if Lot were to send out the guests, that would be a host betraying his guests. That is the sin. Even in Dante's Inferno, the third zone of the ninth circle of hell was reserved for hosts who betrayed their guests. For the time period, this was a major sin, one of the greatest sins. Betrayal has been one of the worst sins that one can commit even before Judas' betrayal of Jesus.

And the Sodomites were punished for trying to assault and rape Lot's guests. It is the exploitive, assault and abusive nature of the act, that was being punished, not the interaction between same sex. The point that the two authors were making is that prior to the 20th century, the interpretation of the word "arsenokoitai" was one of abusive and exploitive sex, rape or taking a person from a position of power or control over them. Prior to the 19th century there was no concept of two individuals of the same sex in a mutual relationship of equal power or control, so the language did not include such a scenario.

I think poorly of any GOD who is upset about consensual, adult sexual behaviour that is not harming anyone.

Really? Jesus cares about this, but does not care about rape, murder and the environmental disaster?

Well...before that it was common. Love the word "arsenokoitai".

Really entertained by the Protestantism in this thread. Holy Tradition is a thing too guys.

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus 18:22 is pretty explicit on this point.

You missed the point of OP's post. What does that passage in the original Hebrew text?

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is chock full of translations that serve the interests of the translators.

And then men who cut and pasted which texts got put in, and which were left out.