What really is the "Sin of Sodom"

[sniperelite7]

Is homosexuality one of Sodom and Gomorrah's many sins? Because judging by this writing

What was the sin of Sodom?

there was far more worse things than homosexuality going on there.

Yet, after reading this article.

Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

I am right back to square one.

Yet even if homosexuality was one of the reasons for Sodom's destruction. Would it still be relevant now? Seeing we as Christians are no longer under the old law.

Also, upon further reading of the account of sodom. I find the second article's argument kind of weak in regards to condemning homosexuality. Surely there where more accounts of homosexual rape(which is just as wrong for heteros) then just the attempt made on the angels.

I've also read that the "Strange Flesh" mentioned in Jude 1:6-7 could imply bestiality, not homosexuality.

What do you guys think? Or have I just essentially answered my own question?


Lastly, I was discussing whether or not homosexuality was right or wrong according to the biblical law in church today. Rather than addressing my argument that homosexuality was not wrong because what the authors where addressing was pederasty and temple prostitution. He(my teacher) simply made an argument from Genesis, that because God made man and woman. No other relationships where valid.

I found I could not address it then, but now, after thinking about it. It sounds a lot like this.

'Because God made Adam and Eve(Man/Woman, natural order etc), homosexuality is wrong"

Similar to "Because God declared it a sin to work on the Sabbath, it is therefore a sin for your disciples to pick a little grain so that they may eat, on the sabbath."

My problem here then, is that he is finding divine law by implying it is wrong from some circumstance, in this case, Adam and Eve. However, my problem is. Only God can make divine law. If He did not mention it in His book o rules and it doe not harm another(The Golden Rule), then it cannot be wrong.

Again, sorry for the wall of text, as I am in a hurry. But...did I just answer my own question yet again?

In any which case, thoughts?

 

[meliagaunt]

Good luck with this thread. We've been over this before, and it usually ends in tears when visitors whose ideas are not entirely in sympathy with this liberal forum decide we need saving from ourselves or our erroneous ideas need correcting. Then the threads usually turn into angry slanging matches, and moderators have to step in and close the thread.

Still, maybe you'll be lucky, and get some calm answers.

As far as Sodom is concerned, it seems to me on a quick reread of Genesis 19 that what is being described is a lawless society where rape is accepted as an outlet for lust, and the laws of hospitality so important in the middle East are violated. I don't see it has any relevance to questions of the morality of any private, consensual sexual behaviour.

 

[hedrick]

My reading of the story is that Sodom was guilty of pretty much every sin in the book. Did the original authors and readers think homosexuality was one of them? Hard to know, since we're talking about angels, who I always thought don't have a gender. But we know the ancient Jewish attitude towards homosexuality, so it's certainly plausible. But I'd say rape was the primary sin of that particular event, although the fact that the victims were guests and maybe appeared to be men would certainly contribute to the horror.

But that one scene is by no means intended to be the only count against Sodom. It was ripe for discipline even before Abraham and his friends showed up.

 

[Willtor]

It reads to me like homosexual sex and rape were among the sins they were committing, but the inhospitality and the treatment of the poor were the reasons they were destroyed. God brought down an awful lot of societies on account of bad treatment of defenseless people. That's basically the whole of the minor prophets.

Nevertheless, although it never uses the words "homosexual sex" or "rape" I think we're supposed to infer that those things were in the minds of the men of the community.

 

[Jase]

The Sins of Sodom:

Ezekiel 16: 49 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.



A point that most conservatives ignore is that a man raping another man is not homosexuality. Most male on male rapists identify as heterosexual. It was very common in war times in that time period for men to overthrow a village, take captive and rape the male townspeople to humiliate and demean them. Rape is about power and violence, not about sex.

Look at Judges 19 which is the same type of story.

22While 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.”

The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.


If the men were gay, as most conservatives claim, they would not have chosen to rape a woman instead. Judges 19 completely disproves the "Sodom is about gays" theory.

 

[Willtor]

Although I think you overstate things, Jase, as the point of the one story cannot disprove the point of the other (where they did not accept a woman as an alternative), I take your point about power and violence. With that in mind, I think it is hard to see the peoples' sexual orientation as a factor in the story.

 

[artybloke]

The Bible is not a set of rules. It's a set of stories that might well lead to spiritual truths.

What the Bible said 2300 years ago is not neccessarily relevant to the 21st century. Why should it be? We don't run society according to the Code of Hammurabbi.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Bible is not a set of rules. It's a set of stories that might well lead to spiritual truths.

What the Bible said 2300 years ago is not neccessarily relevant to the 21st century. Why should it be? We don't run society according to the Code of Hammurabbi.

We don't run societies according to the Bible either. We aren't talking here about running societies so that comment is kind of off topic. To get back to the topic, in a strictly linguistic sense, wouldn't the sin of Sodom for English speakers be sodomy? Which is not the same as homosexuality but an act of sexual deviance that can be engaged in by people of any orientation. Deviance , in this case, meaning deviating from the norm or deviating from the expected behavioral pattern. In the broader sense adding the element of rape, as the biblical story does, compounds the deviance with violence and, as others have noted, in-hospitality thrown in for a further strike against the Sodomites.

 

[Willtor]

We don't run societies according to the Bible either. We aren't talking here about running societies so that comment is kind of off topic. To get back to the topic, in a strictly linguistic sense, wouldn't the sin of Sodom for English speakers be sodomy? Which is not the same as homosexuality but an act of sexual deviance that can be engaged in by people of any orientation. Deviance , in this case, meaning deviating from the norm or deviating from the expected behavioral pattern. In the broader sense adding the element of rape, as the biblical story does, compounds the deviance with violence and, as others have noted, in-hospitality thrown in for a further strike against the Sodomites.

That's what we call "sodomy" but we can't read that back into the passage. I mean, our contemporary English has only been around for a few centuries. The fact that we call homosexual sex, sodomy, indicates that the sin of the Sodomites was believed to be homosexual sex when the word entered the English language.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's what we call "sodomy" but we can't read that back into the passage. I mean, our contemporary English has only been around for a few centuries. The fact that we call homosexual sex, sodomy, indicates that the sin of the Sodomites was believed to be homosexual sex when the word entered the English language.

I don't think it is correct to say that homosexual sex is called sodomy rather sodomy is a particular sexual act or set of sexual acts that any of those identifying themselves as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual may decide to engage in. The fact that in our society many people only tend to associate it with homosexual sex can be attributed to the "If I do it it's not the same thing" syndrome. I haven't studied the etymology of the word but I would bet that the connotations which the word conjures up were present long before the advent of contemporary English usage.

 

[Willtor]

I bit the bullet and searched the web: c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma (see Sodom). (source)

So it appears to predate modern English, but only by about two and a half centuries.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I bit the bullet and searched the web: c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma (see Sodom). (source)

So it appears to predate modern English, but only by about two and a half centuries.

Nice work. Glad someone has the ambition to do it.

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

Sodom, it seems to me, had some serious problems. A bit of gay sex being the least of them. Fear and ignorance of homosexuality within a certain group of christians would seem to be the main drive with this subject. Homosexuality also being a sin they are very unlikely to commit, makes it a safe one to focus all their hate on, as they then can't be called on it later.

 

[Jase]

Although I think you overstate things, Jase, as the point of the one story cannot disprove the point of the other (where they did not accept a woman as an alternative), I take your point about power and violence. With that in mind, I think it is hard to see the peoples' sexual orientation as a factor in the story.

How are they not related? Conservatives claim the Sodom story is about gays, because they asked for the men to come outside, so they could have their way. The Judges story says the same thing, they asked the men to come outside to have their way with them. But instead, they raped women.

That indicates that just because they wanted to rape the men in Sodom, doesn't mean they were gay. For all we know, they may have raped women in Sodom, and that was left out of the story.

 

[Jase]

We don't run societies according to the Bible either.

That's not for a lack of trying by a lot of people.

We aren't talking here about running societies so that comment is kind of off topic. To get back to the topic, in a strictly linguistic sense, wouldn't the sin of Sodom for English speakers be sodomy? Which is not the same as homosexuality but an act of sexual deviance that can be engaged in by people of any orientation. Deviance , in this case, meaning deviating from the norm or deviating from the expected behavioral pattern. In the broader sense adding the element of rape, as the biblical story does, compounds the deviance with violence and, as others have noted, in-hospitality thrown in for a further strike against the Sodomites.

Sodomy includes both anal and oral sex. Heterosexuals are the overwhelming committers of Sodomy on this planet.

I will point out however, that Sodomite comes from the Hebrew word Qadesh, which means temple prostitute. A Sodomite does not refer to a gay person, despite the modern day pejorative being used to attack gays.

 

[Jase]

That's what we call "sodomy" but we can't read that back into the passage. I mean, our contemporary English has only been around for a few centuries. The fact that we call homosexual sex, sodomy, indicates that the sin of the Sodomites was believed to be homosexual sex when the word entered the English language.

Which is odd, considering:

Deuteronomy 23:17 (KJV)
“There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

That word is Qadesh in Hebrew, which means a shrine/temple prostitute. Has absolutely nothing to do with gays in Hebrew.

 

[Willtor]

Nice work. Glad someone has the ambition to do it.

The trick was to search for "etymology" first, and find an online etymology dictionary.

 

[Willtor]

How are they not related? Conservatives claim the Sodom story is about gays, because they asked for the men to come outside, so they could have their way. The Judges story says the same thing, they asked the men to come outside to have their way with them. But instead, they raped women.

That indicates that just because they wanted to rape the men in Sodom, doesn't mean they were gay. For all we know, they may have raped women in Sodom, and that was left out of the story.

You made that point with the comment about domination and humiliation. _That_ seems to me a proper inference. But pointing out that one story has someone accepting an alternative, does not make the case for this story. I'm saying that if you try to make your case on that basis, you are making an improper inference.

Which is odd, considering:

Deuteronomy 23:17 (KJV)
“There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

That word is Qadesh in Hebrew, which means a shrine/temple prostitute. Has absolutely nothing to do with gays in Hebrew.

That isn't very odd. Remember, the English translation only comes _after_ the development of the English language, not before. The fact that the translator chose "sodomite" for "temple prostitute" indicates that he believed that the sin of Sodom was homosexual sex. That's consistent with a 13th century origin.

 

[woodpeace]

Lot said to the men of the city of Sodom who wanted to rape the two angelic visitors: "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known 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."

If the visitors had been women no one would have thought of suggesting that the story condemns heterosexuality.

 

[Willtor]

Lot said to the men of the city of Sodom who wanted to rape the two angelic visitors: "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known 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."

If the visitors had been women no one would have thought of suggesting that the story condemns heterosexuality.

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