Replies

I dunno bout you but homosexual rape would seem a bit 'violent' and 'hostile to strangers'.

Of course it would be violent and hostile to strangers. Are you suggesting heterosexual rape would be a free trip to Disney World?

Or it may be a distinct contrast describing the hospitality etiquette of the time. IOW, so grievous would the sin be that a man would rather see his daughters raped than allow guests in his home to be homosexually raped.

. . . or perhaps this is a bit of a stretch . . .

"Let's see, homosexual rape is so bad that instead of allowing two complete strangers to be raped by every man-jack in town, I'd rather see everyone rape my own flesh and blood instead. Because heterosexual rape is far better than homosexual rape."

Patently ridiculous on its face. No human parent in the world, except for the most depraved ones, would make that trade.

Or maybe the story is accurate on it's face after all?

Okay, but to believe this, you'd have to believe that every single male in Sodom was, in fact, a homosexual rapist. You'd have to believe that a human settlement would have been able to be established, maintained, etc., with all the daily intercourse of human activity like trade, co-operation, etc., over time enough to maintain it to the degree where it was so memorable to human history as for us, in this modern age, to know about it now, where the entire male population of that settlement was both a homosexual and a rapist.

You believe this?

you'd have to believe that every single male in Sodom was, in fact, a homosexual rapist.

Are you saying the Bible lied?

Genesis 19: 4-5

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

"Of course it would be violent and hostile to strangers."

OK, then the description is inclusive, not exclusive.

"Are you suggesting heterosexual rape would be a free trip to Disney World?"

Are you suggesting that the description is exclusive rather than inclusive?

" . . . or perhaps this is a bit of a stretch . . . "Let's see, homosexual rape is so bad that instead of allowing two complete strangers to be raped by every man-jack in town, I'd rather see everyone rape my own flesh and blood instead. Because heterosexual rape is far better than homosexual rape." Patently ridiculous on its face. No human parent in the world, except for the most depraved ones, would make that trade."

Except that Pashtun tribesmen protected Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, at the risk of their own and their families' lives from the Taliban.

It's part of a culture that you simply don't understand and would rather label 'patently ridiculous' and 'depraved' before you would learn from it.

"Okay, but to believe this, you'd have to believe that every single male in Sodom was, in fact, a homosexual rapist. You'd have to believe that a human settlement would have been able to be established, maintained, etc., with all the daily intercourse of human activity like trade, co-operation, etc., over time enough to maintain it to the degree where it was so memorable to human history as for us, in this modern age, to know about it now, where the entire male population of that settlement was both a homosexual and a rapist."

Fallacy of the false dichotomy noted.

"You believe this?"

You? No.