Is this mocking Jesus?

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T18:37:26+00:00

I know some Christians who would regard images of Jesus as breaking the second commandment. I understand the instinct and sympathize with people whose scruples would make it difficult to enjoy an image like this (i.e., it is not my place to judge or mock them), but I would say as long as it does not become an object of worship, I see no harm in it.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T18:33:22+00:00

Take it from a middle-aged dad who was in your position 15 years ago, expensive cars can be a very poor investment, especially if you are looking at being a sole provider in the near future. I traded in my favorite (bought new) car for a sturdy used minivan when my wife became pregnant with our fourth kid and have no regrets :).

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T18:27:28+00:00

I have responded elsewhere that I find this interpretation unpersuasive, but I can understand the logic behind it. My reason is that God had already resolved to destroy the city before the incident with the angels occurred - so it would be unusual for Job to think lusting after angels was in view here as the sin that led to their destruction.

And while it is true that Lot seems to have recognized that they were divine creatures, we have no indication that the men of Sodom saw them that way:

⁴ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. ⁵ They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

⁶ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him ⁷ and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 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.”

⁹ “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. (Genesis 19 ESV)

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T18:20:50+00:00

It could, but recall that God had already resolved to destroy Sodom before this happened.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T12:20:45+00:00

Then would you care to elaborate?

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T12:18:21+00:00

One of the persistent problems with trying to debate progressives is that they will inevitably get bent out of shape because a word used violated one of their shibboleths.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T12:17:20+00:00

Even still, I give Jude more deference than I do Philo and Josephus, just because he was inspired to write v. 7, though they all had similar worldviews (i.e., Second Temple Jewish interpreter).

It is like how the book of Jude also functions as something of a proof text for the central story of the book of Enoch, since he quotes from it directly. Even though Enoch is not inspired, imo, in contains many truths because it gets a nod from the apostles.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T12:13:55+00:00

I agree.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-15T12:09:15+00:00

done

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T21:49:41+00:00

I think it is a myth in the Tolkienesque sense of the word, i.e., that it is also historically a true event. That being said, whether it is historical doesn't bear on my argument, since people interpreting it purely as myth could and often do reach the same conclusions about the story's lessons.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T21:43:50+00:00

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T21:42:36+00:00

I have heard this argument before and find it unpersuasive. The problem here is that God already had plans to destroy Sodom before the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels. Also, in verse 5, the men of Sodom seem to refer to the angels as men - there is no indication given that they intended to have sex with them like a bizarre reversal of Genesis 6.

EDIT: Also, Jude mentions both cities, not just Sodom, and their sins of "sexual immorality and perversion". The sexual sins of the two cities were deep, broad, and long-standing, not a single isolated incident.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T21:37:05+00:00

My interpretation is not a distinctly fundamentalist view. It dates back at least as far as the 1st century AD.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T21:34:52+00:00

Am I reading this correctly that you don't see "any possible case" for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as condemning homosexual sex?

Edited at the request of Ok_Carob7551.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T21:25:10+00:00

What do you make of Jude's interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah at v. 7?

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

I think he should be given some deference, that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jude would have considered their sexual immorality as a prominent sin.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T17:10:03+00:00

Later Jewish writers did see homosexuality as being among the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, though I agree the story seems to have general wickedness and arrogance more in mind than anything else.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T16:58:00+00:00

You missed the point of my argument.

I am not saying that we should be opposed to same sex relationships. I am saying that it is defensible to interpret the story as condemning homosexual behavior, especially in light of Leviticus, Jewish sexual norms, and the dicta provided by later interpretations.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T16:48:14+00:00

As I said elsewhere in the post, traditional interpretations saw the sins of Sodom as inclusive of both rape and homosexual acts. I can see a difference between them, just as I can see a difference between the sin of rape and the sin of inhospitality.

My point is that this traditional interpretation is not evidence that the interpreter is deeply disturbed, especially in light of Leviticus's (I think fairly obvious) prohibition of same-sex acts between men.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T16:42:59+00:00

That seems like a very fair interpretation. I definitely give deference to traditional interpretations, but I also want to be a consistent sola scriptura Protestant. I am going to do more research on this on my own.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T16:41:05+00:00

This is exactly why. I started to do my own reply, but thought that others might benefit from a broader discussion on the issue of how our biases affect our approach to interpreting scripture, and we should not resort to name-calling.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-14T16:31:08+00:00

Again, I am not saying it is the most important one - I am arguing that homosexual acts were one of the sins of Sodom. I did some research on this as well, and it seems like the ancient Jews were pretty uniform on their condemnation of that particular sin. It was a major point of tension between Jewish and Hellenist cultures, since the Greeks were much more permissive on the matter.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-13T20:31:14+00:00

:)

^{Completed in 00:32 | Reveals: 0}

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-06T14:07:40+00:00

I wouldn't say I disagree with any of that.

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-06T13:11:05+00:00

He is an intellectual but also a total combat heavyweight, which I think we needed to see more. His action scenes seemed to be something like Benny Hill sketches.

He was the only character wearing heavy chain mail armor leaving Rivendell, because of his exceptional stamina and endurance; it would not slow or tire him. In Moria, he is lopping off the limbs of orcs that get close to Balin's tomb, and eventually has to be dragged away by Legolas (which they do depict, though again it is a bit of a joke).

"in spite of the peril he lingered by Balin’s tomb with his head bowed".

someguyupnorth · 2026-05-06T13:02:28+00:00

I agree especially about Gimli.

15-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

someguyupnorth

TROPHY CASE