- Exodus President Alan Chambers interviewed by New Man eMagazine.
- Glen T. Stanton of Focus on the Family responds to Dr. Chapman’s critique at Box Turtle Bulletin.
- Humorous editorial in the Montgomery County Sentinal about an ex-gay pamphlet.
- OKC’s Cathedral of Hope pastor, Dr. Scott Jones, debates Sally Kern on local television.
- Cuba considers same sex unions, inheritance rights, and free sex-change surgeries for citizens.
As i was reading the link in the bullet:
It was pretty obvious at about half the post that it was VERY ONE SIDED… It didnt provide any counterarguments to Kern’s and the leading christian view and understanding of scripture, just a brief ‘the Cathedral of Hope pastor said this and that'(nothing new) scarcely sprinkled over the post. It is a christian post nevertheless so its understandable why its not in their best interest to confuse ppl on what God really says with what some ‘immoral person trying to pass as a real christian’ says. *rolls eyes.
Also came across this in the comments,
AS i understood this verse(from a pro-gay theology basis) it was more of strange flesh=angels.
But now it has been cleared and it finally makes sense considering the mob outside lots house was unaware they were actually angels.
Ye.. i understand there are other places in the bible that refer to the sin of sodom.. but that doesnt mean this verse should go unnoticed because it doesn’t ‘fit or correlate with the rest of the verses.
Three kinds of law, and according to Joe Dallas, Kern and maybe the majority of christians this is the key to understand why the moral law, the one that includes homosexuality is an abomination, is different from the the part from the same verse that states you will kill them. Interesting… yet non-convincing even though its true?What I have to find out now is WHY and HOW these three distinct laws came to be.
Oh really?
Well one thing’s for sure, he is an expert on counterfeiting.
Twenty FOUR…. wow… well i guess thats why he chose the straight behavior path, because if he was, a peadophile maybe… it was best if he (or anyone) did not embrace the orientation. And to be congruent.. he didnt want to make the same perverted mistake since it levels whatever orientations are in there(im assumin peadophilia is one of them) to the same plane. I wonder though… are these orientations defined as the APA defines it? And even then, who has the valid position… the UN with its definition of orientation or the APA…
Oh yes indeedie, the human desire for love and companionship, so … “ambiguous.”
Actually Joel (and Alan), according to this AFA link, it’s 30. All apparently equal to one another.
My personal favorite: #5 Coprophilia – sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
Ok, now I am really confused by their confusion in confusing people. I recently commented Exodus lumped some of those things under “gender identity disorder” a few years back.
This is really getting interesting. So which is it? All those stuff like pedophilia are what? gender identity disorder? sexual orientation? Can someone enlighten dear Mr Chambers?
Yeah! Where, ever, is this guy getting his information from?
To be fair though, I think we can make it work.
Coprophilia – sexual arousal associated with feces
Coprophilia – the desire to have sex with one’s partner even though they’re being a real sh**.
I’ll get started on the rest..
It literally means no such thing. One of the most misused words of late has been “literally”. A guy whom I heard interviewed on the radio a few months ago actually said, “I was literally hung out to dry.” I’d love to have been there to see that!
The above passage from Jude is frequently dished out as a kind of trump card, after all the other biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah have been shown to be completely inadequate to support a blanket condemnation of all gay sex. But the trump card turns out to be a joker.
The phrase used in Jude 1:7 is sarkos heteras, and its literal meaning is not “other men’s bodies” or “other men’s” anything, but simply “other flesh” or “different flesh”. The Vulgate translates it as carnem alteram, which has the same meaning. That’s why those whose sexual attraction is to people of the other sex are described as “heterosexual”. If the writer of Jude had intended to refer to homosexual behaviour, then he would have said “the same flesh” or “similar flesh”.
The context (see the previous verse, Jude 1:6) makes it clear that the writer is comparing the men of Sodom to the Watchers, fallen angels referred to in some Jewish apocryphal books such as the Book of Enoch and the Testament of Naphtali, who had sexual intercourse with humans. This theme is also briefly mentioned in Genesis 6:1-2. In Jude’s interpretation of the Sodom story it was a similar phenomenon, but the other way round: humans lusting after angels. Whether or not the men of Sodom in the original Genesis story are supposed to have known that the messengers were angels, Jude assumes, rightly or wrongly, that they did know it.
The division of the Mosaic law into three types of regulations – moral, ceremonial and civil – is a really useful division for those who wish to invoke that law to condemn gay people, but don’t want to feel bound by the law’s other provisions, but it is not one to be found anywhere in the Mosaic law itself. There are no headings saying “The following are moral statutes…”, “The following are ceremonial regulations…”, etc. The distinction is merely (if I may have the temerity to borrow words used in a different context by the Anglican 39 Articles) “a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture”. On the contrary, it is stated repeatedly in Leviticus that ALL the commands of the Holiness Code are commands of Yahweh, and that they are ALL to be rigorously observed. There is no suggestion whatever that any of them are optional, temporary, of less importance than others, or otherwise limited in their application.
Whether they knew it or not, that is what they were doing. Jude is merely stating a fact, not commenting on motivation.
St. Jude’s argument is not a thesis on sexuality but rather falling into heresy. He gives examples that even angels did this, the Hebrews did, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the devil concerning the body of Moses, etc. In each case there is a specific act which demonstrates their falling into heresy: some of the angels forsook their connection with God (rebellion), some of the Hebrews for not believing (apostasy), some of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for fornicating and having unnatural lusts for nonhumans (sexual lust), the devil for disobeying God’s intentions for the body of Moses (idolatry).
These would have been very important to the early Christians who would see falling into heresy as rebelling against Christ’s appointed authorities (the bishops, priests, etc), losing one’s faith (apostasy), participating in religious sexual orgies in honor of the pagan gods (fornication and lust), and false worship (idolatry).
As my very christian friend puts it… if she wanted to refer to angels… Jude would have just said, angels. Alan S. you refered to other flesh as “nonhumans “, cant a flesh be a human?
Other flesh(for Jude), just means that, men. Meaning ‘other’ as in other than woman. WHen you say, ” If the writer of Jude had intended to refer to homosexual behaviour, then he would have said “the same flesh” or “similar flesh”.” Is that a fact, or part of a different interpretation?
If your a catholic, the pope is God’s infallible son(independantly if they make mistakes because their human). Nevertheless, if he said there is a division in the law then there IS a division in the law. If you look at mormons.. odds are their prophets might have the same authority. If your Jew, unless I didnt really understand Bekhof, the oral part of the torahn gives way for the same authority. Or maybe its just something scholars have found ot in their meditated, long studies that you arent aware of. For part of your paragraph this is what my christian would respond. Because… at any rate, just because it isnt divided doesnt mean it cant be divided by authority.
Still… “On the contrary, it is stated repeatedly in Leviticus that ALL the commands of the Holiness Code are commands of Yahweh, and that they are ALL to be rigorously observed. ” I wonder what my christian friend, priest, would respond to that. If this is literally true then this would be quite a contradiction to the division in the law.
I’m not an expert on Jude, but from the outside looking in, it seems odd that the writer of Jude would refer to mere men as “strange flesh.” When I see “strange flesh,” or even the latin “carnem alteram,” “other flesh,” It makes me think of something other-wordly, something that isn’t human – or at least, isn’t quite human. describing it as “flesh other than woman” doesn’t cut it for me. How is a man’s flesh so much stranger than a woman’s? And it seems to me that if fornication of the homosexual kind was so “strange,” there wouldn’t need be condemnations of idolatrous pagan homosexual practices – they would be so strange and obviously un-Christian in people’s minds that no one would dare do them.
Joel said:
Your friend must have an interesting take on the book of Revelation 😉
Even if you only read Jude 7 on its own, the interpretation of sarkos heteras as referring to homosexual sex is forced and improbable: if the body of another person of the same sex can reasonably be described as “other flesh”, then the same description is equally applicable to the body of someone of the other sex – in fact their body is even more “other”. To use “other flesh” to refer to homosexual sex as contrasted with heterosexual sex is manifestly nonsensical.
When you read the previous verse as well, however, it becomes clear that Jude is comparing the Sodomites with the angels who had sex with humans. The Jerusalem Bible adds a footnote to Jude 6: “Briefly mentioned in Gn 6:1-2, but elaborated in the Book of Enoch.”
That Jude is writing about homosexuality can only be read into the passage, not read out of it.
With regard to the spurious division of the laws of the Holiness Code in Leviticus into three categories – moral, ceremonial and civil – and the claim that only those in the first putative category are intended to be binding, Leviticus 18:26; Leviticus 19:19; Leviticus 19:37; Leviticus 20:22 and Leviticus 26:14-16 are sufficient to knock that insidious piece of special pleading on the head.
I would be inclined to think that “stange flesh” could be interpreted to mean “flesh that it is not morally acceptable to sexually engage”. Or perhaps, if additional distinction is needed, exotic sexual engagement.
Now the anti-gays just reached for the keyboards to pounce. But wait a second.
There are just too many things that Jude would have considered off limits – basically any sex that was not with a spouse. And homosexual sex is WAY down on a very long list.
I think that we would have to agree that Jude would object to fornication, prostitution, swinging, group sex, bestiality, sex with angels, demons, or other non-human beings, temple or ritual sex, sex with dwarves or eunichs or the handicapped (or anyone else considered “exotic”) and yes homosexuality, as well as things that I’m sure I’m forgetting.
One of the things that I find so perplexing about literalists and homophobes is that they look for a single instance of a possible inclusion of a reference to homosexuality and that is then all they see – no matter how much they have to squint to see it.
It’s like a girl who is dumped because, “You’re mean to me, rude to my friends, disrespectful to my parents, you cheated on me, you killed my cat, you stalked me at work, and oh yeah you look odd”. So she buys a new dress.
In the same way, anti-gays can read what Scripture says were the sins of Sodom (pride, arrogance, not caring for the poor, etc.) and if they can find a reference that could even possibly include homosexuality (vague “abominations” or “strange flesh”) then they sieze on that and claim that this proves that “Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality”.
Irrational, illogical, and frankly based solely in bias and animus.
Those interested in seeing just how many times Sodom is discussed without any remotely possible reference to homosexuality, check out the VERY exhaustive list here
Not to mention, in the Jewish faith, the instances in the Oral Torah where Sodom and Gommorah are brought up in relation to inhospitality.
“strange flesh” to me, would be a dead person. As, you have to admit, dead people’s skin looks pretty damn strange.
Doesn’t the Bible have things that say “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Thou Shalt not have any other gods before me”
Those are pretty easily, simple, direct, literal. “You, do not __insert verb__.”
So why all the wink, wink, nudge, nudge about homosexuality? Are we to determine that homosexuality is so awful, so terribly bad, that God himself can’t even talk about it? That he has to use vague metaphors and *hope* people get the point? “This is God, I need you to not do that one thing…ya know…the thing, where…oh come on, you know what I mean. It’s icky, just ya know….don’t be light in the loafers, get it? David, Jonathan, you’re fine, you crazy kids, just, ya know, don’t do that one thing…you know. (hand gesture)”
We know that the only times Jesus mentioned Sodom was in terms of inhospitality or being unaware of its fate. Maybe because as a Jew he was raised to think that inhospitality is the point of the story?
Sigh, that Jesus guy just didn’t condemn the gays. I bet some Christians really wish they could trade him in for Paul instead. At least with Paul you can stomp on context and contort the language to find some good ol’ condemnation.
Ah, It’s Steve again. The “Great Christian Theologian” misguiding more people about what Jesus really said. Try reading the Book of Revelation when Jesus tells us that the “sexually immoral” WILL NOT eneter the kingdom of God. Whatever kind of sex that your having “outside of the boundries of Holy Matrimony” whether hetero or homo or porno or just plain masturbation constitutes sexual immorality. It’s mentioned in the last 2 chapters of the Bible because God knew that it would be rampant in the “last days”. Every person whether they struggle with hetero or homo lust needs to submit it to the Cross of Jesus Christ or we will be judged!
Please read the bible yourself. look especially at 1 Corinthians, Chapter 6, vs 9-11 . It talks about ex-gays. What GREAT NEWS!
Moderator Note: advertising deleted.
Joel:
For ROMAN Catholics, when the pope is making a declaration, speaking as the head of the Church, and it is a dogma that is binding to all the faithful, he is incapable of making an error (infallible only at that moment) in making his pronouncement of said dogma.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
For Catholics who do NOT accept the supremecy of the pope (Orthodox Catholics, Old Catholics, Angelicans, Eastern Orthodoxes, etc), the belief in his infallibilty is not accepted.
As many human beings exist on the planet…that’s how many interpretations there can be for the Bible. What is hoped is that Biblical scholars are able to decide as to the possible meanings of the various texts. But translation can be tricky.
Take this simple Spanish phrase for example: Ni modo.
Literally it means “without shape.” But it can mean “neither shape” or “not even shape” or “neither can I shape” (something). But if I say, “Ni modo. No puedo ayudarla ni si quiere ayuda.” Then “ni modo” means “I give up.” Because the whole phrase says, “I give up. I can’t help her even if she wants help.” You have to go to the source (the two sentences combined) in order to understand the meaning.
So it is with “strange flesh.” Since this quote comes from a Jewish apocryphal book, one has to go to that source in order to understand what St. Jude was talking about. I think Emily gives an excellent resource just for that. “Strange flesh” would most certainly refer to “angels” and early Christians would not have had a problem making the connection since the book in question (Enoch) was popular among Christians at the time (it almost got included in the canon). “Strange flesh” would make sense to them as saying “The Terminator” is trying to balance the budget. Why not say Arnold S? Because most people would get the idea.
Ummmm, I think you mean me, Anthony.
Now I’m not a renouned Christian scholar (or even a Great Christian Theologian) but I do know that Jesus did not write the Book of Revelation. That is generally attributed to John (perhaps the disciple of Christ, but that is contested). Nor does the Book of Revelation purport to report the teachings of Christ on Earth (those would be the Gospels, Anthony).
In fact, it would not even be theologically correct to say that Jesus inspired the Book of Revelation, as such inspiration is usually attributed to the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.
Further, we shall all be judged by God, whether or not we submit to the cross of Christ. And as for what Jesus had to say about the standards of that Judgment, it can be found in the 25th chapter of Matthew (I recommend that you read it, Anthony. It’s a real eye opener).
Now in his dream John heard the following from the voice on the throne, which is what I believe you are referencing:
I guess it’s a good thing I’m not cowardly or practice magic arts (speaking of which, do you go onto the websites of the cowardly to quote Revelation?) And, well, I guess it’s good that I’m not in charge of deciding who is “vile”, huh? 😉
As for 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, you know as well as me that this is not at all clear in the original Greek.
Now I know that those who choose to believe that they know the intent of Paul (or the Spirit who inspired him) when he decided to avoid all the words of common usage and create a word of his own cannot be swayed. Your identity so deeply requires you to be married to this translation.
So I’m not going to rock the stability of your universe by challenging your pet theology. But for the sake of other readers I need to let it be known that this notion about ex-gays in the Bible isn’t founded on any certainty but more of traditional antipathy and a really really really strong wish on the part of those who are hoping that maybe some day God will make their attractions go away.
Finally, there is no scriptural basis of which I am aware for calling masturbation “sexual immorality”.
The closest is the story of Onan (masterbation was at one time called onanism). But that appears to be a warning tale of how angry God gets when you fail to impregnate your dead brother’s wife. If you’re going to have sex with your sister-in-law, be sure that you don’t pull out and finish yourself off.
lol, Falzerano’s here again
I would like to know if its common in the bible to use different words to refer to the same thing, as in not to repeat the same word over and over. If its uncommon… odds are Jude means men, independantly if you try to subscribe the idea that it somehow can mean woman, thus it cant mean men. That.. does not flow under the context of sodom and gomorah due to the fact that there are no woman involved. If its uncommon, then there is a distinction between angels in Jude 6 and other flesh in Jude 7.
Really trying to understand here from a non-heavy theologic basis perspective. Like if you were to convince a random civilian with a catholic/conservative upbringing(pretty active too) – NOTE: does not mean i uphold the unapologetical christian view. – Which leads me to Alan S. The ‘at the moment’ part is why i didnt just say the pope is infallible, but also ‘independantly if they make mistakes because their human’.
Jason… Just because you didnt like the way God transmitted his word.. does not make it any less viable. Sure he coudve just SAID it… but he didnt. WHo are we to demand or question God on how he should/should’ve act/acted.
Kern is a fine example on why current traditions(example:marriage) and christian beliefs(love the sinner but hate the sin, reminds me of the WBC interpretation of this phrase) makes for a pretty decent obstacle for promoting a gay accepting society-relationship and all-, although the remote WBC interpretation just makes the battle… smoother, in general.
Timothy… i guess you and anthony go way back? Seems he got on your nerves pretty quickly, specially with his very engaging sarcastic comment.
Emproph said:
So where do they seperate the good apples from the bad ones? Or… are we to relatively choose them.
Joel:
I can’t speak for Jason, but as for myself, I don’t think God wanted us to play charades and guess and what he / she was trying to say. For orthodox christians we rely on the full message of the gospel to understand the smaller parts that seem strange or out of place. We also believe we have been given intellect, and that we can utilize it to understand certain passages in Scripture, for example, that might need more than just an intellectual glance. We rely on those who were before us and examine how they looked at Scripture and what it meant for them, and how they interpreted it. For the majority, if not all, the Church Fathers who even mentioned St. Jude’s epistle, the understanding was that “strange flesh” meant the angels who were present with Lot. The sin they mention being committed is “lust” without regard to gender. For the early Christian writers, it would have been ridiculous to state ONLY lust of men towards other men was a sin because:
1. lust was a sin irregardless of who or what the object of desire was;
2. had they only stated same-sex lust, it would have left a hole in their argument to which lust for women would have been unmentioned;
3. celibacy was the main focus for the early church, so lusting after a man or a woman was not desireable.
4. Christ had already established lust as a mortal sin.
Falzerano… as an ex-gay, do you still fight temptation, are as straight as you were gay, or are somewhere in between with the ongoing struggle vs temptation. Since your organization is purely for those that do not want to be gay, do you also, in accordance to Scriptures, fight so that these sinners do not defile/mock the god-intended way of marriage. That leads me to ask, do you consider civil marriage secular or w/ the founding fathers implicit faith?
Anthony Falzarano
The actual cross of Jesus is probably no longer existent (unless one day some archeologist finds it). St. Helena claims to have found it and I believe pieces of the cross she found are scattered all over Europe. Do we need to submit to the entire cross or is it ok if we just find a piece of it to submit that particular piece? Once we do that, do we obey the piece of wood, wait for further instructions, or what? Please reply soon because flights to Europe are hard to book.
Anthony said:
You are joking, right? I believe that scripture was inspired, but do you really think the order of the books as placed in the Bible was also? How about the chapter and verse markings, are those inspired? Perhaps you will want to go ahead and claim inspiration of the translation as well?
Alan S, “We also believe we have been given intellect, and that we can utilize it to understand certain passages in Scripture, for example, that might need more than just an intellectual glance. ” Isn’t that contradicting…
Also,” had they only stated same-sex lust, it would have left a hole in their argument to which lust for women would have been unmentioned;” Same if it would mean angels…
One gets the point that lust is the sin.. but the point that lust is a sin is clear, whats being contested its whether strange or other flesh means men or angel, and that was, in part, what brought the destruction of sodom. Anyways, assimilating what you guys have said… if it says men or women or cats or dogs or angels, it doesnt matter… since part of the wrongdoing here is simply lust, then if it says men or angels is pointless to argue. point taken.
(Why can I hear circus music???)
In the better interests of the environment, I move that Hell cease being fuelled by the burning of sulphur. SO2 causes acid rain. And that’s not very nice.
As an interim measure, could we at least substitute scrubbed natural gas?
(With the eventual aim of constructing a very, very big solar furnace.)
And thank you for the imagery in your final paragraph Timothy — clearly a writer who’s even more disturbed than the author/s of the Book of Revelation! But you know that 🙂
Try reading the Book of Revelation when Jesus tells us that the “sexually immoral” WILL NOT eneter the kingdom of God. Whatever kind of sex that your having “outside of the boundries of Holy Matrimony” whether hetero or homo or porno or just plain masturbation constitutes sexual immorality.
So basically, men will not enter the kingdom of heaven?
Woo-hoo!!! Ladies
nighteternity!!!Joel:
If it sounds like a contradiction, I apologize. I just merely mean that sometimes you have to “dig a little deeper in the well” when it comes to certain passages in Scripture. When you isolate a passage it is easy to come up with a thousand conclusions, but orthodox christianity takes the approach that we look at the Gospel message as a whole, and from there we are able to understand what is meant. For example, where someone reading the passage that records a woman yelling out, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you.”
But Jesus said, “Yes, but rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and put it into practice,” one might conclude that Christ is rejecting his mother, but orthodox christians will look at the Gospel message as whole and know that Mary is “blessed among women,” “full of grace,” and that she in deed did hear the word of God and put it into practice. So for us orthodox catholics we do not see the passage mentioned as a rejection of Mary, but rather a focus on the cause for her being blessed – that she heard God’s word and acted accordingly.
There are many Biblical scholars who also use the same approach with regards to homosexuality. The “clobber passages” as they have been called, on the surface seem to negate homosexual acts, but when one “digs a little deeper in the well” it is clear to see that there is an entirely different message being presented.
It does not mean that God is trying to hide something from us and we have to send out a search party to find out what he / she is trying to say. It does show how we as humans can distort the messages we have received and how easy we can insert our prejudices into that very same message. So sometimes we need to dig deeper into some passages of Scripture and hold them up to the light of the Gospel message as a whole in order to better understand what is trying to be conveyed.
Joel,
With reference to the meaning of Jude 7:
“Other men’s flesh” – implying “instead of women’s flesh” – would have made perfect sense, and it would have been reasonable to take it that Jude had meant precisely that, if he had written it; but that isn’t what he wrote.
“Other flesh”, i.e. “same-sex flesh” – implying “instead of similar flesh”, i.e. “opposite-sex flesh” – makes no sense at all. To claim that as being Jude’s meaning is to play unconscionable games with the text in an attempt to provide bogus support for a position at which one has already arrived on other grounds; and to suppose that Jude might have used such an illogical and misleading way of expressing himself for the sake of elegant variation in his literary style is to resort to an absurd and desperate argument indeed.
I can quite see why anti-gay/ex-gay fundamentalists appeal to this verse of Jude as a final resort. As the former Jesuit scholar Fr John McNeill wrote of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, “[T]he most important biblical basis for the traditional condemnation of homosexual practices as clearly against the express will of God proves on examination the most vulnerable.” When all the other passages in Scripture which refer to Sodom have been examined, and when they have demonstrably failed to substantiate the traditional anti-gay interpretation, it is understandable that some will grasp frantically at Jude 7 in the hope that it can come to the rescue. It can’t – at least not unless it is perversely mistranslated to fit an anti-gay agenda.
My nerves? Nope, not at all.
I just like clearing up Scriptural claims that are baseless, illogical, and contrary to the tenats of Christian faith. Sadly, Anthony is unaccustomed to having to make certain that his statements are in allignment with Scripture.
Shot in the dark, but….Rational People? If you want a rule to be followed, you’ll spell it out exactly. You’ll say what you mean, and mean what you say.
We’re made in God’s image, so that ambiguity should be just as plain to God as it is to me. Would he or she follow such a vague order? How can a rule be followed if it is not understood? If there are 5, 10, 50 ways to interpret something, it’s not clear. Therefore how can any of us be sure we’re actually following said rule? How can we be sure we’re violating it?
This has nothing to do with whether or not I *like* or dislike the way the message is sent. We all know that HOW you say something is as important, if not MORE important than what you say.
To me, this is an intersection of two things. A story that was not recorded clearly (or perhaps the literal meaning is lost on us modern folks) and the layering in of someone’s bias.
5. Angels are not people. They are a different species, if you will. Strange flesh, if it applies to the angels is beastiality.
Pet Peeve time:
irregardless is not a word. Regardless would be the correct word, or irrespective if you’re in need of a word that starts with “ir”. Irregardless would be a double negative –literally meaning: “without without regard”
Am I the only one who finds the whole story of Sodom and Gomorrah suspect?
Shortly before God destroys the city, some other army sacks the city, carting everyone and everything off, including Lot and his family. Abraham comes in and frees not only Lot, but everyone else.
Then the horrible King of Sodom does an odd thing. He tells Abraham to take everything, but please let his people be free. Abraham says he doesn’t want the people or property.
Shortly after that the city is completely destroyed, except for Lot and his family.
Sodom was a weak city that could not defend itself. If not for Abraham’s interest in Lot,it would have disappeared the first time around.
Perhaps I am just a 21st century cynic guilty of blasphemy, but I think that Sodom suffered a more down to Earth fate that had nothing to do with sex.
Good point, Boo, but I don’t think there will be that many ladies, either. 🙂