Changes

Strange flesh (sarkos heteras). Horrible [[licentiousness]], not simply with women not their wives or in other nations, but even unnatural uses (Rom_1:27) for which the very word “sodomy” is used (Gen_19:4-11).  

Strange flesh (sarkos heteras). Horrible [[licentiousness]], not simply with women not their wives or in other nations, but even unnatural uses (Rom_1:27) for which the very word “sodomy” is used (Gen_19:4-11).  

In contrast, pro homosexual apologists most typically contend that the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19 was non-sexual inhospitality,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition', p. 8; McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Boswell, Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality, pp 93-94</ref> and which polemic primarily focuses upon the Hebrew word for ''know'' in Gn. 19:5 (and synginomai the Greek [[Septuagint]]) and the attribution of non-sexual sins in Ezekiel 16:49 and Matthew 11:20-24. Traditionalists counter that sound [[Bible exegesis]] best evidences that Lot's countrymen (the Sodomites) sought sex.<ref>[http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 Gregory Koukl, What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?]</ref><ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480 Dave Miller, Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?]</ref>  This is based upon the use of "know in Gn. 19:8 and its 14 other occurrences in the O.T.(and synginomai in Gn. 39:10 and in the Apocrypha and other literature) for sex, as well as the parallel story of Judges 19, and the specific attribution of sexual sins to Sodom and its region in Jude 1:7, concluding in a perverse manner of such.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=early+christian+writings+on+homosexuality&source=bl&ots=ZjVFV3k7Fe&sig=75PdqP0qrE9AeeJxBSlcfhG0hdE&hl=en&ei=ljkbSu7xF4S0MJCchY8P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=19#PPA36,M1 Homosexuality, by James B. DeYoung, pp. 32-39, 118-122]</ref>  

In contrast, pro homosexual apologists most typically contend that the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19 was non-sexual inhospitality,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition', p. 8; McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Boswell, Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality, pp 93-94</ref> and which polemic primarily focuses upon the Hebrew word for ''know'' in Gn. 19:5 (and synginomai the Greek [[Septuagint]]) and the attribution of non-sexual sins in Ezekiel 16:49 and Matthew 11:20-24. Traditionalists counter that sound [[Bible exegesis]] best evidences that Lot's countrymen (the Sodomites) sought sex.<ref>[http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 Gregory Koukl, What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?]</ref><ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480 Dave Miller, Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?]</ref>  This is based upon the use of "know in Gn. 19:8 and its 14 other occurrences in the O.T.(and synginomai in Gn. 39:10 and in the Apocrypha and other literature) for sex, as well as the parallel story of Judges 19, and the specific attribution of sexual sins to Sodom and its region in Jude 1:7, concluding in a perverse manner of such.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=early+christian+writings+on+homosexuality&source=bl&ots=ZjVFV3k7Fe&sig=75PdqP0qrE9AeeJxBSlcfhG0hdE&hl=en&ei=ljkbSu7xF4S0MJCchY8P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=19#PPA36,M1 Homosexuality, by James B. DeYoung, pp. 32-39, 118-122]</ref>  

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah (False religion)===

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah (False religion)===

This section is part of a discourse warning of [[apostasy]], in which contemporary examples of those who are acting in rebellion to truth are likened to past examples, from Israelites who were faithless and disobedient to God, to angels who left their ordained position in rebellion against God, to Sodom and Gomorrah and like cities, who likewise acted in rebellion to God's order. While Sodom did not have the light the previous parties were given, as they were pagan Canaanites, pagan rebellion is detailed in [[Roman 1]], in which many iniquities are named as the result of rejection of truth which God has given by way of creation.   

This section is part of a discourse warning of [[apostasy]], in which contemporary examples of those who are acting in rebellion to truth are likened to past examples, from Israelites who were faithless and disobedient to God, to angels who left their ordained position in rebellion against God, to Sodom and Gomorrah and like cities, who likewise acted in rebellion to God's order. While Sodom did not have the light the previous parties were given, as they were pagan Canaanites, pagan rebellion is detailed in [[Roman 1]], in which many iniquities are named as the result of rejection of truth which God has given by way of creation.   

The part of verse 7 which commentators have found intriguing is "going after strange flesh". Pro homosexual writers seek to disallow its meaning as referring to homosexual relations, pointing out that the word for "strange" usually means ''another'' or ''other'', and contend that if it was sexual, then it referred attempted sex with angels. However, countering this is the traditionalist argument which points out that the wickedness of Sodom was regional, and that no distinction is indicated that only Sodom was going after strange flesh. Genesis 18 reveals that the angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. It is also understood that it would be unlikely that the Sodomites (or even Lot: Heb. 13:2) knew Lot's visitors men were angels. In addition, it is seen that the word for strange can easily mean that is which is unlawful or perverse, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Jude Homosexual relations and the Bible, Jude 1:7]</ref> Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p.&nbsp;393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref> Gagnon provides six indications why "giving themselves over to fornication" alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7]</ref> After examining evidence for both positions,  Thomas E. Schmidt  states, "The first Christians undoubtedly connected the sin of Sodom to the sin of same-sex relations and used the name of city as a symbol for extreme sexual wrongdoing, including but not limited to same-sex relations.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow?+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA97,M1 Straight & narrow? by Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref>

The part of verse 7 which commentators have found intriguing is "going after strange flesh". Pro homosexual writers seek to disallow its meaning as referring to homosexual relations, pointing out that the word for "strange" usually means ''another'' or ''other'', and contend that if it was sexual, then it referred attempted sex with angels. However, countering this is the traditionalist argument which points out that the wickedness of Sodom was regional, and that no distinction is indicated that only Sodom was going after strange flesh. Genesis 18 reveals that the angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. It is also understood that it would be unlikely that the Sodomites (or even Lot: Heb. 13:2) knew Lot's visitors men were angels. In addition, it is seen that the word for strange can easily mean that is which is unlawful or perverse, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Jude Homosexual relations and the Bible, Jude 1:7]</ref> Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p.&nbsp;393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref> Gagnon provides six indications why "giving themselves over to fornication" alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7]</ref> After examining evidence for both positions,  Thomas E. Schmidt  states, "The first Christians undoubtedly connected the sin of Sodom to the sin of same-sex relations and used the name of city as a symbol for extreme sexual wrongdoing, including but not limited to same-sex relations.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow?+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA97,M1 Straight & narrow? by Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref>

==Other References==

==Other References==