The Inhospitable Hosts of Sodom

[CopticChristian]

I always thought Sodom and Gomorrha had different meanings and here I find that the entire story is about hospitality. Are there any good Bible scholars that see this differently.

unhinderedliving.com/sinofsodom.html

Why was the culture of Sodom so violent? According to Ezekial 16:49-50, “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. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”

Does it say anything about homosexuality?

Sodom had great riches. The people were very well off, and because of this, they became proud, haughty, thought they were better than those less fortunate than themselves, they were unconcerned about the poor and did not help them. They did not practice the virtue of hospitality.

This was the “Sin of Sodom” - a lack of hospitality.

**
gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html **

Since the Biblical text makes no mention of homosexuality, anti-gay commentators must read into the text, something the text does not say, in an attempt to make scripture say what they wish it said.

Moses and Ezekiel emphasize Sodom’s lack of hospitality, greed, idolatry, gluttony but never mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom.

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702

The Only One That Fits

The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot’s visitors violated the Mid-East’s high code of hospitality (19:9). This inhospitality, however, is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself.

Is this the sin of Sodom?

 

[cjforJesus]

Regardless of what some modern theologians claim,I am pretty sure the abominable acts the residents of sodom were engaging in were homosexual. These types of acts are contrary to the dignity of humans as well as being an entrance for fecal bacteria into the bloodstream.

The Catechism states though we are to love those afflicted with SSA and pray for them.There are many organizations that reach out and minister to this unfortunate group. With proper pastoral care and catechesis they can reach christian perfection and overcome these unnatural desires.

 

[Contarini]

I always thought Sodom and Gomorrha had different meanings and here I find that the entire story is about hospitality. Are there any good Bible scholars that see this differently.

unhinderedliving.com/sinofsodom.html

**
gaychristian101.com/Sin-of-Sodom.html**

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702

Is this the sin of Sodom?

That seems to be the main focus. But it’s a bit more than inhospitality. It’s the gang rape of strangers as an act of aggression. I think saying that it’s about 'hospitality" trivializes the story in our culture, both because our culture has a shamefully low view of hospitality and because hospitality just doesn’t have the same connotations in a world with police forces, motels, GPS systems, AAA, and all the other ways in which we care for travelers through either public or private institutions without personal hospitality coming into play. It isn’t just about good manners–it’s about caring for the stranger versus raping and possibly killing them.

We have no particular reason to think that the men of Sodom regularly preferred men over women sexually. They refuse the gift of Lot’s daughters because the point is to humiliate outsiders in order to affirm their own superiority.

In the similar story in Judges 19, the men of Gibeah do accept the substitution of a woman, because she is also one of the travelers, so while raping her may not be quite as strong an affirmation of their “territory” as raping her husband, it is good enough.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a good scholar of the OT (i.e., someone who knew the cultural context and was interpreting the text honestly) who would say that the condemnation of homosexuality was the main point of the Genesis story. That’s not to say that the same-sex nature of the attempted rape wasn’t an aggravating factor.

I think we need to ask some hard questions about why so many Christians focus on the homosexual aspect and ignore the aspects that the prophet Ezekiel chose to focus on. . . .

Edwin

 

[cjforJesus]

That seems to be the main focus. But it’s a bit more than inhospitality. It’s the gang rape of strangers as an act of aggression. I think saying that it’s about 'hospitality" trivializes the story in our culture, both because our culture has a shamefully low view of hospitality and because hospitality just doesn’t have the same connotations in a world with police forces, motels, GPS systems, AAA, and all the other ways in which we care for travelers through either public or private institutions without personal hospitality coming into play. It isn’t just about good manners–it’s about caring for the stranger versus raping and possibly killing them.

We have no particular reason to think that the men of Sodom regularly preferred men over women sexually. They refuse the gift of Lot’s daughters because the point is to humiliate outsiders in order to affirm their own superiority.

In the similar story in Judges 19, the men of Gibeah do accept the substitution of a woman, because she is also one of the travelers, so while raping her may not be quite as strong an affirmation of their “territory” as raping her husband, it is good enough.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a good scholar of the OT (i.e., someone who knew the cultural context and was interpreting the text honestly) who would say that the condemnation of homosexuality was the main point of the Genesis story. That’s not to say that the same-sex nature of the attempted rape wasn’t an aggravating factor.

I think we need to ask some hard questions about why so many Christians focus on the homosexual aspect and ignore the aspects that the prophet Ezekiel chose to focus on. . . .

Edwin

The sin of sodom was most likely homosexual acts.The Church teaches these are gravely disordered.Hospitality and compassion are one thing but engaging in immoral conduct another.It is only modern theologians who have interpreted the Genesis account differently.

The residents of sodom wanted to have sex with the angels who were guests in Lots house, that being impossible as angels are spirits.Their lust consummed them and they were given a just recompense by being blinded and then destroyed.

 

[CopticChristian]

Regardless of what some modern theologians claim,I am pretty sure the abominable acts the residents of sodom were engaging in were homosexual. These types of acts are contrary to the dignity of humans as well as being an entrance for fecal bacteria into the bloodstream.

The Catechism states though we are to love those afflicted with SSA and pray for them.There are many organizations that reach out and minister to this unfortunate group. With proper pastoral care and catechesis they can reach christian perfection and overcome these unnatural desires.

CF,

Then you believe that the Sodomites were inhospitable and performing abominable acts. Ok.

 

[CopticChristian]

That seems to be the main focus. But it’s a bit more than inhospitality. It’s the gang rape of strangers as an act of aggression. I think saying that it’s about 'hospitality" trivializes the story in our culture, both because our culture has a shamefully low view of hospitality and because hospitality just doesn’t have the same connotations in a world with police forces, motels, GPS systems, AAA, and all the other ways in which we care for travelers through either public or private institutions without personal hospitality coming into play. It isn’t just about good manners–it’s about caring for the stranger versus raping and possibly killing them.

We have no particular reason to think that the men of Sodom regularly preferred men over women sexually. They refuse the gift of Lot’s daughters because the point is to humiliate outsiders in order to affirm their own superiority.

In the similar story in Judges 19, the men of Gibeah do accept the substitution of a woman, because she is also one of the travelers, so while raping her may not be quite as strong an affirmation of their “territory” as raping her husband, it is good enough.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a good scholar of the OT (i.e., someone who knew the cultural context and was interpreting the text honestly) who would say that the condemnation of homosexuality was the main point of the Genesis story. That’s not to say that the same-sex nature of the attempted rape wasn’t an aggravating factor.

I think we need to ask some hard questions about why so many Christians focus on the homosexual aspect and ignore the aspects that the prophet Ezekiel chose to focus on. . . .

Edwin

Edwin,

So it is lack of hspitality, gang rape, same sex aggravation. The issue of context has been raised. Could you elaborate on Ezezkiel?

 

[CopticChristian]

The sin of sodom was most likely homosexual acts.The Church teaches these are gravely disordered.Hospitality and compassion are one thing but engaging in immoral conduct another.It is only modern theologians who have interpreted the Genesis account differently.

CFJ,

So you conclude that homosexuality and lack of hospitality are the issues.

 

[Contarini]

The sin of sodom was most likely homosexual acts.The Church teaches these are gravely disordered.Hospitality and compassion are one thing but engaging in immoral conduct another.

Are you suggesting that engaging in violence against strangers is somehow less serious than committing homosexual acts?

As I said, I think using the word “inhospitality” can be misleading (so, for that matter, can the word “homosexuality,” given that the idea of a fixed quality called “homosexuality” versus “heterosexuality” is mostly a modern invention).

Essentially I think what’s described is very similar to “prison rape.” I believe it’s commonly accepted that the men who rape other men in prison are mostly not what we would normally call “homosexuals.” Nor, I think, is it just a matter of “not being able to get women.” It’s an expression of dominance in an all-male society.

The residents of sodom wanted to have sex with the angels who were guests in Lots house, that being impossible as angels are spirits.Their lust consummed them and they were given a just recompense by being blinded and then destroyed.

I don’t subscribe to the view that “rape isn’t sex”–I think that view results from a naive view of sex, frankly–but I do think that you’re minimizing the role of violence and aggression in rape, particularly in this particular context.

Your interpretation can be supported by NT passages from 2 Peter and Jude, which stress the sexual immorality of Sodom; but on the other hand you have Ezekiel, which lists other offenses before alluding to “detestable things” which may refer to unnatural sex.

I don’t think it’s an either/or. But in the original cultural context I think this is a story about violence against strangers far more than it’s a story about what kinds of sexual desires are “natural” or “unnatural.”

Edwin

 

[cjforJesus]

Are you suggesting that engaging in violence against strangers is somehow less serious than committing homosexual acts?

As I said, I think using the word “inhospitality” can be misleading (so, for that matter, can the word “homosexuality,” given that the idea of a fixed quality called “homosexuality” versus “heterosexuality” is mostly a modern invention).

Essentially I think what’s described is very similar to “prison rape.” I believe it’s commonly accepted that the men who rape other men in prison are mostly not what we would normally call “homosexuals.” Nor, I think, is it just a matter of “not being able to get women.” It’s an expression of dominance in an all-male society.

I don’t subscribe to the view that “rape isn’t sex”–I think that view results from a naive view of sex, frankly–but I do think that you’re minimizing the role of violence and aggression in rape, particularly in this particular context.

Your interpretation can be supported by NT passages from 2 Peter and Jude, which stress the sexual immorality of Sodom; but on the other hand you have Ezekiel, which doesn’t mention sex.

I don’t think it’s an either/or. But in the original cultural context I think this is a story about violence against strangers far more than it’s a story about what kinds of sexual desires are “natural” or “unnatural.”

Edwin

I am suggesting, perhaps contray to many theologians, that the sin of sodom was homosexuality,gravely disordered lust,and not being" inhospitable."

The men of sodom wanted to have sex with angels which is more than lust but a total mockery of God and His creations.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

So it is lack of hspitality, gang rape, same sex aggravation. The issue of context has been raised. Could you elaborate on Ezezkiel?

It’s Ezekial 16:49-50. What’s interesting is that the whole chapter is one of the most sexually explicit in the Bible–it’s a lurid development of the common theme of God’s people (Judah in this case) as an adulterous wife. In this particular passage, God compares Judah’s sins with those of her “sisters” Samaria and Sodom. The sins of Sodom are described this way: “Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me.” I should not have said or implied earlier that Ezekiel doesn’t mention sexual stuff, because “abominations” does often have a sexual connotation, particularly referring to twisted, unnatural forms of sex. So I think this passage gets misused by pro-gay apologists, and I’ve probably bought into that interpretation too much by not noticing the reference to “abominations” and the probable sexual connotation of that word. Still, the “abominations” come at the end of a list of other sins, which are stressed. Again, it’s not an either/or. Also, Ezekiel uses the same word “abominations” (to’evoth in Hebrew) to refer to Judah’s sins (you have committed even more abominations, God tells Judah). But Judah’s sexual sins, luridly described in this very chapter, are presented in thoroughly heterosexual terms (and are a metaphor for idolatry–sexual sin and idolatry are routinely connected in the Bible, including in Romans 1).

The problem here is that the OT authors weren’t thinking in terms of something called “homosexuality” and weren’t addressing the question of whether same-sex relationships could be legitimate. What they were condemning–in this case, gang rape–would be condemned by anyone in our society. And I think it’s very important not to take the sexual element out of the context of the other things Ezekiel mentions.

Similarly, in our society the move to legitimize same-sex marriage is indeed a deeply disordered one. But I think it–and the general sexual license of which it is part–is more a symptom than a cause, and the causes are the same as the one Ezekiel mentions–pride, “fullness of bread,” neglect of the poor. . . .

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

I am suggesting, perhaps contray to many theologians, that the sin of sodom was homosexuality,gravely disordered lust,and not being" inhospitable."

The men of sodom wanted to have sex with angels which is more than lust but a total mockery of God and His creations.

CFJ,

Good Point.

Looking back as we do through Scripture I wondered what Josephus and the ECF had to say…and found this…

Josephus

(194) About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth: they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. (195) God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it

Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; (201) and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer anything immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised, that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers-neither thus were they made ashamed.

For they will not shew sufficient sign of their repentance of what they of old thought to be very excellent, and very advantageous in their practices, unless they entirely avoid all such actions for the time to come: (275) nay, such things are inserted into the body of their laws, and had once such a power among the Greeks, that they ascribed these sodomitical practices to the gods themselves, as part of their good character; and indeed it was according to the same manner that the gods married their own sisters. This the Greeks contrived as an apology for their own absurd and unnatural pleasures.

Clement of Alexandria

The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouting forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness.

Augustine

But to the other, set as he was amid the libidinous frenzy of the Sodomites, who would dare to say, “Although thy guests in thine own house, whither to enter in thou by most violent humanity hast compelled them, be laid hold upon by lewd men, and being deforced be carnally known as women, fear thou not a whit, care for it not a whir, have no dread, no horror, no trembling?”

Can it at any time or place be unjust to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbour as himself. Therefore are those foul offences which be against nature, to be every where and at all times detested and punished; such as were those of the men of Sodom: which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is Author, is polluted by perversity of lust.

He that is guilty of sins not to be named, a sodomite, an effeminate person, a magician, an enchanter, an astrologer, a diviner, an user of magic verses, a juggler, a mountebank, one that makes amulets, a charmer, a soothsayer, a fortune-teller, an observer of palmistry; he that, when he meets you, observes defects in the eyes or feet of the birds or cats, or noises, or symbolical sounds: let these be proved for some time, for this sort of wickedness is hard to be washed away; and if they leave off those practices, let them be received; but if they will not agree to that, let them be rejected.

Chrysostom

Hereby, for example, of old he drove the Israelites to idolatry; hereby he made the Sodomites to burn in unlawful lust. Again, the Sodomites were destroyed for no other cause than their unnatural appetites.

So, I am beginning to wonder why those modern folks see the sin of Sodom as a sin of hopitality?

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you suggesting that engaging in violence against strangers is somehow less serious than committing homosexual acts?

As I said, I think using the word “inhospitality” can be misleading (so, for that matter, can the word “homosexuality,” given that the idea of a fixed quality called “homosexuality” versus “heterosexuality” is mostly a modern invention).

Essentially I think what’s described is very similar to “prison rape.” I believe it’s commonly accepted that the men who rape other men in prison are mostly not what we would normally call “homosexuals.” Nor, I think, is it just a matter of “not being able to get women.” It’s an expression of dominance in an all-male society.

I don’t subscribe to the view that “rape isn’t sex”–I think that view results from a naive view of sex, frankly–but I do think that you’re minimizing the role of violence and aggression in rape, particularly in this particular context.

Your interpretation can be supported by NT passages from 2 Peter and Jude, which stress the sexual immorality of Sodom; but on the other hand you have Ezekiel, which lists other offenses before alluding to “detestable things” which may refer to unnatural sex.

I don’t think it’s an either/or. But in the original cultural context I think this is a story about violence against strangers far more than it’s a story about what kinds of sexual desires are “natural” or “unnatural.”

Edwin

Edwin,

I was prompted to bring this to the forum because of the love I have for a dear Christian Brother that suggests the following concerning Sodom.

The scriptures do not make a comment on this last point could suggest that the central theme of the story is in fact one of love of neighbor and hospitality towards a guest–because Lot is presented here as an ideal host. Any sexuality that enters into the picture is incidental in illustrating that central theme. The story says: it is wrong to rape your guests. It is possible that one can take this further to say: it is wrong to objectify others (a comment on the nature of lust). But to view the story as “homosexual activity is wrong” is really, I think to miss the point.

So, I found the support for the idea in the OP and thought that discussion would enlighten me and my dear Christian brother that may be Rationalizing acceptance of this theme and denial of what is. So I appreciate all the help in aiding my dear brother in Christ to understand differently.