Sodom and Gomorrah

Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord [supposedly] preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

To keep it from tainting other people?

That's the first thing I could come up with.

Because ew buttsecks.

Originally posted by Newjak
To keep it from tainting other people?

That's the first thing I could come up with.

Originally posted by Galan007
That's what I don't really understand. How can God give humans the gift of free will, then kill them for expressing it in a way he doesn't approve of?

To drive home what it is that God feels is correct to the rest of the populace?

Originally posted by Galan007
Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord [supposedly] preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

That was Old Testament God; that God flooded the Earth and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back. That God doesn't take shit nor ****-around.

Originally posted by Galan007
Looking for some legit opinions here.

Even though the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their "sins were grievous", the Lord [supposedly] preaches free will... That said, were not the citizens of S&D merely expressing their own free will by choosing to live a certain way? Sinned or not, it was still their choice to live that way. Were they destined to spend eternity in Hell because of the lifestyle they opted for? Yes, that punishment was unavoidable. I'm just wondering why God found it necessary to prematurely wipe out entire cities-worth of people who were, by definition, just expressing their own free will..?

And the entire Old Testament paints God as either a cruel child who makes rules and manipulates his creations into disobeying those rules so that he can punish them or as a colossal **** up who's created nearly as many different human races as the French have had republics.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Because ew buttsecks.

Some people interpret Sodom's and Gomorrah's sin as being that of greed, where they prospered in livestock and grain, but didn't share with their famine stricken neighbors.

Originally posted by Newjak
The idea of not allowing them destroy more and thus save everyone else?

To drive home what it is that God feels is correct to the rest of the populace?

Originally posted by Galan007
I understand why God opted to destroy those cities, and it was a just decision imo. I'm just saying that it seems... Odd/wrong/fallible for God to give humans the gift of free will, and then cherry-pick when they were able to freely express that gift. Whether their choices were right or wrong, God should have them, because he gave them the ability to choose what they did with their lives. Instead, he didn't agree with their decisions, so he destroyed them.

There's many examples of OT God punishing people for disobeying. You could see it as an injunction against free will, or you could see it as God being an extremely strict and belligerent parent.

Like if you told your child: "Listen, you're allowed to stay out and do what you like, but if you're not back before 10:00 or if you do anything I've forbidden while you're out, I'll beat you to death with my boots. Now run along and have some fun with your friends."

I would imagine that it's because this was before the time of Christ and before "Grace". Where one would be punished for their sin outright. Once the new covenant was established people had a lot more leniency with what they could get away with.

As for the free will thing, even in our normal everyday life we have complete free will but there are consequences to your actions. This is the law of the universe, wherein an action has a consequence whether it's good or bad.

For Sodom and Gomorrah, they never knew that all that buttsecks could summon a giant meteor from space to kill them. Lesson learned huh?

Originally posted by Robtard
That was Old Testament God; that God flooded the Earth and turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back. That God doesn't take shit nor ****-around.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There was no Hell as we understand it in the Old Testament, so the way God punished sinners was by smiting them with plagues or killing them.

The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin".

Originally posted by Robtard
or you could see it as God being an extremely strict and belligerent parent.

Like if you told your child: "Listen, you're allowed to stay out and do what you like, but if you're not back before 10:00 or if you do anything I've forbidden while you're out, I'll beat you to death with my boots. Now go along and have some fun with your friends."

This is how I see it: OT God gave them a present. They played with that present in a way God didn't like, so he killed them.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin".

Fred Phelps says the moral of the story is: "God Hates ****"

Originally posted by Oliver North
The story probably isn't supposed to be taken literally...

I mean, it may have, at one point, been a story that explained a massive geological disaster that befell the region, and may have wiped out a couple of cities, but the whole added part of sin, Lot and his wife, the angels, etc. That seems like it is supposed to be understood as something like "follow the lord, he will lead you from sin, forget your old ways and don't look back toward sin".

In Genesis 18, three men came, thought by most commentators to have been angels appearing as men to Abram (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre.

After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah, his wife, the LORD revealed to Abraham that he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, because their cry was great, "and because their sin is very grievous."[Gen 18:20]

So yeah, I don't think it was a case of God saving the righteous from a natural disaster. I think it was God not liking what the people of S&D were doing, so he wiped them out to prove a point.

how is quoting part of what I think is a metaphorical story proof that it isn't metaphorical?

My point is that, the story of Lot et al is almost certainly based on previous legends in the region. Over time, much like a game of telephone, it would change to reflect the various ways the story was used (to explain nature, to explain evil, to empower someone, for population control, etc). So, the original kernel that generated what would be the story of Lot probably had nothing to do with Lot, however, as time went on and these stories changed, it would come to resemble what we know today.

Like, if you are trying to argue the case for Biblical literalism in the interpretation of the OT, well, good luck... the paradox of free will is one of the more academic contradictions you will have to parse, but the list of others is staggering. For instance, there is widespread disagreement over whether S&G were even real historical places.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fred Phelps says the moral of the story is: "God Hates ****"

he would be the most informed OT theologian I can think of

I personally do not believe the story of S&G was intended to be taken metaphorically, so I cannot agree with you. However, your point is well-taken.

ok, but you realize the paradox with free will only arises when you look at the story as an accurate representation of history, rather than looking for the possible symbolic message?

EDIT: like, it seems like the issue is more within how you see things than it is with the text itself. AFAIK, Jewish scholars don't interpret much of the OT as being literal at all, and there are parts that are obviously meant as metaphor. How do you determine what is or is not metaphorical, especially given that the people who have studied the text most (Jews) don't see it as literal?

Have to agree, the bible comes off as far less loony tune if you take the stories as metaphors, used to teach a lesson and such.

Like there literally wasn't a guy named Jonah who was swallowed by a giant fish and spent three days it its belly, but instead the story is used to illustrate that one must obey God.