AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Destruction of Sodom/FINALONE

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 11KB | 204 lines

                                         Sodom and Homosexual Conduct

Gay revisionism is the attempt of a segment of society,
engaged in sexual conduct that Christianity and Judaism finds to be immoral,
to "exchange the truth of God for a lie" (Romans 1:25).  Many of them are, no
doubt, people who struggle with their religion and their sexual urges and
desires.  It is not my wish to condemn them, or to slander and hound them,
but I will not stand by as the Bible is butchered, and confused Christians
are led astray by lies.  It is my intent to answer many of the theories gay
revisionists use to propagate their agenda.  I cannot cover them all, and
some of them are mutually exclusive, but I will address those I have
encountered the most.

First, the issue of why Sodom was destroyed.  Revisionists have sought to
remove any hint of homosexual conduct as a reason for judgment.  While their
attempts are creative, they are hardly conclusive.

Genesis 19:4-5 and the relevant Judges 19:22

It is claimed by gay revisionists that the men who gathered around Lot's home
demanding to "know" his two guests were committing a sin of inhospitality and
that there is no sexual connotation whatsoever.  It is said that the verb "to
know" is used only ten times in the OT to address sexual behavior.  That is
true, but what is important is how to find those "few" times when it does
relate to sex: CONTEXT.  One must look at the context of the passages
involved.  The Hebrew word used here is "yada".  Lot's reply to these men is
"No, my friends, do not do this wicked thing" (v7).  Wanting to meet his
guest is a wicked thing?  A similar situation is answered much the same in
Judges, when the home owner tells the men, "Don't be so vile" (v23).
Furthermore, to attempt to save the guests, Lot offers his daughters to the
men. He says, "I have two daughters who have never *known* (yada) a man".
Note that the same word, yada, is used in both statements.  Now many
revisionists attempt to separate any link between the two statements, saying
that it was just the most tempting bribe Lot could offer to the men.
However, this is a stretch only those desperate to justify their behavior
have proved willing to make.  It is illusive, twisting, and grasping. It is
clear that the townsmen's intentions were sexual, and that Lot sought to
protect his guests by offering the townsmen sex with his virgin daughters.
The
Hebrew writer used the same word in both sentences, closely together, with
the same
meaning.

Furthermore, a closer look at the incident in Judges complements the
interpretation that the sin is a sexual one.  Judges 19:22, the crowd of men
demanded, "Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have
relations (lit. intercourse) with him."  The man, abiding by the customs
of hospitality, refused to surrender the man, and instead offered his virgin
daughter and the guests concubine.  "Here is my virgin and his concubine.
Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever
you wish.  But do not commit such an act of folly against this man."

Read carefully, he is saying, "take and ravish my daughter and this
concubine, but do not ravish this man."  Clearly the daughter and concubine
were a substitute for what the men wanted to do to the guest.  Let us read
on.

"But the men would not listen to him, so the man seized his concubine and
brought her out to them.  And they raped her and abused her all night until
morning. . ."

It is obvious that both incidents were of men seeking sexual gratification
from other men.  The word "yada" in the first incident is a sexual use, as
illustrated by its repetition in the case of the daughters merely a few
lines later.  And the fact that the man in Judges concubine was raped and
ravished all night strengthens overwhelmingly the sexual link to the men's
sin.

Another common argument is that God later lists the sins of Sodom, and never
lists a sexual crime.

Ezekiel 16: 49-50 does list several sins of Sodom; arrogance, unconcern for
the poor, and encouraging evildoers.  We as Christians should be condemn all
these sins as well, but this by no means excludes the sins of sexual
immorality that Sodom was committing.  In fact, while comparing the sins of
Sodom and Jerusalem "lewdness and abominations" are listed. The word used for
abomination is "towebah". It is important to note that homosexual relations
was listed as an abomination (also "towebah") in Leviticus, while even this
point is attacked by revisionists I will address it later.  So why does God
continually condemn Israel more than Sodom in these passages?  Because they
are the people of God!  They have a covenant with Him, to be His people and
obey His laws much as we Christians do today.  His anger stems from the fact
that Israel broke that covenant, by committing "abominations and lewd
things".  "For thus says the Lord God, 'I will also do with you as you have
done, you who have despised the oath by BREAKING the covenant." (v59).

There are other scriptures that also address the issue of judgment on Sodom.


Jeremiah 23:14-"I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem:
They commit adultery and walk in lies; They strengthen the hand of evildoers,
So that no one turns back from his wickedness.  ALL of them are like Sodom to
me, and her inhabitants like Gomorra."

The sin listed here is a sexual one, and I imagine with all the men roaming
around attempting to rape guests adultery was a problem in Sodom.
Furthermore,
God is lamenting the fact that the prophets of Jerusalem are no longer
teaching the ways of God, they are "strengthening the hand of evildoers, So
that no one turns back from his wickedness."  In short, those entrusted to
uphold the word of God did not, and did not provide a clear voice that tells
of the true teachings of God.  Without such a call, people do not turn away
from their sin.

2 Peter 2:2-10 This verse is very damaging to any notion that sexual
immorality was not the cause of Sodom's destruction, and that the attempt of
on the angels was not indicative of that behavior.

"And many will follow their *sensuality*, and because of them the way of the
truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false
words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is
not asleep. . . and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorra to
destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those
who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued the righteous Lot,
oppressed by the *sensual* conduct of unprincipled men. . .then the Lord
knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous
under punishment for the day of judgment and especially those who indulge
the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority."

Sensual sins, denying the truth, punishment, indulging the flesh, corrupt
desires, following their sensuality. . . sounds like gay revisionism through
and through.

Jude 7, 17-19

"Just as Sodom and Gomorra and the cities around them, since they in the
same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after *strange
flesh*, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal
fire."

v17 "But you beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand
by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you 'In
the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly
lusts'".  These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly minded, devoid of
the Spirit".

What is this strange flesh that Jude speaks of?  Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, editor
of "The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible" states, "The expression in Jude 7,
'going after strange flesh' denotes unnatural homosexual abominations.
(Romans
1:27).  Greek is his mother tongue, and he has spent 40 years studying Koine
Greek.

Perhaps also revealing about the gay revisionists is the uniqueness of their
interpretations. Not just in the sense that the results are different, but
that they are the few getting these results. To close of this part of the
discussion, I will include quotes from different versions of the contested
verses.  These interpretations range from conservative to moderately liberal.

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and its predecessor the Revised
Standard Version (RSV), copyright National Council of Churches - hardly a
"bunch of fundies",  whose Board of Editors reads like the "Whos Who of
Liberal Theology," translates this critical phrase as "unnatural lust."
The New International Version (NIV) and Today's English Version (TEV) call
it "perversion." The New Century Version (NCV) says, "sexual relations that
God does not allow" (What might those be? Refer to the abominations cited in
Leviticus - God lists them all.).
The Living Bible (TLB) spells it out: "lust of men for other men." Get the
drift yet? Let me be uncharacteristically blunt: Gay revisionists doesn't
have a single
significant translation to stand on. Not one creditable Board of Translators
agrees with their perversion of Scripture.

To end off this section I would like to quote two passages of scripture.

Isaiah 1:13-16

"Bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me.  The New
Moons, Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies-I cannot endure the iniquity
and the sacred meeting." {{Sin and worship to God are mutually exclusive, to
continue in sin is not pleasing to God. What can be done?}}  "Wash
yourselves, make yourselves clean, Put away the evil of your doings from
before My eyes; cease to do evil.  Learn to do good.  Seek justice."

If you are a Christian, and are involved with homosexual conduct, you can be
delivered, forgiven, and washed clean.  To say that you are this way and
cannot change is to make Jesus a laughingstock, it is to label his death and
sacrifice a vain and inadequate thing.  Why are you a Christian if you do not
believe in the changing power of Jesus Christ?  He has made a way.

2 Peter 2:9-" the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to
keep the unrigtheous under punishment for the day of judgment."

If you are a Christian tempted by homosexual desires, our God is one of
salvation, one who conquered sin, and has provided a way for us to be free
also.  Being tempted is not a sin, but being unrighteous is.  There is
salvation from temptation.  Jesus died for our sins, all of them.  There is
not one too hard or too powerful for Him to free you of, He is our Lord, our
salvation, it is He we are to seek.

There are Christian ministries that can help.  Feel free to ask me for
information if you desire.

This is the first in a series of writings.  This one merely addresses the
issue of Sodom and Gomorra's destruction and the attempt to separate it from
judgment of homosexual conduct.  There will be more, on Levitius 18 & 20,
Matthew 19, Romans 1:25-27, and Corinthians 6.

Chris Price