SecondJudith
Do me a favor and quote the Genesis and Ezekiel texts side by side.
Given that they say the same thing essentially, and have thematic continuity, I imagine this will clear things right up.
Ezekiel is silent on homosexuality and so is Genesis.
I also haven’t forced any words into Genesis, just pointed out what Ezekiel says about the Genesis story (and you can’t separate Sodom from Genesis. Sodom is, by definition, a city in that story. A reference to the city is a reference to the story).
Ezekiel is writing about Jerusalem, and in passing mentions mentions Sodom as an example. He is not writing a treatise on the history of Sodom and the paucity of words cannot be reasonably be construed as an ipso facto endorsement of homosexuality, or a “clarification” of any earlier writing.
He references Genesis in passing, yes, but no one said he was “clarifying,” anything about it, just using it as an object example that his audience would understand. I didn’t say it was an “endorsement of homosexuality.” It says nothing about homosexuality at all, and neither does Genesis, so there’s no reason to read it into either text.
Let me clarify further
In the Sodom account, Sodom is the subject of the story. It is pointed, lengthy and involves conversations with God himself.
Much later Ezekiel is writing a lengthy piece on Jerusalem and mentions Sodom in passing (something along the lines of 2 verses).
Contextually it is clear that he is writing about Jerusalem. Its also clear that Sodom is only mentioned in passing. It is not the author’s intent to offer a fuller perspective on Sodom, nor is he attempting to 'set anything straight" regarding Sodom.
Most importantly, I suppose, is that he doesn’t say anything to contradict any previous text. In any event him not saying “God condemns homosexuality” isn’t the same as him saying, “The genesis accounts don’t have anything to do with homosexuality.”
Ok.
My take on that then is this:
Let’s investigate the Genesis accounts and see whether homosexuality is an element in the destruction of Sodom.
Whats clear, however, is that Ezekiel texts have no bearing on that answer, and are 100% irrelevant to that discussion.
They certainly don’t represent the ***earliest valid cite for the notion that the Genesis accounts are really being about hospitality, rather than homosexuality.
Yes, please, let’s do some Torah study!
I’ve used the NIV translation for the simple reason that it was the quickest one I could find online.
After this, Abram heads home, Lot settles in Sodom, Abram does a ritual with some dead birds and cattle and speaks to God, God tells Abram he will be the father of nations, Hagar falls pregnant and Ishmael is born, God renames Abram and Sarai Abraham and Sarah. Three strangers appear outside their tent, and when one of them says they will have a son, Sarah laughs.
(as a side note, I really do love Abraham’s sarcasm in this conversation. “Far be it from you to kill the righteous with the wicked, like, I don’t know, by sending a giant flood to kill everyone - far be it from you to do something as obviously wrong as that!”)
?? The story as told in Genesis is that there weren’t any righteous people on the planet, isn’t it? (Other than Noah.)
They don’t. You’re welcome to try, though.
I continue to be confused as to why you say this. It’s a direct reference to the text of Genesis. How can the town be separated from the story?
Can you name an earlier one, or are you denying what it plainly says were the sins of Sodom?
Here’s a better question for you, what’s the earliest record you can find for the sin of Sodom being identified as homosexuality? That’s nowhere in the Bible.
I’ll try to relieve you of your confusion. Perhaps you can relieve me of mine.
There is no quarrel on my part that Ezekiel is referring to Sodom. None.
But that wasn’t your claim. Your claim is that reference establishes that the texts in Ezekiel that you brought up ‘represent the earliest valid cite for the notion that the Genesis accounts are really being about hospitality, rather than homosexuality.’
Lets get past this, ok? Ezekiel referenced Sodom; the very same Sodom in Genesis.
But you can’t take that simple fact and use to say it means whatever you want to mean.
I asked SecondJudith and you volunteered for her. The best that can be said for your cite is that the word “Sodom” appeared in it; a two verse reference in a lengthy tome about Jerusalem.
Your cite was irrelevant, and incorrect.
So I’ll ask you again: When is the earliest valid cite for the notion that the Genesis accounts are really being about hospitality, rather than homosexuality?
I’m torn with this question.
You and I know each other, in a virtual kind of way.
That said, we agree on several things and IMO your thoughts on Hell, and the Trinity are first rate, and accurate.
IMO, however, you seem to get all Episcopalian on us over the issue of homosexuality. Thats odd, as it seems that an atheist shouldn’t need, or care if god is a homophobe or not.
I’ve wanted to start a series of threads on the bible and homosexuality, the Trinity and hell. The MB has never had a comprehensive discussion about the bible’s take on homosexuality, despite all the bluster and posturing that goes on in them. I just don’t have the time that they would take.
This much I know: having read your previous thoughts on the bible and homosexuality, they are not scholarly, and do not accurately reflect view of biblical history. Your recent Ezekiel posts serve as a good example.
There is a desire to show that biblical history and the history of the Jews and Christians indicated the homosexuality was welcomed, and that the notion that homosexuality was a practice condemned by God is a recent development in a Michelle Bachman kind of way.
The exact opposite is true. Neither the bible, nor history supports you. This idea that the bible says nothing about homosexuality is absurd on it’s face, and it a very recent development; advanced not by scholars but by liberal theologians who need their bright and shiny Jesus to be “inclusive.”
Could you point to me the mentions of homosexuality as part of to God’s decision to destroy Sodom that I’ve quoted above, please?
You keep saying it’s not a reference to the Genesis text, but that’s exactly what it is. Any reference to Sodom is ipso facto a reference to the Genesis text. The author of Ezekiel is specifically commenting on the Genesis story and reiterating why the city in that story was destroyed. That’s a 600 BCE commentary on the sin of Sodom being inhospitality. It’s exactly what you asked for.
There is no “rather than.” The homosexuality angle is not part of the text and was never a Jewish interpretation. It was always inhospitality, and lack of generosity, even in the story itself. Homosexuality is never mentioned.
I don’t care, but the Bible says what it says, and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
My posts on the alleged references to homosexuality in the Bible are as well researched, factually accurate and objective as possible. You’ll have to explain to me what’s not scholarly about them.
I have no such belief at all. My position is that the NT doesn’t really say anything about homosexuality, not that it endorses it. It just doesn’t talk about it.
What I’ve said in this thread is that Genesis doesn’t say anything about homosexuality, in particular the Sodom story. Leviticus may or may not be condemning all homosexual acts (there is an argument to be made that this famous passage was an allusion to temple prostitution). The New Testament never condemns it and the only NT passage to clearly mention it says that God himself turned people gay.
Unlike most, I actually read the bit in Ezekiel once and it was fairly plain that Ezekiel was talking to a group of women and warning them of the sins of the women of Sodom (vanity, inhospitality, and other sins that go against the female role). Sodomy is rather difficult among women, so the subject wouldn’t be able to come up even if it was an actual crime of Sodom.
As Ezekiel used it, any crime or sin against God was rampant in Sodom, and hence the word is a placeholder for “bad people”. You don’t really need to strip it down to a single sin. Ezekiel mentions for more sins than just inhospitality. I’ll grant that the earliest fellow to review Sodom and Gomorrah in the Talmud used the bit in Ezekiel to come to the determination of “inhospitality”, but frankly I think that fellow was pulling that interpretation out of his ass.
What a great question.please give me a little time to gather my thoughts and i will try to answer from the jewish side of the question. Ill be back.
:: slowly turns turns over hourglass; looks menacingly at blanketman while lighting cigar ::
You have three hours and seventeen minutes. Keep us waiting an instant longer, and I will blow smoke in your face.
It will take a little longer than that as i have some things to do but i will try to answer your question.
Please no smoke. i gave it up 45 years ago.
Fine. I’ve reset the hourglass. But keep us waiting past the deadline and the rabbit dies.
Historically speaking, Yahweh/El is from the Canaanite pantheon and his authority comes from his power, pure and simple. It would not have occurred to primal, tribal henotheists to attribute authority to anything else. Might and right were the same thing.
The Book of Job also makes it clear (at least in that book) that God’s authority still derived from being bigger and stronger than everybody else.
The problem is that you can’t have a notion that the account is about X, rather than Y until you have a notion that the account is actually about Y. So, you won’t have a cite to the notion that Genesis are about hospitality, rather than homosexuality that dates any earlier than the first time that someone claims that it’s really about homosexuality.
So, got a cite for the first instance of that happening?
Historically speaking, Yahweh is not El. He’s one of El’s sons.