That fits so many Christians to a "T"!

:cool:

Marriage....a permanent reminder of a temporary feeling.

:D

You are very certain of your interpretation and belief.

The usual reference for the homosexuality view is:

Gen. 19: 3-8 "And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to the this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

Where the word "know" is interpreted as meaning "to know carnally". However, some scholars put a different interpretation using a concordance to give a more precise and different interpretation to the word know. As a sound Biblical scholar I am sure you have access to one such as: "Strong's Exaustive Concordance"


The usual reference for the beastiality view is

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and
going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Jude 1:7, KJV

This can be argued against in that the men of Sodom were not aware the two men were angels.

Please take your pick from these or a selection of other interpretations that can be made and argued for and against.

As I am apathetic to religion the matter is not very important to me beyond objecting to absolutes. So please preach to those interested.;) ;) ;) ;)

Milu-
I'm not preaching to you or anyone else for that matter, you can choose to listen or read, or ignore, your choice dude. Same goes for the Bible. From what I've gathered through Strong's, the CEV, KJV, and NIV, the way I read it was the men of Sodom didn't know that Lot's visitors were angels and they were intent on homosexual relations with them. If they just wanted to hoist a brew and become friends, then why did the city get destroyed? Was the reason homosexuality or hospitality? Hospitality isn't listed as a sin in any version I have whereas homosexuality is. You can interpret it how you want. Is a murderer a murderer or is he someone who just a misguided soul who ended another's life prematurely by mistake? A case could be made for interpretation there too. I'm open to a rational discussion of an interpretation, that's how folks learn. I don't claim to have a lock on everything in the Bible, but there are some things I am certain of and won't budge regardless of what nasty name taunting I get from the peanut gallery.

Isabo-
Like the vast majority of the world, you also seem to have a colossal misunderstanding of Christianity. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret here, most folks who claim Christianity- AREN'T!!! You just read that correctly, that's why so much bad stuff is done in the name of God, that the world thinks that Christians are a bunch of hipporcrites and fakers. In the NT it says- by their fruits, you will know them. Is a person with a sword and shield with a cross emblazoned on them a Christian? Maybe, depends on what he does, if he slaughters innocent people, I seriously doubt it. This example is drawn from the Crusades. Lots of warfare between religions there. There were likely some true Christians involved, but the main motive seems to have been plunder and money for most folks. There are more examples through history of evil people hiding behind religion, Christianity or otherwise, to promote a personal agenda.

No, darling. I have an excellent understanding of men, christianity, organised religion and biblethumpers preaching what they were forcefed in Sunday school, only understand with the most narrow of interpretations, will not allow that any view but theirs has merit and think that anyone thinking and believing different to them is wrong and damned. We seem to have veered away from the original topic but lets carry on anyway.
I would suggest that homosexual rape, like any form of rape is a crime of violence rather than a sex crime, ie a desire to hurt, humiliate and have power over another. This is what the men of Sodom wanted if we follow the homosexual interpretation. This was not exclusive to Sodom but very common throughout history and occurs frequently even today. This is not usually considered homosexuality.
Continuing on the subject of Sodom, the one good man, Lot. This scumbag offered his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom to make them leave the angels alone, worse than the men of Sodom in my eyes, do you think his action was right and "christian". The bible is full of horrors like that, is that the christianity you want?
Above, where I referred to Christians, I was obviously referring to those that profess themselves as christian yet do not truly live it. That is easily the majority. I think we can say the same about moslems and jews as well.
-Isa

Statisicily is a teen who abstains more or less likley to get pregnant or STD's than one who does not? Some people choose to have less self control than others. I am one of the former but wish I had been the latter.

When I look back at some of the women I've been involved with my mind obviously abstained from common sense. :rolleyes:

The insurance companies (and actuaries) agree with you!

Not preaching but talking down from a pulpit, open to rational discussion but won't budge from things you are certain of.:p


I don't believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, which is specifically proscribed elsewhere in the old testament, as is cross dressing and eating pork. (BLT anyone?) Sodom was condemned before the incident with Lot and the Angels and there were lots of other abominations to choose from. Similarly various places were later described as worse than Sodom, does this mean homosexuality was rampant throughout the area?

As I said earlier, I am apathetic to religion. The only point I wanted to make is that there are lots of possible interpretations. This is true of much of the bible and other sacred works. I think they need to be read and interpreted in the context of their time and place as well as the culture of their people and their geopolitical relationship with their neighbours. Their use today as the basis of a belief structure is a totally seperate and much wider issue.

Archaeological note: Sodom was only one of a group of cities referred to bibilically as "the cities of the plain." The area where archaeologists generally believe Sodom and Gomorrah (et al) was located is truly a geologic anomaly, with deposits of sulfur and salt, iirc. It is generally held that these cities were fairly wealthy because of the rich farm and grazing land that was probably surrounding them. Additionally, it is generally held that these cities were into some interesting forms of idol worship, most notably rituals involving the harvest and seeding processes. Orgies would have been fairly routine, and homosexuality was very likely a common and accepted activity in these cities.

The biblical account, for the most part, seems to agree with what we find when we go and dig holes in the ground. The mob certainly seemed intent on performing homosexual acts -- the quote is "Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot's response isn't particular good, quite frankly. Rather than trust in God's power to deliver him, he tries to compromise -- "Will you take my innocent daughters, instead?" The daughters were probably pretty young, by today's standards, fwiw. Lot ends up surviving this mess not because he's a pillar of righteousness, I don't think, but more because he got graded on the curve. You'll be hard pressed to find a reference to Lot as a righteous, godly, or otherwise good man in the bible.

What am I getting at? Not sure. Just thought I'd provide a little information on the greater Sodom metropolitan area from my arch. background, and some bibilical notes from my studies. What does all this have to do with marriage and sex, anyway? I seem to have missed that transition point in the thread ...


Dan

Does anyone have a take on what the Sodomites thought about abstinence before marriage?:D

lol, Isa. I'd guess they probably didn't give a rat's petut about marriage, though a rat's petut probably had some other value in their society ... :)

HAHAHA
I havent read the whole thread yet, but amen to that
we should be telling this to our young girls instead of making them terrified of non marrital sex

Good thing I was raised catholic with all the freedoms catholic parents allow. It always seemed that it was my protestant friends who had to live under stricter codes. After all, how many catholics in the industrialized world live within the shackles of their religion. Catholics, in general, are least religious people on the planet. I was lucky as well, when I was in college, to spend most of my time with jews and arab muslims when going out in the Miami club scene. Yes jews and arabs together and a very good time that was. Though the arabs were far more successful with the girls. And yes, they drank like fish. It seems that people who prescribe to religions that are much older than the newer christian faiths, have already learned not to take things too seriously other than to respect thy neighbor. You always find the radicals among the newer sects that have sprung off the old religions.

But getting back to the subject of sex before marriage, one of my arab buddies had a great way to deal with the situation. He was dating a virgin and wanted her to still be one he married her. So his solution for keeping her a virgin was quite simple. He dated her but abstained from sex. But he had sex almost on a daily basis with a different girl each time to stay sane. Again, these arabs are amazing when it comes to wooing the opposite sex. Simple and very pleasant solution.

If one must have a formal religion: be a bad Roman Catholic. I was brought up sort of C of E, went to a RC convent school and married a very bad catholic. Ed is absolutely right, the older christian faiths are more understanding of human failing than the more recent sects, and don't take it so seriously.
Returning to the sex before marriage question:
Would you apply the same standard to a son as a daughter?
What about after a marriage break-up? No nookie unless you remarry?

I'm not sure I follow the whole "newer religions are more tolerant" hypothesis. In my admittedly limited experience, it seems that each faith has their own radicals. Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all have chunks of their populace that believe that drinking alcohol is wrong, as well as chunks that claim the same religion, but totally disregard the "don't be drinkin'" rule from the radicals.

For some reason, people seem to be a lot less concerned about virginal men as virginal women. Men always want to marry a virgin. Women would like to, but generally don't care quite so much. Hmmm....

Dan

Each faith has their own radicals? But of course. And these radicals form their own sects. Hence, the newer faiths. Even the Muslim radicals are pretty much newer break away sects. The original faiths have been around for at least a couple of thousand years now which is enough for their followers to see their failings and learn to judge things for themselves. After all, god is everywhere. I tell you, I went to Catholic school my whole life and remember having Jewish and Muslim classmates. They simply didn't care. Not the school or the students. The students just did as the Romans do. In fact, the school I went to had the highest rate of drug use in all of Dade County, Florida when I was there. Considering that is Miami, back in the snowy 80's, one can see how lax things were. While that is absolutely nothing to be proud of, it does reflect modern day Catholic mentality. Of course, we are talking Catholic and not Opus D'ei. At the same time, things were almost the same back at the local Jewish schools in the area. Of course, these weren't schools that followed some fresh new stricter sect, or relativelty newer faith like the church of latter day saints which is far newer than the Roman Catholic church. Is the Catholic church strict? Oh yeah. You better believe it. But do Catholics buy that crap? Ask Isabo. She knows.

I will add one thing. Regardless of the debauchery which went on my in highschool, it was still considered one of the two best schools where I grew up. It still is today and has the absolute best athletic program in the region. All paid for by alumni. Also of interest, is that most people who went there, no matter how hard they partied or dipped their sticks, were pretty much done with the wild living when they got to college level. Go see what the average overly subdued kid does when out of reach of his or her parents.

This puritanical nature, and its rebelious backlash, is what I find to be one of the greatest defficiencies in America. This is a carryover from the puritan era. Things like the 21 year old drinking age, which are quite far from the freedom we Americans erroneously think we have, don't help either. Why do we see a lot of teens in our country thinking so highly of drinking in their late teens, when compared to teens abroad? Because they never drank wine with their parents during special meals. Europeans do that quite often and grow up to become scientist and engineers just as well. It removes some of the thrill in the act of drinking to a youth. I did so myself and today I have no more than a six pack in a month. I still remember when first coming back to the US at 11, after living in Brazil for a decade, at having a waitress consult with my father after ordering a cup of coffee. Mind you, it wasn't even an espresso but the usual watered down item. I simply could not believe it. So one asks, where is all this misfit behaviour as of late in America coming from? It's a backlash. We in America, don't have a happy medium. We sort of do, but we are constantly bombarded by the religious freaks and the morally defunct which became so out of rebeliousness. Find an overly religious familiy and just as quickly one will find a black sheep within it. The statistics aren't there yet, but today I feel that even with the Roman Catholic church's dominion in Western Europe, the US might just be have the largest number of off-the-wall religious freaks in the free industrial world. It just might, which is disturbing to a lot of people. It certainly breeds extremest and rebelious youth behaviour. Mix this with parenting which isn't tough enough on other accounts along absentee parents during the daytime, and a bad mixture is created. Then one wonders why all these teenagers are practicing not only sexual behaviour, but deviant sexual behaviour as well. But hey, we are number one in America and raise better kids than anybody right?

Oh, and I going to heaven? Only God knows. But if and when I get there I don't see a lot of animals including some of my own along with all the non-christian friends I have made, I don't think it will be a place I could be happy in. After all, I am not the type of whore who will be comfortable in the knowledge that I am given the chance to partake in the luxuries of the kingdom of God when my friends and loved creatures are suffering somewhere else. I love them all and will feel proud in suffering with them wherever they are after their death.

Opus Dei. Please don't bring up Opus Dei. They feel the Spanish Inquisiton was a good beginning run by effete wimps.:eek: They have serious problems with sex after marriage.:eek:
Am I going to Hell? Very likely if Opus Dei and the pro abstinencers are judging, but I'll be in good company:D

If sex before marriage is bad, then other "rules" such as eating meat on Fridays is bad too. And yet, (paraphrasing) I refuse to believe that on judgment day my DIET is going to come into question. It is more important to just lead a good, decent life, than worry about these kinds of acts.

As for the teenage-sex-before-marriage part, it's like blaming the compass for pointing North.

Harelequin, before you lump two arbitrary rules together into the same set, consider the authority for each one. Dietary rules in churches started out thousands of years ago with Mosaic Law, which was gradually twisted into a "Don't eat anything that might be good together" philosophy of the Pharisees. (Today, for example, you can't put cream in your coffee, as that's mixing milk and meat. Cheeseburgers are also not kosher...) Jesus openly called these guys out several times in his teachings. Paraphrased: "Your life is not determined by what goes into your mouth, but rather by what comes out." (Matthew, don't remember chapter and verse off the top of my head). Paul, in his letter to the Romans says some of the same: "Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or whether you celebrate a certain festival." So you're right on that bit -- biblically speaking, it is unreasonable to suspect that God will condemn you for your dietary choices (unless your choice of diet causes someone else to sin, but that's a different story).

The respect for the God's ideal marriage, however, is a relatively continual theme through both OT and NT. The old-language King-James says "May your marriage-bed be pure," all the way back in like, Leviticus. Proverbs talks poetically for quite some time about how you should only drink water from your own cistern, and taken in context, is quite certainly talking about enjoying your own wife. David, who murdered another man to take his wife, was punished by the loss of their firstborn child. It seems clear that the OT speaks out against sex with anyone who isn't your wife.

In the NT, Jesus (again in Matthew, iirc) brings it back up, with a vengeance. While several spots in the OT talk about the dangers of lusting after a woman with your eyes (go back to David and Bathsheba, check Job 31, Proverbs ... 1? 2? Give or take), they don't seem to outright condemn it on the same level as actually having committed the act. Jesus comes right out and says it. (Paraphrased, once again) "If you look at a woman lustfully, you have already committed adultery."

But then, oddly enough, everybody remembers the story of the prostitute that Jesus forgave, right? Remember "He who is without sin cast the first stone?" Or the Samaritan woman at the well, wasn't she a prostitute? Heck, the same theme holds in the OT, too -- Rahab was a prostitute in Jericho, and she ended up in the line of Christ! Holy crikey, she's even listed in James and Hebrews among such pillars as Abraham!!

(sigh) My point is that the bible is fairly clear on both of these two topics, which are totally separate. You can argue all day long about whether or not the bible is full of hogwash, or whether or not Jesus was really the son of God, or whatever. I'm just trying to clarify some misunderstanding, that's all...


Dan