The Gay Moralist: The sins of Sodom

[canis_lupus]

An interesting take on one of those Biblical stories that fundies always seem to bring up to justify their homophibia:


A quick summary: two angels come to Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham's nephew Lot invites them into his home. An angry mob surrounds the door and demands, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Lot protests, offering them his virgin daughters instead. (Yes, you read that right.) But the mob keeps pressing for the visiting angels, who suddenly strike them blind. The angels then lead Lot and his family to safety, and the Lord rains fire and brimstone on the cities.

Most scholars take the mob's demand to "know" the visitors in a sexual (i.e. "biblical") sense. Assuming they're right, this oft-cited story is about an attempted gang rape. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that gang rape is BAD. But what does that have to do with homosexuality?

At this point fundamentalists will point to the fact that the mob declined Lot's offer of his daughters, instead demanding the (male) visitors. "Aha," they say. This proves that the story is about homosexuality!"

I always find this response surprising, since Lot's offer of his daughters is an embarrassing detail of the text - for fundamentalists. Lot is supposed to be the hero of the story, renowned for his virtue. When faced with a mob of angry rapists, what does he do? Why, he does what any upstanding man would do. He offers them his virgin daughters. If you ever want an example of the bible portraying women as expendable property, you need look no further than the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

http://www.religiousleft.us/2008/04/gay-moralist-sins-of-sodom.html

[FoyF]

1. Sodom - What was really wrong

Many biblical scholars believe the reason Sodom & Gomorrah were distroyed had to do with hospitality not sexuality. The mob did not want to welcome the visitors as was the custom but wanted to "know" them.

[cloudythescribbler]

2. The standard THEOLOGICAL interpretation of the story is that it is about HOSPITALITY

Lot, as host to guests, would sooner let the crowd have his virgin daughters than allow his guests to be abused by the crowd. The key issue is that hospitality to strangers under one's roof is not only a matter of ethics, but also a matter of loss of face -- to sacrifice one's guests to the crowd would be dishonorable, even moreso than failure to protect his virgin daughters.

I think that if one researches the mainstream interpretation of the legend from both Jewish and Christian interpretations, this would be more or less the main interpretation -- NOT homosexuality as the main issue.

[Beregond2]

3. That's right. And

to this day in traditional Semitic cultures, hospitality is a primary value. In desert climes, it often meant the difference between life and death. The sexual threat in the story, and the offering of even his daughter's "virtue" to the mob, is meant to illustrate the importance of this moral tenet. The point is: "Be generous to strangers and protect your guests" not "Don't do the naughty with other guys."

[Creideiki]

5. The same as the parallel story in Judges

According to Williamson, the Bible points out other sins that led to Sodom's destruction, such as idolatry and refusal to "strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). "The correct understanding of Sodom," he says, "is of a proud, self-satisfied, materialist society, acting with callous inhospitality to man and at the same time rejecting the true worship of God."

From: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,870482,00.html

[galledgoblin]

6. bingo

...unfortunately, when debating theology, people are much more likely to parrot what they hear from hateful talking points not what they themselves have read and gleaned from the Bible.

[Warpy]

4. The phobe interpreters also ASSume the angels were MALE

Somehow, I doubt angels have either penises or vaginas, along with belly buttons. In addition, "know" had many meanings in the KJV era. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, and sometimes wanting to know a couple of heavenly visitors is only wanting to get in on whatever they've come to earth to offer.

In any case, Lot was scum.

[Fearless]

8. I haven't been up on my theology in many years but...

I believe that all angels are considered male. Angels are not and never were earth living people. They were with god from the beginning of time in heaven. If someone knows differently, or if differences exist in religions other than my own former catholicism please help.

[galledgoblin]

9. as far as I know, theologians generally consider angels sexless (n/t)

[moose65]

7. What a wacked-out story!

These daughters he offered the men are the same ones who later get their father drunk, sleep with him, and then both become pregnant with Lot's children. Whew! There's nothing like a good old fashioned Sodomite/incest story to read at Sunday School! :evilgrin:

[zonmoy]

10. always wondered about that part of the story though.

I have suspected that lot was lying and that he raped his daughters and then said that his daughters got him drunk. figure that a fellow that has gotten that drunk that he can be taken advantage from a woman probably isn't going to be able to perform sexually. to me that merely makes him scum and since god approved of him it would make his god just as bad if not worse.