Was Sodom and Gomorrah----

[oneofmany]

about the sin of homosexuality? Now that gay marriage is accepted by the courts many online are saying this wasn’t about homosexual sin at all but some other transgressions and sin but not about same gender sex. What are we to believe about it?

 

[Samwise1]

Curious for the answer also, I remember the wording in this chapter of Genesis is similar to wording about homosexual acts, but don’t know exactly… Waiting for someone to clarify.

 

[JurisPrudens]

about the sin of homosexuality? Now that gay marriage is accepted by the courts many online are saying this wasn’t about homosexual sin at all but some other transgressions and sin but not about same gender sex. What are we to believe about it?

I think, the difference between the straightforward meaning of the text and the “reinterpreted” meaning is obvious to every impartial and reasonable person.

 

[petra22]

Let’s see… wasn’t that the place where the men of the city refused to take Lot’s lovely daughters and demanded the new men visitors??? Hmmmmm. How much clearer can it get???

 

[10gr8kids]

I think, the difference between the straightforward meaning of the text and the “reinterpreted” meaning is obvious to every impartial and reasonable person.

I have to admit that I struggle with speaking evilly of people and gossiping, especially when someone makes me mad. All those Bible verses condemning such speech must really mean something else, there is no way it could really be sinful. If it were, that would mean I’d have to change my ways or risk eternal damnation … couldn’t be that.

 

[Stephen_says]

People have for many years interpreted the story of Sodom to skirt the issue of homosexuality.

Some say that the true sin was being ‘inhospitable’ to Lot’s angelic-guests.

That is not the way that the Catholic Church interprets the story.

The men of Sodom did not want to be ‘inhospitable’ to the Angels, they wanted to have intimacy with them.

Lot even offers his daughters to them, both virgins, in order to save his guests, but the men of the city reject them.

Why were they virgins? Because no man in the city wanted anything to do with women.

It may be striking to our modern sensibilities that Lot would even THINK about giving his daughters to a bunch of strange men. It may possible that heterosexual fornication would be less evil than homosexual fornication. It also may be that Lot was confident the men would reject his offer. Maybe he was just trying to distract them, or trick them somehow.

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many sins, but homosexuality was certainly chief among them, as it was the direct cause of their destruction.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The men of Sodom did not want to be ‘inhospitable’ to the Angels, they wanted to have intimacy with them.

I agree with the gist of what you’re saying, but this is a gross mis-characterization of what we see in this passage. They didn’t want intimacy with them, they wanted to rape them. There’s no two ways about it.

Sodom and Gomorrah is chiefly about the sin of homosexuality. There are numerous times when people are inhospitable to God’s messengers (and even to God himself) and are not met with wholesale destruction. People who refuse to accept the Truth about the ungodly nature of homosexual actions will grasp at whatever straws they can find to justify their actions, but no amount of intellectual dishonesty can change the underlying Truths of God’s law.

 

[Tim_D]

As in most things biblical, there is far more under the surface than is realized. Try googling “Jewish interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah” for a pre-Christian point of view.

Wikipedia also has an excellent article with both the Jewish and Christian perspectives. And before anyone screams “revisionist!,” ponder these words from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 16:49-50Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

49 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.
50 And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.

There is much more there than simply homosexual acts.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As in most things biblical, there is far more under the surface than is realized. Try googling “Jewish interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah” for a pre-Christian point of view.

Wikipedia also has an excellent article with both the Jewish and Christian perspectives. And before anyone screams “revisionist!,” ponder these words from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 16:49-50Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

49 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.
50 And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.

There is much more there than simply homosexual acts.

Verse 50 specifically refers to the homosexual acts, and it’s placement in the list would suggest that it was the catalyst for the final judgment on the city.

The main issue we have isn’t that people are rightly pointing out that Sodom and Gomorrah was God-less in many ways, the problem is that people try to ignore homosexuality as one of the primary reasons behind their destruction or claim that it had nothing to do with it at all.

 

[Corki]

about the sin of homosexuality? Now that gay marriage is accepted by the courts many online are saying this wasn’t about homosexual sin at all but some other transgressions and sin but not about same gender sex. What are we to believe about it?

Sodom and Gomorrah was about moral decay. One of the principle symptoms of that decay was the sexual immorality and rampant homosexual activity of its resident. So, it wasn’t ALL about homosexual activity but that was a central issue.

Now that gay marriage is accepted **by the courts **many online are saying this wasn’t about homosexual sin at all

As if the courts have any authority to interpret Sacred Scripture.

 

[NM505StKate]

From what I have gathered the story is more a point about hospitality and the lack the people of Sodom had. The two genderless angels were/are fully capable of defending themselves from any attack as they blinded the mob.

 

[Tim_D]

Verse 50 specifically refers to the homosexual acts, and it’s placement in the list would suggest that it was the catalyst for the final judgment on the city.

How do you discern that the word “abominations” refers specifically to homosexual acts? Is not contempt and disregard for the poor, indigent, sick and dying, along with violent inhospitality to strangers and those seeking asylum an abomination? I think that you are trying to force a preconceived notion into a verse that does not support your position.

The main issue we have isn’t that people are rightly pointing out that Sodom and Gomorrah was God-less in many ways, the problem is that people try to ignore homosexuality as one of the primary reasons behind their destruction or claim that it had nothing to do with it at all.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that homosexuality “had nothing to do with it all,” but like Corki said, it all encompassed to the moral decay and proclivities of the two cities. It is interesting that it took Christian commentators to specifically label the singular sin of homosexuality to Sodom and Gomorrah. Jewish commentators had a more diverse view.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How do you discern that the word “abominations” refers specifically to homosexual acts? Is not contempt and disregard for the poor, indigent, sick and dying, along with violent inhospitality to strangers and those seeking asylum an abomination? I think that you are trying to force a preconceived notion into a verse that does not support your position.

I arrive at that conclusion because Ezekiel uses the same word: תּֽוֹעֵבָ֔ה (ṯō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) later in 18:12 and 22:11, and in both instances he is referring specifically to sexual sins. I’ll agree that throughout the Bible, “abominations” refer to many kinds of moral evils, but within Ezekiel it is only used in reference to sexual sin.

(Source: biblehub.com/text/ezekiel/16-50.htm & biblehub.com/hebrew/toevah_8441.htm)

Slight Correction, on further review I realize that 18:22 uses abomination in reference to the worship of idols. As such, you may be right that I am placing too large an emphasis on homosexuality as the chief sin. I would still point out, however, that it is the sin which receives the greatest focus in the narrative, which I think would still indicate that it is the primary cause. This is just my personal understanding though, I am not sure what the Church has said on it.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that homosexuality “had nothing to do with it all,” but like Corki said, it all encompassed to the moral decay and proclivities of the two cities. It is interesting that it took Christian commentators to specifically label the singular sin of homosexuality to Sodom and Gomorrah. Jewish commentators had a more diverse view.

The poster above you just said that it was because of inhospitality, so sorry, I have to disagree. This is a misconception that needs to be corrected. Further, we are not saying it is the only sin, but it was one of the chief sins that resulted in their destruction.

 

[NM505StKate]

Wait a second. This story is retold in Judges albeit with a slightly different cast and outcome. In Judges a Levite is the one traveling with his concubine and comes upon a down that is inhabited by Benjamites. The same scene occurs as the fellow Hebrew people want the Levite as he is very attractive. Again a repeat of the host offering his virgin daughter but this time with the concubine thrown in. Mob accepts the concubine and abuse her until morning where she is passed out, maybe dead unsure, on the doorstep. The Levite then takes her home and dismembers her to send to the other tribes. The town, Gibeah, is not destroyed by God for the sin of homosexuality.

I bring this up because the story is a retelling of Genesis. Both mobs were being inhospitable to the visitors, what ever sexual thing they wanted was second only to them being rude.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Wait a second. This story is retold in Judges albeit with a slightly different cast and outcome. In Judges a Levite is the one traveling with his concubine and comes upon a down that is inhabited by Benjamites. The same scene occurs as the fellow Hebrew people want the Levite as he is very attractive. Again a repeat of the host offering his virgin daughter but this time with the concubine thrown in. Mob accepts the concubine and abuse her until morning where she is passed out, maybe dead unsure, on the doorstep. The Levite then takes her home and dismembers her to send to the other tribes. The town, Gibeah, is not destroyed by God for the sin of homosexuality.

I bring this up because the story is a retelling of Genesis. Both mobs were being inhospitable to the visitors, what ever sexual thing they wanted was second only to them being rude.

Judges is not a retelling of Genesis. It shares parallels with past events in salvation history, but that is true of most of the Bible.

In Genesis, God demonstrates the end that comes to those who turn their back on Him. Remember, Abraham begged God to spare the people, and God said that He would do so if Abraham could find a single righteous individual in the city. This was not God bargaining Abraham, there was no give and take; this was God’s way of teaching Abraham why the cities had to be destroyed. There was literally no one in the story worthy of mercy. Lot received special dispensation because of his relationship with Abraham, and his efforts to protect God’s Angels.

In Judges, we are looking at what has become of Jerusalem without a King to guide them. They have become base and God-less. In contrast to Sodom and Gomorrah, we see God’s mercy in his dealings with his chosen people. This would indicate, based on what we see in Genesis, that the whole people of Gibeah were not lost, and that there were souls God deemed worthy of His mercy. Keep in mind that, in later Books, Gibeah is looked upon as a cursed city similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, so it is not as if they somehow get a pass on the moral issues. (Hosea 9:10 & 10:9) God simply chose not to destroy them, presumably on account of His covenant with the Jewish people.

 

[NM505StKate]

Judges is not a retelling of Genesis. It shares parallels with past events in salvation history, but that is true of most of the Bible.

In Genesis, God demonstrates the end that comes to those who turn their back on Him. Remember, Abraham begged God to spare the people, and God said that He would do so if Abraham could find a single righteous individual in the city. This was not God bargaining Abraham, there was no give and take; this was God’s way of teaching Abraham why the cities had to be destroyed. There was literally no one in the story worthy of mercy. Lot received special dispensation because of his relationship with Abraham, and his efforts to protect God’s Angels.

In Judges, we are looking at what has become of Jerusalem without a King to guide them. They have become base and God-less. In contrast to Sodom and Gomorrah, we see God’s mercy in his dealings with his chosen people. This would indicate, based on what we see in Genesis, that the whole people of Gibeah were not lost, and that there were souls God deemed worthy of His mercy. Keep in mind that, in later Books, Gibeah is looked upon as a cursed city similar to Sodom and Gomorrah, so it is not as if they somehow get a pass on the moral issues. (Hosea 9:10 & 10:9) God simply chose not to destroy them, presumably on account of His covenant with the Jewish people.

I don’t believe it was begging, seemed a lot more like bargaining. Surely there were ten babies in Sodom that could be saved besides Lot and his family. If it was meant to be destroyed why even bother in hearing Abraham in the first place?

 

[BillP]

Sodom and Gomorrah is chiefly about the sin of homosexuality. There are numerous times when people are inhospitable to God’s messengers (and even to God himself) and are not met with wholesale destruction. People who refuse to accept the Truth about the ungodly nature of homosexual actions will grasp at whatever straws they can find to justify their actions, but no amount of intellectual dishonesty can change the underlying Truths of God’s law.

The Prophet Ezekial would seem to disagree with your assessment there.

48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
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. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

(My emphasis)

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16%3A48-50&version=NIV

 

[inocente]

about the sin of homosexuality? Now that gay marriage is accepted by the courts many online are saying this wasn’t about homosexual sin at all but some other transgressions and sin but not about same gender sex. What are we to believe about it?

Lot offers his virgin daughters to “all the men from every part of the city”, for gang rape and worse (“you can do what you like with them”). With a father like that raising them, it’s not surprising that the daughters later get him drunk so they can have sex with their dad.

This horrible story isn’t about being gay, as gay men don’t gather from every part of a city to gang rape, any more than straight men do, and the understanding that it’s about hospitality is certainly not new. Around 1750, in his Exposition of the Old Testament, the theologian John Gill writes of Lot’s offer: “the laws of hospitality being reckoned sacred and inviolable, a man’s house was accounted an asylum for strangers when taken into it”. Breaking the laws of hospitality is also how Sodom is referenced in Matt 10 (“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet”).

 

[NM505StKate]

Lot offers his virgin daughters to “all the men from every part of the city”, for gang rape and worse (“you can do what you like with them”). With a father like that raising them, it’s not surprising that the daughters later get him drunk so they can have sex with their dad.

This horrible story isn’t about being gay, as gay men don’t gather from every part of a city to gang rape, any more than straight men do, and the understanding that it’s about hospitality is certainly not new. Around 1750, in his Exposition of the Old Testament, the theologian John Gill writes of Lot’s offer: “the laws of hospitality being reckoned sacred and inviolable, a man’s house was accounted an asylum for strangers when taken into it”. Breaking the laws of hospitality is also how Sodom is referenced in Matt 10 (“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet”).

You bring up solid points. My comparing to the story in Judges was meant to show that it is the hospitality that was infringed upon. In Judges the mob cares not if it is male or female being thrown to them where in Genesis the genderless angels are what the mob wants.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t believe it was begging, seemed a lot more like bargaining. Surely there were ten babies in Sodom that could be saved besides Lot and his family. If it was meant to be destroyed why even bother in hearing Abraham in the first place?

From Abraham’s perspective, he was bargaining. From God’s perspective, there was no bargain to be had because He knew the hearts of the people, and knew that none of them would meet the criteria. As for the babies argument, there’s really nothing to indicate that there were any. We assume that there were, and I’m not saying it’s a bad assumption, but it’s not a knowable fact. If there were any innocent children, we can reasonably assume that God would not allow them to suffer eternally for the sins of their parents.

As for why God bothered to hear Abraham out, that was for Abraham, not for God. You must consider the context of the OT. In Abraham’s times, the “gods” were violent, angry, big humans. In all known non-Jewish/Christian cosmologies (writings on their belief structure), humans were either created accidentally, or as laborers. The ‘gods’ were cruel, and would wipe out life without any reason simply because they felt like it. This was the context in which God revealed Himself to Abraham. In talking with Abraham, and allowing Abraham to bargain as He did, God is trying to make a few points:

#1: Those who reject Him will suffer the effects of their choice, and those effects will be violent and painful (the end result of cutting yourself off from the source of all good).

#2: God does not take His wrath lightly. It was not just some passing whim that He wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah, it was the end result of them losing every last drop of Godliness.

#3 God is merciful. He gave Abraham every opportunity to save the city, stating that even a single righteous individual would warrant sparing it. The fact that Abraham could not find that one individual does not change the fact that God would have spared the entire city on account of one person. All this in spite of the fact that every other person would have continued to engage in unspeakably evil acts directly opposed to Him and everything He created us to be. (You could also say that S & G were in direct opposition to Christ in terms of symbolic meaning. S & G lacked a single righteous individual, and were not saved. Christ, on the other hand, was perfectly righteous, and brought salvation to all people)

I hope this helps ^^