Sodom And The Legend of “Inhospitality”

Sandro Botticelli, Sodomites (VII Circle of Hell, Dante)

I have stumbled upon an interesting commentary on the Bible concerning the strange way some wannabe Christians – not believing what they say themselves,  and not taken seriously by anyone else –  want to interpret the destruction of Sodom as the punishment for – incredibile dictu not being “hospitable”.

I invite you to click on the article and to absorb its content; it does not deal only with the obvious condemnation of Sodom made by Jesus, but also with other excuses taken by the perverts to attempt to re-invent Christianity.

I will limit myself to one or two additional considerations, worth perhaps a second or two of your time.

1) It cannot be that 2,000 years of Christianity have been completely and utterly wrong. The idea of starting to quibble about the meaning of words written thousands of years ago cannot conceal the fact that thousands of years ago everyone knew what they meant, and their meaning is exactly what has been transmitted. That nowadays fewer people are able to understand the meaning of old expressions does not mean that those expressions should now magically mean something else.

Say, the word “wicked” has always meant something like “evil”, but nowadays some (not very smart) people use it to say “cool”. It can be argued that as I write “wicked” is used to express both, but there can be no uncertainty concerning the fact that everyone knows what it means in the context, and there’s no way to misinterpret it when you hear or read the word. But now imagine a sodomite coming up in 2000 years’ time and reading XXI Century texts saying that sodomy is wicked. “Hey”, he would say, “wicked actually also meant cool, so here it means that sodomy is cool!”.
I know the argument is stupid, but so are they. They are, in fact, so stupid to think the contemporaries and the following generations didn’t know what the Bible says, but they do.

2) Everyone who is not entirely stupid understands that Jesus is making an extreme example, meaning that those who refuse to accept his teaching are going to be punished so severely, that not even (insert here the worst wickedness known to humanity) will be punished so harshly as them. This is the only logical way to read the episode, and in fact it is the only way the episode was read as long as people took Christianity seriously.

But now imagine that Jesus would have said that not even those who don’t say “good morning” are going to be punished as harshly as those who do not accept His teaching; or those who don’t mown the lawn; or those who aren’t hospitable. Where’s the logic in that? Obviously hospitality was important in biblical times, but this still does not come even near to a justification for the bizarre argument made. Apart from the fact that the Sodomites seem to have been very hospitable, in their own pervert way…

Seriously, some people seem to think with their genitals…

Enjoy the linked article and perhaps try to memorise, if you can, the main points. It might be useful with the next smartass acquaintance wanting to show off his “alternative” knowledge…


Posted on November 26, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. This used to be called special pleading -Im surprised any taken in by it dont get on lists for cold callers con tricksters, and similar.

    I would argue, and have on a blog combox this past year or so on this very issue, that the two , sodomy and inhospitality, are not incompatible, any more than saying condeming mugging is only the violence , nonviolent thieving is ok, or vice versa

    I further argued, however badly, that there can be a deeper sense to inhospitalty (with this particular cuase in this case) – ancient times: no hospitalty, no travel, no society , rather like the drag piracy is on the high seas.. It’s not a case of table manners at Buckinham palace.
    Hospitality as a sacred duty is not perfection , it’s a miminimum.
    Could it be that openly legit social homosexual practice, as such , will undermine the very basis of society ?

    • Yes Pepe,

      open and legitimate sodomy undermines the very basis of society, because it makes of every Western country a Sodom; whether it is called “civil partnership”, “marriage” or anything else. The Lot episodes reminds us very vividly that in such an environment everyone can be affected; not in the sense that he becomes a homo, but in the sense that open perversion contributes to other sorts of licence besides exposing everyone – the young, or the vulnerable – to corruption.

      I shudder at thinking what is happening with adoptions. Not only is the “adoption” of a child by two Eltons monstrous in itself, but the fact that children should be given in care to a category of people notorious for their (collectively speaking) tendency to paedophilia is outright satanical.

      The solution is not (merely) fighting against sodomarriage. This can only be the first step. The solution is to obliterate the concept of sexual perversion as acceptable behaviour. Bring back the sodomy laws, or you’ll always deal with the problem…


  2. Of course the Soddies were “inhospitable”. All queers hate what is normal. That’s why they’re compelled to attack what is normal, holy, sane and good. The poor fags can’t stand to be reminded that they’re not normal, holy, sane and good. So they nmust attack us to still the voice of their fading conscience.

    • Stephen, it’s refreshing to read that an American writes “soddies” and “fags” instead of “gays” or the already frowned upon “homos”. We truly must react to this oppressive PC climate which demands that things aren’t called with their proper name. If we bow to their wishes, we’ll soon not have any other word to express perversion than… compliments.


%d bloggers like this: