for the Bible tells me so

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was you that claimed there were principles. Looks like you are going with your usual 'descend into madness' routine that you use when you have no answer to a question.

unless you answer my question then i am unwilling to answer yours, that is only fair, but enough of this pettiness, there are larger issues than that afoot!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unless you answer my question then i am unwilling to answer yours, that is only fair, but enough of this pettiness, there are larger issues than that afoot!

Unless I am mistaken, you asserted that there were principles involved. I asked you what principles and you asked me what principles. Methinks it is you being petty.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Unless I am mistaken, you asserted that there were principles involved. I asked you what principles and you asked me what principles. Methinks it is you being petty.

i think you could be on to something there!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]From a Biblical perspective homosexuality is condemned in both the Mosaic law and in the New Testament from Paul.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were told that a man having intercourse with another man was an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). However, almost in the same breath the Israelites were told that it was also an "abomination" to ...[text shortened]... Thanks for the replies, whodey, I look forward to a fruitful discussion.[/b]

I am only going to address the question from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures—and there you are correct.

Unfortunately, we have in English that abominable word, “abomination.” The Hebrew word is toevah, which means loathsome or detestable or impure; in the “purity codes,” what is toevah is culturally taboo for the Israelites, and is part of what separates them culturally from “the nations.”


“The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used—if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin.” (Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality; my bold.)

Therefore, homosexual activity is not—in the Torah—a sin or moral wickedness.

With regard to the other story in the Hebrew Scriptures taken as condemning homosexuality, the Sodom story— it is about (among other things) abuse and attempted rape (whatever their sexuality) of strangers guaranteed hospitality under rather strict rules of the time. It is only by looking backward through an assumed moral lens that one determines it was the homosexual nature of the affair that was the point of the story.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am only going to address the question from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures—and there you are correct.

Unfortunately, we have in English that abominable word, “abomination.” The Hebrew word is toevah, which means loathsome or detestable or impure; in the “purity codes,” what is toevah is culturally taboo for the Israelites, and is ...[text shortened]... that one determines it was the homosexual nature of the affair that was the point of the story.

Thank you, vistesd. As usual, well put.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am only going to address the question from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures—and there you are correct.

Unfortunately, we have in English that abominable word, “abomination.” The Hebrew word is toevah, which means loathsome or detestable or impure; in the “purity codes,” what is toevah is culturally taboo for the Israelites, and is ...[text shortened]... that one determines it was the homosexual nature of the affair that was the point of the story.

==========================================
With regard to the other story in the Hebrew Scriptures taken as condemning homosexuality, the Sodom story— it is about (among other things) abuse and attempted rape (whatever their sexuality) of strangers guaranteed hospitality under rather strict rules of the time. It is only by looking backward through an assumed moral lens that one determines it was the homosexual nature of the affair that was the point of the story.
===============================================

I don't think that you would be able to really defend that position.

And I think that the tendency you imply would eventually tempt someone to suggest that even the rape of the story was and is acceptable to God.

You are on a slippery slope, IMO. Going with your initial gut feel would be much more reliable.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Thank you, vistesd. As usual, well put.

Epi,

Whatever the sin of Sodom, it seems to have taken place in the past before the angels went down there.

"And Jehovah said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, how great it is; and their SIN, how heavy it IS!

I shall go down and see whether they have done altogether according to its outcry, whgich has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Gen. 18:20,21)


This is in regards to something the people of Sodom had done in the past. What do you suppose this was that God was concerned about?

Do you really think it was some violation of Near East norms of hospitality? I don't think so.

What had they done in the past that caused God to want to verify that their outcry was really that rebellious ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================================
With regard to the other story in the Hebrew Scriptures taken as condemning homosexuality, the Sodom story— it is about (among other things) abuse and attempted rape (whatever their sexuality) of strangers guaranteed hospitality under rather strict rules of the time. It is only by looking backward through an ass You are on a slippery slope, IMO. Going with your initial gut feel would be much more reliable.

[/b]And I think that the tendency you imply would eventually tempt someone to suggest that even the rape of the story was and is acceptable to God.

Whoa!! Okay, I can see from how I put it where you get that—my bad; your point well-taken and appreciated. I did not intend to simply subsume rape under the rules of hospitality, etc.

I do think that I can defend that it is about rape and abuse, and not homosexual behavior per se. I don’t see it as being any more or less egregious if it’s homosexual rape and abuse; I don’t see that the homosexuality adds one sin to another.

Nevertheless, you caught me being sloppy (thank you very much!! 😳 😉), and I am going to have to go back and take a more careful look.

Originally posted by vistesd
And I think that the tendency you imply would eventually tempt someone to suggest that even the rape of the story was and is acceptable to God.

Whoa!! Okay, I can see from how I put it where you get that—my bad; your point well-taken and appreciated. I did not intend to simply subsume rape under the rules of hospitality, etc.

I do think ...[text shortened]... y (thank you very much!! 😳 😉), and I am going to have to go back and take a more careful look.[/b]

====================================
I do think that I can defend that it is about rape and abuse, and not homosexual behavior per se. I don’t see it as being any more or less egregious if it’s homosexual rape and abuse; I don’t see that the homosexuality adds one sin to another.
====================================

Maybe I misunderstand you.

I don't think the point of the account is that either heterosexual rape or homosexual rape excuse each other.

Their cry of revolt which rose up to God, I believe was a cry of revolt against nature and the Creator of nature, God

"The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, how great it is; and their sin, how very heavy it is!" (Gen.18:20)

It is not convincing to me to suggest that this cry of rebellion which rose up before God was concerning customs of Ancient Near East hospitatlity.

When Lot tried to bargain with the mob of men he said "Please, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.

I have here two daughters who have not known a man. Please, let me bring them out to you, and do to them as is fitting in your eyes ..." it suggest that in his eyes heterosexual rape of the women, though bad, was not AS wicked as what they intended.

I do not know why Lot chose to sacrifice his daughters this way. I simply do not know. Perhaps he knew that the men of Sodom had actually lost their normal heterosexual desire for the most part and that the gesture would appease them, and maybe even disperse them.


The prevous cry of rebellion was so severe that they had an appetite only to do what had the maximum offense against God whom they hated. They were hooked, addicted to the "cocaine" of rebellion against God.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
I do think that I can defend that it is about rape and abuse, and not homosexual behavior per se. I don’t see it as being any more or less egregious if it’s homosexual rape and abuse; I don’t see that the homosexuality adds one sin to another.
====================================

Maybe I misunderstand you.
od whom they hated. They were hooked, addicted to the "cocaine" of rebellion against God.[/b]

A couple of points in reply to your thoughtful response:

(1) Although I do not want to stress it, nor condone the choices, I think now that you may be diminishing the “hospitality codes” of that time and place, in terms of its importance to those people too much.

From a commentary in one translation I have of the Torah: “To the ancients, hospitality included vastly more than good manners; it meant the treatment and acceptance of strangers and was a vital aspect of religion (Deut. 10:19).” [From The Torah: A Modern Commentary, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, W. Gunther Plaut, Editor]

Lot was not a guest in Sodom; he had become a resident, and he was host to the strangers. “Lot’s offer of his daughters to protect his guests may seem fantastically disproportionate. [Agreed.] The implication in the text, however, is that Lot is a model host who will go to extreme lengths to honor the hospitality code.” [ibid]

And : “Whatever other customs and habits of Sodom he adopts, he preserves his sense of hospitality and decency toward strangers. He risks his own and his family’s safety to protect the men under his roof.” [ibid]

This commentary suggests that it was to protect the strangers under his roof that Lot was induced to offer his own daughters. Perhaps he thought that act might shame the offending Sodomites; as you say, “Perhaps he knew that the men of Sodom had actually lost their normal heterosexual desire for the most part and that the gesture would appease them, and maybe even disperse them.” Perhaps he was conflicted and made a wild decision. Like you, I really don’t know. (None of which means that I am trying to defend his decision; we are really just grappling with understanding it.)

That does not, of course, negate the possibility that your interpretation is the more correct one. That might turn somewhat on the following point—

(2) Once again, there is my dictum that one person’s text is another person’s context. I reject the notion “that in his eyes heterosexual rape of the women, though bad, was not AS wicked as what they intended” based on my foregoing analysis of homosexuality in the Levitical code as context. Both rape and the abuse of strangers come under the heading of moral wickedness (zimah), but homosexual behavior per se comes under the heading of toevah.

One who reverses that text/context relation will come to an opposite conclusion. But I suspect you are not so much doing that as relying upon your understanding of the relevant NT texts as context for these texts. That’s okay: as a Christian you’re supposed to do that. But I will let others argue about the NT, much as I have both enjoyed our prior engagements about Christology and soteriology and such, and appreciated the fact that you never dismissed my arguments because you knew that I was “outside the fold” but were graciously willing to engage just my thoughts on such matters.

(3) The Genesis passage that you cite certainly indicates that the people of Sodom were afflicted with what the commentary I cited calls “social evil” (a rather mild term!). Your analogy of addiction is, I think, a very good one.

Good discussion. I hope we’re giving Epi what he wanted. I still have to delve more deeply into this one—but, then, you’re helping with that.

EDIT: Outside the urban setting, into which Lot had apparently partially settled, in the country setting of nomadic herders and such, hospitality codes were, I think, often seen as—or at least developed from—issues of potential life and death: water, food, shelter. Since Lot came from that setting, it might explain his fierce allegiance to the rules of hospitality.

Originally posted by vistesd
A couple of points in reply to your thoughtful response:

(1) Although I do not want to stress it, nor condone the choices, I think now that you may be diminishing the “hospitality codes” [b]of that time and place, in terms of its importance to those people too much.

From a commentary in one translation I have of the Torah: “To the ancients, h ...[text shortened]... Lot came from that setting, it might explain his fierce allegiance to the rules of hospitality.[/b]

=========================================
(1) Although I do not want to stress it, nor condone the choices, I think now that you may be diminishing the “hospitality codes” of that time and place, in terms of its importance to those people too much.

From a commentary in one translation I have of the Torah: “To the ancients, hospitality included vastly more than good manners; it meant the treatment and acceptance of strangers and was a vital aspect of religion (Deut. 10:19).” [From The Torah: A Modern Commentary, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, W. Gunther Plaut, Editor]
=============================================

How about the man who fled from Israel into a Jewish woman's tent in the book of Judges. She first gave him a cup of milk as he hid himself under a blanket. Then she drove a stake through his head, pinning him through the temple into the ground. (See Judges 4:18-24)

That was some pretty rude hospitality. Why didn't God reign down fire and brimestone in that instance or at least voice divine displeasure ?

======================================
Lot was not a guest in Sodom; he had become a resident, and he was host to the strangers. “Lot’s offer of his daughters to protect his guests may seem fantastically disproportionate. [Agreed.] The implication in the text, however, is that Lot is a model host who will go to extreme lengths to honor the hospitality code.” [ibid]
======================================

I find this asking me to believe too much. It is too incredible an explanation.

==========================================
And : “Whatever other customs and habits of Sodom he adopts, he preserves his sense of hospitality and decency toward strangers. He risks his own and his family’s safety to protect the men under his roof.” [ibid]
============================================

God with the assistance of the angels had pre-determined that Sodom was going to be destroyed.

You are asking me to believe that this was because that city had become so rude in its manner of showing hospitality to traveling strangers. I don't believe this is a reliable interpretation.

And Paul in writing Romans, seems to have the Old Testament opened before him as he reviews the decline of the human race. Though he mentions many unseemly habbits he does not seem to highlight rude hospitality to travelers.

If the city was divinely judged to ashes because of that it seems strange that Paul would get side tracked into some other less significant matter. And Peter or any other New Testament writer who mentions Sodom, makes not particalar mention of their rude reception of traveling strangers.

On the contrary, Jude focuses not on thier rude hospitality but their fornication and lust after flesh:

"How Sodom and Gomorah and the cities around them, who in like manner with these gave themselves over to FORNICATION and went after different flesh, are set forth as an example, undergoing the penalty of eternal fire." (Jude 7)

Why no mention of thier rude hospitality rather than thier fornication ?

===============================
One who reverses that text/context relation will come to an opposite conclusion. But I suspect you are not so much doing that as relying upon your understanding of the relevant NT texts as context for these texts. That’s okay: as a Christian you’re supposed to do that.
=======================================

After all the whole Bible is written for the believer in Christ whether Jew or Gentile. Is it not.

And these things, Paul says, were written for examples to us believers in Christ generally:

"Now these things (of the Old Testament) occured as examples to us, that we should not be ones who lust after evil thingsm even as they also lusted. Neither become idolaters ... Now these things happened to them, as an example, and they were writen for our admonition, unto whom the ends of the ages have come." (See 1 Cor. 10:5-11)

Any kind of alledged "cultural cleansing" of the text of the Old Testament to remove Christian thought and perspective from the revelation, I would not count as reliable.

I welcome your appeal to Hebrew words and definitions. But I sense the obvious you are laboring to hide for some reason.

========================================
But I will let others argue about the NT, much as I have both enjoyed our prior engagements about Christology and soteriology and such, and appreciated the fact that you never dismissed my arguments because you knew that I was “outside the fold” but were graciously willing to engage just my thoughts on such matters.
===================================

Yes, I will try to debunk graciously your notion here that Sodom and the surrounding cities were burned up because God could not take their rude hospitality any more.

I will try to be gracious to point out that this is a foolish interpretation to persue.

===============================
(3) The Genesis passage that you cite certainly indicates that the people of Sodom were afflicted with what the commentary I cited calls “social evil” (a rather mild term!). Your analogy of addiction is, I think, a very good one.
=================================

Thier collective cry of rebellion was so grevious because it opposed nature.

"And Jehovah said, The cry of Sodom and Gommorah, how great it is; and their sin, how very heavy it is ! I shall go down and see whether they have done altogether according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Gen. 18:20,21)


I don't think that their cry of revolt against God was like this "NO! We will not be hospitable to traveling strangers as is the custom in these parts. We will be rude to them when they visit our city"

I think their cry was against a deeper restraint of the God of nature. They would have sex with members of their own sex. They want what they want what they want !

This was a cry of rebellion against nature and nature's God. How dare God or anyone interfere with their lust to commit fornication with any living man.

I do not buy that thier revolt was an intention to be as rude as they could to travelers. Their concern was their right to commit fornication not their right to give travelers rude hospitality.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
(1) Although I do not want to stress it, nor condone the choices, I think now that you may be diminishing the “hospitality codes” of that time and place, in terms of its importance to those people too much.

From a commentary in one translation I have of the Torah: “To the ancients, hospitality included vastly r right to commit fornication not their right to give travelers rude hospitality.

[/b]A quick reply because, as I noted in another thread, I’m having computer-crash problems: will probably have to take it to the shop.

(1) I don’t think I said anywhere that the wickedness of the Sodomites consisted only, or even mainly of “rude hospitality”. I do not think that rape and physical abuse are just “rude hospitality”, nor do I think anyone else in the story did.

(2) As I tried to explain, the “hospitality codes” were not just about “rude” behavior. That may be our modern conception; it was not theirs. “Rudeness” is not at all the issue here; and I fully agree with you that that would be “too foolish an interpretation to pursue”!

(3) My main point about adherence to the hospitality codes was to explore the question of why Lot might have offered his daughters, trying to understand motivation aside from my own moral judgment about that.

The moral issue might focus on whether, as you noted (and I acknowledged), Lot thought he might actually be taken up on the offer. If he did—and if he would accede—then your own analysis suggests that that would be a graver moral wrong than violating hospitality codes; if you think offering heterosexual rape is a less grave moral wrong than permitting homosexual rape, then we disagree.

—On this note, I was reading in the bookstore yesterday a couple of commentaries on this passage by contemporary rabbis and scholars (didn’t buy the books, so can just give the high points). One compared Lot’s action to the particular, circuitous way of negotiation in that culture—using Abraham’s negotiation for a burial plot for Sarah as an example—in which one makes an offer (in this case, so egregiously immoral that) one does not expect to have accepted. This would support my “shaming” possibility. Another suggested that “men” (as in male persons) is a bad translation of the Hebrew word anashim, which calls into question any focus of homosexuality; I have not yet pursued that possibility further. The other rabbi supported your opinion generally.

(4) Jews do not think the Hebrew Scriptures (which they, of course, do not call the “Old Testament” ) were written just for Christians. I do not think that the HS were written just for Christians. I do not accede that reading them through the lens of the NT is necessarily correct. (Nor do I assert that such a reading, or interpretations offered by the NT writers themselves, is necessarily wrong.)

My comment on that was just to say that I understand that you do read the HS through the lens of the NT, that you’re supposed to, and I acknowledge that. I am not reading them that way.

And, although I likely did not put it clearly in my first post, I no longer intend to enter the fray of arguing/debating/discussing Christian doctrine or theology. Nor will I be referring to the NT for any other purpose (in this regard) than seeing how some Jewish writers interpreted the HS in light of there own messianic beliefs; after all, those beliefs do not necessarily negate their reading in other respects.

(5) I do not delve into the original languages in order to hide anything, but to discover and to reveal—possibilities as well as conclusions. To do this with the Hebrew, I have to acknowledge how that language works. I am also, more and more, returning to a midrashic reading of the texts (though I have not really done so here)—a Jewish form of reading paradigmatically different from most Christian hermeneutics (with the possible of exception of some early church fathers); it is not a modern hermeneutic, but predates the first century CE.

I freely affirm that I do not think that homosexuality (or homosexual behavior) per se is immoral. Sexual abuse, rape and exploitation are—whether heterosexual or homosexual. I would hold to this even if I concluded that the Biblical texts held otherwise; I do not believe that we can properly abrogate our own responsibility for deciding moral issues by simply following what anyone else says or has said (that does not mean that we can’t look to such sources to help inform our own moral understanding).

But my moral opinion is not what Epi was asking for.

(6) Finally, I do not think that this story can be taken as a lifting up the moral wrongness of homosexuality per se. I think that seeing as the only alternative that the story is about “being rude” is ludicrous (the single point that we agree upon). The wickedness of the people of Sodom was undoubtedly not restricted to lust, rape, abuse (sexual and otherwise), assault and the like—those are just the ones mentioned in this story.

Okay, that was not such a “quick” response, but it will do for now.

Originally posted by vistesd
A quick reply because, as I noted in another thread, I’m having computer-crash problems: will probably have to take it to the shop.

(1) I don’t think I said anywhere that the wickedness of the Sodomites consisted only, or even mainly of “rude hospitality”. I do not think that rape and physical abuse are just “rude hospitality”, nor do ...[text shortened]... mentioned in this story.

Okay, that was not such a “quick” response, but it will do for now.[/b]

========================================
(1) I don’t think I said anywhere that the wickedness of the Sodomites consisted only, or even mainly of “rude hospitality”. I do not think that rape and physical abuse are just “rude hospitality”, nor do I think anyone else in the story did.
===========================================

The distinct impression I get is that some interpreters want to say that the reason Sodom was burned up was that their failure to conform to Ancient Near East norms of hospitality was so bad.

In essence they want us to forget about the homosexuality and focus on hospitality customs so aggregious that God had to judge them.

I find their efforts underwhelming.

====================================
(3) My main point about adherence to the hospitality codes was to explore the question of why Lot might have offered his daughters, trying to understand motivation aside from my own moral judgment about that.
==========================================

Okay.

===========================================
(4) Jews do not think the Hebrew Scriptures (which they, of course, do not call the “Old Testament” ) were written just for Christians. I do not think that the HS were written just for Christians. I do not accede that reading them through the lens of the NT is necessarily correct. (Nor do I assert that such a reading, or interpretations offered by the NT writers themselves, is necessarily wrong.)
======================================

Jesus, Paul, and Peter were all Jews.

=======================================
My comment on that was just to say that I understand that you do read the HS through the lens of the NT, that you’re supposed to, and I acknowledge that. I am not reading them that way.
=======================================

But who said I was supposed to?

We believe that God did.


===================================
And, although I likely did not put it clearly in my first post, I no longer intend to enter the fray of arguing/debating/discussing Christian doctrine or theology. Nor will I be referring to the NT for any other purpose (in this regard) than seeing how some Jewish writers interpreted the HS in light of there own messianic beliefs;
==========================================

Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of messianic beliefs according to some Jews. They (with the exception of Luke) were Jews, who gave us the other 25 new testament books. Luke and Acts had a non Jewish author.

======================================
after all, those beliefs do not necessarily negate their reading in other respects.
=======================================

Not always. But in some crucual points Jews who disbelieve in Christ are negated in this error by Jews who did believe.

In fact Jews who disbelieved the HS opposed and killed their prophets.

The point here is not to portray Jews as bad. The point is that you are selectively siding with those Jews who disbelieved in Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the Messiah.

Why are you partial to them ? Is it because they echo your own doubts about Jesus ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
(1) I don’t think I said anywhere that the wickedness of the Sodomites consisted only, or even mainly of “rude hospitality”. I do not think that rape and physical abuse are just “rude hospitality”, nor do I think anyone else in the story did.
===========================================

The distinct impre ...[text shortened]... Messiah.

Why are you partial to them ? Is it because they echo your own doubts about Jesus ?[/b]

I find their efforts underwhelming.

I would too. But I think—and I’ll have to do some more study—that the hospitality codes, in the setting of nomadic herders, dealt with what were sometimes life/death issues in that setting: such as giving someone shelter from the elements. Nevertheless, the reason why rape is immoral is not because it violates hospitality. Again, this is probably the one point we are pretty much in agreement on.

Jesus, Paul, and Peter were all Jews.

Of course.

But who said I was supposed to?

Probably bad choice of words on my part. I only want to express that I affirm the legitimacy of doing that; I would be surprised if any Christian didn’t.

Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of messianic beliefs according to some Jews.

I certainly can’t argue with that. I will only point out that “messiah” has meant, and still does mean, different things to different Jews and groups of Jews. There is not, and was not, any creedal or doctrinal position in Judaism on that score.

The point here is not to portray Jews as bad. The point is that you are selectively siding with those Jews who disbelieved in Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the Messiah.

I know you’re not trying to portray Jews as bad; I would not accuse you of that.

I could as well state that you are (with honest religious belief) selectively siding with those Jews who believed that Jesus was/is messiah.

Most Jews did not become believers in Jesus as messiah. Most Jews during his lifetime never even heard of Jesus (there were about 1.5 million Jews living in Galilee and Judea at the time—although some gospel references may be to “Judeans” exclusively—and around 5-6 million living in the diaspora. Jesus-Jews and non-Jesus Jews shared synagogue space, with little or no enmity, for some time. Since most of the (post-gospel, anyway) writing in the NT are directed at the gentile outreach, we have little idea from that source what kind of ongoing evangelism among Jews was taking place.

Religious conversion, of course, also goes both ways. But, if most Christians don’t understand why Jews cannot/will not “see the truth”, most Jews might wonder at the same thing vis-à-vis Christians.

Why are you partial to them ? Is it because they echo your own doubts about Jesus ?

I am “partial” based on my own studies of Judaism, which began when—quite late in life—I discovered that I have some Jewish heritage (a secret hid in the closet in my family for years; I will offer no details, they are irrelevant anyway). That’s when I began to study Judaism. Before your time on here, for a few years, almost all of my posting was done from within a Judaic framework—I am now returning to that framework, and for now trying to recover some lost ground. But, in some (albeit loose) sense, one might as well ask why I’m partial to my grandfather.

With that said, I found that there is a broad and ancient stream within Judaism that expresses beautifully my own (at this point in time) religious/spiritual beliefs, as well as informing them in my ongoing journey. Judaism is not (and, generally, was not at the time of Jesus) the “religion of the ‘Old Testament’” (not saying that you implied it is). It is a dynamic religion in its own right, with only one central creedal statement. That is the only doctrinal statement required of a religious Jew. [Of course, there are a number of “Judaisms” today—orthodox, hasidic, reform, reconstructionist, conservative, etc.—just as there were in the first century. Hence, one has to be a bit careful about generalizing about “what Jews believe”. There is, however, a very good introductory book, by that very title, by David S. Ariel that I can recommend.]

I don’t have “doubts” about Jesus; I just don’t think he was/is what is claimed by Christians. You think I’m wrong; I think you’re wrong. It’s that simple. You have known that I am not a Christian for a long time, jaywill: that is why I said that it was gracious of you and others not to dismiss my efforts at learning-by-argument within that framework (as well as continuing some of my thoughts when I had been a Christian). Let’s say that you, and others, showed me great “hospitality” in that regard. But I am no longer going to go there.

Originally posted by jaywill
Epi,

Whatever the sin of Sodom, it seems to have taken place in the past before the angels went down there.

"And Jehovah said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, how great it is; and their SIN, how heavy it IS!

I shall go down and see whether they have done altogether according to its outcry, whgich has come to Me; and if not, I will know." in the past that caused God to want to verify that their outcry was really that rebellious ?

It very well could be a hospitality issue. The notion of hospitality is intimately linked with the Law of God, which is, love God with all your heart, etc., and your neighbor as yourself. In light of this, hospitality is no small thing, since it is an expression of love and respect for one's neighbor. It makes sense that if the inhabitants of Sodom were to have done something worthy of destruction, it would have been the transgression of this, God's highest law.

It is also worth noting that chapter 18 of Genesis, which deals with the hospitality Abraham shows the "three visitors", is contrasted in the very next chapter (19) with the hospitality which the people of Sodom show the two angels.

Furthermore (this just dawned on me), there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus' own words support the hospitality interpretation, Matthew 10:11-15:

"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

I think it would be a fruitful pursuit to study the biblical notion of hospitality. Perhaps we think too little of hospitality and so fail to grasp the true significance of why God judged Sodom and Gomorrah. I can't imagine that "gayness" transgresses the core of God's law more than embodying the very antithesis of hospitality (e.g., the people of Sodom and Gomorrah), assuming being gay is even a choice.