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:
 
: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
: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
: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
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2014
That too. The point was that the cities were destroyed because they were corrupt beyond all reason, not specifically cuz it had gay people in it. Tho, Job's response to the people wanting to rape the angels wasn't much better. :\
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2014  Student Writer
Job? You mean the guy who was repeatedly tormented as a trial of his faith, or are we talking about something else?
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2014
Oop, my bad. I meant Lot. Lot's response to the mob wasn't exactly noble.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2014  Student Writer
He got date raped by his daughters.
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2014
Maybe I'm getting the name wrong then. All I know is that in the story when the rape-mob comes to the man's door and demands the angels, he replies with the counter-offer "Don't take the angels, here, you can have my daughters instead."
Reply
:iconpaulthored:
Paulthored Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2014
well, in that day an age, the angels were his guest's and were thus under all the protection his home could offer.
not saying that his offer was a Good thing, but he was least trying to protect them. I also seem to recall that Lot's wife(the one who got turned to stone, for taking one last 'longing' look at this horrid place) was the one who convinced him to try to do 'SOMETHING' about the mob outside their home. 
:peace:
Reply
:iconaonon:
Aonon Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2014
It not only wasn't good, it was also abhorrently wrong. The correct thing to do would have been to tell the mob to go f*ck themselves.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2014  Student Writer
Well, it is the Old Testament...
Reply
:iconwingdiamond:
WingDiamond Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2013
They built the Cities next to active volcanoes - cuz that's where the best soil & raw materials are.  There are "bad" people in every city.
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2014
Yeah, but it specifically states that the mob consisted of every man in the city. God said that he would spare the city if there were even ten decent people in it.
Reply
:iconwingdiamond:
WingDiamond Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2014
*Every* Man?  You know the tendency of humanity to "exaggerate".
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2014
Even if it was an exaggeration, I imagine that God would've allowed the four or so decent people to climb out of the wreckage.
Reply
:iconwingdiamond:
WingDiamond Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2014
A volcano destroyed "Edom" ... Not God!
Reply
:iconsin-and-love:
sin-and-love Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2014
God used the volcano. God usually performs his miracles through natural means.
Reply
:iconwingdiamond:
WingDiamond Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2014
If it's Natural ... It ain't a miracle.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

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

Stats

Views
2,487 (1 today)
Favourites
62 (who?)
Comments
132
Downloads
24
×