by Kolbitar » November 26th, 2006, 1:20 pm
::The most "Christian" interpretation of the event is the so called "revisionist" idea that the sin of Sodom was the refusal of the city to accept strangers in a dignified fashion. Jesus sends out his own messengers and says that if they are not received in a city, then "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city". He does not require that the citizens try any kind of sexual advance, merely that they do not receive the messengers.
Alecto I disagree. I think it's the rejection of their message (which would include repenting, no doubt), preceded by signs, that would warrant condemnation.
Matthew 10: 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven ais at hand.
8 aHeal the sick, cleanse the blepers, raise the dead, ccast out devils: dfreely ye have received, freely egive.
9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your apurses,
10 Nor ascrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is bworthy of his cmeat.
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall aenter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the adust of your bfeet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of aSodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
::Only recently have I begun to hear a very obvious fact about Sodom that even I had missed: the people of Sodom wanted to rape those people. What is it about our culture that we can get distracted about the sexes of the participants while missing the far more serious sin of rape?
But remember, part of the rape scenario involved turning down Lot's own daughters. So yes, it's obviously serious, but sexes are integral to the rape part of the story. It's not, like you paint it, that our culture is being distracted in the sense that it notices the homosexuality for the rape; instead, the story really lends itself for us to see more, basically saying "they even turned down raping young women in favor of raping men." If what I said is true, then it seems the focus given by the text on the homosexual act within the rape scenario means it's not simply an outside homophobic Romanist addition or Republican assumption ("distraction", as you put it). In fact, I wonder if this focus might be the key to understanding the subsequent uses of "sodomite," which then would not be extra-biblical.
Jesse
The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton
Sober Inebriation:
http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/