Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Black's ravings (comment about Sodom) - enough, already...
Message-ID: <1002@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 18:45:36 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1002
Posted: Mon Mar 18 18:45:36 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 07:52:50 EST
References: <863@ames.UUCP> <akgua.1314> <365@oakhill.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 35

I've been trying to avoid getting involved in this, but it is taking up so
much of my time reading these articles that it is worth trying to get rid of
the issue once and for all.  I am referring to the discussion of what the
citizens of Sodom intended to do with Lot's visitors.  The word is tranlated
"know" in older translations.  Everyone agrees that this sometimes means to
have sexual relations with, but not everyone agrees that this is the meaning
in this passage.  Other suggestions are "to be intimate with", and -- well,
I'm not sure quite what the most recent message actually was suggesting.  It
objected to the sexual implication, but didn't offer an alternative.  I
think all of these alternatives fall apart if you actually think about them.
These are the guys who, when they couldn't get to Lot's guest, instead raped
his daughter.  I find it hard to believe that there original intentions were
either to come to know these people as friends, or to have an intimate, but
non-sexual relationship with them.  Given the later course of the story, I
don't think we need any other evidence to be reasonably sure that "know" is
being used as a euphemism.  I also don't see why anybody believes that this
passage has anything to do with homosexuality.  Sure, the actions they
originally proposed to take were homosexual.  But when they couldn't they
were then satisfied with raping Lot's daughter.  It doesn't sound to me like
these guys were particularly interested in homosexuality per se.  And even
if they were, you forget that what they proposed to do was rape.  No matter
what our stand on homosexuality per se, surely we all agree that homosexual
rape is wrong, and is far more serious than homosexual acts between
consenting people.  Even ignoring the issue of the rights of guests, these
guys were turned to salt because of rape, not because of their sexual
orientation.

Before someone gives any more proposed interpretations of this passage,
please make sure you include a scenario of what you think the citizens of
Sodom intended to do with Lot's guests.

exasperatedly yours,
Charles Hedrick
Director, LCSR Computing Facility, Rutgers University
Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church (USA)