For clarification!

[Smellin Coffee]

What do you think the word "Sodomy" has meant throughout history?

And herein lies the rub with me personally. Taking definitions based on "spiritual forefathers" rather than really investigate whether or not it is a misnomer. In this case, take ALL the passages of Sodom in consideration before coming up with a definition of "sodomy" and one would probably find a completely different meaning based on the reason God punished the city according to the prophets.

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible is full of redundancy so that argument isn't persuasive.

And what an English word means throughout history doesn't matter in regards to what the author of Jude wrote.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'd like to see someone show that "strange flesh" couldn't rightly be understood to actually mean "foreigners; strangers" to say nothing of of it should be understood that way.

It would be rather redundant to mention fornication and "sex with a foreigners/stranger" in the same sentence. Its rather obvious that the writer use of the term "strange flesh" is meant to speak of something else. I have seen some make the case for this referring to sexual relations between angels and humanity. It certainly isn't a case of being "redundant".

The issue with Sodom's sexual proclivities, is that it was NOT consensual with the strangers; they were involved in gang rape of foreigners. Somehow, Lot may have gotten some kind of a pass but if you look at the passage, they started to turn on him because he himself was a "sojourner" and tried to hurt (rape?) him if he hadn't been rescued by the angels.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

<snip> ... if homosexuality can be said to be genetic, so can pedophilelia, based on the same line of reasoning.

I agree. The same use of reason and logic that says banning same sex marriage is at odds with the 14th amendment (which the courts have said it is) then banning polygamy must also be at odds with the equal protection clause. If the government has no compelling interest to mandate a traditional model of marriage then they have no reason to regulate any model.

Yep. If the Christians who want the government to submit to the definition of "biblical marriage" must support governmental support for polygamy and concubinage on the same basis.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

1. Apparently sinless perfectionism is the norm based on but point 1 and the earlier statements.
2. Would be proper.
3. Is a really dumb idea and setting a marriage up for a world of problems.

Agreed.

And to jump on point 3, "to marry instead of burn" is a very poor reason to marry, IMHO.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Bible is full of redundancy so that argument isn't persuasive.

And what an English word means throughout history doesn't matter in regards to what the author of Jude wrote.

I wasn't specifically referencing an English word. I hope you do realize that the English word "Sodomy" came from another language. I'll let you do the leg work and find that the meaning of the source word.

Give an example of redundancy that parallels the passage in question. Prove your point.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What do you think the word "Sodomy" has meant throughout history?

And herein lies the rub with me personally. Taking definitions based on "spiritual forefathers" rather than really investigate whether or not it is a misnomer. In this case, take ALL the passages of Sodom in consideration before coming up with a definition of "sodomy" and one would probably find a completely different meaning based on the reason God punished the city according to the prophets.

You're ignoring the fact that the "spiritual forefathers" also considered referenced the "other" issues with Sodom and Gomorrah. Its not like they excluded anything. We have the entire witness. You're the one trying to EXCLUDE part of the story.

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible is full of redundancy so that argument isn't persuasive.

And what an English word means throughout history doesn't matter in regards to what the author of Jude wrote.

I wasn't specifically referencing an English word. I hope you do realize that the English word "Sodomy" came from another language. I'll let you do the leg work and find that the meaning of the source word.

Give an example of redundancy that parallels the passage in question. Prove your point.

You mean "Sin of Sodom"? Now should we define anachronism?

And one doesn't have to show redundancy on this particular topic, only that redundancy is common in the overall text.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What do you think the word "Sodomy" has meant throughout history?

And herein lies the rub with me personally. Taking definitions based on "spiritual forefathers" rather than really investigate whether or not it is a misnomer. In this case, take ALL the passages of Sodom in consideration before coming up with a definition of "sodomy" and one would probably find a completely different meaning based on the reason God punished the city according to the prophets.

You're ignoring the fact that the "spiritual forefathers" also considered referenced the "other" issues with Sodom and Gomorrah. Its not like they excluded anything. We have the entire witness. You're the one trying to EXCLUDE part of the story.

I'm the one that is excluding? Where in the Bible, ANY PASSAGE, does it say that the sin of Sodom was consensual homosexual sex and that is the reason God destroyed that city?

Why did God annihilate Sodom but not the tribe of Benjamin (though they were punished) for the exact same sin of gang rape?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The issue with Sodom's sexual proclivities, is that it was NOT consensual with the strangers; they were involved in gang rape of foreigners. Somehow, Lot may have gotten some kind of a pass but if you look at the passage, they started to turn on him because he himself was a "sojourner" and tried to hurt (rape?) him if he hadn't been rescued by the angels.

The men that sought to rape the "strangers"..... probably more a rebellious slice of the population. Lot probably was well liked among the "influential" members of the social structure that existed. He found some protection in such. "New blood" wouldn't have has such protections.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Bible is full of redundancy so that argument isn't persuasive.

And what an English word means throughout history doesn't matter in regards to what the author of Jude wrote.

I wasn't specifically referencing an English word. I hope you do realize that the English word "Sodomy" came from another language. I'll let you do the leg work and find that the meaning of the source word.

Give an example of redundancy that parallels the passage in question. Prove your point.

You mean "Sin of Sodom"? Now should we define anachronism?

Are you really saying the Latin language is "old fashioned"?  The Latin language has stood for thousands of years. Are you saying the meaning has changed over this time? Read again....

And one doesn't have to show redundancy on this particular topic, only that redundancy is common in the overall text.

Then you have no evidence. Surely you can show redundancy "in like manner". Hence the very meaning of the word "redundant".

 

[praise_yeshua]

What do you think the word "Sodomy" has meant throughout history?

And herein lies the rub with me personally. Taking definitions based on "spiritual forefathers" rather than really investigate whether or not it is a misnomer. In this case, take ALL the passages of Sodom in consideration before coming up with a definition of "sodomy" and one would probably find a completely different meaning based on the reason God punished the city according to the prophets.

You're ignoring the fact that the "spiritual forefathers" also considered referenced the "other" issues with Sodom and Gomorrah. Its not like they excluded anything. We have the entire witness. You're the one trying to EXCLUDE part of the story.

I'm the one that is excluding? Where in the Bible, ANY PASSAGE, does it say that the sin of Sodom was consensual homosexual sex and that is the reason God destroyed that city?

Sodom had a problem with "SINS"..... plural. You're the one excluding homosexuality from their list of SINS.

Why did God annihilate Sodom but not the tribe of Benjamin (though they were punished) for the exact same sin of gang rape?

I'm not saying that Sodom has a national problem with raping "strangers". You're the one saying this. .... and The tribe of Benjamin was almost destroyed over a few men's sins.

 

[rsc2a]

The Bible is full of redundancy so that argument isn't persuasive.

And what an English word means throughout history doesn't matter in regards to what the author of Jude wrote.

I wasn't specifically referencing an English word. I hope you do realize that the English word "Sodomy" came from another language. I'll let you do the leg work and find that the meaning of the source word.

Give an example of redundancy that parallels the passage in question. Prove your point.

You mean "Sin of Sodom"? Now should we define anachronism?

Are you really saying the Latin language is "old fashioned"?  The Latin language has stood for thousands of years. Are you saying the meaning has changed over this time? Read again....

Yes and yes. And anachronism doesn't only mean old-fashioned.


[quote author=praise_yeshua]

And one doesn't have to show redundancy on this particular topic, only that redundancy is common in the overall text.

Then you have no evidence. Surely you can show redundancy "in like manner". Hence the very meaning of the word "redundant".[/quote]

Romans 1:29-31 provides a whole list of sins, many that are functionally equivalent for just one example. It's not like this is an obscure idea. There are literally dozens of places where the text lists entire lists of things that are largely repetitive.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes and yes. And anachronism doesn't only mean old-fashioned.

True.... but its in the same neighborhood. It just might live across the street. What do you not like in my use of "old fashioned"?

No. The meaning hasn't changed. Not at all.

Romans 1:29-31 provides a whole list of sins, many that are functionally equivalent for just one example. It's not like this is an obscure idea. There are literally dozens of places where the text lists entire lists of things that are largely repetitive.

Just what would remove from Romans 1:29-31 as to elevate the issue with redundancy?

Some terms are broader than others. Often a writer seeks to "narrow" the view from the use of a previous mentioned broader term. In such things, some "redundancy" is important. In like manner, the "strange flesh" mentioned in Jude is certain something "sexual". Yet, the use of the word fornication doesn't draw specific attention to the proper act. 

To see something as being entirely redundant, you shouldn't have a problem with removing the redundancy. Nothing would be harmed either way. What would you remove in your example?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The issue with Sodom's sexual proclivities, is that it was NOT consensual with the strangers; they were involved in gang rape of foreigners. Somehow, Lot may have gotten some kind of a pass but if you look at the passage, they started to turn on him because he himself was a "sojourner" and tried to hurt (rape?) him if he hadn't been rescued by the angels.

The men that sought to rape the "strangers"..... probably more a rebellious slice of the population. Lot probably was well liked among the "influential" members of the social structure that existed. He found some protection in such. "New blood" wouldn't have has such protections.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

Certainly affluence may have had a part in protecting him for a period of time, but they were still prejudiced against him because he was a foreigner:

But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow (Lot) came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.”

 

[rsc2a]

Yes and yes. And anachronism doesn't only mean old-fashioned.

True.... but its in the same neighborhood. It just might live across the street. What do you not like in my use of "old fashioned"?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+anachronism

Two different meanings. One is quaint. The other erroneous.

[quote author=praise_yeshua]No. The meaning hasn't changed. Not at all. [/quote]

I assume you are referring to the definition of sodomy with that statement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy

Now how many people use the word to mean either oral sex or bestiality? Because, in my experience, the people who are referring to those acts when they say sodomy are zero. Ergo...yes, the meaning has changed.

[quote author=praise_yeshua]

Romans 1:29-31 provides a whole list of sins, many that are functionally equivalent for just one example. It's not like this is an obscure idea. There are literally dozens of places where the text lists entire lists of things that are largely repetitive.

Just what would remove from Romans 1:29-31 as to elevate the issue with redundancy?

Some terms are broader than others. Often a writer seeks to "narrow" the view from the use of a previous mentioned broader term. In such things, some "redundancy" is important. In like manner, the "strange flesh" mentioned in Jude is certain something "sexual". Yet, the use of the word fornication doesn't draw specific attention to the proper act. 

To see something as being entirely redundant, you shouldn't have a problem with removing the redundancy. Nothing would be harmed either way. What would you remove in your example?[/quote]

I wouldn't remove anything from either passage. I'm not in the habit of either adding or removing from Scripture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Sodom had a problem with "SINS"..... plural. You're the one excluding homosexuality from their list of SINS. 

I agree. Except you never have proven from the Bible where consensual homosexuality was one of the sins.

Jeremiah in Lamentations clearly compared Israel's sin to that of Sodom: allowing their children to starve. He also said in his namesake book that Sodom "walked in lies" and "committed adultery". This was a good chance for him to narrow it down to homosexuality, but alas, he didn't. Ezekiel said that Sodom was punished for their pride, extravagance and their failure to take care of the marginalized in their society. In fairness, Ezekiel also mentions that they did "an abomination before Me (God)" but again, consensual homosexuality is not mentioned. Isaiah compares Israel to Sodom calling them to repentance to "do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause. Elsewhere, Isaiah references their sins as "splendor and pomp". Jesus? He mentions Sodom in that the towns that were not hospitable to the disciples and their message would receive judgement as did Sodom.

Plenty of times for the prophets to introduce consensual homosexual sex but nary a mention, unless one chooses to label it as a form of immorality.

I'm not saying that Sodom has a national problem with raping "strangers". You're the one saying this. .... and The tribe of Benjamin was almost destroyed over a few men's sins.

Genesis 19 clearly indicates it was not just a few "lewd fellows of the baser sorts" within Sodom:

the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing  indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26-7

 

[praise_yeshua]

Two different meanings. One is quaint. The other erroneous.

You're being dishonest with me and I'm not going to play your game. Yiu know very well that the vey link you referenced included "old fashioned". I asked a sincer question. You made no distinction in your use of the word.

Now how many people use the word to mean either oral sex or bestiality? Because, in my experience, the people who are referring to those acts when they say sodomy are zero. Ergo...yes, the meaning has changed.

You're being dishonest again. I referenced the source for the English word Sodomy. You then point to a modern English definition of Sodomy. Sodoma has long generally referred to anal sex. It has for thousands of years. I wonder where someone got anal sex from?

I wouldn't remove anything from either passage. I'm not in the habit of either adding or removing from Scripture.

Sure you are. You're removing it via your interpretation!!! You're the one saying it redundant, thus.... you derive a different meaning from the text. Stop being dishonest.

 

[rsc2a]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing  indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26-7

I've said it before. I'm sure I'll say it a hundred times again...people who want to use this as a clobber passage really need to keep reading the rest of the chapter.