Re: the whole sodom nonense

Subject:

Comments:
: >> Thanks so much! You know your stuff and it's MUCH appreciated. People are sooo in the dark about all this. I feel bad for the gay kid who's ostrasized by his religious parents and surrounding society because of miseducation. : : : : "eternal fire"... oooh there is one of those bad translations again! A more accurate translation is "age-lasting fire" (symbolic fire of course) [there is no such thing as eternal punishment, or even hell for that matter, in the original Hebrew and Greek texts] : : >>Hey, can you expound on this - there is no such thing at eternal punishment or hell in Hebrew or Greek?? And how is eternal different that age-lasting - and how do you come to the conclusion of symbolic? I'm just wondering...thanks. : : Oh I would love to but I think I'll do it in another thread. : : >>> I wonder where Joe gets this from - does he site any apocryphal work? Seems to me I saw somewhere (can't remember where) some kind of connection with an extr-biblical reference to Sodom/homo. Maybe I'm wrong. How do you know if there are or not? Just wondering...thanks.<<< : : Here are Dallas' words : : : : >>>> Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices: : : ["]The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]["] <<<< : : The Testament of the Tweleve Patriachs' refference to "sexually promiscuous" is very suspicious since there's no hebrew word for sex. BUT, assuming that the translation is good, there is no definition for the sexually promisucous in the text. It could just as easily have meant men who have too much sex with too many women at once! : : "departed from the order of nature"... could just as easily mean sex with another species. : : The Jubilees refference as "polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh" is an obvious mis-translation since there is no hebrew word which is equal to our english word "fornication". : : As for Philo and Josephus: First of all, neither of them actually believed that Sodom's sins were same-sex relations. : : Second of all, even IF they did believe Sodom was punished for same-sex relations, it is dishonest to take the words Philo and Josephus while ignoring the many many church fathers who were gay themselves and got no heat for it... why is that if the early church condemend gays, which it didnt as Bosswell pointed out. : : : : >>>I'm dense - how did he contradict himself?<<< : : I didn't show all of his comments... earlier on he had said that the sin of Sodom was not rape... but then he says "...But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape....." : : Best wishes, : : X (or xXx... I cant decide on which I like better :D)

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: