Except that, as was mentioned, Ezekiel says it was why. Here’s the quote again, if you’re interested.
And also, Issiah, in the parallel he makes:
I thought general idea was that, for instance, if your neighbor’s house burns down with all his property and he asks you for a sip of water and a piece of bread and you refuse that give will treat you as you have treated your neighbor, so God will treat you in your time of need. Be good to others or else God will not be good to you. 
I can’t speak to the previous interpretations of Judaism, but there is the fact that Leviticus does mention the homosexual act as an abomination.
That being the case, I can’t argue with you. If you notice my post above, I admit that homosexual sex is not THE sin that condemns the Sodomites. Including homosexual sex (or better, as Polycarp mentions, homosexual rape), seems a fitting interpretation given other scripture. However, that (as I say in another thread) is my opinion, you are free to differ.
The fact that the judgement has already been made when this SPECIFIC instance doesn’t mean that a pattern of similar activity isn’t part of what brought about the judgement. It wasn’t relevant until AFTER God visited Abraham. Once he visited, and the angels head to Lot’s house, it becomes a specific example of a repeated pattern.
Saying that the events of the angels to Lots house have nothing to do with the judgement is closer to illegitimate exegesis. Why are they recorded? What is the point. I believe it is to show a specific example of the sins in question (admittedly after the fact of the decided upon judgement). I’m not sure how looking at that specific example despite the fact that it is after judgement is decided upon is denying or twisting the plain chronology.
Neither is saying that ONE of the sins Sodom and Gommorah was condemned for was homosexual sex (or rape) gay-bashing. I am not saying that anyone has to obey this, I’m stating my own opinion of what I believe the story teaches. No one has to accept it or agree. I was simply sharing my opinion.
I can agree with this. My interpretation of this passage, however, isn’t based on just this passage. Were it just this passage, I would agree that anal sex was not what was being condemned, but anal rape was part of the “offense.” I come to the conclusions I have based on other scripture that I believe deal with the matter (see the other thread).
I’m not so sure that the English interpretation of the prefix hetero can be used to explain that Jude was NOT refering to homosexual acts (at the very least homosexual rape). The Greek word heteros means another or the other. In the context fornication seems to refer to heterosexual promiscuity. That being the case, I think a valid argument could be made for “strange flesh” meaining the other sexual activity, which could include homosexual acts.
Note, I’m not saying that you have to agree with that, but it isn’t an “out there” interpretation given the context, and appealing to the fact that it uses the Greek work heteros is not definitive proof that is doesn’t refer to homosexual acts.
I have a question about S&G, but its not about homosexuality. I read somewhere that the judgment on the cities was some sort of nuclear blast, explaining why,when Lot’s wife looked at it, she was "vaporized"or turned into salt.
gIGGGAAArhhhhhhhgggggGGGGGG!
vAPORIZED IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING TURNED INTO SALT. tRUE, A CHANGE FROM ONE KIND OF MATTER TO ANOTHER WOULD INVOLING A LARGE AMOUNT OF RADIATON, BUT STILL, SHE IS SALT, NOT A PILE OF ASHES.
Note: after trying to convey being upset in the beginning, I accidentally left the Caps lock button on. Oh well, it looks better this way.
Ididn’t say I believed that, I was telling what I had read and asking.
GAHHHHHHHHH> 
I believe Erich von Daniken said that. 'Nuff said.
I read somewhere that it means there are some things you just shouldn’t look at; in other words, if you’re driving along the Interstate, and there’s a four-car pile up in the opposite lane, DON’T SLOW DOWN AND STARE AT IT LIKE A FUCKING GHOUL! IT’S NOT ENTERTAINMENT!
This verse isn’t as clear as Ezekiel, but it seems that Jesus is implying that inhospitality was the sin of S&G
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Mt 10:14-15 AV)
If anyone has a Bible verse that states or implies that S&G were destroyed because of homosexuality, please share.
The passage that you cited mentions the following offenses:
[ul]
[li]Arrogance[/li][li]Refusal to help the poor and needy, despite being overfed themselves[/li][li]Unspecified “haughty” and “detestable” things[/li][/ul]
Not once is mere “inhospitality” mentioned, nor even hinted at.
The parallel passage in Isaiah exhorts the Israelites to do the following:
[ul]
[li]Seek justice[/li][li]Encourage the oppressed[/li][li]Defend the fatherless[/li][li]Plead on behalf of widows[/li][/ul]
Once again, inhospitality is nowhere mentioned. It’s not even alluded to, even remotely.
Huh???
If you’re arguing that people should be hospitable, then you’ll get no argument from me. However, that is not the topic under discussion.
No, the question is whether inhospitality was the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were judged. So far, I have seen no convincing arguments for that case.
If you like the idea of capsulizing the “sin of Sodom” as arrant selfishness, more power to you. But there was nothing “mere” about inhospitality at that time and place. It would be much like someone stranded with no shelter available when it’s 20 below coming to your door, and you slamming it on them because they should have provided for themselves, and they’re not your responsibility.
First of all, it was Ezekiel who described their sin as arrogance and selfishness. If you wish to dismiss this remark as “capsulizing,” then you might want to take it up with him.
And second, the offenses for which Sodom and Gomorrah were judged go FAR BEYOND inhospitality alone. It is in that sense that I use the word “mere.” I’m not saying that inhospitality is necessarily a trivial offense; rather, the contextual evidence–within Genesis, Ezekiel, and the rest of the Old Testament–suggests that they were guilty of far more than that.
And finally, I wouldn’t use the word “inhospitality” to describe the situation that you painted – slamming one’s door on cold and weary strangers. Make no mistake; inhospitality certainly constitutes part of that offense. However, given the extreme situation that you painted, such actions clearly reflect a spiritual problem that goes far beyond a mere lack of hospitality.
Right. And the underlying point to your final comment was the point being made against those who equate ‘the sin of Sodom’ with homosexuality. I didn’t mean ‘capsulizing’ in a derogatory sense at all, but in terms of “coming up with a word or phrase that covers the gamut of offenses described in Genesis and Ezekiel, and the underlying spiritual fault giving rise to them.”
It sounds like we’re on the same page. My point on inhospitality not being “mere” was that in traveling arid country like much of the Middle East afoot or on a beast of burden, one needs to be able reliably to find shelter, water, and food at the end of the day’s journey, or one is in much the situation of the blizzard-stranded travelers I equated the problem to.
No, it wasn’t. I was addressing those who tried to reduce ‘the sin of Sodom’ to ‘inhospitality’. As I have repeatedly (and repeatedly and repeatedly) emphasized, they were guilty of a multitude of sins.
Be that as it may, nowhere did I say that arrogance and/or selfishness covered the gamut of their sins. I merely pointed out that Ezekiel did mention these offenses, and made no reference whatsoever to ‘inhospitality.’
To elaborate on what cmkeller said, here’s a quote from Boswell:
(John Boswell, Christianity, social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, p.94 – had to transliterate the verb *yada’ * because the SDMB doesn’t seem to support Hebrew fonts)
I’m not sure if Boswell is counting the Sodom scene among those ten. It would still be a drop in the bucket, though.
IIRC from my reading of Boswell many moons ago, he most definitely would not have included the Sodom scene in those ten. As I recall, he seemed to hold the position that Sodom was destroyed for lack of hospitality and selfishness.
According to Aramaic Peshitta Bible scholar George Lamsa, “turn into a pillar of salt” was just a metaphor for being paralyzed in emotional distress.
Of course, if she lingered watching the big blow-up, she could quite easily have been pelted with flying salt.
I don’t use the Sodom account when dealing with the gay issue & I caution my fellow fundists not to either- it’s more about “inhospitality” than homosexuality. But inhospitality manifest in city-wide gang rape. No “mere” inhospitality that!
It would fit the Ezekiel accusation of “abominations”.
I just picked this part out because I wanted to comment on it, but that entire post of yours was great.
Anyhow …
I’ve always thought that Judah’s reaction when he found out what Tamar had done could be what saved his blessing.
Reuben wasn’t sorry when he nailed his dad’s concubine (who had also birthed some of his half-brothers which increases the ick factor IMHO). Simeon and Levi didn’t feel bad about killing all of those guys after tricking them into getting circumsized.
Judah knew he deserved what Tamar did, though, and the book says he never slept with her again. Had he not repented, it probably would have been Issachar* who would have had the honor of producing the Messiah.
I say Issachar even though he technically wasn’t next in line after #4 Judah – there were several between them, birthed by the two servant girls. However, I think God intended for Leah to be Jesus’ direct ancestor because, well, Rachel was a bitch, and God is all about vindication, so Issachar would have been next in line.
First things first,
A loud, unintelligent scream is greater than (9>3) being cool. :dubious: Somehow, I didn’t think that was what you meant.
Also, I visited my parents for the weekend, and for the sake of being a polite guest, I attended shul, skipped over the current passage, and instead read the story of Sodom. Clearly, as other here have said, Sodom was not destroyed for being filled with “rapist queers” However, the intentional mistranslation makes the following story sounds like the real thing. Skipping the part about 10 good men, it sounds like the following:
God judges Sodom, and neighboring burgs, for numerous, unspecified sins. Angels visit lot, angels, which, due to a failure of imagination, are assumed to be male. A large crowd(again, assumed to be all male) shows up and asks to rape the guests. These immoral people actually pass up the change to rape young girls, and instead insist on raping the visitors. Then it gets into nonsense about Lot’s daughters having sex with the man who just offered then as sacrifices. Most likely, allot of people just tune this part out.
Never minding the fact this is a false telling of the story, people read it, and assume that it is how things went, disregarding more accurate telling, just as people feed Campbell’s soup will pass up real, homemade soup.