Author Topic: BBM and the sin of Sodom  (Read 14086 times)

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