Those of you who've read the Bible, you can quote passages for the answers. But if you have to look it up, try to do it only after you've answered (you can add an edit if your answer changes, etc.)
This question is mostly for me to find out how much you guys actually read the bible and know stuff from it. My question is maybe a bit specific, but the topic is a common talking point, so people should be reasonably acquainted with it.
In advance, I thank you for your answers. Also, if there's enough answers, I'll edit in the most accurate answer later.
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah got destroyed?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:30 am
They were destroyed for their overwhelming wickedness and moral and spiritual bankruptcy as exemplified by the context of gay sexual abuse (gang rape) and violence. The Bible present the story as evidence of extreme personal and relational degradation and corruption, with sexual violence as the exemplar of the violation of human dignity. Sin in the city was ubiquitous, not just in one segment of the population or one particular demographic, but was the character of the city itself. The population as a whole was corrupt and depraved. The point is not that the men at the door were an aberration, but a demonstration of the whole: The city was a sea of degeneracy.
Why this portrayal of sin? The author has been building us up to show us the sinful degradation and depravity of a city gone wild. We have to think seriously about why this is the picture we get.
Gestalt psychology would tell us there’s always a reason for what we pick. Dr. Fritz Perls might ask, “What was your favorite vacation?” and you would name two. He’d insist, “No, pick one,” so you’d randomly pick one. Then he would grill you on why you picked that one over the other, without allowing you to say it was random. “There’s always a reason,” he would say. He would ask why you put your hand on your knee, and you’d say it was random. “No,” he would insist, “there’s always a reason.”
Why this portrayal of sin? What is the author telling us about sinful depravity? Frankly, I would have expected idolatry or child sacrifice. Those are the big baddies of the OT—God’s go-to image for the depth and awfulness of sin. We have to give some credence to why this one was picked. Could not the angels have entered the town and seen children’s bones smoldering on the altar, or images of Satan in their places of worship? Of course, but that’s not the picture shown to us.
OK, so why not women approaching for sex? Why not surround the house with whores looking for a good time? Why not surround the house with murderers out for blood, or thieves? It’s none of these.
The author chose men. Homosexual offenders. Rapists. It makes me think of the prison scenes in “Shawshank Redemption.” The prison was full of murderers and thieves, but the homosexual rapists were considered the lowest of the low. There’s a reason, beyond cultural bias or homophobia, that we are getting this picture.
The author portrays this as the basest violation of the sacred rite of hospitality and the most shameless proclamation of sin (Isa. 3.9: "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.
Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.").
Why this portrayal of sin? The author has been building us up to show us the sinful degradation and depravity of a city gone wild. We have to think seriously about why this is the picture we get.
Gestalt psychology would tell us there’s always a reason for what we pick. Dr. Fritz Perls might ask, “What was your favorite vacation?” and you would name two. He’d insist, “No, pick one,” so you’d randomly pick one. Then he would grill you on why you picked that one over the other, without allowing you to say it was random. “There’s always a reason,” he would say. He would ask why you put your hand on your knee, and you’d say it was random. “No,” he would insist, “there’s always a reason.”
Why this portrayal of sin? What is the author telling us about sinful depravity? Frankly, I would have expected idolatry or child sacrifice. Those are the big baddies of the OT—God’s go-to image for the depth and awfulness of sin. We have to give some credence to why this one was picked. Could not the angels have entered the town and seen children’s bones smoldering on the altar, or images of Satan in their places of worship? Of course, but that’s not the picture shown to us.
OK, so why not women approaching for sex? Why not surround the house with whores looking for a good time? Why not surround the house with murderers out for blood, or thieves? It’s none of these.
The author chose men. Homosexual offenders. Rapists. It makes me think of the prison scenes in “Shawshank Redemption.” The prison was full of murderers and thieves, but the homosexual rapists were considered the lowest of the low. There’s a reason, beyond cultural bias or homophobia, that we are getting this picture.
The author portrays this as the basest violation of the sacred rite of hospitality and the most shameless proclamation of sin (Isa. 3.9: "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.
Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.").
Last bumped by Anonymous on Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:30 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest