Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : Post deleted

It wasn't the sodomy in general. But they wanted to fuck that pretty angel.

There was a liberal douche on IMDb's Religion board who said the sin of Sodomy was not homosexuality, but inhospitality to strangers. Lol. Call a spade a spade.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Oh yeah, sin and decadence in general.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Was the angel a cherub? I’d hit it

---

My password is password

There was a liberal douche on IMDb's Religion board who said the sin of Sodomy was not homosexuality, but inhospitality to strangers. Lol. Call a spade a spade.

Nice to know I wasn't forgotten.

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

PD, I think I was talking about Skyhawk. I love you both by the way. 😝

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Hey Patrick.

Poisoned Dragon is a great poster from IMDb's old Religion board. I'm hoping he stays. This argument about whether or not Sodom was destroyed because of buttsex is an old one I've had with him for years. I don't see why gay people should be making apologies for the Bible.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

It wasn't the sodomy in general. But they wanted to fuck that pretty angel.

God wanted to destroy the cities before he sent the angels. At first God was going to destroy those two cities anyway, but after Abraham haggled with him, God agreed to spare them if ten righteous men could be found. So that's why God sent the angels: to see if they could find ten righteous men. When the townsmen wanted to have their way with the angels, the angels were like "fuck this", and told Lot to skip town unless they wanted to be destroyed.

However, it's pretty obvious that the homosexuality was only mentioned to condemn it. It's being used to show "unrighteousness". Bottom line, the ancient Hebrews were homophobes and the story is used to send a clear message to Hebrew boys that you are not to fuck each other.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Homosexuality wasn't mentioned at all in those chapters. God simply wanted to destroy those towns for unspecified sins. The attempted rape of two divine envoys didn't help matters, but it was never specified that this was sinful because it was homosexuality. I daresay any affront to an angel of God is an affront to God himself.

But certainly, where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is always condemned.

Well, Lot did offer his daughters. So heterosexuality seemed okay with him. Bizarre story though to say the least. I'm also wondering if the Hebrew word was actually "rape" or if the men wanted sort of a meet and greet with consensual sex. Lol.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Well, Lot did offer his daughters. So heterosexuality seemed okay with him.

He offered his daughters because they were his to offer. The angels, however, were his guests and under his protection, but were not his possessions.

Bizarre story though to say the least. I'm also wondering if the Hebrew word was actually "rape" or if the men wanted sort of a meet and greet with consensual sex. Lol.

Not having checked, I'm pretty sure the Hebrew word was simply one for sexual intercourse, or a euphemism similar to the English "know". "Consent" is very much a modern concept, and consent laws simply did not exist until the late 19th century. Prior to that, there were laws pertaining to the minimum age of marriage, and those were usually set to 11 or 12 years of age. In Nebraska, it was 10 years until 1871. Then it was lowered to 7(!) - tells you a bit about how times were different.

"Consent" was neither here nor there, because sex outside of marriage was illegal anyway, and what's the point of legislating how crime is supposed to be committed? Rape was a two-fold crime, if the perpetrator was not married to the victim. One, that he had sullied her (if she were unmarried), or committed an act of infidelity (if either of them were married), and two, the use of violence. If the rapist was married to the victim, however, no crime had been committed - he was simply claiming her marital rights, and it was her duty to obey.

It may be of interest that Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen actually used this defence when Trump was accused of rape by his ex-wife Ivana in 1989: "You cannot rape your spouse". He was wrong, but only by a few years: Marital Rape Exemption was eliminated from New York laws in 1984.

Well it is usually characterized that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels. Regardless of laws about consent and rape, it's an important distinction to make whether the men were demanding the angels be brought out so the Sodomites could do what they wanted with them, or if they were trying to win their affection and be suitors.

Still, the story begins as one about finding ten righteous men, and then we have a story about homosexual lust. Homosexuality is equated with unrighteousness. And sorry, as a queer man I am quite satisfied that our love is so dangerous that two cities were destroyed over it. In fact I'm quite proud of it. I consider myself to be a Sodomite.

What I find amusing is that liberals and teh gays are so quick to claim the story of Sodom is not a condemnation of homosexuality. Why, is this so y'all can all be good Christians? I see no reason for us to make the Bible "nice". It's just irrelevant to me.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

I was thinking about that story and about how it reflected on ancient Canaanite society. What a wonderful world where groups of men would gather outside your house and ask for your pretty guests to come out so they could fuck them! It was just a different world so much closer to natural human barbarism without the stifling yoke of Judeo-Christian morality. But nah, I don't want a bunch of assholes outside my house demanding sex either.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Babylon was a major city, very old and a center of wealth and power. Sodom was more like a frontier town by comparison.

---

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

I was thinking about that story and about how it reflected on ancient Canaanite society. What a wonderful world where groups of men would gather outside your house and ask for your pretty guests to come out so they could fuck them!

It doesn't reflect on Canaanite society at all, except as an example of unacceptable behaviour. Remember, God had decided to destroy these cities because the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were so egregious, that such a thing could happen. Remember, this was not portrayed as something common to society, but precisely the opposite: the notion that such a thing could take place was so outrageous, that the destruction of the entire city was surely justified. If this reflected on Canaanite society in the slightest bit, they wouldn't have used it as an example in the Bible. After all, they wouldn't be doing anything worse than any other city in the region.

The Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah reflects on Canaanite society in about the same way as The Purge movies reflect on ours.

Well it is usually characterized that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels.

Those characterisations are in any case wrong, since God had already slated the cities for destruction before the angels came to visit. And why destroy Gomorrah for what the inhabitants of Sodom did, anyway? No angels visited Gomorrah.

Regardless of laws about consent and rape, it's an important distinction to make whether the men were demanding the angels be brought out so the Sodomites could do what they wanted with them, or if they were trying to win their affection and be suitors.

The latter is obviously not the case, because you wouldn't gather as a gang to do that. Nor would Lot object to that, much less offer his daughters in substitution. It was going to be rape, and the text is quite clear: "Where are the men that came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." To know someone in the Biblical sense - and this is from the Bible - is not to court them, it is to have intercourse with them. But it would not have been any more ok had the angels been female. The horror here is that angels were sent to find righteous people, but instead the people wanted to have their way with the angels. Male or female, doesn't matter, it wouldn't be a mitigating factor either way.

Still, the story begins as one about finding ten righteous men, and then we have a story about homosexual lust. Homosexuality is equated with unrighteousness. And sorry, as a queer man I am quite satisfied that our love is so dangerous that two cities were destroyed over it. In fact I'm quite proud of it. I consider myself to be a Sodomite.

But that is neither stated, nor even implied, in the text. What we have is a story of God wanting to destroy two cities, then sending two angels to one of those two cities to see if there could be as many as ten righteous men there (and presumably, they would have visited Gomorrah next), and the townsfolk wanting to ravage the angels. If this is how they treat messengers from GOD, then so be it: the search is cancelled, they have sealed their fate. It's not the homosexual aspect of it that's portrayed as appalling, but that God sent angels to potentially save them, and this is the thanks they got. Had the angels been female, it would have been the exact same tale, with no other detail different.

Karl Aksel, you post quite reasonably on this subject, at least until this point:

"Consent" was neither here nor there, because sex outside of marriage was illegal anyway, and what's the point of legislating how crime is supposed to be committed?

'Sex outside of marriage' is more the focus of the New Testament, and has to be read back into the Jewish Testament. It's as much a mistake to read it into the narrative of Genesis 19 as it is to read 'sexual intercourse' into it. The sexual assaults depicted as being perpetrated against perceived enemies as a form of humiliation was not an expression of desire, or of sex. Remember, rape is about power, not sex, and the observation was never more true than of the kind of assault depicted here. Such perpetrators are usually 'straight.'

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

'Sex outside of marriage' is more the focus of the New Testament, and has to be read back into the Jewish Testament. It's as much a mistake to read it into the narrative of Genesis 19 as it is to read 'sexual intercourse' into it. The sexual assaults depicted as being perpetrated against perceived enemies as a form of humiliation was not an expression of desire, or of sex. Remember, rape is about power, not sex, and the observation was never more true than of the kind of assault depicted here. Such perpetrators are usually 'straight.'

Certainly, but this doesn't change anything. When you force yourself upon someone, it's not just establishing your superiority in terms of power, but you humiliate them by inflicting shame upon them. When you penetrate someone, the psychology is that you make them your "bitch". Even though this is irrational, it is nevertheless how we have evolved to think, and precisely why so many rape victims - especially male rape victims - prefer to keep silent. It's not really because they blame themselves, but because they have been sullied - they have been bitchified, if I may coin a phrase. And this is also why, traditionally, victims have been marginalised as well.

And in legal terms, the crime was never that "consent" had been violated. The crime was either that of extramarital coitus, and/or sodomy, in addition to property damage if the victim was female. If the victim was female, the aggrieved party was either the father (if she was unmarried) or the husband if married.

The crime was either that of extramarital coitus, and/or sodomy, in addition to property damage if the victim was female

I'm still not seeing "extramarital" anything, in either the Genesis 19 story, or the narrative from which it was plagiarized, Judges 19. In cases of rape, elsewhere in the Jewish testament, the "property damage" to which you allude is as close to 'marriage' as the issue got, since violations of marriage were offenses against property, either that of the father or of the husband.

And "sodomy" is not even a biblical word or concept, but rather a word coined by those who had assigned all sorts of unjustifiable concepts to the story in Genesis 19.

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

I would like to remind you that you were quoting me on a tangent from the OP, wherein I cited Western concepts up to the late 19th century. Sodomy laws were still in existence then. Even so, however, even though sodomy is not a Biblical word, it very much is a Biblical concept, as is clearly implied in Leviticus: lying with mankind as one would lie with womankind refers to intercourse. This would, necessarily, mean anal penetration. Which was nowhere condemned between man and woman, at least not explicitly, but for a man to be penetrated was to take a woman's role in the most defining act of the sexes. There were laws against this sort of thing all over the ancient world, and it has been the case for eons that a special kind of disgust was reserved for a man who would be feminised in such a way. What is peculiar about the Torah is that it makes the act illegal for the active part as well.

Anyway, still none of this changes the fact that there were no consent laws until modern times. An unmarried woman was at best not legally to blame for the intercourse, and at worst deserving of death for consenting to it. The father was the aggrieved party. A married woman, likewise, was at best not legally to blame for the intercourse, and at worst deserving of death for fornication. The husband was the aggrieved party.

Either way, the male perpetrator was not guilty because he had violated consent - he was guilty because he had violated a woman not his wife. Had she been his wife, her consent would still have been irrelevant, as he would have the legal right to have her whenever he wanted - and it would be her legal duty.

Even so, however, even though sodomy is not a Biblical word, it very much is a Biblical concept, as is clearly implied in Leviticus

Leviticus nowhere employs the word 'sodomy'; no one has any business linking the story from Genesis 19 with it. The same is true vice-versa. Genesis 19 depicts an attempted sexual assault (a feature it steals from Judges 19), and whatever one thinks Leviticus 18:22/20:13 prohibits, it isn't that. The association is merely one of unjustifiable foolishness of centuries attached to the bible.

This would, necessarily, mean anal penetration. Which was nowhere condemned between man and woman, at least not explicitly, but for a man to be penetrated was to take a woman's role in the most defining act of the sexes.

That is a peculiarly teleological view, largely dependent upon the kind of view of God and his creations which is expressed by Genesis, and does not clearly antedate it. However, it permeates Western society to such an extent that it is often read into the customs of societies which antedated Genesis, where, all things being equal, it did not really exist. (Of Genesis, Jews and Christians have historically shared the assumption that it was written by some historical Moses, dated to the end of the Bronze Age, rather than the Hellenistic era to which it really belongs. And they have assumed that, prior to that, the teleology which Genesis relates must have existed in oral form dating back to an ostensible beginning of Creation sometime in the 4th millennia BCE - and that it was a viewpoint which all of mankind shared to a greater or lesser extent. None of that is even remotely true.)

There were laws against this sort of thing all over the ancient world, and it has been the case for eons that a special kind of disgust was reserved for a man who would be feminised in such a way.

Not really, no. It doesn't exist among the Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, or their contemporaries. None of them really had laws against same-sex relations. The idea that women were specially created by God to be subordinate to man in all things, beginning with the sex act for which they'd been designed, and the unique loathing for women which accompanied such a view, did not underlie all ancient civilizations, and cannot clearly be demonstrated to antedate the authorship and dissemination of Genesis.

But of the passages in Leviticus, you're assigning them a clearness of meaning which they actually do not have. Leviticus was a meditation/commentary on other passages of scripture - Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, etc - outlining a kind of ideal Temple service (post-70 CE, after they'd lost the temple) which was never carried out in practice - sort of like Ezekiel's outline for a temple which was never built. What Leviticus proposes is simply preposterous, something that could never have been actually carried out (sin offerings/animal slaughter on that kind of scale?), sort of like how Bishop John Colenso demonstrated through mathematics that the Jewish Wandering in the Wilderness accounts could never have happened. It is likely that Jews at large never knew about Leviticus until two or three centuries further on into the Common Era, when the radically sectarian writing, formerly intended only for the eyes of priests and scribes, entered the Masoretic and was given a place among the supposed 'Mosaic' corpus, once Jewish religion had transitioned into a scripture-centric form.

Another reason for placing Leviticus later is how spare the New Testament is in citing it - clear quotes from it only occur in texts from the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries (i.e. 1 Peter 1:16).

More on Leviticus to follow.

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Homosexual acts are not what Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are about (the latter is just a re-statement of 18:22, but arranged according to penalty). The Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 isn't as clear as commonly rendered in English bibles. A word-for-word translation runs something like this: 'And with male not lay/lyings beds of woman; abomination it.' The exact meaning of this is inscrutable, likely that of an idiom now lost to us, in the same way the meaning and context of Deuteronomy 14:21b ('not do boil a young goat milk of his mother') was lost to the medieval rabbis who eventually concluded - almost certainly mistakenly - that it was somehow banning the mixture of meat and dairy products.

Anyone who tells you that Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality is handing you a load of bull.

Overall, Leviticus chapter 18 is a halakhic meditation¹ on other passages of scripture, specifically Ezekiel 22-23 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18.² The Deuteronomy passage condemns temple functionaries who served the larger Hebrew/Canaanite pantheon, gods besides just YHWH, and Ezekiel chapters 22-23 inveigh against political alliances with nations that worshiped other gods. (In Ezekiel chapters 22-23, the whole spiel from Leviticus 18 is on display - different types of illicit sexual unions, bestiality, and even human sacrifice - for example, compare Ezek.23:37 to Lev.18:21). To the mindset of the Deuteronomist, all such worship was characterized as 'prostitution,' even though there was no literal sexual activity involved; the invective in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel was metaphorical. Later readers mistakenly took it literally. This was how the 𝘲𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘮 ('holy ones') of Deut.23.17 ³ and 1 Kings 14:24 wound up mischaracterized as "shrine prostitutes," which in turn led to the mistaken impression that, since the actors were male, some kind of same-sex sexual activity was in view. The Leviticus passages are really an abstruse prohibition of idolatry. Nothing about them has anything to do with homosexuality.

And "abomination"? The Hebrew word 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh' merely denotes a ceremonial or ritual taboo which one must avoid in order to remain a Jew in good standing. It's most typically used of idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:26), but can also mean a violation of the Jewish dietary laws (Deuteronomy 14:3). Practices labeled 'abomination' were characterized as being done by gentiles, hence impure or unclean. The New Testament firmly put this distinction to rest in Acts 10:28: "He (Peter) said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean." Simply put, "abomination" has no relevance for Christians. More aptly, however, it has no relevance for the 21st century.

¹ Halakhic commentary is where sages studied passages of scripture (in this case, Ezekiel 22-23 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18), and articulated what they felt were the issues as discrete laws. The overall effect was to translate what had been metaphorical language (for example, Ezekiel 23:20) into a literal precept (Leviticus 18:23).

² How can Leviticus be commentary upon Deuteronomy and especially Ezekiel? Because books of the bible were not composed in the order in which they are placed, nor were they written by those to whom they are attributed. Leviticus is a priestly work from as late as the 1st century BCE/CE, as much an unrealized hypothetical as Ezekiel's temple; its precepts were never actually put into practice, until much later, when Rabbinic Judaism placed the book among the writings of Moses, the Torah, when it began to be read, memorized, and recited by Jews.

³ Deuteronomy 23:17-18: "“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a 𝘲𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘩 ('holy one,' feminine), and none of the sons of Israel shall be a 𝘲𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 ('holy one,' male). You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God.'" Again, it bears repeating that the only sense in which the 'holy ones' were "prostitutes" was metaphorical, the Deuteronomists' way of referring to idolatry or of political alliances with nations considered idolators.

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Well thanks for clearing that up.

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Eeeuueewwww!

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

The dwarves? Like Ryan you mean?

---

❤️

It's important to remember that many of the narratives in the Jewish testament were based upon Greek literature, like the Homeric Epics, or dialogues like Timaeus (the Genesis notion of an uncreated god and elements from which order was brought to the kosmos is drawn from this latter. Compare Genesis to Timaeus, as it is here summarized and characterized:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/).

For a story like 'Sodom and Gomorrah', many look for some real life analogue, like the explosion of Santorini, which they hypothesize might have inspired the story. The problem is that they're looking in the ballpark range of the period in which the 'Sodom and Gomorrah' narrative is set, rather than when it was written. Genesis was not written in the Bronze Age by Moses, but rather in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE, under the equivalent of a 'cultural studies' grant sponsored by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The scholars' primary sources were Berossus' Babyloniaca and Manetho's Aegyptiaca, both constituting a sort of 'CliffsNotes' containing summaries of millennia-worth of Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature.
https://www.amazon.com/Berossus-Genesis-Manetho-Exodus-Hellenistic/dp/0567025926
https://vridar.org/2012/12/27/the-books-of-moses-unknown-300-years-before-christ/

Thus, the real life analogue which would have inspired the story, with its motif of "fire and brimstone," would have more likely been based upon observations of eruptions of Mt Etna in Sicily, from the 5th - 2nd centuries BCE. Written accounts of such observations would have been available to the authors of Genesis at Alexandria.

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't exist. The narrative of Genesis 19 is a literary borrowing from the older story in Judges 19, in many places word-for-word. The Genesis passage represents an embellishment of the other, giving it what the scribes felt was a more satisfying, vengeful ending. Nothing sexes up a story like striking people blind, and raining fire and brimstone on them.

Another clue that it's fictional is that the names of the towns in Genesis 19 are reflections of the roles they play in the narrative: 'Sodom' means 'burnt,' 'Gomorrah' means 'terrible people,' and 'Zoar' means 'little.' Ask yourself - how can a town be named 'burnt' *before* its supposed judgment fell? It's a literary device.

Other passages in the bible illustrate how the story was contemporaneously understood and interpreted. "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). The New Testament taught that it was inhospitality; Mark 6:10-11; Matt.10:14-15; Lk.10:10-12, where towns' refusal to receive evangelists is expressly compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. There is nothing there about same-sex sexual relations.

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

I don’t think there’s a cure for your Gomorreah. That’s what you get for fcking cheap two dollar and one cent whores like Monicah

---

❤️

---

Ben is a goat fucking troll

did u just yada yada sodomy ?

did u just yada yada sodomy ?

What response do you think it requires?

---

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§