What did God do to the Sodomites? (a review of certain biblical extrapolations)

Reads: 188  | Likes: 2  | Shelves: 1  | Comments: 2

Status: Finished  |  Genre: Religion and Spirituality  |  House: Booksie Classic

Cover art: picture I took in Perth

Like I’ve always maintained, if you believe this to be offensive upon reading it, or suspect it may be given my former works, or your whim, and this is a problem for you, then please do not read it. Simple, no?

Having said that, I do welcome opinions of all forms, and would happily discuss this topic, with the best intention, of seeking out the truth, and will attempt to the best of my ability to be respectful of others' experience and views, no matter how they express (or don't express) it, short of physical violence!

Let us begin.

From https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/sodomite/-


sod'-om-it (qadhesh, feminine qedheshah):

Qadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and "consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahweh's land could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (Deuteronomy 23:17): The presence of Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboam's time (1?Kings 14:24). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (1?Kings 15:12), and Jehoshaphat routed them out (1?Kings 22:46). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were actually "in the house of the Lord" (2?Kings 23:7). The feminine qedheshah is translated "prostitute" in Genesis 38:21,22; Hosea 4:14; in Deuteronomy 23:17 "prostitute" (the King James Version margin "sodomitess," the Revised Version margin transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice.

W. Ewin

Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'SODOMITE'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.  

Jeez, callous language, wouldn’t you say?

Similar articles appear on Google search, if one simply types “God Sodomites”.

The article found at https://libertygospeltracts.com/product/why-does-god-call-sodomites-dogs/ “Why does God call Sodomites dogs?” concludes with the statement:

“God refers to sodomites as “dogs,” because of the disgusting nature of their sin.”

From http://www.jesusisprecious.org/evils_in_america/homosexuality/truth_about_sodomites.htm -

The word "sodom" and "sodomites" is found in the King James Bible 53 times. So it is an important matter to God. The Bible does not take the issue lightly. Many people are going to be offended by this article, but the Word of God is crystal clear on this subject. Many people will be offended because they've been wrongly taught by Hollywood and Godless television shows that homosexuality is acceptable and natural, but it is a vile sin. What you see on TV is a lie! What you hear in the music is a lie! This is an unpleasant subject, because sodomy is not pleasant. Homosexuality is disgusting, as the statistics show. In a moment I will share with you some disturbing, eye-opening and unpleasant facts about homosexuality.

The article goes on to explain:

I did not author the Bible, God did. I would never encourage nor applaud any violence against homosexuals. However, God made it a capital offense, punishable by law. Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

2nd Peter 2:6, “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked.” Notice that the Bible doesn't say that Lot was vexed with the “alternative lifestyle” of the wicked; but rather, the “FILTHY CONVERSATION” (manner of life) of the wicked. Homosexuality is a “deathstyle”! Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is DEATH...” ...

Dark stuff, no? Such acts that make men bad as opposed to good, perhaps evil. One does not know without the benefit of hindsight whether one's acts were truly evil, as history taught us. More importantly, such acts might be affected by reasoning from dogma, whether it be the dogma of modern biology, Buddhism, Christianity, nationalism, success, or whatnot. In this case we are talking about biblical dogma. The point I'm trying to make here is that I do not use that word with any derogatory connotation.

Define:dogma -


dôg?m?, d?g?-


  1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion.
  2. A principle or statement of ideas, or a group of such principles or statements, especially when considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically.
  3. A settled opinion; a principle, maxim, or tenet held as being firmly established.

Another article at https://www.faithinhisblood.org/sodomy.html includes a 51 minute long video by the Pastor of a Church, and concludes with:

Any preacher who will not preach against the sin of sodomy or says we should invite them into the church ought to be thrown out of the church himself. Any so called Christian who gets mad at preachers or other Christians who condemn sodomites are sodomites themselves or deceived and blinded and taken captive by the devil.

*The sin of sodomy causes nations to fall and be destroyed. In 2 Peter 2:6 he wrote that God: Turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly. This is a warning of what God will do to CITIES like Sodom and Gomorrah. What God did to the CITIES of Sodom and Gomorrah were an example of what he will do to other CITIES and NATIONS that condone the sin of sodomy. Any nation that defends, protects and promotes the sin of sodomy is inviting the wrath of God upon itself. Sodomy is not a victimless crime or sin. It is a sin that jeopardizes cities and nations and all of us. (See also Ezekiel 16:47-51, 1 Kings 14:24)

*The sin of sodomy is condemned by God in both testaments. If God has condemned it, then so should we. You are never wrong in condemning what God condemns. If God calls sodomites an abomination and reprobates so should we. If God commends those who speak out against sodomites we should also.

In recent years I have seen bad things happen to people who defend sodomites. When you take sides with them you are taking sides against God. Nothing good ever happens to people who take sides against God. They always lose.

So, what does God say about the sodomites?

Are these people wrong in their reasoning? Probably.

Is there in inherent danger in potentially misinterpreting dogma, or correctly interpreting dogma, so one might gain God’s favour, or the State’s favour, or whomever person or whatever idea one worships, rather than simply think critically for oneself, be modest, and affect useful, bold but polite discussions, meaningful discourse, and drive away the pettiness and stale air from these institutions? Or do we wish to preserve them?

Dogma aside, maybe there is danger in claiming possessions for oneself, as Jesus Christ warned in Matthews, the book of the bible which I didn’t see mentioned once in any of the articles I read condemning the sodomites, in hateful spurs, supported by carefully chosen biblical quotes, which in my own belief, represent only the politics of the time, as the bible is literally a collation of works written over hundreds of years by many authors, whom transcribed the spoken word, used to convey information at the time, in story-telling, and speeches. It was probably altered countless times, too.

Who really knows? Confucius said:

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

So who does know “the word”, and whose claim to religious authority is legitimate? One should be cautious of authorities, and be dubious of claims to authority, lest corruption and lesser scruples drip down the pipes of powerful institutions.

This is common sense.

The Roman poet Juvenal said:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 

Literally: "Who will guard the guards themselves?"

The British philosopher John Stuart Mill said:

Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.

The bible said:

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

1 John 3:8, ESV.

So perhaps one who quotes the bible should be cautious in their own interpretation, and practice healthy skepticism, lest their bias affects what supportive quotes they pick and choose to support their arguments, and in their reasoning they become callous and hateful, as we have just witnessed in the aforementioned articles. Also, what else can cherry-picking be applied to, and how might this be evaluated in epistomological terms?

I end this review with a relevant quote by the legendary philosopher David Hume, from his book A Treatise of Human Nature, discussing the 'Is-Ought problem':

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.




...and from No Child Left Behind, Donda, new album by Kanye West:

Back again, I used my back against the wall
Never called on y'all, never count on y'all
I'll always count on God
Back again, I used my back against the wall
Never called on y'all, never count on y'all
I'll always count on God

Submitted: November 08, 2021

© Copyright 2022 olive tree. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:


dewey green

It's ironic that the Catholic Church will condemn sodomy but not persecute their priests for committing it. It's also puzzling that while such condemnation is a so called proclamation from God, he wasn't ever shy about forcing his leaders to commit genocide. David, chosen of God, while trying to win the hand of the daughter of King Saul, killed 200 Philistines and brought him their foreskins as payment.... (Saul only asked for 100) While Sodomy is a sin, murder seems more sanctionable, but there are many more sins according to the bible, that garner harsh punishments; Adultery (death to both parties), Cursing at your parents (death), Having sex with a woman on her period (exile), prostitution (death by stoning), Fortune Telling (death by stoning) while all these examples have detractions, the Bible states that only one sin is unpardonable, and that is to deny God. Forgiveness is the cornerstone of Christianity, and Jesus charge to his followers in Matthew 7, begins with not standing in Judgment of others, which would seem to trump any other condemnation. And if you're an Atheist, who doesn't believe there's an old man on a cloud in the sky, watching everthing you do, while keeping some kind of karmic tally, like Santa Claus, then none of this applies to you anyway.

Mon, November 8th, 2021 1:42pm


lol I didn't think of that immediate hypocrisy. I also concede it is strange the catholic church condemns something to relatively innocuous to genocide, but I also recognise I can't fault them their conditioning/indoctrination. They seem confused in general. I would be. The dogma is unclear and inconsistent, not to detract from its virtues. Adultery, cursing at your parents, having sex with a woman on her period, stoning, fortune telling, very true. Can I ask - do you know - are these all in the Old Testament? Not that it matters because both old and new are claimed to be the word of God. It's just that typically the evangelist will immediately make this argument, as if the entire Old Testament were irrelevant in the current world.

That's right - the one unpardonable sin is to deny God. But can you not undo that by refirming faith? Also what does it truly mean to deny God? Also Old or New? haha

Playing God's advocate here ;)

I do unironically see value in the text, much the same as in other religious texts and otherwise.

TBH I'd argue Charles Dickens (one of many authors I can think of) is a greater moral exemplary than the authors of the bible, or rather the works themselves of each party are disproportionate in how many moral lessons are demonstrated throughout the text, with meticulous ingenuinity. BUT to be fair I haven't properly read the entire bible since I was like 13 and I'm pretty sure I would have skipped a lot or not understood.

I think it goes past labels like theist and atheist, which I find damaging in most cases because they promote division. I think I'm like an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not necessarily believe in any particular divine entity or god but should I be presented with evidence to the contrary I would reevaluate my position.

Also I see much value in the bible despite its frequently crude and inconsistent nature, and straight up unreasonable proclamations, but if one considers it is not the word of God himself, and simply a text, and does not take the suppositions at face value, but rather redefines for oneself the terms, I believe it is a potently meaningful text, and provides some good moral guide, as are many texts. Just so happens it can be cultish with guilish people and it is dangerous to be satisfied with ignorance and rely on dogma and pure reason, and to follow authorities blindly.

Mon, November 8th, 2021 6:02am

dewey green

To answer your question, it's all Old Testament, whereas the denying of God is reaffirmed in the New. Let me point out that Peter, the "Rock" the church was built on after Jesus departure, denied knowing him three times before the cock crowed...so that doesn't seem to be a very firm foundation for unpardonable sin.
Don't get me wrong, I have read the entire Book, both testaments, three times. There is much hidden knowledge to ascertain by simply reading it. The most fascinating involves human origin, which explains how one third of Heaven fell to earth, those Elohim (God Family) bred with humans creating a race of Giants (Genesis 6 : 4 / Numbers 13:33) (Also see the Gigantic statues of Abu Simbel) which God saw as an abomination, and supposedly eradicated them with the Great flood,
and stories of supernatural devices like The Ark of the Covenant,
among other incredible stories of healing and resurrection.
Every conceivable depiction of the human experience is represented in those texts, which along with the ten commandments is the basis of All modern law. It is the most read, and published book in history, which should give it some credence, if only for the sake of recording history.
Although the old testament is a translation of the Torah, the New dwells on the life of Jesus, who called the Sanhedrin "Serpents, a Den of Vipers." These Jews chose to release a known murderer Barabas, while Pontius Pilate chose to "Wash his hands of it." Leaving the ultimate decision to crucify Christ to his own people. Jesus did many things that went against these strict Judaic teachings, which made him a heretic in the eyes of the law, and ultimately led to his crucifixion.

Mon, November 8th, 2021 3:48pm

Facebook Comments

More Religion and Spirituality Short Stories

Other Content by olive tree

Short Story / Non-Fiction

Short Story / Romance

Book / Romance