Guest Voices: Homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

Homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah

This is the third in a series of articles examining the Biblical bases for opposition to homosexuality by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC.

Now, we move on to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-16, see text at end of post), the infamous cities of homosexual sin. Or is that their sin? Certainly, that is how tradition has passed them on to us - even giving us a name (sodomites) for the unspeakable sin and those who commit it. However, most modern Old Testament scholars agree that that may not indeed be true, and that the point of the story was Sodom's violation of the rather strict and universally acknowledged norms of hospitality - a code of ethics one still finds in Middle Eastern cultures today. This unwritten, but fiercely practiced, code of hospitality was a foundation of civil society in Biblical times. The desert is a harsh environment for travelers, and to deny hospitality to a stranger in such a setting was seen to be the height of cruelty.

In the Genesis story of Sodom after welcoming two men (whom the story identifies as angels) into his house, Lot is confronted by all the men in the town, who surround the house and demand, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." There is some debate about the word "to know" here. Most scholars would agree that it has the sexual meaning here - but it is very clear that we are talking about homosexual rape, a violent act of aggression - and clearly something we would all condemn and deem worthy of God's punishment.

And just in case you were not convinced of my characterization of the anti-woman bias before, listen to Lot's proposed solution to this dilemma: "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." (vs. 7-8) That passage alone should cure anyone from wanting to quote this story as one with lasting authority and worthy of emulation! [A similar story in Judges 19 has the host offer the men his own virgin daughter and his guest's concubine - the latter of whom is abused and "wantonly raped." By morning she is dead.]

Even by the internal standards of the scriptures themselves, such a condemnation of same gender intimate relationships is not the point of the story. The prophet Ezekiel compares the sins of Jerusalem with those of Sodom, which he says had "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49) No mention of homosexuality being the problem here. The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were an ancient version of wealthy, gated communities, had canceled the law of hospitality to keep strangers from visiting, seeing their wealth, and potentially returning to plunder that wealth. This was the point even Ezekiel drew from the story.

Indeed, Jesus' only reference to the notorious town indicates that he also understood that Sodom's infamy came from its inhospitality. Jesus instructs his disciples that if they go into a town and they are not welcomed, to shake the dust from their feet and go on to another, knowing "on that day, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town." (Luke 10:10-13) No mention of homosexuality here, even by Jesus. Sodom's sin is one of inhospitality and injustice.

Whatever else one makes of this story, it cannot be used to decry loving, committed, lifelong-intentioned, monogamous relationships between two people of the same gender. It is simply not about that kind of relationship. The story is about homosexual rape - and like any rape, it is an act of violence, not an act of sexuality. In short, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all references to it elsewhere in scripture, provide no guidance for modern day believers about the morality or immorality of same gender loving people. It simply does not offer an answer to the questions we are asking.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is the IX Bishop of New Hampshire, in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and a visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.

Read the passages Robinson mentioned below:

GENESIS 19
1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." 9 But they replied, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. 10 But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door. 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city--bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it." 14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. 15 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city." 16 But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city.

JUDGES 19
17 When the old man looked up and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, "Where are you going and where do you come from?" 18 He answered him, "We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am going to my home. Nobody has offered to take me in. 19 We your servants have straw and fodder for our donkeys, with bread and wine for me and the woman and the young man along with us. We need nothing more." 20 The old man said, "Peace be to you. I will care for all your wants; only do not spend the night in the square." 21 So he brought him into his house, and fed the donkeys; they washed their feet, and ate and drank. 22 While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him." 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was light. 27 In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 "Get up," he said to her, "we are going." But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home.

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson | December 8, 2010; 10:12 AM ET Save & Share:
Previous: Homosexuality in Leviticus | Next: A nonviolent message for the little town of Bethlehem

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

Gene,
I admire you very much. I am a student of Jack Spong's. This article is woefully deficient though. Jack makes the same mistake in his work as well. I'd like to know why this glaring omission continues in biblical scholarship around this subject? There is no mention of Roman Catholic Church history that has direct bearing on the willful misinterpretation of this passage. It was Peter Damian in 1049 who published "The Book of Gomorrah" that is the primary culprit here. He is the one who bears the infamy of coining the words "sodomite" and "sodomy." He is the principle offender that twisted the Sodom and Gomorrah story in this way. It is his tragic legacy of hatred we are trying to undo here. For further reading I highly commend John D. Caputo's "The Weakness of G-d" c2006, chapters 9-10.

Posted by: archyboi | December 11, 2010 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sodom was a den of iniquity and the men who wanted the two angels were gay rapists.

That said, Lot was never intended to be read as exemplary (LOL) as is made clear from the beginning through the end.

But here we will deal with him from the time in Sodom. Although an "alien" there the simple fact that he was there would be an indication to any moron that all is not well morally with said Lot.

Nevertheless, the angels came, the Lord's answering to Abraham. Offering his daughters to gay male rapists however was not among Lot's worst acts. As the commentaries show it may not have been the smartest ploy, but it wasn't the stupidest either.

Lot and family, however, were Lot and family and so he clearly was in no hurry to leave Sodom and the angels had to hassle him. HIs wife had stronger ties.

As for his daughters, they live with their father in a cave after the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities in the area. Fearing that no men are available to father their children, they make Lot drink wine on two consecutive nights and, while he is drunk, have sexual relations with him. In this manner the daughters bear sons, one of which becomes the ancestor of the Moabites and the other of which becomes the ancestor of the Ammonites.

OF COURSE, PETER praises Lot, but, again, Tanakh was written for the people who had entered the Covenant, who had committed themselves to justness, wisdom, etc.

It was not meant for hetero perv literalist bigots anymore than it was meant for gay bigot "Bishops."

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 10, 2010 9:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Lepid: you glance over my main point. You cant say there is absolutely no correlation between the two. Obviously they werent interested in "controlling" women, which were offered to them. This speaks directly to their "controlling" and their sexual desires.Your point might be true if they were simply in an all male society and men were the only obejct of their rape desires..Obviously it wasnt. So of its about power why werent they raping women??Women were present in the household and in the neighborhood. They easily could have stormed the house and exerted their "power" over the women. They werent interested in that. Rapists do in fact choose who they want to exert "power" over. Would you suggest that a man who rapes men, is heterosexual sexually? I think not.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 9, 2010 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DetroitBlkMale:
It would be foolish to suggest that men in teh city could be capable of desiring men sexually in the context of rape but not in the context of consensual sexual acts behind closed doors, or in sodoms case even out in the open. Afterall those in support of homosexuality argue that man hasnt changed since his inception, a certain percentage of them have always been gay, then of course that would include sodom. Since this actually is highlighted, albeit in a violent way, its clear that for some or all or even other than those men demanding homosexual acts from Lot were a way of life,
**************************************************************************************
That might be true if rape had anything to do with sexual desire. Rape isn't about sex - it's about power. It's about the power to render another human being physically, mentally, emotionally, and even spiritually naked and vulnerable in one of the worst possible ways.
Men don't rape women because the men are heterosexual and find their victims attractive. They rape because it feeds a need for power - they often feel weak and powerless in other areas of their lives and this is a way for them to feel in control of someone weaker than themselves.
If it was merely a raging case of the hornies, they wouldn't need to resort to force - they would be able to find a willing partner.

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 9, 2010 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Once again here is an example of the relativsm of throwing the entire scripture "baby" out with the bathwater. Simply because Lot is offering his daughters as a mysogenistic act which no one would condone, the demands made by the men of the town of Sodom are ignored? Or is there sin somehow lessesned because of Lot's offer? Or perhaps homosexuality is wiped off the sin list because these men were persuing rape?The issue is not the kind of homosexual act.Its homosexuality in general. Sodom had many sins in its culture, this was not the only one. But it should be noted this was the one that was highlighted by the story. Lot was a "righteous" man in comparison to those in the city..It said he was righetous, not perfect as we would see a few verses later as well. Robinson mentions Jesus' reference to Sodom as inhospitality. That was true, but he ignores the elephant in the room. Couldn't it be that Sodom's act of inhospitality specifically was there overtures for homosexual rape. I might add in response, there was no need to mention homosexuality, it was already understood by any who had read the story that Jesus was speaking to. Of course this passage can has and will continue to be used to decry homosexual relationships. Where does Robinson think these men got these proclivities? Did they just appear the instant Lot's guests showed up? For the first time they thought, I know desire a man? Of course not, rape was simply the most overt example given of the society. Its clear that if Sodom was used to all kinds of fleshly lusts, that those also included homosexual acts not just limited to rape. It would be foolish to suggest that men in teh city could be capable of desiring men sexually in the context of rape but not in the context of consensual sexual acts behind closed doors, or in sodoms case even out in the open. Afterall those in support of homosexuality argue that man hasnt changed since his inception, a certain percentage of them have always been gay, then of course that would include sodom. Since this actually is highlighted, albeit in a violent way, its clear that for some or all or even other than those men demanding homosexual acts from Lot were a way of life, and that in addition to the other sin were unacceptable to God. To water down the story of Sodom to simply a cautionary tale about being friendly to one's neighbor misses the entire point of the passage which is about sin in ALL its forms.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 9, 2010 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Any sexual act outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife violates the Commandments and is inherently sinful. The Creator made us male and female. Contrary to Gene's specious assertions, Jesus explicitly affirmed that the union of male and female as husband and wife was divinely ordained in the plan for Creation. Sex matters, because by the Creator's design it accounts for the existence of the human race and every human person. And as is self-evident, sex depends on sexes.

Gene would do well to repent of his false gospel and beg forgiveness of the wife of 25 years he dumped.

Posted by: thebump | December 9, 2010 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Blithering idiots all... I'd advise reading the entirety of Bp. Robinson's posts before jumping off the bridge with the insane and inane comments I've read here!

Posted by: mackharrell | December 9, 2010 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Let's see. God told Abraham he would not destroy S&G if He found 10 righteous persons in the city. Obviously, He didn't find that many. Also, God decided to destroy S&G because of the incredible level of evil that took place among the inhabitants. It is logical to assume that if all the men of the city that came to Lot to have sex with his three male visitors, that homosexual activity took place frequently within S&G. How then can anyone conclude that homosexual activity was not part of the evil that God had seen when deciding to destroy S&G?

Posted by: Sojouner | December 9, 2010 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

areyousaying,

Re: FBI

Not hard to grasp. And no, I don't have "friends." Only one. And that one is a gift from God (or Non), but not for that reason.

Not, someone, I ever thought I'd have to call on over a blog.

But then I never thought I'd encounter someone quite so confused as you are, my friend.

What I can tell you is this. A blog is a blog.

It is not a life and death issue. It is not "reality." It is not worth what is in process for this poor fellow (?), who was filled with so much anger at someone he didn't know that he had to do what he did.

Hacking is not difficult, especially, in a context such as this, but why one needs to do such things, I can't fathom.

Where "threats" come in is in the spread of hatred, which the internet allows at a pace and radius we've never known before.

Consider that the Rwandan genocide was orchestrated by radio. NOte the panic that set in internationally when a deranged minister decided to burn Quoran.

Consider the recent suicide of a young gay man whose reputation was damaged via the internet.

These things are more than "loony." They are dangerous. Would the hacker had considered this before his rage took him to a point at which he has brought trouble to himself and his family.

Btw., anyone blogging here risks hacking in the same way.

The risk to gays et al is infinitely higher.

These are the sorts of things you might want to consider. They are infinitely sane.

Areyousaying, Coloradodog, etc., I am sorry for your pain in ways you must know by now. Sorry, too, that I pose such a threat to you.

But neither of us wants this insane torment of gay people to go on within the borders of the most progressive country on earth. Do we?

Do we?

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 9, 2010 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

A hacker who has been reported to the FBI. (I've got a student who's an agent now.)
Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 |

OMG! The loony Farnaz now has friends inside the FBI!

Kneel and tremble in fear before Her ye christians, all males and white northern Europeans!

Posted by: areyousaying | December 9, 2010 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Trying to convince others by cherry-picking holy scriptures as if they have infallible credibility with everyone else. The religious lunatics are running the asylum again.

Posted by: areyousaying | December 9, 2010 8:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The only valid point he makes he obscures, Onofrio. You've got to see it.

He echoes me word for word about the Greeks and pedophilia.

Just shifts things a bit locale wise. He's a fraud.

He ought to read Foucault, though, as I recommended.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 9, 2010 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ONFRIO,

CHECK THIS OUT. I WAS RIGHT ABOUT ROBINSON ALL THE WAY, AND SO WAS CPRFERY. THE MAN IS ANTISEMITIC AND BIBLICALLY ILLITERATE.

WAIT UNTIL YOU READ THIS. HE'S PUSHED UP LEVITICUS TO THE AGE OF PAUL.

HE CONFIRMS R. DANIEL ABULAIFIA.

HOW COULD THIS BE A BISHOP IN THE CHURCH OF SHELBY SPONG?

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/what_did_jesus_say_about_homosexuality.html

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 9, 2010 12:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

CHRISTIANS,

I SAY THIS TO YOU. I AM AN IRANIAN JEW. I AM NOT OBSERVANT AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE.

I HAVE SEEN MURDER INCHES AWAY FROM ME. I WAS NINE.

LIFE IS THE GREAT GIFT.

I SAY THIS TO YOU WITH ALL THE LOVE THAT I HAVE IN MY HEART, AND IT IS ENORMOUS. IT IS TOO MUCH FOR ME TO BEAR, AND I SOMETIMES GET TOO PASSIONATE. I AM SORRY.

GAY PEOPLE ARE A GIFT FROM GOD. JUST AS YOU ARE A GIFT FROM GOD.

DO NOT MAUL THEM. DO NOT MAKE THEM TAKE THEIR LIVES.

DO NOT SAY THEY HAVE SINNED BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT SINNED.

YOU ALONE SIN WHEN YOU ROB THEM OF THEIR HUMANITY.

YOU HAVE FREE WILL.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 8, 2010 11:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

YOU GENITALLY OBSESSED MANIACS. STOP PLAYING WITH YOURSELVES.

GIVE THE REST OF US A BREAK.

AND THAT GOES FOR YOU ROBINSON. GIVE US JEWS A BREAK.

YOU ARE DESTROYING THE HUMAN RACE.

STOP.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 8, 2010 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

But some religious fanatics will do anything to try to get a wedge issue into the mix to advance their agenda of social AND MONEY COMMERCE control over others. JEWS NEVER DID THIS, ITS PAGAN LEVITICUS 17:1-16, Lev. 26:29 , Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10, GOOGLE: BIBLE DRINKING BLOOD CANNIBALISM, SEE THE PUNISHMENT FOR XTIANS
exp The Neighbor Sacrifices Her Husband, Then "Symbolically" Drinks his Blood and Eats his Flesh....Should we let the Kids visit and be Baby Sitted byNONE of he Biblical Manuscript are The Originals, Their 5th to 15th Generational copies of many other copies, THAT IS TAKE THE WORD COPY AND WRITE IT OVER 5-15 TIME ex copy of a copy of a copy so on and so forth, so how trustworthy is that! anyone can add their own opinion into the text as many in those days could NOT read, as many Scholors know their are many Books with the same names but vary widely in the accounts given about the same stories. It is known that changes have accured many times. The Fraternal Orders have theirs written in and on stone! AMEN.

HOW COULD MOSES WRITE ABOUT HIS OWN DEATH AND BURIAL??? AFTER HE DIED???

GOOGLE/YOUTUBE: BIBLE ZEITGEIST, AND THEN YOUTUBE:Banned From The Bible II - The History Channel, SEE REAL TRUTHFUL FACTS OK, ALL RELIGIONS ARE LLC/S-CORPORATION IMF IRS 501 (3)(c)

Eucharist (communion) =is pagan in it's origin for CANNIBALISM / HUMAN SACRIFICE SYMBOLISM THAT OTHERS CONDEMN FRATERNAL ORDERS FOR ALLEGEDLY PRACTICING, BUT THE BIBLE THUMPING XTIANS DO IT AND YET BLOOD/FLESH CONSUMPTION EVEN SYMBOLICALLY IS AN ABOMINATION DEATH PENALTY BY BURNING IN FIRE, ie Eat Flesh/ Drinking Blood (vampire),THATS AN ABOMINABLE UNNATURAL FOOD AND DRINK CONSUMPTION
her?????

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 9:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

WOULD LIKE TO ASK AGAIN, HAVING JUST READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS.

CHRISTIANS, WHAT HAS MADE YOUR HEARTS SO HARD.

WHY DO YOU HATE SO MANY PEOPLE. WHY DO YOU WANT TO TORTURE GAY PEOPLE AND JEWS AND EVERYBODY ELSE.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. YOU HAVE NO HEARTS.

NO SOULS.

LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE. GO AWAY.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 8, 2010 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

GOOGLE/ WIKIPEDIA: KING JAMES BIBLE GAY......YES HE WAS A BISEXUAL HYPOCRITE....REMEMBER THAT[ EVERY TIME XTIANS THUMP THEIR BIBLE THE KJV, MORE PEOPLE ARE NOW AWARE OF THIS FACT ABOUT KJV LIFE (OH ITS ON IN THE BLOG WARS)

GOOGLE: NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT

HOW COULD MOSES WRITE ABOUT HIS OWN DEATH AND BURIAL??? AFTER HE DIED???

THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON'T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN'T BE COPY RIGHTED

GOOGLE; KING AUGUSTINE OF SYRIA 1050 AD CONSOLIDATE RELIGION
When then King Augustine of Syria held the most famous religious consolidation conference in the year 1050 to bring the numerous religious factions all under one umbrella religion, inventing the supposed miracles, writing and rewriting the biblical story, gathering concepts from multiple religious belief systems, and glomming onto the figure of Jesus, a past and prominent member of the Syrian royal family, to concoct a believable church-state heirarchy that has survived to the current day, providing authoritarian haven for criminals and conmen.

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 9:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DO XTIANS BOMB CLINICS etc? DO XTIANS SEND TERRORIST LETTERS TO THE US GOVERNMENT??? DO XTIANS ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON SAME SEXERS??? DID THE CHURCH START SLAVERY IN THE US AND EUROPE??? DO XTIANS QUOTE FROM A BOOK (BIBLE) THAT ENDORCES GENOCIDE?/ SLAVERY AND CHILD MARRIAGES TO ADULTS??? POLYGAMY??? INCEST??, A MAN IS ALLOWED TO SALE HIS WIFE AND KIDS INTO SLAVERY TO PAY OFF HIS DEBTS..STONEING TO DEATH DISOBIDIENT KIDS(CHILD
ABUSE)...GOOGLE: BIBLE RAPE LAWS ,the shock of whats it says about RAPE OMG....THE SONG OF SOLOMON (INCEST/PORNO ).....SOME FAMILY VALUE HUH, RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMANE PERIOD, HUMANE CIVILITY, NOT EXTREMISM WHICH ALWAYS ENDS IN INHUMANE PUNISHMENT.

* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU'LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,...GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS...THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 8:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

IT IS GENETICS BEING RE-ENFORCED BY NATURE ie ESTROGEN IN FOOD/ WATER/ AIR/PLASTICS/ and mercury etc. GOOGLE: Study: Mercury pollution causes birds to act gay : IT'S IRONIC THE IRIBIS/ BENNU/ PHOENIX BIRD REPRESENTS THE DIVINE BI-SEXUAL CHILD CALLED RIBIS/ REBIS IN ALCHEMY OF WHICH IT SAYS MERCURY MUST BE JOINED TO MERCURY, IBIS=THOTH, THOTH = MERCURY/HERMES= HERMAPHRODITUS= HERMAPHRODITE ie INTERSEX/XXY MALES

SIN INVOLVES A CHOICE, ESTROGEN IN THE FOOD -WATER-AIR SOURCES AND IN GENETICS IS NOT A CHOICE, ITS NOT A SIN OR "GOD" WOULD BE UNJUST IN THESE TWO MAIN AREAS ( FOOD/ GENES) : THEREFORE IT'S NOT A SIN (-CHOICE)

GOOGLE/ YOUTUBE /Wikipedia the terms: "INTERSEX" AND "XXY /XXXY MALES " IT'S ALL SCIENTIFIC FACT, ((ADA)AMERICANS with DISABILITIES ACT Civil Rights Section LAW ) BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANTS, people ARE BORN with both fully, ENVIRONMENTAL ESTROGEN RE-ENFORCES IT Complete AIS means that the person will look absolutely FEMALE OR MALE from the outside. However AIS is only one of about 75 KNOWN different intersex GENETIC conditions ,and 'INTERSEX/ XXY/ XXXY MALES" occurs in ALL RACES. (ADA) PROTECTS NORMAL HUMAN BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANTS

SEEING THAT SCIENCE AGAIN HAS CLEARED THE WAY THEN, THEREFORE RELIGIOUS/ POLITICAL AND OTHERS etc MAY BE LIABLE FOR THEIR INHUMANE HATE SPEECH THAT BOTH INSIGHT TERRORIST VIOLENCE & CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS , SEE THE (ADA) FED LAW & KKK CASE LAW PRECEDENCE, THE US PATRIOT ACT AND NATIONAL SECURITY ACT FOR TERRORISM AGAINST ANY US CITIZEN

THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COVERS BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANT WITH REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS " INTERSEXED/XXY MALE etc" ARE BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANTS, MUST SHOW THEY CAN DO THE JOB, THAT ALSO IS WHAT BASIC TRAINING IS FOR, A LOT OF HETERALS GET FLUSHED OUT FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE/ NEGOTIATE THE PHYSICAL OBSTICLE DEMANDS, ALSO MORE THAT SAME SEXERS

* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU'LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTIOUSNESS DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,...GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS...THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD

"ADAM KADMON" THE IMAGE OF "YHVH GOD" WAS CREATED AN HERMAPHRODITE AND MANKIND WILL BECOME THAT AGAIN, ie MARRIAGE IS THE CONTRACTUAL CEREMONY FOR THE HERMAPHRODITE FUTURE OF MANKIND ie (THE TWO BECOME ONE FLESH AS IN THE BEGINNING), TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE, MALES =TESTO ANGULAR SQUARE IN FACE (MARS) AND FEMALE= ESTRO ARE ROUNDISH CIRCLE (VENUS), THE HERMAPHRODITE IS BOTH=T-ESTRO (ANDROGENIC DHEA) ie OCTOGENARIAN IN FACES (HERMES/ DIANA), =BOTH STATIC AND MOVABLE AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE ie THE 2SPIRIT BEING CAN TRAVEL WITHOUT MOVING ie HERMETIC LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES (LAW/ CIVILIZATION)

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The bible specifically admonishes homosexuality a total of 6 times, and people today use those verses, mostly from Leviticus, out of context in order to suit their own political agendas.

The Bible admonishes heterosexual couples a total of 362 times...(ADULTERY/FORNICATION, BUT NOT PEDOPHILIA) 362/6=60.33 AND SO ON THEREFORE HETERO IS MORE HATED BY HIM LEV.15:30-36
That means your mythical sky god hates you about 60 times more than he hates homosexuals.

The Blow By Job "ORAL JOB" and "NATURAL SEX INSIDE MARRIAGE" (man & woman) IS AN ABOMINATION ALSO....ITS UNCLEAN AND SIN IN "GOD" OWN WORDS According to LEVITICUS 15:16-30,and DEUTERONOMY 23:20-22, there is only ONE acceptable use of "reproductive fluids", and that is reproduction. Any christian that has received a "trouser friendly kiss", and "spilled his seed" has committed a sin against the lord. AND THE NATURL SEXUAL ACT IN MARRIAGE IS UNCLEANS AND SINFUL [And if marriage is so "special", then why "GOD" calls it "UNCLEAN=TAME" or just outlaw divorce.]

The Hebrew word "TOEVAH" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "TOEVAH" has been translated in our Bibles as "Abomination" or "Detestable". The "TOEVAH" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "TOEVAH" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.and "TAME"(Taw-May=Infected/ Filthy)

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "ZIMAH" also translated "ABOMINATION," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13. BUT "TAME" IS USED BY LEVITICUS 15:16-30 "MARRIAGE SEX ACTS"

The teaching was instructing against oppressiveness.

The Bible opposes throughout itself the abuse of heterosexuality. Likewise, condemnation of arsenokoitai (mistranslated: "sodomy") does not forbid gay sex. In the 1st Century, throughout the Greek-speaking, Jewish Christianity culture, the word "arsenokoitai" (mistranslated: "sodomy") referred to exploitative, lewd and wanton sex between men. This, and not male-male sex in general, was the concern and what the Bible opposes in such chapters as 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The Bible calls for mutual respect, caring, and responsible sharing. The violation of this is what the Bible condemns in homosexual or heterosexual sex, not gay sex itself.

In fact, the Bible has gay couples in a positive light as noted in Ruth 1:16-17; Daniel 1:9; 1 Samuel 20: 41-42; and 2 Samuel 1:26. David and Jonathan's relationship parallels that of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, a gay couple in an ancient Sumerian epic. Their relationship fits the model of military lovers, common throughout the societies of the ancient Middle East. These male-male sexual relationships were taken for granted, and they would not have had to be explicitly referenced.

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

From the Gospel of LUKE 17:verses 30, 34, Jesus said,

"In the day the Son of man is revealed, in that night there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall be taken, and the other left.",

So ok 2 GROWN MEN in 1 Bed {TOGETHER}? (what does this sound like?...AT THE RAPTURE SAME SEX "JESUS" says he takes one and leave the other in the same bed on that night ON THE RAPTURE, HMMMMM, ok?)

SEE LUKE 17:30-34, TWO GROWN MEN "LYING" IN BED TOGETHER AT NIGHT, HE TAKES ONE AND LEAVES THE OTHER...IT DID NOT BOTHER "JESUS"

Men are told to KISS Each other!!! ( BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT ) ROM16:16, 1Cor 16:20, 2Cor13:12, 1Thes5:26 1Pet5:14

MOST SAME SEXERS DETEST ANAL BUT PREFER GIVING ORAL SEX WITH SOME PEROXIDE MOUTH WASH ITS MORE SANITARY

Sodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler - not homosexuality.

( FYI ABRAHAM FOUGHT ALONG SIDE THE KINGS OF SODOM/GOMORAH GENESIS CHAP.14, WHY )

Ezekiel (16:48-49) states: THE ADONI YHVH SWEARS ON HIS OWN LIFE, NOTE NO SEX IS MENTIONED BECAUSE IF IT WAS THEN HE WOULD HAVE SAID IT UP FRONT ,"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Wisdom (19:13) states that the sin of Sodom was: "bitter hatred of strangers" and "making slaves of guests who were benefactors." Jesus said in Matthew (10:5-15) that the twelve angels sent to Sodom were sent with the following instructions: " Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah "

Further confirmation of this is found in Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; and Zephaniah 2:8-11. It is ironic that those who oppress gay people today are the true violators of the lesson of Sodom.

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 8:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU'LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, VERY SUPERSTITIOUS, DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,...GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS:...THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD

RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMANE NOR A TERRORIST... ( RELIGIOUS EXTREMES ARE DANGEROUS TO ALL ) AND SHOULD BE MONITORED TO PREVENT PUBLIC CATASTROPHIES
THE US CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES ( USC ) etc, COMES BEFORE ANY AND ALL RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS AND LAWS PERIOD, IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT THEN LEAVE THE US WITH NOTHING, ( JOHN GALT )
IRS 501(3)(c) ARE AS LIABLE AS KKK CASE LAWS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN A LAW COURT

FOR EXAMPLE:. TALIBAN/ WESTBORO CHURCH/ AFRICAN AND SOME ASIAN XTIANS MURDERING CHILDREN AS WITCHES AND SAME SEXERS ie/SHARIA/ FATWA/ XTIAN LEVI.DEUT. /GANGS PLATE/ BATTY BOY SPEECH ets WHICH IS PUSHING A FOREIGN DEADLY CUSTOMS AND LAWS FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY IN THE US IS TREASON AND TERRORISM ( SEE THE US OATH OF ALLEGIANCE , WHICH SHOULD BE PROSECUTED AS A TRESONOUS TERRORIST ACT AGAINST US CITIZENS/ AND OR USA SOIL PERIOD )

Posted by: shaiarra | December 8, 2010 8:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gladerunner:

It's like asking someone to watch "The Wizard of Oz", but to COMPLETELY IGNORE the part with the flying monkeys...

-------------------------
LOL, on the monkeys. But how do you ignore the 2,000 flying demon-possessed pigs?

(Mark 5:13) So Jesus gave them permission. The evil spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of about 2,000 pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned in the water.

Acts V alone should be enough to make you toss the whole thing, but there's so much more is thee not. The WORD, eh? Of whom, the inmates off their ancient Thorazine?

Continues below

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 8, 2010 7:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Continued

ACTS 5:1-11 Summary

God killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving Peter all of the money that they made when selling their land. (They kept some for themselves.)
----------------------
Chapter and Verse

(5:1-2) "Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet."

(5:3) "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"

(5:4) "Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

(5:5) "And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost."

5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

(5:7) "And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in."

(5:8) "And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much."

(5:9) "Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out."

(5:8) "And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land fo

(5:10) "Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost."

(5:11) "And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things."

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 8, 2010 7:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I never could figure out how offering one's virgin daughters up for gang rape was the act of a righteous man.
Posted by: lepidopteryx

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

My predicament exactly. The logic is completely twisted. Somehow, even assuming Mr. Robinson's reading/interpretation is correct, how can in-hospitality be considered a capital crime that demanded whole-sale destruction of the two cities. It is just as cruel as the killing of the first born of the Egyptians by this all knowing DOG. Yet this sky-daddy deems Lot, the guy who first offers up his daughters to the mob, then becomes a sloven drunk that he get laid by his two daughters, must be saved. I suppose him getting laid was something the mankind could not be deprived of. Yet the wife of this sorry excuse for a human being, is turned into a pillar of salt for turning her head backwards to look at the sky-daddy's destruction. What kind of morality are we supposed to learn from these grotesque books. In my 21st century frame of reference I sincerely cannot even see how anyone at anytime thought that there is any ethical guidance in such insane & grotesque stories. I reiterate that all these scriptures , especially Abrahamic scriptures should be consumed to the dust heap of history along with the Code of Hamurabi. At least legend of Gilgamesh, Greek & Hindu mythology are interesting and entertaining reads, though I would never think to look for ethical guidance in them either.

Posted by: Secular | December 8, 2010 6:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"That passage alone should cure anyone from wanting to quote this story as one with lasting authority and worthy of emulation! "

Yet the REST of this oft-disgusting book we're supposed to accept as an immutable life-guide...

It's like asking someone to watch "The Wizard of Oz", but to COMPLETELY IGNORE the part with the flying monkeys...
It just doesn't work that way... Your god, and his word are the same now and forever right? In the beginning was the WORD, was it not?
Where's the list that tells us which parts of the Bible should NOT be considered authoritative and literal? If I can ignore certain bits of Lot's plight, can I not also dismiss the rest of Genesis, same book, same author, who's to say?

Posted by: gladerunner | December 8, 2010 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Now, in our romp through pages in the Religion of Love's NT, we come upon the following acts of extortion and murder, which helped to set the tone for the ensuing two thousand years.

Surely, anyone thinking of quoting the NT on anything whatsoever, would want to recall this infamous and vile drek:
------------------------------------

5:1-11) God killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving Peter all of the money that they made when selling their land. (They kept some for themselves.)