Author Topic: BBM and the sin of Sodom  (Read 14241 times)

Offline YaadPyar

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,668
BBM and the sin of Sodom
« on: May 01, 2006, 05:51:05 pm »
This is from TOB/IMDb - I thought it was pretty intersting.  I've copied the OP.  Check out the link if you want to see the rest.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/board/flat/42206750

BBM and the sin of Sodom   
 
 by - pastorfred 1 day ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 08:15:36 )  Ignore this User | Report Abuse 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biblical theme of the sin of Sodom figures largely through the movie, but it's not what you think, and its meaning to the story is surprising.

The Bible story is told in the 19th chapter of Genesis, and it is widely misinterpreted as a condemnation of anal sex. Even the word, "sodomy," is used to signify anal sex. That interpretation is totally wrong, however, as told in Ezekiel 16:49: "Neither did she (Sodom) strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy." The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality, the victimization of the vulnerable. It was a capital crime in ancient Sodom to give aid to the needy or the stranger. The men of Sodom thought they could do as they pleased to God's messengers (angels) because they were outsiders.

In Brokeback Mountain, the sin of Sodom was committed by the murderers of the rancher, Earl, and by Ennis's father in laughing about it and insisting that his sons see the tortured and murdered body. The consequence of that dreadful sin was the tragic flaw in Ennis, his own internalized homophobia and his inability to integrate his love for Jack into the rest of his life.

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the story of Sodom to mislead people into believing that homosexual acts are particularly offensive to God, that He destroyed ancient Sodom because of them. The offense, explicitly spelled out in Ezekiel 16:49, was not sexual. Scripture interprets scripture, and I feel that it is past high time to set the record straight. Maybe Brokeback Mountain can help.
 
"Vice, Virtue. It's best not to be too moral. You cheat yourself out of too much life. Aim above morality. If you apply that to life, then you're bound to live life fully." (Harold & Maude - 1971)

Offline Aussie Chris

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2006, 06:04:24 pm »
Great, thanks for posting Celeste.  I've learnt something important today, err, or at least worth remembering.
Nothing is as common as the wish to be remarkable - William Shakespeare

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2006, 06:20:50 pm »
Thanks Celesta!  It’s definitely a new take that I have not heard.

I don’t know much about Christianity.  Part of my confusion comes from depending on who you talk to you get a totally different interpretation of the Bible.  I am aware of why Christian (or at least part of them) is against homosexuality and Sodomy.  I have also heard people referring oral sex as Sodomy, hence the argument that a lot of heterosexual couples engage in Sodomy.  Is that right, I mean that oral sex is also considered Sodomy?

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2006, 06:26:11 pm »
Oh, as an independent Pentecostal evangelist who has done graduate study in the Bible when I worked on a 2nd Master's degree at Oral Roberts University, I can even get into a more detailed discussion about what the sin of Sodom really was.

If one does a word search for "Sodom" in an English version Bible or even one for "Sodom" in a Hebrew Text Old Testament and in a Greek Language Bible, he will only come across one time where the sin of Sodom had any connection whatsoever with sex and that is in the 7th verse of the "One-Chapter" Epistle of Jude.

A somewhat literal translation (with added interpretation without changing the meaning) of Jude 7 is "Like the angels who rebelled against God, the (people) of Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities chose to have sex with prostitute of the opposite sex." "Fornication" is the translation of the Greek word, "porneia," which is "sexual activity done by prostitutes." And, the text more or less says they did it by "going after strange flesh." Well, "strange" is the translation of "heteras" which is a Greek contextural spelling of "hetero." And "flesh" is the translation of the Greek word, "sarx" which in turn, is the Greek translation of "basar." "Basar" (literally "shame") is a Hebrew euphemism of genitals and politely means "gender."

The Hebrew language did not have vowel points added to it until well after the time of Jesus. If you read the Hebrew Bible text where the word "Sodomite" appears in English Bible translations, you will see that the actual word refers to a "holy (person)" involved in a religion which is not Jewish. When the very same word, kodesh (actually spelled with 3 Hebrew consonants, K, D, and Sh and no vowels), is used in other locations, it is either a verb, to "be or make holy," or a noun, referring to a "holy" person, place, or thing. In each of those situations where the context has no connection with the worship of YHWH Elohim, the "holy" person, place, or thing is connected with Canaanite worship. AND, in each of those places, nothing is even mentioned about the holy person having sex.

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2006, 06:51:38 pm »
I did a quick google search on “Sodomy”.  Found some interesting reading on wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy).  It does mention that “According to recent critiques by some liberal Christians, the sins of Sodom were related more to violation of hospitality laws than sexual sins.”

What’s more interesting is “in the 1950s, all states had some form of law criminalizing sodomy… in 2003, only 10 states had laws prohibiting all sodomy, with penalties ranging from 1 to 15 years imprisonment.”   What happens to the separation of church and state?  Why states need to regulate what two consenting adults want to engage in?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2006, 06:53:41 pm by JennyC »

Offline Flashframe777

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • autumn auteur
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2006, 07:09:34 pm »
But if it were against the law to extend help, then who is to blame?
"yet he is suffused with a sense of pleasure because Jack Twist was in his dream"


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2006, 07:24:14 pm »
Genesis 13:13) "The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly."
This verse doesn't say what the Sodomites did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though most bible believers equate "Sodomite" with homosexual. (But see Ezekiel 16:49, which claims the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, and failure to help the poor.)

-Skeptics Annotated Bible

Reason lot of people go for the homosexuality angle, is that later in the story, the bible talks about the lewdness of the town and when people tie that in with the idea that Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd refused them and wanted the men instead...[shrug]

Offline Flashframe777

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • autumn auteur
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2006, 07:31:18 pm »
Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd refused them and wanted the men instead...
___________________________________________________________

How many times have I myself been subjected to this very same situation?
"yet he is suffused with a sense of pleasure because Jack Twist was in his dream"


Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2006, 07:33:48 pm »
Interesting, but as I don't believe in "sin" itself, it makes little difference to me how sodomy is defined by the religious.

How our legal code defines it does affect me, you, and everyone living under a given legal code, regardless of our religious beliefs.  Legally speaking, sodomy is used to mean "any act of oral or anal copulation," which is seen as a "bad" thing (and that comes from the fact that most of our laws were written by believers in sin).

Fortunately, constitutional challenges to "anti-sodomy" laws have struck down most of them.  Every year, the number of times the word is used in the US legal code drops significantly.  Yippee!   ;D

I believe (hope?) the same trend is occuring for the legal codes of other countries, but many of them never had anti-sodomy laws to begin with.  Kudos to them!   ;D
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2006, 07:35:57 pm »
Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd refused them and wanted the men instead...
___________________________________________________________

How many times have I myself been subjected to this very same situation?

 :D :laugh: :D :laugh: :D :laugh:

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2006, 07:44:50 pm »
Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd refused them and wanted the men instead...
___________________________________________________________

How many times have I myself been subjected to this very same situation?

Flashframe,

LOL, are you here to muddy the water ;)

Your joke is mostly appreciated. We need some laugh from time to time in a seemingly serious conversation. ;D

Offline Aussie Chris

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2006, 08:54:44 pm »
Your joke is mostly appreciated. We need some laugh from time to time in a seemingly serious conversation. ;D

Serious?  Was this a serious conversation?  Well I'm in the wrong place then!  I thought we were talking about religious lunacy!
Nothing is as common as the wish to be remarkable - William Shakespeare

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2006, 09:55:32 pm »
Serious?  Was this a serious conversation?  Well I'm in the wrong place then!  I thought we were talking about religious lunacy!

Well, to me it's. :)  Like I said, I don't know much about Christianity, so I am trying to learn on this subject here, and want to know from all perspectives.

Offline Aussie Chris

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2006, 10:31:24 pm »
Well, to me it's. :)  Like I said, I don't know much about Christianity, so I am trying to learn on this subject here, and want to know from all perspectives.

Fair enough Jenny, no disrespect intended.  The strange thing about Christians is their need to see everything as black and white and separate, though this is probably not a monopolised characteristic of Christians as much as the unenlightened.
Nothing is as common as the wish to be remarkable - William Shakespeare

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2006, 10:51:42 pm »
When the people of Sodom surrounded Lot's residence in town at bedtime, it was not just men outside wanting to know whom Lot's guests were. And, "yada," the Hebrew verb for to "know," to "become acquainted with," or to "be introduced to," is used in that context.

Lot had two virgin daughters still at home that night; but, his married daughters were outside with their husbands, Lot's sons-in-law. Their not having known any man had to do with the fact that Daddy Lot had kept his younger daughters at home and now allowed them to have any male aquaintances yet.

Later in the same chapter, Genesis 19, after Lot and his daughter had to flee the Cities of the (Jordan) Plain which were ablaze and his wife had turned into a pillar of salt, and they were up in the high mountains, the two daughters decide that since Lot had no living sons, he had to have grandsons to carry on his name and they thought Daddy was the last man on earth (or at least in the local area). So they decided to get their father drunk and lay with (shakab) him so that they could get pregnant by him. One daughter "slept with" him one night and the other one the 2nd night. "Shakab" is also a Hebrew euphemism for to "have sex with."

In the almost  950 times that "yada" is used in the Hebrew text, only 10 of them have to do with possible sex. And what is in Genesis 19 is not one of them. I believe that if the author of Genesis wanted the "men of Sodom" to have sexual intercourse with Lot's guests, he would have used "shakab" instead of "yada." More than likely the people outside of Lot's door that night really wanted to beat up his guests.

I don't think that until the people at Lot's door were blinded by his guests Lot himself did not know his guests were angels. The people of Sodom never knew the were angels. In every place that the Hebrew or Greek word for angel is mentioned in the Bible and are given a description, they look like adult men. Angels in the Bible do not have wings. Cherubs, aka cherubim, have two wings and Seraphs, aka seraphim, have 6 wings; but, neither of them are called angels. Oh, those same angels are called "men" in Genesis 18.

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2006, 11:27:54 pm »
Fair enough Jenny, no disrespect intended. 

:)  None taken.  Sometimes I don't quite get when people are joking or not.  Must be a culture thing.  ;)

Offline RouxB

  • BetterMost Welcome Wagon & Contributor
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,471
  • ...a love that will never grow old
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2006, 11:38:07 pm »
Thanks TJ, a little knowledge can go a long way.

Heathen

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2006, 11:45:43 pm »
Well, to me it's. :)  Like I said, I don't know much about Christianity, so I am trying to learn on this subject here, and want to know from all perspectives.

Fair enough Jenny, no disrespect intended.  The strange thing about Christians is their need to see everything as black and white and separate, though this is probably not a monopolised characteristic of Christians as much as the unenlightened.

Chris,

Just like gays should not be stereotyped, those who believe in Jesus the Christ should not be stereotyped either.

There are people who claim to be Christians who are fundamentalists and non-christians refer to them as Evangelicals.

But, a Believer in Jesus does not have to be a fundamentalist to be Evangelical. Even Jesus was not a fundamentalist; read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5 though 7 to see why he could not be a fundamentalist. In chapter 5,  Jesus replaced or modified some of the commandments of Moses to fit his own teachings.

Here in the USA, some right-wing fundamentalist Christians are calling certain ordained ministers left-wing liberals when those ministers are literally middle of the road moderates.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2006, 11:58:11 pm »
Well said, TJ.  I looked for, but couldn't find a review I read on the Lot story.  But the word yadah could mean 'have sex with'.  The fact that Lot offered the crowd his virgin daughters tend to follow this line of reasoning.  Why offer the daughters if the crowd was just wanting to check the credentials of the two visitors?

The writer cast aspersion on Lot.  If he was such a 'righteous' man, what was he doing still living in Sodom?  Why hadn't he moved?  And him with two virgin daughters.  Apparently Lot got some jollies out of living next to the less-than-righteous people.  His daughters 'got' Lot drunk to seduce him.  Yeah right, you can't get drunk unless you want to.  These guys actually drank wine like it was water, so they knew 'when to say when'.

The angels told Lot to go to the mountains to be protected from what's coming.

Lot didn't want to be away from his creature comforts.  He had the cojones to start bargaining with the angels!  He actually counter-offered - couldn't he just go to the next town?  :-\

Another writer mentioned that perhaps Lot's wife wasn't looking back at Sodom out of defiance of god or curiosity.  After all, the story is she has two other married daughters.  She could not and they could not compel their husbands to leave if they didn't want to, so they were doomed to stay in the city.  This writer simply speculates that Lot's wife looked back because she was hoping her daughters might be following with their families.  And we all know what she got for her pains.  :(
« Last Edit: May 02, 2006, 08:33:04 am by delalluvia »

Offline Aussie Chris

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2006, 01:56:02 am »
Just like gays should not be stereotyped, those who believe in Jesus the Christ should not be stereotyped either.

TJ, you make a fair point regarding the disservice it does to be stereotypical, but with respect, I wasn't pointing the finger at the fundamentalists or the evangelicals.  Nor, as I said, is this a Christian specific thing, it's a common across all religions.  Although in this instant my brevity made me dismissive and unfair, I stand by my assertion about there being a correlation between those that focus entirely on scripture and a lack of enlightenment.  In my mind this is a big failing of humanity in general, that we choose not to think for ourselves nor take personal responsibility for our actions.  I don't need a book to tell me that it is wrong to kill, steal, etc, etc, I already know this in my heart.

If I were to define enlightenment (to me) it would be to take full responsibility for your actions with the understanding that a sinful act is to harm another, and a virtuous act it to help another.  It is my belief that this is the underlying context/message of all religious texts, although mostly told in parable form.  However for some reason this does not seem to be enough for some.  They must see the Bible as some kind of literal diary; that somehow the book itself is divine, and this is where I find myself in contention with the church.  Leviticus, for example, has many passages that are cruel, disgusting, and hateful, yet certain parts get dragged up from time to time for reasons that are all too familiar.  Also, like many religions the consideration of the role of women is blatantly misogynistic (although The Da Vinci Code stuff seems silly to me).

I believe in Jesus and the importance he had/has, and I know the sermon that you refer.  Although I had a Christian upbringing, I no longer consider myself a Christian, at least in the religious sense.  I admit that I do hold a certain amount of resentment towards Christians (this is experiential), and there may be some tarring with the same brush in how I express it from time to time.  For that I do apologise.  You talked in another thread somewhere about the difference between spirituality and religion, and on that point I whole-heartedly agree.  For me, connecting completely with spirit, and internalising the messages of compassion and forgiveness, supersedes any text or sermon.  In a way, I find evangelism to be a step in the wrong direction for humanity, although I acknowledge that you would feel differently.

I hope this post better states my thoughts and feelings with less derision?
Nothing is as common as the wish to be remarkable - William Shakespeare

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2006, 10:26:57 am »
I admit that I do hold a certain amount of resentment towards Christians (this is experiential), and there may be some tarring with the same brush in how I express it from time to time.  For that I do apologise.  You talked in another thread somewhere about the difference between spirituality and religion, and on that point I whole-heartedly agree.  For me, connecting completely with spirit, and internalising the messages of compassion and forgiveness, supersedes any text or sermon.  In a way, I find evangelism to be a step in the wrong direction for humanity, although I acknowledge that you would feel differently.

I hope this post better states my thoughts and feelings with less derision?

Chris, I agree with you and admire your ability to write so calmly about it.  I see Christianity as a negative force in the world, and what makes it so insidious is that it's followers are largely good, well-meaning people.  They don't see the repercussions of a religion that teaches them that at their core of their being -- their very essence -- is "original sin." 

Christian leaders think they have a monopoly on morality and goodness, and therefore they can't see the harm that Christianity has done and continues to do.  It breaks my heart.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2006, 10:33:09 am »
The only reason that Lot, his wife and his two still-at-home never-dated-before daughters were saved from the destruction of Sodom was that Abraham was Lot's Uncle and had raised him.

Lot was not very righteous in the fact that the reputation of Sodom was well known before Lot even decided to leave the country of Cannan and move to the Plain of Jordan.

There was a raiding party of the Cities of the Plain and Lot and family were kidnapped with his good stolen. Uncle Abraham was asked by the kings of those cities to help them get their stuff back. Since Abraham was rich, he apparently had enough men for his own army.

When Abraham rescued Lot, who had been living in his encampment near Sodom, Lot did not stay outside of town. He moved to a house inside Sodom itself. Lot decided to move to Sin City instead.

One of the New Testament Epistle writers claims that Lot was righteous; but, the author of Genesis doesn't exactly portray him that way at all.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2006, 10:50:48 am »
Speaking as a somewhat formally educated theologian here, the religion of Christianity, aka "Christian Orthodoxy" as it is know formally by "Orthodox theologians" or "Orthodox Christianity" by common folks, was started in 325 AD by the Emperor Constantine. Constantine convened the first of the Seven Church Councils and he presided over the first one in Nicea in 325 AD.

That was the beginning of government being involved in the control of church leaders who had believed in Jesus the Christ. It was Constantine's idea that his selected group of "early church fathers" create a creed which supposedly summarized their doctrinal beliefs. According to some sources, which I don't have current documentation on, the early church in the 1st 3 centuries did not think a creed was necessary; they believed faith alone was enough.

It was also his idea that they compile an anthology of books which were supposed to have been in the Pre-Jesus Period and also written during the first Century AD by the followers of Jesus the Christ. It took around 60 years or so before those "fathers" could even finally decide on what should be in that which we call a "Bible." Some of the accepted, aka canonized, works quote for sources which they rejected. In the short Epistle of Jude, the archangel Michael is disputing with the Devil over the body of Moses. The source of that was apparently from a work which was Jude's source called "The Assumption of Moses."


TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2006, 09:45:58 pm »
I subscribe by snail mail to the Wittenburg Door magazine. It is actually a Christain version of Mad Magazine and the National Lampoon combined and the church group which publishes it is actually Pentecostal. I first found out about the magazine way back in the 1970s when I was a graduate theology student at Oral Roberts University. One of the students brought the magazine to the class and even the professor thought it was quite funny. Unlike Oral Roberts who was an undergraduate seminary college drop-out, all of my professors had doctorates and the lower ranking faculty who taught my other courses all had at least a master's degree. I even had two degrees in Education from a state college before I attended.


http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/

The cartoon below was in the latest email newsletter.


Offline kirkmusic

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 300
  • Minstrel
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2006, 03:26:41 am »
As interesting as the original post sounds, I know how these conversations usually go on TOB and can't bring myself to check it out.  This thread however has been most informative.  Thanks all.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2006, 04:26:03 pm »
As interesting as the original post sounds, I know how these conversations usually go on TOB and can't bring myself to check it out.  This thread however has been most informative.  Thanks all.

You are welcome, kirkmusic.

While I know to which BbM discussion board the initials "TOB," refer and that I am even registered over on it; I never really got involved in much discussion there. I don't remember being very involved, even if at all, with a discussion about Sodom and BbM.

I know as much as I do about Sodom in the Bible because of my own study and formal theological educational background. I don't always agree with the educated with Doctorates theologians who are openly gay either.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2006, 07:25:41 pm »
Does TOB mean "that other board?"

Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

slayers_creek_oth

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2006, 07:27:45 pm »
Does TOB mean "that other board?"

Other or old....

Offline kudzudaddy

  • Sr. Ranch Hand
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2006, 08:11:11 pm »
This is from TOB/IMDb - I thought it was pretty intersting.  I've copied the OP.  Check out the link if you want to see the rest.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/board/flat/42206750

BBM and the sin of Sodom   
 
 by - pastorfred 1 day ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 08:15:36 )  Ignore this User | Report Abuse 

 Great, Yaad...  this is one of my favorite threads from Imdb...  Pastorfred is a wonderful man and I try never to miss a post of his.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biblical theme of the sin of Sodom figures largely through the movie, but it's not what you think, and its meaning to the story is surprising.

The Bible story is told in the 19th chapter of Genesis, and it is widely misinterpreted as a condemnation of anal sex. Even the word, "sodomy," is used to signify anal sex. That interpretation is totally wrong, however, as told in Ezekiel 16:49: "Neither did she (Sodom) strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy." The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality, the victimization of the vulnerable. It was a capital crime in ancient Sodom to give aid to the needy or the stranger. The men of Sodom thought they could do as they pleased to God's messengers (angels) because they were outsiders.

In Brokeback Mountain, the sin of Sodom was committed by the murderers of the rancher, Earl, and by Ennis's father in laughing about it and insisting that his sons see the tortured and murdered body. The consequence of that dreadful sin was the tragic flaw in Ennis, his own internalized homophobia and his inability to integrate his love for Jack into the rest of his life.

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the story of Sodom to mislead people into believing that homosexual acts are particularly offensive to God, that He destroyed ancient Sodom because of them. The offense, explicitly spelled out in Ezekiel 16:49, was not sexual. Scripture interprets scripture, and I feel that it is past high time to set the record straight. Maybe Brokeback Mountain can help.
 


moremojo

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2006, 10:06:01 pm »
  I see Christianity as a negative force in the world, and what makes it so insidious is that it's followers are largely good, well-meaning people.  They don't see the repercussions of a religion that teaches them that at their core of their being -- their very essence -- is "original sin." 
Hi, Bill,

This lies at the very heart of my inability to accept Christianity as my path in life. I simply cannot accept the notion of original sin which lies at the very foundation of the faith. This naturally leads to my inability to accept Jesus as the sacrifice for this sin, because I reject the belief in the sin in the first place. I find Jesus admirable as a teacher and an example of moral living, but I can't make that further leap into believing on him as the one incarnation of the Divine, born of a virgin, come into the world as the blood-sacrifice for Adam's transgression. I actually have much less problem with the aspect of bodily resurrection, but interpret that in a different light from historical, orthodox Christianity.

I do not find any of the three major monotheistic religions of the West, all professing allegiance to the God of Abraham, appealing in their orthodox theology. I find some of the mystical strains in these faiths attractive, and there is no dearth of individual examples of faith lived in all three traditions that are inspiring and rejuvenating. But in seeking paths that address my heart's deepest yearning and hope, I have found it useful to look East.

Scott

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2006, 12:10:28 am »
"Accepting the religion of Christianity" saves absolutely no one.

It's one's faith in Jesus the Christ and/or one's faith in the Creator of all Things which will save a person for eternity.

As an educated theologian, not being a braggart here, the religion of Christianity did not begin until the head of goverment decided that the churches who preached about Jesus should become organized and be a religion where all the people were supposed to believe the very same thing . . .  which is what the Emperor Constantine did in 325 AD when he convened the 1st of the 7 Church Councils in Nicea (which is in modern Turkey). Constantine presided over the Nicean Council, too.

I don't accept the Eastern Asian religions which come from countries which are still don't have the freedoms that the citizens should have. And, what has been done in the name of Christianity, the God of the Bible or even Jesus would never have been approved of Jesus the Christ himself. That's because what they have done and are doing goes against what Jesus taught.

The religious/spiritual practices of many Native American traditions are much better than what one could ever find in oriental/Asian religions.

A book I might recommend as an introduction to Native American Spirituality is "Secret Native American Pathways: A Guide to Inner Peace," by Thomas E. Mails.  I have the book. I learned more about my human spirituality by studying Native American Spirituality. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Mails has a good book on Cherokee history and tradition. I met some of the Cherokee people whom he consulted.

Here is the link to the publisher's page about the book: http://www.counciloakbooks.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=23 It can also be purchased through other sources.

Quote
A revised and expanded classic, Secret Native American Pathways details the religious beliefs and ancient rituals of four major tribes: the Apache, Cherokee, Hopi, and Sioux. Mails provides the meaning behind each ceremony as well as instructions for applying Native teachings to contemporary life. Each tribe has overcome adversity through "walking the pathways" that lead to inner peace; now, readers can apply those same spiritual practices to their own lives.

Offline Impish

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2006, 10:31:09 am »
I find Jesus admirable as a teacher and an example of moral living, but I can't make that further leap into believing on him as the one incarnation of the Divine, born of a virgin, come into the world as the blood-sacrifice for Adam's transgression....

But in seeking paths that address my heart's deepest yearning and hope, I have found it useful to look East.

Scott

Me too.  I also believe at least one thing from The DaVinci Code:  that prior to the Nicene Creed, Jesus was seen as a human sage and prophet, not the son of a god, and this is how he viewed himself.  It was only much later after his death that this idea of him being a supernatural being was literally decided upon by committee when the Nicene Creed was created.

As for my spirituality, I'm closer to (some forms of) Buddhism than anything.  I'm a staunch atheist, and think the shrinking separation of church and state is the single most important crisis in the U.S. today.
Quote
If you won't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.

Offline JennyC

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2006, 11:22:04 am »
"Accepting the religion of Christianity" saves absolutely no one.
I don't accept the Eastern Asian religions which come from countries which are still don't have the freedoms that the citizens should have.

TJ,

???  What religions got to do with a country's politics?  You accept or reject a religion based on its teaching and your faith, not a country's politics.  Religion is a ancient thing, people's freedoms (I assume it's the modern today freedom you are talking about here) were not recognized at that time.  I doubt any religion is centered on citizens' freedom.  Anyway I may misinterpret your statement here, just find it's a little bit blunt.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2006, 12:43:18 pm »
Me too.  I also believe at least one thing from The DaVinci Code:  that prior to the Nicene Creed, Jesus was seen as a human sage and prophet, not the son of a god, and this is how he viewed himself.  It was only much later after his death that this idea of him being a supernatural being was literally decided upon by committee when the Nicene Creed was created.

As for my spirituality, I'm closer to (some forms of) Buddhism than anything.  I'm a staunch atheist, and think the shrinking separation of church and state is the single most important crisis in the U.S. today.

Have you really studied the Gospels on your own and let your own spirituality be involved with what you have read?

Jesus was only seen as a prophet by those who were just looking for a prophet.

Jesus admitted to 12 of his disciples that he was the Christ/Messiah and he was the son of God. But, he told them not to tell anyone else while he was still on the earth, liivng in a human body.

Jesus also preached separation of church and state.

The Nicene Creed came about because the "state," Constantine, became involved with the church in his empire and he demanded that the church leaders create a creed. And, it was Constantine's idea that the church leaders decide on a collection of books be made so that they would be reading the same Books from the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament Period writers in their churches.

It took the committee which was working on their version of the Bible around 60 years to make up their minds what should be in the final version which was called a "canon."

People can talk about Jesus and the Bible all they want and only read the commentaries instead of reading the stories and the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and those same people think they know everything.

The real mystery of the Gospel and its message is that unless the power of the Holy Spirit is involved in one's reading of the Bible, all the reader is doing is reading words on the pages of an anthology of collected works. Jesus himself promised his followers, at that time and in the future, that the Holy Spirit would be their teacher about spiritual things.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2006, 12:56:57 pm »
Quote
"Accepting the religion of Christianity" saves absolutely no one.
I don't accept the Eastern Asian religions which come from countries which are still don't have the freedoms that the citizens should have.


TJ,

???  What religions got to do with a country's politics?  You accept or reject a religion based on its teaching and your faith, not a country's politics.  Religion is a ancient thing, people's freedoms (I assume it's the modern today freedom you are talking about here) were not recognized at that time.  I doubt any religion is centered on citizens' freedom.  Anyway I may misinterpret your statement here, just find it's a little bit blunt.

Well, if you look at the countries in the world where the Roman Catholic Church was involved with the Spanish Conquistadors around the world, you will see that almost every one of those countries which was under Spanish rule with the RCC as the official religion has or has dictators in charge of the country.

Salvation in and by Jesus the Christ gives a person freedom. He did not preach a message of bondage. When he said, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's," he was preaching separation of church and state.

His disciples, who wrote the Epistles, stated that one should do one's best to obey the laws of the state/country in which one resided as long as it did not interfere with their relationship with the LORD and contradict their testimony for Him.

Paul, the Apostle, took advantage of the fact that he was a Roman Citizen when the Jews wanted him to be killed. And, because of his citizenship, he was from Tarsus, he appealed to Caesar in Rome and even got escorted to Rome. And, although he was "officially" a prisoner of the Roman state while enroute, he still was allowed to preach at many of the places where they put the ship in port along the way. After his offical Appeal in Rome, Paul was set free. The Roman government at the time had no conflict with Paul's preaching. Paul was later executed when Rome had another head of government.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2006, 04:37:55 pm »
Since the Da Vinci Code was brought up into this discussion, I thought that I would post what was in an email I got today from Sojourners organization.
 
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.current_issue

Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code
An interview by Lisa Ann Cockrel

With The Da Vinci Code poised to go from bestseller list to the big screen on May 19, pastor and writer (and Sojourners board member) Brian McLaren talks about why he thinks there's truth in the controversial book's fiction.

What do you think the popularity of The Da Vinci Code reveals about pop culture attitudes toward Christianity and the church?

Brian McLaren: I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion. We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown's book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown's version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church's conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown's fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church's conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice?

So you think The Da Vinci Code taps into dissatisfaction with Jesus as we know him?

McLaren: For all the flaws of Brown's book, I think what he's doing is suggesting that the dominant religious institutions have created their own caricature of Jesus. And I think people have a sense that that's true. It's my honest feeling that anyone trying to share their faith in America today has to realize that the Religious Right has polluted the air. The name "Jesus" and the word "Christianity" are associated with something judgmental, hostile, hypocritical, angry, negative, defensive, anti-homosexual, etc. Many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that's distorted and false.

I also think that the whole issue of male domination is huge and that Brown's suggestion that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-woman as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive. Brown's book is about exposing hypocrisy and cover-up in organized religion, and it is exposing organized religion's grasping for power. Again, there's something in that that people resonate with in the age of pedophilia scandals, televangelists, and religious political alliances. As a follower of Jesus I resonate with their concerns as well.

Do you think the book contains any significantly detrimental distortions of the Christian faith?

McLaren: The book is fiction and it's filled with a lot of fiction about a lot of things that a lot of people have already debunked. But frankly, I don't think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels. And in a certain way, what the Left Behind novels do, the way they twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end, I think Brown is twisting scripture, just to other political ends. But at the end of the day, the difference is I don't think Brown really cares that much about theology. He just wanted to write a page-turner and he was very successful at that.

Many Christians are also reading this book and it's rocking their preconceived notions - or lack of preconceived notions - about Christ's life and the early years of the church. So many people don't know how we got the canon, for example. Should this book be a clarion call to the church to say, "Hey, we need to have a body of believers who are much more literate in church history." Is that something the church needs to be thinking about more strategically?

McLaren: Yes! You're exactly right. One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history. I think the disturbing would do them good. But a lot of times education is disturbing for people. And so if The Da Vinci Code causes people to ask questions and Christians have to dig deeper, that's a great thing, a great opportunity for growth. And it does show a weakness in the church giving either no understanding of church history or a very stilted, one-sided, sugarcoated version.

On the other hand, it's important for me to say I don't think anyone can learn good church history from Brown. There's been a lot of debunking of what he calls facts. But again, the guy's writing fiction so nobody should be surprised about that. The sad thing is there's an awful lot of us who claim to be telling objective truth and we actually have our own propaganda and our own versions of history as well.

Let me mention one other thing about Brown's book that I think is appealing to people. The church goes through a pendulum swing at times from overemphasizing the deity of Christ to overemphasizing the humanity of Christ. So a book like Brown's that overemphasizes the humanity of Christ can be a mirror to us saying that we might be underemphasizing the humanity of Christ.

In light of The Da Vinci Code movie that is soon to be released, how do you hope churches will engage this story?

McLaren: I would like to see churches teach their people how to have intelligent dialogue that doesn't degenerate into argument. We have to teach people that the Holy Spirit works in the middle of conversation. We see it time and time again - Jesus enters into dialogue with people; Paul and Peter and the apostles enter into dialogue with people. We tend to think that the Holy Spirit can only work in the middle of a monologue where we are doing the speaking.

So if our churches can encourage people to, if you see someone reading the book or you know someone who's gone to the movie, say, "What do you think about Jesus and what do you think about this or that," and to ask questions instead of getting into arguments, that would be wonderful. The more we can keep conversations open and going the more chances we give the Holy Spirit to work. But too often people want to get into an argument right away. And, you know, Jesus has handled 2,000 years of questions, skepticism, and attacks, and he's gonna come through just fine. So we don't have to be worried.

Ultimately, The Da Vinci Code is telling us important things about the image of Jesus that is being portrayed by the dominant Christian voices. [Readers] don't find that satisfactory, genuine, or authentic, so they're looking for something that seems more real and authentic.

Lisa Ann Cockrel is associate editor at Today's Christian Woman.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2006, 07:28:19 pm »
Interview had some really good points.

People don't know much about the religion they profess and sadly, most of the leaders of the church do not encourage 'dialogues' when it comes to faith/belief, since faith in their system is not something they want people to doubt or question because if they do, the whole house of cards can fall.

TJ

  • Guest
Re: BBM and the sin of Sodom
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2006, 11:05:16 pm »
There have been, and still are, people who actually believe that the only version of the Bible God has ever authorized is the King James Version of the Bible. And sometimes that is because their personal Bible says on the title page, "Authorized King Jame Version." There a lots of "King James Bible Only" people and I actually met a gay pastor online who is one of those people.

Some also think that when "Revelation" was written in 95 AD, it was automatically added to the 1st Century Bible and that was why it the last book in the Bible, since no disciple who had been living at the time of Jesus did not write after that date.