Leauki,

Not at all...God is loving yes, but He is equally just...HIs judgment against the Sodomites of Sodom and Gomorrah is a lesson of His justice. Psalm 118:137, "Thou art just, O Lord; and Thy judgment is right."

And you think the text was written not for people like me to interpret but for people like you to interpret?

How much were people supposed to think about sex between men back when the story was first taught?

I was talking about how the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage but should treat two people of oany sex equallly when it comes to gov't programs.

The fact that this conversation has devolved into a biblical discussion just proves my point.  Faith-based belief structures do not make good law unless the faith (or faiths [or non-faiths]) have the same beliefs.

So you wanted to discuss this without regard to religion even though everyone's opinion on it is likely to be related to their religious beliefs?

Punishing men for wickedness is not an unloving act Leauki.  God was quite clear that men lying with men and woman with woman was an absolute abomination and a sin against him.  He gave plenty of warning.  Using our bodies in an abominable way is an affront to a holy God who skillfully and thoughtfully created us in his image.  In order to stop any type of wickedness punishment is needed otherwise it will spread rapidly (as we're seeing today.)  It's not just about homosexuality but any type of gross sexual pervision he's against. 

Ok, Leauki you keep bringing up this one Rabbi who holds to this interpretation (which I've never heard of) but can you name anyone else that holds to this interpretation in the Jewish faith?  Can you name any other Jewish Rabbis that hold to the other interpretation (the one that makes most sense) and can you tell me who in your estimation holds the majority view and what that majority viewpoint is?  Is there any discussion you can get ahold of between rabbis on both sides of this issue? 

To be quite frank I'm surprised we are even having this discussion.  It's always been interpreted (as far as I've ever known before you brought up this Rabbi) as a sexual perversion problem in Sodom.  Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says that inhospitality is an abomination (worthy of death) and that anyone not hospitable should be killed? 

exactly.  You got this right Leauki. 

Condemning men for what one conceives to be wickedness is a most unloving act. What does G-d need your help for?

I brought up this one rabbi again and again because it always takes Lula some time to acknowledge new information (although I have no doubt that the next time this comes up somewhere she will have forgotten everything about him again).

You know as well as I do that G-d had already decided to destroy the city before the angels even entered Lot's house. I therefor believe that it takes a very rough interpretation of events to argue that the actions of the city men towards the angels were related to sex AND were the reason for a decision G-d had already made.

In fact I know of no rabbi or ancient Jewish script who ever made that same mistake.

Yes, the story of Sodom and Gamora.

"As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom; She and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:46-50, G-d speaking to Jerusalem

Regarding Sodom and Gamora the Bible mentions in detail what the people of those cities did wrong, it mentions many things, but it doesn't mention homosexuality.

Josephus wrote that "the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance".

The attributes of Sodom (what makes one a "Sodomite") are mentioned in the Talmud. They were inhospitality, arrogance, pride, and disdain for the poor. This is not a new view, even if you insist that it is. It's a view that was held by the rabbis of the middle ages, by the Talmudists, and by the prophets before them.

The other, non-literal, reading, however, seems to be newer. Can you show me a text that refers to homosexuality as the reason for Sodom and Gamora's demise that is older than Ezekiel or the Talmud?

zubaz posts:

leauki posts:

Zubaz,

Leauki makes a great point. So, if you will, please bear with us on this. And who knows, you and other readers might find it interesting.

LULA POSTS:

Leauki posts:

Well, yes, but not me personally, it's only the Catholic Church who is authorized to interpret Sacred Scripture and I'll get back to this later.

Sacred Scripture is God's written word and since God is not a God of confusion, there can be only one correct sense of it's meaning otherwise we'd have total confusion as to its meaning.

Anyone can interpret Sacred Scripture and they may get it right and they might not...and that's the rub. Have 10 people interprete and you'll have 10 different interpretations and then 10 different doctrines based on that person's interpretation. Happens all the time in Protestantism and that's why there are thousands of churches all based on someones's private interpretation.  Started with Luther's private interpretation and hasn't stopped since.

Certainly Sacred Scripture contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear and Scripture itself states that it needs an interpreter. We read in St. Paul's epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort), as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

In Acts, we read an account of the deacon, St.Philip and the Ethopian eunuch. Philip approaches the Ethopian and learns that he's reading from the prophet Isaias and asks him a question. "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" And the Ethopian answers, "How can I, unless some man show me?" St.Philip was commissioned by the APostles 6:6, who preached the Gospel with authority 8: 4-8. the point being verifies the fact that Scripture isn't sufficient in itself and people who read it do need an authority to insturct them properly to understand what it means.  

 God is the Author of Scripture and as to its difficult "things hard to be understood", He certainly knew that the changing mentalities of subsequent generations would lead to confusion. To obviate the danger He could do one of 2 things....He could stablize human reason and prevent each one from mistaking the true and original sense or else He could establish certain men to teach in His name and finally, if necessary, establish an infallible tribunal in which men could consult under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. He chose the latter.

St.Paul distinguishes between the letter and the spirit of Scripture. By the letter, he meant the Old Testament as understood by the Jews prior to the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ. Whereas, Spirit meant Scripture as understood in the light of faith in Jesus Christ of which is grounded on Apostolic Tradition.

So, when it comes to interpretating Sacred Scripture, we find it's not a question of human opinions. It's a question of God's teaching and neither your interpretation nor mine has any value if it contradicts that.

I have beliefs and faith and even organized religion . .  but I live in the mortal world, not one made of gods and spirits. And I was hoping for more than "God said; I believe it; that settles it."

It's been interesting to watch.  But I can't accept it as a way to govern.

In the end, for me, an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god that leaves his most holy book up for interpretation and allows a world counter to his teachings to exist for his own unknown purposes  . . . strikes me as wrong on a level I can't get past.

I'm a father.  I have daughters.  I think of Jehovah as a super-duper me; better in every way; by an infinite amount. 

As much as I love my daughters and wife he would love me and you and everyone more than I can imagine.

As much as I would protect my girls, he would do it more.

Any yet . .  . here we are.  Free will.

Homosexuals exist because God allows it.  And if God allows it, it's because God wants it.

Same with murder and hunger and disease.

So, I'll pray as if it's up to God.  But I'll live my life as if it's up to me.

And I'll choose to support gay rights.  Because I believe it's the right thing to do.

God.  He can judge me later if he wants.  Until then, I'll follow his son's tenets as best I can.

Today, that means loving my neighbor.  And I have gay neighbors.  Who love other gays.  And who, after a lifetime of being together get nothing.

No, everyone is.

If G-d had wanted to authorise only specific people in Rome to interpret Jewish scripture, He wouldn't have made His word scripture and He wouldn't have made it Jewish.

And it would be Latin, not Hebrew; and it would have been revealed to the Pontifex Maxiumus in Rome, not a shepherd in Sinai.

ZUBAZ POSTS:

Zubaz,

First, just to be clear.....Marriage and the absurd idea to redefine it according to the homosexualist image isn't a government program!

Government should indeed be involved in marraige and has a stake in promoting it becasue marriage and family are the indispensable building blocks of society.  Remember government is only good when it works for the common good of all. Government gives special benefits becasue marraige involves children..inheritance rights, tax relief, insurance policies, etc. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose..to build stable families which is best done with a mom and a dad.  

There is no obligation for government to give the same benefits to every type of coupling and rightly so.

Homosexuals are willing to deprive children of either a mom or a dad and use them to equate sodomy with marital sex.     

This is quite profound.

Yes, it's true God allows all of the above because He gave us intellect, reason, and free will to obey Him and His laws or not.  You are wrong though in saying that God wants homosexualiy and murder becasue He gave His commandments which are still in effect today which forbid both.

Leauki posts:

People who will not accept the Catholic Church as the official interpreter of Sacred Scripture, and who insist on puzzling out the orginal sense for themselves have only themselves to blame if they end in skepticism. If the government establishes an inquiry offfice as a guide to the city and a complete stranger refuses to use its services, he is to blame if he gets lost.

Good song.

KFC POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

from Lula's post #77

And besides those abominations referenced by Ezekiel according to 1Kings 15:12, 22:47 and 2Kings 23:7, under Canaanite influence, this same abominable practice was introduced in Isreal. Even the Holy Temple had rooms where the hieroduels (ritual male and female prostitutes) carried out their rites.

Leauki you persist, but neither using Ezekiel 16:49-50 nor Rabbi's Nachmanides interpretation of it makes your case for the Sodomite sin being inhospitality.

You fail to consider that one sin is usually related to others, as either cause or consequence which putting Genesis with Ezekiel explains well. The Sodomites sinned by despising and lack of mercy to the poor and needy, practicing self indulgence, and falling into sexual immorality.  

Anything faith based has nothing to do with fact nor with logic. One cannot reason about faith...that's why it's called 'faith/belief' and not 'proven fact'.

That has nothing to do with logic. That you "can't get past it" does not mean it is not correct.

G-d is nothing like man, infinitely improved or not. "Ani asher ehiyeh" or the way it's tranlated to English is "I am that I am" not "I am the infinite you". The anthropomorphising of G-d into something man can understand while human and understandable as such, is essentially wrong as it denies the incomprehensible nature of G-d.

G-d has nothing to do with any of that. Man does. What G-d wants or not isn't our purveyance. Also, that is invalid logic.

"Thou shalt not murder" does not mean "G-d doesn't want you to murder". It means "You shall not murder." Period. It is a subtle difference but a real one. It is a commandment not a request nor an explanation as to why. It's a "just do it, period".

This is interesting. True prayer is not making a deal with G-d, nor asking G-d for something. It is an act in praise of G-d for our own sake. G-d does not need our prayers, we do.

"But I'll live my life as if it's up to me." In fact it is:

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won."

Mahatma Gandhi