hey doug,
Nice to meet you - even though you're name is the same as my ex-husband (ug-doug.) Well, I'll put my age-old animosity aside and hope you're not him. What am I saying???? Of course you're not him - you're coherent!
Well, back to the subject......
According to the outcome of Sodom and Gomorrah, God doesn't seem to be particularly fond of homosexuals. Check out Jude 1:7 where it says:"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh (Greek "opiso sarkos" meaning literally "behind flesh or flesh behind") are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (NWT)
Genesis 19:4 - Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob.
Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the men, but they all refused. They wanted to have intercourse with the two male strangers in their city and they would not leave the vacinity of Lot's house - hammering at the doors etc.
With this in mind - it's a common conclusion to assume that all the men of the city were flaming homosexuals. But some of the questions which beg to be asked are:
ALL the men and boys, even old men, in Sodom were violent homosexuals (wanting to rape the strangers)?
Where did the *boys* come from?
How did that city survive generations with only homosexuals?
Why would a city of violent homosexuals become a city in the first place?
Is there another city of that type known in history other than this account? Even if Gomorrah is considered - they still were close in proximity and time.
It would be stretching credulity to assume that Lot was the only heterosexual man in all of Sodom.
The reason this came up was that we were discussing the law of rape in the OT and the WTBTS rendering of this law yes/no for decades. Women had to scream, remember? Then the WTBTS put women under the Mosaic Law, and said they had to scream to prove their spiritual cleanliness before Jehovah. Then the WTBTS said they didn't have to scream, did, didn't, did, didn't, did, didn't. Well, you get the picture.
But something of significance was missing! Where were the men defending their spiritual cleanliness before Jehovah in the Mosaic Law? The WTBTS Law?
An Example: You and your wife/daughter/girlfriend are walking down the street, and some men like those in Sodom press you both into a dark alley. Under the Mosaic Law, the female would have to scream to prove herself. You, however, could bend over and "take it like a man" - and nobody would even have to question your spiritual cleanliness.
Why is the female under a different law than the male? Why is the male not even mentioned under the Mosaic/WTBTS rape law?
One man responded about what life was like in the age of the ancients. It was not uncommon for a stranger to come to town - and be gang raped by the men of the town. The men were not homosexuals and were really not interested in sex. The men were showing their dominance over the stranger and wanted to subdue and humilate the uppidty stranger who had the audacity to come to their town. It worked - as any rape victim knows.
Thus, an opinion could be put forth that the men writers of the Bible put women under the law of screaming to prove her cleanliness, but the man didn't have to prove himself because anal rape was a common occurence for men. History suggests that it was a common occurence - as the occurence of the Greeks & Romans taking young boys and training them as soldiers, and buggering them at the same time.
I don't think a lot of the principles in the Bible can be viewed narrowly from our 2100 eyes. Times, and peoples, were different back then.
waiting
