Sodom and Gomorrah

Ah, to correct myself, Wiki seems to state that, even though there was never a time that all of Genesis was interpreted literally, it wasn't until the 11th century that the idea of the OT being metaphor became mainstream Jewish teaching. Since then, however, that has been the dominant view, with small ultra-conservative sects still holding to the literalist view.

Originally posted by Galan007
Yeah OT God was a dick. I'm just trying to understand some of his dickery.

iirc, Hell did exist in the OT, but it was not the same 'woe unto me' Hell as described by the NT.

Originally posted by Oliver North
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?

Even though my own belief is that the Bible itself is purely fictional, I also believe the stories themselves were meant to be taken at face value by the men who wrote the Bible. Do I think Moses parted the red sea? No. However, I believe the Bible wants us to think he literally did. Same coin, I believe the intention of the Bible was to have God wipe out S&G to merely prove a point and display his power over mankind. Again: this is just my interpretation of something I view as a fictional work.

Either way, I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I said, Hell as we think of it did not exist in the OT. There was no place of punishment. The closest thing to a Hell in the OT was She'ol (sp?), which was a place that everyone went to after death, and it was really a place where everyone slept in darkness, a gloomy underworld similar to that envisioned by Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but not a place where sinners are punished for their sins.

My Uncle's theory about the Old Testament is that it was originally intended as historical/allegorical fiction written by a bunch of out of work priests in the desert, because at the time of the writing the Jews were dispersed throughout the Near East and lacked temples and worshipers and so had nothing to do but write about how great they used to be and how the people who were putting them down were sure going to get it one day.

Originally posted by Galan007
It's been some time(like 20 years) since I've read the Bible, however, I do not believe it was meant to be read exclusively by a certainly people, nor do I believe there is only one 'right' way to interpret something as religiously(and spiritually) complex as the Bible. Does the Bible have metaphoric messages out the wazoo? Absolutely. Heck, at its root the Bible is really just a giant compendium of 'right vs. wrong' scenarios.

Even though my own belief is that the Bible itself is purely fictional, I also believe the stories themselves were meant to be taken at face value by the men who wrote the Bible. Do I think Moses parted the red sea? No. However, I believe the Bible wants us to believe he literally did. Same coin, I believe the intention of the Bible was to have God wipe out S&G to merely prove a point and display his power over mankind. Again: this is just my interpretation.

Either way, I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Weren't there still 2 divisions of sheol-- the good people went to one part, and the bad people went to another..?

More importantly though, why did they go with Sodom to derive the word "sodomize" and not use Gomorrah as the root word?

Originally posted by Robtard
More importantly though, why did they go with Sodom to derive the word "sodomize" and not use Gomorrah as the root word?

You may be onto something. But I bet the Gomorrahians still felt cheated.

I would too. What better way to have your name remembered than for it to be synonymous with sweet, sweet ass play/boy love.

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".

Or, you know, it could be that it actually happened...

Originally posted by Robtard
More importantly though, why did they go with Sodom to derive the word "sodomize" and not use Gomorrah as the root word?

Gomorrizing someone is a different thing and its just so disturbing that no one ever talks about it.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Or, you know, it could be that it actually happened...

a) then you may wish to try your hand with the OP's initial paradox

b) sure, it could be, but lacking even the historical evidence to say these cities existed in the first place, I'm going to hold out for something more concrete before I concede that they were destroyed by supernatural means

c) the people who wrote the OT, ie: the Jews, did not have a tradition of writing literal stories to be taken as historical fact

Originally posted by Oliver North
a) then you may wish to try your hand with the OP's initial paradox

b) sure, it could be, but lacking even the historical evidence to say these cities existed in the first place, I'm going to hold out for something more concrete before I concede that they were destroyed by supernatural means

c) the people who wrote the OT, ie: the Jews, did not have a tradition of writing literal stories to be taken as historical fact

a) God gives us free will to make our own choices, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't right and wrong choices. It's like this: should a country not enforce its laws against murder because someone chooses to "express themselves" through killing?

b) The evidence is right in front of you. It's called a Bible. Other than that, how would there be any other evidence left? the whole friggin' city got wiped out with fire and brimstone!

c) Then it's a good thing that God inspired the Bible, otherwise we'd be stuck with a whole bunch of gnostic, esoteric "metaphorical" nonsense...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
a) God gives us free will to make our own choices, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't right and wrong choices. It's like this: should a country not enforce its laws against murder because someone chooses to "express themselves" through killing?

did the nation give the murderer free will?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
b) The evidence is right in front of you. It's called a Bible. Other than that, how would there be any other evidence left? the whole friggin' city got wiped out with fire and brimstone!

lol, oh, sorry, I must just have a higher standard of evidence than you do... like, not hearsay

also, a massive city being destroyed by fire would almost certainly leave historical record. They can find campsites from over 30000 years ago using modern techniques. The type of destruction at S&G would scar the earth.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
c) Then it's a good thing that God inspired the Bible, otherwise we'd be stuck with a whole bunch of gnostic, esoteric "metaphorical" nonsense...

that doesn't change the intent of the people who wrote it...

or are you saying that the Jews who wrote the OT actually did take it literally? and if so, can you provide any evidence from a source that isn't demanding part of my paycheque on Sunday?

Originally posted by Bat Dude

b) The evidence is right in front of you. It's called a Bible. Other than that, how would there be any other evidence left? the whole friggin' city got wiped out with fire and brimstone!

Originally posted by Oliver North
did the nation give the murderer free will?

lol, oh, sorry, I must just have a higher standard of evidence than you do... like, not hearsay

also, a massive city being destroyed by fire would almost certainly leave historical record. They can find campsites from over 30000 years ago using modern techniques. The type of destruction at S&G would scar the earth.

that doesn't change the intent of the people who wrote it...

or are you saying that the Jews who wrote the OT actually did take it literally? and if so, can you provide any evidence from a source that isn't demanding part of my paycheque on Sunday?

The churches that demand a "tithe" are not Christian. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, are money hungry (the love of money is the root of all evil, as the Bible states) and "serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly." (Romans 16:18)

The vast majority of primary sources and historical records of these types of things (specifically the life of Jesus) were destroyed by the Roman Empire.

The only historical record that hasn't been destroyed is the Bible itself. It is God's word. The Bible says "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7) And that was when David was king of Israel, many years before the Roman Empire did these things.

I thought knowledge was the root of all evil?

ya, no, I mean the earth itself would bare physical scars from fire and brimstone raining from the sky in volumes enough to wipe a city from the map.

otherwise what you are trying to do is turn not having any evidence into an excuse for not needing evidence, which is a cop out and really not an intellectually honest position anyways, is it?

edit: wait... unless you read ancient Hebrew, any version of the bible you believe, by near tautology, has not had its words preserved. even the act of translation with no malice intent changes the scripture. Islam had to invent a language in an attempt to preserve it scripture, and even that failed.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ya, no, I mean the earth itself would bare physical scars from fire and brimstone raining from the sky in volumes enough to wipe a city from the map.

otherwise what you are trying to do is turn not having any evidence into an excuse for not needing evidence, which is a cop out and really not an intellectually honest position anyways, is it?

edit: wait... unless you read ancient Hebrew, any version of the bible you believe, by near tautology, has not had its words preserved. even the act of translation with no malice intent changes the scripture. Islam had to invent a language in an attempt to preserve it scripture, and even that failed.

Why would there still be scars on the earth, exactly?

I don't need to prove God's existence. God exists whether one believes or not. That's not a cop out, that's just the truth. I don't need to make any excuses.

The Word has been preserved. The same doctrine and meaning of the words has been preserved since they were written down years ago. Translating it faithfully into other languages does not change the meaning of the words. When you translate it incorrectly and change the meaning of the words (like the NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc. did), THAT'S when you pervert God's words and they are no longer preserved. But God won't allow His word to be completely perverted.

Originally posted by Bat Dude

I don't need to prove God's existence. God exists whether one believes or not. That's not a cop out, that's just the truth. I don't need to make any excuses.

You can't negate a cop-out by making an even bigger cop-out, which is precisely what you just did.

Originally posted by Bat Dude

I don't need to prove God's existence. God exists whether one believes or not. That's not a cop out, that's just the truth. I don't need to make any excuses.

"This is correct because it's correct."

You make me think of a priest who isn't prepared to answer a precocious kid's questions, so just tells him to read the Bible because the "answer is in there somewhere".