Sodom and Gomorrah

[hicaniplay]

So was wondering through an old blog a while ago and found this response - it is NOT MINE but I'm an atheist so was just wondering what the religious perspective was and how "right" or "off base" this view is (I do have Jewish/Christian friends but their group mainly debates proper translations of the Hebrew and Greek and what god's real name is lol They said it was Interesting, and they'd get back to me, but they've probably forgot by now. And even if they haven't, always good to get more than one perspective, right?)




"The thing about Sodom and Gomorrah is, the Bible never actually says what their sin was. The idea that the sin was homosexual acts actually dates to Christians after Jesus. The way the story is told, taking into account the surrounding story, ancient Hebrew ethics, the parallel story in Judges 19, and other references to the story in the Bible, the sin we are supposed to see is inhospitality.

In the ancient world as today, rape was a way of proving power/subjugating people. Conquering armies would rape the defeated armies, not because they were gay but to show their power and symbolically turn their enemies into women.

Hospitality (taking care of guests, particularly strangers and those who are vulnerable) was a major virtue in the ancient Near East. Huge. One of the primary things that divided a good person from a bad person was how hospitable they were. So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah goes like this: God and two angels visit Abraham and Sarah in disguise. Abraham and Sarah bend over backwards to take care of them, showing good hospitality, and are rewarded by God's promise being renewed. God says Sodom and Gomorrah are evil and therefore he's going to smite them; Abraham's nephew lives there, so he tries to talk God out of it and bargains him down so that if there are five righteous men in the city, he'll spare it.

The angels go on to Sodom. There they meet Lot, who invites them to stay at his house, showing hospitality ... but not anything like what Abraham did. The men of Sodom surround the house in the night and demand that the strangers get thrown out so they can rape them (thus proving their dominion over the strangers, and also that they are the exact opposite of hospitable). Lot says no, they're under my protection, how about my daughters instead? (Another reason why focusing on the homosexual stuff misses the point: what would have happened if the Sodomites had accepted that offer and taken the daughters? Would God have said, "Oh, they're not faggots, so I guess it's okay? ABSOLUTELY NOT.") Anyway, the Sodomites reject Lot's offer and start threatening him, too, because he's a foreigner and where does he get off trying to stand up to them? The angels intervene, the men of Sodom are struck blind, Lot and his family have a day to get out of town before it's hellfire and brimstone time.

Now, in most places in the Bible Sodom is mentioned, it's a case of "shape up or you'll get what Sodom got!" But when they go into detail, it's all about how Sodom treats the vulnerable people:

Ezekiel 16:49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Amos 4:1 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on Mount Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, "Bring something to drink!" .... Amos 4:11 I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a brand snatched from the fire; yet you did not return to me, says the LORD.

And Jesus said: Matthew 10:12-15 "As you enter the house, greet it. 13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Why mention Sodom here, when he's talking about places that don't offer hospitality to his disciples? Because it's the same sin.

(Okay, yeah, in 2 Peter 2:7 the sin of Sodom is "the licentiousness of the lawless" and in Jude 1:7 "sexual immorality and ... unnatural lust," but in neither case is the overall passage about homosexuality. Peter is talking about sinfulness in general, and sinful sexuality in general; "unnatural lust" only means homosexuality if you've already decided that the sin of Sodom is homosexuality, otherwise he could be talking about rape in general. Jude is talking about false prophets, and I've never really gotten the Sodom and Gomorrah references in there.)"

[falcon9]

So was wondering through an old blog a while ago and found this response - it is NOT MINE but I'm an atheist so was just wondering what the religious perspective was and how "right" or "off base" this view is ... always good to get more than one perspective, right?)

Since my perspective is about as far from a bible-thumper's as one can get and still be on the same planet with them, it probably won't come as much of a surprise.  However, this ws posted to d+d and I decided to d+d the subject.

That observation is that the "Sodom & Gomorrah" story is a fictional parable meant to intimidate others by depicting a hypothetical being as a 'vengeful/spiteful/vindictive/immatue' "g-d". While any alleged historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little/no archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated.  Were such archelogical evidence to surface, (as opposed to dubious evidence presented by theologically-biased 'archeologists'; such as conflating the ruins of Bab edh-Dhra, [claimed to be Sodom], and Numeira, [claimed to be Gomorrah]), such ruins would not support an inclusive assertion that such ancient cities were " ... destroyed by 'g-d' for their sins ..." that supposition does not logically follow from the premise of archeological remains.

[jaymz462]

I heard they were nuked by ancient aliens.  That's more plausible than God and some angels blowing them up good if you ask me.

[falcon9]

I heard they were nuked by ancient aliens.  That's more plausible than God and some angels blowing them up good if you ask me.

Nuking would've left some blast evidence, (residual radiation, even of decayed, etc.), in the general area.  Did you mean the whole "pillars of salt" thing in regards to nuking?