Tuesday, May 15, 2012

What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?



Taken from: http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Question: "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"



Answer: The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.



Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..."



In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.



Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.



Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.



Recommended Resource: Coming out of Homosexuality by Bob Davies and 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Related Topics:



What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?



Why was Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt?



Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be gang raped? Why did God allow Lot's daughters to later have sex with their father?



What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?



What does the Bible say about bisexuality (bi-sexuality)? Is being a bisexual (bi-sexual) a sin?









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Return to:



Questions about Sin







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Return to:



GotQuestions.org Home









What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Sunday, May 13, 2012

On Jacob's Wrestling With God. Pope Benedict XVI



"He Who Allows Himself to Be Blessed by God ... Renders the World Blessed"


VATICAN CITY, MAY 25, 2011 (Zenit.org).

- Here is a translation of the Italian-language catechesis Benedict XVI gave today during the general audience held in St. Peter's Square. The Pope continued with his new series of catecheses on prayer, reflecting today on prayer in the Patriarch Jacob's life. * * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters, Today I would like to reflect with you upon a text from the Book of Genesis that narrates a rather particular episode in the history of the Patriarch Jacob. It is not an easily interpreted passage, but it is an important one for our life of faith and prayer; it recounts the story of his wrestling with God at the ford of the Jabbok, from which we have just heard a passage. As you will remember, Jacob had taken away his twin brother Esau's birthright in exchange for a dish of lentils and then, through deception, had stolen the blessing of his father Isaac who was already quite advanced in years, by taking advantage of his blindness. Having escaped Esau's fury, he had taken refuge with a relative, Laban; he married and had grown rich and now was returning to the land of his birth, ready to face his brother after having put several prudent measures in place. But when he is all ready for this encounter -- after having made those who were with him cross the ford of the stream marking Esau's territory -- Jacob, now left alone, is suddenly attacked by an unknown figure who wrestles with him for the whole of the night. It is this hand to hand battle which we find in Chapter 32 of the Book of Genesis that becomes for him a singular experience of God. Night is the favorable time for acting in secret, the best time, therefore, for Jacob to enter his brother's territory without being seen, and perhaps with the illusion of taking Esau unawares. But instead, it is he who is surprised by an unexpected attack for which he was not prepared. He had used his cunning to try to save himself from a dangerous situation, he thought he had succeeded in having everything under control, and instead he now finds himself facing a mysterious battle that overtakes him in solitude without giving him the possibility of organizing an adequate defense. Defenseless -- in the night -- the Patriarch Jacob fights with someone. The text does not specify the aggressor's identity; it uses a Hebraic term that generically indicates "a man," "one, someone;" it therefore has a vague, undetermined definition that intentionally keeps the assailant in mystery. It is dark. Jacob is unsuccessful in seeing his opponent distinctly, and also for the reader he remains unknown. Someone is setting himself against the patriarch; this is the only sure fact furnished by the narrator. Only at the end, once the battle has ended and that "someone" has disappeared, only then will Jacob name him and be able to say that he has wrestled with God. The episode unfolds, therefore, in obscurity and it is difficult to perceive not only the identity of Jacob's assailant, but also the battle's progress. Reading the passage, it is hard to establish which of the two contenders succeeds in having the upper hand. The verbs used often lack an explicit subject, and the actions progress in an almost contradictory way, so that when one thinks that either of the two has prevailed, the next action immediately contradicts it and presents the other as the winner. At the beginning, in fact, Jacob seems to be the strongest, and the adversary -- the text states -- "did not prevail against him" (verse 26 [25]); yet he strikes the hollow of his thigh, dislocating it. One would then be led to think that Jacob has to surrender, but instead it's the other who asks him to let him go; and the patriarch refuses, laying down a condition: "I will not let you go, unless you bless me" (verse 27). He who by deception had defrauded his brother of the firstborn's blessing, now demands it from the stranger in whom perhaps he begins to see divine characteristics, but still without being able to truly recognize him. The rival, who seemed to be held and therefore defeated by Jacob, instead of submitting to his request, asks his name: "What is your name?" And the patriarch responds: "Jacob" (verse 28). Here the battle undergoes an important development. To know someone's name, in fact, implies a kind of power over the person, since the name, in biblical thinking, contains the most profound reality of the individual; it unveils his secret and his destiny. Knowing someone's name therefore means knowing the truth of the other, and this allows one to be able to dominate him. When, therefore, at the stranger's request, Jacob reveals his own name, he is handing himself over to his opponent; it is a form of surrender, of the total giving over of himself to the other. But in this act of surrender, Jacob paradoxically also emerges as a winner, because he receives a new name, together with an acknowledgement of victory on the part of his adversary, who says to him: "Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed" (verse 29 [28]). "Jacob" was a name that recalled the patriarch's problematic beginnings; in Hebrew, in fact, it calls to mind the word "heel," and takes the reader back to the moment of Jacob's birth when, coming from the maternal womb, his hand took hold of his twin brother's heel (cf. Gen. 25:26), as though prefiguring the overtaking of his brother's rights in his adult life; but the name Jacob also calls to mind the verb "to deceive, to supplant." Now, in the battle, the patriarch reveals to his opponent, through an act of entrustment and surrender, his own reality as a deceiver, a supplanter; but the other, who is God, transforms this negative reality into something positive: Jacob the deceiver becomes Israel; he is given a new name that signifies a new identity. But also here, the account maintains its intended duplicity, since the most probable meaning of the name Israel is "God is mighty, God triumphs." Jacob therefore prevailed, he triumphed -- it is the adversary himself who affirms it – but his new identity, received by the same adversary, affirms and testifies to God's triumph. When in turn Jacob will ask his contender's name, he will refuse to pronounce it, but he will reveal himself in an unequivocal gesture, by giving him his blessing. That blessing which the patriarch had asked at the beginning of the battle is now granted him. And it is not the blessing grasped by deception, but that given freely by God, which Jacob is able to receive because now he is alone, without protection, without cunning and deception. He gives himself over unarmed; he accepts surrendering himself and confessing the truth about himself. And so, at the end of the battle, having received the blessing, the patriarch is able finally to recognize the other, the God of the blessing: "I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved" (verse 31 [30]), and now he can cross the ford, the bearer of a new name but "conquered" by God and marked forever, limping from the wound he received. The explanations that biblical exegesis can give regarding this passage are numerous; in particular, the learned recognize in it intentions and literary components of various kinds, as well as references to a few popular stories. But when these elements are taken up by the sacred authors and included in the biblical account, they change in meaning and the text opens itself up to broader dimensions. The episode of the wrestling at the Jabbok is offered to the believer as a paradigmatic text in which the people of Israel speak of their own origins and trace out the features of a particular relationship between God and man. For this reason, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church also affirms: "the spiritual tradition of the Church has retained the symbol of prayer as a battle of faith and as the triumph of perseverance" (No. 2573). The biblical text speaks to us of the long night of the search for God, of the battle to know his name and to see his face; it is the night of prayer that, with tenacity and perseverance, asks a blessing and a new name from God, a new reality as the fruit of conversion and of forgiveness. In this way, Jacob's night at the ford of the Jabbok becomes for the believer a point of reference for understanding his relationship with God, which in prayer finds its ultimate expression. Prayer requires trust, closeness, in a symbolic "hand to hand" not with a God who is an adversary and enemy, but with a blessing Lord who remains always mysterious, who appears unattainable. For this reason the sacred author uses the symbol of battle, which implies strength of soul, perseverance, tenacity in reaching what we desire. And if the object of one's desire is a relationship with God, his blessing and his love, then the battle cannot but culminate in the gift of oneself to God, in the recognition of one's own weakness, which triumphs precisely when we reach the point of surrendering ourselves into the merciful hands of God. Dear brothers and sisters, our whole life is like this long night of battle and prayer that is meant to end in the desire and request for God's blessing, which cannot be grasped or won by counting on our own strength, but must be received from him with humility, as a gratuitous gift that allows us, in the end, to recognize the face of the Lord. And when this happens, our whole reality changes; we receive a new name and the blessing of God. But even more: Jacob, who receives a new name, who becomes Israel, also gives a new name to the place where he wrestled with God; he prayed there and renamed it Peniel, which means "the Face of God." With this name, he recognized that place as filled with God's presence; he renders the land sacred by imprinting upon it the memory of that mysterious encounter with God. He who allows himself to be blessed by God, who abandons himself to him, who allows himself to be transformed by him, renders the world blessed. May the Lord help us to fight the good fight of faith (cf. Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7) and to ask his blessing in our prayer, so that he may renew in us the anticipation of seeing his face. Thank you. [Translation by Diane Montagna] [The Holy Father then greeted pilgrims in several languages. In English, he said:] Dear Brothers and Sisters, In our catechesis on Christian prayer, we now turn to the biblical account of the Patriarch Jacob's struggle with God at the ford of the Jabbok (cf. Gen 32:23-33). This mysterious encounter takes place at night, when Jacob is alone and unarmed; the identity of his assailant and the winner of the contest is not at first clear. Jacob is wounded and must reveal his name to his rival, suggesting his defeat, yet he receives a new name 'Israel' and is given a blessing. At daybreak Jacob recognizes that his opponent is God; limping from his wound, he now crosses the ford. The Church's spiritual tradition has seen in this story a symbol of prayer as a faith-filled struggle which takes place at times in darkness, calls for perseverance, and is crowned by interior renewal and God's blessing. This struggle demands our unremitting effort, yet ends by surrender to God's mercy and gift. At daybreak, Jacob called the place of his struggle Peniel, which means "face of God", for he said: "I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved" (Gen 32:30).

In our prayers, let us ask the Lord to help us as we fight the good fight of faith, and to bless us as we long to see his face. I offer a warm welcome to all the English-speaking pilgrims present at today's Audience, especially those from England, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Nigeria, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan and the United States. In a special way I welcome the group of Wounded Warriors, with the promise of my solidarity in prayer. I also greet the many student groups present, and I thank the choirs for their praise of God in song. Upon all of you I invoke the joy and peace of the Risen Lord.

....

Taken from: http://www.zenit.org/article-32676?l=english


Thursday, May 10, 2012

Clearing Up Some Misconceptions Re Early Genesis




From a reader ....



Dear Damien,

Thank you for taking the time to share with [us] your notes on the 19th dynasty! We really appreciate it.

Your approach and ours will yield different results, particularly with regard to stratigraphy because we start with some differing assumptions (presuppositions) that drive us to different answers.

From reading your materials, I gather the following starting assumptions:

A. The earth is millions of years old, and the Creation of Mankind or Creation Week, followed long epochs of geological history of life on Earth (dinosaurs and such).

B. The Deluge of Genesis was a local event in Mesopotamia, which laid down the "flood deposits" in Ur and elsewhere.

C. "Eden" was in the Levant and archaeology in the Levant begins with the cities built by the Predeluvial generations.

D. The Babel Culture is therefore likely to be found after said flood deposits.

Our quite different assumptions are as follows:

1. The entire geological column was deposited in recorded history (since the creation of Adam) and 99% of the sedimentary strata on Earth were deposited by the global cataclysm called "the Deluge".

2. The face of the pre-deluvial world was completely destroyed and re-arranged. The 8 survivors renamed the major geographical features after the places of their old home - thus we have Tigris and Euphrates, but the four rivers originating from one location is not to be found. Some predeluvial cities may be buried under sedimentary rock in certain locations around the world. However, there is no indication that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now the "Middle East". For all we know it could be buried under the Pacific, or could have been completely pulverized.

3. The entirety of archaeological deposits in the Levant were made by people who lived after the Deluge, the Babel culture will be the layer at the very bottom of the oldest sites - which in most cases has not been excavated due to high water table. The sites of the age of Babel will be very few, probably less than 20.

4. Genesis has internal evidence that alphabetic writing existing before the Deluge and the toledoth tablets were written in alphabetic script.

5. The invention of Middle Eastern pictographic writing (from which came cuneiform, hieroglyphics & hansi) was probably an immediate adaptation to the confusion of languages at Babel in 2192 BC. Pictures could be understood by everyone, even if alphabetic words could not. ( I realize that the oldest post-flood alphabets found are based on pictographs of animals/objects that start with said letter in proto-semitic and this was probably the original pre-Flood writing system. After the confusion of tongues, those who were literate would remember that writing was pictures, and having lost the ability to read the alphabetic script, would make up a new pictographs that was initially language neutral. Though later, they evolved into specialized scripts in each civilization's culture area. Hence Thoth [Heth close relative of Osiris (Nimrod)] was the re-inventor of writing in recorded history.)

6. The discovery of the original sites of any of the 6/8 cities mentioned in Genesis 10 would allow a precise calibration of archaeological dating methods, particularly Rehydroxylation dating, which measures the rate of rehydration of ceramic and brick.

Because of our different presuppositions, we will probably arrive at substantially different interpretations of archaeological finds.

Damien, we have greatly enjoyed your writings and learned a great deal from you. We may not always agree. But we hold you in highest respect.

Kyrie Eleison,
....



Damien Mackey's Reply



Dear ....



You have read me completely wrong on matters relating to early Genesis, as have others. See e.g.: http://genesis1.blog.com/2010/10/20/robert-sungenis-adventures-in-blogland-or-wonderland/
 
I have never once claimed, nor do I personally believe, that: “The earth is millions of years old …”.

Nor have I ever claimed that: “… the Creation of Mankind or Creation Week, followed long epochs of geological history of life on Earth (dinosaurs and such)”. See my article, “Book of Origins”, at the same site: http://genesis1.blog.com/2008/04/21/book-of-origins/

Nor do I believe that: “The Deluge of Genesis was merely a local event in Mesopotamia, which laid down the "flood deposits" in Ur and elsewhere”. My Flood model extended way beyond Mesopotamia, e.g. to Egypt and Ethiopia. See my article, “Just How ‘Global’ Was the Great Flood?”: http://genesisflood.blog.com/2008/04/07/just-how-global-was-the-great-flood/

As to your own research, I suspect that you may be doing methodologically, at least in part, what the theoretical scientists do, conceiving an elaborate a priori mathematicised model and then forcing that model on the data, whether biblical, historical or scientific. Force the real data to fit the artificial model – and then declare that this is how things are. For a wonderful study of this type of methodology, see Gavin Ardley’s Aquinas and Kant: http://brightmorningstar.blog.com/2008/10/21/gavin-ardleys-book-aquinas-and-kant/

That is probably why you are reluctant to include archaeology (stratigraphy) in the mix, as it will not yield to allowing a long separation of Egypt’s 19th dynasty from its 18th dynasty, as according to your Velikovskian (in this case) based model.

My best regards

Damien Mackey.