What the Bible really says...

Originally posted by Rajk999
In the Bible there is rape yes, and that is a sin, then there is sex within marriage. Sex any other way is a sin. If by consenting adults you mean two married people then I would agree.

Utter nonsense that God would destroy a city because they did not treat strangers well.

"Utter nonsense that God would destroy a city because they did not treat strangers well."

That depends on the mistreatment. It seems to me that not treating strangers well could cause them to go back and get their army to attack. Then if they win, people will come up with a story about the city deserving God's wrath because their mistreatment of outsiders. Of course the city's people won't agree, but hey, they lost.

Or if it was an earthquake, people would say God did it because that city never did treat outsiders well, and deserved it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you think not treating strangers well [actually, abusing was the word originally used] is not as bad a sin as homosexuality.

Before I answer I need to know what is 'abusing strangers'.

Maybe you can actually read the book as this is the claim made by the author.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Before I answer I need to know what is 'abusing strangers'.

Maybe you can actually read the book as this is the claim made by the author.

Here is a rebuttal of two of the book's premises which should give more insight for those (like me) who have not read the book.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702

It seems that the book's premise as regards Sodom is that the abuse of strangers included homosexual rape. The question is, was this sinful because it was homosexual, or because it was rape, or because of each?

It doesn't clarify things to see that Lot offered his daughters. Did he offer them because they were female, and thus it would not be a homosexual act, or because they were not strangers and so it would not be abuse of strangers, or in his patriarchal role, his offering of them would mean, in the moral code of the day, that it would not be rape?

This isn't clarified by the timing of this incident vis-a-vis the (supposedly earlier) decision by God to destroy Sodom. First, God's judgement is eternal, and second, a non-theistic interpretation would say the judgement-by-God story is a fabrication made after the destruction which would have occurred by entirely natural means to the extent that it occurred at all.

So we are left to our devices, which probably mean, minds will not be changed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are talking about a law of Moses. That would be like saying that all laws made by the United States government are made by God. Can't you see how ridiculous that would be? If not, then you truly are a numbnuts.

yes, i realize biblegod's laws are ridiculous. i was just wondering if you realized the same. now you've confirmed it, you do realize biblegod's laws are ridiculous. either that or you haven't understood the bible at all.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yes, i realize biblegod's laws are ridiculous. i was just wondering if you realized the same. now you've confirmed it, you do realize biblegod's laws are ridiculous. either that or you haven't understood the bible at all.

The human mind is more powerful than these Christians realize.

The bible becomes this all powerful, magic book which then becomes untouchable . The power invested into this idea by these people serves only to strengthen their opinions on religion/spirituality .
It is just another sad downward spiral to me.
The first place that truth emanates from is within oneself. Books only reflect this, and sometimes inaccurately.
To invest so much 'faith' into a book that has been demonstrated to be faulty is fraught with danger, methinks, but I predict that this post will only strengthen their bond with that old piece of outdated 'literature'. I hope I am wrong 😉

Originally posted by JS357
Here is a rebuttal of two of the book's premises which should give more insight for those (like me) who have not read the book.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702

It seems that the book's premise as regards Sodom is that the abuse of strangers included homosexual rape. The question is, was this sinful because it was homosexual, or bec d at all.

So we are left to our devices, which probably mean, minds will not be changed.

That is the most ridiculous rebuttal I have ever heard. It should be obvious to everyone that the men wanted to know the viistors sexually. To know in the Holy Bible has always referred to sexual intercouse that usually results in having children. This was why the daughters were offered to the men to have proper sex between male and female rather than male with male, which is an abomination to God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is the most ridiculous rebuttal I have ever heard. It should be obvious to everyone that the men wanted to know the viistors sexually. To know in the Holy Bible has always referred to sexual intercouse that usually results in having children. This was why the daughters were offered to the men to have proper sex between male and female rather than male with male, which is an abomination to God.

Revised response: the link agrees with you, it is my review of the questions raised, that you are reacting to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This was why the daughters were offered to the men to have proper sex between male and female rather than male with male, which is an abomination to God.

These women being raped was "proper sex"?

Originally posted by FMF
These women being raped was "proper sex"?

That's what I mean by asking, "[does it say that] in his patriarchal role, his offering of them would mean, in the moral code of the day, that it would not be rape?" But as usual you are more succinct.

Originally posted by JS357
But as usual you are more succinct.

I woke up 2 minutes late this morning and I've been trying to catch up ever since.

Originally posted by FMF
I woke up 2 minutes late this morning and I've been trying to catch up ever since.

lol 🙂

Originally posted by Rajk999
Before I answer I need to know what is 'abusing strangers'.

Maybe you can actually read the book as this is the claim made by the author.

I would think that 'abusing strangers' is always sinful. Thus, if I follow your logic, God destroying a city because they abused strangers is not 'utter nonsense' - it is his right as judge. All sinners will be punished, right? And since we can't say that one sin is more severe than another, then neither can we say that a punishment for a certain sin is too harsh.

Originally posted by FMF
These women being raped was "proper sex"?

it has nothing to do with sex. this story is about the desert code of hospitality. it shows that lot is such an "honorable" man that he would sacrifice his own daughters rather than allow his guests to come to harm.