Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Lot - The New Testament's Vile Role-Model for Christians

The saintly Lot lived in the city of Sodom. We can read his story in Genesis 18 and 19. His wife and virginal daughters lived with him.

 

Three angels from God posing as men came to stay in Sodom and Lot let them stay in his house.

 

Soon all the men in Sodom - even the little boys - appeared wanting to have sex with the visitors. The men must have been very attractive. It was very thoughtful of God to make them so appealing.

 

Lot regarded homosexuality as so grave that he decided it was better to offer them his daughters and he did so and told the occupants of Sodom to use them as they pleased (Genesis 19:7-8).

 

LGBT activists try to make out that Bible opposition to homosexuality is just cultural not moral or religious.  The story does not say that the culture was anti-homosexual. It says the opposite because Sodom was the strongest homosexual culture ever known apart from its neighbour Gomorrah.

 

The story complains that there were not even ten righteous men in the city. Abraham and God discuss this and its decided that if there is less than ten righteous people in the cities they will be destroyed by God (Genesis 18:23-33). Genesis has God say that if there is a few good people in the city of Sodom or Gomorrah he will spare it.  The story feeds Christian tradition which always said that homosexuality corrupts all around it.  There were no moral gays in the city.  There were no well-meaning even if misled men in monogamous relationships.

 

To get destroying the city, God decided nothing could be done if Lot and his girls and wife stayed in the city.  They would have to leave the city for he intended to destroy it to eradicate the evil.  They were in the way.  They got orders to go.

 

It is assumed the story is not relevant to modern gay relationships for it condemns gay sexual violence.  The account actually merely says that the men of Sodom boys and all came out to know the men.  Nothing about force is mentioned.  And boys raping angels?  Seriously?  It does not say the men wanted to rape the men. It seems they simply took it for granted that the men would have sex with them. They seem to have forgotten that heterosexual men existed.

 

Some say that gay sex is sexual violence even when it is consensual for the rectum is not made to receive a penis.  In the days before antibiotics - anal sex easily led to kidney infections and that alone could kill many.

 

It does not say that the men wanted to sodomise the guests. Lots of homosexuals do not engage in that practice but in others.

 

There is no room for the delusion that Genesis forbids only homosexual rape not loving homosexual sex.  Surely Sodom and Gomorrah must have had some gay couples who were committed!  God does not include them among his list of the righteous which for him is Lot's family only!

 

It is obvious though that Lot hoped that if they raped his daughters it would keep them from sex with men!

 

The biggest moral of the story is that it is better to let your own children be raped than to let gay men have sex with men.

 

It does not say that Lot was safeguarding the angel-men. Lot could not have kept a big mob away from the men. His offering his daughters was a choice.  He was not compelled.

 

God was pleased with Lot's actions and he was saved as a reward (Genesis 19:11-13, 15-17,19).

 

Lot is just and righteous according to the New Testament (2 Peter 2:6-8).

 

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless

8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)

9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.

 

Genesis 18:20-21 tells us that God heard that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are full of grievous sinners. So then he decides to investigate what he has heard. It seems this God does not know all things.

 

Was he doubting what the angels told him about the goings-on in the cities? If he was, then clearly he regarded the sin as so unbelievably bad that one would have to doubt it was happening no matter who testified to it. And he had to investigate in person indicating the utter sinfulness of homosexuality. There were wars, mass human sacrifices and rapes going on in the world but Sodom and Gomorrah got the dubious privilege of a personal divine investigation.


Those who say the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality are only inferring that. They cannot prove that it was such a grave sin in that cultural context.

 

Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." It is said that there is no mention of homosexuality here. But what if abominations is a euphemism for homosexuality? Ezekiel would not have known anything about Sodom and Gomorrah except what he saw in Genesis. It was homosexuality he meant.

 

Some have suggested the sin was seeking sexual union with angels ("strange flesh"). But if homosexuality is not a sin, then how can that be wrong?


The story would say the men knew Lot's guests were angels if that interpretation were plausible. But they did not. And angels are not beings of flesh though they can have the appearance of flesh.

 

Qur'an 7:80-83: And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamin (mankind and jinn)? "Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)." Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment).

 

The Quran then correctly interprets Genesis as saying homosexuality as the worst sin.

 

Nobody sane today would agree.