Interesting that today's Mass readings have to do with Sodom/Gomorrah

[republicanchick]

Interesting that today's Mass readings have to do with Sodom/Gomorrah
​

Genesis 19:15



As dawn was breaking, the angels urged Lot on, saying, “On your way!
Take with you your wife and your two daughters who are here,
or you will be swept away in the punishment of Sodom.”
When he hesitated, the men, by the LORD’s mercy,
seized his hand and the hands of his wife and his two daughters
and led them to safety outside the city.
As soon as they had been brought outside, he was told:
“Flee for your life!
Don’t look back or stop anywhere on the Plain.
Get off to the hills at once, or you will be swept away.”
“Oh, no, my lord!” Lot replied,
“You have already thought enough of your servant
to do me the great kindness of intervening to save my life.
But I cannot flee to the hills to keep the disaster from overtaking me,
and so I shall die.
Look, this town ahead is near enough to escape to.
It’s only a small place.
Let me flee there–it’s a small place, is it not?–
that my life may be saved.”
“Well, then,” he replied,
“I will also grant you the favor you now ask.
I will not overthrow the town you speak of.
Hurry, escape there!
I cannot do anything until you arrive there.”
That is why the town is called Zoar.

The sun was just rising over the earth as Lot arrived in Zoar;
at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire
upon Sodom and Gomorrah
from the LORD out of heaven.
He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain,
together with the inhabitants of the cities
and the produce of the soil.
But Lot’s wife looked back, and she was turned into a pillar of salt.

Early the next morning Abraham went to the place
where he had stood in the LORD’s presence.
As he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah
and the whole region of the Plain,
he saw dense smoke over the land rising like fumes from a furnace.

Thus it came to pass: when God destroyed the Cities of the Plain,
he was mindful of Abraham by sending Lot away from the upheaval
by which God overthrew the cities where Lot had been living.



Then the gospel addresses we Christians having so little faith:



Gospel Mt 8:23-27


As Jesus got into a boat, his disciples followed him.
Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea,
so that the boat was being swamped by waves;
but he was asleep.
They came and woke him, saying,
“Lord, save us! We are perishing!”
He said to them, “Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?”
Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea,
and there was great calm.
The men were amazed and said, “What sort of man is this,
whom even the winds and the sea obey?”

 

[republicanchick]

Dont you think this is interesting in light of the same-sex marriage decision by the Sup Ct?


I think it's almost eerie... I mean Mass readings are chosen years in advance...

accident?

probably not

God is trying to tell the immoral something

and all those who support them


+

++

 

[republicanchick]

how do the perverts

oops

i mean gays

deal with this psg in the bible.. not that they are big on the bible, but some (Guy Benson) do claim to be "christian"


hmmmm... The Rolling Stone song comes to me for some reason

"I guess I'm lyin' to myself..."


___

 

[Selaphiel]

"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49

Wonder where all the threads about neglecting the poor are? We are literally rolling around in wealth while large portions of the world are starving to death, take the consequences of our overconsumption and die of easily curable diseases. But no, all I see here are endless topics about homosexuals being allowed to marry secularly in a secular country.

 

[republicanchick]

"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49

Wonder where all the threads about neglecting the poor are? We are literally rolling around in wealth while large portions of the world are starving to death, take the consequences of our overconsumption and die of easily curable diseases. But no, all I see here are endless topics about homosexuals being allowed to marry secularly in a secular country.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor.


notice the ANDs all over the place here

the iniquity was pride, fullness of bread... AND idleness

AND they did not care for the needy

so it is adding up all the sins of Sodom, but apparently PRIDE was the most egregious? Well, one could assume that, since it is THE sin listed first... and then there are the ANDs added on

Pride... b/c they would not give up their sin

(of perversity)



+++

 

[pqmomba8]

"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49

Wonder where all the threads about neglecting the poor are? We are literally rolling around in wealth while large portions of the world are starving to death, take the consequences of our overconsumption and die of easily curable diseases. But no, all I see here are endless topics about homosexuals being allowed to marry secularly in a secular country.

Bingo!!!!

 

[republicanchick]

Bingo!!!!

i notice how you avoided the post in response to this one you say Bingo to

nothing like dodging the viewpoints of others..

nothing like being narrow minded

 

[Selaphiel]

Douay-Rheims Bible

Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor.


notice the ANDs all over the place here

the iniquity was pride, fullness of bread... AND idleness

AND they did not care for the needy

so it is adding up all the sins of Sodom, but apparently PRIDE was the most egregious? Well, one could assume that, since it is THE sin listed first... and then there are the ANDs added on

Pride... b/c they would not give up their sin

(of perversity)



+++

This is what is called eisegesis. You are reading into the text rather than looking at what it says. Why would it not say "and fullness of bread" then? Ezekiel clearly announces that the sin of Sodom was the mighty trampling and neglecting the poor, a theme he deals with in his own prophecy as well as a theme in all the prophets. The pride in in this passage is about the pride of the rich that neglected the poor.

The Hebrew text also just has one "and" like the NIV translation. The second wa is better translated as "but" as in "but did not aid the poor and needy."

 

[republicanchick]

This is what is called eisegesis. You are reading into the text rather than looking at what it says. Why would it not say "and fullness of bread" then? Ezekiel clearly announces that the sin of Sodom was the mighty trampling and neglecting the poor, a theme he deals with in his own prophecy as well as a theme in all the prophets. The pride in in this passage is about the pride of the rich that neglected the poor.

The Hebrew text also just has one "and" like the NIV translation. The second wa is better translated as "but" as in "but did not aid the poor and needy."

this is called rationalizing and more importantly, taking things OUT of context AND (there's that word again)

tossing out other passages that are CLEAR as to waht evil was going on in Sodom and G

please

knock it off already; some of us have read the whole Bible... You can't fool us (not that reading the Bible is the only way to discern REALITY... I was straight -- and knew the evil and unnatural-ness of being "gay" l-- ong before i read the Bible)

See Romans 1 (and/or 2)


+++

 

[Selaphiel]

this is called rationalizing and more importantly, taking things OUT of context AND (there's that word again)

tossing out other passages that are CLEAR as to waht evil was going on in Sodom and G

please

knock it off already; some of us have read the whole Bible...

See Romans 1 (and/or 2)
+++

Where have I said that there aren't other passages about homosexuality? Reading the entire Bible doesn't make you a theologian. Also I have read the Bible, I also have a 6 year licenciate degree in theology.

The fact is that you are trying to make a passage be about something that is simply not there. The only place where Paul explicitly references Sodom is in 9:29.

It seems to me that the Bible does not agree on what the sin of Sodom was. Ezekiel clearly says what he thought it was, and his view is typical of the prophetic tradition. My point is not that there aren't any passages on homosexuality in the Bible, my point is that right wing Christians in the US treat homosexuality as if it was the one thing that determined whether you were a sinner or not. They whine and they shout about this homosexuality issue, while they don't even offer a thought about the exploitation of the poor, a theme that goes throughout the entirety of the scriptures.

Of course, it is easy to define THE sin as homosexuality. Then you have defined the sin as something that doesnt affect you at all, easier to appear righteous then.

 

[republicanchick]

Where have I said that there aren't other passages about homosexuality? Reading the entire Bible doesn't make you a theologian. Also I have read the Bible, I also have a 6 year licenciate degree in theology.

The fact is that you are trying to make a passage be about something that is simply not there. The only place where Paul explicitly references Sodom is in 9:29.

It seems to me that the Bible does not agree on what the sin of Sodom was. Ezekiel clearly says what he thought it was, and his view is typical of the prophetic tradition. My point is not that there aren't any passages on homosexuality in the Bible, my point is that right wing Christians in the US treat homosexuality as if it was the one thing that determined whether you were a sinner or not. They whine and they shout about this homosexuality issue, while they don't even offer a thought about the exploitation of the poor, a theme that goes throughout the entirety of the scriptures.

Of course, it is easy to define THE sin as homosexuality. Then you have defined the sin as something that doesnt affect you at all, easier to appear righteous then.

educated idiot

Does that phrase mean anything to you? And standing behind a "degree" while LYING is just... unconsionable

goes to show that being educated aint what it's cracked up to be...



___

 

[Selaphiel]

educated idiot

Does that phrase mean anything to you? And standing behind a "degree" while LYING is just... unconsionable

goes to show that being educated aint what it's cracked up to be...



___

Ad hominem. Try utilizing arguments instead of attacking your opponent.

I'm not standing behind a degree. You made a juvenile insinuation (in a not so subtle way) about me not having readthe Bible. I have, and I've spent considerable amounts of time studying it and Christian theology in general.

Where have I lied?

"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49

Wonder where all the threads about neglecting the poor are? We are literally rolling around in wealth while large portions of the world are starving to death, take the consequences of our overconsumption and die of easily curable diseases. But no, all I see here are endless topics about homosexuals being allowed to marry secularly in a secular country.

This is what is called eisegesis. You are reading into the text rather than looking at what it says. Why would it not say "and fullness of bread" then? Ezekiel clearly announces that the sin of Sodom was the mighty trampling and neglecting the poor, a theme he deals with in his own prophecy as well as a theme in all the prophets. The pride in in this passage is about the pride of the rich that neglected the poor.

The Hebrew text also just has one "and" like the NIV translation. The second wa is better translated as "but" as in "but did not aid the poor and needy."

Where have I said that there aren't other passages about homosexuality? Reading the entire Bible doesn't make you a theologian. Also I have read the Bible, I also have a 6 year licenciate degree in theology.

The fact is that you are trying to make a passage be about something that is simply not there. The only place where Paul explicitly references Sodom is in 9:29.

It seems to me that the Bible does not agree on what the sin of Sodom was. Ezekiel clearly says what he thought it was, and his view is typical of the prophetic tradition. My point is not that there aren't any passages on homosexuality in the Bible, my point is that right wing Christians in the US treat homosexuality as if it was the one thing that determined whether you were a sinner or not. They whine and they shout about this homosexuality issue, while they don't even offer a thought about the exploitation of the poor, a theme that goes throughout the entirety of the scriptures.

Of course, it is easy to define THE sin as homosexuality. Then you have defined the sin as something that doesnt affect you at all, easier to appear righteous then.

Be so kind as to point out where I have lied.

I said there were other texts in the Bible, they do not agree with each other as they reflect different theological traditions. Seems to me that you are the one bearing false witness when you accuse me of lying when I have done no such thing.

 

[republicanchick]

Ad hominem. Try utilizing arguments instead of attacking your opponent.

I'm not standing behind a degree. You made a juvenile insinuation (in a not so subtle way) about me not having readthe Bible. I have, and I've spent considerable amounts of time studying it and Christian theology in general.

Where have I lied?

you are being hypocritical b/c you say I am not a theologian just for having read the Bible (I never claimed to be one), while you are tantamount to being one (so you claim) and yet you twist the words of the Bible to fit your own political viewpoint...

that's hypocricy, and it is dishonest because you know the Bible is against homosexuality (acts of homosexuality). Since u have read the whole thing you know that God once told the Israelities to stone gays



___

 

[Selaphiel]

you are being hypocritical b/c you say I am not a theologian just for having read the Bible, while you are tantamount to being one and yet you twist the words of the Bible to fit your own political viewpoint...

After you insiniuated that I had not even read the Bible. And then you whine when I correct you? Who is the hypocrite then?

that's hypocricy, and it is dishonest because you know the Bible is against homosexuality (acts of homosexuality). Since u have read the whole thing you know that God once told the Israelities to stone gays

It also allows the Israelites to take women and children as bounty in war (Deut 20:14) Maybe you should read through the various laws of the Torah again, do you honestly think all of it reflects moral behavior?

I prefer having a critical perspective on the Bible, realizing that it is collection of books with a history and differing points of views on many issues. Maybe you should have a look at some of the historical-critical literature on the Bible produced over the last 2,5 centuries.

Stoning homosexuals was and is a barbaric act Do you think homosexuals should be killed? If so, why? Provide a rational argument for why homosexuality warrants the death penalty. I have no problem admitting that there are verses in the Bible that goes against homosexual acts. But simply following the Bible despite knowing better is immoral, certainly the lunatics that propose the death penalty for them. There are elements of tribal law and tribal societies in scripture that have no place in a modern society.

And, where did I lie? Or are you admitting that you bore false witness?

 

[Angel4Truth]

"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49

Wonder where all the threads about neglecting the poor are? We are literally rolling around in wealth while large portions of the world are starving to death, take the consequences of our overconsumption and die of easily curable diseases. But no, all I see here are endless topics about homosexuals being allowed to marry secularly in a secular country.

You left off this one:

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.…

Does not all of creation on this earth belong to Him as you cry "secular country and secular marriage" as if God was not the creator of both the land and marriage?

 

[Selaphiel]

You left off this one:

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.…

If you read the other posts you will see why. The Bible simply does not agree on what the sins of Sodom was. Ezekiel says it was failing to help the poor, Jude says it was sexual immorality. Just goes to show that you evangelicals should start paying attention to the last 200 years of biblical scholarship instead of sticking your fingers in your ears going la la la, pretending it does not exist. Then you can realize that the Bible a collection of texts showing a changing and differing conception of God, morality and man instead of pretending it is a book that fell down from heaven.

Does not all of creation on this earth belong to Him as you cry "secular country and secular marriage" as if God was not the creator of both the land and marriage?

Why should a secular government care about this? I believe their ruling was just as well. The evangelical demonization of homosexuals is what is immoral here. If anything, the church should apologize for its unjust persecution of homosexuals over the course of history.

Unless you can provide a rational argument for why homosexuality is bad for society, no one really cares that you are pointing to the Bible. It is no more interesting than a Muslim pointing to the Quran trying to outlaw pork. The US is not a theocracy that is run by ancient Israelite tribal laws.

And the attempts at that I have seen here have been lackluster to say the least. "It is unnatural!" No, it really is not, homosexuality is common in nature. "That doesn't mean we should do like the animals!" I agree, that is true, Why are you trying to claim that it is unnatural then if you cannot deduce morality from the natural order? The opposite would be true as well, something unnatural would not automatically mean it was wrong.

So where are those arguments?

 

[Angel4Truth]

If you read the other posts you will see why. The Bible simply does not agree on what the sins of Sodom was.

Sure it agrees, it had many sins. But the end all was the sexual immorality and then it was destroyed.

Why should a secular government care about this? I believe their ruling was just as well. The evangelical demonization of homosexuals is what is immoral here. If anything, the church should apologize for its unjust persecution of homosexuals over the course of history.

Unless you can provide a rational argument for why homosexuality is bad for society, no one really cares that you are pointing to the Bible. It is no more interesting than a Muslim pointing to the Quran trying to outlaw pork. The US is not a theocracy that is run by ancient Israelite tribal laws.

And the attempts at that I have seen here have been lackluster to say the least. "It is unnatural!" No, it really is not, homosexuality is common in nature. "That doesn't mean we should do like the animals!" I agree, that is true, Why are you trying to claim that it is unnatural then if you cannot deduce morality from the natural order? The opposite would be true as well, something unnatural would not automatically mean it was wrong.

So where are those arguments?

The only correct argument is God says its perversion, that should be enough. You can follow man and ill follow God.

 

[Selaphiel]

Sure it agrees, it had many sins. But the end all was the sexual immorality and then it was destroyed.

Why would Ezekiel forget the primary reason for Sodoms destruction? This is like saying that when you have two sources that say:

"A happened because of X"

"A happened because of Y"

That those sources really agree, because I can make up in my mind that what they really were cooperating with each other, 400 years apart, and meant to say "A happned because of X and Y".

Must have been the compiler of Ezekiel that thought space was an issue, 48 chapters long, but can't fit in the primary reason for why Sodom was destroyed. Why would he leave out the main reason that God destroyed a city if he thinks it is that important? Of course the answer is that he doesn't, he simply understands the story differently. And we can understand why he understands it differently, it is because he stands in the prophetic tradition who are more concerned with the poor and the outcast, so he reads the story/myth of Sodom and Gomorrah differently.

The only correct argument is God says its perversion, that should be enough.

That is a statement, not an argument. And it is not a statement that a secular government should pay attention to anymore than it should outlaw pork and alcohol based on Muslims pointing to statements in the Quran.

And no, God does not say that, parts of some texts say that.

But I guess the fingers went back into your ears.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why would Ezekiel forget the primary reason for Sodoms destruction? This is like saying that when you have two sources that say:

"A happened because of X"

"A happened because of Y"

That those sources really agree, because I can make up in my mind that what they really were cooperating with each other, 400 years apart, and meant to say "A happned because of X and Y".

Must have been the compiler of Ezekiel that thought space was an issue, 48 chapters long, but can't fit in the primary reason for why Sodom was destroyed. Why would he leave out the main reason that God destroyed a city if he thinks it is that important?




That is a statement, not an argument. And it is not a statement that a secular government should pay attention to anymore than it should outlaw pork and alcohol based on Muslims pointing to statements in the Quran.

And no, God does not say that, parts of some texts say that.

But I guess the fingers went back into your ears.

The fingers are in yours, because your argument goes, like this:

Sally said she left her husband because he was an adulterer
Sallys sister said she left her husband because he was selfish and didnt provide.

Well they disagree, so one isnt right.

Are those disagreements or is it possible both were an issue and stated in different conversations and contexts -but the main reason was the adultery that led to the final straw being played? See how silly your argument is and how messed up that you would have Gods word disagreeing with itself rather than your understanding being wrong?

Is God in charge in your world, or is man?

 

[Selaphiel]

The fingers are in yours, because your argument goes, like this:

Sally said she left her husband because he was an adulterer
Sallys sister said she left her husband because he was selfish and didnt provide.

Well they disagree, so one isnt right.

Except that now you are willfully coming up with two reasons that are more easy to harmonize.

"Failing to care for the poor" and "Engaging in homosexual acts" have nothing to do with each other at all. "You see, Mr.Peterson has failed to care for the poor in his community, so he is/and now engaging in homosexual acts", that is barely a coherent sentence. The former statement certainly does not entail the latter one.

Is God in charge in your world, or is man?

God, a God that cares about truth, justice and love for all people.Try presenting that argument now instead of dodging the questions and asking about what I think, that should be absolutely irrelevant.