Posted on 10/25/2007 1:52:28 PM PDT by Teófilo
Sodom tells of the story of homosexuals demanding to rape visitors. You really think the deadly sin was in their sexual orientation? They were RAPISTS, Harley! Homosexual tendencies are a concupiscence; a temptation towards grave evil, one that makes the sufferer a terrible choice for the priesthood. But “sin” describes an action, not a temptation.
>> A rereading of this story does suggest that maybe the men were spies for the attacking army. <<
Umm... no. They weren’t spies; they were angels. And this is one of those passages from which we get the phrase, “to know, as in the biblical sense.”
They wanted to rape the angels. Lot was so horrified at the evil that he even offered the men his daughters, but the Sodomites asked instead for his sons, or his sons-in-law. From that day forth, the word, “Sodomite,” was used to refer to homosexual men.
Wierd fact:
On Seinfeld, Jerry (who is, ironically, Jewish) was once famously shocked to hear Elaine (who is, ironically, nominally Catholic) refer to the goings-on of a sexual encounter as “yada, yada, yada.” “Yada” is the Hebrew word for “to know” as used in this passage.
Actually, I wrote that as a wise-crack, unaware of the claim that Dumbledore actually *was*, in fact, gay but celibate. In truth, I regard Dumbledore’s celibacy irrelevant, until Rowlings finds it as relevant as his homosexuality.
The NFL seems to think dogfighting is the worst, by far. Serial rapists are welcomed and even encouraged.
>> That’s the standard homo-theology argument for that passage. Not buying, pal. <<
Careful, Antoninus. Clearly, the homo-theologians’ argument is nonsensical; while the demands for rape were horrifying to Lot, the fact that they were homosexual rapists was even more horrifying, as evidenced that he offered his daughters up instead.
But don’t make it seem like you are asserting that the rape aspect was secondary.
So the great hypothetical question:
Is it worse to get a call from your son/relative/etc. saying:
I had a homo tryst.
or
I raped someone.
P.S. I am not an apologist - for anyone.
Well, technically they were sodomites not rapists. They didn't wish to rape Lot's daughters. They wanted to sodomized the angels.
Homosexual tendencies are a concupiscence; a temptation towards grave evil, one that makes the sufferer a terrible choice for the priesthood. But “sin” describes an action, not a temptation.
Hmmm...this would be a good discussion and I don't wish to hyjack the intent of this post. I don't subscribe to the notion that sin is simply an action. Please consider the following verses:
Mat 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I can already hear people saying, "But our Lord was tempted." The difference between our Lord and us, who was tempted in every way yet without sin, is that He was not fallen. Being perfect, He could not lust (#1) before being tempted. Like Adam, He had to be offered the fruit and then lust after it. Our Lord could lust after (#3) He was tempted. He just never did.
While I am not arguing too fiercely to defend the sodomites, they asked for the sons so they could defile and banish the whole family as punishment for Lot’s refusal, right?
The rape gang at the door wanted to dominate and humiliate the strangers, that is not the same as not being attracted to female virgins, I am sure they would take what “they could get”. As others have said, it is taught homosexuality was the worst of their sins.
Interesting from a historical prospective.
A round earth, sun-centric world was the standard anti-christian argument (some who said this were gay as well) at one time, most have bought that one, however.
How other people wish to live there lives is up to them. I have enough of my own sins to worry about. If my son called me up and said that he had a homo tryst or raped someone, then he must bear those consequences be he gets AIDS or is locked up for 30 years. I will be an understanding father knowing that we all fail. But I won't fight to get him out of his legal and moral obligations. Instead I would support him to live up to those consequences and to seek counseling.
What is being eroded are moral values. We are commanded to enact laws that are pleasing to God and those laws include sodomy and rape laws. Some of those laws are being erased from our books. What happens if there are no legal or social consequences for rape? Do you think society would be better off? Same way with homosexuality. Just because someone wants to do it in their home doesn't make it right.
I certainly don't need a wealthy author to tell me or thousands of kids it's an OK thing to be a homosexual when these people need counseling. If someone wish to ask me, then I would say that it is a sin before God and they need to ask God's help in overcoming this problem. Many people have overcome a lot worst things.
LOL!!
First, both homosexuality and pedophilia are forms of sexual immorality - while not exactly equivalent, they are both forms of behavior that Christianity asks its followers to stay away from.
Second, your argument about John Galt is irrelevant and wrong. I did not call Dumbledore gay; the *author* of the books called Dumbledore gay.
If Ayn Rand had identified John Galt as a Communist, then it would be part of "the canon" just as it is now part of the canon of Harry Potter that Dumbledore is gay.
No argument there
So as to not hi-jack the thread, you have mail.
>> The rape gang at the door wanted to dominate and humiliate the strangers, <<
That’s a load of psychobabble not in evidence. They weren’t interested in the old guys, even though they were obviously the ones in charge; you don’t dominate by abusing the sidekicks. Why not rape Lot?
There probably were of desires for domination and humiliation in their hearts, which inflamed their lust, but I think you’re going out on a limb to identify these as if they were seperate from lust, rather than aggravating factors. Rape and sodomy were, in fact, typical wartime strategies, but they would rape the women, for doing so was the greatest humiliation to the men! But here, they plainly were not just unsatisfied by the women, they were uninterested in them. They wanted the healthy, young men. They were gay.
“but they would rape the women, for doing so was the greatest humiliation to the men!”
—I pretty much agree with everything except this.
Who is to say what was in store for Lott and his whole family had they not fled?
Maybe to you and I with modern thinking would rather be assaulted than let our women suffer the same fate.
But in that time women were a replaceable commodity, manhood was not.
Male rape is still used by some Arabs (for example) very recently.
—All this reminds me to not do anything to get thrown into prison!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.