the sin of sodom

er, rather, you keep saying that, when the topic of this thread would indicate otherwise. where, exactly, do you get this rule from?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

I thought you kept saying that it's not gay sex. I mean, here:

quote:

---

actually crash, this is my topic. read the op again. rape is on topic, homosexuality is not. do you live in opposite world?

---

And here:

quote:

---

i know this is hard for you to understand. but not all men who have sex with men are gay.

---

quote:

---

crash, i've posted several very lengthy posts at the beginning of this topic. i will be posting several more when i get around to text-scanning some more sources. i was very, very careful to avoid things that were baseless tradition or homophobia.

---

quote:

---

again, homosexuality is not the issue. you are, on one hand, relying on the tradition that they mean gay sex, and on the other, denying the tradition your point is founded on. the tradition is that they were gay. i know that, you know that, and we shouldn't have to discuss this any further. that tradition is wrong.

---

quote:

---

what part of "they weren't gay" don't you understand?

---

quote:

---

this is not about homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

no, they're not gay. how in the world would a whole town be gay? think about this clearly for a second. every man in the whole villiage only likes other men? wouldn't that cause some problems, like the lack of any future generations? lot offers them his daughters because he thinks they'll want them. why would lot think they'd want his virgin daughters if they were gay?

---

quote:

---

this is not about homosexuality

---

I thought your whole point was that this Genesis story wasn't about homosexuality, and I agreed. The authors of the Bible don't use the word "know" to refer to two men (just the two men) having sex with each other. Does it? It doesn't say "know" in 1 Samuel, and that's what I'm talking about with Nem (and I apologize for the extended off-topic conversation.)But now I'm confused. After all this time of telling me it's not a homosexual thing, now you're saying it is? I mean, you wouldn't be contradicting me (and yourself) just for the sake of contradicting me, would you? After you've sworn up and down that you don't do that?I was trying to be on my best behavior but now you've gone right back to your old habits. Can I expect, next, another torrent of personal attacks?

and it's not. "homosexual activities" and "homosexuality" are two different things. and the only reason i didn't request any moderator action when you kept bringing up homosexuality is because you kept trying to tie it to the point somehow. if you are correct, then it is on-topic, so it's allowed. but you need to show something for your arbitrary rule, why yada CAN'T apply to relations between two men. actually, yada would be inappropriate in that usage. you are partly right in that it applies to man-woman relations. actually, yada is used grammatically for concepts or objects, and not people. women were generally treated like objects. for cases of rape, turning a man into an object and taking away his personhood (making him take the place of a woman sexually), yada would be the appropriate word. for cases of loving and equal relationships (david and jonathan) it would probably not. for consentual temple prostitution references (leviticus 18) it would probably not. no. read more carefully. you argue that yada is never used to describe homosexual relations. the story of sodom/gibeah would indicate that it is, in fact, used to describe relations that could potentially include man-on-man sex. but homosexuality -- being gay -- is not on topic here. this is not about homosexuality in the bible, or condemning gays. the inhabitants of sodom are not gay, they are more like "pan-sexual." the idea was to rule out the sorts of rhetoric you're fighting against, which, since nobody is actually arguing, is something of a strawman. yes, here's one: stop being paranoid, please. try to play closer attention, and maybe actually answer the question i asked (something you failed to do in a mighty storm of rhetoric). if your point is founded on a simple principle, it makes sense to check that principle: why do you think that yada can only be used to describe male-female relations? if it can be used to descibe homosexual ones too, then your whole point is moot, regardless of how well it applies to the text.

---

It's not a rule, it's just a pattern. Homosexual activities are unambiguously referred to a number of times in the Bible; the only possible case where the "know" euphemism is used is this single case in Genesis, and it's quite ambiguous, so it's not particularly instructive.Someone might object to my interpretation of 1 Samuel by noting that it doesn't say "know" to refer to sexual activities between David and Johnathan; my only point here is that it's not surprising, considering that the Bible never uses that language to refer to two men having intimate relations with each other, so we shouldn't be surprised to see the word not used in 1 Samuel.That's all I'm saying. It's not an important point. Sure. We don't see the word used in 1 Samuel because it wouldn't be appropriate to describe their relationship, not necessarily because their relationship isn't sexual.I'm agreeing with you. Two guys, like David and Johnathan. It isn't ever used to describe that. A gang rape by a mixed-sex mob? That's something different, and I don't see that we can ever come to an agreement on whether or not the word is used for that. Arach, I have no idea what it can or can't be used to describe; I can only speak to what it does or doesn't seem to describe within the Bible.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

only about a half-dozen times, not counting the qedeshim and pornos, temple prostitutes. and frankly, a lot of them are ambiguous. you caught the david and jonathan case. but did you catch ishmael and isaac? ham and noah? no, it's in judges as well. that would be two cases. and i might actually argue that these are a lot less ambiguous than the other cases. yes, but only because style counts. different euphemisms carry different connotations. david loved jonathan like a man loves a woman, but he didn't own jonathan like a man owned a woman. i'm not sure we can say that their relationship wasn't sexual. it's just not explicitly portrayed in the text as such. i do think it's hinted at, however. but that's another topic -- feel free to start it. sure we can. all you have to do is admit that you were wrong. (because it is one of the right euphemisms for rape) ok, that's a start. with no knowledge of the linguistic and idiomatic structure or rules, how can you support that it doesn't mean rape here? all you seem to have been saying, from the beginning, is that it doesn't apply to these cases (excluding this case), therefor it doesn't apply to this case.that's like "all frogs are green, therefor poison dart frogs aren't frogs." why don't you see the logical problem with that?Edited by arachnophilia, : typoe

---

I had a stray period in my post and I wonder if it confused you. I wasn't saying that they didn't have a sexual relationship; quite the opposite.

If inhospitality is the concern of Jesus then why is Gomorrah mentioned?What act of inhospitality recorded in connection to Gomorrah?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What act of any kind is recorded in connection to Gomorrah? Is it ever mentioned except as a twin-city of Sodom?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Gomorrah is only mentioned because God thought a twofer would be more impressive then just wiping out one city. Maybe God had some fire and brimstone that was near its expiration date and so needed to be used.You know what they say about brimstone, "Use it or lose it."

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Your views are dismal here, and you see not the real significance. One of Abraham's test was his reaction to being told two evil cities are going to be destroyed: ever wonder why he was told of this forthcoming event concering two cities will be destroyed? How Abraham reacted, marks what Abrahamism is all about, with words that shook both heaven and earth:'WILL THE JUDGE OF ALL THE WORLD TAKE THE INNOCENT ALONG WITH THE GUILTY - THIS EVIL BE FAR AWAY FROM YOU''WHAT IF I CAN FIND SOME GOOD PEOPLES - WILL THE KING OF MERCY STILL DESTROY ALL?'Where has any human confronted heaven this way? This is the reason the name ISRAEL was placed on Abraham's grandson Jacob - because they strived with heaven and prevailed - strived in truth. They never kept silent - they never emulated the most hated verse in all scriptures: 'AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?' - as did Islam when Jews fleed Europe's holocaust, andwhen European christians played 'VE VERE NOT AVARE'.Abraham is he who was called upon by God one day, but he was then assisting some people who were lost and in pain from a particularly hot day in the arabian deserts. So Abraham replied to God that he is busy now helping some people and cannot oblige God's calling. Here, it then says:'AND THE LORD WAITED UPON ABRAHAM' [Genesis].Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

Where has any human confronted heaven this way?

---

Moses did it all the time. Genesis is littered with people standing up to god and telling him he's about to fly off the handle.For crying out loud, Cain stands up to god and says it's too much and god relents.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

You confirm what Abrahamism is all about: one can strive, as long as it is in truth [sincerity]. Moses does take the big prize here, argueing against the angels getting the OT, and prevailed. Cain did protest about his punishment, and is also resonsible for the wrong statement concerning his guilt of murdering his brother. Jacob did not strive but is said to have battled with a spiritual force enroute to his home to meet with Esau.The point here is, not everyone strived to do the right thing: I see many christians and muslims rejoicing in villification of others.

Come on IaJ. What the hell does any of your nonsense (which also happens to be wrong) have to do with the topic?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

You confirm what Abrahamism is all about

---

But you just contradicted yourself. You were saying that nobody had ever done this before or since. And yet, Genesis is filled with people standing up to god long before Abraham. So if Cain does it, if Noah does it, if Moses does it, how is it unique to Abraham?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

But you just contradicted yourself. You were saying that nobody had ever done this before or since. And yet, Genesis is filled with people standing up to god long before Abraham. So if Cain does it, if Noah does it, if Moses does it, how is it unique to Abraham?

---

No contradiction, when pettyness is discarded. While it is true numerous figures are mention who, do not exactly 'stand up to God' as you describe, but they are responding or interacting. No one 'stood up' or argued here.Even Moses could not look upon God, his personal input being initial disbelief he could orate God's commands and messages [having a speech defect, and a death sentence imposed on him by Egypt]. It is an entirely different matter with Abraham, actually questioning God how he could retain justice by killing off a whole nation: this is different from anything else.Abraham changed the world and its mindset forever, causing a break between two universes. Many think that Monotheism is an obvious concept and would have come about later. But this is not the case at all - this premise was greater than MC2 or the overturning of the flat earth, or anything else man has ever contemplated. Even science, evolution and the BBT comes from the thought of monotheism: these are merely different aspects of the same longings of the human mind. This is seen when one looks at it contemporanously instead of retrospectively.