Wait....so....it was okay for them to be used as a possible bargaining chip because they were going to sin in the future?

No... it was okay for them to be used as a bargaining chip because it was socially accepted in that era that women were the property of their father.

Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"

And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?

But, in the above you implied it.....

Okay... but the word "sex" has always meant just that. And again... gang-rape... pretty sure that's an evil that would be considered sin.

Query - why was it evil to gang rape men but not women?

No one said it wasn't. But gang-rape of women isn't mentioned to the best of my knowledge. There were punishments if a man raped a woman and did not take care of her, i.e. marrying her and supporting her.

Genesis 19:8 - "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof"

And those same two daughters intoxicated and seduced their father a few chapters later because they feared they would never lose their virginity and have children. What makes you think those two daughters weren't willing, but couldn't find any men that would have sex with them in a city named Sodom, a name that eventually evolved into the word "sodomy"?

The focus was more on preserving the bloodline (That which eventually led to Jesus) than the daughters being concerned about losing their virginity.

Ugh! Quit sucking me back in.

Jesus' blood line goes back to Abraham, not Lot.

Here is the entire exchange.....where were you making your point about Sodomite behavior?

You keep skipping past the point that it was not that God did not prevent these people in the bible from dying, his direct actions or orders led to their death. I do not believe that anyone here is saying that no one should ever die. We just ask that our God not kill us out of sport.

I actually did reply to this earlier. You sort of missed it because I had replied to Lucky and it moved the thread to another page. Anyway, I'm going to break this down.

Also, he wasn't just smiting the wicked. All those Egyptian first born were not wicked.

The Egyptians, as a whole, were oppressing the Israelites. God hates oppression in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, he gives the Hebrews instructions on how to treat slaves. They are only allowed to keep them for a limited amount of time, and then the slave can stay if he chooses to after that time frame has ended. When the Hebrews came to Egypt, they were welcomed as favor to Joseph for saving them from famine, but once Joseph was gone, the subsequent generations forgot that favor. The Pharoah was asked many times to allow the Israelites to leave, but he, and his people, were greedy and wanted to keep the Hebrews and continue to relish in the wealth the Hebrews were creating for them while keeping them in poor conditions and treating them abysmally. The Pharoah refused to let the Israelites leave over and over in spite of whatever his kingdom was subjected to. He was not moved when the water turned to blood. He was not moved when the frogs, gnats, and flies overwhelmed their homes. He was not moved when the livestock got sick or when the people were covered in painful boils. He was not moved when hail destroyed their homes or when locusts came and destroyed all of the crops. After all that, he just continued to oppress the Hebrews.

Have you ever known an addict or an alcoholic? Addicts and alcoholics will continue to do wrong no matter how badly it affects others... over and over and over. When do they finally stop? When they lose something far too precious to make the sacrifice seem worth it. So... that is what God had to do to Pharoah and the Egyptians (because the Egyptians begged Pharoah not to let the Hebrews leave). He had to take the firstborn of Egypt so that they would comply (this also an example of how the relationship between God and humans is like parent and child).

I'd also like to add that in Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, God often reiterates a command to treat foreigners with love and respect because the Hebrews were also once foreigners in Egypt.

Not everyone in Sodom or Gomorrah were wicked.

Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.

Job's family was not wicked.

The very first chapter of Job talks about how Job's sons would make feasts and have celebrations and Job's daughters would join them, and then Job would have to purify his children. Now, it's not directly stated, but it's pretty easy to deduce that Job's children were having sex with each other which was sinful. So yes, Job's children were wicked, and God punished them for their wickedness, and in the process to test Job's faith. Part of the reason why it is not directly stated that Job's children were sinning and being punished for their sins is because the whole purpose of the book of Job is to demonstrate how God rewards the faithful and not how God punishes the wicked. God knew that losing his children would hurt Job, and He didn't wish to hurt Job. But his children were wicked and were not going to change. So as long as Job proved he had more faith, love, and obedience than his wicked children, then Job was blessed with more children so that he could start over.

Not everyone on the planet who died in the Biblical floods were wicked.

Alright... I'm going to quote my bible directly here.

Gen 6:5-6 "The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they though or imagined was consistently and totally evil. So the Lord was sorry he had ever made them and put them on the earth. It broke his heart."

You ever start a project and then somewhere in the process realized that something went terribly wrong and the whole thing was ruined. That's what happened here. Just as with Sodom and Gomorrah, the children were just as corrupted as the parents. I'm sure you are familiar with the expression "a few bad apples ruins the whole bunch."

Not every inhabitant of Canaan which were slaughtered in the Israelite invasion/conquest were wicked.

Just like in the previous arguments, it is often mentioned throughout Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy that the Canaanites were sinful, and just as I stated in previous arguments, the children were corrupted as well.

God doesn't like to destroy His creation. It clearly states that way back in Genesis, but just as you proclaim that evil should never be tolerated, God does not tolerate it. For each of those communities, the sinful ways became so commonplace that there wasn't anyway to save anyone from it. That is until Christ. And because it pains God to have to destroy His creation for the sake of evil, that is why He gave His son to die for all the evils of the world so that He would not have to destroy people for the sake of evil ever again.

Lot was the only righteous person in Sodom. It clearly states in Genesis that "all the men, young and old" surrounded Lot's house because they wanted to have sex with the two visitors. In Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the bible outlines how "uncleanness" corrupts the entire community. The customs of the societies of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and socially accepted. Children were being raised to follow those same customs. Lot's entire family was saved, but his wife turned back, leaving only Lot and his daughters. When Lot and his daughters were hiding in the cave, they got Lot drunk and seduced them so they could become pregnant with his children. They had been exposed to the sinful customs of Sodom and Gomorrah and adopted those customs. So yes, the entirety community was punished, including children, because those children would grow up to continue the sinful ways of their parents.

Ah, I remember this. If Lot's children were so corrupted by the wickedness Sodom and Gomorrah (even though it is now argued that there is a mistranslation to the exchange about "knowing" them), then why were the descendents of that sinful reunion allowed to continue into fruitful cultures that even shared lineage with David and Jesus?

btw, part of the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were so vilified in the OT was because the Israelites fought wars with and against them.

lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.

lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.

Erm...actually there's quite a lot of proof of the existence of both; it's the particular interpretation of the events/actions that can't conclusively be proved, and have to be taken on the basis of faith by those who subscribe to Christianity (and Judaism in the case of the Flood).

lets not forget that there is no historical proof of a flood or jesus beyond the bible.

Erm...actually there's quite a lot of proof of the existence of both; it's the particular interpretation of the events/actions that can't conclusively be proved, and have to be taken on the basis of faith by those who subscribe to Christianity (and Judaism in the case of the Flood).

Actually, there is very little non-biblical evidence of Jesus. Much of it is circumstantial or misconstrued. For example, the term 'Christ' or Messiah in Hebrew was not only applied to Jesus but also to multiple other leaders of Messianic movements. Another is that the term 'Chrestus' was also used to refer to the Greco-Egyptian God Serapis. Serapis was a popular Pagan god amongst the common people of Rome and were often referred to as....Christians.


As far as the flood, they have found geological evidence of a large flood in the region after the Black Sea burst out of the Dardanelles or Hellespont. This event is believed to have been the source of the multitude of world ending floods present in mythologies around the region. I will also state that floods are not present in the mythology of other regions.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.…"

There is plenty of geological evidence of various local floods. There is zero geological evidence of a world-wide flood as described in Genesis.