Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: christianbethel
« on: January 24, 2025, 03:14:26 pm »

I also to remember his daughters intoxicating and råping him in a cave and giving birth to the Moabites and Ammonites. 🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤢
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 20, 2025, 10:55:24 pm »

"your current position is to simply agree that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is homophobic, since we have no allegiance to the Tanakh anyways"

This is correct. I academically agree with the Judaic homophobes who use it to justify homophobia. Certainly, there is still plenty else in the Tanakh besides this story that is homophobic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality#Homosexuality_in_the_Torah

Quote
The Book of Leviticus refers to male homosexual sexual practices twice (JPS translation):

.וְאֶת-זָכָר, לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה — תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא‎

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable.[5]

.וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה — תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. מוֹת יוּמָתוּ; דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם‎

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[6]

Therefore even removing the story would not vindicate the Tanakh from the charge of homophobia. On the other hand, the part in bold is precisely what happened in the story.

But let us consider the hypothesis you have presented. Your claim is that the story is a condemnation of ****. But:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Biblical_narrative

Quote
Lot welcomes them into his home, but all the men of the town surround the house and demand that he surrender the visitors that they may "know" them carnally.[citation needed] Lot offers the mob his virgin daughters to "do to them as you please", but they refuse and threaten to do worse to Lot.

Are you arguing that Lot's daughters volunteered? If so, why not say that Lot's daughters offered themselves, but instead say that Lot offered them? So if Lot offered them, would not this imply that Lot has no problem with enabling **** (so long as it is not the visitors who are the victims)? How then can the story be a condemnation of ****, given that the visitors then saved Lot?

Quote
The next morning, because Lot had lingered, the angels take Lot, Lot's wife, and his two daughters by the hand and out of the city, and tell him to flee to the hills and not look back.
...
sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground

If the story is a condemnation of ****, should not Lot, an enabler of ****, have been hit by the sulphur and fire also?
Posted by: SirGalahad
« on: January 20, 2025, 09:03:23 pm »

@90sRetroFan What do you think of the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t about homosexuality? It seems common among left-leaning circles to interpret the story as being about r-pe and inhospitality instead:

https://reformationproject.org/case/sodom-and-gomorrah/amp/

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/does-sodom-gomorrah-condemn-homosexuality/

And I’ve found a few left-leaning Muslims making similar arguments (since the story is also found in the current Quran), with an additional argument relating to translation of the Arabic word بل:

https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-%D8%A8%D9%84-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/

https://thefatalfeminist.com/2018/05/12/same-sex-love/

https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/category/same-sex-relationship/

Sorry for bombarding you with this many links at once. I’m just curious, because some of the arguments seem fairly convincing on the surface, but your current position is to simply agree that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is homophobic, since we have no allegiance to the Tanakh anyways