Friday, March 18, 2011

Sodom and Gomorrah and how they WERE NOT destroyed for homosexuality

I like to think of it as the original Las Vegas
I can get very worked up over a very tiny thing, my friends (and several people who have had the misfortune of debating me online) know this well. Sometimes I'll pick and pick at an issue until I go insane and sometimes an issue will just smack me over the head and suddenly I'm angry and frothing at the mouth about it.

Usually when this happens it's because some asshole decides to use and outdated and ridiculous religious argument in a debate, this just pisses me off to no end. If theologians have basically already thrown out the idea you are trying to use then STOP USING IT!

Very recently, on a Facebook fanpage for a particular musician, a moron started up a fight about how Jennifer Knapp (the musician) couldn't be a Christian and a Lesbian because the bible condemns homosexuality. Generally speaking, I can have this debate a thousand times and not really be more than a little annoyed. Then IT happened, the Sodom and Gomorrah argument was used.

"Where in the Bible does it specifically condemn homosexuality?" We asked.
He answered "Sodom was destroyed by god for the sin of homosexuality."

Uh...no it wasn't.
T
he fact was that Sodom was going to be destroyed before the people of the city attacked the angels. Let's also not forget that a man raping a man does not equal homosexuality, it equals expression of power and dominance. Why else would it occurr so often in prisons? It's not that gay men commit more crimes, but that men in prison have to set up a pecking order from the very start and that is the easiest way. Let's also not forget that Lot was going to hand over his daughters in exchange for the angels to remain safe. Yeah, that makes him plenty holy, he was willing to let his daughters be gang-raped to save a couple of angels who could have taken care of the problem themselves...seriously, they were goddamn angels.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, here's what actual pastors have said (taken from the link above, from Religioustolerance.org)

 K. Stendahl: "It's a folk story. It even has a little black humor, in the fact that he [Lot] is so anxious to protect his guests that he's willing to sacrifice his daughters. To make a biblical ethics story out of it is not very wise."

D. Bartlett: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."

R Kimelman: "In the Mideast then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation, even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."

J.K. Nelson: "If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice."

And frankly, all you need to know is that Jack Chick is listed as one of the people who still believes that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality and there goes my ability to believe in the ability for people who use this argument to actually think coherently.
Chick - "God gave us a true picture of the Gay lifestyle in the Bible. Centuries ago, there were four cities under the control of Satan and his devils. The worst city was Sodom. These Sodomites worshipped Satan, were possessed with devils and they hated God. Their stink reached heaven and God was fed up with them. He planned to destroy them to keep their filthy lifestyle from spreading....As soon as they got Lot and his family out of Sodom, God fire-bombed the cities and turned them into ashes. Today, those same kind of people are back, but now they're called Gays!"


Oh and a bit of pertinent information, the term homosexual had not been created at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah and the terms 'Sodomy' and 'Sodomite' were not used to reference sexual acts of that nature until the late 13th or early 14th century. We are really going to trust the judgment and interpretations of the Bible made my priests during the dark ages, really now?

And besides, this is the definition of Sodomy and we are ALL guilty of it. Unless you are one of those wackos who only have sex to procreate and do so with the lights off in missionary position...or through a whole in the sheet or something.


1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality.

I can understand that number 3 won't apply to most (hopefully none) of my readers, but, straight or gay, you've done one of the first two on some occasion I would presume.

Now, can you all please solemnly swear to never bring this up in a debate ever again. I think we need a correlary to Godwin's Law (first person to use an unnecessary comparison to Hitler in a debate automatically loses)* that states, First person to bring up Sodom/Gomorrah in a debate about homosexuality loses by default. We could call it "Meredith's Law" I like the sound of that.

So, in closing, they were not destroyed (if the story holds any truth at all) for being homosexuals. They were destroyed for kinda being douchebags who liked to establish their control over the city by raping new-comers. For some reason I don't see new people coming to the neighborhood very often.

*Someone just pointed out that is not exactly what Godwin's law says. I admit, it's not. The law actually states that the longer a debate goes on, the higher the likelihood that some one will use Hitler to make a point. We usually apply Godwin's in the way I stated on forums though.

PS
If you see any formatting that looks weird, please drop me a message about it. I've been at war with the formatting on this blog all morning. I about ripped my hair out in frustration...

2 comments:

CrisPace said...

There are no formatting problems. And while I agree with Meredith's Law the fact is that there is no arguing with idiot who have ignorant belief systems to defend.

Oh, and FYI Godwin's Law actually states that the longer an internet debate lasts the more likely it is that someone will compare thier opposition to Nazis/Hitler. As origiinally stated by Godwin it has nothing to do with who wins.

Skeptimus Prime said...

It has become a favorite quote of mine lately, something Matt Dillahunty from Atheist Experience says.

"You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."