What really is the "Sin of Sodom"

[Freedom63]

To be fair, though, heterosexual relationships and sex are explicitly permitted and encouraged and praised in other passages. If not for those, and if, in addition to the difference you suggest, Lot had offered his sons (if he had any), then people might suggest the story condemned heterosexuality.

Actually if the men were wanting homosexual sex it would make much more sense for lot to offer his sons rather than his daughters. Lot was protecting his visitors according to custom and the men of that city were wanting to humiliate them and drive them away. This is much more consistent with all the scriptures that tell of Sodom's sin than these silly homosexual explanations.

 

[Willtor]

Actually if the men were wanting homosexual sex it would make much more sense for lot to offer his sons rather than his daughters. Lot was protecting his visitors according to custom and the men of that city were wanting to humiliate them and drive them away. This is much more consistent with all the scriptures that tell of Sodom's sin than these silly homosexual explanations.

Indeed, if he had offered his daughters and they had accepted them, it would be more consistent. Not that this relates to my last post, or to the post to which I was responding.

 

[woodpeace]

I took the interpretation of the story of the city of Sodom from the book The Body in Context: Sex and Catholicism by Gareth Moore OP.

 

[sniperelite7]

I suppose if I would like to derail a thread, I might as well de-rail mine.
(Might as well call this "sniper's big I have questions" thread)

Been looking up the meaning and debates on the word pais which is used to describe the centurions servant in the story where the centurion asks Christ to heal his servant. If pais is used to describe a servant boy used for sexual purposes. How then does this connect with other biblical interpretations which hold that the word "homosexual" is used to describe the greek practice of pederastry, cultic prostitution, etc ,etc. Then how is this consistent? Christ not condemning a pedophile, vice the gospel writers condemning the practice...unless the servant boy wasn't actually a boy...?

 

[hedrick]

The analysis (of which I'm not sure I'm convinced) says specifically that "boy" in this context doesn't specifically refer to a young person. I'm uncomfortable saying more in this venue. If you want my views, please contact me directly or use another site.

 

[artybloke]

Psst: It's a story. It didn't really happen.

 

[Freedom63]

Indeed, if he had offered his daughters and they had accepted them, it would be more consistent. Not that this relates to my last post, or to the post to which I was responding.

Really...does not relate to your last post? This is a very strange statement since this is the content of the post I replied to...

Originally Posted by Willtor
"To be fair, though, heterosexual relationships and sex are explicitly permitted and encouraged and praised in other passages. If not for those, and if, in addition to the difference you suggest, Lot had offered his sons (if he had any), then people might suggest the story condemned heterosexuality."



There are several passages in the bible that list Sodom and Gomorrah's sins specifically. You won't find homosexual relations listed among them. Only in the NT passage can it even be implied, but that does not hold up to textual scrutiny especially in light of the several OT passages that are much clearer and leave it out entirely. One would have to assume that God simply forgot to include the chief reason He destroyed them when He inspired these passages.

 

[Willtor]

Really...does not relate to your last post? This is a very strange statement since this is the content of the post I replied to...

Originally Posted by Willtor
"To be fair, though, heterosexual relationships and sex are explicitly permitted and encouraged and praised in other passages. If not for those, and if, in addition to the difference you suggest, Lot had offered his sons (if he had any), then people might suggest the story condemned heterosexuality."

Right. The post was about whether the reverse view could be held if the angels had appeared as women.

There are several passages in the bible that list Sodom and Gomorrah's sins specifically. You won't find homosexual relations listed among them. Only in the NT passage can it even be implied, but that does not hold up to textual scrutiny especially in light of the several OT passages that are much clearer and leave it out entirely. One would have to assume that God simply forgot to include the chief reason He destroyed them when He inspired these passages.

Indeed. And it would be a precarious view at best.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

attempted rape is the only clearly wrong thing i see in the story (that and offering your children to be raped) if god has a problem wiht bi sexilty or homosexuality he should make evry one hetero sexual if he has the power. but just being bi or gay does no harm and cant be wrong to me.

 

[hedrick]

attempted rape is the only clearly wrong thing i see in the story (that and offering your children to be raped) if god has a problem wiht bi sexilty or homosexuality he should make evry one hetero sexual if he has the power. but just being bi or gay does no harm and cant be wrong to me.

Yeah, except that the overall story suggests that Sodom was a cesspool. The specific visit of the angels only turned out some of it. I see no reason to think that there even was a specific "sin of Sodom."

 

[trek4fr]

The Christian religion is quite heavily focused on "sin", on what actions/thoughts it thinks offends God and what actions/thoughts don't offend God. The goal is thought to be to not offend God or break God's laws by our "incorrect" thoughts/actions or lack thereof. But such a mindset, imo, is extremely confusing and, perhaps, this notion of sin truly does "miss the mark" because it ignores the foundational issue of how we treat each other.

Jesus was a critique of this kind of religious system. By the time he came along, the Jewish religion had a list of 613 do's and do not's that would, supposedly, help the Jews to avoid offending God by their thoughts and actions. And Jesus said that they missed the boat. Why? Because, said Jesus, true righteousness (right standing with God) was not defined by how little sin you did, but by how much you loved. This is why John said that you couldn't claim to love God but hate your fellow mankind.

For instance, it is a sin, according to the Bible, to plant two different kinds of crops in the same field. Or to wear clothes made of two different fabrics. Maybe the ancient Jews considered these to be "sins against God," but what real-world harm would these actions really cause? It was "breaking God's law" not to be circumcised. What does it matter today?

IMO, it is a foolish thing to look through the Bible and pick out things that were, back then, "sins against God" and to make them once-and-for-all standards for everyone for all time. Humanity grows, matures. And as we do so, we, hopefully, understand what God desires from us better. The goal of being a Christian, it seems to me, is not to find a 100% guaranteed way to never break a biblical prohibition that was once thought to offend a deity, but to learn to truly love others because we meet and appreciate the Spirit we find in them. If we did *that*, we wouldn't be so prone to harm them. We would truly love God because we love each other. So maybe if we moved past be so obsessed about what our ancient ancestors thought offended the gods to the things of compassion that could actually affect a change for good in our world today, we could see ourselves more as the saints that we are instead of the sinners that our religions claim us to be.