The Sins of Sodom

[savedandhappy1]

By:
Kenneth Boa Th.M.; Ph.D.; D.Phil.

Probably the most often discussed passage in the Bible in relation to homosexuality is the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. On the traditional view, these cities were destroyed because they had become so morally degenerate that homosexual acts were common there. Defenders of homosexuality often argue that the sin of Sodom in particular (the city in which Lot lived) was inhospitality — or more strongly, mistreatment of strangers.
The account in Genesis 19 is an historical narrative and not a piece of ethical instruction, so we should not expect to find a fully developed “case” against homosexuality. In particular, we do not find a general discussion of the moral status of homosexual acts. Still, the attempt by some interpreters to eliminate homosexuality from the picture in Genesis 19 must be judged unsuccessful. For example, it is often claimed that when the townsmen ask for the men staying with Lot (who were actually angels) to be sent outside “that we may know them” (Gen. 19:5, literal translation), that they are demanding an opportunity to interrogate them and are not asking to “know them carnally” (NKJV). But this reading misses two points in the immediate context. First, Lot’s response to the townsmen is to offer to send his daughters out to them so that they can do whatever the like to them (v. 8). This is obviously an offer to satisfy their sexual demands in an alternative way. Second, Lot describes his daughters by saying that they “have not known a man” (v. 8). Here the same word “know” is used as in verse 5, and here it is clear that Lot is describing his daughters as virgins.3 Thus there is no getting around the fact that the men wanted to have their way sexually with the strangers.
A better point is that the townsmen were not seeking consensual homosexual relations with the strangers, but were in fact threatening to rape them.4 There is no denying that such was their intention. However, the underlying assumption in Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters as alternatives was that he saw homosexual acts as inherently immoral. This does not mean, as Spong erroneously claims, that “the biblical narrative approves Lot’s offer.”5 Rather the point is that the whole story assumes that homosexual acts were regarded as particularly strong evidence of moral corruption — the basis for the Lord’s judgment of the cities in the first place. The text does not present a sinless Lot in contrast to a wicked Sodom, but a sinful but believing Lot saved by grace from the punishment brought on the wicked and unrepentant Sodom.
Later texts in the Bible show that while homosexual acts were not the only evidence of moral degeneration in Sodom, such activity was part of the picture. Ezekiel states that Sodom was condemned for their arrogance, failure to help the poor and needy, and their committing “abomination” (Ezek. 16:49-50), which in context appears to refer at least in part to sexual sins (cf. vv. 43-48, 51-58), and which is used in both of the texts in Leviticus (to be discussed shortly) that specifically condemn homosexual acts (18:22; 20:13).6 In the New Testament epistle of Jude, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have been condemned because they had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7).
The claim here is not, as some critics of the traditional view have mistakenly supposed, that the entire male population of Sodom was exclusively homosexual in today’s concept of a person with homosexual orientation.7 But the fact is that at least some of the men of Sodom must have had some experience with homosexual acts for them to come to Lot’s house demanding to gang rape his guests. And evidently the male population of Sodom as a whole was enthusiastically supportive of the idea of some of their members forcing the strangers to engage in such acts.
As wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah were judged to be, there is a sin that is far worse than any they committed. The worse sin possible is the sin of rejecting the mercy and forgiveness which Jesus offers. Jesus said that it would be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who reject his disciples when they bring the message of his saving kingdom (Matt. 10:15). The comparison Jesus makes is this: The angels who went to Sodom were prepared to take anyone who respected them and accepted their message out of the city to safety, yet were rejected and threatened with abuse. The disciples who went to the towns of Israel with the gospel were offering eternal salvation to anyone who respected them and accepted their message; those who rejected them were therefore rejecting a greater salvation and would be judged more harshly. In making this comparison, Jesus is not denying the sexual immorality of the Sodomites; indeed, part of why he refers to them is because their homosexuality had made them in Jewish thinking proverbial examples of gross sin. Nor is he saying that judgment would come on Jewish towns merely for refusing “to welcome His disciples with appropriate hospitality,” as evangelical gay writer Mel White has argued.8 Rather, Jesus is saying that as grossly immoral as the people of Sodom were, their punishment will not be as severe as that brought upon the Jewish people if they reject their Messiah. Jesus’ comparison thus presupposes the traditional Jewish understanding of the time that the Sodomites were destroyed because of their complete moral degeneracy, of which their homosexual practices were symptomatic.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3872

 

[DesignerNate]

You bring up great points. For the most part I agree with your understanding of the passages however I do offer some questions. While I do find that for the most part the bible's references to homosexual acts are in context of immoral sinful behavior, I have to question if this is a fully accurate view on the full nature of homosexuality. It seems that if we lived in a reverse world it could be just as easy to make heterosexuality look pretty awful, had only we mentioned all the horrible things you can do within heterosexuality. So for me the only valid argument against homosexuality is really, was it in God's design, does it fit into God's moral picture of what a pure and honest Godly relationship fall into. So while i do think that when the bible references to immoral homosexual acts it is indeed referencing to sinful behaviors, to me its unfair to complete judge all of homosexuality in the same light.

However the biggest concern I have with my own thinking is, if all we have is negative examples, where then are the positive examples that support that God approves of homosexuality. This is where I myself would have the most trouble. Because while the bible does talk about wholesome honest brotherhood between two men, it never addresses the union of two men (in a marriage setting). Now could this factor only be because the bible is heterosexually biased? Could be, but I for one do not feel comfortable simply making up what I think God thinks of Homosexual Unity. God does speak many great things about how good it is for two men to love each other, and in that context i could be a great support for trying to greater understand God's full design for male/male (or female/female for that matter) interaction.

 

[OllieFranz]

savedandhappy1--

I will respond to Dr Boa's thoughts once I have read through them all. I find it sad, however that you either let him do all your thinking for you, or are afraid to comment on the points you do not fully agree with. Even if you do happen to have independently agreed with all of his points, there should be enough of a difference in personality and perspective where you might have worded the idea differently.

You bring up great points. For the most part I agree with your understanding of the passages however I do offer some questions. While I do find that for the most part the bible's references to homosexual acts are in context of immoral sinful behavior, I have to question if this is a fully accurate view on the full nature of homosexuality. It seems that if we lived in a reverse world it could be just as easy to make heterosexuality look pretty awful, had only we mentioned all the horrible things you can do within heterosexuality. So for me the only valid argument against homosexuality is really, was it in God's design, does it fit into God's moral picture of what a pure and honest Godly relationship fall into. So while i do think that when the bible references to immoral homosexual acts it is indeed referencing to sinful behaviors, to me its unfair to complete judge all of homosexuality in the same light.

However the biggest concern I have with my own thinking is, if all we have is negative examples, where then are the positive examples that support that God approves of homosexuality. This is where I myself would have the most trouble. Because while the bible does talk about wholesome honest brotherhood between two men, it never addresses the union of two men (in a marriage setting). Now could this factor only be because the bible is heterosexually biased? Could be, but I for one do not feel comfortable simply making up what I think God thinks of Homosexual Unity. God does speak many great things about how good it is for two men to love each other, and in that context i could be a great support for trying to greater understand God's full design for male/male (or female/female for that matter) interaction.

If you leave out the variation of "the begats" that reads "and XXX knew his wife and she concieved and bare him a son, and they called him YYY," and suggestive but not explicit descriptions of the activity (for example Ruth uncovering Boaz's feet) the only "positive example" of hetero sex is the Song of Songs. And that speaks of how sexy the lovers are, not about the acts that the perform with one another.

And in balance to Ruth and Boaz, which many claim to euphamistically describing the actions of lovers, but others claim that those who see it are reading too much into it, there is the relationship -- whatever it may have been -- between Jonathan and David. As well as those between Naimi and Ruth, Elijah and Elisha, and Jehu and Jehonadab. All of these may have been non-sexual, or they may have been sexual. There is simply not enough information for us, living in a totally different culture to be certain.

The Bible is very circumspect on the "mechanics" of sex. The most explicit description it gives is the description of the sin of Onan, where you almost have to read between the lines to realize that Onan's sin was coitus interruptus. The word "Onanism" is still wrongfully used to denote mastubation, just as "Sodomy" wrongfully denotes homosexuality.

Only once in the entire Bible is the male "privy member" mentioned. And then only out of extreme necessity. Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids eunuchs from entering into the Tabernacle (later the Temple). But the Hebrew word saris includes other types of not-quite-fully-masculine men than just the sexually maimed, and so the author had to describe exactly who was being excluded.

 

[davedjy]

4 There is no denying that such was their intention. However, the underlying assumption in Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters as alternatives was that he saw homosexual acts as inherently immoral. This does not mean, as Spong erroneously claims, that “the biblical narrative approves Lot’s offer.”5 Rather the point is that the whole story assumes that homosexual acts were regarded as particularly strong evidence of moral corruption — the basis for the Lord’s judgment of the cities in the first place. The text does not present a sinless Lot in contrast to a wicked Sodom, but a sinful but believing Lot saved by grace from the punishment brought on the wicked and unrepentant Sodom.

The biggest problem with this text..."the underlying assumption". There isn't a clear cut "assumption" as to why he offered his daughters, and there are different interpretations as to why he did that. The main one, is that he obeyed the Lord, with the sacred rule of hospitality.


Your text relies on the faulty notion that same sex relations are seen as more heinous of a crime, from same article:

Clearly, the story of the Levite’s concubine is indifferent to homosexuality or heterosexuality —- as is the story of Sodom. A man or a woman would serve as equally valid sex objects. And rape in either case was equally heinous. Sexual orientation is not the point. In fact, neither is the sex. In both stories, the sexual assault only serves to highlight the wickedness of the townspeople. The people of Gibeah and of Sodom are condemned for their meanness, cruelty, and abuse. Not homosexuality but hardheartedness is the offense of Gibeah and of Sodom.



In desert country, where Sodom lay, to stay outside exposed to the cold of the night could be fatal. So a cardinal rule of Lot's society was to offer hospitality to travelers. The same rule is a traditional part of Semitic and Arabic cultures. This rule was so strict that no one might harm even an enemy who had been offered shelter for the night. So doing what was right, following God's law as he understood it, Lot refused to expose his guests to the abuse of the men of Sodom. To do so would have violated the law of sacred hospitality.



So what was the sin of Sodom? Abuse and offense against strangers. Insult to the traveler. Inhospitality to the needy. That is the point of the story understood in its own historical context.



The following information comes from Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/sodomandgomorrah.html

which in context appears to refer at least in part to sexual sins (cf. vv. 43-48, 51-58), and which is used in both of the texts in Leviticus (to be discussed shortly) that specifically condemn homosexual acts (18:22; 20:13).

There is no connection between Ezekiel and Leviticus, the Scholar is grasping for straws, just like he falsely assumes that Lot offered his daughters based upon rape of a man being a bigger sin before God, which wasn't true.

 

[Brieuse]

By:
Kenneth Boa Th.M.; Ph.D.; D.Phil.

Probably the most often discussed passage in the Bible in relation to homosexuality is the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. On the traditional view, these cities were destroyed because they had become so morally degenerate that homosexual acts were common there. Defenders of homosexuality often argue that the sin of Sodom in particular (the city in which Lot lived) was inhospitality — or more strongly, mistreatment of strangers.
The account in Genesis 19 is an historical narrative and not a piece of ethical instruction, so we should not expect to find a fully developed “case” against homosexuality. In particular, we do not find a general discussion of the moral status of homosexual acts. Still, the attempt by some interpreters to eliminate homosexuality from the picture in Genesis 19 must be judged unsuccessful. For example, it is often claimed that when the townsmen ask for the men staying with Lot (who were actually angels) to be sent outside “that we may know them” (Gen. 19:5, literal translation), that they are demanding an opportunity to interrogate them and are not asking to “know them carnally” (NKJV). But this reading misses two points in the immediate context. First, Lot’s response to the townsmen is to offer to send his daughters out to them so that they can do whatever the like to them (v. 8). This is obviously an offer to satisfy their sexual demands in an alternative way. Second, Lot describes his daughters by saying that they “have not known a man” (v. 8). Here the same word “know” is used as in verse 5, and here it is clear that Lot is describing his daughters as virgins.3 Thus there is no getting around the fact that the men wanted to have their way sexually with the strangers.
A better point is that the townsmen were not seeking consensual homosexual relations with the strangers, but were in fact threatening to rape them.4 There is no denying that such was their intention. However, the underlying assumption in Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters as alternatives was that he saw homosexual acts as inherently immoral. This does not mean, as Spong erroneously claims, that “the biblical narrative approves Lot’s offer.”5 Rather the point is that the whole story assumes that homosexual acts were regarded as particularly strong evidence of moral corruption — the basis for the Lord’s judgment of the cities in the first place. The text does not present a sinless Lot in contrast to a wicked Sodom, but a sinful but believing Lot saved by grace from the punishment brought on the wicked and unrepentant Sodom.
Later texts in the Bible show that while homosexual acts were not the only evidence of moral degeneration in Sodom, such activity was part of the picture. Ezekiel states that Sodom was condemned for their arrogance, failure to help the poor and needy, and their committing “abomination” (Ezek. 16:49-50), which in context appears to refer at least in part to sexual sins (cf. vv. 43-48, 51-58), and which is used in both of the texts in Leviticus (to be discussed shortly) that specifically condemn homosexual acts (18:22; 20:13).6 In the New Testament epistle of Jude, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have been condemned because they had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7).
The claim here is not, as some critics of the traditional view have mistakenly supposed, that the entire male population of Sodom was exclusively homosexual in today’s concept of a person with homosexual orientation.7 But the fact is that at least some of the men of Sodom must have had some experience with homosexual acts for them to come to Lot’s house demanding to gang rape his guests. And evidently the male population of Sodom as a whole was enthusiastically supportive of the idea of some of their members forcing the strangers to engage in such acts.
As wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah were judged to be, there is a sin that is far worse than any they committed. The worse sin possible is the sin of rejecting the mercy and forgiveness which Jesus offers. Jesus said that it would be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who reject his disciples when they bring the message of his saving kingdom (Matt. 10:15). The comparison Jesus makes is this: The angels who went to Sodom were prepared to take anyone who respected them and accepted their message out of the city to safety, yet were rejected and threatened with abuse. The disciples who went to the towns of Israel with the gospel were offering eternal salvation to anyone who respected them and accepted their message; those who rejected them were therefore rejecting a greater salvation and would be judged more harshly. In making this comparison, Jesus is not denying the sexual immorality of the Sodomites; indeed, part of why he refers to them is because their homosexuality had made them in Jewish thinking proverbial examples of gross sin. Nor is he saying that judgment would come on Jewish towns merely for refusing “to welcome His disciples with appropriate hospitality,” as evangelical gay writer Mel White has argued.8 Rather, Jesus is saying that as grossly immoral as the people of Sodom were, their punishment will not be as severe as that brought upon the Jewish people if they reject their Messiah. Jesus’ comparison thus presupposes the traditional Jewish understanding of the time that the Sodomites were destroyed because of their complete moral degeneracy, of which their homosexual practices were symptomatic.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3872

Strangely enough, history dictates that sex prostitutes to the God of Malach (sp?) were common practice. This is mentioned in Judges which has a similar account to Sodom.

One important thing about Sodom which most of the anti gay propagandists like to ignore. Is that the men raped his daughter. Interesting that, that means they were not homosexual. They also like to ignore the act of rape here and will rather judge the sexuality perspective.

 

[Brieuse]

Judges 19:22

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

My study bible tells me that "wicked" is usually used in this context to describe men that are involved in pagan idolatry.

 

[savedandhappy1]

You bring up great points. For the most part I agree with your understanding of the passages however I do offer some questions. While I do find that for the most part the bible's references to homosexual acts are in context of immoral sinful behavior, I have to question if this is a fully accurate view on the full nature of homosexuality. It seems that if we lived in a reverse world it could be just as easy to make heterosexuality look pretty awful, had only we mentioned all the horrible things you can do within heterosexuality. So for me the only valid argument against homosexuality is really, was it in God's design, does it fit into God's moral picture of what a pure and honest Godly relationship fall into. So while i do think that when the bible references to immoral homosexual acts it is indeed referencing to sinful behaviors, to me its unfair to complete judge all of homosexuality in the same light.

However the biggest concern I have with my own thinking is, if all we have is negative examples, where then are the positive examples that support that God approves of homosexuality. This is where I myself would have the most trouble. Because while the bible does talk about wholesome honest brotherhood between two men, it never addresses the union of two men (in a marriage setting). Now could this factor only be because the bible is heterosexually biased? Could be, but I for one do not feel comfortable simply making up what I think God thinks of Homosexual Unity. God does speak many great things about how good it is for two men to love each other, and in that context i could be a great support for trying to greater understand God's full design for male/male (or female/female for that matter) interaction.

Thank You for your response, and questions.

We see throughout the entire Bible the mention of sexual immorality not only by homosexuals, but also hetrosexuals.

The only type of marriage relationship that we see throughout the entire Bible though is between a man and a woman. Which to me speaks volumes.

I have seen scriptures that tell us how we are to be brother/sisters in Christ, also. As the church we are to have brotherly/sisterly love for eachother, and I only wish and pray that that was always what we did, but............

Another point I guess should be made would be the fact that if I remember correctly there are 3 different kinds of love mentioned in the Bible. Maybe that is where some of the confussion comes from?

 

[savedandhappy1]

savedandhappy1--
I will respond to Dr Boa's thoughts once I have read through them all. I find it sad, however that you either let him do all your thinking for you, or are afraid to comment on the points you do not fully agree with. Even if you do happen to have independently agreed with all of his points, there should be enough of a difference in personality and perspective where you might have worded the idea differently.

I am sorry you feel that I can't think for myself. I have posted many times in this forum, and ...............................not worth going off topic all ready.

I really thought that the area that I bolded was written very well, and since it was a fresh (to me) look at those scriptures, and since it also was from a person that was new to me,(I came across this writing while looking and studying something else), I thought I would just post it as written. I bolded the area that I hope would be the main point of discussion, but didn't want to make it have to be, if others had other points they felt were important. So many times threads go off topic, which causes confussion and usually the main points are lost when that happens.

If you leave out the variation of "the begats" that reads "and XXX knew his wife and she concieved and bare him a son, and they called him YYY," and suggestive but not explicit descriptions of the activity (for example Ruth uncovering Boaz's feet) the only "positive example" of hetero sex is the Song of Songs. And that speaks of how sexy the lovers are, not about the acts that the perform with one another.

And in balance to Ruth and Boaz, which many claim to euphamistically describing the actions of lovers, but others claim that those who see it are reading too much into it, there is the relationship -- whatever it may have been -- between Jonathan and David. As well as those between Naimi and Ruth, Elijah and Elisha, and Jehu and Jehonadab. All of these may have been non-sexual, or they may have been sexual. There is simply not enough information for us, living in a totally different culture to be certain.

You know I have no idea what you are even trying to say, or what is has to do with what I started this thread about.

In case you might be posting this because you think you are in a different thread, I would ask that you check on that.

If you are posting this because of the OP, then again I have no idea what you are even talking about, or what your comments have to do with this thread, sorry.

The Bible is very circumspect on the "mechanics" of sex. The most explicit description it gives is the description of the sin of Onan, where you almost have to read between the lines to realize that Onan's sin was coitus interruptus. The word "Onanism" is still wrongfully used to denote mastubation, just as "Sodomy" wrongfully denotes homosexuality.

Only once in the entire Bible is the male "privy member" mentioned. And then only out of extreme necessity. Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids eunuchs from entering into the Tabernacle (later the Temple). But the Hebrew word saris includes other types of not-quite-fully-masculine men than just the sexually maimed, and so the author had to describe exactly who was being excluded.

From the looks of it I had better go back and be sure I posted the information I thought I did, because again I have no idea why you are responding with the information you are.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Strangely enough, history dictates that sex prostitutes to the God of Malach (sp?) were common practice. This is mentioned in Judges which has a similar account to Sodom.

One important thing about Sodom which most of the anti gay propagandists like to ignore. Is that the men raped his daughter. Interesting that, that means they were not homosexual. They also like to ignore the act of rape here and will rather judge the sexuality perspective.

Lets see, no they didn't rape his daughters, he offered them in place of the two angels but they refused and tried to break the door in.

The angels then blinded them, and the angels got them (Lot's family) safely out of town.

The bolded area of the OP plainly discusses the rape they wanted to do to the two men/angels, and what would have been the rape of the daughters if the angels hadn't stepped in. So it doesn't appear anyone is ignoring anything.

That area was the part I wanted discussion on, but wanted to wait and see if that was the points that were toughed on the most.

I might suggest that you read the OP, before commenting, and you might make your self alittle more familar with the scriptures also, before commenting. These are only suggestion though.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Judges 19:22

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

My study bible tells me that "wicked" is usually used in this context to describe men that are involved in pagan idolatry.

I am familar with the story in Judges, but it is not what this OP is about, so would ask that if you are wanting discussion on those scriptures that you start another thread.

I am afraid it would get pretty confussion jumping back and forth between the two stories, so really think it would be best to discuss them separately. Thanks.

 

[DesignerNate]

savedandhappy1--

I will respond to Dr Boa's thoughts once I have read through them all. I find it sad, however that you either let him do all your thinking for you, or are afraid to comment on the points you do not fully agree with. Even if you do happen to have independently agreed with all of his points, there should be enough of a difference in personality and perspective where you might have worded the idea differently.

If you leave out the variation of "the begats" that reads "and XXX knew his wife and she concieved and bare him a son, and they called him YYY," and suggestive but not explicit descriptions of the activity (for example Ruth uncovering Boaz's feet) the only "positive example" of hetero sex is the Song of Songs. And that speaks of how sexy the lovers are, not about the acts that the perform with one another.

And in balance to Ruth and Boaz, which many claim to euphamistically describing the actions of lovers, but others claim that those who see it are reading too much into it, there is the relationship -- whatever it may have been -- between Jonathan and David. As well as those between Naimi and Ruth, Elijah and Elisha, and Jehu and Jehonadab. All of these may have been non-sexual, or they may have been sexual. There is simply not enough information for us, living in a totally different culture to be certain.

The Bible is very circumspect on the "mechanics" of sex. The most explicit description it gives is the description of the sin of Onan, where you almost have to read between the lines to realize that Onan's sin was coitus interruptus. The word "Onanism" is still wrongfully used to denote mastubation, just as "Sodomy" wrongfully denotes homosexuality.

Only once in the entire Bible is the male "privy member" mentioned. And then only out of extreme necessity. Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids eunuchs from entering into the Tabernacle (later the Temple). But the Hebrew word saris includes other types of not-quite-fully-masculine men than just the sexually maimed, and so the author had to describe exactly who was being excluded.

From what I got out of the post, what he seems to be bringing up is the fact that bible seems to continue to regard the specific act of homosexual sex as immoral. While i find it true that this seems to be the wide assumption, I stated clearly that this seems to be an extreme misinterpretation. It doesn't sit well with me that because the bible was written in an age where homosexuality was widely considered an abomination, we still have to battle a lot of that viewpoint today. Now in most of the examples that seem to point homosexual acts as being immoral the main reason i can easily find and agree with these verses is because it IS in fact in an immoral way. In Sodom and Gomorrah it wasn't the homosexual act itself, but the act was surrounded in an immoral setting, which was rape. Its important to make the distinction because you can have rape in both settings (homo or hetero).

I find this perspective to be reflective in a lot of conservative viewpoints. For example, I could argue that a conservative Christian who finds homosexuality to be wrong, probably thinks of this when they think of homosexuality. They think of all the gay men going to gay bars to have one night stands and having sex with multiple partners. You can't deny that this kind of stuff takes place, and this type of behavior IS immoral, its unacceptable and a lot of gay men are doing this! However, unfortunately that conservative Christian now has the misconception that the above behavior is what it means to be gay, this OF COURSE is not true! I bring this up because i think folks think of this and the bible even views it like this.

So to me the real factor is what does God REALLY think about homosexuality. And I apologize if I came off like I had settled in some kind of ultimate conclusion, I'm still trying to figure it out. I'm not quite sure why you seem to disagree with me, because to me we seem to be on the same side of the argument. I find that the Bible does look at homosexuality in a negative light, but to me that doesn't justify deeming it as immoral, also i think that if the bible were to give instructions on sexuality, it is HETERO-centric because it was written in a hetero-centric culture. Now while i don't think the bible goes into extreme amount of detail regarding the specifics of sexuality it does try to paint some kind of picture of what is acceptable, and to me the lack of apparent, clear reference to good and pure homosexual relationships does bother me. Which is why i ultimately have trouble COMPLETELY embracing the idea that God approves of homosexuality, however I would love to hear any further evidence or opinion on the subject.

 

[savedandhappy1]

The biggest problem with this text..."the underlying assumption". There isn't a clear cut "assumption" as to why he offered his daughters, and there are different interpretations as to why he did that. The main one, is that he obeyed the Lord, with the sacred rule of hospitality.

Does it really matter why he offered them, since the men didn't want them but tried to break in the door to get the two men?

Nope, the main reason wasn't hospitality that Sodom was destroyed for. We see in the scriptures that there was much wickedness/evil in the cities, and the hearts of those that live there. It is even pointed out in the article I posted. I can't even believe that someone would think it is logical to believe that there only sin was they weren't good host.

Just like we don't have just one sin in our lives, it would be really next to impossible for there to only be one sin in those cities that caused God's wrath to come down on them and destroy them. If I remember my studying correctly there were in fact more then just the 2 cities, that are always mention, destroyed that day. Might have to look that up to be sure of how many if it tells, hmm.

Even if it was just the two cities, thought, it would still be really strange that they only committed one sin throughout them.
Your text relies on the faulty notion that same sex relations are seen as more heinous of a crime, from same article:

[QUOTE=davedjy;40555962]Clearly, the story of the Levite’s concubine is indifferent to homosexuality or heterosexuality —- as is the story of Sodom. A man or a woman would serve as equally valid sex objects. And rape in either case was equally heinous. Sexual orientation is not the point. In fact, neither is the sex. In both stories, the sexual assault only serves to highlight the wickedness of the townspeople. The people of Gibeah and of Sodom are condemned for their meanness, cruelty, and abuse. Not homosexuality but hardheartedness is the offense of Gibeah and of Sodom.[/quote]

As I ask Brieuse, I would ask that we stay with the OP.

Again, I think it will only cause confussion when trying to figure out which story we would be commenting on.

Thanks.

[QUOTE=davedjy;40555962]In desert country, where Sodom lay, to stay outside exposed to the cold of the night could be fatal. So a cardinal rule of Lot's society was to offer hospitality to travelers. The same rule is a traditional part of Semitic and Arabic cultures. This rule was so strict that no one might harm even an enemy who had been offered shelter for the night. So doing what was right, following God's law as he understood it, Lot refused to expose his guests to the abuse of the men of Sodom. To do so would have violated the law of sacred hospitality.[/quote]

Yes, I understand the hospitality rules for that time period, and I also know that the scriptures discuss the many, (more than one) reason that the cities were destroyed

[QUOTE=davedjy;40555962]So what was the sin of Sodom? Abuse and offense against strangers. Insult to the traveler. Inhospitality to the needy. That is the point of the story understood in its own historical context.[/quote]

There were many offenses that the cities committed, and I believe that homosexuality was one of them.

The following information comes from Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/sodomandgomorrah.html

Thanks for the link I will try to look at it later, it is almost 2:30AM here, and I have to go into work some tomorrow, besides watching my sick grandson.

There is no connection between Ezekiel and Leviticus, the Scholar is grasping for straws, just like he falsely assumes that Lot offered his daughters based upon rape of a man being a bigger sin before God, which wasn't true.

Hmm thats strange since I have read in several post, I think even in this section, how the woman were treated like property, slaves, etc. How they were treated really really bad, so why wouldn't the fact that women were considered low on the scales mean that rape was worse if a man raped a man then a woman?

Taking the time frame, I can't see any grasping at all. When you look at the whole picture and how low woman were placed on the human pole.

I'm really tired so I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly back in that time if a woman was rape the punishment was that the man had to marry her? Will have to look this up to be sure, but am just to tired to do that right now.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Great OP.

 

[Brieuse]

I don't believe Sodom and Lot is about homosexuality. As I've mentioned before male on male rape can be an attribute of some homosexuals, however not many homosexuals perform male on male rape.

Let's add a twist, a different interpretation maybe?

"
Because their households have grown too large for them to camp together, Abraham and his nephew Lot part company, Lot taking the low lands. Lot eventually moves his camp to Sodom.
Sodom loses a local war. All the inhabitants, including Lot and his household, are carried into captivity. Abraham rescues the whole city in order to rescue Lot and restores it. In gratitude for his victory, Abraham gives God’s High Priest Melchizedek ten percent of all he owns. The King of Sodom imitates this action and offers to give Abraham ten percent of his property in gratitude. Abraham turns down the offer, saying that he doesn’t want the reputation of benefiting from an unrighteous man’s gifts.
Three “men” appear to Abraham to announce the birth of his son. After a long and pleasant visit, two depart. The third turns out to be God and tells Abraham of a plan to destroy Sodom and the surrounding region. Concerned that Lot would be destroyed unjustly in the cataclysm, Abraham reaches a bargain with God that a population of ten righteous people will abort the disaster. God departs.
Meanwhile, the two “men” who had left the company of God and Abraham arrive at the gate of Sodom and find Lot sitting there. Lot offers them routine hospitality, which they turn down, being mindful of Lot’s status as a newcomer in town and not wanting to place him in jeopardy. They prefer to spend the night in the street, where their actions will be in plain view of the entire citizenry. Lot becomes very insistent about his invitation, so they allow him to have his way and suffer the consequences of his own poor judgment. Shortly before bedtime, all the men of the city gather outside Lot’s house, demanding that he bring out the visitors for questioning. Lot goes outside, closes the door behind him and talks to the assembly. He addresses the crowd as fellow citizens and asks them not to disturb his guests. If they are concerned that the outsiders might be spies, then he is willing to hand over his daughters as hostages to guarantee their conduct. Lot points out that this is no empty gesture; the daughters are virgins. (Sleeping over at a friend’s house would only be a minor inconvenience for the girls.) The crowd is not mollified by Lot’s proposal; in fact it is angered that Lot, an outsider, would presume to judge the way they run the town’s affairs. The crowd surges against Lot, pressing him against the door. The angels in the house reach out, grab Lot and bring him in. They disperse the crowd by striking them with blindness.
The angels ask if Lot has any other relatives in town and reveal that they were sent to destroy the city. This means that Abraham’s bargaining and Lot’s angry town meeting have no bearing on the fate of the city, since God had commissioned the angels before either of those two events occurred. Lot informs the angels of his two sons-in-law and receives instructions to warn them, which he proceeds to do. They do not heed the warning because they think it is a joke. Then Lot’s family settles down for the night and goes to sleep. Just before dawn, the guests awaken the family and urge them to flee. Lot lingers, so they grab him by the hand in an act of unusual mercy and help him up. The angels instruct the family to flee to the hills without looking back. Lot points out that the distance is too great and asks permission to flee to a small town. Permission is granted, but haste is urged. (Lot’s assurance that the town is very small betrays that he suffered the common misconception that God delights in punishing as many evil people as possible.) When Lot’s family reaches the town, the destruction is unleashed. Lot’s wife, like the sons-in-law, disobeys instructions. She looks back and is transformed into a pillar of salt.
Meanwhile up in the hills, Abraham’s morning constitutional takes him by the place that overlooks Sodom and he finds that the region has been destroyed."

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz,

I will respond to Dr Boa's thoughts once I have read through them all. I find it sad, however that you either let him do all your thinking for you, or are afraid to comment on the points you do not fully agree with. Even if you do happen to have independently agreed with all of his points, there should be enough of a difference in personality and perspective where you might have worded the idea differently.

The citation is good because it describes the flaw in arguments against the Genesis 19 account condemning same-sex sex. The issue is what is daid about the account not your opinion and judgement of the person who posts it.
As to the passage quoted, its points are convincing and valid and to deny them would merely be illogical and disbelief. Alas instead of addressing the OP you have decided to discuss other passages. Incidentally, the apostles loved a man more than any woman, and even died for Him, He was called Jesus, they even kissed Him too.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Brieuse,

I don't believe

Sodom and Lot is about homosexuality.

Then you are a non-believer. The word homosexual means having same-sex attraction, you believe that don’t you? it is in the dictionary. The men wanted ti know carnally the visitors they thought were men. That’s homosexual attraction by definition. Lot said this was a wicked thing and offered his daughters instead. All your attempt to deny the facts does is assume heterosexual rape is ok but homosexual rape isn’t.

As to your account, its ok until the bit about the homosexual practice where you start to change what the story says. Your account doesnt match the Bible text as the OP does, yet you havent specifically addressed the OP points.

 

[Brieuse]

Dear Brieuse,
Then you are a non-believer. The word homosexual means having same-sex attraction, you believe that don’t you? it is in the dictionary. The men wanted ti know carnally the visitors they thought were men. That’s homosexual attraction by definition. Lot said this was a wicked thing and offered his daughters instead. All your attempt to deny the facts does is assume heterosexual rape is ok but homosexual rape isn’t.

As to your account, its ok until the bit about the homosexual practice where you start to change what the story says. Your account doesnt match the Bible text as the OP does, yet you havent specifically addressed the OP points.

Really, where does my account not match the text?

The word "Yada" is translated as "know". I'd be interested to see how some translations have defined it as "know carnally" as the majority usage is simply "know".

Not quite sure how you define me as a non-believer, it's logical what I said. Say it was the men of Lot wanting to rape the angels and say the angels were female. By your logic, heterosexuality is a sin. Your logic is very strange.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Brieuse,
Then you are a non-believer. The word homosexual means having same-sex attraction, you believe that don’t you? it is in the dictionary. The men wanted ti know carnally the visitors they thought were men. That’s homosexual attraction by definition. Lot said this was a wicked thing and offered his daughters instead. All your attempt to deny the facts does is assume heterosexual rape is ok but homosexual rape isn’t.

As to your account, its ok until the bit about the homosexual practice where you start to change what the story says. Your account doesnt match the Bible text as the OP does, yet you havent specifically addressed the OP points.

You continue to tell people who interpret the Bible differently from you, or who understand Christianity differently from you, that they/we are non-believers. Maybe there are Christians who are just different believers than you are; they do not share your interpretations and understandings of what it means to be Christian. That does not make them non-believers. There is not one way to see things. We each see in our own way.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Briesue,

Really, where does my account not match the text?

IS it worthwhile me pointing out again to you what the OP says? Let me do so.

demanding that he bring out the visitors for questioning.

The word yada I this context means to know carnally as has been pointed out in the OP. It can’t be questioning in this case because questioning isn’t wicked and Lot was righteous and there would be no point offering his daughters for the people to question if they were already living in the town and it was the visitors they wanted to question. Your interpretation makes no sense in relation to what the text says.

He addresses the crowd as fellow citizens and asks them not to disturb his guests.

What is wicked in questioning guests? Sorry you haven’t understood the text or read the OP.

If they are concerned that the outsiders might be spies, then he is willing to hand over his daughters as hostages to guarantee their conduct.

where does the text imply spies, that’s an assumption. So you have made an assumption about the text but not addressed what the text says

The word "Yada" is translated as "know". I'd be interested to see how some translations have defined it as "know carnally" as the majority usage is simply "know".

Is there any point in telling you as this forum has already explained this several times. Genesis 4 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain” And no Adam didn’t question Eve and conceive .

Not quite sure how you define me as a non-believer, it's logical what I said..

I define you as a non-believer because it is not only illogical what you say, but it is illogical because you ignore and fail to address what the text says as pointed out in the OP. If you addressed the text pointed out in the OP it makes what you say illogical.

Say it was the men of

Lot wanting to rape the angels and say the angels were female. By your logic, heterosexuality is a sin. Your logic is very strange

Firstly it doesn’t say rape, it says yada to know and if oit wasa rape it wouldn’t matter where the daughters were raped or the visitors, except that the men obviously would have wanted homosexual rape, which Lots said is wicked rather than heterosexual rape which Lot didn’t say was wicked. Even your strange incorrect ideas don’t make sense in themselves
But in this you also reject Jude 1 which says Sodom gave themselves up to sexual immorality, we know there was adultery even from Jeremiah, yet no heterosexual is disputing the meaning there was sexual immorality. Also the men of Sodom were blinded, hardly for questioning?
Furthermore we see from 2 Peter 2 that the account is confirmed Lot was rescued, none of the men of Sodom were, they perished.

 

[lincolngreen50]

Strangely enough, history dictates that sex prostitutes to the God of Malach (sp?) were common practice. This is mentioned in Judges which has a similar account to Sodom.

One important thing about Sodom which most of the anti gay propagandists like to ignore. Is that the men raped his daughter. Interesting that, that means they were not homosexual. They also like to ignore the act of rape here and will rather judge the sexuality perspective.

No matter how you try to cut it the People of Sodom were sinners and except for Lot and his immediate family they were destroyed by God`s hand.
The Bible describes the sin that these people were into,sexual immorality,Buggery,Rape,to mention a few.
There are many types of sin that God hates.Homosexuality is just one of them.
If one wants to discuss the sin of stealing,lets have a sub thread for it.We are discussing the sins of Sodom and as far as I am concerned they were destroyed for gross sin.The fabric of that society had broken down into anarchy.