Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-15-2006, 09:59 AM
MidGe MidGe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Shame on you, Blackwater!
Posts: 3,908
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

[ QUOTE ]
thanks to Midge's small minded agenda this otherwise interesting thread is ruined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd suggest you read my first reply and then your reply to that. It should be clear who has the small mind. You could have agreed that your quote had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Besides that, knowing that I am on ignore, I wil say that I am very interested to the responses to the unbiased parts of your OP.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-15-2006, 03:29 PM
BPA234 BPA234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 895
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

May I ask, what is your point?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-15-2006, 03:33 PM
BPA234 BPA234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 895
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

Although I am not a practicing Christian, I graduated from a christian school and had to take religion classes. I distinctly remember that the story of Sodom was related to the Sodomites enjoying a little too much ass-pounding and that sodomy is the derivation of Sodom.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-15-2006, 03:41 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: corridor of uncertainty
Posts: 6,642
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

[ QUOTE ]
Although I am not a practicing Christian, I graduated from a christian school and had to take religion classes. I distinctly remember that the story of Sodom was related to the Sodomites enjoying a little too much ass-pounding and that sodomy is the derivation of Sodom.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe that' says more about the christian school than anything else. Here's wiki

[ QUOTE ]
Situation
Sodom was the chief town of a group of five towns, Pentapolis (Wisdom 10:6; Genesis 14:2): Sodom, Gemorah, Admah, Zevoiim, and Bela -- later called Tzoar (Genesis 19:22). Their exact location is unknown (cf. Genesis 14:3, 8, 10, 17; 19:20-22, 30, 37; Deuteronomy 34:3). Josephus identifies Segor with "Zoara of Arabia" at the south end of the Dead Sea ("Bel. Jud.", IV, viii, 4; cf. "Ant. Jud.", I, xi, 4; XIII, xv, 4; XIV, i, 4). Conder identifies it with Tell esh-Shaghur, seven miles north of the Dead Sea; Burkhard, Wetstein, and others with Chirbet es-Safich, three miles south of the Dead Sea; E. Robinson puts it on Lisan, etc.

The Pentapolis region is also collectively referred to as "The Cities of the Plain (which included Zoar/Misar), i.e. "the country about the Jordan" (Genesis 13:10) on the plain of the Jordan River, in an area that constituted the southern limit of the lands of the Canaanites (Genesis 10:19).

Also according to the Bible, Lot, a nephew of Abram (Abraham) chose to live in Sodom, because of the proximity of good grazing for his flocks.

[edit]
The Biblical text
In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its gross immorality. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even 10 righteous people. The Lord's two angels only find one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God follows through with his plans to destroy the city.

In Genesis 19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee:

4. When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end[of the city].
5. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them." (Judaica Press)
Lot refused to give the visiting angels to the men of Sodom and instead offered them his two daughters. The men refused to accept this compromise. The men were struck with blindness, allowing Lot and his family, who were then instructed to leave the city, to escape, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with fire and brimstone by God.

A similar event is recorded in the Judges 19:20-22, this time involving the town of Gibeah. This suggests that the occurrences in Sodom were not unique:

20. And the old man said, "Peace be to you, just let all your needs be upon me, but do not lodge in the street."
21. And he brought him into his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys, and they washed their feet, ate and drank.
22. As they were enjoying themselves, and behold, the men of the city, men of wickedness, surrounded the house, (and were) beating at the door. And they spoke to the man, the elderly master of the house, saying, "Bring out the man that came into your house, so that we may be intimate with him. (Judaica Press)
[edit]
Jewish views
Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.(compare Procrustes)

The Talmud also recounts the incident of a young girl (some sources say it was a daughter of Lot) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered her act of kindness, they smeared her body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was stung to death by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event (and her scream, in particular), the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So Hashem said, ‘Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see…" (Genesis 18:20-21)

[edit]
The view of Josephus
Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote:

"Now, about this time the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from Him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward." Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195
[edit]
Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house"

The traditional interpretation of this story largely stems from the gender biased translation of the word enoshe Hebrew word #582 in Strong's in Genesis 19:4. Most versions say "men", which is incorrect. The Hebrew word enoshe is not gender-specific; it indicates mortals or people. The word esh would have been used to mean "man" or eshal to mean "woman" if gender specific terminology was meant. This translation gives the impression that just the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and the further impression that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. The word enoshe is used in Genesis 17:23 with the word zechar meaning "male" demonstrating this point.

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha specifically refers to homosexual coitus, with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. Based on this interpretation, we lack conclusive grounds to assume that the men of Sodom only wanted to rape the visitors. We simply know that their intentions were unfriendly.

Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated "men" is again enoshe which, literally translated, means "mortal". This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were? However if the sin was rape, and the rapists were indiscriminate, then the sex of the strangers would not matter.

Note that these women that Lot offered were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded in another way that Lot was offering his daughters as virgin sacrifices to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors. By 50 AD, we find the first time that the sin of Sodom is associated with homosexual "acts" in general. In the Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin ("Questions and Answers on Genesis") IV.31-37, Philo interpreted the Genesis word yădhŕ as "servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty."

[edit]
Revisionist (Liberal) Interpretation
A more recent view (one that has been part of the Jewish interpretation for centuries) advocated by liberal theologians and biblical scholars is that the events in Sodom have to do with Abraham's hospitality and the gifts of God bestowed on him for his gracious action. First we see hospitality and the way we should act, then inhospitality in that the people of Sodom seek to mistreat and rape the newcomers. The biblical text itself seems to suggest that the sin is based in part on inhospitality to some (if not a major) extent (although traditionally, the reason for the punishment has always been immorality):

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:

Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
This view of the biblical story reflects that of other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was a main feature in deciding the quality of a person. Also in these civilizations, men were held in a much higher regard than women (in Greece women being seen as little more than property, therefore, to demand not only a guest but a male guest to be violated against his will would be seen as more of a crime than to allow women to be used to save the guest.

[edit]
Christian Views
Traditional theologians and bible scholars accept that the sins of Sodom were homosexuality and rape. However, these were not the only sins:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Biblical scholars debate the proper English interpretation of this passage. Most scholars feel that "strange flesh" is a reference to homosexuality, while some feel that the "strange flesh" involved refers to bestiality. [1]

[edit]
Christian Commentary
Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Genesis 19". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible". [2]. 1706.

Verses 4-11 Now it appeared, beyond contradiction, that the cry of Sodom was no louder than there was cause for. This night’s work was enough to fill the measure. For we find here,


I. That they were all wicked, v. 4. Wickedness had become universal, and they were unanimous in any vile design. Here were old and young, and all from every quarter, engaged in this riot; the old were not past it, and the young had soon come up to it. Either they had no magistrates to keep the peace, and protect the peaceable, or their magistrates were themselves aiding and abetting. Note, When the disease of sin has become epidemical, it is fatal to any place, Isa. 1:5-7.

II. That they had arrived at the highest pitch of wickedness; they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly (ch. 13:13); for,

It was the most unnatural and abominable wickedness that they were now set upon, a sin that still bears their name, and is called Sodomy. They were carried headlong by those vile affections (Rom. 1:26, 27), which are worse than brutish, and the eternal reproach of the human nature, and which cannot be thought of without horror by those that have the least spark of virtue and any remains of natural light and conscience. Note, Those that allow themselves in unnatural uncleanness are marked for the vengeance of eternal fire. See Jude 7.
They were not ashamed to own it, and to prosecute their design by force and arms. The practice would have been bad enough if it had been carried on by intrigue and wheedling; but they proclaimed war with virtue, and bade open defiance to it. Hence daring sinners are said to declare their sin as Sodom, Isa. 3:9. Note, Those that have become impudent in sin generally prove impenitent in sin; and it will be their ruin. Those have hard hearts indeed that sin with a high hand, Jer. 6:15.
When Lot interposed, with all the mildness imaginable, to check the rage and fury of their lust, they were most insolently rude and abusive to him. He ventured himself among them, v. 6. He spoke civilly to them, called them brethren (v. 7), and begged of them not to do so wickedly; and, being greatly disturbed at their vile attempt, he unadvisedly and unjustifiably offered to prostitute his two daughters to them, v. 8. It is true, of two evils we must choose the less; but of two sins we must choose neither, nor ever do evil that good may come of it. He reasoned with them, pleaded the laws of hospitality and the protection of his house which his guests were entitled to; but he might as well have offered reason to a roaring lion and a raging bear as to these head-strong sinners, who were governed only by lust and passion. Lot’s arguing with them does but exasperate them; and, to complete their wickedness, and fill up the measure of it, they fall foul upon him.
They ridicule him, charge him with the absurdity of pretending to be a magistrate, when he was not so much as a free-man of their city, v. 9. Note, It is common for a reprover to be unjustly upbraided as a usurper; and, while offering the kindness of a friend, to be charged with assuming the authority of a judge: as if a man might not speak reason without taking too much upon him.
They threaten him, and lay violent hands upon him; and the good man is in danger of being pulled in pieces by this outrageous rabble. Note,
Those that hate to be reformed hate those that reprove them, though with ever so much tenderness. Presumptuous sinners do by their consciences as the Sodomites did by Lot, baffle their checks, stifle their accusations, press hard upon them, till they have seared them and quite stopped their mouths, and so made themselves ripe for ruin.
Abuses offered to God’s messengers and to faithful reprovers soon fill the measure of a people’s wickedness, and bring destruction without remedy. See Prov. 29:1, and 2 Chr. 36:16. If reproofs remedy not, there is no remedy. See 2 Chr. 25:16.
III. That nothing less than the power of an angel could save a good man out of their wicked hands. It was now past dispute what Sodom’s character was and what course must be taken with it, and therefore the angels immediately give a specimen of what they further intended.

They rescue Lot, v. 10. Note, He that watereth shall be watered also himself. Lot was solicitous to protect them, and now they take effectual care for his safety, in return for his kindness. Note further, Angels are employed for the special preservation of those that expose themselves to danger by well-doing. The saints, at death, are pulled like Lot into a house of perfect safety, and the door shut for ever against those that pursue them.
They chastise the insolence of the Sodomites: They smote them with blindness, v. 11. This was designed,
To put an end to their attempt, and disable them from pursuing it. Justly were those struck blind who had been deaf to reason. Violent persecutors are often infatuated so that they cannot push on their malicious designs against God’s messengers, Job 5:14, 15. Yet these Sodomites, after they were struck blind, continued seeking the door, to break it down, till they were tired. No judgments will, of themselves, change the corrupt natures and purposes of wicked men. If their minds had not been blinded as well as their bodies, they would have said, as the magicians, This is the finger of God, and would have submitted.
It was to be an earnest of their utter ruin, the next day. When God, in a way of righteous judgment, blinds men, their condition is already desperate, Rom. 11:8, 9.
See Also: Jamieson, Robert, D.D. "Commentary on Genesis 19". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". [3]. 1871.

Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Genesis 19". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". [4]. 1600-1645.

[edit]
Islamic View
Main article: Lut

Lut (Arabic: لوط ) was a prophet listed in the Qur'an and known as Lot in the Bible.


According to Islamic tradition, Lut lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim. He was commanded by God to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorra (Sadum) where the people were well-known for their indulgence in homosexual lifestyles. When he arrived there, the people ridiculed his teachings and ignored him.

Allah's repeated offer of forgiveness was communicated by Lut but each time it fell on deaf ears.

And Lut, when he said to his tribe: "Do you commit an obscenity not perpetrated before you by anyone in all the worlds? You come with lust to men instead of women. You are indeed a depraved tribe." The only answer of his tribe was to say: "Expel them from your city! They are people who keep themselves pure!" So We rescued him and his family-except for his wife. She was one of those who stayed behind. We rained down a rain upon them. See the final fate of the evildoers! (Qur'an, 7:80-84)
Lut, who was a patient, determined, and courageous servant, manifested his joyous faith in and respect for God. His tribe's mockery and attacks only reinforced his enthusiasm and determination. Like all of the other prophets, he continued to command what is good and forbid what is evil, thus scrupulously fulfilling his God-given duty.

Of all beings, do you lie with males, leaving the wives God has created for you? You are a people who have overstepped the limits." They said: "Lut, if you do not desist, you will be expelled." He said: "I am someone who detests the deed you perpetrate. (Qur'an, 26:165)
The Biblical stories of Lut's incestuous relationship with his daughters are considered a perversion and blasphemous in Islam, as such an action would remove a man from being a prophet of God in the Islamic view.

The Qur'an tells that Lut was willing to offer his daughters — or, as some scholars suggest, young women of his tribe — so that people would turn away from the prohibited act of homosexuality.

His tribe came running to him excitedly — they were long used to committing evil acts. He said: "My people, here are my daughters. They are purer for you. So fear God and do not shame me with my guests. Is there not one rightly-guided man among you?" They said: "You know we have no claim on your daughters. You know very well what we want." (Qur'an, 11:78-79)
But this, too, was of little importance to the people. Then finally the angels disguised as two men came to Lut. They gave him the news of the imminent destruction of the city's people, and Allah ordered the prophet to take away his selected people and leave his wife, and not to look back upon the city.

The following passages are taken from the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an.

We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" (Qur'an 7:80-82)
Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!" He said: "I do detest your doings:" "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful. (Qur'an 26:165-175)
Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! But his people gave no other answer but this: They said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family, except his wife; her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! (Qur'an 27:55-58)
And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway? - and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth. (Qur'an 29:28-29)

[/ QUOTE ]

chez
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-15-2006, 03:51 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: corridor of uncertainty
Posts: 6,642
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW someone sounded authoratative when they said that the abomination bit was added in a later translation and had no basis from earlier texts. predumambly that was post-jesus. Any experts confirm or refute this?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's about 40 references in the old testament and a few in the new about homosexuality. Many are very, very clear about homosexuality being filthy, an abomination, and worthy of death. Also, it seems extremely likely that the authors of the old testament would include lessons on homosexuality given the culture and bigotry that existed at the time. I doubt there was reason for the church to add anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
My query related to different editions of the old testement. Someone said that the abomination stuff was added later - seemed to know there stuff but your point about bigots is well founded [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] so who knows - any experts out there.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-15-2006, 03:52 PM
BPA234 BPA234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 895
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

As implied, the representation was based on the perception of what was viewed as evil acts. Interestingly, I received the same representation from a Catholic middle school and a Protestant Christian college.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-15-2006, 04:05 PM
Marko Schmarko Marko Schmarko is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 380
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

Phil and MidGe,

CHILL THE [censored] OUT.

-mark
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-15-2006, 04:16 PM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,347
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

[ QUOTE ]
Although I am not a practicing Christian, I graduated from a christian school and had to take religion classes. I distinctly remember that the story of Sodom was related to the Sodomites enjoying a little too much ass-pounding and that sodomy is the derivation of Sodom.

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition of sodomy means any unnatural sex. Beastiality, anal, oral. Some argue anything other than missionary for the purposes of procreation is unnatural (so pulling out would technically be sodomy).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-15-2006, 06:47 PM
bunny bunny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,330
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

[ QUOTE ]
That's hard fact. All of you "modern", progressive Christians who say otherwise are hypocrites, liars and fools.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for this post. I wish you'd used the word "or" instead of "and" - if I'm wrong it's because I'm mistaken not hypocritical or dishonest. It's not clear to me yet that these quotes establish what you say but I will read the link.

Thanks again
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-15-2006, 08:07 PM
LadyWrestler LadyWrestler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA.
Posts: 659
Default Re: Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

Re: "Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament". and "That's hard fact. All of you 'modern', progressive Christians who say otherwise are hypocrites, liars and fools."


I am a modern Christian (It is 2006). I already knew that, do not deny it, and do not have a problem with it. Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.