Sin & The Sodomites

KCKID · Jul 23, 2008

I realize that the sin/s of Sodom and Gommorah have been done to death on this and other Christian forums. However, every few days (it seems) someone raises this issue yet again and again equates S&G with homosexuality.

So, below is an item which may or may not have been presented on the forum previously. It's rather lengthy - as it would be since it covers a lot of ground - and so I've divided it up to make reading and responding a little easier. Permission for reprinting has been granted by the author.

Feel free to add your input, comments, objections (if any).

SIN AND THE SODOMITES:
An examination of homophobia, fact, and faith

From: lambdarising@his.com (Deacon Maccubbin)Newsgroups: alt.homosexualSubject: Putting Sodom to Rest (LONG!)Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 22:51:11 -0500Organization: Lambda Rising Bookstores[Minor additions to this exhaustive study of the nature of Sodom's sin added by dionisio@infinet.com. ]

I think it's time to call the fundamentalist right on their claim that the Sodom story gives proof of God's wrath against homosexuality. Let's start with what their own primary authority -- the Bible -- says about Sodom's sins.
Following is a list of every verse in the Bible that refers to the sins of Sodom. Perhaps they can now point out every time that homosexuality occurs in this list:

Genesis 13:13: But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Genesis 18:20: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Genesis 19:13: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Deuteronomy 29:17-26: And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them...And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning...like the overthrow of Sodom...which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath...Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? What meaneth the heat of this great anger? Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers...For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them. (Just idolatry and false gods; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Deuteronomy 32:32-38: For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter...And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection. (idolatry again; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Isaiah 1:9-23: Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah...How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. (hmmm... murder, greed, thievery, rebelliousness, covetness; nope, no homosexuality there)

Isaiah 3:8-15: For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. For ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? (mistreating the poor; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Isaiah 13: 11-19: And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible...And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. (haughtiness, yes, but no homosexuality.)

Jeremiah 23:10-14: For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth...For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the LORD...And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah. (adultery, lying by priests and prophets; nope, no homosexuality in there)

Jeremiah 49:16-18: Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart...Also Edom shall be a desolation: every one that goeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss at all the plagues thereof. As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. (evil and pride, but still no homosexuality)

Jeremiah 50:2-40: Declare ye among the nations...say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces...thou hast striven against the LORD...for she hath been proud against the LORD...As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour cities thereof, saith the LORD; so shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein. (there's that idolatry and pride again, but still no homosexuality)

Lamentations 4:3-6: ...the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. (cruelty, failure to tend the young and the poor, but still no homosexuality)

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Well THAT's pretty clear, huh? But what are we missing in that list? Oh yeah...homosexuality)

Amos 4:1-11: Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink. I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. (oppression, mistreating the needy...still no homosexuality)

Zephaniah 2:8: I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the revilings of the children of Ammon, whereby they have reproached my people, and magnified themselves against their border. Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah...This shall they have for their pride, because they have reproached and magnified themselves against the people of the LORD of hosts. (there's that pride again, and the intimation of inhospitality, but still no homosexuality)

The New Testament references continue below.

KCKID · Jul 23, 2008

SIN & THE SODOMOTE (Cont'd)

Well, so much for the Old Testament's linkage of Sodom with homosexuality. Maybe the fundamentalists were referring to something in the New Testament? Let's see...

Matthew 20:11: And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it...And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet...Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Jesus said these words; they draw a comparison to inhospitality, but there's still no homosexuality there)

Matthew 11:19-24: The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners...Then began Jesus to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes...And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day...But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. (They ridiculed Jesus and treated him with utmost inhospitality, refusing to repent...but still no mention of homosexuality)

Mark 6:10-11: And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Another repetition of the instruction against inhospitality, but still no mention of homosexuality)

Luke 10:10-12: But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say. Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. (There's that inhospitality reference again, but still no homosexuality mentioned)

Luke 17:26-29: And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. (still no mention of homosexuality)

2 Peter 2:6: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly. (Ungodly? Is that idolatry again? It sure isn't homosexuality)

Jude 1:7-8: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Awww...this one comes SO close, but no cigar; the Greek word translated here as "fornication" is "inappropriate contenteia" and had a distinctly heterosexual connotation; and the "strange flesh" was a reference to angels or "sons of God" that WOMEN had sex with [see Genesis 6:1-4] according to Jewish tradition; still no mention of homosexuality).

KCKID · Jul 23, 2008

SIN & THE SODOMITE (Final)

Well, except for a brief mention of Sodom in Revelations (where there is no reference to the city's supposed sins), I'm afraid we've covered them all. Now it's up to the fundamentalists. Surely they should have no difficulty pointing out ALL the verses in the Bible that refer to the sin of Sodom being that of homosexuality.
But they'll have to make them up first. ;-)

At the center of Sodom's greatest transgression was the violation of the ancient code requiring hospitality. Jesus in recalling the doom of Sodom and Gomorrah says nothing regarding any sexual improprieties. Instead he speaks of these cities exemplifying the fate of those towns which refuse to welcome the apostles.

A further example of the significance of the hospitality code is found in the book of Joshua. Prostitution was condemned in the early writings of the Old Testament. Yet Joshua spared the life of an admitted prostitute before destroying the city of Jericho in return for her hospitality to a pair of Joshua's spies who were being pursued by agents of the King of Jericho.
"They burned the whole city and everything in it... But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho." Josh. 6:24-25 (NIV)

Nonetheless centuries passed, and generations of Jewish scholars continued to understand the divine retribution against Sodom and Gomorrah to be a lesson on arrogance and inhospitality. Only later did Church moralists refer to the Sodom story in the context of sexual practices. (Such as when, late in the first century A.D., the writer of the book of Jude asserts, "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves over to sexual immorality (Jude 1:7).")

Still, this is no indictment against the homosexual orientation. Some translations of this passage speak of the Sodomites going after "strange flesh" (Greek - *sarkos heteras*). The word *heteras* means "different" (compare "hetero"sexual). As is made clear by apocryphal Hebrew writings, Jude is referencing the Sodomites' attempt to rape angels. It is worth noting that Jude is the only biblical writer who connected the sins of the Sodomites to sexual immorality and still was ambiguous regarding homosexuality.

But we're not done yet. The traditional concept of the sin of Sodom arises from the fact that the Hebrew word here translated as "to know" (yadha) is used by itself in ten places in the Old Testament to denote heterosexual intercourse. In five additional texts it is used in conjunction with mishkabh (in this context, "to lie") to mean the same thing. But yadha appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual connotation, to simply mean "get acquainted with" or "learn of."

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to homosexual coitus, with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors.

An alternate theory has been developed by some biblical scholars. Since yadha commonly means "to get acquainted with," the demand to "know" the visitors may well have implied some serious breach of the rules of hospitality. Several considerations provide support for this view. In the first place, Lot was not a native of Sodom, but had the status of resident alien, or "ger." As such, he may not have had the right to admit unidentified foreigners to the city. City gates were closed at night expressly to prevent lawless or subversive aliens from entering on unknown errands, and travelers carried credentials because they might at any time be asked to prove that they were abroad on legitimate business. Thus we might translate "Bring them out to us, that we might know them" as "We wish to know whom you are bringing into our city" or (in the vernacular of WWII German movies) "Ve vant to see your papers!" Lot's refusal to turn his visitors over to this horde of vigilantes is totally in keeping with the then contemporary laws of etiquette, because in those days no civic police force protected strangers in a city. Any kind of robbery or physical abuse could have been meted out to the two angels if he had agreed to surrender them, but in his home they were safe. He was obliged to protect them as honored guests. It is certain that the Sodomites were demanding he violate the code of hospitality, but not AT ALL clear from the text that they were inclined to indulge in homosexual acts.

Lastly, even if the fundamentalists must insist (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding) that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the strangers, that's a matter of rape, not homosexual love. I think we can all agree that rape is right up there on the list of big sins, and further that it is an act of power, control, and violence, not of love between consenting adults.

There's another Old Testament passage that is relevant. The story is found in Judges 19:14-28. It bears a striking resemblance to the Sodom story -- a traveler arrives at the city (in this case, Gilbeah). There he meets an old man who is, like Lot, a resident alien. The old man warns the traveler that he should not stay in the town square, and he extends the hand of hospitality in accordance with Holy law, inviting the traveler to share his abode for the night. But the men of the city surround the old man's house and demand that the traveler be sent out so "that we may know him" (there's that "yadha" again). The old man refuses, but offers his virgin daughter and his concubine to the mob instead. When the crowd refuses the offer, the old man throws his concubine outside as a diversion, whereupon the "base fellows" in the mob rape and abuse her all night, leaving her dying at the threshold. When the Israelites learn of the abuse of the concubine, they rise up against Gilbeah and, with God's help, destroy the city.

Here we have an instance almost identical to Sodom, in which a city is destroyed following inhospitality to strangers, and a clear case of rape. Except this time it was a heterosexual rape. Yet no one uses this story to imply God's condemnation of heterosexuality in general. It is specious, then, to suggest that the story of Sodom is instructional with regard to homosexuality in general.

Those who insist that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality are denying the very Bible they claim to revere, and attempting to push a laden camel through the eye of a needle. They are required to make five outrageous leaps of faith: (1) homosexual love is equal to rape; (2) "yadha" meant homosexual acts only once or twice and something else 953 times; (3) all of the other references to Sodom's sins contained in the Bible are in error, incomplete, or obfuscatory; (4) the strict codes regarding hospitality and the safety of travelers were immaterial; and (5) the concubine of the man of Gilbeah was a male.

We should also remember that the monotheism of Judaism was in strict competition with many other religions of the time (i.e. fertility cults, cult of Baal etc) which practiced sodomy as part of their rituals etc. So, what we have is the authors of the Old Testament reflecting a demand that the Israelites give their loyalty and fealty to the ONE GOD (ignoring the implied impressing of servitude in Proverbs 8:22 of course), lest they face judgment.

So, how come we never see people condemning those against immigration as Exodus 22:23 demands? (You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.) I guess the Nativist Party is going to Hell along with anybody against immigration. What about Exodus 22:2? (If a thief is found breaking in, and is beaten to death, no bloodguilt is incurred; BUT if it happens after sunrise, bloodguilt is incurred). All you need is a Timex to get off the hook!

How about Exodus 22:25? (If you lend money to my people; to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.) Hmm... Looks like the whole banking industry is Hell-bound with those evil Sodomites too!

And what of those who despise the President, or their local Governor or Mayor? Exodus 22:28 (You shall not curse God, or curse a leader of your people.) For all you graduates of "tough love" out there, may I present Exodus 21:17 (Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.) And for all you pre-maritals: Exodus 22:16 (When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall pay the BRIDE PRICE for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to GIVE her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the BRIDE PRICE for virgins. (Just $199.99 at Wal-Mart.)

Has the point sunk in yet? These Holiness Codes, and similar systems that are found in the Old Testament, were there to make absolutely certain someone converted to Judaism and did not stray into pagan religions of the time. Homosexuality was a practice of some of the pagan religions of the time, and thus we see the OT condemning that act because of what it represents in the eyes of the authors: straying from the fealty of Yahweh. So, any sinners from the previous passages will be in Hell along with those "Sodomites" they so despise.

Unless, you are willing to concede the point that these are historical rules meant to be examined in light of HISTORY. Then, when Jesus comes along and fulfills the scriptures, we shall see that Jesus (according to those who wrote about him) brought a message of unconditional love.

So, before we talk any more about how those fill-in-the-blanks will burn in fiery damnation, maybe we should all bust open our fun-filled copies of Exodus to discover why we might have first class reservations in Motel Hell (I Know I do. I'm wearing a cotton/polyester blend shirt, which is a definite no-no. I am truly evil INCARNATE).

And what if this whole Sodom thing is merely an attempt to convince as many people as possible to "join the party" with all the "believers" who will also find themselves attending the eternal bar-b-q? What if this entire Sodom=homosexuality ploy is nothing more than a baseless perversion of God's word? Perhaps something that was originally well-intended, but which now has gone horribly awry. What of that? We've seen the refutation of Sodom=homosexual at the Bible's own hands. The prohibitions imposed against the Israelites were lifted by both God and Jesus. (By Jesus in Matthew 6:25 and Mark 7:15. God gives Peter a vision stating the same in Acts 10:9-15.) Those seeking to vilify homosexuals and whom contend that they are sinful and damned by God, simply because of a mistaken belief in ancient purity codes -- which have been revoked by God and Jesus -- need to be corrected. The perversion of God's word is punishable by eternal damnation. (Revelation 22:18-19) Let us see to it that no more go to Hell than need be.

(Copyright 1994, Deacon Maccubbin; permission for reprinting electronically hereby granted. Authors e-mail address: deacon.maccubbin@his.com)

Maren · Jul 23, 2008

There was recently a thread about this in Ethics & Morality as well. No evidence was given showing Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.

KCKID · Jul 23, 2008

Maren said:
There was recently a thread about this in Ethics & Morality as well. No evidence was given showing Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.

And yet the majority of Christians CONTINUE to use this scripture as their trump card when arguing against homosexuality.

For those who will not be swayed by the above article to alter their deep-rooted mindset, let me help you to see reason. When was the last time you witnessed a modern-day situation where homosexuals crowded knee-deep outside someone's home demanding sex with its occupants? It's a silly scenario, isn't it? And yet you believe this of the Bible story.

That didn't change your deep-rooted mindset at all ...did it?

Hoo boy . . .

DMagoh · Jul 23, 2008

KCKID said:
And yet the majority of Christians CONTINUE to use this scripture as their trump card when arguing against homosexuality

Actually, no. It states pretty clearly in Romans that men that have sex with other men:

have abandoned natural relations with women;
are inflamed in lust for other men;
have committed indecent acts with other men; and
received the due penalty for their perversion.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

homosexaulity is sin!

Zecryphon · Jul 23, 2008

DMagoh said:
Actually, no. It states pretty clearly in Romans that men that have sex with other men:

have abandoned natural relations with women;

are inflamed in lust for other men;

have committed indecent acts with other men; and

received the due penalty for their perversion.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

homosexaulity is sin!

Yeah I noticed those verses were missing as well. What's really interesting here is that KCKID is looking for "homosexuality" which is a word that was coined in the 19th-century to describe a sexual orientation. What he needs to be looking for are the verses that address same-sex sex, and as we've seen those verses are missing from this post.

It is possible to conclude that since we see the word "abominations" used in Deuteronomy 29:17-26 that one of the abominations could be same-sex sex, as this is described elsewhere in the scriptures as an abomination. KC seems to be largely arguing from silence here. For instance in Genesis 13:13 the men of Sodom were called wicked and sinners, yet not one sin is mentioned. So according to KC, who needs proof for every statement in the Bible, Genesis 13:13 can't possibly be true, since no sins were listed that the men of Sodom committed. Also, if Sodom was not destroyed because of same-sex sex, why is the destruction of Sodom not provided in this post as proof of the OP's point?

For anyone who needs a refresher here is the story of the destruction of Sodom.

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth
Gen 19:2 and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square."
Gen 19:3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
Gen 19:9 But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
Gen 19:10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.
Gen 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.
Gen 19:12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place.
Gen 19:13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
Gen 19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city."
Gen 19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.
Gen 19:17 And as they brought them out, one said, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away."
Gen 19:18 And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords.
Gen 19:19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.
Gen 19:20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there--is it not a little one?--and my life will be saved!"
Gen 19:21 He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
Gen 19:22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

D.W.Washburn · Jul 23, 2008

DMagoh said:
Actually, no. It states pretty clearly in Romans that men that have sex with other men:

have abandoned natural relations with women;

are inflamed in lust for other men;

have committed indecent acts with other men; and

received the due penalty for their perversion.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

homosexaulity is sin!

Aside from that fact that this in no way addresses the OP, which was about Sodom, you also misuse the Scripture that you cite.

You ignore the fact that Paul states, quite clearly, that the reason for homosexuality is idolatry. Do you believe that homosexuality is caused by idolatry? Is it possible that Paul was refering to pagan temple practices? I think so.

And since he writes about abandoning "natural relations" is it not likely that he was thinking of heterosexual persons commiting homosexual acts? You know, Paul didn't have an idea of homosexuality as an oritentation. He didn't even have a word for it.

But most greivously of all, you ignore the larger context of Paul's argument. Go on and read chapter 2 of Romans and you will learn that no one, Jew or Gentile, has any excuse before God.

Zecryphon · Jul 23, 2008

RegularGuy said:
Aside from that fact that this in no way addresses the OP, which was about Sodom, you also misuse the Scripture that you cite.

You ignore the fact that Paul states, quite clearly, that the reason for homosexuality is idolatry. Do you believe that homosexuality is caused by idolatry? Is it possible that Paul was refering to pagan temple practices? I think so.

And since he writes about abandoning "natural relations" is it not likely that he was thinking of heterosexual persons commiting homosexual acts? You know, Paul didn't have an idea of homosexuality as an oritentation. He didn't even have a word for it.

But most greivously of all, you ignore the larger context of Paul's argument. Go on and read chapter 2 of Romans and you will learn that no one, Jew or Gentile, has any excuse before God.

Perhaps you'd be interested in this article that I posted in another thread: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47917268&postcount=50

D.W.Washburn · Jul 23, 2008

Actually, I have read that. I'm curious, does the Archeolgical Study Bible name the author of the article?

I'm going to reiterate that the concept of homosexuality as an orientation did not exist in the days of the Apostle Paul. Homosexual behavior was practiced in his culture by, I would think, three types of persons (the three are not mutually exclusive):

1. True homosexuals (They have existed as a minority, often closeted, in every human society),

2. Pagan worshippers in the context of temple practices, and,

3. Pederasts who, in an honor/shame society, exercised control over their social inferiors by sexual humiliation.

I believe that the attempted gang rape described in the story of Lot and the angels at Sodom is an attempt at the humiliation of foreigners (the angels).

Zecryphon, I do not deny that the biblical texts are negative in their assessment of homosexual behavior (not homosexuality, a concept that did not exist). I even, frankly, think that the Apostle Paul was condemning of same-sex acts. But, I raise the questions: why are these acts condemned? And, in light of the current state of knowledge concerning homosexuality, do those ancient condemnations still stand?

In the case of Sodom, the story is not about homosexuality, it is about rape.

In the case of Romans 1, which is, admittedly, off-topic in this thread, Paul's mention of same-sex acts seems to be connected to idolatrous worship, and is only a small part of a larger argument that leaves no one any wiggle room. Paul says that both the pagans who practice idolatry and the Jews who judge them are equally guilty.

Using Romans 1 to condemn homosexuals, without recognizing that Paul is making a blanket condmenation of all humanity, including one's self, is a misuse of the text.

OllieFranz · Jul 23, 2008

Actually, in Romans 1:26-27, Paul is referencing a well known example of hedonistic overindulgence. Plato, the original author of the example, had reasons for making the example sexual and the sinners those who engage in the sex withothers of the same sex. But he also made it clear that those conditions were not a part of the sin, and all of his later examples were about drinking and drunkenness.

In using this example, Paul went out of his way to distance the same-sex aspects from the hedonistic sin, to the point of breaking the original parallel phrasing in order to obscure the fact that the women sinners were indulging in sex with one another.

In the Jewish mindset, sex between women was not possible because they didnot have the required equipment. Sex required at least one of the partners to penetrate the other with a male organ.

Under the influence of Greek writings concerning sex between women, this specific question came up. The rabbis quoted in the Talmud dismissed any "rubbing" between women. It simply was not sex.

In any case, Romans 1:18-32 serves quite a different purpose from how it is often used. Paul simply piled up one sin after another to build up in his readers mind a picture of the worst sinner imaginable and abruptly turned the portrait into a mirror in chapter 2, verses 1-3 ff. The point was that going stricly by the law, no one is free of guilt. As he says later in the letter, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Using any of the sins in chapter one to condemn someone else is exactly what Paul was warning against.

Polycarp1 · Jul 23, 2008

DMagoh said:
Actually, no. It states pretty clearly in Romans that men that have sex with other men:

have abandoned natural relations with women;

are inflamed in lust for other men;

have committed indecent acts with other men; and

received the due penalty for their perversion.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

homosexaulity is sin!

Um, no. If you read the Letter to the Romans instead of isolating a couple of verses from it, you fdind that Paul is saying that (a) God's natural law for mankind testifies to Him even without revelatory knowledge as from Scripture; (b) the sinners par excellence whom Paul holds up as familiar and condemptible examples of turning from God to carnal things, i.e., the Roman elite, turned to emnity, backbiting, covetousness, and other vices, including looking for new thrills in homosexual contact when they were no longer sufficiemtly stimulated by their former heterosexual wantonness; and (c) the recipients of his letter, the Christians of Rome, are equally guilty as these ultimate sinners in God's eyes, save for His unearned gift of grace given through Christ's Atonement.

Spinning Romans 1:26-27 into condemnation of gays as though there were no context around it is like quoting Psalms 14:1b, which says, in isolation, "There is no God." (In context, of course, this is what "the fool says in his heart" -- just as, in context, turning to homosexual acts for new thrills is a practice of the spiritually bankrupt.

In short, DMagoh, you are spinning the scripture to make it say what you believe, instead of believing instead what it says -- and quoting out of context to boot. Using the same methods, I could prove that you, being a Baptist, are clearly someone than whom the least in the Kingdom of God is greater. (Jesus said so. Of course, the "Baptist" he was talking about was John the Baptist, but if prooftexting out of context is acceptable, then it's clear that Jesus doesn't believe Baptists will inherit the Kingdom.)

Floatingaxe · Jul 23, 2008

Genesis 19:4-5
But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”

It is very clear that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were extremely perverted morally and sexually, as ALL the men, young and old were given to the perversion of sex with men. In fact they appeared as mobs and given to rape.

That would completely anger God, and especially as they went after holy angels!

You cannot downplay the evil that had taken hold of the many cities of the plains that Lot had found himself compromised to live in. God's judgment of their corruption was appropriate and righteous. Homosexuality was indeed a sign of the level of depravity that they stooped to---godless people that they were. These same godless people exist today and God's anger burns still. It is only because of Jesus that God retains His white-hot anger now. But the end is coming soon. He will not retain it forever.

Maren · Jul 23, 2008

Zecryphon said:
Yeah I noticed those verses were missing as well. What's really interesting here is that KCKID is looking for "homosexuality" which is a word that was coined in the 19th-century to describe a sexual orientation. What he needs to be looking for are the verses that address same-sex sex, and as we've seen those verses are missing from this post.

It is possible to conclude that since we see the word "abominations" used in Deuteronomy 29:17-26 that one of the abominations could be same-sex sex, as this is described elsewhere in the scriptures as an abomination.

Actually, the Hebrew word that the KJV translates as "abomination" in Deuteronomy 29:17 (it is the only instance of abomination I find in the quoted portion) is not the same one used in Leviticus. The Hebrew word typically defined abomination is "toevah", the word used in Deuteronomy is "shiqqûts". The word used, "shiqqûts", directly implies idolatry, the NIV translates it as "detestable images", and as such fits into the context of Deuteronomy 29. The Hebrew does not support homosexuality being meant here.

Zecryphon said:
KC seems to be largely arguing from silence here. For instance in Genesis 13:13 the men of Sodom were called wicked and sinners, yet not one sin is mentioned.

Except you ignore that other scriptures do state the sin of Sodom, in particular Ezekiel, and none of them mention homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 states,

Ezekiel said:
49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Now, the abominations in Ezekiel is "toevah", and as such it is the word that is used for twenty sins listed in the Old Testament. So, while it is possible homosexuality is being mentioned here as a secondary sin, it seems odd if homosexuality was the primary reason Sodom was destroyed that it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Bible as the reason.

Zecryphon said:
So according to KC, who needs proof for every statement in the Bible, Genesis 13:13 can't possibly be true, since no sins were listed that the men of Sodom committed. Also, if Sodom was not destroyed because of same-sex sex, why is the destruction of Sodom not provided in this post as proof of the OP's point?

For anyone who needs a refresher here is the story of the destruction of Sodom.

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth
Gen 19:2 and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square."
Gen 19:3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
Gen 19:9 But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
Gen 19:10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.
Gen 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.
Gen 19:12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place.
Gen 19:13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
Gen 19:15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city."
Gen 19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.
Gen 19:17 And as they brought them out, one said, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away."
Gen 19:18 And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords.
Gen 19:19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.
Gen 19:20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there--is it not a little one?--and my life will be saved!"
Gen 19:21 He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
Gen 19:22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

I might point out that, as you say, this is the story of the "Destruction of Sodom", that the angels were sent to warn Lot to leave and then destroy the city. These events were not the reason for the destruction of Sodom but rather occurred when the sentence of destruction was being carried out.

You really need to read Judges 19. In this chapter of the Bible we have a story very similar to the story of Sodom except the visitor is a Levite traveling with his concubine. The men of the city surround the house where the Levite is staying and call for the Levite to be brought out. Like Sodom, the man of the house refused to send the Levite; unlike Sodom, the man was old and had no daughters to send. So, instead of offering the man's daughters they offered the Levite's concubine, which the crowd accepts. They rape the concubine all night long and she finally dies about the time the sun is coming up.

Judges 19 helps to reinforce Ezekiel's statement of the sin of Sodom, the inhospitality. In the case of Lot's daughters, the men rejected them because they did not desire to hurt the people of Sodom -- which the daughters were -- they wanted to hurt the strangers. In Judges, the concubine belonged to the stranger, therefore by hurting her they were still showing their contempt for the stranger, they were still directly hurting him.

Last, it is worth pointing out that we know the men of Sodom were not all homosexual; if nothing else how would the city continue if they were not have children because they were all homosexual. But more to the point, Lot's daughter's were engaged to men of Sodom, and these were men that were at Lot's house and scoffed at the message of the angels. This again reinforces the point that Lot's daughters were refused because not only would raping them hurt Lot but also hurt the men in the crowd that were engaged to these girls.

Judges 19 provides a context for the story of Sodom's destruction and helps to show that the moral of the story is not rape, it was their pride, contempt for strangers, and inhospitality; in short it was their lack of Love for God and their fellow man, the two greatest commandments according to Christ.

Floatingaxe · Jul 23, 2008

Different isn't the issue. We are all different from each other--that is what pleases God as our creator. The issue is that people are dying daily and entering damnation. As a born again believer in Jesus Christ, my job in Him is to tell the truth, and not sugar-coat it. Follow Jesus and be changed. Avoid sin and live a holy life before Him and with His personal help. Refuse Jesus and His salvation and live your life as you so please, and miss out on wholeness and ultimately, heaven.

KCKID · Jul 23, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
Different isn't the issue. We are all different from each other--that is what pleases God as our creator. The issue is that people are dying daily and entering damnation. As a born again believer in Jesus Christ, my job in Him is to tell the truth, and not sugar-coat it. Follow Jesus and be changed. Avoid sin and live a holy life before Him and with His personal help. Refuse Jesus and His salvation and live your life as you so please, and miss out on wholeness and ultimately, heaven.

Matthew 19:16-21

16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18 "Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself'"

20 "All these things I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

What a simple way for one to acquire salvation. Please note that none of the pre-requisites for the gift of eternal life from the mouth of Jesus include one's having to be heterosexual according to this scripture. Seems as though a homosexual could have come up to Jesus, asked the same questions, and received the same answer.

So, where does one's sexual orientation figure in the scheme of things?

Floatingaxe · Jul 24, 2008

KCKID said:
Matthew 19:16-21

16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18 "Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself'"

20 "All these things I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

What a simple way for one to acquire salvation. Please note that none of the pre-requisites for the gift of eternal life from the mouth of Jesus include one's having to be heterosexual according to this scripture. Seems as though a homosexual could have come up to Jesus, asked the same questions, and received the same answer.

So, where does one's sexual orientation figure in the scheme of things?

The young rich man received an answer from Jesus that was tailor-made to his heart condition. He had put his trust in his own riches, and Jesus zeroed in on that.

If a homosexual person came up to Jesus and asked the same question, Jesus would speak to him about fornication and basic sexual immorality, which causes people to miss salvation as well, if unrepented of.

Jesus knows our hearts and that is one of the lessons of that story. That young man worshiped mammon. A homosexual worships something else.

KCKID · Jul 24, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
The young rich man received an answer from Jesus that was tailor-made to his heart condition. He had put his trust in his own riches, and Jesus zeroed in on that.

If a homosexual person came up to Jesus and asked the same question, Jesus would speak to him about fornication and basic sexual immorality, which causes people to miss salvation as well, if unrepented of.

Jesus knows our hearts and that is one of the lessons of that story. That young man worshiped mammon. A homosexual worships something else.

Thanks for the response.

Any other takers?

Zecryphon · Jul 24, 2008

Actually, I have read that. I'm curious, does the Archeolgical Study Bible name the author of the article?

Not in the article itself, but I came across the names of the archaeologists connected with that particular Bible project last year while looking into that Bible. I'm sure I could find the names again, if I looked.

I'm going to reiterate that the concept of homosexuality as an orientation did not exist in the days of the Apostle Paul. Homosexual behavior was practiced in his culture by, I would think, three types of persons (the three are not mutually exclusive):

1. True homosexuals (They have existed as a minority, often closeted, in every human society),

2. Pagan worshippers in the context of temple practices, and,

3. Pederasts who, in an honor/shame society, exercised control over their social inferiors by sexual humiliation.

I believe that the attempted gang rape described in the story of Lot and the angels at Sodom is an attempt at the humiliation of foreigners (the angels).

I don't see any mention of rape in the Sodom account. I just saw a mob of people desiring to "know" the visitors. No mention of rape. It's KC's assertion that since "homosexuality" was never listed explicitly as the reason for the destruction of Sodom, saying "gang rape" was the real sin is an equal assumption in the other direction.

Zecryphon, I do not deny that the biblical texts are negative in their assessment of homosexual behavior (not homosexuality, a concept that did not exist). I even, frankly, think that the Apostle Paul was condemning of same-sex acts. But, I raise the questions: why are these acts condemned? And, in light of the current state of knowledge concerning homosexuality, do those ancient condemnations still stand?

The light of the current state of homosexuality is what? That it's a valid sexual orientation? Great, so's heterosexuality. But heterosexuals can engage in sinful behavior as well, so I don't believe it's the orientation that's the sin, but the behavior.

As to why is it a sin, any reason I would give would be speculation on my part and will never satisfy someone who think same-sex sex is not a sin, because I am not God. They'd just dismiss it as my interpretation of the Bible and not the reason God has for condemning same-sex sex.

In the case of Sodom, the story is not about homosexuality, it is about rape.

This is not made explicitly clear in the text. This is a conclusion drawn from or an interpretation of the text. The mob never said "we wish to rape your guests". Maybe they just wanted to take them for a drink. We don't know.

In the case of Romans 1, which is, admittedly, off-topic in this thread, Paul's mention of same-sex acts seems to be connected to idolatrous worship, and is only a small part of a larger argument that leaves no one any wiggle room. Paul says that both the pagans who practice idolatry and the Jews who judge them are equally guilty.

Using Romans 1 to condemn homosexuals, without recognizing that Paul is making a blanket condmenation of all humanity, including one's self, is a misuse of the text.

No conservative Christian I have met or talked to on here will ever say homosexuals are sinners, but they themselves are not. The Bible is clear all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I don't want to kill homosexuals or ban them from the church. In fact, I'd love it if they would sit next to me in Sinner's Row when I'm in church on Sunday morning so they will hear a good law and gospel sermon. Sinner's Row is the back row of any church and is where I always sit.

EnemyPartyII · Jul 24, 2008

Ah, I see we're back to the good old days of hiting the report button in place of reasoned argument. Ah the memories.

Sin & The Sodomites

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

DMagoh

Guest

Well-Known Member

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy

Well-Known Member

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy

Senior Member

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads