Correcting Misinformation About Sodom’s Sin

Correcting Misinformation About Sodom’s Sin ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/rljITVHaSbU/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Correcting Misinformation About Sodom’s Sin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rljITVHaSbU) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-interpretation, sodom, hospitality, sexual-ethics, hebrew-bible] > author: [MISSING] > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rljITVHaSbU > date created: 2024-12-19 16:55 > > # 🏷️ Title: Correcting misinformation about Sodom's sin >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Compare Genesis 19 and Judges 19 narratives for parallel structures — 0:00 #biblical-interpretation - [H2] Research ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes and social hierarchies — 8:45 #ancient-cultures - [H3] Analyze evolution of sexual orientation concepts from ancient to modern times — 15:30 #sexuality ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Original Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rljITVHaSbU) ## 📝 Summary - A biblical scholar critiques a content creator's interpretation of Sodom's sin, arguing it was inhospitality rather than homosexuality - The critique examines parallels between Genesis 19 and Judges 19 to show both stories concern gang rape and violence against guests - Scholarly consensus views Sodom's destruction as punishment for social injustice and mistreatment of vulnerable outsiders - The response challenges anachronistic projection of modern sexual orientation concepts onto ancient texts - Bottom line: Ancient hospitality violations included extreme violence against guests, not consensual same-sex relationships ## 📖 Main Content The video critiques claims that Sodom's primary sin was homosexuality rather than inhospitality. The scholar argues that both Genesis 19 and its parallel in Judges 19 describe threats of gang rape and murder against male guests, representing the gravest violation of ancient hospitality codes. Ancient Near Eastern cultures prioritized protection of guests and outsiders. The threat in both stories wasn't polite requests for consensual relations, but violent sexual assault intended to kill the victims. This interpretation aligns with Ezekiel 16:49's description of Sodom's sins as pride, abundance, and failure to help the poor and needy. The scholar contends that ancient cultures lacked modern concepts of sexual orientation. Instead, they operated within hierarchies of domination and penetration where men held the highest position. Male-male sexual violence violated these hierarchies while representing extreme inhospitality toward guests. Cross-references to Leviticus 18-20 don't necessarily support the homosexuality interpretation, as these laws may address sexual violence and contamination rather than consensual relationships. The focus remains on social justice and treatment of vulnerable populations. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=0) — [H1] Misrepresentation of Sodom's men's intentions - Key idea: The men of Sodom intended gang rape to death, not consensual relations - Evidence: "Their intent was to gang rape them to death" #### ⏱️ [01:45](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=105) — [H2] Parallel story in Judges 19 provides context - Key idea: Identical narrative structure shows the true nature of the threat - Evidence: "This is probably a retelling of an identical story that we find in Judges 19" #### ⏱️ [03:20](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=200) — [H3] Hospitality framework in both narratives - Key idea: Both stories emphasize guest protection as sacred duty - Evidence: "You treat guests with exceptional hospitality" #### ⏱️ [05:15](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=315) — [H2] Genesis 18 provides contrasting example - Key idea: Abraham's hospitality contrasts with Sodom's inhospitality - Evidence: "Abraham dwells in a tent... He bows down before them" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=450) — [H1] Ancient concepts of sexuality differed from modern - Key idea: No concept of homosexual orientation existed in ancient times - Evidence: "They didn't really have a notion of a homosexual orientation in this time period" #### ⏱️ [10:45](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=645) — [H3] Judges 19 outcome shows lethal intent - Key idea: The successful assault in Judges 19 proves the intended outcome - Evidence: "They wantingly raped her and abused her all throughout the night... she ends up dying" #### ⏱️ [13:20](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=800) — [H2] Levite's interpretation of the threat - Key idea: The victim understood the threat as murderous assault - Evidence: "They intended to kill me" #### ⏱️ [16:10](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=970) — [H3] Israel's response shows gravity of violation - Key idea: All tribes mobilized to punish the hospitality violation - Evidence: "We will go up against it by lot" #### ⏱️ [18:45](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=1125) — [H1] Inhospitality encompasses social justice - Key idea: Hospitality violations indicate broader social justice failures - Evidence: "The poor and the needy... are the proverbial canary in the coal mine" #### ⏱️ [22:30](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=1350) — [H2] False dichotomy fallacy identified - Key idea: Gang rape to death is both inhospitality and sexual violence - Evidence: "The threat of men raping other men to death is the manifestation of the inhospitality" #### ⏱️ [25:15](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=1515) — [H3] Ancient sexual hierarchies explained - Key idea: Penetration hierarchies determined appropriate sexual roles - Evidence: "There was a socially conventionalized hierarchy of domination and penetration" #### ⏱️ [28:40](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=1720) — [H2] Jude 7 refers to human-angel intercourse - Key idea: "Other flesh" indicates species boundary violation, not homosexuality - Evidence: "The other flesh was humans having sex with angels" #### ⏱️ [32:10](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=1930) — [H3] Ezekiel 16:49 emphasizes contrast - Key idea: Sodom had abundance but refused to help the vulnerable - Evidence: "This city had everything they could ever want... yet refuse to help the poor" #### ⏱️ [35:45](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=2145) — [H1] Cross-reference doesn't change interpretation - Key idea: Even if Ezekiel references Leviticus, the hospitality reading stands - Evidence: "Threatening outside male visitors with lethal sexual assault fits perfectly" #### ⏱️ [38:20](https://youtu.be/rljITVHaSbU?t=2300) — [H2] Call to abandon biblical bigotry - Key idea: Just as society rejected biblical slavery, it can reject anti-LGBTQ+ interpretations - Evidence: "We overruled the Bible. We overruled God... we decided we were all going to accept this new understanding" ## 📚 References - [Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=NRSV) - [Judges 19 - The Levite's Concubine](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2019&version=NRSV) - [Ezekiel 16:49 - Sodom's Sins](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016%3A49&version=NRSV) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The traditional "homosexuality" interpretation misrepresents ancient narratives about violent sexual assault and murder of guests - Ancient hospitality codes prioritized protecting outsiders, making threats against guests the gravest social violation - Modern sexual orientation concepts didn't exist in ancient times, which operated on hierarchies of domination rather than attraction-based categories ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Scholarship Challenges Traditional Sodom Interpretation** New analysis reveals that the story of Sodom may be less about sexual orientation and more about ancient social justice. Scholars examining parallel narratives in Genesis and Judges find consistent themes around hospitality violations and protection of vulnerable populations. This research helps us understand how ancient cultures prioritized guest protection and social care for outsiders, poor, and needy populations. The implications extend beyond biblical interpretation to questions of how communities should treat marginalized groups today. For those interested in biblical studies and social ethics, this analysis provides valuable context for understanding ancient moral frameworks and their modern applications. Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://www.sbl-site.org/), [Biblical Archaeology Society](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/), [Academic Study Resources](https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content on contextual biblical interpretation methods - Education: Develop workshops on ancient Near Eastern cultural contexts - Community management: Moderate discussions on sensitive religious topics with scholarly rigor #### Community - Contributors: Establish guidelines for respectful religious discourse - Sponsors: Support inclusive scholarship that examines traditional interpretations - Ecosystem: Foster dialogue between conservative and progressive biblical scholars ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Traditional interpretations of biblical sexuality texts may reflect later theological developments rather than original contexts - Hospitality violations in ancient texts primarily concern violence against vulnerable populations rather than consensual relationships - Modern sexual orientation categories are anachronistic when applied to ancient literature - Cross-cultural analysis of ancient hospitality codes would reveal consistent patterns of guest protection ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative narrative analysis between Genesis 19 and Judges 19 - Historical-critical examination of ancient Near Eastern hospitality practices - Lexical analysis of Hebrew terms for sexual behavior and social violations - Cross-cultural anthropological study of guest protection customs ### ❓ Questions - How do other ancient Near Eastern texts treat hospitality violations? - What archaeological evidence exists for ancient hospitality practices? - How did early Christian interpreters understand these passages differently than modern readers? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive database of ancient hospitality laws and customs - Linguistic analysis of sexual terminology across ancient Semitic languages - Comparative study of guest protection themes in world literature ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Biblical interpretation requires understanding ancient cultural contexts - Policy: Religious freedom discussions benefit from scholarly nuance on contested texts - Education: Seminary curricula should include ancient Near Eastern cultural studies - Funding: Support for interdisciplinary biblical scholarship combining archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Graduate level (16+ Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: None identified in audio-only content - Improve: Add maps of ancient Near East, cultural diagrams, parallel text comparisons #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio presentation with detailed verbal analysis - Improve: Add background music, varied vocal pacing for emphasis #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive definitions, Hebrew terminology, cross-textual comparisons - Improve: Add glossary of technical terms, pronunciation guides #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: None identified - Improve: Interactive timeline of biblical composition, hands-on manuscript comparison #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argument structure, logical fallacy identification - Improve: Decision trees for interpretation methods, argument mapping #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Critique-response format suggests dialogue - Improve: Moderated debate format, peer review exercises #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual analysis and reflection - Improve: Self-assessment questions, personal interpretation worksheets #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: None identified - Improve: Connect hospitality themes to environmental stewardship, ecosystem care ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Audio-only format is screen reader compatible - Improve: Add chapter markers, heading structure for navigation #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls - Improve: Transcript with searchable timestamps #### Contrast and readability - Present: Not applicable to audio content - Improve: High-contrast transcript formatting #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Not applicable - Improve: Responsive transcript design #### Media and captions - Present: Audio content without captions - Improve: Add accurate captions, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video controls - Improve: Accessible comment system, feedback forms ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Focus on ancient Near Eastern cultures - Improve: Include comparative religious perspectives, cross-cultural hospitality studies #### Inclusive language - Present: Uses inclusive pronouns, avoids discriminatory language - Improve: Add content warnings for discussion of sexual violence #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear logical structure, defined terms - Improve: Chapter breaks, summary sections, visual aids #### Representation - Present: Challenges anti-LGBTQ+ interpretations - Improve: Include diverse scholarly voices, multiple theological perspectives #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique of opposing views - Improve: Community guidelines for comments, support resources for affected communities ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Systematic comparison of parallel biblical narratives - Inductive strength: Builds from specific textual evidence to broader interpretive conclusions - Causal reasoning: Links ancient cultural contexts to textual meanings - Analogical strength: Draws parallels between Judges 19 and Genesis 19 #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Occasional personal attacks on content creator rather than arguments - Strawman: Some misrepresentation of opposing positions for easier refutation #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but passionate, occasionally condescending toward opposing view ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No significant denial patterns identified - Attack: Some attacking of opposing interpreter's methods and motivations - Reverse victim/offender: Claims traditional interpreters harm LGBTQ+ communities - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Uses moral urgency ("lives depend on it") to motivate acceptance ## 🎯 Conclusion This scholarly critique challenges traditional interpretations of the Sodom narrative by emphasizing ancient cultural contexts around hospitality and social justice. The analysis demonstrates how parallel biblical narratives can illuminate original meanings that may differ significantly from later theological developments. For practitioners of biblical interpretation, this work underscores the importance of historical-critical methods and cross-cultural understanding in approaching ancient texts responsibly. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Ancient hospitality codes prioritized guest protection over sexual propriety concerns > [!quote] Correcting misinformation about Sodom's sin by [MISSING] via YouTube. Published [ --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Was Sodomson sin merely in hospitality [00:03] and not homosexuality? What's the naked? [00:08] >> All right, let's see it. [00:10] >> In Genesis 19, God destroyed Sodom after [00:13] the men of the city tried to have sex [00:15] with two sojourners under Lot's care. [00:18] >> So, I'm going to stop right here because [00:20] we already have a big problem. And that [00:22] is with the intentional and the rank [00:25] misrepresentation of the intentions of [00:27] the men of Sodom, which was not to [00:30] gently wrap upon their chamber door and [00:33] politely ask if they'd like to do gay [00:35] stuff. Their intent was to gang rape [00:38] them to death. And we know this because [00:42] this is probably [00:44] a retelling of an identical story that [00:47] we find in Judges 19 where the exact [00:49] same thing happens. And in Judges 19, [00:52] there's a Levite and his concubine has [00:55] run off. So, he has to go fetch her and [00:58] he's got to travel across the [01:00] countryside and he finds her and it's [01:02] getting dark and he's told, "Spend the [01:04] night here." And he says, "No, I'm going [01:06] to go find a town of Israelites to spend [01:09] the night in." And the idea there is, I [01:11] am an outsider. I don't want to be in a [01:14] foreign land. And so he travels back and [01:16] he ends up hanging out in the town [01:19] square after sundown in Giba, which is [01:22] inhabited by men of the tribe of [01:24] Benjamin. So he thinks, "I'm safe. These [01:27] are members of an Israelite tribe." And [01:30] then an old man finds him and says, [01:31] "Come into my house." And this old man [01:33] is from Ephraim. So he's not actually a [01:37] member of the tribe that occupies the [01:39] city of Gabia. And this is very similar [01:42] to what's going on in Genesis 19 because [01:44] Lot is not from Sodom or Gomorrah. Lot [01:48] is an outsider and the angels are coming [01:52] in and they are even further outsiders. [01:55] And so the uh man comes into the old [01:59] man's home. And then we're starting up [02:01] in verse 22. While they were enjoying [02:03] themselves, the men of the city, a [02:05] perverse lot, surrounded the house and [02:08] started pounding on the door. They said [02:09] to the old man, the master of the house, [02:11] "Bring out the man who came into your [02:13] house so that we may have intercourse [02:16] with him." And in the Hebrew, it is, [02:18] "Bring him outside so that we may know [02:21] him." And the man, the master of the [02:23] house, went out to them and said to [02:24] them, "No, my brothers, do not act so [02:26] wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do [02:30] not do this vile thing." And the Hebrew [02:32] of my guest is really this man is in my [02:35] house. And so you can see here the [02:37] narrative is quite clearly queuing you [02:40] to this hospitality framework. And this [02:44] was a phenomenally important ideal in [02:48] this time period. You treat guests with [02:52] exceptional hospitality. And that's also [02:54] what's going on in Genesis 19. And one [02:57] of the biggest indicators of that is [02:59] that Genesis 18 is intended to stand in [03:03] contrast to Genesis 19. And there's kind [03:06] of a uh rural urban dichotomy going on [03:10] here because Abraham dwells in a tent. [03:12] Abraham is kind of nomadic. And what [03:15] happens when these people show up at [03:17] Abraham's tent? He bows down before [03:19] them. He offers them whatever they want. [03:22] He goes out of his way to treat them [03:23] with exceptional hospitality. And then [03:26] they go to Sodom where they are [03:29] threatened with being gang raped to [03:31] death. And the outsider who has brought [03:34] them into his home has to stand up for [03:37] the ideal that no, we treat our guests [03:40] who are outsiders that we don't know [03:42] with exceptional hospitality. But let's [03:44] get back to Judges 19 [03:47] verse 24. Here are my virgin daughter [03:50] and his concubine. Let me bring them out [03:53] now. Ravish them. Do whatever you want [03:56] to them. But against this man, do not do [03:59] such a vile thing. Exactly as Lot does. [04:02] offers his own virgin children in place [04:06] of this man. Now, some people point to [04:09] Genesis 19 and they say, "See, they [04:12] turned down the women. They weren't [04:13] sexually attracted to women. They were [04:14] only sexually attracted to men." And [04:16] that's pure and utter nonsense because [04:18] they didn't really have a notion of a [04:21] homosexual orientation in this time [04:23] period. They had notions that there were [04:26] people who sought out same-sex [04:28] intercourse, but they divided them up [04:31] between people who sought out the [04:34] insertive role and people who sought out [04:36] the receptive role. And they treated [04:38] those two different orientations as [04:42] motivated by entirely separate things. [04:45] And they were not just two sides of the [04:48] same coin. They were very different [04:49] things. And their notion of what was [04:51] going on here was phenomenally different [04:54] from the notion of a homosexual [04:56] orientation. But they also did not [05:00] imagine that seeking out samesex [05:03] intercourse meant you were not [05:05] interested in heterosexual intercourse. [05:08] That notion didn't exist in that time [05:10] period. And so, no, Genesis 19 is [05:13] absolutely not trying to say this is [05:16] about a homosexual orientation because, [05:18] see, they weren't interested in women. [05:21] They weren't interested in women because [05:23] they knew that was a consolation prize. [05:25] They knew that was trying to deflect [05:28] their intentions. Which is why even in [05:31] Judges 19, the men don't listen. Look, [05:33] verse 25, but the men would not listen [05:36] to him. So, the same thing is going on. [05:39] No, we intend to abuse this man. Why? [05:42] Because the abuse of this man sexually [05:45] represents one of the most rank [05:47] violations of the principles of [05:49] hospitality that could be imagined in [05:52] that time period. This man sought out a [05:55] town of Israelites precisely so he would [05:58] be more of an insider and would [06:00] hopefully be treated better, would not [06:02] be threatened by the men of the city. [06:05] And they go ahead and threaten him [06:07] anyway. And the same exact thing happens [06:09] in Genesis 19. Now in Judges 19, the man [06:14] shoves his concubine outside. So the man [06:16] seized his concubine and put her out to [06:18] them. They wantingly raped her and [06:20] abused her all throughout the night [06:22] until the morning as the dawn began to [06:24] break. They let her go and she ends up [06:26] dying as a result of this abuse. But in [06:30] Genesis 19, that doesn't happen. Why? [06:33] because the narrator needs the two [06:35] daughters for the end of the story [06:38] because they're going to become the [06:41] ancestors of the Moabites and the [06:43] Ammonites. And so the this is an [06:46] ideology for the ancestry of these other [06:50] people groups who are antagonistic to [06:52] Israel. And so the story is being told [06:54] as a way to go, haha, you are the [06:57] descendants of incest. So it's a way to [07:00] mock and deride them. but the narrator [07:03] needs them for the end of the story. So, [07:05] they're not going to shove them out. So, [07:07] that's the main reason for the [07:08] difference between the men who [07:10] ultimately abuse the woman who gets [07:12] shoved out the door and what goes on in [07:15] Genesis 19. But it's very clearly not [07:19] just saying, "Shall we do gay stuff [07:21] together?" This is about gang rape and [07:24] it is about killing the victim because [07:27] this was not just we're going to um [07:29] sexually assault you and then leave you [07:31] to be. This is we're going to carry this [07:33] through to the end. And that's how the [07:36] author of the story in Judges 19 [07:38] represents the Levite's understanding of [07:41] what was going on. Because after all [07:43] this happens, the Levite does this [07:45] grotesque thing where he takes his [07:48] concubine's body and cuts it up into 12 [07:51] pieces and sends a piece to each of the [07:53] tribes of Israel likely along with a [07:55] message saying this is what happened as [07:58] a symbol of an illustration of how bad [08:01] things have become in Israel. that he, a [08:04] member of an Israelite tribe, is treated [08:07] with such rank in hospitality while [08:09] staying in a city inhabited by the tribe [08:13] of Israel. And so in Judges 20, he calls [08:16] all Israel to him. The Levite, the [08:18] husband of the woman who was murdered, [08:19] answered, I came to Gabia that belongs [08:21] to Benjamin, I and my concubine to spend [08:24] the night. The lords of Gabia, remember [08:27] this is the men of the tribe of [08:29] Benjamin, not of Ephraim. The man he was [08:32] staying with was of Ephraim, so he's an [08:34] outsider as well. The lords of Gabia [08:37] rose up against me and surrounded the [08:39] house at night. They intended to kill [08:41] me. Now, nothing in the story has the [08:44] men of Gabby saying, "We're going to [08:45] kill you." It only has them saying, [08:47] "Bring him outside so that we might know [08:50] him." Pretty much the same thing that [08:53] the men of Sodom say about the angels to [08:57] Lot. So the Levite clearly understands [08:59] the threat to not only be sexual assault [09:02] but ultimately killing him. And they [09:05] raped my concubine until she died. Then [09:08] I took my concubine and cut her into [09:09] pieces and sent her throughout the whole [09:11] extent of Israel's territory. For they [09:13] have committed a vile outrage in Israel. [09:15] So now you Israelites, all of you give [09:17] your advice and counsel here. All the [09:20] people got up as one, saying, "We will [09:21] not any of us go to our tents, nor will [09:23] any of us return to our houses. But now [09:25] this is what we will do to Gibia. We [09:27] will go up against it by lot. We will [09:29] take 10 men of a 100 throughout all the [09:31] tribes of Israel and 100 of a thousand [09:33] and a thousand of 10,000 to bring [09:34] provisions for the troops who will go to [09:36] repay Giba of Benjamin for all the [09:39] disgrace that they have done in Israel. [09:42] What was the disgrace is that they [09:45] threatened this man with gang raping him [09:48] to death. ultimately gang raping his [09:51] concubine to death, which was a [09:54] grotesque and rank display of inhospity [09:58] because he should have been safe staying [10:00] within one of the towns of Israel. And [10:03] this content creator is never once [10:05] throughout this entire video going to [10:07] acknowledge that this was about sexual [10:09] assault because if he does that, then he [10:13] has to deal with weighing what the real [10:15] issue is here. whether it was just male [10:19] same-sex intercourse or maybe it had [10:22] something to do with threatening men [10:25] with sexual assault likely to their [10:28] deaths. That's not going to be brought [10:30] up even once in this video. And that is [10:33] the biggest problem with what's going on [10:35] here. In Ezekiel 16:49, we read, [10:38] "Behold, this was a guilt of your sister [10:41] Sodom. She and her daughters had pride, [10:44] excess of food, and prosperous ease. but [10:47] did not aid the poor and needy. Did God [10:50] rain down fire and brimstone simply [10:52] because they didn't bring out the best [10:54] dinner wear or roll out the red carpet? [10:57] Was Sodomson merely inhospity and not [11:00] homosexuality? No. So, we've already [11:03] seen this content creator just wildly [11:06] misrepresent the threat posed by the men [11:08] of Sodom. And here we're seeing a straw [11:10] man where the scholarly consensus that [11:13] the main message here was about [11:14] inhospity [11:16] is just a matter of etiquette or manners [11:20] rather than how the vulnerable and the [11:23] outsiders are treated because inhospity [11:27] is a way to kind of encapsulate what's [11:29] going on here in light of the ideal that [11:33] is being held up in Genesis 18 where [11:36] Abraham is the epitome of that ideal. [11:40] Inhospity is kind of the best way to [11:42] represent that, but really that's a way [11:45] to refer to a whole suite of behaviors [11:48] associated with social justice and how [11:51] you're supposed to behave within a [11:52] society. Uh the poor and the needy, for [11:55] instance, they are the proverbial canary [11:59] in the coal mine of social justice. And [12:01] we see this not just in the Hebrew [12:03] Bible, but in Hammurabi's law and in [12:05] many other places in ancient West Asia [12:07] where they are the sign of how well a [12:11] society is doing. If the poor and the [12:13] needy are taken care of, that society [12:16] has met their expectations related to [12:19] social justice, hospitality. If the poor [12:22] and the needy are in trouble, that [12:24] society is not meeting the expectation [12:27] related to social justice aka [12:30] hospitality. So to threaten outsiders [12:33] with gang raping them to death would be [12:37] a rank display of inhospity. So it's not [12:41] about etiquette or manners. It's about [12:43] how you're treating people in the [12:46] society. When scholars say the real [12:49] problem here is inhospity, that's what [12:51] they're talking about. A bunch of ideals [12:53] associated with how a society acts where [12:57] their treatment of outsiders, poor, the [13:00] needy, where their treatment of the [13:04] underprivileged [13:05] is a sign of whether or not they're [13:08] meeting the expectations, whether or not [13:10] they are maintaining social and [13:13] therefore cosmic justice and order. So [13:16] it's part of a bigger ideological [13:19] constellation associated with social [13:21] behavior. It's not just about etiquette [13:24] or manners. And so this threat of gang [13:28] raping outsiders to death is a part of [13:32] inhospity. So, this content creator is [13:34] trying to minimize how you're [13:36] understanding the description of this [13:39] act as inhospitable to make it seem like [13:42] there's no way on earth that could be [13:45] what the story in Genesis 19 is really [13:48] about. But, as we've already seen, [13:50] that's what the story in Judges 19 is [13:52] very clearly about. Genesis 19, I think, [13:54] is probably written after Judges 19 and [13:57] is using that narrative template to uh [14:01] say the same kinds of things about Sodom [14:04] and justify its destruction. But yes, [14:07] inhospity is very much what is in play [14:11] in both of these stories. But this [14:13] content creator wants to mischaracterize [14:17] in hospitality as something that doesn't [14:19] really have to do with the threat of [14:23] sexually assaulting visitors to death. [14:26] And here are three reasons why. Number [14:29] one, this is a classic false dilemma [14:33] fallacy. The false dilemma, sometimes [14:35] called a false dichotomy or either or [14:38] fallacy, is when someone tries to make [14:40] you believe there are only two choices, [14:43] like it's either this or that, when [14:45] there might be more than one option. [14:47] It's a way to trick you into thinking [14:49] you have to pick between two things, [14:52] even though there's a chance both can be [14:54] true. Or there could be altogether [14:56] another solution. When gay activists [14:59] claim Sodom sin was not homosexuality [15:02] but in hospitality, they erroneously [15:04] assume both are mutually exclusive and [15:07] can't be true at the same time. So there [15:10] is equivocation going on here. And this [15:12] is also a straw man fallacy because as I [15:14] just explained, [15:17] the threat of men raping other men to [15:20] death is the manifestation of the [15:24] inhospity. So, I'm not the one saying, [15:27] "Well, it's either the one or the [15:29] other." And this content creator [15:31] suggests it's one or the other because [15:33] of the way they're understanding [15:34] homosexuality. Because when we talk [15:37] about homosexuality today, we are [15:40] generally talking about a homosexual [15:43] orientation, [15:44] same-sex attraction, [15:46] when it could also just refer to [15:49] same-sex intercourse, whether or not [15:52] it's motivated by samesex attraction. So [15:55] there's a degree to which homosexuality [15:57] could refer to men threatening other men [16:01] with gang raping them to death even if [16:04] they feel no actual sexual attraction to [16:07] other men. So if you're using [16:10] homosexuality to mean that it's already [16:12] a part of inhospity according to the [16:15] consensus view of scholarship. But that [16:18] is a different sense of homosexuality [16:20] from the sense that this content creator [16:23] wants to talk about which is the [16:24] homosexual orientation side of [16:28] homosexuality. [16:30] That was not a thing in this time [16:32] period. At least how we understand it [16:34] today was not a thing in this time [16:36] period. This content creator wants to [16:40] retroject anacronistically a notion of [16:43] homosexuality as a question of [16:46] homosexual orientation into this story [16:51] written in a time period when they had [16:53] no such notion of motivations for [16:55] engaging in same-sex intercourse. [16:58] Anciently sex was not a mutual act that [17:02] two equal partners engaged in. [17:04] Anciently, sex was something that an [17:06] active sexual agent did to a passive [17:10] sexual partner and the agency and the [17:13] consent of the partner wasn't really [17:15] relevant. And the main issue was [17:19] penetration. [17:20] And so there was a socially [17:23] conventionalized hierarchy of domination [17:26] and penetration. And so you always went [17:30] downstream on that hierarchy. And so the [17:34] idea was the person higher up on the [17:36] hierarchy penetrated the soft bodies of [17:40] the people who were lower down on that [17:42] hierarchy. And so for one man to [17:45] sexually penetrate another man was [17:47] considered a violation of that hierarchy [17:51] and was considered wrong. This was [17:53] against nature. This was not how we did [17:56] things here. And there are a number of [17:58] ways that scholars over the last many [18:01] decades have shown that this is how the [18:05] concept of not just sex but same-sex [18:07] intercourse was conceptualized in the [18:09] ancient world. Men were expected to be [18:13] sexually attracted to any soft body. It [18:16] was not that there were men who are [18:18] attracted to women and there were men [18:20] who are attracted to men and never shall [18:22] the twain meet. It was, yeah, you're [18:25] expected to be sexually attracted to [18:27] soft bodies in order to penetrate them, [18:29] but there are ones that are appropriate [18:31] for that, and then there are ones that [18:33] are not. And that's really the main [18:35] violation that was understood by male [18:38] samesex intercourse. And this is a [18:40] reason that female samesex intercourse [18:42] is never addressed once anywhere in the [18:45] entire Hebrew Bible. Even Leviticus 18 [18:47] and Leviticus 20, they both do say [18:51] something about inappropriate sexual [18:53] partners for women, but it's not other [18:57] women, it's animals. The only time that [19:01] Leviticus 18 or Leviticus 20 actually [19:04] tell women, "Hey, you shouldn't go out [19:07] and pursue this kind of sexual partner [19:09] is when that sexual partner is the only [19:11] other entity on that socially [19:14] conventionalized hierarchy of domination [19:17] that comes below women. And that's an [19:20] animal. And so they're not even going to [19:22] waste their time saying, "Hey women, [19:25] don't go engage in sexual intercourse [19:27] with other women because there's no [19:29] penetration going on there." At least [19:31] according to their understanding of how [19:33] this was going on. There was no penis [19:35] that was penetrating another body. And [19:38] so it didn't even count as sex. And so [19:40] it didn't matter. It wasn't a part of [19:42] this. But the women were not supposed to [19:45] go and engage in any kind of sexual [19:47] intercourse with an animal. So, there's [19:50] a reason that samesex intercourse was [19:52] seen as unseemly by many of the authors [19:55] of the Hebrew Bible. Well, a few of the [19:57] authors of the Hebrew Bible. We don't [19:59] really know for sure how it was treated [20:01] in the earliest periods around David uh [20:03] and the early first millennium BCE [20:08] because Leviticus 18 and 20 are really [20:10] coming probably in the post- exilic or [20:12] even the Persian period. And Genesis 19 [20:15] is probably coming in the late [20:18] pre-exilic or the exilic period. So we [20:21] don't have homosexuality as a sexual [20:24] orientation being treated here because [20:26] they didn't think about sex that way and [20:28] they had no concept of you being [20:31] oriented towards sexual attraction to a [20:34] member of the same sex or the opposite [20:36] sex. So, this content creator is [20:38] ignoring all of this and trying to [20:41] anacronistically retroject a concept of [20:43] a homosexual orientation into the [20:45] ancient world and is misrepresenting the [20:48] scholarly consensus as [20:51] separating these two out into this false [20:53] dichotomy when it's really only a false [20:56] dichotomy if you are presupposing that [20:58] anacronistic retrojection of homosexual [21:01] orientation into a time period where it [21:04] does not belong. as this content creator [21:06] inappropriately does. [21:08] >> Where's the evidence? Both in [21:10] hospitality and homosexuality are [21:13] irreconcilably at odds. Who says Genesis [21:16] 19 does not convey multiple offenses? So [21:20] the right question is not what is [21:22] Sodom's sin, rather what are Sodom sins. [21:26] They can all be subsumed under the [21:29] conceptual umbrella of inhospity [21:32] in reference to social justice and how [21:36] your society is treating the poor and [21:39] the needy and the vulnerable and the [21:41] outsider. That's why scholars are [21:44] comfortable saying the sin was inhospity [21:47] because everything Ezekiel says, [21:48] everything Genesis 19 says, everything [21:50] everybody says about Sodom and Gomorrah [21:52] falls under that general umbrella of [21:56] inhospity. Number two, Sodom's sins were [22:00] more than just in hospitality. In [22:02] Genesis 13:13, we're told the men of [22:05] Sodom were wicked, great sinners against [22:08] the Lord. The Hebrew Bible reserved [22:10] wicked great sinners to only one group [22:13] of people, the men of Sodom and no one [22:15] else. [22:16] >> This doesn't really mean much, [22:17] particularly when we've already seen [22:19] there's a parallel story where the men [22:21] of Gabilla, the men of the tribe of [22:23] Benjamin, do the exact same thing, but [22:26] they actually succeed in sexually [22:28] assaulting and killing someone in the [22:30] process. In Genesis 18:20, God [22:33] proclaims, "The outcry against Sodom and [22:36] Gomorrah is great, and their sin is very [22:40] grave." Sodom's sins were not trivial or [22:43] small, but great and very grave. Yes. [22:46] And mistreatment of the poor and the [22:48] orphan and the widow and the foreigner [22:51] and outsiders was considered a very [22:53] grave sin in a time and a place where [22:56] many people's lives were dependent upon [22:59] being treated with care when they were [23:02] not in their hometown. And so that [23:06] doesn't really make the point for you. [23:08] But bringing up this passage in Genesis [23:11] 18 also raises another question. Because [23:15] if there are victims of this very grave [23:18] sin, [23:20] then that could explain why there is an [23:22] outcry that rises up to God. Because [23:26] there are victims of the mistreatment of [23:28] the poor and the orphan and the needy [23:31] and the outsider, including victims of [23:33] things like sexual assault. [23:37] But if the gravest sin is just men [23:41] having sex with each other and it has [23:44] nothing to do with sexual assault, it's [23:46] consensual, [23:48] where is the outcry coming from? Who is [23:50] crying out to God about this sin? It's [23:54] not the men's wives because when Sodom [23:58] was destroyed, it didn't say, "And all [24:00] their wives got out scot-free." They [24:02] were all killed, too. if there were any [24:04] women in the town. [24:07] So who is it? [24:10] If there is a great outcry that rises up [24:13] to God, it has to come from either the [24:16] blood of the victims or the victims. [24:20] That's what generally happens when [24:22] there's great outcry that comes up to [24:25] God. So who are the victims if the [24:27] gravest sin you can think of is men [24:30] having sex with each other consensually? [24:33] Because if it's not consensual, then [24:35] what is the real sin? Is it just that [24:39] it's sex between two men, or is it that [24:42] one man is sexually assaulting another? [24:45] The Bible repeatedly states that Sodom [24:48] wasn't solely guilty of inhospity. In [24:51] Ezekiel 16:49, many sins were mentioned [24:54] along with inhospity, such as pride, [24:57] gluttony, and laziness. So here, this [25:00] content creator is trying to make it [25:01] sound like Ezekiel 49 is immediately [25:04] just rattling off a list of sins. Pride, [25:07] gluttony, laziness, did not help the [25:09] poor and the needy. That's four sins [25:12] right off the bat. But that is probably [25:14] not what's going on in Ezekiel's [25:17] rhetoric. And this content creator is [25:19] relying on one, a specific translation, [25:22] and two, a specific interpretation of [25:25] that translation to do the work for [25:27] them. So the content creators [25:30] translation says pride, excess of food, [25:33] and prosperous ease. Does that sound [25:35] like three sins being rattled off a [25:40] little bit? But let's take a look at [25:41] another translation. This is the New [25:43] English translation, the NE. I think [25:46] there are times when the NE actually [25:48] picks up on some of the nuances that a [25:49] lot of translations miss in the rhetoric [25:51] of the authors. And there are other [25:53] times when the NE does an awful job and [25:56] particularly in the footnotes. But [25:57] that's not what this is about. This is [25:59] what this translation says. See here, [26:00] this was the iniquity of your sister [26:02] Sodom. She and her daughters had [26:04] majesty, abundance of food, and enjoyed [26:08] carefree ease. But they did not help the [26:11] poor and needy. So here the rhetorical [26:16] point seems to be to contrast the [26:19] privileged position of the people of [26:22] Sodom over and against their refusal to [26:25] help the poor and the needy. And I [26:27] actually think that's what's going on [26:29] here because the word for pride does not [26:32] necessarily have to do only with a [26:35] sinful degree of pridefulness. It can [26:38] refer to majesty. It can refer to [26:40] splendor. It is used frequently in [26:42] reference to God in precisely that way. [26:45] And so this content creator would prefer [26:47] that you think that the author of [26:50] Ezekiel is just rattling off a list of [26:52] sins including pride and gluttony and [26:55] laziness. [26:57] But I think it's more likely that the [26:59] author here is setting the table to [27:03] expose the contrast between the fact [27:05] that this city had everything they could [27:07] ever want and more. and yet refuse to [27:11] help the poor and the needy. And so this [27:14] content creator is having the [27:16] presupposition of specific [27:18] interpretations [27:20] carry a lot of the load for their [27:21] argument and they're not letting you [27:23] know that's what's going on. There are [27:25] other interpretive options for this [27:27] passage which maintain the point that [27:31] scholars try to make here which is that [27:34] everything that's ever said about Sodom [27:36] and Gomorrah [27:38] falls under that umbrella of inhospity [27:41] or more specifically [27:44] the umbrella of not maintaining [27:48] social and cosmic justice and order as [27:51] you are expected to which was considered [27:54] considered monumentally important in [27:57] this time and place as we have already [28:00] seen with the parallel story from Judges [28:02] 19. [28:03] >> Jude verse 7 states that Sodom indulge [28:07] in sexual immorality. [28:08] >> So two things to say about this appeal [28:11] to Jude verse 7 threatening outsiders [28:14] with lethal sexual assaults is sexual [28:18] immorality. So this is a distinction [28:21] without a difference here. To say well [28:23] Jude says they were engaged in sexual [28:26] immorality does not mean they were not [28:29] engaged in that inhospity. But also [28:32] notice that this content creator stopped [28:34] right there because the verse goes on [28:37] and says and pursued saroseteras other [28:41] flesh which is usually translated [28:44] unnatural lust or desire or something [28:46] like that. And usually [28:49] that is the passage that people [28:53] specifically point to as indicating [28:56] same-sex desire, homosexual orientation, [28:58] the fact that this is about [28:59] homosexuality. And this content creator [29:01] stopped before getting to that. And I [29:04] think it's because they know that that [29:06] would actually [29:08] not serve their points because [29:10] saroseteras literally means other flesh. [29:13] us is the same word that we get hetero [29:17] from. And the other flesh was not [29:21] homosexual uh sex. The other flesh was [29:25] humans having sex with angels because [29:28] Jude verse 6 is talking about angels [29:31] leaving their first estate and being [29:33] chained uh and bound for judgment. This [29:37] is first Enoch. Jude verse 6 is talking [29:39] about first Enoch. Later in the chapter, [29:42] Jude is actually going to directly quote [29:44] from First Enoch. But here, the [29:47] reference is to the angels from First [29:49] Enoch, which is riffing on Genesis 6, [29:51] where they came down and they had [29:53] children, offspring with human women. [29:55] That's angelic human intercourse. That's [29:58] inappropriate. And then verse seven with [30:01] another part that this content creator [30:02] didn't quote where is where it says and [30:04] in like manner to them [30:08] the men of Sodom and Gomorrah engaged in [30:10] sexual immorality and pursued other [30:12] flesh. How is that in like manner to the [30:16] angels of first Enoch? Well, it crosses [30:19] that species boundary that is not [30:22] supposed to be violated. So the sexual [30:24] immorality that Jude 7 is representing [30:28] as inlike manner to what the angels of [30:30] first Enoch did inappropriately is [30:33] precisely the violation of that boundary [30:36] between human and angel. And so what was [30:39] the sexual immorality according to Jude [30:42] verse 7? It was men trying to have sex [30:44] with angels. That's the concern for the [30:48] author of Jude. that does not serve the [30:52] rhetorical points of this content [30:55] creator. And this content creator, I [30:57] think, tried to limit what they were [30:59] quoting to the part they thought would [31:01] help and excluded the rest of the [31:03] context, which really demonstrates [31:05] pretty conclusively that no, uh, Jude [31:07] verse 7 does not help their point. [31:09] >> In Jeremiah 23:14, [31:12] God linked the sin of adultery with [31:14] Sodom and Jerusalem. Again, this content [31:17] creator is misleading by omitting [31:19] context. Here is the full verse. But in [31:21] the prophets of Jerusalem, I have seen a [31:23] more shocking thing. They commit [31:25] adultery and walk in lies. They [31:28] strengthen the hands of evildoers so [31:30] that no one turns from wickedness. All [31:33] of them have become like Sodom to me and [31:35] its inhabitants like Gomorrah. Now, does [31:38] this necessarily mean that every last [31:41] thing that they did is something that [31:43] was done in Sodom and Gomorrah? Of [31:45] course not. What it means is that they [31:48] are very very wicked. They are like [31:50] people that I am not going to tolerate [31:53] anymore. And the passage goes on to [31:57] threaten them with destruction. So they [31:59] are like the cities that I destroyed. So [32:02] the comparison is not saying that oh [32:06] Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was primarily [32:08] sexual and not a matter of hospitality. [32:12] That's laughably off base here. The [32:15] point here is to rattle off a number of [32:17] things that these prophets in Jerusalem [32:20] are doing bad and saying just like I had [32:23] to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because [32:25] they were so wicked, the prophets in [32:27] Jerusalem have become so wicked. It is [32:30] not saying the sins are identical. [32:33] Clearly, Sodom's sins were many. And [32:36] apart from Jude's idiosyncratic [32:38] reinterpretation of what was going on in [32:41] Genesis 19 through the interpretive lens [32:43] of first Enoch's representation of [32:46] angelic/human [32:48] intercourse, all of the representations [32:51] of Sodom and Gomorrah's sins fit under [32:54] the umbrella of hospitality or the [32:58] maintenance of social and cosmic justice [33:01] and order. But is there clear evidence [33:04] that homosexuality was among Sodom's [33:07] many sins? Yes. Which brings us to our [33:10] last point, number three. God lists [33:12] homosexuality as one of Sodom's many [33:15] sins. In Ezekiel 16:49 to 50, God spoke [33:19] in the first person through the prophet [33:21] Ezekiel, listing pride, gluttony, [33:24] laziness, and inhospity. Behold, this [33:27] was the guilt of your sister Sodom. She [33:29] and her daughters had pride, access to [33:32] food, and prosperous ease, but did not [33:35] aid the poor and needy. They wereaughty [33:38] and did an abomination before me. So I [33:41] removed them when I saw it. Gay [33:43] activists will misuse this passage to [33:45] purport that the sin of Sodom was in [33:48] hospitality, conceding the other sins [33:50] like pride, gluttony, and laziness, but [33:53] ignoring what follows. [33:55] >> Uh I certainly don't concede those other [33:57] sins. I think that's a bad [33:58] interpretation of that passage in [34:00] Ezekiel 16. All of the things that [34:03] Ezekiel is talking about fall under the [34:05] umbrella of inhospity, including the [34:08] toeva, including the abomination. Even [34:11] if you say this has to be a reference to [34:13] Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, guess [34:16] what? threatening outside male visitors [34:20] with lethal sexual assault fits [34:23] perfectly with what is prohibited in [34:26] Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. And it [34:29] doesn't necessarily have to have [34:31] anything to do with a homosexual [34:33] orientation. It's not about the [34:37] sameexness. [34:38] It is about the violation of a man's [34:43] position at the apex of that socially [34:47] conventionalized hierarchy of domination [34:49] and penetration. So the point there is [34:53] not to say ooh they were gay. The point [34:56] is to say, ooh, they engaged in the most [35:00] abominable kind of inhospitable [35:03] treatment we can think of, which is they [35:06] threatened a male visitor, an outsider, [35:09] a guest in someone's home with lethal [35:12] sexual assault. And it has to be men [35:16] doing it to other men. Because if [35:18] they're doing it to women, it's not as [35:19] big a deal because women were not at the [35:23] top of that hierarchy. And women did not [35:26] have sexual agency of their own. And it [35:28] had to be men doing it to them because [35:31] men are the only real sexual agents. And [35:33] the notion that women would do it would [35:35] have just been laughable in the ancient [35:37] world. It had to be men doing it to [35:40] other men for it to be maximally [35:42] egregious and grave and sinful. And it [35:46] wasn't because [35:48] they thought the idea of a man being [35:50] sexually attracted to another man was [35:53] the ickiest thing that ever icked. It [35:55] was because that violated their [35:58] hierarchy of domination and penetration [36:01] and the standards that they had for not [36:04] just sexual propriety, but more [36:07] saliently how you're supposed to treat [36:10] outsiders, how you're supposed to [36:12] maintain social and cosmic justice and [36:15] order. In verse 50, God lists two more [36:19] sins. They wereaughty and did an [36:21] abomination before me. Hottiness is [36:24] being arrogant and disdainful. [36:26] >> Yes. And that explains their refusal to [36:29] aid the poor and the needy. Their [36:31] refusal to treat the outsider, the guest [36:35] in someone else's home with hospitality. [36:37] That fits perfectly into the inhospity [36:41] reading. The next phrase may not be as [36:44] familiar to us as to Ezekiel, a priest [36:46] well acquainted with the law of Moses. [36:49] The phrase in Ezekiel 16:50, [36:52] did an abomination, is made up of two [36:54] Hebrew words taken from Leviticus 20:13, [36:58] one of the main laws condemning [37:00] homosexuality. If a man lies with a male [37:03] as with a woman, both of them have [37:05] committed an abomination. Did and [37:08] committed are from the same Hebrew verb [37:10] assa. And abomination comes from the [37:14] Hebrew word toa. This is called a cross [37:18] reference. Did you know that the Bible [37:20] is full of cross references? Nearly [37:23] 64,000. [37:25] A cross reference can be a quote or [37:27] pulling key words from another verse. [37:29] Old Testament and New Testament authors [37:32] love to cross reference other Old [37:34] Testament and New Testament authors. [37:36] This upholds scriptures unity and [37:38] integrity, the Old and the New, [37:41] something gay activists reject. uh [37:44] frequently cross references actually [37:46] demonstrate a lack of unity as we see in [37:50] Jude's idiosyncratic interpretation of [37:53] what's going on in Genesis 19 through [37:55] the light of first Enoch. Jude [37:57] understands it completely differently [37:59] from the way Ezekiel understands it. But [38:02] the notion that Ezekiel here is engaged [38:04] in an illusion to Leviticus 20 doesn't [38:08] really undermine anything. As I've [38:10] already pointed out, Leviticus 18 and 20 [38:13] are not describing necessarily and I [38:16] don't think at all consensual male [38:18] same-sex intercourse because I don't [38:21] think they really treated that as a [38:24] salient phenomenon. What Leviticus 18 [38:28] prohibits is precisely the one taking [38:31] the insertive role from taking the [38:34] insertive role in an act of male [38:35] same-sex intercourse. Leviticus 20, [38:37] probably by a later author, is this then [38:40] coming through and saying both parties [38:42] are punished across all of the sexual [38:46] activity that is prohibited in that [38:48] chapter and then imposing penalties on [38:51] both partners in all cases. And consent [38:54] is never once addressed. And in fact, it [38:58] even imposes the death penalty on the [39:00] animal. In the case of beastiality, [39:03] whether it's a man or a woman engaging [39:05] in the act, the animal is killed as [39:08] well. And there's an argument to be had [39:10] here for whether or not the author [39:14] understands both parties to have been [39:17] consenting or if the idea is the act [39:20] itself irrespective of consent generates [39:23] a kind of metaphysical contamination [39:24] that gets out on the land and the only [39:26] way to purge that is to kill both [39:30] participants in the act. Like the fact [39:33] that these laws are intended to mitigate [39:37] or counteract that contamination process [39:40] is pretty explicitly laid out at the end [39:42] of both Leviticus 18 and 20 where the [39:46] point is to make it so the land is not [39:48] contaminated but is purged of that [39:51] contamination because if the [39:52] contamination reaches a critical mass, [39:54] the land must vomit you out. It has no [39:56] choice. And so I think the argument is [39:59] stronger that what's going on here is [40:01] that both parties have to be punished in [40:03] order for the contaminant to be purged [40:06] from the land. And we just don't really [40:09] care about consent because consent of [40:12] the submissive of the receptive partner [40:14] whether a man or a woman wasn't really [40:17] at issue. So even if this is a cross [40:21] reference, it doesn't really change [40:22] much. But at the same time, toeva always [40:27] occurs with the verbal root assa when [40:29] somebody is said to be engaging in a [40:32] toeva. And in Ezekiel 16:49, [40:37] the verb comes first, assa first, and [40:40] then toeva. But in Leviticus, it is toa [40:44] that comes first and assa that comes [40:46] later. And Ezekiel uses assa in [40:49] conjunction with toava multiple times, [40:52] usually with the verb before and then [40:55] once or twice with the verb after in [40:57] describing a variety of different things [40:59] that aren't necessarily connected to [41:02] Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. And there [41:06] are other places in the Hebrew Bible [41:07] where assa and tova occur in conjunction [41:10] in reference to things that are not [41:11] related to Leviticus 18 and Leviticus [41:14] 20. So that argument isn't really as [41:16] strong as this content creator seems to [41:19] think it is. But even if it is a cross [41:21] reference, and I think it probably is, [41:23] it doesn't really change much again [41:26] because this content creator is [41:27] misrepresenting not only what's going on [41:29] in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, but [41:31] also in Ezekiel 16 and also in Genesis [41:34] 19. Furthermore, every time the Bible [41:37] mentions the act of sex, a euphemism is [41:40] used. Did you know that the Bible does [41:42] not have an explicit word for sex? Does [41:46] this mean ancient Israelites didn't know [41:48] what sex was? Of course not. Other [41:51] euphemisms were used like to know, to [41:54] lay, or to see one's nakedness. I'm sure [41:56] you've heard it purported that the word [41:58] homosexual was not in the Bible. But the [42:01] absence of a word does not mean the [42:04] absence of a concept. If we're using [42:06] homosexual to mean a person with a [42:08] homosexual orientation, which is the [42:10] majority use of the word, then yes, that [42:13] concept was absent as well. Our notion [42:16] of homosexual orientations, has pretty [42:19] much nothing to do with how they [42:22] reasoned in the ancient world about the [42:24] fact that there were people who sought [42:26] out intercourse with members of their [42:29] own sex. So to the degree we understand [42:31] homosexual to refer to a person with a [42:34] homosexual orientation, the concept is [42:36] also absent from the Bible. I created [42:39] another video where I refute this myth [42:42] here. With no specific word for sex, [42:45] it's no surprise then that other words [42:47] were used to communicate the act of [42:49] homosexual sex in the Old Testament. In [42:52] this case, did or committed an [42:54] abomination was a euphemism for the sin [42:57] of homosexuality. [42:58] There's absolutely no evidence that this [43:01] is a euphemism for male same-sex [43:03] intercourse specifically and in and of [43:06] itself. Every other time it occurs in [43:08] Ezekiel, it seems to be used [43:10] appositionally to refer to either [43:13] adultery or idolatry. And the same is [43:16] true of its use elsewhere in Isaiah, in [43:19] Jeremiah, and elsewhere. And again, even [43:23] if we do understand it as a reference to [43:26] Leviticus 20:13, [43:29] there's absolutely nothing about the [43:30] story in Genesis 19 or in Judges 19 [43:35] where the idea is oo gross gay stuff [43:40] rather than the idea being oo gross, a [43:43] man tried to sexually assault another [43:46] man to death. where the primary concern [43:50] is the violation of the other man and [43:54] his uh status at the top of that [43:57] hierarchy of domination and penetration. [44:00] So the notion that Genesis 19 is about [44:04] inhospity and is about inappropriately [44:07] and egregiously threatening male outside [44:10] visitors with lethal sexual assault fits [44:14] perfectly [44:16] into what is being prohibited in [44:18] Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. We don't [44:22] need to understand it as saying oo gross [44:25] gay stuff. There are other larger [44:28] violations going on and that is very [44:31] clearly what the focus of both Genesis [44:33] 19 and Judges 19 are. Thus, it was God [44:37] himself speaking through the prophet [44:40] Ezekiel connecting the sin of Sodom with [44:42] the sin of homosexuality mentioned in [44:45] Leviticus 20:13. [44:47] Scripture interprets scripture. [44:49] >> Uh, no it doesn't. That just presupposes [44:52] univocality and there are no data that [44:54] support that. But even if we do allow [44:56] our interpretation of Ezekiel 16:49 to [44:59] be informed by Leviticus 18 and [45:01] Leviticus 20, my reading and the [45:04] consensus reading of scholars is not at [45:08] all undermined. So the next time you [45:10] hear homosexuality was not Sodom's sin [45:13] and hospitality was, remember these [45:16] three points. Number one, this is a [45:19] classic false dilemma fallacy. Number [45:22] two, Sodom's sins were more than just in [45:25] hospitality. Number three, God lists [45:28] homosexuality as one of Sodom's many [45:31] sins. For the naked truth, I'm [45:33] Christopher Yuan. Or you could grow the [45:36] hell up and you could get over this [45:38] petty and ignorant bigotry. And you, [45:41] Christopher, can do so much better. [45:45] Cuz we can look in the same Hebrew Bible [45:47] and even in the New Testament, and we [45:49] can find God condoning and in some [45:52] places even endorsing slavery. [45:56] And most of the world [45:59] 150, 175 years ago, we decided, you know [46:02] what? We reject that. We overruled the [46:04] Bible. We overruled God. And we decided [46:08] we were all going to accept this new [46:11] understanding where you know what, we're [46:15] going to find ways to understand the [46:17] Bible as secretly actually being against [46:19] slavery the entire time so that we don't [46:22] have to believe in a God who endorses [46:24] slavery. And now you certainly [46:27] accept the notion that God does not [46:29] approve of slavery or things like [46:31] polygamy. Um but those things are very [46:35] clearly condoned and even endorsed in [46:39] the Bible. So the Bible is ultimately [46:42] not the arbiter of our morality. No [46:45] matter how much you want that to be the [46:49] case, how much you argue that to be the [46:51] case, how much you believe that to be [46:53] the case, how much you feel obligated to [46:57] treat that as the case, it is not and it [47:00] never has been the case. You are not [47:04] obligated to live the morality of the [47:06] Bible. We all negotiate with the Bible. [47:10] There is no other possible way to find [47:14] single consistent unified moral [47:17] principles and frameworks in the Bible [47:19] except to negotiate with it. Which means [47:22] deciding what our priorities are. [47:24] finding the passages that match our [47:26] priorities in their social and [47:29] historical and rhetorical circumstances, [47:32] giving them priority of place, and then [47:34] reinterpreting the passages that [47:36] disagree to bring them into alignment [47:39] with the passages that match our [47:40] priorities. Everybody does that. We have [47:43] no other choice. That's what we did with [47:46] slavery. We said, you know what? We're [47:48] going to introduce a new way to [47:50] interpret these passages so that we have [47:53] a God who does not believe in and [47:55] endorse and condone slavery in the [47:57] Bible. That's a renegotiation. You've [48:00] already accepted a renegotiation with [48:03] the Bible. You have already become [48:05] comfortable with overruling the God of [48:08] the Bible. You can do the same when it [48:11] comes to this. [48:13] You don't because this has become an [48:16] identity marker for the social [48:18] identities that are important to you and [48:20] because you perceive value, you perceive [48:25] uh an advancement of your own interest [48:27] within those social identities by waving [48:30] the flag of that identity marker and by [48:32] showing that you are willing to tow the [48:34] line and you are willing to make the [48:36] sacrifices and incur the costs to say, [48:39] "I believe in this identity marker." But [48:43] that's all it is. It's an identity [48:45] marker. That's all this bigotry is doing [48:49] is functioning as an identity marker. [48:52] And all you are doing is showing that [48:53] you are willing to incur the costs of [48:56] waving the flag of that identity marker [48:58] so you can protect and advance your own [49:02] interests within those social [49:04] identities. That's all you're doing. [49:07] Do better. [49:10] Get over this petty and this ignorant [49:12] bigotry. [49:14] Lives depend upon it. And the fit for [49:17] this video has been Daredevil versus the [49:19] Punisher.  [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/Correcting Misinformation About Sodom’s Sin|Full Document Contents]] ## Highlights - Was Sodomson sin merely in hospitality and not homosexuality? What's the naked? >> All right, let's see it. >> In Genesis 19, God destroyed Sodom after the men of the city tried to have sex with two sojourners under Lot's care. >> So, I'm going to stop right here because we already have a big problem. And that is with the intentional and the rank misrepresentation of the intentions of the men of Sodom, which was not to ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneannnsh91vv04x5pbytvx)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - mock and deride them. but the narrator needs them for the end of the story. So, they're not going to shove them out. So, that's the main reason for the difference between the men who ultimately abuse the woman who gets shoved out the door and what goes on in Genesis 19. But it's very clearly not just saying, "Shall we do gay stuff together?" This is about gang rape and it is about killing the victim because this was not just we're going to um sexually assault you and then leave you ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneanpkpgsdjx2d05azamah)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - orientation into a time period where it does not belong. as this content creator inappropriately does. >> Where's the evidence? Both in hospitality and homosexuality are irreconcilably at odds. Who says Genesis 19 does not convey multiple offenses? So the right question is not what is Sodom's sin, rather what are Sodom sins. They can all be subsumed under the conceptual umbrella of inhospity ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneanv2cn2jy4n4357bwvrv)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - in reference to social justice and how your society is treating the poor and the needy and the vulnerable and the outsider. That's why scholars are comfortable saying the sin was inhospity because everything Ezekiel says, everything Genesis 19 says, everything everybody says about Sodom and Gomorrah falls under that general umbrella of inhospity. Number two, Sodom's sins were ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneanycheva6jkjr4vreg6n)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - more than just in hospitality. In Genesis 13:13, we're told the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord. The Hebrew Bible reserved wicked great sinners to only one group of people, the men of Sodom and no one else. >> This doesn't really mean much, particularly when we've already seen there's a parallel story where the men of Gabilla, the men of the tribe of Benjamin, do the exact same thing, but they actually succeed in sexually assaulting and killing someone in the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneap0g30gncmf13agcy1hz)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - and the outsider, including victims of things like sexual assault. But if the gravest sin is just men having sex with each other and it has nothing to do with sexual assault, it's consensual, where is the outcry coming from? Who is crying out to God about this sin? It's not the men's wives because when Sodom was destroyed, it didn't say, "And all their wives got out scot-free." They ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneap4728wv6rav33h1dx1q)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - is a euphemism for male same-sex intercourse specifically and in and of itself. Every other time it occurs in Ezekiel, it seems to be used appositionally to refer to either adultery or idolatry. And the same is true of its use elsewhere in Isaiah, in Jeremiah, and elsewhere. And again, even if we do understand it as a reference to Leviticus 20:13, there's absolutely nothing about the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneapcy7nwscctqz0s323ts)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - So the notion that Genesis 19 is about inhospity and is about inappropriately and egregiously threatening male outside visitors with lethal sexual assault fits perfectly into what is being prohibited in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. We don't need to understand it as saying oo gross gay stuff. There are other larger violations going on and that is very ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneapgpwy7yt4ktycz98ft4)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - Leviticus 20, my reading and the consensus reading of scholars is not at all undermined. So the next time you hear homosexuality was not Sodom's sin and hospitality was, remember these three points. Number one, this is a classic false dilemma fallacy. Number two, Sodom's sins were more than just in hospitality. Number three, God lists homosexuality as one of Sodom's many ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kjneapmah9e8b0tyzbadq8tm)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted