The "sin of Sodom" was not what we refer to as "sodomy" today.

My arguments will be divided mainly into three categories: those involving the story itself, other references to the sin of Sodom in the Bible, and other references to the destruction of Sodom in the Bible. I have one minor request (for the sake of our voters), but it need not be a matter of contention should my opponent wish not to acquiesce: I ask that all Hebrew and Greek words be transliterated, that voters might have some chance of reading the word in question, even if they aren’t familiar with the Hebrew and Greek alphabets. The Narrative of the Destruction of Sodom: Genesis 18 begins with three travelers (the Lord and two angels—see Gen 18:1-2, 18:22, 18:33, 19:1) arriving near Abraham’s tent. Abraham proceeds to provide great hospitality to the travelers in accordance with the customs and laws held dear by the ancient Hebrews (see . http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...). As the travelers begin to depart, Abraham shows them out and the two angels continue onward while the Lord stays behind to discuss Sodom, their next stop, with Abraham. The Lord mentions that he is going to see Sodom’s sin firsthand (18:21), and Abraham asks the Lord whether Sodom would be spared judgment for even ten righteous men within the city, and the Lord acquiesces. In Genesis 19, the two angels, who went forth as the Lord stayed back with Abraham, enter the city of Sodom, planning to stay in the city square. Lot stops them, insisting (again following hospitality customs) they stay in his house instead. The angels agree. Before they go to sleep, the men of the city come to Lot’s door demanding the travelers be produced that the men might rape them (19:5). Lot offers instead his virgin daughters stating, “only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof. ” (19:8, emphasis mine own). The story concludes with the angels taking Lot and his family outside the city the next day, that they might escape the destruction brought by the Lord on the cities, and send him toward the city of Zoar. From the story itself, it is fairly obvious that the sin of Sodom was not specifically homosexual intercourse, but disregard for custom and law surrounding hospitality to travelers, who were (in Hebrew society) to be accorded everything from a portion of the tithe given for the poor to honorary status in celebrating festivities. We can tell this because: We have two stories, both involving the same travelers and how they were treated, that are juxtaposed (a technique often used in the Hebrew scriptures to teach a moral). In the first, the travelers are shown every kindness and hospitality. In the second, the travelers are shown hospitality by Lot (who is spared), but that concern for travelers and strangers is violated by the men of the city. The Lord’s intent was to see firsthand the sin of the citizens of Sodom before deciding once and for all to destroy the city (18:21). The only sin actually seen was the city’s treatment of the travelers. The men desired to rape them, but theynever actually did so. Common sense therefore rules out homosexual intercourse as the sin of Sodom since in this final test, it did not actually happen, whereas accosting the men and threatening them did. Other Mention of the Sin of Sodom: The sin(s) of Sodom is mentioned specifically in an handful of places throughout the Biblical texts. They are as follows: Luke 10/Matthew 10: These two chapters are the two gospels’ versions of the Jesus actually sending followers out to the Jews. In Matthew, Jesus sends his twelve apostles only to Jewish towns to proclaim the gospel. They are instructed to be gracious guests anywhere they are received, but anywhere they are not welcomed, they are to shake the dust from their feet as they leave. Jesus concludes with “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. ” Luke 10 shows Jesus sending out seventy followers in pairs to do likewise in preparation for Christ’s own visits to towns. Verses 11 and 12 are these followers being instructed (like the apostles) to shake the dust from their feet when unwelcomed and Christ’s comment on this that “I tell you, on that day, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town. ” Both of these references to Sodom are directly related to the treatment and hospitality that those whom Christ sent might receive, with the comparisons to Sodom coming only if those sent are unwelcomed. This draws direct comparison to the story of Sodom described above, but the fact that Sodom’s judgment would be more tolerable points to the gravity of the message Jesus has sent these people to proclaim. In other words, “Sodom will have it easy because they merely sinned, they did not also reject the good news. ” Ezekiel 16: In Ezekiel, we see the following verses, which need little explanation: 48 As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. It is worth mentioning that “abomination” is merely the Hebrew wordתּ@331;עֵבָה (tow-ebah), which is another word for something sinful, and it can apply to almost any sin. (. http://lexiconcordance.com...) 2 Peter: In verses 7-10, we see discussion of Sodom and its sins. At first reading, even the NRSV seems to suggest (albeit very vaguely) that something sexual might be the problem, but when you then compare the underlying Koine Greek, we see merely a translation choice that does not necessarily indicate the same. Verse 7: and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless“Licentiousness” here is the Greek word O36;σP51;λγεια (aselgeia), which can mean anything from the sexually charged “licentiousness” to the very non-sexual “shameless. ” There are no context clues to suggest a sexual meaning is implied. (. http://lexiconcordance.com...). Verse 10: especially those who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority. The inclusion of “authority” in this verse shows it is merely providing examples of a range of types of sin, but the “indulg[ing] their flesh in depraved lust” can just as legitimately be translated as “indulg[ing] their flesh in the lust of unclean things. ” The word in question is μιασμP57;ς(miasmos), and “this does not necessarily imply anything sexual when we see its definition (see: . http://lexiconcordance.com...). In fact, it is more likely that it refers to ritual cleanliness, which played a huge factor in many customs of the day regarding sin. Jude 1: This chapter contains references which, out of context, may appear to suggest homosexual intercourse as the sin of Sodom (though it would be the only such text in the Bible to outright do so, as we’ve seen already). This comes in verse 7, which reads: Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Though there is much debate over whether terms such as “unnatural lust,” (or its variant possibility, “went after other flesh”) means homosexuality or not*, taken in context, we see that the rather vague “they” in the verse is referring to angels from verse 6. The sexual immorality and unnatural lust referenced here, then, refers more obviously to Genesis 6:4 and the sons of God, the angels, who mated with human women to produce the Nephilim (or giants). This, more than any inter-human sexual interaction, is justly labeled “unnatural” or “other flesh. ” *Arguments that try to associate these terms with homosexuality tend to either rely primarily on modern notions that would not have existed in Biblical times, or they claim that the Greek word for “other” had a meaning of “other of two possible choices” rather than its actual meaning of “anything different from the usual. ” Other Mention of the Destruction of Sodom: There is, quite honestly, little to be found here. The rest of the references to Sodom in the Bible fall into this area, and I include it only to be thorough in my treatment of Sodom within the scripture. There are at least another 15 references to Sodom in the Old and New Testaments (plus one additional in the Apocrypha for a total of 16), but each merely uses the destruction of Sodom as a metaphor, a reference, or some other means of comparison, generally as part of a deterrent. None of them includes and specific reference to what it was that Sodom did, merely that Sodom was destroyed for its sin. In summary, the texts show at very best an incidental relationship between homosexuality and the sin of Sodom. It is fairly plain, when taking the entirety of scripture and its references into account, that the sin of Sodom was a number of things, but primarily its treatment of travelers, who were to be placed on a similar cultural level as the poor and needy, regardless of the traveler’s actual stature in life (which makes sense when considering how dangerous travel could be thousands of years ago). The fact that the straw that broke the camel’s back (so to speak) was a desire to sexually abuse the travelers is anecdotal at best, and Lot’s own offer to give up his daughters instead shows the extent and importance that caring for strangers and travelers was supposed to have in their culture. The overall conclusion can only be that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual intercourse.