• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's love and the destruction of Sodom? How is this reconciled?

Erebus

Well-Known Member
A God with limitless powers cannot produce the suqre triangle now that the rules are set.
Equally there is nowhere around killing the Sodomites, I suppose... if, well if, God wants to uphold free will.
Let's see who the discussion evolves:

in this case, he would still lose territory.

he did transfer them. To an afterlife.
if you leave free will in place, there is no such thing, I suppose.
They want to rape.

I'm not sure there's much more I can say here to be honest. I think you're seriously underestimating the sheer scope of omnipotence, particularly if you couple it with omniscience. It would be utterly inconceivable for such a being to ever reach a point where they're out of options.

For the sake of argument though, if there was a non-lethal option that didn't interfere with free will, would you say it would be more moral for God to take that option rather than destroy Sodom?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Many years ago I saw a documentary on PBS about a couple of archeologists who had spent some years tracking down the source of that story, as it was a common story in several religions with variants among different religious sects. And it took some time but they did eventually find the actual site, and they excavated it to try and gain some idea of what had actually happened there.

The ACTUAL history of the site was this: sometime around 2500 years ago some desert nomads traveling through the desert on a regular trading route found a new water hole that they hadn't known about, before, and it happened to be near the crossing of two well-treveled trading routs through the desert, and a significant distance from any other similar sites. So it quickly became a popular place for travelers and traders to stop as they crossed the desert. And as naturally happens under such circumstances, a "boom-town" soon sprung up, with all the usual lawless debauchery that come with them.

As with most boom-towns, the structures were hastily built out of whatever materials were at hand, and in this case those materials were a very porous, lightweight volcanic rock glued together with mortar of mostly sand, and water. They were not sturdy structures. Also, as the town sprung up and grew very quickly, it soon began to over-tax the water supply causing the people living there to keep digging deeper and deeper into the ground to get at the water they needed, and as they drained the aquifer they unknowingly created a big underground cavity that eventually collapsed into a giant sink-hole.

Most of the dwellings collapsed into the sink-hole, and the few that were left had fallen down or were soon abandoned as the water source was now gone. And with it, so was the reason for the town. And then time quickly reclaimed them, leaving an 'unnatural' depression in the Earth filled with and surrounded by a few broken bits of structure and an inordinate amount of that scorched, lightweight, volcanic rock (that humans had gathered to build with and then left there.

But the nomads continued to pass by the site on their trading routes, for centuries after, and they would tell each other and their children the stories of the wild boom-town that once existed, there, and how it had fallen victim to it's own boundless lusts. And as with all mythological stories the circumstances would change, some, with the telling and retelling of the story to better convey the significance and meaning that the story-tellers gleaned from the events. And those nomads traded among several different civilizations around the desert's edge, which is how similar versions of the story managed to find their way into so many different religious traditions.

All that being said, the mythical story remains. And we can ask ourselves why it has stuck in the minds of so many people for so long a time. What does it represent to them? And I think it represents a number of apparent truths. Mostly that mankind is punished by and through that with which it sins. With the adjunct question being why do the innocents so often get punished along with the guilty? THIS story says that they didn't. It says that everyone in that town was 'guilty'. But were they? We each have to decide for ourselves, I think. Because the question still stands even if not in this particular instance.
Thanks a lot!
Your story seems to make a lot of sense.
Like so often: the wordly view of the Bible is highly coherent!
It does make sense.
So does believing in an inerrant Bible, in my view.
I stick to the inerrancy of Bible and hold it is literal truth.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
I'm not sure there's much more I can say here to be honest. I think you're seriously underestimating the sheer scope of omnipotence, particularly if you couple it with omniscience. It would be utterly inconceivable for such a being to ever reach a point where they're out of options.

For the sake of argument though, if there was a non-lethal option that didn't interfere with free will, would you say it would be more moral for God to take that option rather than destroy Sodom?
thank you for keeping it short. I still believe that God's omnipotence is restricted once the rules for creation are set. Once he set the rules for nature in his creation he cannot do no matter what.

This is at least my view of the so-called omnipotence (to put it bluntly: I personally don't believe in any of the omnis, it's doctrine to me. I know that many Christians hold that at least one or two of the omnis are true, though)

A non-lethal option would be to lose territory every single time a town wants to commit mass rape. That's too high a price, I think.
God did not create an earth just to have his timetable for further creation set by rapists, I guess.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
In another thread a poster said, God might be seen as immoral.
There might not be any positive message from the Sodom story, according to her.
She doubts that this was fair trial and a jury. Only one that inspires fear, according to her.

In my view it's like that:
If he would allowed the people of Sodom to live on... potential guests passing through would have been raped.
They would have complained about this before God "God why do you create a world in which people get raped like that?"

So he changed his creation a bit and took Sodom off the map.

It could be that God wanted to save him all the complaining from potential future rape victims.
That's my take on the matter at least.

Stopping brutal rapes (and murders) of visitors would be an important reason, but there is much more.

That was only 1 of several major evils:

“ ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and committed abominations before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. "
Ezekiel 16 NIV

So, we have at least 3 major evils of the special list of the 7 great evils God especially hates (as listed in Proverbs chapter 6).

God seems to intervene to destroy evil when it gets too advanced. (e.g. the Flood, the erasure of certain cities in Canaan, even so that their goods were also destroyed and even livestock).

It's akin to burning/plowing under a field that is too overrun by weeds, to use a metaphor: create a fresh slate for a new garden.

And then:

.... 53“ ‘However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters..."

We read shortly after.

And we know from 1rst Peter chapters 3 and 4 that Christ Himself brought the gospel to the dead (!) (thus we can expect also to the dead of Sodom...), so that many would turn to live in God.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Stopping brutal rapes (and murders) of visitors would be an important reason, but there is much more.

That was only 1 of several major evils:

“ ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and committed abominations before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. "
Ezekiel 16 NIV

So, we have at least 3 major evils that God hates (as listed in Proverbs chapter 6.

Not just 1.

God seems to intervene to destroy evil when it gets too advanced. (e.g. the Flood, the erasure of certain cities in Canaan, even so that their goods were also destroyed and even livestock).

It's akin to burning/plowing under a field that is too overrun by weeds, to use a metaphor: create a fresh slate for a new garden.

And then:

.... 53“ ‘However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters..."

We read shortly after.

And we know from 1rst Peter chapters 3 and 4 that Christ Himself brought the gospel to the dead (!) so that many would turn to live in God.
sure.
The reasoning here is the same for me:
If there is so much evil on one spot (not just rape)... God perhaps did not want to run into trouble facing all potential future complaints about that town.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
sure.
The reasoning here is the same for me:
If there is so much evil on one spot (not just rape)... God perhaps did not want to run into trouble facing all potential future complaints about that town.

A lot is at stake here.

God basically instructed the erasure (removal) of cities in Canaan, and that can seem really unfair to modern Americans having little to no context of what is happening there.

Many (atheists) have tried to fill in the blank and paint it that God destroyed an entire cities because of a few bad people, for instance -- which would seem to make 'god' then profoundly unfair/evil, in human eyes.

For those lacking the full picture of the entire stories.

For instance, the destruction in Canaan seems wrong unless one knows about the profound evil of burning children in fires as sacrificed to idols that was the main Canaanite culture. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

And that God revives all the dead back into life. And brings the gospel to those that never had a chance to hear it.

Without that full picture, it won't make sense to people as fitting a just and loving God.

God cares enough about us to remove great evils, also to stop the tendency of evil to spread to other peoples/areas over time.

But people won't understand this very well without the extra information I tried to put in post #24.

It's the 'rest of the story'.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If G-d hadn't destroyed it folks would complain He isn't just and why didn't He destroy the wicked?

Can't win.
He did... the only righteous ones was Lot and his family. There weren’t even 10 that were not wicked.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
In another thread a poster said, God might be seen as immoral.
There might not be any positive message from the Sodom story, according to her.
She doubts that this was fair trial and a jury. Only one that inspires fear, according to her.

In my view it's like that:
If he would allowed the people of Sodom to live on... potential guests passing through would have been raped.
They would have complained about this before God "God why do you create a world in which people get raped like that?"

So he changed his creation a bit and took Sodom off the map.

It could be that God wanted to save him all the complaining from potential future rape victims.
That's my take on the matter at least.
Part of Sodom's sins were harming peaceful travelers. This is why the angels came disguised as peaceful travelers to test them. They failed this final test after years of mistreating travelers.

I believe this created a culture of extreme hospitality throughout the Mediterranean during the bronze age. Because people would have heard the story of Sodom and assumed that they should be extra nice to travelers because they could be angels (or in the case of pagan cultures, gods) in disguise.

If you read the Odyssey you see this in practice how guests are given special status by people who want to please the gods. The Romans even have their own mythological story which I find very similar to the story of Sodom. Perhaps it is their version of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Two Roman gods come to a village disguised as travelers. The people in the village are not nice; they let their dogs attack the two gods. In consequence the two gods have the village destroyed. The moral of the story is to be kind to strangers.

In Genesis Abraham's own practice of always feeding travelers with meat and being extra courteous is contrasted with the actions of the Sodomites.


(Heb 13:2) Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
sure.
The reasoning here is the same for me:
If there is so much evil on one spot (not just rape)... God perhaps did not want to run into trouble facing all potential future complaints about that town.
I think that is a good take. If God does know what the future would look like if wicked people have a “no time limit” line, He may have been thinking of all the innocent people that would be harmed.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I think that is a good take. If God does know what the future would look like if wicked people have a “no time limit” line, He may have been thinking of all the innocent people that would be harmed.
Part of Sodom's sins were harming peaceful travelers. This is why the angels came disguised as peaceful travelers to test them. They failed this final test after years of mistreating travelers.

I believe this created a culture of extreme hospitality throughout the Mediterranean during the bronze age. Because people would have heard the story of Sodom and assumed that they should be extra nice to travelers because they could be angels (or in the case of pagan cultures, gods) in disguise.

If you read the Odyssey you see this in practice how guests are given special status by people who want to please the gods. The Romans even have their own mythological story which I find very similar to the story of Sodom. Perhaps it is their version of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Two Roman gods come to a village disguised as travelers. The people in the village are not nice; they let their dogs attack the two gods. In consequence the two gods have the village destroyed. The moral of the story is to be kind to strangers.

In Genesis Abraham's own practice of always feeding travelers with meat and being extra courteous is contrasted with the actions of the Sodomites.


(Heb 13:2) Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Yes, but that's not quite enough, for the entire destruction of a city and all inhabitants, both the guilty, and the babes....

So, without the "rest of the story" as in post #24 above, atheists can plausibly invent entirely new interpretations (with plenty of hidden assumptions of course), and sell those interpretations/falsehoods, as a plausible way to read what little they know about the story.

For instance, to assume and/or imply that most of the people weren't really doing much wrong, and were merely just like modern Americans....

So, to rightly point out this one major evil -- that's just not enough. (and in scripture God chose to tell us more)

But we need to figure out how to write the basics listed in post #24 the best way: brief but full. If you have any help for me on that, it would be very much appreciated! :)
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
Personally, I reconcile them by saying God neither loves us or hates us--he's indifferent. That along with the destruction of Sodom, Lot, his pillar of salt wife, his incestuous daughters and all the rest is just Jewish mythology.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
They would have complained about this before God "God why do you create a world in which people get raped like that?"
IMO, because it doesn't make sense to me that God somehow orchestrates everything that might happen. If that were to be the case, then all we are are God's puppets-- nothing more. And why would God create hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. so as to purposely kill people?

Therefore, imo, there has to be another explanation. Thus, I tend to take a more naturalistic point of view, much like Baruch Spinoza's, in that I feel it's more likely that God set things in motion w/o specific intent as to outcome, leaving us a universe and planet whereas things are often unpredictable and sometimes even harmful.

There's a commentary in Judaism that has it that when God created all, He saw that it was "good" but not "perfect". Thus, He left us with our planet, to make or to break.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
In another thread a poster said, God might be seen as immoral.
There might not be any positive message from the Sodom story, according to her.
She doubts that this was fair trial and a jury. Only one that inspires fear, according to her.

In my view it's like that:
If he would allowed the people of Sodom to live on... potential guests passing through would have been raped.
They would have complained about this before God "God why do you create a world in which people get raped like that?"

So he changed his creation a bit and took Sodom off the map.

It could be that God wanted to save him all the complaining from potential future rape victims.
That's my take on the matter at least.

As with other stories in Genesis, there isn’t a shred of evidence it actually happened so why not see it as an allegorical story that teaches us about ourselves and our relationship to God?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
In another thread a poster said, God might be seen as immoral.
There might not be any positive message from the Sodom story, according to her.
She doubts that this was fair trial and a jury. Only one that inspires fear, according to her.

In my view it's like that:
If he would allowed the people of Sodom to live on... potential guests passing through would have been raped.
They would have complained about this before God "God why do you create a world in which people get raped like that?"

So he changed his creation a bit and took Sodom off the map.

It could be that God wanted to save him all the complaining from potential future rape victims.
That's my take on the matter at least.

Thomas is it?
The rape incident in that account had nothing to do with God.
Lot offered his own daughters to the mob - doesn't say Abraham would have done that.
"Lot pitched his tent towards Sodom" and soon he was IN Sodom. Lot was offended by
Sodom, but not enough to go elsewhere.
And God destroyed the city. God destroyed Jerusalem too - twice. Does that make
God unrighteous?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Thomas is it?
The rape incident in that account had nothing to do with God.
Lot offered his own daughters to the mob - doesn't say Abraham would have done that.
"Lot pitched his tent towards Sodom" and soon he was IN Sodom. Lot was offended by
Sodom, but not enough to go elsewhere.
And God destroyed the city. God destroyed Jerusalem too - twice. Does that make
God unrighteous?
A side note -- when Lot offered his daughters, themselves children of the city, he would reasonably expect that the intent of the mob would not be ever aimed at resident women of the city, but against visitors, and the offering of his daughters is sorta a way to throw water on the fire, a way to try to quench the anger, and dissipate the crowd.

The mob would have no real interest in them. The women would not have been in danger. Lot would surmise this in seconds, one might think, knowing the men of the city quite well.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
As with other stories in Genesis, there isn’t a shred of evidence it actually happened so why not see it as an allegorical story that teaches us about ourselves and our relationship to God?

Take a highlight marker pen. Find a book which gives an overview of great
historical events. Mark out that which has no proof - you will be amazed.
Even Caesar's assassination, where is the proof? Was there a real Hannibal
or was he invented as a precautionary tale to indifferent Romans about the
'enemy at the gates.' Not one scrap of evidence exists that a Carthaginian
named Hannibal took army elephants over the Alps and invaded Rome
itself.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Take a highlight marker pen. Find a book which gives an overview of great
historical events. Mark out that which has no proof - you will be amazed.
Even Caesar's assassination, where is the proof? Was there a real Hannibal
or was he invented as a precautionary tale to indifferent Romans about the
'enemy at the gates.' Not one scrap of evidence exists that a Carthaginian
named Hannibal took army elephants over the Alps and invaded Rome
itself.

Many historical stories are nonetheless plausible whereas the story of Sodom and Gomorrah isn’t even remotely plausible. Assuming the story is true then engaging in religious apologetics on that basis is asking for trouble IMHO.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Many historical stories are nonetheless plausible whereas the story of Sodom and Gomorrah isn’t even remotely plausible. Assuming the story is true then engaging in religious apologetics on that basis is asking for trouble IMHO.

Roman historian Pliny claimed African warriors rode giant scorpions. He claimed Hannibal rode elephants over the
Alps and invaded Rome itself. And Hannibal's nemesis, Scipio Africanus, was born to the gods. See the problem?

Most atheists don't believe in Moses, but believe in Hannibal. Employing the same techniques of critical analysis we
should presume that Hannibal, if he existed, was nothing more than a local warlord or escaped slave who gathered a
band of men to himself. His story was crafted as a precautionary tale for the Romans, similar to what the bible is
claimed to have done with its figures such as King David.

So why don't we teach this? Why do we believe Hannibal, Cleopatra, Aristotle and Plato to be historic figures? Why
the double standard in our "critical analysis" of things.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
In another thread a poster said, God might be seen as immoral.
There might not be any positive message from the Sodom story, according to her.
She doubts that this was fair trial and a jury. Only one that inspires fear, according to her.

In my view it's like that:
If he would allowed the people of Sodom to live on... potential guests passing through would have been raped.
They would have complained about this before God "God why do you create a world in which people get raped like that?"

So he changed his creation a bit and took Sodom off the map.

It could be that God wanted to save him all the complaining from potential future rape victims.
That's my take on the matter at least.

God destroyed Sodom because of its gambling and sex. In America, we are guaranteed a jury of our peers (in this case, they would be gambling and sex addicts). When asked to render a decision they would unanimously "drink to that." God's judgements seldom involve juries, since he is all-knowing, all-powerful and omni-present. We could object to the lack of a jury, but I have this thing about lightning bolts impacting my rear.

Couldn't he save Sodam as a gambling vacation spot, like Las Vegas or an Indian casino? For one thing, the buffets must have been spectacular.

Mark Twain said that you should go to heaven for the climate, and hell for the companionship.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Rather easily. Like many other events in the Bible, it never happened.

Oh, but it did old mate.

In a remote part of Russia, on June 30, 1908, there occurred a terrific air blast, now widely known as the Tunguska event. This event is believed to have been caused by an incoming asteroid (or comet), which never actually struck Earth but instead exploded in the atmosphere, causing what is known as an air burst, three to six miles (5–10 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

That explosion released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten trees for many kilometers around the blast site. But no crater was ever found.

An article from Carl Sagan’s book ‘COSMOS.’ “A comet is made mostly of ice-water (H2O) ice, with a little methane (CH4) ice, and some ammonia (NH3) ice. Striking the Earth's atmosphere, a modest cometary fragment would produce a great radiant fireball and a mighty blast wave, which would burn trees, level forests and be heard around the world. But it might not make much of a crater in the ground. The ices would all be melted during entry. There would be few recognizable pieces of the comet left perhaps only a smattering of small grains from the non-icy parts of the cometary nucleus. Recently, the Soviet scientist E. Sobotovich has identified a large number of tiny diamonds strewn over the Tunguska site. Such diamonds are already known to exist in meteorites that have survived impact, and that may originate ultimately from comets.

It is recorded in the Christian scriptures that Jesus was nailed to the cross at 9AM, and three hours later at the stroke of mid-day, 12 PM, Darkness covered the city for three hours. This was not a normal eclipse of the sun, the longest of which lasts for only about 7 minutes.

This had to be an incoming heavenly object, which remained between the sun and Jerusalem, blanketing the city in darkness for three hours. Then at 3 PM, immediately before the sun appeared once more, there was a terrific blast that rocked the mountains and the temple in Jerusalem, which was built by Herod the Great, breaking the lintel from which hung the great Curtain that was torn from top to bottom, behind which curtain was the innermost sanctuary of the temple, ‘The Holy of Holies,’ where, in the temple built by Solomon, the two Greater golden cherubs, beneath whose outstretched wings the covenant box with the two lesser cherubs on its lid once stood, before that temple was sacked and burned in 587/586 B.C.E. by Nebuchadnezzar’s troops.

This was not an earth quake as most Christians are asked to believe, but an air blast, high above Jerusalem over the desert country on the eastern side of the Jordan, which was consistent with the Tunguska-like fireball over Russia, but unlike Siberia, that desert country did not have any forests, and like the air blast over Russia, did not create any crater as evidence of that event.

Apparently, air blasts such as those which occurred over Russia, on June 30, 1908, and over Jerusalem in the early part of the first century C.E., are not that uncommon throughout history, as Archaeologists have come up with a theory that in a region just north of the Dead Sea, the towns and population in that area, may have been obliterated by a Tunguska style airburst, some 3,700 years ago.

The theory is, that some 3,700 years ago, a meteor or comet exploded over the Middle East, annihilating all human life across a wide area of land north of the Dead Sea. Archaeologists who have found evidence of the cosmic airburst, say that this event was the cause of the destruction of Sodom and its surrounding cities, leaving the land unfit to be reoccupied for 500-600 years.

Tall el Hammam, is believed by archaeologists who have recently worked on that site to be the ancient City of the biblical Sodom, excavation of that site makes this absolutely clear that it was completely destroyed by a singular event. The archaeologist Steven Collins, in his book; “Discovering the city of Sodom” claims that Tall el-Hammam is the site of the ancient city of Sodom, whose destruction is part of an important Biblical episode related to the life of patriarch Abraham.

Was the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah a miraculous event, or an historical event that the three men who appeared to Abraham, knew was going to happen at that point in time? Is the miracle in that story to be found in the visitation of those men?
 
Top