Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
The Two Biblical Cities by Aonon The Two Biblical Cities by Aonon
Too many people who don't want gays to get married will yell something like: "Gays are ebil cuz o sodom n gomorrah thats why god destroyed them cuz they were gay'.

No. The book of Genesis never specifically says for what reason they were destroyed. The reason is not specified until Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 16:49-50:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

In those days, 'abomination' was defined as 'any action that offended God', not 'being gay.' Back then, abomination included eating shellfish, having a disobedient child, and having sex with your wife while she was on her period.

In short, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for being gay. They were destroyed for being complete assholes.
Add a Comment:
 
:icongraeystone:
Graeystone Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2015
Wow, kind of like LBGT today - arrogant(think their situation is just as bad as what blacks went through in the south), greedy(instead of solving their own issue they expect everyone to cave into their demands), prideful douchebags(act like martyrs whenever someone simply disagrees while trash talking the heck out of 'the enemy')
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2015
I'm fairly certain that at no point in human history could you be executed (by law) for being black.

Granted, no one ever rounded up 'the gays' to enslave them and kept them imprisoned against their will. Instead, they rounded up 'the gays' to murder and beat and 'corrective rape' them. Still do, in some of the shittier parts of the world.

And as for expecting everyone to cave to their own demands and acting like martyrs when they don't get exactly what they want, I have to ask, what country do you live in? Because there IS a group of people that do that in America, and newsflash: It's not the LGBTs.
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Graeystone Featured By Owner 6 days ago
Marriage - A bunch of religions said, "No we can't marry gay people." Instead of creating their own religion to fit their own beliefs and permits marriage, LGBTs went to the government to get marriage.(Which is stupid in itself! Just asks Native Indians and Blacks how the government has taken care of them!)
Boy/Girl Scout - Instead of creating their own youth group, the LBGT harassed, forced, guilt tripped, the Boy/Girl Scouts into permitting gays/lesbians.
See, both of those solutions could've been done without the fanfare and controversy that's going on today.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner 6 days ago
You are aware that all they were trying to get was civil marriage, right? As in, the legal contract, completely divorced from the religious ceremony? You are aware that this is how, lets say, atheists or non-Christians in America get married, right? That go to the courthouse and a judge declares them, for all legal purposes, to be married, and that they thereby receive all legal benefits and entitlements thereof. THAT is what LGBTs were fighting for. Not to get married in a church (because who the hell would want to get married in a place that despises them), but to get married under civil law. (Not to mention that a bunch of religions also said "yes, we'll marry you!" and they were legally forbidden to do so at the time. This was about secular, civil law, not religious doctrine.)

Or the Boy/Girl Scouts actually developed a conscience and realized that it's wrong to cordon people off because your religion declares them to be 'icky'. Not to mention the fact that were ALREADY members of the Scouts who were LGBT, and all the organization accomplished was force these kids to hide who they were while teaching them that they were inferior. And so they changed the organization. Imagine that, an organization realizes their rules are faulty and they change their rules. What a concept!
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Graeystone Featured By Owner 5 days ago
Boy/Girl Scouts - Here is where you fail - being a part of those organizations is NOT about gender identification/preference. Also those groups are private non-profit organizations and as such they have the right to set standards. By your reasoning the United Negro College Fund should start handing out scholarships to whites because if they don't then the UNCF is racist!
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner 4 days ago
Gender ID in scouts I said nothing about because it's a tricky issue that quite frankly I don't know where I stand. (I think my error was I included all of LGBT when I should have just said LGB, so that's my bad).
And yes, they ARE non-profits that DO have the right to set their own rules. That doesn't mean they get to be exempt from public criticism and it doesn't mean that they should never change their rules.
You seem to be complaining that an organization decided to change their rules to be more accomodating of public opinion. As a non-profit, this is common sense because it's a matter of the organization's survival. The Scouts decided to change their rules of their own accord in response to public outcry against them, and you're complaining that they shouldn't have had to do that? Well, no, they didn't HAVE to. But they DECIDED to. If you're a non-profit that gets all your money from the public dime, is it not in your best interest to change in accordance to what the public wants? Isn't that just common sense?
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2015
An angel: "Father! the sodomites and Gommorans are being complete gang-rapist assholes!"

God: "Time to give them the dinosaur treatment.  *cracks knuckles*"
Reply
:icon123therealluigi:
123therealluigi Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Hobbyist
XD
Reply
:iconchristianfa:
ChristianFA Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2015
The interpretation that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality is just an excuse used to fight gay marriage laws.
Reply
:iconglaivester:
Glaivester Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hey, it's not like being gay and being an arrogant, greedy, prideful douchebag are mutually exclusive.  Cough Lindsey Graham Cough
Reply
:iconhellionthesage:
technicly the angel rape didn't happen. The people demanded Lot bring out the strangers(they didn't know they were angels or their gender for that matter) or they would take them by force. Rape was for most of history was not strictly sexual but in fact reffered to taking something by force, in short it was because they were xenophobic that they were destroyed not because they were into homesexuality. Also for a fun fact, the vatican has a statue of moses with horns because the people at the time mistranslated the word for halo into horns.

As for homesexuality it is mentioned in leviticus, however it states the reason it is wrong is because it does not result in conception of a child. If one consideres the incredibly high infant mortality rate and child hood death to disease and injury, it would not be that hard to believe that this was do more to survival than bigotry. Agrarian families had so many children because they needed that many people to bring in the harvest so that they could all survive and the possibilty that the second generation would be to few to support the community do to lack of children could pose a serious problem. Since that is not been an issue for a very long time that might explain how that reasoning became twisted into the general hatred of homosexuals that we have today. Just a theory.
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Graeystone Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2015
Lot OFFERED UP HIS DAUGHTERS to the mob. The mob said, "No, we want the strangers."
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2015
The leviticus theory is an interesting one, I've also heard that passage can be taken as a misogynistic, derogatory piece of language, something along the lines of "Giving pleasure to a man is the woman's job, do not lower yourself to their level." I've also heard it specifically refers to temple prostitutes, or that it means don't be sleeping with a man AT THE SAME TIME as with a woman. Lotsa different ideas, and let's be honest, we're never really going to know the original intentions, because the passage itself has probably been so butchered over the millenia that it no longer resembles its original meaning. :\
Reply
:iconhellionthesage:
HelliontheSage Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2015
Very true, which is why literal interpretation of the bible is rather uncommon, at least in the more academic of religious circles.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2015
Raping angels.
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014
And gang rapists, don't forget the gang-raping.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2014
Indeed, a very non-hospitable thing to do.
Reply
:iconpaulthored:
Paulthored Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2014
Verily!

P.s. hope you remember to Vote today! :peace:  
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Student Filmographer
Um, the messengers of God in the story---speaking as a former priest with biblical scholarship to spare---were pursued with intent to rape. The prophet in this anecdote of course offered to throw his virgin daughters to the wolves, so it's not exactly a sacrosanct bunch of people we're dealing with. The messengers of God, after being threatened with rape, then rained down fire and brimstone on the S and G. At least that's the story in the King James' version of the book. This is what is meant by the ravenous mob shouting 'send out these that we may know them!' "Know" meaning archaically to know someone sexually or otherwise intimately. 

 Really what seems to be the cause for revocable property damage is an attempted gang rape. On angels of God no less, at least that's what the Torah (at least the version I've seen) and the KJ both agree the divine envoys were. Hence their biblical potency as appointed destroyers. 
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
I do understand that that's what 'know' means in that passage. Another good question would be "If this prophet was such a good guy, why didn't he tell the gang to go f*ck themselves?" That always seriously peeves me about stories like this. A supposedly good person does something utterly hideous to prove his loyalty to whatever power he believes in, and his action is described as 'good'. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Graeystone Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2015
Yeah. . .you tell a horny mob of people who have no problem raping someone to "Get lost!" I'm sure they instantly obey, turn around and walk away, while saying they're sorry.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2015
So throwing your own daughters to this rape mob is the morally correct action to take instead? Gotcha.
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Graeystone Featured By Owner 6 days ago
I didn't say that. What I am saying is that mobs tend NOT to stop doing what it is they want to do once they make up their mind.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner 6 days ago
But that's no reason to cave to their demands or to offer up someone else in their place.
Reply
:iconhellionthesage:
HelliontheSage Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2015
To be fair, Lots daughters did eventually date rape him so I don't know exactly how good they were.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2015
The bigger issue, in my mind, is more like "You mean to tell me that EVERYONE is this city was bad? Lot couldn't have shown God 10 babies?"
Reply
:iconhellionthesage:
HelliontheSage Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2015
Yeah, God promised not to destroy cities or the world so long as their were still good people in it, of course that was after the great flood that drowned everything(according to scripture). Tad bit late on that.
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2014
I like to think that the daughters nobly offered themselves to their father to be raped in the angels' places, and insisted that they sacrifice themselves. But that's just me.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2014  Student Filmographer
Sometimes I include information for posterity. Comments aren't just read by you and me, you know, smart people. Sometimes biblical jargon or turns-of-phrase just...well, they don't translate. 

 Oh, I know. Believe me I do. I was raised a Mormon priest. I've seen a lot of very ugly realities in scriptures and in biblical history that...yeah: they say nothing good about the abrahamic faiths. 
Reply
:iconblackholeinajar:
BlackHoleInAJar Featured By Owner Edited Aug 11, 2014  Professional General Artist
Like Pencilartguy said, it's not just that they did but they did so much more and reveled in it. They were nasty through and through.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
Indeed they were. The point is that some people focus solely on "Some of their victims were other men" which, to them, means 'teh gayz iz all ebil'.
Reply
:iconcas20:
cas20 Featured By Owner Jul 28, 2014   Writer
That's exactly right, but Fundies also back it up with Jude 1:7. Which they misunderstood.
Reply
:iconpencilartguy:
Pencilartguy Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2014
it says in the New Testament they were destroyed not only for arrogance, pride and rape, but they also did indeed intend homosexual acts.

Jude 1:7 New International Version (NIV) "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."
Reply
:iconhellionthesage:
HelliontheSage Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2015
Originally sodomy meant anything other than missionary so who really knows what sexual immorality and perversion actually refers to.
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2014
"Sexual immorality" can include rape, incest, extramarital sex, sex between more than two individuals, and paraphilias, but whether or not your boner reflex being stimulated by the naked bodies of those of the same sex is the entire point of this debate.  Besides, gang rape doesn't make you gay any more than prison rape does.
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yep, I had heard of that too.
Reply
:iconsilversongwriter:
silversongwriter Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2014
Homosexuality was one of those things.

Just cause they were prideful and arrogant, that means that the prohibition against homosexuality doesn't apply?

That's stupid
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2014
No. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the cities were not destroyed explicitly because the citizens were gay. There were a myriad of other things that were far worse. But some people like to use the cities destruction as an argument against gay people and ignore the other, more prominent evils. That's all.

And on a side note, even if that WAS the only thing they did wrong (being gay) that is no reason to destroy them.
Reply
:iconpaulthored:
Paulthored Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2014
fair enough.

part of the reason most Christian denominations are against Gays in general & Gay Marriage in particular, is because they can only see two men having sex in one way--- Sodomy --- which is even legally considered to be generally wrong/illegal in this day an age. it doesn't help that for a gay couple to have kids they're going to have to go to another person, outside the marriage,  to have them.
but the main point in this comment is the fact that 'Sodomy' comes from Sodom & Gomorrah at least in name if nothing else.
:peace:
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2014
Being a sperm donor isn't the same as extramarital sex, you twit. l:-[
Reply
:iconpaulthored:
Paulthored Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014
Uh... :facepalm:~Biologically speaking, Yeah, it kinda is.

Besides which, The last thing two Gay men Need in order to have a child is MORE Sperm. At a minimum, they're going to need a willing (egg+womb)-donor to carry the child for term, and then give that child up to them.-And yes, that is different then non-homosexual couple seeking a surrogate mother.
Furthermore, while the idea of traditional married couples seeking a surrogate donor/womb for their child is acceptable(if not considered necessarily the First/Best option), the fact of the matter is that EVERY Gay couple that wants to have a child is Required/Guaranteed to seek out these third parties, to do so.  

:peace:
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014
Or they could simply-you know- adopt.
Reply
:iconpaulthored:
Paulthored Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2014
your point being... what, exactly??
never said they couldn't, and more power to them if they can...

though just the fact that they adopt, doesn't mean that the 'sodomy' isn't happening. nor does it prevent a gay couple from trying to have a child of their own, which I already pointed out the problems/issue's with in my previous comments. 


P.S. All issue's aside, remember to Vote Today if you haven't already. :peace: 

timing out, had some more, but i'll save it for later. ;)
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2014
The vast majority of homosexuals are aware that you need an egg to make a baby. Love is the greatest and most important of God's gifts to us finite beings, and sex's (intended) purpose is to function as the ultimate and greatest expression of romantic love. No truly loving couple should be denied the right to that, even if it's unappetizing for straight people like us to picture.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2014
But sodomy isn't illegal (at least in free countries). And gay people are not the only people who do it. Lots of straight people 'commit' sodomy, and when it's definition is expanded to include ALL sex without procreational ability or intent, then EVERYONE does it. Soo, aside from the origin of the word, the point is moot.
Reply
:icondarkton93:
Darkton93 Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2014
I'm going to share this to some of my friends/people who criticize my religion. See what they think of it.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2014  Student Writer
They tried to rape angels.
Reply
:iconyoung-stoaty-chap:
Young-stoaty-chap Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Then the message of the story is that rape is wrong, not homosexuality. 
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2014  Student Writer
And?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
April 23, 2011
Image Size
53.0 KB
Resolution
1536×700
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,890 (3 today)
Favourites
71 (who?)
Comments
149
Downloads
24
×