HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Lot - The New Testament's Vile Role-Model for Christians

The saintly Lot lived in the city of Sodom. We can read his story in Genesis 18 and 19. His wife and virginal daughters lived with him.


Three angels from God posing as men came to stay in Sodom and Lot let them stay in his house.


Soon all the men in Sodom - even the little boys - appeared wanting to have sex with the visitors. The men must have been very attractive. It was very thoughtful of God to make them so appealing.


Lot regarded homosexuality as so grave that he decided it was better to offer them his daughters and he did so and told the occupants of Sodom to use them as they pleased (Genesis 19:7-8).


The story does not say that the culture was anti-homosexual. It says the opposite because Sodom was the strongest homosexual culture ever known apart from its neighbour Gomorrah.


The story complains that there were not even ten righteous men in the city. God indicated that. He told Lot and his girls and wife to leave the city for he intended to destroy it to eradicate the evil.


The biggest moral of the story is that it is better to let your own children be raped than to let a depraved mob have sex with men.


It does not say that Lot was safeguarding the men. Lot could not have kept a big mob away from the men.


It does not say the men wanted to rape the men. It seems they simply took it for granted that the men would have sex with them. They seem to have forgotten that heterosexual men existed.


It does not say that the men wanted to sodomise the guests. Lots of homosexuals do not engage in that practice but in others.


There is no room for the delusion that Genesis forbids only homosexual rape not loving homosexual sex.


God was pleased with Lot's actions and he was saved as a reward (Genesis 19:11-13, 15-17,19).


Lot is just and righteous according to the New Testament (2 Peter 2:6-8).


4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
Genesis 18:20-21 tells us that God heard that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are full of grievous sinners. So then he decides to investigate what he has heard. It seems this God does not know all things.


Was he doubting what the angels told him about the goings-on in the cities? If he was, then clearly he regarded the sin as so unbelievably bad that one would have to doubt it was happening no matter who testified to it. And he had to investigate in person indicating the utter sinfulness of homosexuality. There were wars, mass human sacrifices and rapes going on in the world but Sodom and Gomorrah got the dubious privilege of a personal divine investigation.


Abraham and God discuss this and its decided that if there is less than ten righteous people in the cities they will be destroyed by God (Genesis 18:23-33).
Those who say the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality are only inferring that. They cannot prove that it was such a grave sin in that cultural context.


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." It is said that there is no mention of homosexuality here. But what if abominations is a euphemism for homosexuality? Ezekiel would not have known anything about Sodom and Gomorrah except what he saw in Genesis. It was homosexuality he meant.


Some have suggested the sin was seeking sexual union with angels ("strange flesh"). But if homosexuality is not a sin, then how can that be wrong?
The story would say the men knew Lot's guests were angels if that interpretation were plausible. But they did not. And angels are not beings of flesh though they can have the appearance of flesh.


Qur'an 7:80-83: And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamin (mankind and jinn)? "Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)." Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment).


The Quran then correctly interprets Genesis as saying homosexuality as the worst sin.


Nobody sane today would agree.


In Genesis 18, 19 we read that God wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin was very great. Some tell us that it does not say that the sin was homosexuality alone. That is a lie for no other type of sin is mentioned in the chapters. Ezekiel 16 says that Sodom didn't give a damn about the poor and that was their sin along with pride and idleness. You might accuse a homosexual of the sin of pride meaning that since all sin is in essence pride that his form of pride leads him to homosexual vice. You might say a homosexual is idle for he doesn't try to overcome his sin and his temptation to it.

Some say the Sodomites were into gay rape so their condemnation does not signify condemnation of homosexuality in itself. In that part of the world, it was known for soldiers to use homosexual rape to humiliate their enemies by treating them as women. But there is no hint of anything like that in the text. They did not say they wanted to rape the angels. It could be that they broke into Lot’s house not to rape the angels but to defy Lot and get the angels to join them in naughty intimacies. The angels were strangers not enemies and the sodomites were not soldiers.

Some say that Lot was holy and would not have been living among such bad company for it would corrupt good morals. But we don’t know the circumstances. Perhaps Lot was unattractive and he and his family kept to themselves. The story stresses that every man in the city came to look for sex with the angels indicating that homosexuality must spread when it is tolerated. Lot and his family would not have been there unless the city was meant to be just an ordinary city and not a gay ghetto.

It might seem that the sex would have been regarded as sinful because it was physical and devoid of love. But the Bible never commanded that a husband must love his wife. The levirate law is one case where a man is forced to marry his dead brother’s wife to raise children for the brother and that is as far from romantic as you can get. Also, the woman did not take the marriage vow and was too young to know what was happening. Purely physical and cold sex was encouraged by the Law of Moses. Marriage was a business arrangement in those days. It is undeniable that the absence of love in sex was not what bothered God for it couldn’t have annoyed him to the extent that he sought to destroy the cities. It must have been the homosexuality. It is too far fetched to imagine that anybody in the Bible would have been accepting towards homosexuals.

Lot was considered worthy and holy by God despite offering his own daughters to be ravished by the mob. The girls were virgins and there is no doubt that Lot wanted them to rape his girls. So it is better to desecrate your own flesh and blood than to tolerate homosexuality. If Lot got gay feelings presumably it was better for him to rape one of his daughters to avoid going with another man. When Lot offered his daughters it seems to some that the sodomites were bisexual. But it could also be that Lot believed from the angels who were speaking from God that homosexuals are lying when they say they can’t change their feelings and being gay is just hatred for God so they could have converted to heterosexuality easily for homosexuality was so unnatural.
Some say when Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom to rape them he was acknowledging that the men were heterosexual. That isn't necessarily so. Perhaps Lot was desperate and not thinking straight. Perhaps Lot couldn't understand how men could resist his daughters even if these men only had sex with men. The men must have went with women enough to keep the city populated. But that doesn't mean they were heterosexual.
The angels brought Lot inside when the men of Sodom vowed to do to Lot what they would do to the angels and then the angels struck them blind from the oldest to the smallest but they still tried to find the door to break into the house. This suggests that homosexuals are predatory and put sex first. Even when they are struck blind miraculously sex and rape is all they are interested in doing.
If the angels had appeared as ugly men there might have been no trouble so they were to blame for all this as much as were the sodomites. So God likes to send angels to attract weak people to sin. What kind of God sends angels disguised as hunks to a gay den of iniquity? The episode is wholly consistent with the Old Testament view that God likes tempting people to sin. It should be taken literally in this for the Devil was invented later to take the rap for tempting so when the texts would have been interpreted as blaming God that is what they are doing.

The sin of homosexuality is seen by Genesis as so bad that just for looking back at the city one could become a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26). Looking back implies that you want to go back there or are showing concern for the inhabitants. The second is the most likely for who would want to go back?
The claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah that God destroyed them for was lack of hospitality towards the poor ignores the fact that it was not said anywhere in the Bible that the cities were destroyed for any other sin but homosexuality. They might have been inhospitable but that was not what they were destroyed for. The claim is based on Ezekiel 16:46-51 which says they were inhospitable and neglected the poor. But it then says that they were destroyed because of the abominations they committed through pride which is a general thing and could cover their homosexuality. So Ezekiel is misinterpreted. Besides, running after strangers who visit your city for sex is hardly hospitality so Ezekiel might still have had the homosexuality at the back of his mind.
In Genesis, the angels were going to stay in the square and not with Lot. It was mistakenly assumed by readers that nobody else would put them up for the night. But the angels may not have had to stay with anybody for they were angels and maybe the square was a heterosexual ghetto or a safe army base. Some surmise that the prophet Ezekiel got a new revelation telling him that Sodom was inhospitable to the poor. If he misinterpreted Genesis they are trying to cover up that he erred by assuming a divine revelation. It is most probable that it was a misinterpretation.
There is no doubt from the context that the sin in Genesis 18 and 19 is homosexuality and it does indeed declare that it is a sin that cries to God for his revenge to come down as the A Catechism of Christian Doctrine question 327 declares.