• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
NORMAN – I don’t know what you did here but it would not let me quote. I had to put it in word, answer the questions, and post at the bottom. Hopefully it works.

ING - YHVH uses the same word translated here as "KNOW THEM/SEX" - when he says he has heard the groaning of the people concerning Sodom and Gomorrah - and is going down to - "same word" them.

Obviously he was not going down to have gay sex with them. And that lets us know the word here is meant to be one of it's other meanings. In this case - to ascertain, judge, and punish (if needed.)

The people, learning that the angels are there to "ascertain and punish," rush the house and call for the angels to be sent out, so they can do what the angels came to do to them - judge and punish, - FIRST!


NORMAN - Ingledsva, what are you quoting from?

STRANGE FLESH - in the Bible, is almost always found to be, - led astray by "foreign women" (and thus their Gods,) or it is used for Sacred Prostitutes.

ING – What am I quoting from? I’m not quoting.

NORMAN - In regards to having sex with angels. The English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315).

Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.

It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term: The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion
of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added). So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.

ING – All the above to say nothing! I obviously did NOT say anyone had sex with angels!
I said they mistranslated the word to mean sex – WHEN IT DOES NOT.


NORMAN - Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”

ING – It doesn't matter what Jude 1:7 says. It is NOT the verse we are discussing. It is a later Christian text - misunderstanding the Jewish Tanakh text.

NORMAN - Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

ING – And this is just bull, - Jude 7 is someone's way-way-way later - Christian times - misunderstanding of what the Tanakh verse actually said.

NORMAN - In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”?

ING – Why are you hung up on angel sex? There was NO angel sex!

And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!

ING – And again – no angel sex, – and NO homosexual sex either.

The words have specific meanings “YADA” which keeps getting mistranslated here into “know,” in the sex sense, – has NOTHING to do with sex in this verse. As I said YHVH uses the same word – and he wasn’t going down for gay sex! HE WAS GOING DOWN TO ASCERTAIN/JUDGE and PUNISH! That is the same use of the word in the other sentence.

Also - again - Jude 1:7 is what NT readers THOUGHT (wrongly, as usual) that the Torah text meant. They were wrong.

PS. I don't know what you did to your reply - but it would not let me reply in a normal way.

Also - the way you put the text in - you did not put my name on my quotes, - and you DID put my name at the beginning of some of YOUR quotes to me, - thus making this very confusing to answer.

Part 2 to follow - way to long - for no reason - I might add.


*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
PART 2 -

NORMAN - Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

ING – Obviously you did not read what I wrote to you. AGAIN – “strange sex” refers to foreign women (and their Gods) Sacred Prostitutes, etc.

NORMAN - Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined “going after strange flesh” as “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural” (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression “denotes licentious living” (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: “They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them” (n.d., p. 693). Mayor explained, “the forbidden flesh (literally ‘other than that appointed by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

ING – And this is just bull, - Jude 7 is someone's way-way-way later - Christian times - misunderstanding of what the Tanakh verse actually said.

NORMAN - In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”?

ING – Why are you hung up on angel sex? There was NO angel sex!

And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!

ING – And again – no angel sex, – and NO homosexual sex either.

The words have specific meanings “YADA” which keeps getting mistranslated here into “know,” in the sex sense, – has NOTHING to do with sex in this verse. As I said YHVH uses the same word – and he wasn’t going down for gay sex! HE WAS GOING DOWN TO ASCERTAIN/JUDGE and PUNISH! That is the same use of the word in the other sentence.

Also - again - Jude 1:7 is what NT readers THOUGHT (wrongly, as usual) that the Torah text meant. They were wrong.

PS. I don't know what you did to your reply - but it would not let me reply in a normal way.
Also - the way you put the text in - you did not put my name on my quotes, - and you DID put my name at the beginning of some of YOUR quotes to me, - thus making this very confusing to answer.

EDIT - Well - that obviously didn't work - we have a repeat.

Please post each question separately - so we don't have over the 1000 word limit - and with my quotes noted - so I can answer you correctly.


*
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
What about people who use birth control? It is obvious that they are not trying to have babies.

So, should we forbid marriages of heterosexual couples that intend to use birth control during all their reproductive life? Or invalidate their marriage if they insist doing it?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

I believe they are still performing the natural order even if they are preventing conception but if the whole marriage is based on not having children it isn't really a marriage; it is a friendship pact. I believe the relationsip invaildates itself but I see no harm in it. Maybe some just get married for legitimate sex and maybe some because they don't know how to make a friendship pact but there is no sin in any kind of heterosexual relationship although there can be sinful practices within a heterosexual marriage.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
No. They're not "doing what it takes to have children." If they were "doing what it takes to have children, they'd have children. But they're not doing that. they're screwing. Period.
Well, I believe the last time I checked my facts of life intercourse is what it takes to have children.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I am religious, and I do not believe that being LGBT is a sin or wrong. But that is mainly because my religion does not concern itself with the sexual practices of it's adherents, it's none of our concern as long as no one is being forced to do something they do not want to do. Also, though, my religion doesn't really have a concept of "sin" per say.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I believe they are still performing the natural order even if they are preventing conception but if the whole marriage is based on not having children it isn't really a marriage; it is a friendship pact. I believe the relationsip invaildates itself but I see no harm in it. Maybe some just get married for legitimate sex and maybe some because they don't know how to make a friendship pact but there is no sin in any kind of heterosexual relationship although there can be sinful practices within a heterosexual marriage.

So a heterosexual couple that gets married, but has no intentions of having children, to you, has no reason to be married, and should only be friends? That's kind of silly and childish.
 

Gnostic Seeker

Spiritual
Hellenic Polytheism, quite the contrary to being against homosexuality, is actually all for it. The ancient Greeks more or less accepted that most people are a varying degree bisexual. Some people are one or the other. Its not a sin because the gods have enough with their own sex lives to be concerned with, or simply don't care.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Hellenic Polytheism, quite the contrary to being against homosexuality, is actually all for it. The ancient Greeks more or less accepted that most people are a varying degree bisexual. Some people are one or the other. Its not a sin because the gods have enough with their own sex lives to be concerned with, or simply don't care.

Didn't Plato say something along the lines of "Men are for pleasure, while Women are for love"? I am paraphrasing obviously.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
NORMAN – I don’t know what you did here but it would not let me quote. I had to put it in word, answer the questions, and post at the bottom. Hopefully it works.

ING - YHVH uses the same word translated here as "KNOW THEM/SEX" - when he says he has heard the groaning of the people concerning Sodom and Gomorrah - and is going down to - "same word" them.

Obviously he was not going down to have gay sex with them. And that lets us know the word here is meant to be one of it's other meanings. In this case - to ascertain, judge, and punish (if needed.)

The people, learning that the angels are there to "ascertain and punish," rush the house and call for the angels to be sent out, so they can do what the angels came to do to them - judge and punish, - FIRST!


NORMAN - Ingledsva, what are you quoting from?

STRANGE FLESH - in the Bible, is almost always found to be, - led astray by "foreign women" (and thus their Gods,) or it is used for Sacred Prostitutes.

ING – What am I quoting from? I’m not quoting.

NORMAN - In regards to having sex with angels. The English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315).

Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.

It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term: The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion
of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added). So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.

ING – All the above to say nothing! I obviously did NOT say anyone had sex with angels!
I said they mistranslated the word to mean sex – WHEN IT DOES NOT.


NORMAN - Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”

ING – It doesn't matter what Jude 1:7 says. It is NOT the verse we are discussing. It is a later Christian text - misunderstanding the Jewish Tanakh text.

NORMAN - Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).

by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

ING – And this is just bull, - Jude 7 is someone's way-way-way later - Christian times - misunderstanding of what the Tanakh verse actually said.

NORMAN - In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”?

ING – Why are you hung up on angel sex? There was NO angel sex!

And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!

ING – And again – no angel sex, – and NO homosexual sex either.

The words have specific meanings “YADA” which keeps getting mistranslated here into “know,” in the sex sense, – has NOTHING to do with sex in this verse. As I said YHVH uses the same word – and he wasn’t going down for gay sex! HE WAS GOING DOWN TO ASCERTAIN/JUDGE and PUNISH! That is the same use of the word in the other sentence.

Also - again - Jude 1:7 is what NT readers THOUGHT (wrongly, as usual) that the Torah text meant. They were wrong.



PS. I don't know what you did to your reply - but it would not let me reply in a normal way.


Also - the way you put the text in - you did not put my name on my quotes, - and you DID put my name at the beginning of some of YOUR quotes to me, - thus making this very confusing to answer.

Part 2 to follow - way to long - for no reason - I might add.

It won't let me respond in this post, I do not know what happened. I try to keep my post's short, however, I find sometimes that it is not possible. I also get frustrated at long post's also so maybe in the future I can break things down into smaller post's. As always I appreciate your responses to my post's. You are a very intelligent person and I hope that I have never tried to label you as any less. I have nothing but respect for you and if I have shown dis-respect to you I apologize. I would not do anything to jeopardize our communication.


*
 

gsa

Well-Known Member

Extremely unlikely. First of all, same-sex relations were not exactly unheard of in neighboring cities that failed to receive divine judgment. Second, the cities of the plain had a reputation for being rich, wealthy and indifferent to the poor and to the stranger (particularly important if you are part of a semi-nomadic or nomadic people, which might explain the strong condemnation).

More importantly, the attempted gang rape of the angels comes well after the decision to destroy the cities is made. You have a basic causality problem. It is also striking that it is their sin causing a great outcry for divine judgment, which is fairly parallel to the noise of humans that invites divine judgment in neighboring theologies.

My take is simple: There may have been a natural disaster that did level certain advanced cities (cosmic air burst is a possibility; we've seen how devastating the explosion of an asteroid fragment or meteor can be). The cataclysm was later reinterpreted as divine judgment, primarily for greed and avariciousness. The use of male rape as a humiliation tactic may also play a role, since that is hardly unheard of in history. But the idea that this has anything to say about consensual relations is absurd, particularly when you look at the chronological development of the interpretations.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Hellenic Polytheism, quite the contrary to being against homosexuality, is actually all for it. The ancient Greeks more or less accepted that most people are a varying degree bisexual. Some people are one or the other. Its not a sin because the gods have enough with their own sex lives to be concerned with, or simply don't care.

I kind of agree. But I wouldn't hold the Greeks up as role models here; they also believed you had unfettered sexual access to slaves (regardless of what the slave thought about the matter), and they tended to observe strict rules about penetration in the context of citizens. Hence "intercrural sex" as an alternative outlet. Ironically, this made adult male couplings problematic for the "passive" partner.

I also think it is difficult to decouple this from their horrendous treatment of women.

Of course as with everything it varies by period and polis.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Extremely unlikely. First of all, same-sex relations were not exactly unheard of in neighboring cities that failed to receive divine judgment. Second, the cities of the plain had a reputation for being rich, wealthy and indifferent to the poor and to the stranger (particularly important if you are part of a semi-nomadic or nomadic people, which might explain the strong condemnation).

More importantly, the attempted gang rape of the angels comes well after the decision to destroy the cities is made. You have a basic causality problem. It is also striking that it is their sin causing a great outcry for divine judgment, which is fairly parallel to the noise of humans that invites divine judgment in neighboring theologies.

My take is simple: There may have been a natural disaster that did level certain advanced cities (cosmic air burst is a possibility; we've seen how devastating the explosion of an asteroid fragment or meteor can be). The cataclysm was later reinterpreted as divine judgment, primarily for greed and avariciousness. The use of male rape as a humiliation tactic may also play a role, since that is hardly unheard of in history. But the idea that this has anything to say about consensual relations is absurd, particularly when you look at the chronological development of the interpretations.

Hello gsaseeker, are you replying to my post (s) if so, what post and comments are you replying to?
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Hello gsaseeker, are you replying to my post (s) if so, what post and comments are you replying to?

The general comments about the interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. It was hard to discern what was original, but I think the text was not colored.
 
Top