Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The inhospitality of Sodom

Get your Bibles out and turn to Genesis 19.

The gay christian movement wants us to pay special attention to the words / phrase so that we may know them - verse 5. They want you to think (reinterpret the text's utter clarity and context), that it means a good old fashion ancient middle east - Meet and Greet. This verse they say, has nothing to do with homosexuality or the men wanting to have relations with the visitors. Really?

So what does Lot do? and what does Lot say?
8"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Notice Lot says nothing about meeting and greeting, he specifically informs these men that his own daughters have not had any relations with man. Odd thing to say if this was a meet and greet, no?

What does God do to those folks who are inhospitable?

24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,
25 and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.


Yep, it wasn't the utter gross sexual immorality that brought God's judgement of fire and destruction on Sodom - it was inhospitality. No wonder the gay christian movement folks hate God and seek to destroy His word - the Truth.

The Truth - Their real intentions are to utterly destroy the faith once delivered to the saints. It would be foolish of any person who believes the scripture to think that the religious veneer of this demonic movement wants to love or obey the Lord Jesus.

17 comments:

Kevin said...

Now maybe you could comment on how a father would send out his two virgin daughters to be raped by a bunch of homosexuals. Or maybe you could comment on the position of this daughters in this family (and therefore the social standing of women), since these male strangers have "shelter" under Lot's roof, but his daughers clearly do not. Maybe you could then tie that in with some good old-fashioned family values from the Old Testament. Now that would be something worth reading.

Mark said...

Kevin,
No offense man, but even a fool can seperate God's will from accurate historical accounts about folks living in rebellion to God and those who obey and seek God. Do you read every book with such a immature and child like understanding - or just the Biblical texts?

However, I am glad you also see why it is important to obey God's way and not the ways of foolish sin filled men, eh?

Dani said...

I can barely stomach the twisted perversion of Scripture put out by queer theologians these days.

NO matter how hard you try to convince them that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION - it's like climbing a mountain of jello because they are so utterly depraved and completely comfortable in their SIN, nothing we say makes any difference.

If "inhospitality" is what really brought God's judgment of fire and brimstone on Sodom, just imagine how much more wrath God would pour out for gross sexual immorality?

And I wonder where we get the term 'Sodomite' from anyway? Perhaps it's from not bringing the new neighbors a basket of muffins? I dunno?

Lui said...

Christian fundamentalists think that humans are too "limited" to be able to trust their own moral instincts, yet they feel that they are in a position to judge that God is the basis for their morals. If the best of moral philosophy through the ages - which required contemplation and open discussion - has failed, then what makes you think that faith is going to do any better? If human reason is deficient, then human faith is all the more deficient, because it's just taking stabs in the dark. I find it sad that fundamentalists have such a low view of humanity that they must tether everything they, as human beings, hold dear to the dictates of a supreme being who isn't human. It is fundamentalists - not atheists, agnostics or religious moderates - who view humans with disdain and think them worthless, if not for the commandments of a celestial dictator.

By the way, you didn't actually address Kevin's question. You just made excuses for the horrors in the Bible by generalising humans as "sin filled" and therefore no better from one another (even though, of course, you and other like-minded God worshippers are "saved"). This, in your mind, absolves you from the responsibility to provide an answer to anything, which is entirely consistent with the "I'm saved and you're going to hell" mentality that masquerades as "humility".

Mark said...

Lui,
You would first need to define "Christian Fundamentalists" - which I would assume means those who adhere to the authority of Scripture vs theological liberals who argue the scripture must be reinterpreted in ways that eliminate or downplay miracles and other supposedly superstitious claims - the ressurection, the virgin birth etc..

Secondly - human reason is NOT deficient, God is a God of reason, logic, and reason. Your premise has been debunked, thus the rest of your presuppostions are completley imaginary.

I did specifically address Kevin's reasoning and faulty logic - the Bible contains many historical accounts about evil and good. To draw the conclusion that these recorded events in history are Equivalent to God's will, is at best childlike reasoning. God's word is Truth - it is revealed by God (His word), it is objective and knowable, it is Universial (applies everywhere and to everything), it is exclusive, specific and antithetical, it is systamatic and unfied, and it is an end, not a means to any other end!

The evidence: history, science, logic, reasoning, and Knowledge - not opinions, all based in reality. You and Kevin may continue to live your lives logically inconsistent - makes it no more True.

gcmwatch said...

"Get your Bibles out and turn to Genesis 19."

Classic preacher. I love it. Get those Bibles out...

Preach, brother, preach!

gcmwatch said...

RE: "...how a father would send out his two virgin daughters to be raped by a bunch of homosexuals."

This is sinful and wrong on its own. No one should offer their children up as sexual objects. But in the context of the dire situation at hand Lot was faced with, his motive encompassed a desparate attempt to protect the sanctity of the Divine rather than his own flesh and blood. It is truly about putting God first. For this, Jude described Lot's actions as just; that of a "man who was vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked." (Jude 5,6) That shouldnt be a hard concept to understand.

This is nothing to emulate nor condone out of context of the passage. However, there was nothing contexually honorable about what the homosexuals in Gen 19 were doing. NOTHING. They were driven by lust, inordinate desire, inhospitality, arrogance, pride and violence towards Lot and his family.

Lot's actions were to protect God's messengers even at the expense of his own children. But I think that he knew they didnt want the women anyway. That was clear per their threats.

Carlotta Morrow said...

Mark, so glad to have come across your blog! I found it from a link on the "Talk Wisdom" blog.

Great info as we need the continuous effort from all Christians truly in the Word of God to confront the error of the Gay Christian movement. They are more dangerous than just gays who don't believe, because of their deception that somehow one can sin and still be "God's child."

I welcome you and your readers to witness an actual debate between a "Gay Christian" and myself and other Christians on my Pastor's blog, (The Rock Church, San Diego) here: Why support biblical marriage, part 1

I summarized this pretty lengthy debate on my own blog: Christocentric.

Keep up the great work in "rightly dividing" the word of God!

cm

Lui said...

Science? Not by a long shot.

"Secondly - human reason is NOT deficient"

Yet the results of applying this reason are ferociously opposed by many fundamentalists, who feel compelled to go against the entirety of modern science and indulge in conspiracy theories and "anti-God agendas".

If all the "evidence" so firmly pointed to God's "word", then it wouldn't be called faith. Rejecting the supernatural claims of Scripture is precisely what happens when we apply reason.

Mark said...

lui,
Faith takes us beyond reason and logic - it is never divorced from it. Rejecting God's Truth - His miracles etc.. is the result of those re-defining God - thus redefining Truth.

Science? Not by a long shot.

Really? Who is the cause of the uncaused? You hate the fact that this cause would by all logic and reason be something outside science and hence not subject to human control.

Your defintion of science is more a philosophy - all explanations of any phenomena are assumed to exist in the material world - when the evidence does not exist - then what?

What should we do if the empirical evidence and materilist philosophy are going in different directions?

Mark said...

Carolotta,
Thank you and welcome!

Mark said...

@ gmcw
Great points and awesome insights brother!

Lui said...

"Really? Who is the cause of the uncaused? You hate the fact that this cause would by all logic and reason be something outside science and hence not subject to human control."

If something is uncaused, then logically you don't need for a "who" to be its cause. "Who", by the way, presupposes God. The point is to demonstrate God's existence rather than assume it from the outset and then pose the question in such a way that you can't help being "right".

Science tells us that not everything needs a cause. Quantum mechanics posits the existence of uncaused events, and this might well apply to the entire universe (and just to avoid any misunderstandings, I don't think that "everything came about by chance". That would be to falsely equivocate the origin of the universe to the myriad processes that have taken place within it since that origin). The notion that everything needs a cause is a notion drawn from everyday common sense - which also tells us that the Earth is flat. Of course, nature has no obligation to acquiesce to our common sense.

No, I don't "hate" that God as the cause would be ultimately outside science (though science would have something to say about his existence). I just don't agree with the God hypothesis. There's a huge difference there. I fully admit that there might well be things that science shall never be able to address - but that in itself is no reason to suppose that religion will fare any better. If we don't know something, then we don't know it. Pretending we do just because it's written in a book won't bring us any closer to enlightenment. A gap in our knowledge is no license to think that the God hypothesis will automatically provide any sort of answer.

"Your defintion of science is more a philosophy - all explanations of any phenomena are assumed to exist in the material world - when the evidence does not exist - then what?"

I never implied that, partly because I didn't even offer a definition of science. If there were good evidence for God, then I would accept it. It's the utter failure of religion to corroborate its fantastic claims with any shred of evidence that I'm talking about. I adopt methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism. There is no a priori reason why there can't be a God. It's just that we don't require God to explain or describe anything we actually see in nature.

"What should we do if the empirical evidence and materilist philosophy are going in different directions?"

Accept the empirical evidence - which is emphatically not what most fundamentalists do. They tend to either ignore it altogether, or else denigrate it with appeals to conspiracies by "big science" and the like. They seem not to understand that science as an enterprise doesn't have an anti-God agenda; it has a science agenda.

"But in the context of the dire situation at hand Lot was faced with, his motive encompassed a desparate attempt to protect the sanctity of the Divine rather than his own flesh and blood."

That's surely one of the most repulsive, immoral things I have ever read. "The sanctity of the Divine" is meaningless pap, nothing but small-minded sycophancy and moral cowardice. One would think that the Divine would be more than capable of looking after itself, rather than requiring that a father throw his daughter to ravenous fiends. If the Divine requires such a monstrous sacrifice, there is nothing to respect or admire in it, and one should not be much fussed about its "sanctity".

gcmwatch said...

Lui, I want to respond to your swelling words overlaid of course with the best of human intelligence Im sure you could muster up in one internet blog forum. So I want to respond as succintly as I possibly can.

Youre silly.

Mark said...

gcmw - LOL!

Lui,
My question was "What should we do if the empirical evidence and materilist philosophy are going in different directions?"

Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. You said follow the empirical evidence, even if it leads in a different direction? ok. Nevertheless, I and many others may do that. Fact - the science doesn't support your conclusions - an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process accounts for life, i.e your rejection of the God hypothesis. You have an answer, you call it science; the Truth is, it is not an answer, it is a philosophy. Science has no answer how a protozoan turns into a human being.

It is uttrely clear your "science" is defined as much by a philosophical bias, as the "religions" you reject. So why bother arguing with you about empirical evidence? It is you sir that disregards the evidence, simply because it does not fit your philoshophical bias' - all based in your phony definition of "science".

To be honest, your materialist philosophy is a hold over from the 19th century. If information is something fundamentally different from matter, what is the ultimate source of the information?

Put on your Science pants and answer that.

Lui said...

"Youre silly."

Thank you. I'm glad I've spurred such rich, multifaceted insights.

"Nevertheless, I and many others may do that. Fact - the science doesn't support your conclusions - an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process accounts for life, i.e your rejection of the God hypothesis. You have an answer, you call it science; the Truth is, it is not an answer, it is a philosophy. Science has no answer how a protozoan turns into a human being."

Actually, YOUR "answer" ("God did it") has not one shred of evidence to back it up, so if anyone's engaging in "philosophy", it's you. I'm sorry that you're ignorant about biology and the advances that have been made in it over the past 150 years (of course, I feel no such obligation to similarly restrict myself), because otherwise you'd know what science DOES have an answer as to how a protozoan turned into a human being (though that's a very crude way of putting it, partly because it leaves out all the important stuff, like the many branchings and transitions along the way); poking holes (real or imagined, usually imagined in the case of scientific illiterates) in current scientific knowledge about our origins isn't going to suffice.

"It is uttrely clear your "science" is defined as much by a philosophical bias, as the "religions" you reject."

Not so. I simply ask for evidence, and you bluster. Not my fault.

"It is you sir that disregards the evidence, simply because it does not fit your philoshophical bias' - all based in your phony definition of "science"."

Okay then, please cite some of this awesome evidence.

"If information is something fundamentally different from matter, what is the ultimate source of the information?"

That's something you either pulled out of your arse or that you read from a creationist website (and thought, "Wow, it must be true"). It's always amusing to see how such banal "challenges" - which are thought to pose some insurmountable problem for an atheist, even when there are legions of atheists working on these issues - are held up us as formidable when they actually Red Herrings.

Information is a pattern that has matter as its substrate. The ultimate source of information is matter; when matter arranged itself into certain ways it acted as the forebear for systems that we would classify as having information (and no, this didn't need to be "planned" in any way. The initial self-replicating system could have appeared entirely randomly, but what followed wasn't. And it only had to happen once). Through cumulative natural selection, the information content in a lineage (through gene duplications, transpositions, point mutations and other changes to the DNA substrate) can be increased. We have pseudogenes that we share with chimpanzees. These defunct segments have functional homologues in other primates that still use, for example, their sense of smell to a much greater extent than we do. By looking at these genetic "fossils", we can known about the sorts of environments our ancestors lived in because DNA conveys a signal of past environments. That's information, and it requires nothing more than changes being preserved by an algorithmic process. What sort of information did you have in mind though?

Its clear you know nothing about science. That's not necessarily a crime, but since I'm the one who's doing a biology major, perhaps you should be a bit more wary of accusing me of engaging in mere "philosophy" (a strange philosophy that utilises computers to run simulations, measurements of the environment, comparison of different alleles at a locus, and peer review) when your so-called answer fails even as that. If you're going to talk about science, at least know what you're saying first. Otherwise, it's inevitable that you might occasionally come across as a bit of a twat.

Mark said...

because otherwise you'd know what science DOES have an answer as to how a protozoan turned into a human being

That speaks volumes about your ingnorance - I would have suspected you could have done better. I bet even your Professors would be shocked - maybe not.

That's something you either pulled out of your arse or that you read from a creationist website

In other words, don't offend my philosophy covering as Science and fact.

(a strange philosophy that utilises computers to run simulations, measurements of the environment, comparison of different alleles at a locus, and peer review)

Interestingly you bring up computers as if they DON'T have a designer and are NOT programed by an intelligent programer. Mr Biology major - you have just made my point - you are asking me to believe in materialism (a philosophy) because you know from studying the facts of biology, that you must disregard the evidence when it takes you outside the material evidence. Your philosophy disguised as Science is about to topple - study hard boy. :)