Huh. I searched my name for kicks, thinking that I usually don't speak in the absolutes necessary for fundy-ism, and look what turns up.
Anyway,
Re: Mike--"Do you have qualms when the leaders of the church do such things...?"
Abso-freakin-lutely I have stopped calling myself Christian for precisely this reason (well, precisely this, and a few others).
Re: mtsbspidey--"bwahahahahahah!"
Oh Em Gee. It took me a few seconds to figure out why everybody was laughing, but now that I have, I'm right there with you. Never thought of it that way...man is my face red.
Re: Captain Yesterday, Rahab, Kristi, Angel Kaida, TheMissus-- "[understanding what I said and sticking up for me]"
Hey, thanks guys! (Hi Missus...I don't think I know the rest of you, unless you go by other names.)
Matilde: One of the reasons I object to taking moral lessons from the story of Sodom is for that reason--if sacrificing your virgin daughters to a violent mob is right, then I think I'll stick to being wrong, thank you. That said, from the point of view of that culture, a wandering traveler was considered "vulnerable" while a non-married daughter at least had the benefit of a roof and food. The idea that they might be owed more than that, on the basis of being real-live humans was not in vogue at the time. As for the concept of hospitality, today, being hospitable means offering your guests drinks, not expecting them to "earn their keep" (at least for a day or two) and generally being nice to them. But, say a random friend of a friend needs a place to crash, and you let him sleep on your couch, only to discover that he's being chased by the drug dealers he ripped off, the host would not be expected to fling himself in front of any bullets for their guest. At that time, hospitality meant that if your guest, even a complete stranger, is being pursued or attacked, you protect them, sacrificing your life or property if needed.
The fact that Lot offers his daughters instead of himself was, I think, intended to demonstrate the degree of sacrifice he was willing to make for his guest. Many people would consider an attack on their child to be worse than an attack on themselves. At any rate, it does beg the question of why he would do that if everybody out the was gay.
Brief background on what I was trying to say: The story of Sodom was used by Ezekiel to demonstrate the degree of sin Israel had committed. He states that Israel is even worse than Sodom was, and then describes the sin of Sodom: "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me..." (16:49-50).
I've seen people claim that "abomination" refers to homosexual acts, but if that's true, it makes no sense. The Hebrew "To'evah" (translated as abmonination or detestable) refers to things that are offensive to God (or are social taboos) because they are idolatrous. Ezekiel's rant is about Israel's idolatry and pride, but makes no mention of sexual sins, except in the metaphores (he refers to Israel and Sodom as whores, but in the sense that they should have been married to God, and committed idolatory).
There is just no way to justify the idea that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, both because the Bible explitely state the sins, and it isn't on the list, and because of the equivalent passage in Judges.
If the sin in a gang rape scene is that they were attacking men, then if they were attacking women, it wouldn't be a sin. But we see almost the identical story played out in Judges, and there a woman is attacked and killed, and that town is also destroyed.
So, yes, I was answering the question a little snarkily--by condemning the sin that should be described by the word "sodomy" and pointing out that marital status and gender have nothing to do with it.
As for the second line...well, it isn't "fundy" per se, but I would fully support this being archived in, maybe, "People who post on a whim and don't think about what they're writing say the darndest things."
