Though it may sound perverse, I get excited whenever religious fundamentalists speak up during the Q&A portion of my public events. While fundamentalists are hardly a dying breed, they seldom participate in such functions. And though I find their silence generally pleasing, it does rob me of what we college professors like to call "teaching moments."
So it piqued my interest when, at a debate in St. Louis last week, an audience member concluded an anti-gay tirade with, "Haven't you ever heard of the Sodom and Gomorrah story?!"
You see, I had actually read the Sodom and Gomorrah story the evening before-out loud, to a Detroit audience. If you've never actually read the story, find a Bible and read Genesis 19 (it's near the beginning). You may be in for a surprise.
A quick summary: two angels come to Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham's nephew Lot invites them into his home. An angry mob surrounds the door and demands, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Lot protests, offering them his virgin daughters instead. (Yes, you read that right.) But the mob keeps pressing for the visiting angels, who suddenly strike them blind. The angels then lead Lot and his family to safety, and the Lord rains fire and brimstone on the cities.
Most scholars take the mob's demand to "know" the visitors in a sexual (i.e. "biblical") sense. Assuming they're right, this oft-cited story is about an attempted gang rape. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that gang rape is BAD. But what does that have to do with homosexuality?
At this point fundamentalists will point to the fact that the mob declined Lot's offer of his daughters, instead demanding the (male) visitors. "Aha," they say. "This proves that the story is about homosexuality!"
I always find this response surprising, since Lot's offer of his daughters is an embarrassing detail of the text-for fundamentalists. Lot is supposed to be the hero of the story, renowned for his virtue. When faced with a mob of angry rapists, what does he do? Why, he does what any upstanding man would do. He offers them his virgin daughters. If you ever want an example of the Bible portraying women as expendable property, you need look no further than the Sodom and Gomorrah story.
Some biblical scholars have suggested that the true sin of Sodom is inhospitality. Inhospitality? Failing to offer visitors a drink, after they've traveled a long way to see you, is inhospitality. Trying to gang rape them is quite another matter. (And let's not forget about offering them your daughters, which apparently is biblical good form.)
Lest you think Lot's offer is a quirk, a strikingly similar story occurs at Judges 19. In this story, an angry mob demands to "know" visitors, and the host offers both his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine. As in the Sodom story, the mob declines the women and keeps pressing for the visitor. This time, however, the guest tosses his concubine outside and closes the door. (Again, he's supposed to be one of the good guys.) The mob violently rapes her until morning, when she finally collapses dead.
The lessons to be drawn here are several. First, most people who cite the Bible against homosexuality have little idea of what it says. Either that, or they have a rather strange moral sense. A story where the good guys offer their daughters to rapists is supposed to teach us what, exactly?
Second, the Bible contains some pretty wacky stuff. This isn't news to those who study it carefully, but it does surprise the casual reader. For example, later in Genesis 19 Lot's daughters get him drunk, have sex with him, and bear his children/grandchildren, without eliciting the slightest objection from the brimstone-wielding God.
After I explained all of this to my questioner in St. Louis, my debate opponent (Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family) interjected that the Bible contains more salient references to homosexuality than the Sodom story. This is undoubtedly true, but it misses the point. The point is that the Bible reflects the moral prejudices and limitations of those who wrote and assembled it. Genesis 19 makes that abundantly clear (as do passages regarding slavery, and numerous others).
Once you grant that point, you can't settle moral claims merely by insisting that "the Bible says so." The Bible says lots of things-some true, some false, and some downright bizarre.
So when fundamentalists quote the Bible at my events, I don't try to silence them. On the contrary, I ask them to continue reading.
43 Comments for “The Sins of Sodom”
posted by Brian Miller on
The big question in my mind, when I see articles like this, is what is the importance of the “meaning” of a fictional narrative in a three-thousand year old book of mythology written by Middle-Eastern sheep herders to modern life?
If one really wishes to confront Christian fundamentalism, that’s the most important question to ask. Sure, some believe that the mythology is the word of “God.” Why not ask them to prove it, and point out all the logical inconsistencies and sheer fantastic fantasies embodied in that “holy book,” and ask why society should be governed by such mythology?
Will it anger them? Absolutely. But ultimately it will do more to liberate society from religious extremism than engaging in a debate over the “meaning” of a piece of pre-medieval fiction.
posted by ted on
Nothing seems to inflame people like hatred, and a messy and painful end for people you don’t like (Sodomites) is a pleasant way to end a pogrom. Wright or wrong, hate gets the money flowing, and helpless, defenseless, unpopular homosexuals are just the perfect target. With the continued and accepted murder of countless gay peole around this big ol’ world, and the 30% incidence of gay related teen suicide right here at home (auto-de-fey), there will be dancing in the streets no doubt.
Apropos of nothing at all, I suppose there were no women or children in Sodom (other than Lot’s tasty wife and daughters), but if there were, they needed to die too, collaterally damaged acceptably.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Hell, we have honest-to-God queers championing the murder of gays on this very site. Michigan-Matt doesn’t need something as archaic as the Christian Bible to justify the extermination of queers, a misbegotten Valentine is as good as a fatwa to him.
posted by Arundel on
A very nice, succinct take on the story, well done.
A note on the “inhospitality” part: it’s not just bliblical scholars, but also gay historians and the Bible itself that emphasizes inhospitality as a grave sin and moral failure in the context of that society; it’s not as trivial as you make it out to be.
In desert societies of the Middle East, travelling long distances across scorching deserts was a perilous journey: death from heat, thirst, or bandits was common. The custom of hospitality, which persists to this day in Mideast desert societies, presumed that everyone eventually would make such a journey (to Mecca, say). In this context hospitality practiced in ancient times was closer to “the law of the sea”: you don’t invite a shipwreck survivor on your boat out of niceties, it is a moral imperative to do so. Because you could easily find yourself in such a situation someday.
Sodom and Gomorrah were reviled not because they were “gay” like the Castro, say. They were outlaw towns, probably not more than encampments or shantytowns actually, populated almost entirely by men, outcast from their home societies by criminal/antisocial behavior. “Wild West” towns come to mind. The homosexuality ascribed to Sodom is more comparable to prison sex, or “provisional” sex in any place where women were scarce.
Sorry to go on, but Sodom’s wickedness had a great deal to do with its predatory criminality and fame for victimizing vulnerable travelers- “Hospitality” or lack of it has a great deal to do with its ill-fame.
Why fundamentalists harp on the story without reading it, or the literature on it, is indeed ludicrous, thank you for illustrating this. But let’s face it, they’re not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Thanks too for engaging them in debate- truly admirable.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CP/Nick, wow. Such bristling anger dude. Like I wrote here
http://independentgayforum.com/blog/show/31487.html#15859
in your last flaming rant, that’s a big huge chip you’ve carried around on your shoulder for far, far too long.
I never wrote nor implied what your “Mr Outrage” moment suggests. I’m sorry that, for you, civil debate is beyond your skill set.
Jon, I think you hit the nail on the head in helping that audience member better understand the Bible and an oft’ quoted example of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.
It’s an approach that works far better than the usual anti-religion approach demonstrated, in a small way, in Brian’s comments about mythology, sheep herders and the like.
In Michigan during the debate over the Marriage Amendment language, our modest speakers’ bureau often ran into fundamentalists in support of the language who used Biblical quotations to defend their position of what we called inequality.
I always found it to be circular, fast moving hamster wheel that they enjoyed almost baiting us into… endless Biblical passages translated by hundreds of people over 2-3-4 millenia.
What worked for us was to simply argue that if God’s Word was what informed their opinion, then we opted for more current incarnation of God -Christ- and his best known axiom, “Love your neighbor…” Love, not hate. Not judge. Love.
posted by Bobby on
Actually, Lot was right in offering his daughters. In middle-east region, hospitality to your guests is sacrosanct, there are stories of people who have let their children be killed before exposing a guest to danger. The angels where guests, the daughters weren’t, Lot had to save his guests, even if it meant letting his daughters get raped.
What the fundamentalists don’t understand is that Lot did this out of hospitality, not out of disdain for homosexuality.
Not that it matters. This isn’t a christian country, we’re not ruled by the bible, religion is a cultural thing and a morality guide, nothing more.
posted by Mike Johnson on
Actually, I’ve never thought of the Sodom and Gomorrah story as an anti gay scripture. It was a anti-wickedness scripture both hetero and homosexual as well as drunkenness and sloth etc.
The Old Testament prohibitions are pretty much in the purity laws right next to not wearing multiple kinds of cloth, eating shellfish, etc.
The New Testament prohibitions in the epistles have many times been reinterpreted as anti-pederasty. (adult-teen stuff)
I just don’t think that anyone should start judging homosexuality from the religious perspective until all the good heterosexuals discover the error of their ways too.
posted by Carolinian on
When thinking about the Bible, we have to remember that it was written in a certain place, at a certain time, by certain people. Neither fundamentalists nor their detractors ever seem to understand this, unfortunately. They alwasy try to look at it in a modern sense. Even so, Genesis and many of the books in the OT are history books, not really useful for moral teaching. I remember the story of King David, who despite all of the wrongs he committed was still regarded as righteous. One doesn’t have to be a good person to find favor with God, one finds God and becomes a good person as a result. Some of us just take longer than others. 😉
Also, thanks for the clarifications on hospitality.
posted by BobN on
This description and analysis of the Sodom story makes it MORE anti-homosexuality, not less.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Carolinian writes: “When thinking about the Bible, we have to remember that it was written in a certain place, at a certain time, by certain people. Neither fundamentalists nor their detractors ever seem to understand this, unfortunately.”
If you’re speaking about the Bible as a historical document, I think even the best Biblical scholar would agree. Archeologists and anthropologists make careers out of studying the Bible as history.
What many anti-religionists and some secularists seem to miss is that the fundamentalists and many other religious sects see the Bible as Divinely (capital D like in capital G for God) inspired and revealed wisdom.
It’s kind of tough to argue with people who think that God is revealing truth to them… just ask the radical Islamofascists… or the GayLeft.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Although I’m not Jewish myself, it’s my definite understanding that Jewish religious scholars from the very liberal to the most “fundamentalist” are unanimous in agreeing that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their inhospitality and lack of charity, while the sexual sins of the populace were of relatively minor importance in God’s eyes.
Let me say that again, for emphasis: it’s not just liberal Jews who assert that the Sodom and Gomorrah account is not primarily about sexual sin; ultra-conservative Jewish interpreters say the same thing.
It was Christians (and later still, Muslims) who took the story to be a warning against sexual immorality, and more specifically against homosexuality.
posted by Throbert McGee on
[Sodom and Gomorrah] were outlaw towns, probably not more than encampments or shantytowns actually
What is your source for this? Ancient Jewish commentators seemed to perceive the towns as having been well-established and prosperous (which of course made their stinginess and xenophobia all the more without excuse).
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hmmm — the wikipedia article about Sodom and Gomorrah summarizes a revealing tidbit from the Talmud:
The Talmud [tells] of a young girl… who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered [her] kindness, they… smeared [her] body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was eaten by bees.
In other words, the Sodomites were so fanatically uncharitable that they murdered one of their own girls (and did so in an especially gruesome, Clive Barker-ish way) simply because she’d shared some of her food with an outsider!
posted by Brian Miller on
What many anti-religionists and some secularists seem to miss is that the fundamentalists and many other religious sects see the Bible as Divinely (capital D like in capital G for God) inspired and revealed wisdom.
I certainly don’t miss it.
I just think that it’s time for gay people (and rational people) to point out this mentally ill conviction, rather than politely operate under its delusions and argue about “scripture.”
The reality is that it’s all human-written fiction, much of it without any historical basis whatsoever, except as a tool to prop up the European monarchy. This should be the factual basis of any debate with fundamentalists, not whether or not the fantasy-God destroyed the nonexistent cities in question because of a fantasy-offense.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The reality is that it’s all human-written fiction, much of it without any historical basis whatsoever, except as a tool to prop up the European monarchy.
Erm… are you saying that the Bible (or some portion of it) was written to prop up European monarchs?
posted by Craig2 on
(1) According to gay Catholic historian Mark Jordan, ‘sodomy’ is an essentially meaningless term devised in the twelfth century. It incorporates archaic terms like “akrasia” [extreme
behaviour] and “akolastos” [an
individual engaged in dissolute
behaviour] into its medieval miscomprehension of homosexuality. Actually, ‘sodomy’
refers to a hodgepodge of sexual practices and identities, from non-procreative heterosexuality to male homosexuality to bestiality to incest, heterosexual rape and paedophilia.
(2) As a term, ‘sodomy’ is therefore meaningless, as it is reliant on an archaic worldview that was displaced by modern medical and social science.
(3) Incidentally, is there actually any bona fide historical evidence to support the existence of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’, or is it mere myth? I strongly suspect the latter…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Throbert McGee on
Incidentally, is there actually any bona fide historical evidence to support the existence of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’, or is it mere myth?
Well, archeologists have unearthed some ancient soot-blackened wall foundations in the general vicinity of the Middle East, which shows beyond any doubt that one or more buildings used to be there until they burned down — is that evidence enough for you?
If you need stronger proof than that, you might want to work on rephrasing your question! 😉
posted by sifrid on
there’s a quote later in ezekiel or elijah or one of the judges that spells out exactly that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality. any good google search of biblical passages should find it
posted by Richard on
The author seems to dismiss the morale of the story being about inhospitality, but that is its overally theme.
It was a life and death issue for travlers in an agricultural, desert-based community. Take ‘advantage’ of or ‘abusing’ a stranger, was not unheard of.
Old Jewish writings on the subject focused on the cities as being generally greedy, self-centerd, cruel, malicious, even xenophobic.
Supposedly, if a visitor in Sodom was offerd a bed for the night and was longer then the bed, the Sodomite would cut his legs off to fit the bed.
posted by Amicus on
The author seems to dismiss the morale of the story being about inhospitality, but that is its overally theme.
I concur that is the best reading of the story.
…what is the importance of the “meaning” of a fictional narrative in a three-thousand year old book..
What story/stories do you find important or “revelatory”? None? etc. In other words, do you suggest that people don’t study anything, just rely on their experience or something?
Why not ask them to prove it..
This seems (to me) to be getting more and more popular a refrain, now that the fundamental atheists are hip.
Prove what? Why?
I think it is a fundamental misconception of what faith is to demand that it have proof, right? That isn’t to say that faith is devoid of reason, either, or arbitrary, completely.
One can conceptualize “faith” in many ways, and none of the interesting ones necessarily involve “fantastic fantasies”.
The Bible reflects the moral prejudices and limitations of those who wrote and assembled it
What is a “moral prejudice”, more precisely?
While we’d agree that it may be difficult to extract the teachings of the Bible into a grand, coherent schema, the point of such writing is to express moral prejudices, not to shy from them, correct?
posted by Arundel on
Throbert McGee wrote:
>[Sodom and Gomorrah] were outlaw towns, probably not more than encampments or shantytowns actually
What is your source for this? Ancient Jewish commentators seemed to perceive the towns as having been well-established and prosperous (which of course made their stinginess and xenophobia all the more without excuse).< Throbert- what i meant was that Biblical descriptions of "cities" denoted social encampments, not necessarily glittering metropolises in our modern sense. What ancient commentators called a "city" ,we might call a small town. Perhaps Sodom was prosperous at one point, and perhaps it had declined, run down, beset by crime and decay. It hardly seems likely that a placed so famed for criminality and violence was ever "built" by hostile, rapacious rogues. But of course, the distant past is ultimately unknowable in a complete way.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
While I appreciate Corvino debunking one of the “clobber verses” (or, I guess in this case, “clobber stories” might be more accurate), more attention needs to be paid to the New Testament (especially Romans). The fundies love these verses just as much as the Old Testament verses.
And it never ceases to amaze me why those who hate religion feel compelled to post to religion-related topics . . . As I’ve said before, it’s kind of like Jimmy Dean posting on a vegan board.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If one reads all of Genesis, what becomes obvious fairly quickly is that Lot, who is Abraham’s nephew, has a habit of putting himself into bad situations — Sodom being one of them. The lesson is basically that, had Lot taken his other option to stay away from Sodom, he would never have gotten into the situations he did in the first place.
But, once he was there, the die was cast; the amusing part is that Corvino, et al. think it would have apparently been more “moral” to leave the strangers, who had nowhere to go and no one to protect them, to be raped by the mob.
Lot made the best decision possible in the situation — he chose to sacrifice that which was important to him rather than to leave others to suffer.
Deal with the fact that you apparently had a city of men who were going around raping total strangers first. Lot is not the villain in this story.
posted by Steve on
The problem with Sodom is summed up again in Ezekiel 16:49-50.
?Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.?
Amazingly, I saw an article in the homophobic AFA Journal one time which somehow even twisted this verse to justify their malice toward gays.
Its amazing that in one fell swoop, people who call themselves Christians can justify their neglect of the poor and their hatred toward their fellow man.
posted by Throbert McGee on
the amusing part is that Corvino, et al. think it would have apparently been more “moral” to leave the strangers, who had nowhere to go and no one to protect them, to be raped by the mob.
If the point of the story was to emphasize the moral value of personal sacrifice, wouldn’t it have been even more commendable for Lot to have given himself over to the mob, rather than offering his daughters without their consent? And since the rapists evidently wanted cock, not pussy, for Lot to have offered the mob his own body would’ve had the additional virtue of making logical sense.
posted by Patrick on
“Lot made the best decision possible in the situation — he chose to sacrifice that which was important to him rather than to leave others to suffer.”
It’s not like he was giving up chocolate for lent, he was sacrificing his daughters, consequently ?leave[ing] others to suffer” .If he was really willing to make a sacrifice “which was important to him” why didn’t he offer himself?
?Deal with the fact that you apparently had a city of men who were going around raping total strangers first. Lot is not the villain in this story.?
Neither is homosexuality.
posted by Richard on
Also, the story is poorly translated, even by so-called ‘Biblical scholars.’
“The men of Sodom” and “bring the male visitors from your house…” are simply not good translations.
The Hebrew word translated into man really means mortal.
Thus it really should be all the men and women gathered around the house and the city dwellers did not know the gender of Lot’s guests.
This suggest another possible morale to be learned; mortals should not attempt sex with non-mortals. Which would ruin the cottage industry we have on UFO babies…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Throbert and Patrick, you’re dodging the question. Why do you think it is more “moral” to leave defenseless strangers to suffer than to leave your family or yourself inconvenienced?
Furthermore, had Lot offered himself, that would have left two defenseless strangers, his two daughters, and his wife — WITHOUT someone there to stop the mob when they finished with him. You might as well argue that police officers, rather than making the decision who to protect, should offer themselves up to be killed first, leaving everyone without ANY protection.
The overriding lesson in all of this is that Lot made a stupid choice to live in Sodom, and it was only through the grace of God that he didn’t end up with raped daughters and himself dead. And it was a stupid choice to live in Sodom because you apparently had people who were so sex-crazed that they were going around looking for others to rape.
Its amazing that in one fell swoop, people who call themselves Christians can justify their neglect of the poor and their hatred toward their fellow man.
Which is why, I suppose, that the single biggest predictor of altruism is religious affiliation.
posted by Patrick on
‘Throbert and Patrick, you’re dodging the question. Why do you think it is more “moral” to leave defenseless strangers to suffer than to leave your family or yourself inconvenienced?’
How does one dodge a question that was asked after the response?
How are we informed that the strangers are physically weaker than Lot?
My understanding is that the visitors were angels sent by God to find Lot, if I am correct in this understanding they would be quite able to defend themselves.
posted by Justin on
John – thank you for your article regarding this topic. However, I feel as though an important component is missing. Many people cite text from the bible and don’t necessarily consider the history of the times to put it in context.
I think perhaps even a better argument would have been that while at one time in the culture from which the bible arose which would have encourage or embraced such behaviors because women were not valued. This is a culture from which the practice of clitoraldectomies originated. Their lack of judgment regarding women can very easily carry over to the GLBT community. While views of the mainstream christian scholars have denounced such practices and deem then as no longer being considered an ethical treatment of women, they continue to maintain their stance against the GLBT community. Little known as well is that the “Bible” is a censored version of text. I would challenge many of them to consider text that exists that the christian church has chosen to censor and not place into the bible. There is more text out there that exists from the same time periods that are not included. Any ideas as to why? I hope the curiosity strikes you enough to research those text.
Some other strange practices of the times were the use of male and female hierdules. There seems to be far more information out there regarding the female hierdule, but very little about the male hierdule. Lacking in both would be the age ranges of these individuals.
You may also wish to research things such as “coitus interruptus” and how it pertains to the christian religion.
My apologies if it appears as though I am attempting to tell you how to argue this topic. I am merely wishing to give you more areas to consider to strengthen your own arguments.
I see that I missed your visit to Davenport, Iowa for your debate at St. Ambrose University, which is where I graduated. I have given several guest speeches there on related topics. If you plan on being in Eastern Iowa again. I would appreciate hearing one of your debates. Come back soon!
posted by Amicus on
John – thank you for your article regarding this topic. However, I feel as though an important component is missing.
Do you find your augmentations would be persuasive?
I suppose it would depend on the audience, especially if they were fundamentalists or just text-lazy Christians.
I would augment John’s stance in two ways, principally.
Beyond “keep reading” might be an encouragement to view the text in more than one way, to read it not just as text (history or fable), but also to find allegory. In other words, “keep reading” is not a dictum to find falsity in the text in apparent contradictions, of one sort or another, but a way to suggest that the real truths are often beyond the page, so to speak. Truths that not arbitrary, not outside the “word of God”, not “second guessing”, but still well within our ability to grasp them, if we have eyes to do so. Strategically, this approach requires that one readjust their approach to the text, rather than requesting that they abandon it to do so. [If someone thinks this is less persuasive than a ‘clean-break’ approach to the text, I’d be open to listening why that is.]
The other is for gay youth. With Lawrence King still on many minds, the fine art of verbal self-defense ought to be at the forefront. It’s not just the inveterate AFA, but taunts like “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, that encapsulate
popular “fundamentalist” misreadings of the text and require, not an essay, but another kind of re-joinder to re-set the stage for an invitation to a broader engagement and understanding.
here, put it to the test with this story:
What is rape symbolic of? Is it different if we accept that Sodom was a town of plenty, quite wealthy?
What do “strangers” represent in the story? Would the story be different without them having been such? Does this context inform how one might think about the offering and nonacceptance of kin, of daughters, of “one of us”? How much does a strict reading of the Hebrew “mortals” point to a clearer representation? Does this developing an allegory along these lines provide a context in which the daughters bearing children for Lot is … not primary to a “brimstone God”, just ‘historical record keeping’?
“‘God made Adam and Eve’? God made Cain and Abel…” [And as one comedian put it, unless someone “knew” their mother or sister, then the text needs to be viewed beyond the page, as well.]
posted by barry on
John,
In the traditional Jewish understanding of this story, “the sin of Sodom” had nothing to do with sex. It refers to cruelty and injustice.
The Midrash, a vast Hebrew collection of stories and essays built around the Biblical narrative, gives many examples of Sodomite cruelty, inhospitality, and judicial corruption. These stories became authoritative and came to dominate Jewish understanding of the Bible by the time of the Second Temple, even before the Christian Era.
John, I’m afraid you made one of the same mistakes that your fundamentalist critics make, however, when you assume that the Bible automatically endorses the actions of any character, even relatively good ones like Lot. The tradition blames Lot for living in such a criminal place in the first place, and considers him rather weak and limited; it is only compared with the Sodomites that he appears relatively decent.
As far as his daughters are concerned, the Bible explicitly says that they thought the destruction of the cities of the plain was universal, and that there were no other people left alive in the world. Their incest was an attempt to repopulate the world. Again, their behavior is not applauded, but given their beliefs it is not entirely condemned. Which seems kind of reasonable of the Bible.
posted by Richard on
And another thing. As a pratical matter, most people who were raised to believe that, “Well, the Bible says X about Y” are probably not to be too persuaded by history, reason or logic.
This is not to suggest, that we should not be willing to make such examinations of religious text, but it is probably going to result in a lot of ‘preaching to the choir, if you will.
LGBT people will listen, their close friends and family may listen (allies), but it remains to be seen if ‘average’ or ‘normal’ Joe and Jane sixpick will listen…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, proving once again that many in the gay community still fail to understand the otherside… it’s probably beyond those pesky “religionists” to be reasoned with or understand, eh Richard?
I think the whole point of JohnC’s piece is that he finds utility for some in his audience in examining what the story of S&G really means… THAT’s the whole point… work our issue on their ground when understnading and further examination will advance our cause.
Granted, like with BrianM, it might be easier for gays to just dismiss those folks as myth believers or beyond reason, logic or history.
Yes, Richard, it actually does help if you talk with them on their own comfortable ground.
But that requires trying to understand and examine the positions of the opposing force… it’s easier to just demean them with lines like “As a pratical matter, most people who were raised to believe that, “Well, the Bible says X about Y” are probably not to be too persuaded by history, reason or logic.”
posted by Amicus on
most people who were raised to believe that, “Well, the Bible says X about Y” are probably not to be too persuaded by history, reason or logic.
Well said, as a segue. It pays to dig deeper into that, along several lines.
First, it may pay to have more than one category. Many of those we might call “bible thumpers” actually are very text-oriented and encouraged to read the text itself. This is different than those who are not encouraged to examine the text, but to accept the teachings of the Church authorities. Of course, there are some who use “bible says” as merely a way to express or excuse prejudices that they hold for other reasons.
As far as responding, it pays to have a sense where people are coming from.
As for persuading people, especially adults, that’s a far more complicated topic. There are people who have studied “adult learning”, however. For instance, how much of a person’s perceived identity it tied up with this or that belief, may have some bearing on how much they are willing to accept, in general and in terms of persuasion.
“Joe sixpack”, one group you mention, has what might be called a “lazy man’s identity”. I might sum it up with some other group-identity dynamics with, “If we don’t know it already, then we are probably not interested.” These people probably need to be shifted out of their comfort-zone, in order to be induced to make a change, to alter. “Needled”, in one way or the other, is the biological corollary, maybe.
We know that experience – testimony – is also a powerful force in shaping people’s beliefs.
The number of people, for instance, who disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality, in some degree or another, is high (perhaps as much as 60%), even though they still consider themselves Catholic.
posted by Throbert McGee on
As far as his daughters are concerned, the Bible explicitly says that they thought the destruction of the cities of the plain was universal, and that there were no other people left alive in the world.
Maybe so, but they don’t seem to have exactly knocked themselves out trying to verify that they were the only people left alive before getting Lot drunk for some DILF action. It was more like, “Whew, that was a narrow escape, and too bad about Mom — hey, let’s screw!”
This part of the story has always reminded me of an old National Lampoon cartoon in which a couple of firefighters have pried open the doors of an elevator with crowbars, and are helping a group of office workers climb out of the stuck elevator. A TV camera crew is on hand, of course, interviewing one of the rescued passengers, who explains:
“We were able to survive the 90 minutes trapped between floors by drinking each other’s urine…”
posted by Marc on
I am sure there is some historic significance to the Bible, but it is still a book written by men (and maybe a few women)to try to explain the unexplainable. (And it’s hardly the only book that tries to do so…) The significance of its parables depends solely on how you want to view them.
In this day and age, I am still shocked that we still hold so much literal meaning into such wild tales as a burning bush, people changing into pillars of salt and, of course, virgin births. If J.K Rowling had been alive back then, something tells me we would worshipping out of “Harry Potter and the Books of the Bible.”
posted by Richard on
I have no problem with the basic argument that it “pays” to dig deeper into a religious, historical or philosophical topics.
The problem is that few people have time or desire to do so. It is difficult to get such people to sit through an in-depth discussion on the Bible (history, culture, politics, etc.), especially when it conflicts with what they were taught.
Most people are taught, wrongly, that the Bible condemns gay people, gay sex and gay lives. Few people really question this in public, let alone attempt to have a debate that is not simply preaching to the choir.
A few years ago, a student of mine gave a little speech in class, at a fairly liberal-urban college, on this very topic. It did not go over well at all.
This is not to say that no good can come of this, but I suspect we will get people to support equal rights before we can change what they think the Bible ‘really says’ about homosexuality.
posted by Amicus on
Yes, it is difficult, no doubt. All change requires making someone feel dissatisfied with the status-quo, one way or another (and there are many ways).
The few thought-leaders on the topic that our community has generated are … operating freelance (although Gene Robinson now heads an outreach council, whatever its mandate). Not in the negative, out-of-control connotation, but without obvious, sustainable backing. They do field operations without backup. There is no consistent message. No institutional learning. As an indicator of organizational prowess, is it notable that the community doesn’t seem good at generating something like what happened for Sally Kern, even if it is not out-of-the-question. Most of it seems responsive, rather than pro-active (i.e. seizing this or that moment to get free press, etc.).
I question how much people are *taught* about what the Bible says about homosexuality. My sense is that the majority garner directly or indirectly that it is wrong or gravely wrong (like murder?). They couldn’t say one way or the other about much more, except maybe ‘it’s not natural’.
posted by Richard on
In general, I have found that many LGBT people get into positions of authority within gay rights (broadly put) interest groups on less then germane terms.
Look at just about any high school or college level gay club and its probably run by LGBT people whose only real qualification is that they are somehow deemed to be ‘hip’.
If you look at some of the people who have run the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, you cannot but help wonder how they managed to get such a (cough, cough) position.
One of the real, unsaid problems, is that we often fail to properly educate, train and suppport LGBT people to serve the community.
I question how much people are *taught* about what the Bible says about homosexuality. My sense is that the majority garner directly or indirectly that it is wrong or gravely wrong (like murder?). They couldn’t say one way or the other about much more, except maybe ‘it’s not natural’.
posted by Amicus on
I didn’t mean to take a dig at anyone but just to offer a set of eyes on the problem.
As the Bible says, “The ‘hip’, you will always have with you.”
My criticism is an organizational one, mostly, related to the ability to marshal talent and resources, across time and in a concerted way. (I say that without myself having an inordinate need to bring order to the galaxy – at least any longer, yuk yuk -, just the basics, perhaps).
There is plenty of good being done. John Corvino’s videos are available. It’s quite possible for them to be re-used by others (at least I don’t think they are being sold by “Corvino Media, LLC” for exorbitant prices or something). If one were to draft a strategic communications strategy, they could be part of honing and refining a message, and then leveraging it.
There are other ways to communicate, too. Humor and solely humor (essentially powerful memory aids). Using *just* questions and answers (Socratic). Focusing on ‘common questions’. Focusing on ‘in-your-face questions’. Using ‘analytical language’ to answer questions or telling stories from people’s lives. Using different combinations of strong language and soft language.
There are all kinds of other “tie ins” to be handled as well. For instance, you might be asking a crowd of non-gay people to talk more about gay sexuality than they do even of their own. It’s never ceases to amaze how much Americans leave “sex ed” almost solely to pre-verbal communications and the like. In such circumstances, you’re not just talking about gay sexuality, but helping non-gays with their sexuality as well…
You can develop “hooks” for certain audiences. Curiosity is a way to get apathetic people to engage. I was just over at Billerico reading about Cathy Rena’s experience.
Those kids want to talk about … what goes on under the sheets. It’s reasonable to assume that, if you promise that to some degree, voyeuristic as it might be, you’ve got your “hook”. I’m not suggesting that as anything other than a way to meet the objection that people are ‘not interested’ or ‘won’t sit to listen’. (It may or may not turn out to be effective.)
posted by Donny on
I’m up to the challenge of gay theology questions:
Inhospitality towards others and “haughtiness” were the sins of Sodom. But Ezekiel is quite explicit about sexual sins being front and center as well. “Haughtiness” and the word “Gay” as it has come down to us in 2008, are virtually interchangeable. It is a perfect description of the rudeness to laud your sexual proclivities as a civil rights issue. What decent person introduces themself by their sexual acts? That I or anyone else needs to hear you identify yourself exclusively by how you like to have sex is rude and inhospitable. And especially when children must endure same-gender sex being taught to them. Gay sex is quite easy to figure out what is being presented. No details need to be talked about. It is very inhospitable and anti-Christian to enlighten non homosexuals about same-gender sex to say the least. At least to Christian parents and their children. BUT putting that aside . . . there is not one place that affirms, promotes, supports, or condones same-gender sex acts anywhere in the Bible. And, the New Testament witness, goes to great detail to oppose same-gender sex acts be engaged in by Christians (believers.) Just a quick once-over reading of Jude, James, John and Peter, (which I have asked of many, many secularist-types to do) shows that the Apostles and disciples opposed, in no uncertain terms, same-gender sex acts. And Paul was more than clear that same-gender sex is not something for a Christian to engage in.
Only deception and delusion and irrational emotionalism can get anyone to agree with the gay culture on a reading of Biblical support for same-gender sex acts. It simply does not exist. Even David, whom the GLBT ideologues like to proclaim as “gay” because of his love for Jonathan bar Saul, married many women and had many children the biologically sound way. And Psalm 51 details a contrite and repentant David desiring to be restored FROM his sinfulness TO a life of preaching righteousness. It is sound theology to view same-gender sex acts, as antithetical to living a godly
Christian” life. “Do what thou wilt . . .,” is held by other religions, but it is not part of Christian doctrine.
“Let us reason together,” says the Lord.
donnyresponse@yahoo.com
posted by serkan on
jsxjgrrgsgsfg