Sodom-Gomorrah----99.9% Gay. Proves socially learned/acquired sin

Or, did they run off all the straights ?

What lineage were they from …Ammorites ?

It’s important to recognize that the ancient world didn’t have an understanding of sexual orientation. Although there is no doubt that homosexual acts are sinful, it’s equally important to recognize that the sin of Sodom & Gommorah was inhospitality.


From the footnotes of NAB

6 [20] Israelite tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. According to the present account of the Yahwist, the sin of Sodom was homosexuality (⇒ Genesis 19:4-5), which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to Isaiah (⇒ Isaiah 1:9-10; ⇒ 3:9), it was a lack of social justice; Ezekiel (⇒ Ezekiel 16:46-51) described it as a disregard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah (⇒ Jeremiah 23:14) saw it as general immorality.

It is important to recognize that those who promote the sin of homosexuals do so by misrepresenting scripture and minimizing what it says.

Speaking of misrepresenting Scripture – where did you get that 99.9% figure? I don’t remember seeing that in Genesis.

Maybe I’m wrong on this, but Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the very few passages in the Bible I have a lot of trouble accepting – I understand the debates over just what the “sin of Sodom” is, but the part that I cannot accept is that in a culture that highly prized virginity (to say nothing of the moral qualms) that Lot would say “don’t sexually assualt these men – here are my two daughters. Sexually assault THEM.” And nobody looked at him and said “What? No, really – WHAT? What the heck, “hero”?”


Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

[LEFT]4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.

[LEFT]5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

[LEFT]What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

[FONT=Times][size=3][LEFT]Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

[LEFT]In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

[FONT=Times][LEFT]**To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. **Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

[LEFT]As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

[FONT=Times]There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.[/LEFT]

I assume you mean the OP?

Of course. That’s who wrote the title for the thread. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. :o

What we read in Genesis is an account of what happened. The person who wrote it didn’t include any editorial reaction, possibly because he assumed that the reader would supply his own appropriately horrified reaction. (We don’t know because he didn’t say.)

It seems obvious to me that Lot had been so immersed in the immoral values of the culture in which he was living that he didn’t see anything “wrong” with what he did. His daughters were also corrupted by that culture and society, to the point where when they thought they were the last living people in the world, they considered it appropriate to set their father drunk and assault him in the hope of getting children from him.

The whole thing is a warning to us all not to surround ourselves with morally corrupt people, lest we lose our way completely.

I’m not sure where people are getting the idea that the sin of Sodom was “inhospitality” - clearly, there was far too much sexual immorality. Equally clearly, God did not find even one righteous man in Sodom (since He burned it to the ground) - Lot is not being considered a “righteous man” by God, even though Lot and his daughters were saved through Abram’s intercession.

Just how is sin “acquired?” I thought sin had to be committed.

Your statement ignores the volumes of testimony from same-sex attracted individuals who affirm that they typically knew from a very early age that they were “different,” even if they could not define until later just what that difference was. Nor the numerous cases of twins where one is homosexual, the other not.

I’ve heard this many times and see an obvious problem: literature provides us with volumes of testimony from adult heterosexuals who felt “different” at an early age. One might say it is normal for children to feel “different”!

Further, children feel “different” for many reasons: some are shy, some are sickly, some are aggressive, some are tall, or short, or fat, or have rashes, blemishes, a speech impediment, famous parents, infamous parents, and so on.

But backing up: if a child of five or so feels “different,” how likely is it that he senses that his sexual orientation is not the most common one among his playmates? In order to feel “different” in the right sense (-for this scenario to seem tenable) it is not enough to know years before puberty one’s sexual orientation (-which is puzzling enough to me) but to sense that of OTHER PEOPLE TOO and thus realize that most of them are not gay, thus making you different. This is scarcely credible.

I thought you misunderstood and then I read

Your statement ignores the volumes of testimony from same-sex attracted individuals who affirm that they typically knew from a very early age that they were “different,” even if they could not define until later just what that difference was. Nor the numerous cases of twins where one is homosexual, the other not.

And knew you were being facetious:shrug:

Not 10 straights / righteous could be found. So between 1-9 …lets take 5 as ave.

5 towns composed Sodom-Gomorrah metropolis. Give each 1000 adult souls …probably few children offspring given their SSA proclivities.

U do the math. 5000/5 = 99.9% homosexuals …more or less

I felt “different” at an early age, too - it turns out it was because I could speak French and most other people in my group could not. (I was about eight or nine years old before I realized that most other people in my area could not speak French. I was amazed to find out that my own parents could not! I learned it from my next door neighbor and his family - that’s what they spoke at their house, and I learned to speak it by listening to them and speaking to them. :slight_smile:

Unless you were “actually” there, you have no proof, period. It is just speculation.

Maybe they feel different, because they fixate/fantasize on SS thoughts …and their perceptions become reality,… learned behaviorism.

Being “straight” automatically means you are “righteous”?

Are you serious?!?!?!?!

I do not mean to lessen the sin. I mean to note that the ancient world did not have the same definition of sexual orientation we do. If one reads such Scripture without this in mind, they cannot fully understand the text.

God & Abraham used righteous…to mean heterosexuals. Unrighteous to mean homosexual. See. GENESIS account of in scriptures…

Genesis says nothing of the kind. At the time Genesis was written, the concepts “heterosexual” and “homosexual” would not yet exist for hundreds of years.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit