Sodom and Homosexuality (Seeking Constructive Criticism)
Offline (Edit: I have made this a blog entry. If you have some constructive criticism, please reply there instead of here. Thanks!)
Those who think the Bible describes homosexuality as sinful will often point to Genesis 18-19, saying, "God destroyed Sodom and most of its inhabitants for homosexuality." Through my study, I've concluded that Genesis 18-19 says God destroyed Sodom for a different reason and it does not condemn homosexuality. Here I shall explain why I think that.
In Genesis 13, Lot and Abraham decide to go separate ways, each choosing a land for himself. Abraham settled in Canaan; Lot settled in Sodom. With some diligence, you can walk from one city to another in less than a day. Now we shall consider Genesis 18-19 with this information in mind.
In Genesis 18, around noon, Abraham has a vision of God, then three men approach his encampment. He hurried toward them and bowed, offered them food to eat and water to clean their feet with. Sarah, Abraham's menopausal wife, made leavened bread for them. Abraham's concern for their welfare pleased God so one of the men told Sarah she would bare a child. Sarah giggled, thinking he jested. (After the destruction of Sodom, we learn her error when she bared Isaac.) When ready to leave, Abraham walked the visitors a short while to point them to Sodom.
In Genesis 19, in the evening of the same day, two angels approached the gates of Sodom. (It seems Abraham's visitors consisted of these angels and God.) Lot, seeing them approach, rose to his feet, bowed, and offered food and a place to rest. The angels reluctantly agreed. After eating, and before laying down to rest, "all the men of Sodom" surrounded Lot's home, demanding he release the angels so they could "know" them. Lot offers his virgin daughters, hoping to protect the angels, but the mob refused and threatened him. The mob decided to break down the door, but the angels intervened and blinded them. The angels decided, God should destroy Sodom but leave alive Lot and his family. After learning what would happen to Sodom, Lot told his sons-in-law to escape; but they laughed, thinking he spoke in jest or had lost his mind. (We learn their error when fire enveloped them.) Lot and some of his family left Sodom for safety. The mother, not following the angels' instructions, looked back and turned to a pillar of salt.
Genesis 18-19 has obvious parallels. Both Abraham and Lot bowed to the visitors from afar, invited them into their homes, had their wives bake bread, and so on. The parallel focuses on their concern for their visitors' welfare. That parallel continues but the parallel between Canaan and Sodom comes to an end when the mob appears in Genesis 19 to try harming them. Continuing the parallel of Lot and Abraham, Lot and his daughters prepared to sacrifice their welfare to ensure that of their visitors. The parallels connect hospitality with virtuosity and inhospitality with wickedness. Ezekiel 16.48 supports this, saying, "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." The story teaches a second lesson through Sarah's pregnancy and Lot's sons-in-law's destruction: God does not jest.
I can hear the argument coming, "Men comprised the mob in Sodom. The mob wanted to 'know' the male angels. That seems like a clear-cut case of men having homosexual desires and acting on them. The story links the destruction of Sodom to the desires and behavior of its inhabitants. How could you think Genesis 18-19 does not condemn homosexuality?" To answer this, I now turn to the Hebrew wording and the literary and cultural context of the story.
First, the literary context. On what basis would God destroy Sodom? In Genesis 18.32, God says to Abraham, "For the sake of ten [righteous people] I will not destroy it." Sodom had fewer than ten righteous people. Lot, his wife, his two virgin daughters, and his sons-in-law bring us to at least six righteous people. Could Sodom have, at most, three righteous people? How does Sodom have so few? Did "all the men of Sodom" have no children? If they had some, how would God judge them as wicked for the actions of their fathers? If they had none, did they have wives? If so, how would God judge them as wicked for the actions of their husbands? If they had no wives, why do males predominate Sodom? Did they, as boys, decide at a council meeting to homosexually rape travelers? If they had homosexual desires, why not for Lot or one another? If the men had no wives or children, the wicked would naturally dwindle to nothingness without a means to procreate, thus allowing the seed of Lot to have the city to rebuild from scratch, so why would God destroy Sodom? The literary context doesn't seem to make sense from the perspective of condemning homosexuality.
Perhaps we'll find some answers in the Hebrew. The translators provided "men" as a translation of 'enowsh, but what does 'enowsh mean? It means "those of humankind," rather than just "men." The women, and perhaps children, also comprised the mob. Did the children help the fathers "know" the angels or did they want to "know" the angels themselves? Did the mothers approve? Did the women help their husbands "know" the angels or did they want to "know" the angels themselves? If the women and girls wanted to "know" the angels, how does that jive with condemning homosexuality? The Hebrew seems to have answered the questions about whether the men of the mob had wives and children, but now they constitute a part of the mob. Now we have more questions!
We find the solution in the cultural context. Why did the mob want to "know" the angels, the outsiders, but not Lot or one another? I can think of three explanations. First, the men helped the women to "know" the angels, thus birthing a small army of Nephilim. Second, mostly heterosexual men of Sodom, like those of other ancient cultures, sexually assaulted outsiders to assert dominance and strip them of their masculinity—an everyday act in modern prisons. Third, combine those explanations. These all work to answer the question, but notice that homosexuality cannot explain the behavior of the mob since it doesn't account for females and that heterosexuality can explain it. If you remove homosexuality from the equation, everything adds up and you get the view of Ezekiel 16.48.
I therefore conclude that Genesis 18-19 says God destroyed Sodom for its heartlessness, for their lust for flesh or power, and nowhere condemns homosexuality as we understand it today.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
Me thinks it was more likely destroyed for being in an earthquake zone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1497476.stm
Either this or the story of it's destruction is pure myth.
Stop global whining.
Thanks for the response EXC. You pegged an imprecision in my wording that I didn't notice when I was typing it. I meant the conclusion to read more like, "If I believed Sodom was destroyed by God, my interpretation of it would be X rather than Y." I will work on rewriting the conclusion to reflect my thoughts more precisely. Thanks for the response
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
I rewrote the text and made several improvements. I fixed two imprecisions related to EXC's post, reorganized the text into smaller paragraphs, improved concision (cut 405 words), and fixed a misspelling.
If anyone has any suggestions, please reply with them
(Edit: I've further improved concision.)
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
...you and I seem to see pretty much eye to eye on this issue. Of course, the kind and level of importance has changed for me, for obvious reasons.
Conor
It's not terribly important for me, either. I simply find various topics about the Bible interesting
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
Dude the bible is very clear, especially in the books of Corinthians and Romans basically the Laws
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Even if there was no homosexuality terminology in the bible. The bible is very clear that God put man and woman together and marriage is only meant for them and since God sees lusting and sex out of marriage a sin then no matter how you slice and dice homosexuality is a sin.
Sin=arbitrarily forbidden thing. Good thing laws aren't based around biblical laws and sins. Oh, and you seem to have missed the point of the OP. It's very specific. It's about Sodom and homosexuality not about passages in Corinthians.
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
"Those who think the Bible says homosexuality is sinful will often point to Genesis 18-19"
I merely showed otherwise and laws ARE based around biblical laws, where else did we get them from?. O wait! don't tell me, ah yes our laws evolved from nothing. Like we just automatically knew what was right and wrong.
Yeah! If it wasn't illegal to kill people I'd be doing it all the time and I would have absolutely no idea that it was wrong.
Science. It works, bitches.
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
Douglas Adams
Well that doesn't stop hundreds of people in this country alone from committing murders. Without God or a lawgiver we can't have universal laws, otherwise it would be objectional morality and murder wouldn't be wrong just different.
Why do some muderers who eventually got away with it come back or admit later they felt remorse. I am talking about some of the worst people from gang bangers, mafia hit men to bad soldiers. They got away with it and yet they know they did wrong
Because humans are social creatures that depend on the help of other humans to survive.
To kill another human not only goes against our natural instincts (except for some disturbed pyschopaths) but it runs against our natural tendency to empathize. These are all traits that were selected for in our evolutionary history. It helped our species to survive.
Even soldiers will mock their enemies among their buddies in an effort to dehumanize them to help themselves not get so upset by killing them. Even if they have to kill them to save themselves.
Science. It works, bitches.
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
Douglas Adams
Dude you just said it was based on the laws of knowing what is right and wrong and now you say, it is instinct, then you do know the difference of right and wrong?
The bible says different- we are children of the devil/ we are children of God's wrath. He has every right to kill us because we disgust him- we are vile, sinful creatures.
Under the right conditions, circumstances etc... every man woman and child on this planet is capable of committing the most brutal, heinous ats of violence. We see it all over the world from Ruwanda to Nazi Germany.
Man's natural instinct is sin. We knows its wrong to murder because were told so by Him. "He wrote his laws in every man's hearts" even when we get away with it because God convicts us but we suppress it anyway.
As soon as a baby is born he or she is doing wrong and if that baby throws a tantrum and had the strength of a man twice your size, he would rip off your arm and beat you to death with it.
I didn't concern myself with what was said about homosexuality outside Genesis 18-19 so everything else is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm bored though, so I guess I can respond to your arguments
Actually, it is not very clear, as I will show.
The 1 Corinthians 6.9 translation you offered is horrible.
Malakoi means "the soft." Prejudice led people to think of that as effeminate, and prejudice led to thinking of effeminate as homosexual, but "the soft" actually refers to rich men who wore soft, expensive clothing. The verse is referencing the same group as the saying that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man entering heaven.
Arsenokoitai, on the other hand, is a combination of two Greek words, Arren (male) in the form of Arsen (guys) and Koitai (go to bed). Arsenokoitai literally translates to "guys who go to bed" and means "guys who have sex." I highly doubt 1 Corinthians 6.9 was saying heterosexuals had no chance of inheriting the kingdom, so the word must be idiomatic. Where can we find the meaning? Well, Arsenokoitai appears only three times throughout the entirety of ancient Greek writings. The first is the one we're considering, so it's no use. The second is also found in a list with no context to enlighten us. The third and last occurs in a Greek Father's commentary on exactly this passage. He gives the meaning "guys who have sex with boy prostitutes."
Presumably, the reason for his definition is that Paul was using the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, and there you will find that Leviticus 20.13 has "arsen koitai." Leviticus 20.13 says it's an abomination for men to lie with males as if they were women. But what does "as if they were women" mean? Leviticus 20 was condemning the religious rituals of nearby Pagan temples. The ritual was supposed to keep their soils fertile and ensure a good growing season. To complete the ritual, you'd become the avatar of Molech or Baal and have sex with an avatar of the goddess Ashtereth. To lie with the avatar, you must give an offering valuable enough to persuade the avatar with you. The avatar was often played by young girls and boys in masks. Young boys were often the avatar of the goddess and the men, aftering paying, would lie with them "as if they were females." I suspect the Hebrews thought it was abominable because the boy didn't know better, having been essentially brainwashed, and the men visiting the temple would strip him of his masculinity—ssentially what the mob of Sodom tried to do to the two angels.
1 Corinthians 6.9 condemns rich men who spoil themselves instead of giving to the poor, men who have sex with boy prostitutes, and many other things but nowhere does it condemn homosexuality as we understand it today.
As for Romans 1.26-27 (please give verse numbers so those reading this discussion will know what you're talking about), doesn't condemn homosexuality either. This verse is talking about Roman Pagan idol worship in the Julio-Claudian era, which involved rough orgiastic sex involving many, many members, both male and female one big event of rough group sex. Notice that Romans 1.26-27 says the men "were working to keep burning up lust for one another." This means the lust wasn't arising within them naturally, which means they were heterosexual and didn't have any genuine attraction to other men. The heterosexual men and women actively supressed their heterosexuality out of religious duty in order to participate in the orgiastic idol worship. And their sex was rough too. It says in Romans 1.26-27 that they "received in their bodies the proper marks for their perversion." I've know a few homosexual couples and they never had marks on their bodies from what they do in their bedroom. Romans 1.26-27 doesn't condemn homosexuality, it condemns the violent and unnatural orgies in Pagan idol worship.
The only way Romans 1.26-27 can be considered a condemnation of homosexuality is if one accepts that all homosexuals are actively suppressing their heterosexuality, but that notion is ludicrous.
You're misusing the term homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't an act, it's an orientation, just like heterosexuality. It's quite possible to be a celibate homosexual, attracted to those of the same sex but not acting on those attractions, just like celibate heterosexuals. Both groups experience lust so lust cannot be used as an argument against one but not the other unless you argue for disproportionate lust among homosexuals but there's no reason whatsoever to accept that conclusion. The promiscuity argument here won't work because there's ample justification for thinking promiscuity results from denying them the marital incentive toward monogamy. There is absolutely no biblical justification for forbidding celibate homosexuality.
Further, I'm not aware of any instace where the Bible says marriage is allowed or forbidden to homosexuals. To come away with the interpretation of forbidding marriage you must read your own prejudices into the text, in which case you're no longer interpreting but contorting the text. Also, one could argue that because Genesis 2.18 says it isn't good for men to be alone that we can infer that homosexuals would be left alone if they didn't find similar partners and therefore it is bad for homosexuals to not fall in love with other homosexuals. And if we can infer that homosexuals falling in love with eachother is supported biblically, then there's a good argument for extending marriage to include homosexuality. Further, the marital institution would give incentives to homosexuals to abstain from promiscuity which would translate into a reduction of sin. Aren't Christians supposed to work toward reducing sin in the world? There are good Bible-based reasons to not condemn homosexuals because of whom they're attracted toward and to extend marriage to include homosexual partnerships.
(This is all irrelevant to the U.S. Government's institution of marriage, which is secular in nature. It does't matter what religious persuasion a person has, there's no valid reason to bar homosexuals from entering secular marriages.)
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
Dude, the first post I made was sarcasm showing you how idiotic your statement was. I guess that flew right over your head, huh?
If we disgust god he has no one to blame other than himself. He made us. However, it's not like he exists. And yes everyone is most likely capable of doing brutal acts of violence. I have a book that speaks of this. People are capable of doing that. However, it is most often done among a "community" of people doing it to another people that they dehumanize.
Sin is nonexistant. Figment of your imagination. Just like gods.
Babies would be brutal at first if they were super strong. However, that is because they don't understand the consequences to their actions yet. That's something you learn growing up among your fellow humans in a society. Not from an ancient book written by men that didn't even know that stars were other suns or that the Earth went around our star and not the otherway around.
The bible states that bats are birds, that insects have four legs, that snakes and donkey's can talk, that unicorns exist, etc.
Science. It works, bitches.
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
Douglas Adams
The bible is very clear on homosexuality! It is a no brainer. Paul is as clear as day especially when he was in Greece and Rome.
I thought human beings were born with a natural instict, so now it's learned behaviour?
The bible is not a science book but I can point things in the bible long before man dicovered it, how about the passage, he hangs the earth on nothing.
The rest is just strawman tactics that have been explained time and time again, and if you were a "Christian" for 15 years you would know the theological rebuttal on unicorns talking etc......
Natural instinct=Not kill your fellow humans.
Learned behaviour=What it takes to kill your fellow humans.
No, the bible is definetly not a science book. It's pathetic fiction.
I called myself Christian for 30 years. You sound like me 15 years ago. This is simple logical thinking. *snaps fingers* Try to keep up.
Please inform me of the theological rebuttals for the following verses:
Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:19 "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
The unicorn: Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7.
Get ready for some heavy duty "how can I make this crap make sense" rationalizing.
Science. It works, bitches.
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
Douglas Adams
Cad, it's okay. We're an understanding bunch, here. You don't have to repress your feelings or sexuality while you're on these boards. Anyone can see that you're just projecting; it's time to come out of the closet. You're safe.
How long have you known you were gay?
'We accepted the products of science. We rejected it's methods.'
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
Paul referred to Pagan idol worship, never mentioning homosexuality as it's understood today.
Neither. Humanity has a diversity of instincts per biological subject. Scientists of have found a correlation between hyper-heterosexuality in mothers and aunts and homosexuality in sons and nephews. This means maternal hyper-heterosexuality could genetically pass to offspring, increasing the chance of homosexuality—of also finding males attractive. I do not know of any studies about the paternal side, but I see no reason to think it would work differently. Hyper-heterosexuality could bring forth homosexuality and bisexuality in this manner. I see many possible natural instincts so your question seems to contain a false dichotomy in presenting "one instinct" and "learned behavior" as the only possibilities.
You need to put the verse in its context. The author simply said the earth does not sit on a turtle, that sits on a turtle, that sits on another turtle, ad infinitum. You have tried to extract an entire perspective of cosmology from a simple rebuke of one form of Paganism.
The Old Testament does contain a view on cosmology but it disagrees sharply with the modern view. The author of Job 37.18 attributed solidity, "like a cast metal mirror," to firmament, the outermost layer of our atmosphere. He missed the mark completely, but where did he get that idea? He got it from reading and interpreting Genesis 1 in a super-literal manner, which describes the wind of Elohim blowing over the deep waters and then Elohim made the firmament to separate the water inside from the water outside. Water outside the firmament, the outermost layer of our atmosphere? If our seas and oceans consist of just a portion of the primordial waters, how much water would we find outside the firmament? You'd need a sturdy structure, solid and firm like a cast metal mirror, to prevent the water from crushing those inside the firmament. Elohim arranged the stars inside the firmament, which rotated to move the constellations through the sky, and had the Sun whirl around the planet except for when Yahweh supposedly stopped the Sun over Gibeon for Joshua. The Old Testament does contain a cosmological view but it disagrees, quite dramatically, with the modern view.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA!
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
I'm not going to get involved in the discussion of homosexuality, that comes down to intolerance, ignorance and one's own sexual insecurities. On the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah; there is no evidence archeologically that they existed. The bible is contradictory as to the time they "existed" and even the events surrounding their destruction. Geologically, there is no evidence that the fertile plains in which they were supposedly located ever existed either. god's reason for the destruction of S&G had to do with the lack of hospitality of it's inhabitants, not homosexuality, that's simply what a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic, closest child molestors in the church have twisted the meaning of this particular midrash to mean.
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
I like your scholarship, Visual_Paradox....keep up the good work...those are good questions for me to think about.
If being gay is wrong how comes Captain Jack from Doctor Who and Torchwood is always saving the world?
And please don't come up with any crap about Doctor Who being fiction as you've already gone around quoting the bible!
I don't know if I'd call it scholarship, though I do appreciate the compliment
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
That's right. All cultures ignorant of the Bible are lawless.
And, V_P, have you seen the movie For The Bible Tells Me So? It covers the interpretation of the Sodom passages extensively as being about hospitality.
As for Paul, why would someone who never met a real Jesus be a trustworthy source for Christian belief? Sounds like a homophobic man trying to slip his agenda into the religion.
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes