Saturday, February 4, 2017

Getting Sodom Straighter


"It’s interesting—Lot was also protected right where he was by angels. (I think this is the main point.  Dave is not going to want to "flee" and leave his stuff behind, so maybe they can be protected in their homes . However, since all the members have taken out the equity in their homes and sent it in, and not to worry, "Frankly before it becomes due, we flee",  I could be mistaken) It was a very perverse city. There were a lot of homosexuals who saw these two beautiful young men. I mean, angels wouldn’t have come and been ugly, they would have been attractive or handsome, we’ll say, and they come into Lot’s house. And there are a couple of interesting things about the story…many interesting things about the story, but one of them is they demanded that Lot send these two men out.
Well, he first tried his daughters, his married daughters. It shows that God’s servants can make mistakes, brethren, and it ought to encourage you.  (Meaning:  I have made big mistakes and even though I don't admit to them and that should make you feel good when you do). The Bible calls Lot a just man, but the first thing he tried to do to satisfy these homosexuals is to send his daughters out to commit adultery…Not the best thing to do when you’re threatened…and yet God still let him escape…still let them escape.
By the way, they did some terrible things after they got out…but that is kind of an aside. The angels protected him where he was, in the home he was in; used miracles to create blindness to keep the people outside from getting in and just sealed them in the home. They escaped before they left the city and fled to Zoar. It’s an interesting story. It also is instructive for those who think that to be like Sodom and Gomorrah everybody has to be perverse or homosexual. Well, no they don’t. There are a lot of problems with that. (Yes there are. I think he gets this)
First of all, Lot was married to a woman, and his daughters were both married to men who mocked and wouldn’t leave. They said, “No, you’re crazy,” and they died the next day. So you had three heterosexual people, who are cited there in the community, and presumably we all believe that there were men and women all through the…all through the city who came about by the usual means, okay?" (Okay!  On this point I think you see more clearly than most COG ministers.  No city is all gay in the Middle East, ever!)
Apostle David C Pack
Screed # 61

Less heat?

Let's get Sodom straight....

The Biblical story of Sodom is not the story of a town that happened to be 100% gay, men and boys, for this is a ludicrous assumption. This would have to be the conclusion if God, vowing to save it for ten righteous men, did not. It would also mean that "righteous" meant heterosexual, while unrighteous meant homosexual and, well, I doubt that alone qualifies men to be righteous.
The story that unfolds in Genesis 19 is a hospitality story and not a story based on homosexuality. Sodom's problems as remembered by Ezekiel were that the people were prideful, had too much food, too much time, neglected the poor, were haughty and committed abominations (Ez. 16:49-50). Not ANY mention of mass homosexuality. Abominations can be just about anything not in tune with the law and in this case was a reference to idol worship. Another common Israelite trait all through their history. 

Why would papa Lot offer his virgin daughter's to a crowd of homosexuals, in place of his guests? What interest would homosexuals have in virgin women? ZERO, unless the girls were being offered as an appeasing virgin sacrifice ("for they have not known a man.") This would qualify as an abomination to be sure, and also idolatry. Human sacrifice was still an option it appears with Abram and Lot. Just a thought....
Another factor is that in that culture the protection of guests under one's roof to a male host was a matter of honor. This is why Lot scrambled to come up with a solution to the problem. In Lot's mind, it was about Lot's reputation and honor. Not an uncommon modern theme in Middle Eastern men to this day. Strangers were not taken kindly to in small clannish towns. They could be spies and were always suspect.
The way to put a stranger in his place was to humiliate them sexually, and send the warning that they had best have no ill intentions in the town. In that culture, the most horrific way to humiliate a stranger and have power over him was to mistreat him as one might mistreat a woman. Symbolic or literal rape. The rape would not be a homosexual act, it would be a warning and a putting of strange man in his place as a warning. "In our town, you are just like any other woman, property to be used as needed and disposed of if necessary" It may only have been a threat to humiliate and control as the original request was for them to come out "that we might know them".
There are two schools of thought on "know them". One is sexual and one is to simply interrogate and get to know. Few ever question Lot's evil counteroffer. But it does show that Lot was a product of his culture and personal ego protection. Eastern hospitality issues were at stake here and not homosexuality. EVERY sermon I ever heard on the topic stops short of explaining Lot's egregious behavior as a father. I doubt this ever really literally happened, but if it did, Lot would be no hero of mine. I seriously doubt he had much of a relationship with the girls after this stunt, not to mention Mrs. Lot! Perhaps she did not so much look back to Sodom as refused to look ahead at him leaving town.

And no one literally turned into a pillar of salt

Ezekiel 16 is all about Israel acting the part of adulterous woman and prostitute and concludes with:

Ezekiel 16: 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: 
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; 
they did not help the poor and needy.
50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. 
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 
51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. 
You have done more detestable things than they, 
and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 
52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. 
Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. 
So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, 
for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

No totally gay town here to see.

Keep moving please.
SaveSave
SaveSave

11 comments:

Black Ops Mikey said...

And did this really happen?

There doesn't seem to be much historical or archeological proof.

Some example, if you can't see any evidence of it.

More delusions.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea how many times I heard ministers say from the pulpit "the bible interprets itself" (1 Peter 1:20) and "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little," (Isaiah 28:10). And yet, when did the Herbie, or anyone else, ever follow that principle?

Besides the mistaken, unbiblical, common notions about what the bible says the "sin" of Sodom & Gomorrah actually was, I think the "pillar of salt" reference was etiological, meant to explain how all the pillars of salt around the dead sea got to be there, and which Josephus falls for, hook, line, and sinker:

"But Lot's wife continually turning back to view the city as she went from it, and being too nicely inquisitive what would become of it, although God had forbidden her so to do, was changed into a pillar of salt; for I have seen it, and it remains at this day." —Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 11.

Given the number of pillars of salt around the Dead Sea, one has to wonder how many other tales there were floating around in Josephus' day of other people being turned into pillars of salt also, yaknow, to explain how all the rest of 'em got there...

Anonymous said...

You quoted only Ezekiel. However, Gen 19 is pretty clear that "know" meant to know them carnally. The men of the city sought to rape the angels. There is no ambiguity in Gen 19. Regardless of any other faults of Sodom or Gomorrah, they do not negate this abomination. And, indeed, this is STILL and abomination that God will deal with.

Byker Bob said...

There's a lot of stuff that we can't know about these things, due to sparseness of the original words and passage of some things into antiquity, but that doesn't keep people from infusing their own ideas and agendas into them, and speaking definitively about them. As another example, Onan's sin was actually practicing the withdrawal method of contraception. According to the law of Moses, he was supposed to impregnate and produce an heir, not just have his own pleasure. But when the climax hit, he deliberately changed his aim and missed his target. For centuries, churches have taught that his sin was jacking off.

People have used Sodom and Gomorrah to teach against homosexuality. But Lot offering his daughters to homosexuals never made any sense. It could make sense if the townspeople had expanded beyond their normal sexual orientations and had willingly adapted into bisexuality, a condition which the Bible would call depraved, or an abomination. It also seems that Lot's family must have absorbed some of the townspeople's kinkiness, or the daughters would never have partied with their dad and seduced him. The spawn of that abominable activity became nations that have been enemies of Israel for millennia.

So, there are probably many takes on that event. We can for sure know that WCG and other churches have gotten it wrong, though.

BB

DennisCDiehl said...

ALL Bible stories, conversations and happenings are merely hearsay. We can't ever know what really happened, who said what or what they actually meant. The texts are copies of copies of copies ad naseum . We forget that just because an ancient books says something and quotes folk, it is always hearsay and unprovable.

There is great doubt about the reality of persons such as Moses, Abraham right on down to Solomon and perhaps even David, at least as presented in the book. What lot said and did with non-existent angels is also suspect of course.

Many OT characters are robotic without any thought of the psychological effect they have on others nor do people react in scripture as normal humans today would .

passing by said...

Okay so Sodom and Gomorrah are homosexual havens.
Of course we aren't told that in scripture. Just that they liked strange flesh.
That was the angels. These people wanted to sleep with the angels because how stupid is Lot? He can't figure out that gay men don't want his daughters?
Why not offer the daughters hubbies or himself?
Well the answer is that homosexuality was not the problem. It was wanting intercourse with angelic beings.
And then again if God is consistent and not a respecter of persons then why are Tel Aviv and San Francisco still standing?
What.. God gets pissed from time to time and goes ballistic? Just not all the time?

Stupid church. Stupid ideas.

Miller Jones said...

If God intended for Sodom to be an example of what God does to homosexuals, you'd think that there would be more evidence of exactly what happened there (aren't examples supposed to be clear/apparent/unambiguous/easily understood?). Where are all of the scorched fragments of broken buildings, and the shadows etched in stone of the folks who were incinerated? There's still a great deal of evidence about what happened to the folks at Pompeii - a clear example of what living near an active volcano can do!
Or were we supposed to be comparing Lot's "righteous behavior" with the wicked behavior of the inhabitants? Is that the lesson? If you're "righteous" like Lot, God will protect you? If you're a "wicked" homosexual, God is likely to zap you at any moment? Too many questions? Shouldn't we all just be glad that God executed all of those gay and lesbian babies who lived there? What about all of those wicked little buggers! Doesn't this story demonstrate that God knows exactly what to do with folks who are not "normal" - the psychological "deviants" of the world? Is Lonnie being a tad sarcastic?

Anonymous said...

Miller Jones
you have made similar accusations against God previously, and ignored every explanation offered. The open mindedness implied in your questions is untrue. You wear a mental chastity belt. Nothing can enter your mind.

Miller Jones said...

Anonymous 6/5/2017/7:44,
My previous comment takes issue with the way that some folks interpret this particular story as PORTRAYING God - none of the points made are "accusations against God." And, if you are implying that I am unwilling to entertain the notion that God killed innocent babies to "protect" them from having to grow up under the tutelage of "wicked" parents, then you are correct - I will not entertain such a ridiculous notion for even one second! My mind is closed to such foolishness. Nevertheless, if you can refute the points made in the original comment by giving reasonable answers to the questions posed, I'd be more than willing to consider them.

Anonymous said...

Miller Jones
Your last comment confirms my point. You wear a mental burka, and any concept outside the view of your burka you dismiss as a 'ridiculous notion.'
Basic reality is 'what exists, exists.' Reality is inert and doesn't know or care about your burka. Failure to acknowledge reality means being run over by ugly circumstances. Hitler refused to acknowledge that his armies had been wiped out near the end of the war. His wrong beliefs did not change the wars outcome.
Think about that.

Miller Jones said...

Anonymous 2/7/2017/9:40,
I am quite confident that our beliefs (yours and mine) have absolutely ZERO impact on God's reality (whatever that may be). Our reality is almost certainly VERY different from God's reality. Let God be true and every person a liar. I'm also confident that someday both of us will discover that some of our views are bogus/inaccurate. That said, however, if it turns out that the ACOG's view of God is closer to the reality, I won't have to be thrown into the Lake of Fire - I'll jump!