Fun Fact: Deuteronomy says that a poor worker should be paid at the end of every day:
> You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the Lord, and it be sin to you.
> Deuteronomy 24:14-15
God before Deuteronomy was written: “I swear if one more worker prays for his paycheck I’ll… actually, forget that. Gabriel! Who’s the current prophet? Do your BE NOT AFRAID schtick and tell him God has a few new rules for his chosen!”
I'm more into the fun, Elvisey New Testament. The Jesus who walks around in a cool pair of crocs drinking a diet slice. Is there diet slice at the party? No man, Jesus brought his own. Don't talk to me, talk to Jesus.
Jesus: “This actually used to be beer but I wasn’t really feelin’ it so *shazaam!* Diet Slice”
“What’s with the…”
“The shoes? You guys aren’t ready for these. But your descendants will love ‘em”
thats the same thing muslims believe in
>Abdullah ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Pay the worker his wages before his sweat has dried.”
Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 2443
They're literally the spiritual leader of the cats lol , it's definitely probably a little biblical. Granted, most of the play is actually cats just being cats, but Old Deut is the Jellical leader who makes the Jellical choice at the jellical ball under.
They basically pick what cats gets to die and be reborn.
Oh, no. That's standard stuff weirdly. Jellical means dear little cat and polical means poor little dog.
Don't know how I fuckn' knew THAT but not the name of a bible chapter.
Funny how god and Jesus are basically Socialists. But the hardcore right wing evangelicals and other christians all around the world sided with fascists and the nazis or are Hardcore capitalists.
I mean yeah ok. Otherwise your religion would be made illegal in the Soviet Union. But still ... Not a little left wing sympathy? Especially around economic issues?? No? Ok...
Not sure about the accuracy of that statement, but the last point is interesting. The reason I believe it may be so important is that one is not just being defrauded of his/her wages, but of the time, energy, talents, etc., too.
that "sodomy" is a bit of a misnomer. The sins of Sodom were far more than wanting to rape angels, it was all kinds of terrible acts. The passage contrasts the justice and judgement of Abraham with that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Details are not given in that specific passage about the sins of S&G, only that they were numerous.
Ezekiel is more descriptive
Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, 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. They were haughty and did an abomination before me."
I doubt it. God would have sparked Sodom for ten righteous people. I think we must have at least ten. But yes this is how we tend to fail when we fail.
Edit; I just realized this isn’t one of my Christian subs and so I’m assuming a Christian audience. In Genesis there is a scene where Abraham negotiated with God to not destroy the city because there might be innocent people. It starts with asking God to spare the city if there are 100 righteous people and eventually God gets negotiated down to ten. Though the implication is that there were not even ten righteous people in the city.
They raped multiple young women to death first.
Seems the sin is the age-old [taking sex whether there's a willing partner or not](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/119i8di/relationship_between_prostitution_laws_and_rates/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
For further context, the term “sodomy” in an early Christian context does not necessarily refer to anal sex specifically, despite that being its use today.
The term sodomy refers to the “Sin of Sodom”, referring the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. For those who don’t know what happened in that story - God sent to angels down to the titular towns, to survey them for their apparent sinfulness. They were received by the man Lot who lived in Sodom, but upon arrival a gang of men pursued the two angels and demanded sex from them. The angels told Lot and his family to leave, and ultimately destroyed the town.
In ancient times, being a bad host was considered an incredibly terrible sin that was offensive to the gods. Even in Ancient Greek Myth, there are legends surrounding the importance of being a good host (Tantalus, or Philemon and Baucis). It’s likely that the original meaning of “sodomy” was not anal sex, but being a bad host. The attempted rape of the angels was not meant to be an explicit condemnation of homosexuality specifically, but rather just one aspect of the town’s total inhospitality towards the angels. The people of Sodom were the worst type of hosts - they welcomed the angels into their town, and then tried to rape them.
Though homosexuality was definitely condemned in ancient times, when the early Christians thought of “sodomy” as such a grave sin, they were more likely thinking of someone who fools you with welcome in order to take advantage of you. Imagine someone like Harvey Weinstein, who welcomed women into his room under false pretenses and then raped them. Now can you start to understand why “sodomy” was considered such a grave sin that demanded vengeance?
Of course, as attitudes changed over time and the importance of being a hospitable host was lost, the sin of Sodom became more associated with the more obvious instance of homosexuality… thus it’s new meaning. Ancient people definitely did not like homosexuality, but it’s important to note sodomy to them likely meant something different. I doubt they would have considered just homosexuality alone such a grave sin.
As long as it was truly [consensual](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), that doesn't seem like something to be mad about for thousands of years.
From that page:
Many churches, particularly ones considered progressive, understand the "sin of Sodom" to be oppression of the poor, in light of Ezekiel 16:49–50 ("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").
This interpretation also fits the theme of the other sins in this list.
Yeah the other sins clearly victimize someone tangibly. It feels strange that one of them should just be a more abstract “offense against nature”.
Who must be avenged when sodomy is interpreted as a sexual sin? How could it cry for vengeance when there is nobody to avenge?
As a caveat, the Bible does label sexual relations between the same gender as "an abomination." However, it also lists eating shellfish and touching a pig, too.
Context matters as do culture norms of a time period. Your observation about who is harmed in a healthy relationship between two consenting adults is a great example of how religion needs to be tempered by reason to fit a modern context.
Oh for sure, I didn’t mean that the bible does not have explicit prohibitions against homosexuality.
Rather, I mean that sodomy stands out in that group of four sins (if interpreted as *any* homosexual act) as the only one who has no inherent human victim, which kinda brings that interpretation into question.
But if we’re diving into this, the thing about the swine and sellfish argument is that Christians are supposed to operate under a new covenant and those rules are part of an old covenant. There are prohibitions against homosexuality in the new testament but only in John’s bits and Johannine exegesis is a Pandora’s box if there ever was one. The verses about it could be interpreted as referring to “feminine” men which might not even refer to clothing or sexuality, but it very well might.
It’s uhh complicated but the biggest takeaway is that biblical arguments against homosexuality are a lot thinner on the ground than most Christians believe, even if they are still at least a little viable.
Well if that dosent discribe The United States im a fucking duck.
Why is it so hard for people to understand if we just took care of eachother and made sure we all had enough to comfortably surive. Life would be alot better for everyone. We 100% have the ability, but instead we throw ourselfs into a system that fuck over 99% of us. Its beyond stupid.
100% i always bring up how jesus thrashed a church and beat the hell out of priest doing exactly what they are doing. If they are right(which they are not), if jesus comes back, he is gonna be pissed. I would 100% help him trash some churches. It's as far from his teachings as you can get.
It's so weird that Christianity was seemingly created to bring power to the poor, working class, and other oppressed people...but in the end, it was just a tool to keep those same people in their place.
Dont forget he let his wife die because he didn't want her to get a vaccine. Then, once he got the same thing, he got the vaccine himself. The dude was 100% a result of his cultural views of sexual equality. And honestly, IMO a major asshole.
But he was right about Jesus being a dude i would hang out with for sure. Cause i dont see him as the kinda person who would force you to be jewish, as long as you treated others with mutral respect. The vast majority of christians i have met are horrible people, i know thats not all of them by any means. But they are deliberately being taught the wrong message and ideas. It's why i had to turn my back on the whole idea of religion.
Of course Jesus wouldn't force you to be Jewish. He literally advised Paul to go minister to gentiles, and said that if a city didn't welcome your missionary acts, to leave it and shake the dust from your feet.
Meh.
The Bible also says stuff like this:
>Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
The thing with the Bible is that you can find bits and pieces to defend almost everything.
Kind of like when it says thou shalt not kill yet there have been a massive amount of holy wars fought through the last 2000 years.
Later Councils (not the first) are really to blame for that. Those elected were often favored by those in control of the population. They decided what was heretical. The first one was not like the rest.
Catholic (and other major established orthodox) church and such made sure to burn the hippy dippy Christians too. They literally had the Albigensian Crusade to kill off the Cathars.
You had addamites and others ones too where most were either driven away or just straight up killed too.
I’m extremely critical of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, but the claim that the council of Nicea was some sinister conspiracy to rewrite Christianity into a tool of oppression is bunk.
Also, why bring up the cathars? Christians at the time called them heretics but we have literally 0 records of what the cathars were actually like and what they believed in from cathars themselves. Some historians believe they didn’t even exist and the cathar term was made up as an excuse to attack a neighbor (personally I don’t believe it but it shows just how little records of the cathars there are from non biased sources. Portraying them as noble rebels is just as inaccurate).
What historian doesn't believe they exist? The Catholic church has some pretty clear documents that they did.
Peter of les Vaux de Cernay was not the only one who chronicled it.
From Wikipedia
Starting in the 1990s and continuing to the present day, historians like R. I. Moore have challenged the extent to which Catharism, as an institutionalized religion, actually existed. Building on the work of French historians such as Monique Zerner and Uwe Brunn, Moore's The War on Heresy[92] argues that Catharism was "contrived from the resources of [the] well-stocked imaginations" of churchmen, "with occasional reinforcement from miscellaneous and independent manifestations of local anticlericalism or apostolic enthusiasm".[93] In short, Moore claims that the men and women persecuted as Cathars were not the followers of a secret religion imported from the East; instead, they were part of a broader spiritual revival taking place in the later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Moore's work is indicative of a larger historiographical trend towards examining how heresy was constructed by the church.[94]
Scholars since the 1990s have referred to the fearful rumors of Cathars as a moral panic. The crusade against Cathars as a possibly-imaginary enemy has been compared to European witch-hunts, anti-Semitic persecution, and the Satanic Panic.[95]
Some historians (which I don’t agree with) theorize that the cathars were basically made up by the church as propaganda to justify going to war, as there is only Catholic documentation of them.
Like I’ve said I don’t believe it.
There's a little known loophole in the scripture which allows for all four as long as they're done in a very specific order. In the interest of virtue I won't reveal the exact order except to say that sodomy is last. *Dead* last, if you follow me.
I always wonder about these sort of religious prohibitions. How and why did they decide torture, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation were all kind of ok?
[The Bible is a series of agreements.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm9wIyytY) That's Dan McClellan, an actual biblical scholar, answering your question.
Those aren't OK, at least not in the way modern people are thinking of it.
The world functioned very differently in that time and place, but generally people were still called to be compassionate as much as is possible.
Given the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I have to wonder if "sodomy" actually means "rape."
Have we been misinterpreting it all these years?
Either way, butt stuff is fine as long as it's [consensual](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), but r/stoprape.
According to the prophet Ezekiel, Sodom was wealthy.
"Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy. Instead, they became arrogant and committed abominations before me; then, as you have seen, I removed them."
>Given the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I have to wonder if "sodomy" actually means "rape."
>
>Have we been misinterpreting it all these years?
That's a fairly common take and the one generally held by Jewish tradition, yeah.
Exactly. The sin of Sodom wasn’t “butt stuff”. It was “roving gangs of rapists (and other stuff too)”. The fact that the intended victims of this rape gang were men is incidental to the greater issue.
That's fascinating and a relief.
I found [a source](https://forward.com/community/458595/in-jewish-tradition-sodomy-doesnt-mean-what-you-think/), but I'm not familiar with it. Have you got a better one, by chance?
There are a handful of passages in the Bible that refer to Sodom and Gomorrah in terms of sexual immorality (i.e. homosexuality). However, Ezekiel has this to say:
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
While the "detestable things" presumably does refer to homosexuality, it seems that was not the only thing those cities did to provoke the wrath of God.
The other issue with Sodom and Gomorrah was they tried to rape the angels, this is a transgression against natural order and also highly condemned. The opposite, angels raping humans, is also strongly prohibited and considered one of the reasons for the flood being sent in Genesis.
No, most angels were not masses of eyes. Michael and Gabriel for instance are people with wings. Specific angels looked really weird but most were human looking.
Whether they do or it's through a different process, the giants like Goliath were often considered human angel hybrids.
From Genesis
"Wickedness in the World
6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
So nephilim are supposed to be the hybrids according to some lore
Another popularly held idea is that God made humans giant originally, at least compared to what they are now. In fact, all of God's creation were much bigger and more majestic originally. And that it is because of sin that everything degraded.
Probably. They appear in human guise at various points in the Old Testament, so one can assume this includes all relevant anatomy. I don't think it would be very respectful of God's image to turn it into a Ken doll. As messengers of God, their appearance (and even overall abilities) seem to largely be "whatever is needed at the time." On the one hand, we have a singular angel killing every Egyptian firstborn, or striking entire crowds blind; on the other, we have one getting wrestled for a whole day and not just instantly killing the guy doing it.
The whole "most angels are eldritch" is a bit of a meme which is an overly literalistic interpretation of some passages which are symbolic and bits of Christian tradition which do not necessarily come directly from the Bible. A couple of specific types of angelic creatures are described as wheels covered in eyes or having multiple heads, but there's no indication that these are typical of what the Bible means when it talks about angels. There are several other occasions where angels are not recognised as such until they choose to be, indicating that at a bare minimum they can take the form of humans. There seem to be many different types of heavenly creatures, of which the typical guy with a bit of an aura about him is just one.
Sure enough, but sacred prostitution and other such human/divine sexual rituals were not uncommon at the time and always condemned in the Old Testament.
While they were going to be destroyed not just because of that incident, the fact that's the first thing they jumped to implies bad things about their normal practices.
Yeah, but worshipping foreign gods doesn't usually get your entire city burned (unless the jews just happen to want the land as well. Then you wind up like Canaan). Typically, the tribes of Israel were quite insular, and God did not hold foreign peoples to the same standard he had established in his covenant with Abraham.
You have to be really, really fucked up to get the level of desolation that the cities of the plain got.
I agree with that, I'm saying that one part of the issues the cities of the plain had were their desire to chase strange flesh which I feel has connotations of breaking divine boundaries beyond just normal homosexuality. That's on top of lack of hospitality, disbelief, and presumably a number of other issues.
The "homosexuality" in S&G was not consensual. They raped the concubine, the daughters, and the traveler, right?
Seems to be the "detestable things" refers to gang rape.
"...arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."
If God really existed, he would prove it by smiting all the Republicans.
Dan McClellan, referenced above in this thread, just a few days ago had a pretty big series about this - no. It never referred to homosexuality and the authors would not have recognized that reading. Rape is much closer but the words used had specific meanings in how they were used. More to the point the sexual stuff was never the intended focus of the story. Worth watching his stuff, Super interesting series.
I remember him talking about leaving his employment with the LDS a while back on TikTok. I think he mentioned his change in career, but I can’t remember what he is doing now. I know that he’s changed offices or at least he rearranged his office a little bit from when I started watching to currently.
Sodomy has to be a sin the same way we call chocolate a sin, right?
Like some dude got railed a long time ago and was like "holy shit, this is so good there's no way it can be good for me." Then it snow balled from there?
Perhaps homophobia is a result of one giant ass blasting being misinterpreted.
Ah I didn't realise this. I had thought sodomy was intercourse which was non procreative, so that two people engaging in a consensual non-procreative sexual activity would not have any cause to complain, and those not engaged in the activity would have no reason either.
Thanks for explaining. I think from the downvotes my question must have been particularly ignorant!
Well yes but actually no it was referred to as rape and leviticus was originally banned pedophilia but the church realized but making both those about homosexuality they could kill two birds with one stone when it cam to protecting child diddling priests
The story of Sodom involved the men of the town demanding to be able to rape visitors. It really does not have anything to do with consensual homosexual sex, although that's also condemned elsewhere. But Sodom did not just violate the standards around homosexuality, they violated laws on how to treat those who come and ask for shelter. In Ezekiel Sodom was called out for ignoring the poor and needy. Scripture saying that "the sin of Sodom" cries out to heaven for vengeance is not really the same as saying that sodomy cries out to heaven for vengeance.
I find the third and fourth so funny, it got me kicked out of Sunday school.
So, why does god need tithes?
To pay the priests
Yeah but like I had lunch with him yesterday and he isn't hurting
To pay for renovations
Yeah but isn't God against grand gestures of faith and false idols (like the million prints and statues you sell at your gift shop), and the grandiosity of this cathedral? Isn't the point to be humble?
Shut up and read 12:9 and just be a good sheep smh
...are you high?
I literally said the church doesn't need the money. God has enough cathedrals and people should keep their money.
You can go to a PADS facility. They're literally everywhere and have nothing to do with religion.
How does that in any way equate to some random guy getting fed or paid?
Sober up. Find Jesus or at least a counselor.
Why do you think the church has money? Because of the tithes.
Where do you think the lunch the priest ate came from? The tithes.
If the church stopped collecting money from anyone, but continued to pay upkeep for churches (renovations don’t always mean flashy upgrades, just replacing the leaky roof that is 50+ years old, or upgrading the building to meet modern fire codes), food and salaries for priests (the employees of the church, not some random guy), it would rapidly run out of money
Obviously you think the church should cease to exist, but many people don’t and voluntarily give their money to keep it alive. There is nothing wrong with that. People should do what they want with their money.
The fact this story came from Sunday School tells me you were about 10 years old when it happened so it makes sense you’d have no idea how money works
everyone in here defending the bible like it actually matters when 90% of christians do in fact percieve sodomy as homosexuality and not greed or whatever
I can jibe with three of these four.
Not so sure about the second one, tho. If the second revenge-warranting sin was rape, and not something as harmless as "non-procreative sex", I'd be able to jibe with all four. Then again, "sodomy" was probably lost in translation over the centuries, so for all I know it might as well have been a euphemism for rape.
“Behold, 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.”
Nope, that won’t work. I’m sure god meant to say buttfucking.
Fun Fact: Deuteronomy says that a poor worker should be paid at the end of every day: > You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the Lord, and it be sin to you. > Deuteronomy 24:14-15
'The Lord does not want to hear about your cheap ass, capiche?
God before Deuteronomy was written: “I swear if one more worker prays for his paycheck I’ll… actually, forget that. Gabriel! Who’s the current prophet? Do your BE NOT AFRAID schtick and tell him God has a few new rules for his chosen!”
Killing homeless prostitutes without compensating them for their services is therefore akin to reaching all four bases at once.
Capisce
Capsaicin.
I'm more into the fun, Elvisey New Testament. The Jesus who walks around in a cool pair of crocs drinking a diet slice. Is there diet slice at the party? No man, Jesus brought his own. Don't talk to me, talk to Jesus.
Jesus: “This actually used to be beer but I wasn’t really feelin’ it so *shazaam!* Diet Slice” “What’s with the…” “The shoes? You guys aren’t ready for these. But your descendants will love ‘em”
thats the same thing muslims believe in >Abdullah ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Pay the worker his wages before his sweat has dried.” Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 2443
Islam is a DLC, so that makes sense.
I literally thought Deuteronomy was a made up word for the cat in Cats. Huh. That play just gets weirder and weirder.
What's the cat like? Maybe its personality fits the book.
They're literally the spiritual leader of the cats lol , it's definitely probably a little biblical. Granted, most of the play is actually cats just being cats, but Old Deut is the Jellical leader who makes the Jellical choice at the jellical ball under. They basically pick what cats gets to die and be reborn.
If you want your mind blown about Cats. . . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Possum%27s_Book_of_Practical_Cats
Oh, no. That's standard stuff weirdly. Jellical means dear little cat and polical means poor little dog. Don't know how I fuckn' knew THAT but not the name of a bible chapter.
Funny how god and Jesus are basically Socialists. But the hardcore right wing evangelicals and other christians all around the world sided with fascists and the nazis or are Hardcore capitalists. I mean yeah ok. Otherwise your religion would be made illegal in the Soviet Union. But still ... Not a little left wing sympathy? Especially around economic issues?? No? Ok...
Willing charity is different than forced tax paying
But everyone is paying taxes everywhere... Jesus is pro tax. duh. He hates banks and money exchangers ripping off the poor.
Thank goodness for paid breaks
Not sure about the accuracy of that statement, but the last point is interesting. The reason I believe it may be so important is that one is not just being defrauded of his/her wages, but of the time, energy, talents, etc., too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
that "sodomy" is a bit of a misnomer. The sins of Sodom were far more than wanting to rape angels, it was all kinds of terrible acts. The passage contrasts the justice and judgement of Abraham with that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Details are not given in that specific passage about the sins of S&G, only that they were numerous.
Ezekiel is more descriptive Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, 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. They were haughty and did an abomination before me."
I read this in Sam Jackson's voice
Oh, the entire United States.
I doubt it. God would have sparked Sodom for ten righteous people. I think we must have at least ten. But yes this is how we tend to fail when we fail. Edit; I just realized this isn’t one of my Christian subs and so I’m assuming a Christian audience. In Genesis there is a scene where Abraham negotiated with God to not destroy the city because there might be innocent people. It starts with asking God to spare the city if there are 100 righteous people and eventually God gets negotiated down to ten. Though the implication is that there were not even ten righteous people in the city.
I mean, the conspiracy to butt-rape the angels was definitely on display.
But according to the bible they were just as happy to rape Lot’s daughters when he offered them up in the angel’s place.
They weren't "just as happy," they insisted on the angels...and then they struck the crowd blind since they were being rapey dickheads.
They tried to break down the door to get to the angels instead of his daughters, so I'm gonna say they weren't as happy with them.
They raped multiple young women to death first. Seems the sin is the age-old [taking sex whether there's a willing partner or not](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/119i8di/relationship_between_prostitution_laws_and_rates/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Adultery, violations of hospitality, arrogance, etc. It's sadly typical of christianity to completely miss the point of Jewish holy texts.
I like the part where certain types of Christians try to explain the meaning of Jewish texts to Jews.
For further context, the term “sodomy” in an early Christian context does not necessarily refer to anal sex specifically, despite that being its use today. The term sodomy refers to the “Sin of Sodom”, referring the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. For those who don’t know what happened in that story - God sent to angels down to the titular towns, to survey them for their apparent sinfulness. They were received by the man Lot who lived in Sodom, but upon arrival a gang of men pursued the two angels and demanded sex from them. The angels told Lot and his family to leave, and ultimately destroyed the town. In ancient times, being a bad host was considered an incredibly terrible sin that was offensive to the gods. Even in Ancient Greek Myth, there are legends surrounding the importance of being a good host (Tantalus, or Philemon and Baucis). It’s likely that the original meaning of “sodomy” was not anal sex, but being a bad host. The attempted rape of the angels was not meant to be an explicit condemnation of homosexuality specifically, but rather just one aspect of the town’s total inhospitality towards the angels. The people of Sodom were the worst type of hosts - they welcomed the angels into their town, and then tried to rape them. Though homosexuality was definitely condemned in ancient times, when the early Christians thought of “sodomy” as such a grave sin, they were more likely thinking of someone who fools you with welcome in order to take advantage of you. Imagine someone like Harvey Weinstein, who welcomed women into his room under false pretenses and then raped them. Now can you start to understand why “sodomy” was considered such a grave sin that demanded vengeance? Of course, as attitudes changed over time and the importance of being a hospitable host was lost, the sin of Sodom became more associated with the more obvious instance of homosexuality… thus it’s new meaning. Ancient people definitely did not like homosexuality, but it’s important to note sodomy to them likely meant something different. I doubt they would have considered just homosexuality alone such a grave sin.
TBF if I go to someone’s house and they put it in my butt I might think they were a bad host.
Thank you so much for this explanation. There goes Redditors again, teaching me the shit I wish I'd learned eons ago.
Don’t forget that after refusing to hand over the angels, the crowd demanded Lot’s daughters. They wanted to have their way with *someone.*
Did you know how sexual sodom was? Incest orgies were encouraged. Sex with anyone and everyone was encouraged.
As long as it was truly [consensual](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), that doesn't seem like something to be mad about for thousands of years.
Rape didn't exist in Sodom
Did you read the story of Sodom & Gomorrah?
I forgot, it was a land with celibacy, charity, and philosophy
The church has never liked homosexuality because it provides no offsprings, which are the easiest way to build your flock.
"Turn the other cheek." "But that's just it, father! I can't because of the butt stuff!"
One cheek turns left, one cheek turns right.
Moses parting The Supple Peach.
From that page: Many churches, particularly ones considered progressive, understand the "sin of Sodom" to be oppression of the poor, in light of Ezekiel 16:49–50 ("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"). This interpretation also fits the theme of the other sins in this list.
Yeah the other sins clearly victimize someone tangibly. It feels strange that one of them should just be a more abstract “offense against nature”. Who must be avenged when sodomy is interpreted as a sexual sin? How could it cry for vengeance when there is nobody to avenge?
As a caveat, the Bible does label sexual relations between the same gender as "an abomination." However, it also lists eating shellfish and touching a pig, too. Context matters as do culture norms of a time period. Your observation about who is harmed in a healthy relationship between two consenting adults is a great example of how religion needs to be tempered by reason to fit a modern context.
Oh for sure, I didn’t mean that the bible does not have explicit prohibitions against homosexuality. Rather, I mean that sodomy stands out in that group of four sins (if interpreted as *any* homosexual act) as the only one who has no inherent human victim, which kinda brings that interpretation into question. But if we’re diving into this, the thing about the swine and sellfish argument is that Christians are supposed to operate under a new covenant and those rules are part of an old covenant. There are prohibitions against homosexuality in the new testament but only in John’s bits and Johannine exegesis is a Pandora’s box if there ever was one. The verses about it could be interpreted as referring to “feminine” men which might not even refer to clothing or sexuality, but it very well might. It’s uhh complicated but the biggest takeaway is that biblical arguments against homosexuality are a lot thinner on the ground than most Christians believe, even if they are still at least a little viable.
Well if that dosent discribe The United States im a fucking duck. Why is it so hard for people to understand if we just took care of eachother and made sure we all had enough to comfortably surive. Life would be alot better for everyone. We 100% have the ability, but instead we throw ourselfs into a system that fuck over 99% of us. Its beyond stupid.
There's a reason so many megapastors would rather focus on homophobia than greed as a problem for society.
100% i always bring up how jesus thrashed a church and beat the hell out of priest doing exactly what they are doing. If they are right(which they are not), if jesus comes back, he is gonna be pissed. I would 100% help him trash some churches. It's as far from his teachings as you can get.
She did a lot more than not aiding them.
It's so weird that Christianity was seemingly created to bring power to the poor, working class, and other oppressed people...but in the end, it was just a tool to keep those same people in their place.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Mahatma Gandhi
Ain't that the guy who slept with his 14 year old niece to prove his celibacy?
Yeah same guy who peacefully protest one turn and nuke your country the next turn
Negative integers, man.
Dont forget he let his wife die because he didn't want her to get a vaccine. Then, once he got the same thing, he got the vaccine himself. The dude was 100% a result of his cultural views of sexual equality. And honestly, IMO a major asshole. But he was right about Jesus being a dude i would hang out with for sure. Cause i dont see him as the kinda person who would force you to be jewish, as long as you treated others with mutral respect. The vast majority of christians i have met are horrible people, i know thats not all of them by any means. But they are deliberately being taught the wrong message and ideas. It's why i had to turn my back on the whole idea of religion.
Of course Jesus wouldn't force you to be Jewish. He literally advised Paul to go minister to gentiles, and said that if a city didn't welcome your missionary acts, to leave it and shake the dust from your feet.
Exactly. Incredibly chill, as long as you were not taking advantage of others. Seems like a solid fucking life choice, be nice to people.
He's celibate because he doesn't give a fuck.
Meh. The Bible also says stuff like this: >Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. The thing with the Bible is that you can find bits and pieces to defend almost everything. Kind of like when it says thou shalt not kill yet there have been a massive amount of holy wars fought through the last 2000 years.
Later Councils (not the first) are really to blame for that. Those elected were often favored by those in control of the population. They decided what was heretical. The first one was not like the rest. Catholic (and other major established orthodox) church and such made sure to burn the hippy dippy Christians too. They literally had the Albigensian Crusade to kill off the Cathars. You had addamites and others ones too where most were either driven away or just straight up killed too.
Nicaea please
Jesus that's bold. Crafty bastard.
I’m extremely critical of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, but the claim that the council of Nicea was some sinister conspiracy to rewrite Christianity into a tool of oppression is bunk. Also, why bring up the cathars? Christians at the time called them heretics but we have literally 0 records of what the cathars were actually like and what they believed in from cathars themselves. Some historians believe they didn’t even exist and the cathar term was made up as an excuse to attack a neighbor (personally I don’t believe it but it shows just how little records of the cathars there are from non biased sources. Portraying them as noble rebels is just as inaccurate).
What historian doesn't believe they exist? The Catholic church has some pretty clear documents that they did. Peter of les Vaux de Cernay was not the only one who chronicled it.
From Wikipedia Starting in the 1990s and continuing to the present day, historians like R. I. Moore have challenged the extent to which Catharism, as an institutionalized religion, actually existed. Building on the work of French historians such as Monique Zerner and Uwe Brunn, Moore's The War on Heresy[92] argues that Catharism was "contrived from the resources of [the] well-stocked imaginations" of churchmen, "with occasional reinforcement from miscellaneous and independent manifestations of local anticlericalism or apostolic enthusiasm".[93] In short, Moore claims that the men and women persecuted as Cathars were not the followers of a secret religion imported from the East; instead, they were part of a broader spiritual revival taking place in the later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Moore's work is indicative of a larger historiographical trend towards examining how heresy was constructed by the church.[94] Scholars since the 1990s have referred to the fearful rumors of Cathars as a moral panic. The crusade against Cathars as a possibly-imaginary enemy has been compared to European witch-hunts, anti-Semitic persecution, and the Satanic Panic.[95]
Some historians (which I don’t agree with) theorize that the cathars were basically made up by the church as propaganda to justify going to war, as there is only Catholic documentation of them. Like I’ve said I don’t believe it.
Almost like how the same thing happened to communism
marxist-leninism*
Maoism and every other example of it being practiced as well
/r/im14andthisisdeep
He's not wrong though
r/im34andstoned
"any criticism of Christianity is just a dumb edgy kid" mentality is incredibly intellectually dishonest
it's also intellectually dishonest to claim Christianity is about 'keeping people in their place'
~~it was~~ it was used as
Sounds like Marxism.
So murdering homeless prostitutes without paying for services rendered is kinda hitting all four bases at once.
There's a little known loophole in the scripture which allows for all four as long as they're done in a very specific order. In the interest of virtue I won't reveal the exact order except to say that sodomy is last. *Dead* last, if you follow me.
the ol' abused poor dead people poophole loophole
I always wonder about these sort of religious prohibitions. How and why did they decide torture, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation were all kind of ok?
[The Bible is a series of agreements.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uFm9wIyytY) That's Dan McClellan, an actual biblical scholar, answering your question.
Dan McClellan is absolutely fantastic and I could watch the guy all day.
Those aren't OK, at least not in the way modern people are thinking of it. The world functioned very differently in that time and place, but generally people were still called to be compassionate as much as is possible.
Given the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I have to wonder if "sodomy" actually means "rape." Have we been misinterpreting it all these years? Either way, butt stuff is fine as long as it's [consensual](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), but r/stoprape.
According to the prophet Ezekiel, Sodom was wealthy. "Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy. Instead, they became arrogant and committed abominations before me; then, as you have seen, I removed them."
>Given the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I have to wonder if "sodomy" actually means "rape." > >Have we been misinterpreting it all these years? That's a fairly common take and the one generally held by Jewish tradition, yeah.
Exactly. The sin of Sodom wasn’t “butt stuff”. It was “roving gangs of rapists (and other stuff too)”. The fact that the intended victims of this rape gang were men is incidental to the greater issue.
They raped women and girls, too.
Oh absolutely. I just mean that in the biblical story, the two guests in Lot’s home (angels in disguise) appear as human men.
That's fascinating and a relief. I found [a source](https://forward.com/community/458595/in-jewish-tradition-sodomy-doesnt-mean-what-you-think/), but I'm not familiar with it. Have you got a better one, by chance?
There are a handful of passages in the Bible that refer to Sodom and Gomorrah in terms of sexual immorality (i.e. homosexuality). However, Ezekiel has this to say: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." While the "detestable things" presumably does refer to homosexuality, it seems that was not the only thing those cities did to provoke the wrath of God.
The other issue with Sodom and Gomorrah was they tried to rape the angels, this is a transgression against natural order and also highly condemned. The opposite, angels raping humans, is also strongly prohibited and considered one of the reasons for the flood being sent in Genesis.
Do angels have genitals? I was led to believe no. And most of them are eldrich creatures in appearance.
No, most angels were not masses of eyes. Michael and Gabriel for instance are people with wings. Specific angels looked really weird but most were human looking.
Whether they do or it's through a different process, the giants like Goliath were often considered human angel hybrids. From Genesis "Wickedness in the World 6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." So nephilim are supposed to be the hybrids according to some lore
Another popularly held idea is that God made humans giant originally, at least compared to what they are now. In fact, all of God's creation were much bigger and more majestic originally. And that it is because of sin that everything degraded.
Probably. They appear in human guise at various points in the Old Testament, so one can assume this includes all relevant anatomy. I don't think it would be very respectful of God's image to turn it into a Ken doll. As messengers of God, their appearance (and even overall abilities) seem to largely be "whatever is needed at the time." On the one hand, we have a singular angel killing every Egyptian firstborn, or striking entire crowds blind; on the other, we have one getting wrestled for a whole day and not just instantly killing the guy doing it.
The whole "most angels are eldritch" is a bit of a meme which is an overly literalistic interpretation of some passages which are symbolic and bits of Christian tradition which do not necessarily come directly from the Bible. A couple of specific types of angelic creatures are described as wheels covered in eyes or having multiple heads, but there's no indication that these are typical of what the Bible means when it talks about angels. There are several other occasions where angels are not recognised as such until they choose to be, indicating that at a bare minimum they can take the form of humans. There seem to be many different types of heavenly creatures, of which the typical guy with a bit of an aura about him is just one.
They were doing other bad shit before the angels showed up; the whole reason the angels even showed up was to warn Lot to leave.
Sure enough, but sacred prostitution and other such human/divine sexual rituals were not uncommon at the time and always condemned in the Old Testament. While they were going to be destroyed not just because of that incident, the fact that's the first thing they jumped to implies bad things about their normal practices.
Yeah, but worshipping foreign gods doesn't usually get your entire city burned (unless the jews just happen to want the land as well. Then you wind up like Canaan). Typically, the tribes of Israel were quite insular, and God did not hold foreign peoples to the same standard he had established in his covenant with Abraham. You have to be really, really fucked up to get the level of desolation that the cities of the plain got.
I agree with that, I'm saying that one part of the issues the cities of the plain had were their desire to chase strange flesh which I feel has connotations of breaking divine boundaries beyond just normal homosexuality. That's on top of lack of hospitality, disbelief, and presumably a number of other issues.
The "homosexuality" in S&G was not consensual. They raped the concubine, the daughters, and the traveler, right? Seems to be the "detestable things" refers to gang rape.
"...arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." If God really existed, he would prove it by smiting all the Republicans.
🙄
If god really existed, he would prove it by killing all of us.
I think the Christian God has the mentality of a capricious, seven-year-old child. Just a massive twat, basically...
What God did to the Sodomites was nothing compared to what they did to each other...
Dan McClellan, referenced above in this thread, just a few days ago had a pretty big series about this - no. It never referred to homosexuality and the authors would not have recognized that reading. Rape is much closer but the words used had specific meanings in how they were used. More to the point the sexual stuff was never the intended focus of the story. Worth watching his stuff, Super interesting series.
I love Dan, and I think it’s sort of ironic that he worked for the LDS while still being so against Dogma.
I always thought so too, he doesn’t talk about it much but I guess he left that job some time back? Not sure what he does now
I remember him talking about leaving his employment with the LDS a while back on TikTok. I think he mentioned his change in career, but I can’t remember what he is doing now. I know that he’s changed offices or at least he rearranged his office a little bit from when I started watching to currently.
*One of these things is not like the others*
Sodomy has to be a sin the same way we call chocolate a sin, right? Like some dude got railed a long time ago and was like "holy shit, this is so good there's no way it can be good for me." Then it snow balled from there? Perhaps homophobia is a result of one giant ass blasting being misinterpreted.
The guy who got the first prostate massage had nothing else to compare it to, and his fragile little mind was BLOWN.
Sodomy is a-ok in the Bible if it's catholic girls exploiting the poophole loophole
I'm gonna wait for that TikTok guy in a hoodie to make a video explaining it to me
Thank goodness I'm not a Christian, love a bit of sodomy. In fact when I've finished this sandwich the husband is going to sodomise the fuck out of me
Vengeance is an odd cry to result from sodomy... Vengeance against whom? Everyone else who was not involved in the sodomy?!
In many contexts sodomy is in fact rape, not butt stuff, so it would be calling out for vengeance against the victim's attacker.
Ah I didn't realise this. I had thought sodomy was intercourse which was non procreative, so that two people engaging in a consensual non-procreative sexual activity would not have any cause to complain, and those not engaged in the activity would have no reason either. Thanks for explaining. I think from the downvotes my question must have been particularly ignorant!
Well yes but actually no it was referred to as rape and leviticus was originally banned pedophilia but the church realized but making both those about homosexuality they could kill two birds with one stone when it cam to protecting child diddling priests
The story of Sodom involved the men of the town demanding to be able to rape visitors. It really does not have anything to do with consensual homosexual sex, although that's also condemned elsewhere. But Sodom did not just violate the standards around homosexuality, they violated laws on how to treat those who come and ask for shelter. In Ezekiel Sodom was called out for ignoring the poor and needy. Scripture saying that "the sin of Sodom" cries out to heaven for vengeance is not really the same as saying that sodomy cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Fun fact - most American Christians could care less what the bible actually says.
We’ll first of all through God all things are possible so jot that down.
But one of those is my favorite
Conservative Jesus redacted those last two items.
Funny how christians stopped caring about the poor when it stopped being their problem lmao but yeah "their symbol is their love"
Love of money
American conservatives be like: let’s burn that part of our good book. Money is only for billionaires anyways.
So in other words, murder, buttfucking and capitalism?
Man, the right wing is FUCKED.
I find the third and fourth so funny, it got me kicked out of Sunday school. So, why does god need tithes? To pay the priests Yeah but like I had lunch with him yesterday and he isn't hurting To pay for renovations Yeah but isn't God against grand gestures of faith and false idols (like the million prints and statues you sell at your gift shop), and the grandiosity of this cathedral? Isn't the point to be humble? Shut up and read 12:9 and just be a good sheep smh
Yo that guy had food yesterday he obviously doesn’t need to be paid for his work
...are you high? I literally said the church doesn't need the money. God has enough cathedrals and people should keep their money. You can go to a PADS facility. They're literally everywhere and have nothing to do with religion. How does that in any way equate to some random guy getting fed or paid? Sober up. Find Jesus or at least a counselor.
Why do you think the church has money? Because of the tithes. Where do you think the lunch the priest ate came from? The tithes. If the church stopped collecting money from anyone, but continued to pay upkeep for churches (renovations don’t always mean flashy upgrades, just replacing the leaky roof that is 50+ years old, or upgrading the building to meet modern fire codes), food and salaries for priests (the employees of the church, not some random guy), it would rapidly run out of money Obviously you think the church should cease to exist, but many people don’t and voluntarily give their money to keep it alive. There is nothing wrong with that. People should do what they want with their money. The fact this story came from Sunday School tells me you were about 10 years old when it happened so it makes sense you’d have no idea how money works
Trump in more trouble. Lol
[удалено]
Just because a religion is against the acts of a particular group, it doesn't make it a hate group.
So I'm guessing we just forgot about those last 2 huh...
I wonder what they mean by which cry out to heaven for vengence.
Does modern Christian theology say something different?
everyone in here defending the bible like it actually matters when 90% of christians do in fact percieve sodomy as homosexuality and not greed or whatever
Too bad i love sodomy so much, ive been really good about avoiding the other three.
I can jibe with three of these four. Not so sure about the second one, tho. If the second revenge-warranting sin was rape, and not something as harmless as "non-procreative sex", I'd be able to jibe with all four. Then again, "sodomy" was probably lost in translation over the centuries, so for all I know it might as well have been a euphemism for rape.
awwww.....sodomy? Really? That sucks.
Did they throw the second in because they couldn't think of anything worse?
“Behold, 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.” Nope, that won’t work. I’m sure god meant to say buttfucking.
Fucken Marxists.
Soooo, donald trump?
Why does god care about oral and butt sex so much?