You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #41: Biblical stories can be viewed in many different ways... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. Biblical stories can be viewed in many different ways...
I'll provide some justification for my view of the story of Lot and answer your response. Remember, your opinion may well be as valid as mine. I am always open to consider other viewpoints. (Note: Most Christians especially Fundamentalists tell me that I'm on a path to Hell. I tend to question far too much and I don't accept things merely on faith or because they're the "literal word of God".

and if you know your history and custom, none of those are about sexual orientation in the slightest.

The stories of Sodom and Gibeah may be better understood against this background. As commentators have realized the demand to 'know' the visitors to Sodom must be a demand that they submit to homosexual intercourse.19 That Lot offers his daughters instead and the Levite his concubine shows that the demand was for sexual intercourse (Gen 19:5-8; Jdg 19:22-26). Given ancient oriental attitudes it is by no means strange that the men of Sodom asked to have intercourse with men in Lot's household. What is surprising and deeply shocking is their total disregard for the accepted principles of eastern hospitality. Visitors, whether anticipated or not, must be treated with the utmost courtesy and kindness. Here the men of Sodom show utter disregard for the rules of hospitality, and suggest Lot's visitors submit to the most demeaning treatment they can devise, a treatment elsewhere used on prisoners of war.20 So the sin of Sodom is not primarily homosexuality as such, but an assault on weak and helpless visitors who according to justice and tradition they ought rather to have protected (Ezk 16:49).

Yet having said this, undoubtedly the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adds a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected. It is often noted by commentators that the destruction of Sodom parallels the destruction of the world by Noah's flood. In both cases we have a complete population being obliterated and only one family escaping thanks to divine intervention. There are many verbal parallels between the stories too. It may also be noted that the motive for divine judgment is similar in both cases. The flood was sent because of the great wickedness of man demonstrated by the illicit union of women with supernatural beings, 'the sons of God'. In the case of Sodom another type of illicit sexual intercourse is at least contributory in showing it deserves its destruction.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenh...


************************************************
And drawing a conclusion that because having children was important translates into opposing homosexuality is a very big stretch.


It therefore seems most likely that Israel's repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation. God created humanity in two sexes, so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Woman was man's perfect companion, like man created in the divine image. To allow the legitimacy of homosexual acts would frustrate the divine purpose and deny the perfection of God's provision of two sexes to support and complement one another.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenh...

Not sure what the purpose of the last two verses were placed for though.

The Bible is full of stories with many twists and turns. Did the Old Testament God disapprove of homosexuality but hold a different view of incest? I find it interesting that Lot wasn't at fault, the blame was placed on the daughters. There is the excuse that they believe there were no other men left on earth. Women must not have had much education in those days. Lot's uncle, Abraham was only a days walk away and there was the nearby town of Tzo'ar.

Perhaps the first report of father-daughter incest appears in the Bible in the book of Genesis 19. The seducer this time, however, is not the father, Lot, whose wife had crystallised into a pillar of salt, but rather the daughters, who conspire to extract their father's seed. Their unconventional manoeuvre, today it would be labelled "drug rape," is implicitly and partially excused by the Bible by their desire to fulfil the first divine/evolutionary decree, procreation: "Our father is old and there is no man to lie with us as is the way all over the earth" (Genesis 19, 31). Capitalising on his fondness for wine, "they got their father to drink wine on that night, and the elder one came, and lay with her father, and he knew nothing of her lying down or her rising up." The following night the scene repeats itself, this time with the younger sister, while Lot remains in his inebriated ignorant stupor. Both liaisons resulted in pregnancies. "And the older one gave birth to a boy, and she named him Moab, he is the father of the Moabites of this day. And the younger also gave birth to a boy, and she named him Ben Ami, he is the father of the Ammonites of this day" (Genesis 19, 37-38).
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7531/15...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -I'm a Fundamentalist Christian.. 1awake  May-13-08 01:08 PM   #0 
  - modern fundies would probably ask to free Barrabas again...  crimsonblue   May-13-08 01:31 PM   #1 
  - Modern fundies would get sponsorship for the Crucifixion  jmowreader   May-13-08 01:38 PM   #4 
     - don't forget the blackwater guards...  crimsonblue   May-13-08 01:40 PM   #5 
     - Nah, more like WalMart would supply the cheap Chinese nail guns, the wardrobe, and  Elspeth   May-13-08 02:02 PM   #11 
        - WalMart? Nay!  jmowreader   May-13-08 03:08 PM   #17 
           - I've never been in a Wal Mart, but I assume they do.  Elspeth   May-13-08 04:56 PM   #21 
  - By some fundamentalist standards, you are a heretic,  ayeshahaqqiqa   May-13-08 01:32 PM   #2 
  - you aren't alone. a lot of fundamental/evangelicals are leaving  roguevalley   May-13-08 02:52 PM   #14 
  - The problem is  nichomachus   May-13-08 01:35 PM   #3 
  - I've never understood that either  ismnotwasm   May-13-08 01:44 PM   #6 
  - Are you pro-choice when it comes to abortion?  rateyes   May-13-08 01:51 PM   #7 
  - Now here's the question it usually boils down to....  1awake   May-14-08 12:56 AM   #37 
     - I'm trying to determine if you really are a fundamentalist...  rateyes   May-14-08 06:46 AM   #40 
        - I know,  1awake   May-14-08 06:54 PM   #42 
  - You aren't a fundamentalist.  Beregond2   May-13-08 01:55 PM   #8 
  - P.S.  Beregond2   May-13-08 02:04 PM   #12 
     - P.P.S.  satireV   May-13-08 03:05 PM   #15 
  - You're not a fundementalist  Prophet 451   May-13-08 01:59 PM   #9 
  - Very good post!  yardwork   May-13-08 02:00 PM   #10 
  - Don't think the fear and loathing applies just to you.  gatorboy   May-13-08 02:05 PM   #13 
  - Yup, like me. Loath it. Christians are okay. But christianity sucks balls.  Evoman   May-13-08 11:47 PM   #24 
     - I would argue with you  1awake   May-14-08 12:49 AM   #35 
        - Nah...the god concept itself is bankrupt. Religion sucks salty balls.  Evoman   May-14-08 01:16 AM   #38 
  - You're a fundamentalist? GOOD! Then poverty is your priority, right?  bobbolink   May-13-08 03:07 PM   #16 
  - I have, and I do,  1awake   May-14-08 12:46 AM   #34 
     - I thank you for your efforts. As Jim Wallis says, it's time for everyone to speak up!  bobbolink   May-15-08 11:43 AM   #46 
  - Thanks for weighing in on these issues.  nathan hale   May-13-08 03:46 PM   #18 
  - Fundamentalist churches used to be determinedly non-political  Lydia Leftcoast   May-13-08 03:52 PM   #19 
  - Labels get Recycled  Help_I_Live_In_Idaho   May-13-08 04:55 PM   #20 
  - Leviticus and paul i believe. Leviticus also says no shell fish or blended material and much  seabeyond   May-13-08 05:04 PM   #22 
  - Jesus  dgibby   May-13-08 11:43 PM   #23 
  - almost a direct quote from Gandhi,  1awake   May-14-08 12:42 AM   #33 
  - You are not a deceiving, lying, cheating, complicit killer. Guess you aren't what you thought you  lonestarnot   May-13-08 11:49 PM   #25 
  - As awakened as you are to real spirituality now . . .  defendandprotect   May-14-08 12:01 AM   #26 
  - Psst. Check out Rev. Jim Wallis and Sojourners, my very favorite Evangelical  Hekate   May-14-08 12:01 AM   #27 
  - It's fine,  1awake   May-14-08 12:40 AM   #32 
     - Yes, I think so too  struggle4progress   May-14-08 12:54 AM   #36 
  - I thought i believed in the sanctity of all man  w8liftinglady   May-14-08 12:02 AM   #28 
  - Homosexuality doesn't produce children...  spin   May-14-08 12:26 AM   #29 
  - I have read it many times,  1awake   May-14-08 12:37 AM   #30 
     - Biblical stories can be viewed in many different ways...  spin   May-14-08 03:45 PM   #41 
  - Well folks love to take the NT and the OT all out of 'context' and  Rex   May-14-08 12:37 AM   #31 
  - I agree you are not a fundamentalist. You are an Orthodox Christian.  Wizard777   May-14-08 01:55 AM   #39 
  - Where do you stand on non-Christians?  AnnieBW   May-14-08 07:28 PM   #43 
  - Hugs back at ya!  1awake   May-14-08 10:21 PM   #44 
  - We Christians need to take back Christianity from the far-right.  anonymous171   May-14-08 11:51 PM   #45 
     - i oculdnt agree more. i have been saying since about 2003. and  seabeyond   May-15-08 11:54 AM   #47 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC