It would be wonderful if there were no need for topics such as this to be discussed. Indeed, there are many more uplifting things to consider. However, homosexuality has been a topic which has demanded attention from very near the beginning of mankind. In Ontario, our courts have begun to support the cause of this ungodly lifestyle, and in the religious world, there are more and more churches who are opening their doors and receiving with open arms the "gay community".

Not many days ago, a fellow Christian and I came across a disturbing 'business card', which read, "CHRISTIANGAYS.COM Gay AND Christian? YES! It IS Possible!..." I have contacted Mary Pearson, the owner of the site listed, asking her how this was possible, in view of the biblical texts. In response, she referred me to some articles which are available at her Resources page, and made it very clear that her mind was made up on what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality, and that she has no intention of communicating with me on the topic. I hope that she will reconsider, but nonetheless, this series of articles is provided to aid those who hear the twisted truth of the "gay community".

There are six passages which have been labeled, "clobber verses", namely, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. The contention is that each of these texts have been misunderstood and/or poorly translated, and thus the negativism toward homosexuality. Pearson's site identifies an article entitied "What About The Bible and Homosexuality?" by "Anita" as being a "must read", and so I read. We will spend the next few weeks responding to the material found there.

GENESIS 19:1-11 - SODOM
In the article mentioned above, the assumption is made that "...only a small number of these men were homosexual..." From where does such an assumption come? The text certainly does not indicate such. Rather, the text reads, "...the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally'." (19:4-5). Who called for the men to come out? "...they..." Who is they? "...the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people from every quarter..." The contention is made that there were men in the city who were fathers, grandfathers, etc.. I don't doubt that there were married men, in Sodom, who had sexual relations with their wives. If this were not the case, then the population of the city would have dwindled away, and ceased to be. However, that does not nullify the fact that all the men of the city surrounded Lot's home and sought to know these men who came.

Does the fact that Lot offered his daughters prove that not all the men before his door were homosexuals? First, if there were men in the city who were ONLY heterosexual, what reason would they have to be at Lot's door calling for these men to come out? It would appear that the city was a mixture of homosexual and bisexual men (ie. those who were husbands, fathers, grandfathers). Thus, the offer of Lot's daughters would be to appease their sexual desire without harm coming to the angels of the Lord. His offer was certainly unwise, and he most certainly would have bene held responsibile for any harm that had befallen his daughters had the men taken him up on the offer; however, the appetite of the men of Sodom was for the two men who were inside Lot's house.

There is no doubt that the situation which was unfolding outside Lot's door, had it come to fruitition would have been a violent gang rape. However, to conclude that what is condemned in the text is gang rape and not homosexuality assumes something which is certainly not supported. The statement of the men, "...this one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge..." (19:9) indicates that this was not the first time that Lot had made mention of and tried to stop their activities. Are we to assume that the whole city of Sodom was given to regular gang rapes? Furthermore, had the men of the city accepted the offer of Lot's daughters, the result would have been a gang rape of the two young ladies. If it was gang raping that Lot condemned among them, then why would he encourage them to take his daughters and do to them the very thing he condemned them for? The fact is, Lot was speaking out against their homosexual activities.

I have heard in the past that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, but have never heard an explanation of this thought. Anita explains in her article that Jesus refers to the sin of inhospitality found in Sodom on two separate occasions, namely Matthew 10:14 and Matthew 11:19-24. The "inhospitality" argument is as weak as the spine of a dead man! Those who subscribe to it have completely missed the point Jesus makes in the book of Matthew. The Lord was not speaking of hospitality or lack thereof, but regarding people's response to the word of God. Those who did not heed His word and did not repent were condemned, and comparison was drawn to Sodom and Gomorrah. Notice, "...whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!" (Mt 10:14-14). And again, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent:... And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Mt 11:20, 23-24). Why would it be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah? The cities spoken of in Jesus day saw the mighty works which accompanied his teaching and that of the apostles. Sodom, so far as we know only had the rebuke of Lot. Jesus indicates that had the same mighty deeds been done among the men of Sodom, they would have repented.

Sodom is referred to in other Bible texts (Deuteronomy 29:17-26; 32:32-38; Isaiah 1:9-23; 3:8-19; Jeremiah 23:10-14; 49:16-18; 50:2-40; Lamentations 4:3-6; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Amos 4:1-11; Zephaniah 2:8; Luke 17:26-29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7-8). Of this list of passages, "Anita" says, "...in none of them is homosexuality mentioned." Oh? Is that so? Jude 1:7-8 reads, "...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." She shows herself to be inconsistent in her statement of what the men of Sodom were after. Commenting on Jude 1:7-8, she writes, "Fornication after strange flesh (angels, see Genesis 6:1)." However, she very clearly, at the beginning of the Genesis 19 section of her article says "...the men of Sodom came before Lot's home with the intention of sexually violating the angels of God who they perceived as strangers (and human ones) within their city walls..." I agree with that assessment; the men of the city believed these were men, not angels. We know that the men of Sodom did not touch the angels, however, Jude writes of an action which has been completed, "...having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh..." The sexual immorality and strange flesh was homosexuality.

Incidentally, a parallel situation is found in Judges 19:22-24. As with Lot, the house owner in Judges offers his daughter and the man's concubine rather than the men taking his visitor. It ended up that the concubine was gang raped and killed. The "...vile thing..." which is spoken of, that the house owner is trying to avoid was not a gang rape. Whether it was his visitor, his daughter, or the man's concubine, a gang rape would be the result. The "...vile thing..." dealt with the homosexual conduct of the men in that city.

Lord willing, next week we will continue in our assessment of the homosexual twist on Bible texts, and continue to show the errors in understanding and inconsistencies which arise on account of rejecting the clear writing of Scripture. Stand fast, friend. Hold to His word without compromise or wavering.

Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Did Jesus baptize people (John 3:22) or not (John 4:2)? Is there a contradiction?