Well I didn’t say so. The prophet Ezekiel did:
“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.” [Ezekiel 16:49]
Sometimes the Bible can speak in such clear terms and we still miss it all.
And to think I learnt this from a journalist and not a preacher.
I am learning something new everyday.
Generally commentaries on this passage say that the prophet Ezekiel wanted to stress the overlooked sin of Sodom; pride because it was not as well known as Sodomy, but yet was the root of their problem, the beginning of their downfall into depavity.
It does not mean that there was no sodomy in sodom.
The quote in context is as follows,as you would need to consider both verses 49 & 50 together .
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.
@Clarence:
Oh really? Which commentary? Where? Can you provide a link?
@Anon: The “detestable things” in verse 50 relates to the haughtiness of the people and this ties in with verse 49.
Please, guys, do not add to what the Bible says to fit your own prejudices. You do know what the punishment for that is.
Oh, and I forgot to mention one most important thing. The commentary is NOT the Bible.
If you don’t believe commentaries, that’s fine. How about the book of Jude 1:7: “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.”
According to this guy, homosexuals are on the same footing as paedophiles and those who engage in bestiality.
I thought Christianity is a religion of love, not judgment and hate.
Where’s the love?
Or, perhaps these are not true Christians after all?
btw, how are comments moderated? Because mine are not coming up at all.
You’re misrepresenting his argument. He goes to say “I was NOT saying that homosexuality is equivalent to bestiality and pedophilia.” His was saying using only mutual consent as the basis of legalizing homosexuality makes bestiality and pedophilia legal as well, which is a perfectly reasonable argument.
Forget about using the bible to justify homosexuality. The Christians would then proceed to quote phrases in the new testament that explicitly forbids homosexuality.
The best way to engage ignorant people is to justify outside the context of the bible instead of within since some of these people know their text really well.
Don’t you think assuming Christians “ignorant” a priori is arrogant in itself skeptic?
Dear Clarence:
If you look into older translations of the Bible (and I’m talking about those versions of the Bible that existed before the word ‘homosexuality’ was coined), you will see that Jude 1:7 described Sodom and Gomorrah as “giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” [KJV].
The keywords here are: “going after strange flesh” or “going after other flesh” in other translations. The original Greek reads “sarkos heteras” — ie., “other flesh”, “different flesh”, “flesh of another kind”.
You will find the Greek word “heteras” familiar. It’s the root of the modern English word “heterosexual”. Really, would the Bible be using the word “heteras” if homosexuality was what’s being condemned here?
Read the context of this verse please. Jude 1:6 is a reference to rebelling angels which “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation”. This ties in with Genesis 6:4 “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Bible scholars and commentators are mostly agreed that these “giants in the earth” or “Nephilim” (in some translations) in Genesis are the rebelling angels mentioned in Jude 1:6.
The crime that was so despised by God here was that these angels were lusting after humans, and humans after the angels.
For the sake of argument let’s say I accept that it might be possible to interpret Sodom as a fornicating, prideful city that’s somehow innocent of sodomy. (although it sounds like a rather forced interpretation) While I’m tempted to ask you how you think the men of Sodom wanted to “know” the male angels in genesis, what is the point you are trying to make? That God find sodomy acceptable? You should be aware that these are not the only passages condeming sodomy.
@Clarence:
All I can say is: Please read ALL instances where Sodom was mentioned in the Old and New Testaments to gain the full picture of what God was so angry about.
I do believe that what’s today understood by the word “sodomy” was not Sodom’s biggest problem. Neither was it what brought brimstone and fire upon it.
BTW, the Hebrew word for “know” was mentioned over 900 times in the OT, and in only a dozen or so instances is it used as a reference for sexual intercourse. So to begin with, Bible scholars do not all agree that the men were really asking to have sex with the angels.
Similarly, many old Jewish texts and classical Rabbinic writings said nothing of homosexual acts taking place in Sodom, but spoke about the Godlessness, shamelessness, lust, cruelty and inhospitability to the stranger / foreigner in that city.
Jesus in Luke 17:28-30 also refers to Sodom’s godless living — “they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded” — as the explanation of why fire and brimstone came down upon them. Absolutely nothing there about sex at all.
I know this is all a lot to take at once. And you are free to think of me as perverted in my understanding of Scripture. But I will encourage you once again: Read ALL mentions of Sodom in the Bible to gain the full picture.
Returning to Ezekiel 16:49, the prophet lists four things that constitute the “sin of Sodom”. Gay sex is not one of them. Really, would the prophet have forgotten to mention homo-sexual intercourse if this was the #1 reason for God to destroy Sodom? You tell me.
I didn’t intend to argue with you about whether sodomy there was sodomy in of Sodom, which is why I said for the sake of argument let’s assume that your interpretation is possible. Truthfully, I’ll accept your interpretation of Jude 1:7 as reasonable but not Genesis given the context and compared with Judges 19. Ezekiel 16:49-50 is open to interpretation, but saying that “abomination” (KJV) does not include sodomy is as much prone to prejudice on your part as anyone else’s who does include sodomy in it, in my opinion. At the very least you should agree that it is possible that fornication from Jude 1:7 can be included in it.
As for why Ezekiel does not include sodomy as one of the 4 sins of Sodom, I think you feel that way because it sometimes seems as if a very large weight were put on the sin of sodomy, as if it were one of the greatest sins in the world, when I really doubt it carries much more weight than say, fornication or incest. I think sometimes people think they have to feel guiltier than say, Tiger Woods when they think of gay sex as wrong. I seriously doubt God thinks any worse of it than any other more common sexual sin, so why should it be shouted from the rooftops and explicitly highlighted by the Bible? You’re probably right to say gay sex isn’t at the top of the list for God at Sodom.
We also have Leviticus 18:22 which seems pretty straightforward in saying: “You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.” If we look at the list of other sins, can you truthfully say without prejudice that sodomy cannot be in it?
Overall though, perhaps you have some way of justifying that Sodom was free of Sodomy, or perhaps even that the Bible doesn’t condemn sodomy. However I think it’ll probably be like trying to wear a shoe 3 sizes too small. Even if it were possible it’ll be a really painful fit.
Dear Clarence:
You think I’m trying to force an interpretation of the Bible on you but hey, don’t take my word for it. My challenge to you was to read ALL instances in the Old and New Testaments where Sodom was mentioned to gain the full and complete picture. The Genesis 19 account should not and must not be understood in a vacuum.
I am glad you raised the question of Judges 19. The similarity of this account to Genesis 19 is striking in so many ways. But if you’re saying the sin of Gibeah was homosexuality, then why wasn’t Gibeah smitten the way Sodom was? Note that in both instances, the threat of homosexual rape was not carried out. In Genesis, the men were blinded and the city destroyed and in Judges, the men raped the concubine instead. Are you saying that heterosexual rape is less abhorrent than homosexual rape?
Take note of the XENOPHOBIA that was so pervasive in the cultural context. The men of Sodom and the men of Gibeah wanted to rape foreigners. In both instances, the hosts offered their (local) daughters [thinking that was the right thing to do, but of course it wasn't] and were rejected. In Judges 19, they proceeded to rape the concubine while her husband somehow managed to sleep soundly. And then look at the ensuing war and mess in Judges 20 and 21. It’s horrific!!! Note however, that from Judges 19-21, the writer wasn’t trying to lead us to draw lessons or conclusions. He was just telling the story like it is.
Judges 19, if anything, tells us about the appalling status of women in the patriarchal society of that time. It is about a selfish man who did not care for his wife at all. Who is this woman? Why did she leave her husband? Did she really commit adultery in the first place? Read what this Bible scholar has to say: http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2006/01/rereading-judges-192.html
Leviticus 18:22 is clear. It says what it says. But do you realise there are a million and one other things in that book that are abominations too? Do you realise that eating shrimp is an abomination? Do you realise that wearing mixed fabrics is an abomination? You either apply ALL of the Levitical laws into your life now or you don’t. Please don’t pick and choose. Doing so makes you a Pharisee.
I agree with your comments re: fornication. But fornication is fornication, heterosexual or homosexual. Why do you insist that fornication refers to homo sex?
Brother, Ezekiel 16:49 is staring at you in the face. It spells out clearly what the sin of Sodom is. This is not MY interpretation. What the prophet Ezekiel said is clear as day. If you want to read homosexual relations into this verse, that is your prerogative, but do realise this would be a gross misinterpretation.
Once again, what we understand by the word “sodomy” today is about as useful as the word “onanism”.
The sin of Sodom had nothing to do with “sodomy” (male-male anal sex) just as the sin of Onan had nothing to do with “onanism” (masturbation).
Dear Kennethism:
Actually I did read all the instances where Sodom is mentioned in the Bible, and as I said, I see little reason for gay sex to be explicitly singled out anywhere as if it were the grandest sin in the world. I did not say fortification refers to gay sex. Fornication is an example of what could be included in the list of abominations in Ezekiel. If you wish to see it as impossible for sodomy on the list, I think it’s rather unrealistic. Lot’s daughters committed incest, which might be telling of the attitudes towards sex in Sodom. I doubt it realistic to assume them committing every other sexual sin under the sun, including sex with angels and say it’s impossible for sodomy to be on the list. As I said, why should sodomy be special?
I think again that you’re giving gay sex more attention than it is due. The comparison to Judges 19 was not about gay sex, it was about the word “know”. Neither did I suggest that Gibeah was all about gay sex. As for why there was no fire and brimstone on Gibeah, we read in the Bible many areas whose sin exceeded Sodom and yet were not consumed by fire and brimstone. Take for example Matthew 11:24. The reason is probably because God had different tools available to him for judgment at that time, or because Sodom was meant to serve as an example for the end of age.
You do admit Leviticus 18 as pretty straight forward. We know that salvation is by faith, so we do not need to get really hung up by law. However it does not give as an excuse not to avoid sin when possible. The ban on food was overruled in Peter in Acts 10:9-16, however gay sex was not overruled as in Romans 1:27. Leviticus 19 was a ban on mixing, probably as a guard against the pagan practices in surrounding lands. If you ask me, it’s something like advising us to be simple in dress so as not to inflate your ego with your clothes. This view is supported by Matthew Hendry’s commentary, as well as Adam Clarke’s commentary.
I do not think it is necessary to argue about all points of the Bible. But let me simply state this; the Bible views any sexual relations outside the one ordained in genesis 2:24 as non-ideal. Any and every. Polygamy (like David and Solomon) included, even though realitically in part due to the fall there might have been good reasons at various points in history to have more than one wife. There is very little reason to exclude sodomy from the list. It is as far as I know not about any prejudice on my part or any other.
I thought the Sodomites liked Women - virgin ones - Lot’s daughters.
Reminds me of Jug 19 —> obviously straight people wanting to screw others.
(Judg 19:22 NKJV) As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!”
(Judg 19:23 NKJV) But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage.
(Judg 19:24 NKJV) “Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man’s concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!”
(Judg 19:25 NKJV) But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.
To Clarence,
Oh yes you are right, I shouldn’t use the word ignorant to a bunch of people who believe that the ultimate suffering is some carpenter dude who suffered for less than a day on a cross. You speak to Christians and they act as if Jesus was the only person who was crucified during the Roman empire. And that it is the worst suffering imaginable. Haven’t you heard of cancer? Haven’t you heard of evisceration? I can think of a thousand more examples where the death is equally if not more painful. Such ignorance of history!
Oh yes and then there is the belief of an imaginary friend/father figure. Hello, I used to have an imaginary friend when I was 5. I used to call him Bob the unicorn. It is fine if you are a kid, but as an adult I wouldn’t call that ignorant but foolish.
To Skeptic:
You’re right to say that it’s foolish if what you said was true. However it’s not. What you’re saying is basically a strawman of Christianity. Not that I think you’re really interested in attacking anything more than a strawman anyway.
Dear Clarence:
I am glad you see that what was “sexually acceptable” for men of God in the past is not acceptable today.
Indeed, human understanding of God and his economy has evolved through the centuries. It isn’t because God has changed. It’s because we’ve been allowed to see more and more of him.
The role of LGBT people in the church will continue to be a hotly debated issue and I have no doubt we will move towards greater and greater acceptance (but greater polarisation will come first). This won’t happen in your or my lifetime but it will happen, and it is happening. It will be a glacial change, but it is still a change.
Look, the role of women in the church has been debated for CENTURIES and we still haven’t arrived at a consensus yet. The gay issue, I suspect, is going to take us even longer.
So for now, we will have to agree to disagree.
Hey don’t just say its a straw man which part is not true? elaborate? otherwise you are just making an assertion.
Okay which part I said is not true?
Christians believe that Jesus suffered the ultimate suffering.
Or the part where they believe in the existence of God but can’t show any tangible rigourous proof?
Saying it is a straw man doesn’t cut it. You have to engage otherwise that is just ignorance.
To Skeptic:
Glad you’re actually showing a little interest. I didn’t want to think you merely had a hobby of trolling.
1. Christians believe the suffering Jesus suffered was more than physical. The so called ultimate suffering Jesus experienced on the cross was be his separation from God the father, not his beatings.
2. You exercise reductionism in your argument, similar to how I can say looking at a black box with lights is stupid when it’s really a television. It’s a common argument used by materialists.
Anti-gay Senator Roy Ashburn arrested after leaving gay nightclub with male companion
Once again, proof that those who protest the loudest…
Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Clarice… Oops, I meant, Clarence.
“Glad you’re actually showing a little interest. I didn’t want to think you merely had a hobby of trolling.”
On the contrary, it is you who show little interest since you seem to shy away from engaging in debate.
1. “Christians believe the suffering Jesus suffered was more than physical. The so called ultimate suffering Jesus experienced on the cross was be his separation from God the father, not his beatings.”
So are you admitting that Jesus’s physical suffering is nothing remarkable compared to the rest of history? As for his non-physical suffering, it is only an assertion that it is the worst but nothing more than an assertion.
2. “You exercise reductionism in your argument, similar to how I can say looking at a black box with lights is stupid when it’s really a television. It’s a common argument used by materialists.”
Looking at a box with light is stupid until there is EVIDENCE to show that you can receive information from it. For all you know, the box could just be a means of lighting a room.
By the way, my emphasis is on evidence not reductionism since I have some philosophical reservations on the approach myself. So please stick to showing me evidence.
And you still haven’t shown any evidence, just merely made assertions. Rather than accusing me of materialism or trolling or whatever, why don’t you show me tangible rigourous proof of God’s existence. If you don’t do that, you have lost the debate.
Some fool sprouted this nonsense on Solo Bear’s blot:
“Gays in Dutch Military Cripples Readiness”
Any truth to this?
Did the Dutch Military Chief of Staff ever confirm or deny the commander’s allegation?
Clarence, I believe that God has never wanted us to engage in arguments with non-believers whose eyes can be firmly shut to the truth of the gospel; I think we should put our efforts more into showing others God’s love and what he means in our transformed lives. And by this, I am not inviting any rude comments against God’s character. HE is sovereign and His name is to be praised, and I am free to endorse this belief as well as others are free to endorse their atheism.