The Original Sodomites: "Exo-Cannibals" is more likely


#1

The consensus of academics and theologians and the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church is that the people of Sodom were homosexuals and as a result were punished with fire and brimstone. Other references in the Bible to the actions of Sodom are also said to align with the same thing.

However, the same alignments can also be drawn if one classifies the actions of the people as exo-cannibals.

Exo-cannibals will only eat people from another geographic region. Locals are off-limits. Cannibalism is typically practised to fill oneself with the nature, spirit, knowledge and ‘being’ of the victim.

In Genesis when the men in the city surround the house of Lot, they know there are strangers inside from another region, and given Sodom had a reputation it is likely this didn’t happen often. This explains the number at the door and the popularity of the strangers. They wanted to “know” the strangers in the original Hebrew, yada, which means “personal and intimate relationship”. Yada and rape cannot co-exist. Yada and slow eating to savour every moment and morcel can. That is they wanted to cannibalise them in pursuit of the beliefs associated with the practice. Lot offered his daughters instead. Of course, they were local to the area and couldn’t be on the menu.

Ezekiel writes: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…”

Note the word “overfed”? Also note that the city and the population is referred to in the feminine which is strange considering we are taught that it was practically a gay male ghetto. However, when we consider that the Jewish line/heritage passes through the female generations mother to daughter to daughter through heterosexual procreation, this must imply that the Sodom population for the most part were heterosexual. Homosexual males doubly cannot pass on the line because they don’t reproduce and they are male. “Daughter” is a completely inappropriate term in this context for a male homosexual.

Of course the combination of women and sin immediately makes us think of Eve. She sinned by eating what she shouldn’t. So the population of Sodom are guilty of the same sin.

The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is a taboo… The Church taught this to the peoples of MesoAmerica. Cannibalism is taboo in the eyes of the Church…

Jude says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to lust, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The lust here is blood-lust. The phrase “going after strange flesh” is the perfect definition for exo-cannibalism, where strange means of a stranger, a foreigner.

The sodomites were renown for their “lack of hospitality”. Hospitality infers sharing a meal. Therefore the opposite of that is to be part of the meal. Further, as soon as a stranger ate local produce like bread or honey, it was believed they had been contaminated and therefore were let-alone, off limits. This is why Lot walked freely through the city. Otherwise he would have been a nervous wreck and not the forthright character he is, anticipating gay rape and potentially murder every day of his life. (That is what Tradition logically infers.)

In summary, the word exo-cannibal is better suited to describe the population of Sodom than homosexual which is not very water-tight in a number of references. Can anyone demonstrate where homosexual is the only option and one has to reject exo-cannibal? :shrug:


#2

Just off the top of my head, Lot offered the Sodomites his own daughters in place of the strangers. While this does not gel especially comfortably with the idea of the Sodomites being homosexual - ie exclusively attracted sexually to members of the same sex - it gels far less comfortably with the idea that they were exo-cannibals! The girls were of their own community, no way would Lot have thought they would be an acceptable substitute for foreign flesh if exo-cannibalism were the vice of Sodom.

The Catholic Church no more officially teaches that the sin of the Sodomites was homosexuality than it officially teaches that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. So Catholics are not obligated to believe such.

But is there, for example, any archeological evidence that exo-cannibalism was practiced in that area at that time?


#3

It was a bit of a gamble on Lot’s part. His daughters were still virgins and therefore quite young. According to records, the preference was children first, then women, then men for taste and texture. Lot probably knew they would decline, but he had to do something to try and change the minds of the mob. In fact it gave the angels time to counter…

The other religious texts in the region talk of the Sodomites stretching their short guests and chopping up the taller ones. Shorter people are more dense, taking longer to cook, so stretching them reduces time in the oven. Taller people also take longer to cook but smaller pieces roast quickly.

Nobody knows where Sodom is exactly. Take a look at crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/2.html which mentions the Middle East. Also there are a number of cannibal cases in present day Syria which don’t appear to be the result of starvation, but some kind of moral victory.

Re Catholic teaching on the subject, this is flying the Church’s flag and disagrees with you: catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality


#4

I don’t think anyone would argue that except for engaging in homosexual acts the people of Sodomites were saints. Rather, like other people, the people of Sodom were undoubtedly guilty of a variety of sins. Exo-cannibalism could certainly have been one of those sins. However, if the supposed exo-cannibals of Sodom spared the immigrant Lot because he had managed to eat local produce, should they not also have spared the strangers staying with Lot since, according to Gen 19:3, they too had eaten the local produce?

Cities and towns in the Bible are often described in feminine terms, such as “sister Sodom and her daughters.” In this case, Sodom’s “daughters” is not a reference to the inhabitants of Sodom, as you seem to understand the word, but to smaller towns that were dependent on the larger city of Sodom, to suburbs of Sodom, if you like. The word “daughters” would be appropriate even if a large percentage of the people in those towns were men who engaged in homosexual behavior. Consider that navy ships, like the towns and cities in the Bible, are often described in feminine terms even though the vast majority of the sailors aboard them are men.


#5

Not really. It says “one of the chief sins of involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior.” One of, not the sole cause.


#6

It seems like someone spent a great deal of time with the main agenda of trying to show the Bible does not repudiate homosexual fornication. Except that it does, and that’s that. Where did the OP get the idea that anyone is intrinsically homosexual? Where did the OP get the idea that homosexual fornication is not possible in anyone without a complete homosexual orientation? Perhaps they never heard of prison rape. Perhaps they never heard about the Middle East custom of men buggering boys until they find a wife.


#7

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