Skip to comments.What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Posted on 08/09/2013 12:22:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was the most extensive judgment found anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation actually for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality?
People find what they want in the Bible. If one looks hard enough, he can find "biblical" support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every cult of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims and so does some of the occult.
It's not surprising, then, that a recent trend in biblical scholarship holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context offers no solid basis to conclude that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality.
This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the rank-and-file Christian who finds in the Genesis account a straight-forward condemnation of homosexual behavior.
My goal is to answer that challenge. I have no interest to malign, name-call, offend, attack, bash, belittle, or in any way demean a group of people. I want to determine one thing only: Why did God destroy these two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? In short, what was the sin—or sins—of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Though the context of the account in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God's conversation with Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter at Sodom itself are found in Genesis 19:4-13:
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the principle offense ("Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly").
Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom:
(1) The Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels...; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.
John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) "is the most obvious of the four," though it's been "largely ignored by biblical scholars." Boswell expands on explanation (4), the one he seems to favor as most consistent with "modern scholarship" since 1955:
Lot was violating the custom of Sodom...by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that they might know them," they meant no more than to "know" who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.
Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also argues this way in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). The men of Sodom wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot's guests.
Apparently, it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seem to be at odds. If "to know" the angels means merely to interrogate them, then there is no attempted rape, only an attempted interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men meant to have sexual relations with the visitors (the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (rendering Boswell’s above summary of the views of modern scholarship somewhat incoherent).
Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) could have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4).
My principle concern here is to determine if the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality factored in at all.
Clues from the Text
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not just from the Genesis account, but also from the Prophets and the New Testament books 2 Peter and Jude. These give a sense of how ancient Jewish thinkers steeped in Jewish culture understood these texts.
First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, "And the Lord said, 'The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.'" Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.
Second, it seems the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter."
Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh." Peter wrote that Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10).
Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment.
Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.
What do we know about the conduct of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?
Just a Couple of Questions
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.
Was this a mere interrogation? Though the Hebrew word yada ("to know") has a variety of nuances, it is properly translated in the NASB as "have [sexual] relations with." Though the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot's response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"—makes it clear they had other intentions.
In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe the daughters who had not "known" a man and who were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying, "Please don't question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead. They've never been interviewed"?
Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah for inhospitality? Is it true that God's judgment was not for homosexuality per se, but because the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors, violating sacred sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them? A couple of observations raise serious doubt.
First, the suggestion itself is an odd one. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime.
Second—and more to the textual evidence—it doesn't fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath: a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which the men went after strange flesh.
Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There's no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense?
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.
Further, the inhospitality charge is dependent upon—and eclipsed by—the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one.
We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter" (19:6), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels.
Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the "grave," "ungodly," "lawless," "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard" it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went after "strange flesh."
In their defense, some will cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." No mention of homosexuality here.
Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That's not in question. Our concern here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn't contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail.
Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God's wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word "abominations." This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an "abomination" in God’s eyes.
The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination [toebah] ." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."
John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:
The Hebrew word "toebah," here translated "abomination," does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.
Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed.
Others have added that many details of the Mosaic Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn't mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be punishable offenses today.
This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such "diversity" as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah's proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway.
Second, it's a serious error in thinking to conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed, "It is one thing not to put a Torah punishment into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin." [emphasis in the original]
Third, it's true that much of the Law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct.
Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The toebahof homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech's altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple?
More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).
The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:
But as for you [the "sons of Israel" (v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)
Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, and even by every visitor.
Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews ("aliens"). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came.
Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.
 Some have suggested the sin was seeking sexual union with angels ("strange flesh"). Though this is a possible interpretation, there's no indication the men knew Lot's visitors were angels. Jude's point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, "did not keep to their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode" (v. 6). "Strange flesh"—the improper domain—wasn't angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.
 “Know a person carnally, of sexual intercourse...man subj. and obj. (of sodomy) Gn 19:5).” Brown, Driver and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff.
 Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.
 "Lie" is the Hebrew word shakab meaning “lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to having sexual relations as in Genesis 19:32: "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father" (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012).
 Strong’s #8441.
 Boswell, 100.
 It's curious that some choose to conclude homosexuality was a minor crime because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Both were capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment He requires.
 Dennis Prager, "Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis," The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.
Homosexuality, not looking out for neighbors, and greed as far as I can tell.
Hmmmm.... how about sodomy? And where did that word come from?
I have always wondered how the English word got the term: “Sodomy” from? From whence was it derived? Latin?
And if it were Latin, how did the Latin speakers think of using that word?
I have always wondered how the English word got the term: Sodomy from? From whence was it derived? Latin?
And if it were Latin, how did the Latin speakers think of using that word?
Why is there discussion about this? Why the dancing around a simple truth? Homosexuality is an abomination before the eyes of God. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Hmm. So why, then, did Noah build the ark?
It does not matter what the actual nature of the sin was, but the extent of it.
That is what caused the destruction of those two cities.
I really feel for poor Lot. He even offered his daughters to placate the perverts, but they would have none of it.
I feel for the daughters too . . . thinking that they were all that remained of the human race and having to seduce their dad after the escape . . .
Hmmm, let me think, San Francisco maybe? -:)
Obama-ism. (Like Onanism, but worse).
Never heard a sadder deflection of explaining Sodom than when a female preacher tried to explain it was for the lack of hospitality...
That is ridiculous
It derives from Old French, which derives from Latin, which in turn derives from Hebrew. Anal copulation, the “sin of Sodom.”
Here’s the explanation from Dictionary.com:
c.1300, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum “anal sex,” lit. “sin of Sodom,” from L. Sodoma, ult. from Heb. s’dom “Sodom,” morally corrupt city in ancient Palestine, said to have been destroyed, with neighboring Gomorrah, by fire from heaven (Gen. xviii-xix). Sodomize coined 1868. In Du.
Homosex cannot exist without sodomy.
RE: Sodom got it first not only because they reveled in their sin, but they just had to celebrate it on Lot’s front porch.
You know, today’s sodomites ( especially those who go to churches that accept their practice ) rationalize by saying that their acts are acts of “love” or consensual sex, unlike the RAPE that the people of Sodom wanted to do.
Beats me but according to those who want to beat this dead semantic horse to a pulp, apprently I’m committing “sodomy” if don’t let strangers in the house.
[which certainly makes state’s extant sodomy laws pretty hinky affairs]
What does it have to do with Latin?
The meaning of Sodom is the same in all of the semitic languages.
Sodomy is narcissism/idolatry and intrinsically disordered because it is an immaturity-—fixation in the Latency period. It is a mocking of God’s Design of the Human Body and reduces the Life-Giving organ to fecal matter-—to a vulgar, dysfunctional, evil “act”. It is Sexism because it rejects true diversity of human beings-—the “other”.
Sodomy is also an intrinsically evil act (dehumanization) to inflict on other people (and call lust “love”—is sickness and demented and Satanic.
It is Learned behavior-—removal of Reason and Morality-—that which makes us different from animals and truly Human. Sodomy reduces man to base animal urges-—removes Reason—the reason we are made in God’s Image.
Science and Reason is removed from the minds of children—raised in such artificial “families” which practice dehumanizing acts-—since it normalizes the unnatural—and removes the “Laws of Nature” which is where Logic/Reason originates.
It was the Rite in all the worshippers of Ba’al....the ancient religion of the goat-god worshippers of today.
The Bible is Reasoned and based in Truth-—it can never be used to support such disfunction and removal of Natural Laws and removal of Sexual Morality-—that Natural Family which is the only way to raise children where they can understand both men and women and their interactions,
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Huh? That would be homosexual rape. Notice that Lot seemed to think that the rape of his virgin daughters was less heinous
Anyway, the gang rape and homosexuality are NOT mutually exclusive.
As a final point: why did God send angels to "investigate"? Being omniscient He already knew. I suspect that it was to provide an example to Lot, Abraham, and future generations.
Their desire to rape the angels that came to Lot is the reason for the destruction.
There were other sinful cities, but Sodom and Gomorrah were dedicated to sodomy.
Good answer, and IMO the correct one.
RE: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Alas how people rationalize these days. When I quote a verse like this to some supporters of gay marriage, they rationalize and say -— “But we are not lustful towards one another... we want to get married like any good christian couple do and consummate our marriage like any normal, ordinary couple....” (shaking my head in sorrow... )
Sodomites trying to anal rape the angels probably didn’t please the Lord too much. About the same thing would happen if the angels dropped into the Castro District during the Gay Pride Parade.
re: “To answer the question—Sin is sin. Whether it’s lying, or murder, or adultery, it’s all the same in the eyes of God.”
I’m not quite sure that’s true. Remember when Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 10:14-16:
“14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”
Similar passages are found in Matthew 11:24 and Luke 10:12.
Also, Jesus tells us in Matthew 18:5-7:
“6 If anyone causes one of these little onesthose who believe in meto stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!”
It sounds like there are some sins which are worse in God’s eyes than others. I agree that all sin separates us from a Holy, totally Righteous and sinless God, and, in that sense, all sin condemns us. But, perhaps there will be greater punishment for certain sins?
There are rewards mentioned by the Apostle Paul that will be given at the Day of Judgement. Perhaps also greater punishments?
Also, in the Levitical law, not every crime received the same punishment. We don’t give the death penalty for parking tickets, so why might it be so strange that certain sins will receive greater punishment? Breaking the speed limit makes one a “lawbreaker”, just as a murderer is also a “lawbreaker”, so both are “breakers of the law. I think that’s what James is speaking of in James 2:9-11.
But, we don’t give the same punishment for murder as a speeding ticket because we all clearly understand that murder is a more heinous crime.
Not trying to argue, just thinking about the “all the same in God’s eyes”.
My new word for Frisco, inspired by this great article:
My guess is that the angels were sent instead of God just blastig the place for two reasons: (1) give aid to Lot in a form he could understand and (2) give the people of Sodom one last chance to repent. Remember, angels can be terrifying (as in capable of instilling terror, powerful, etc., not as in “bad”) things. Angels who strike people blind would definitely seem to fit into the “terrible” category. And still the people did not repent. Or even just run away! That’s arrogance. Then, well, they got a big Almighty ZZZZOOOOTTTTTTTTTTT...
When God ZOTS you, you KNOW you’ve been ZOTTED :)
RE: Angels who strike people blind would definitely seem to fit into the terrible category.
An Angel slew an army of 85,000 Assyrians that was trying to attack Judah under King Hezekiah’s reign ((2 Kings 19:35).
To the title: faggotry.
I used to think that prager was a very wise and honest man. Some years ago I realized he says and does what he gets paid for. Therefore he has a price for the betrayal of principle and I lost a lot of respect for him then. Now I have NONE.
I think homosexuality and rape was part of it, but I did not see Ezekiel 16 referenced. That is a pretty racy chapter in its criticism and imagery regarding the sins of Jerusalem. Start at verse 49 and you will get an additional take on Sodom, which quite frankly, is pretty damning for the US as we speak.
I used to frequent political chat rooms, and the queers all used the same meme when someone brought up Sodom and Gomorrah: “They were destroyed for not showing hospitality.”
Homosexuality, including the “need” to corrupt visitors to their cities.
As for Gomorrah, apparently they were worse - nobody even knows what Gomorrahmy is any more.
bet she was lesbian also.
Judgment had already been passed before the angels got there.
Too many door to door encyclopedia salesmen is my guess.
You raise some interesting points, and they are definitely possibilities. In the regard of greater/lesser punishments—I just always assumed that there is one lake of fire, and one punishment. Since Scripture is mostly silent on that particular question, I will be also. :)
Jude verses 3-7:
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwellingthese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
DING! DING!! DING!!! Isn't this account the heart of the matter, i.e., the men of Sodom burned with unnatural lust for other men and not for women? Amazing how many overlook this.
I feel for the daughters too . . . thinking that they were all that remained of the human race and having to seduce their dad after the escape . . .
Agreed. A pitiful account. 9
Just wow. Very well written. Though I am not RC, it sounds like RC education. Very powerful. Thanks for your very direct response.
Wonder why the word isn’t something like “inhospitted”. As in “Obama likes to be inhospitted.”
I could never listen to him. Even when I was on a late night call and driving home at 3am and nothing else was on after the spaceship noory (spelling?) guy. I would just turn off the radio and listen to the wind. Same with the Savage guy and Hannity to be honest.
Self restraint checklist. Do not:
1 Step on Superman’s cape
2 Take the mask off the lone ranger
3 Mess around with Jim
4 Rape Angels
And yet we have 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.”
Of course, you've had the gay apologist crowd try to reason that animals commit homosexual acts in certain circumstances and, therefore, it is natural.
I'm not sure what to respond to that stupidity beyond pointing out that man is blessed with a brain and the ability to reason on a much higher level than animals. Except liberals.
There is a story in Judges 19 which has some interesting parallels to the story of Sodom. A traveling Levite stops for the night in the town of Gibeah and the “sons of Belial” beat on the door of the man who offers him hospitality, wanting the stranger sent out “that we may know him.” Instead the Levite sends out his concubine and they gang rape her until she dies. This leads to a war which almost wipes out the tribe of Benjamin.