Daylight Atheism > Little-Known Bible Verses: The Sin of Sodom

Little-Known Bible Verses: The Sin of Sodom

One of the biblical stories from which the modern-day religious right draws the most inspiration is the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The religious right has assumed that the sin for which they merited this fate was rampant homosexuality, to the point that "sodomite" has become a derogatory synonym for homosexuals. (Consider the Jack Chick tract "Doom Town", which contains a variety of grossly offensive antigay caricatures.)

However, there is some evidence that this is jumping to conclusions. The book of Genesis simply says that God had resolved to destroy Sodom (and its sister city Gomorrah) because its sin was "very grievous" (Genesis 18:20) and its people were "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (13:13). It does not, however, specify the nature of this sin.

The episode in this story from which conservatives draw this inference is in Genesis 19. When two angels come to Lot's house in Sodom to warn him of the impending destruction, the men of Sodom surround the house and demand that he "bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (19:5), using a biblical euphemism for sexual intercourse.

Readers should notice, though, that this could not have been the sin for which God was determined to destroy Sodom, because he had already made that decision before this ever happened. The angels were coming to warn Lot to flee the city. And furthermore, could it not be argued that the sin in this was the intent to rape, rather than homosexuality?

In any case, this speculation is not necessary. The book of Genesis never explicitly says what sin Sodom committed, but another book in the Old Testament does. And, as readers might guess, what it says is something very different from what the religious right believes:

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.
--Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV translation, emphasis added)

In light of this clear statement, it is surprising that "sodomy" has become so universally identified with homosexuality. Even the author of the New Testament epistle of Jude fell victim to this misunderstanding when he identified Sodom's crime as "fornication" (1:7), a statement completely unsupported by any other scripture. It is completely ad hoc and unreasonable to believe that homosexuality was Sodom's capital sin and the one for which God decided to destroy the city, and yet it was completely omitted by a verse that states it was listing Sodom's transgressions. This little-known verse is an example of how presupposition and prejudice, rather than evidence, has shaped the tradition of biblical interpretation among conservatives.

There is a valuable lesson here about what is most important. Homosexuals in stable, committed, loving relationships are not sodomites, not even according to the Bible. Instead, the wealthy and arrogant televangelists and preachers of the religious right - the people who are haughty and proud, who have much wealth and influence but hoard it selfishly rather than using it to advance the cause of happiness for all people everywhere - are the true Sodomites, and should be described as such. I do not agree with much that is in the Bible, but this is a conclusion I can stand squarely behind.

Other posts in this series:

Little-Known Bible Verses

35 Comments

I had a look at that Chick tract - never a pleasant experience - and I think any Chick-supporting Christian should be reminded of this: Lot says "My brothers, this isn't right! Take my virgin daughters instead!"

What a moral guy.

Comment by: Rowan | May 24, 2006, 8:03 pm

Oh yes. And of course, Chick does the obligatory fade-out before informing visitors that God kills Lot's wife for merely glancing back at her burning home, or that Lot's daughters then proceed to get him drunk and have sex with him. Perhaps he felt that those elements would not be "helpful" to the point he wanted to make.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | May 24, 2006, 9:40 pm

The Bible is a mess. The above should convince any Protestants whose minds are open. If you're going to take on the prevalent attitude towards "sodomy" among Catholics however, you need to engage with Tradition as well. I'm not sure how far back the identification goes, but if it was present in the Early Church then we could have an uphill struggle...

Comment by: Philip Thomas | May 25, 2006, 4:25 am

Good post. Thank God for you.

Comment by: Simon | May 25, 2006, 8:49 am

Have you thought of contributing this entry to the Carnival of the Godless? I think it would be a welcome addition.

Comment by: frank | May 25, 2006, 10:26 pm

If you look at Genesis alone, it would seem that the sin of Sodom was that they were in the habit of raping newcommers to the city.

Comment by: Chris Hallquist | May 26, 2006, 10:44 pm

Hmmmm, the hero in Chick's super-campy comic strip looks very much like a Tom of Finland porn character. As a matter of fact, the lavish attention the artist pays to the hilariously clichéd Sodom scenes is a bit suspicious . . .
But I digress . . . The bible reminds me of a 2000 year-old game of "telephone" (where one person whispers a word to a line of people and you see what it comes out like at the end and everyone laughs about how much it got perverted through inaccurate repetition and interpretation). Translations from Aramaic to Greek to Hebrew to Elizabethan English (a language where grammar and spelling were fluid) insure error. I won't even suggest that anybody might have had their OWN PERSONAL AGENDA in translating this document (I'm talkin' to YOU Justinian). The Old Testament seems to me to be a kind of Hebrew hygiene manual (don't eat the shellfish, don't touch that with those hands, don't marry your sister, etc.), the New Testament allegedly transcends and overrides it, so why do the Bible thumpers constantly quote it and not the kinder, gentler Jesus stuff? But I do like the idea of referring to wealthy televangelists as sodomites with scriptural backup!

Comment by: L. Kallimanis | May 31, 2006, 4:36 pm

When I looked at the tract, I saw something else that should be apparent to a reader. In one frame, he shows a hairy man about to molest a child. If you follow the story, what does God do for this child? He kills the child when He destroys the city.

Comment by: Quath | June 1, 2006, 2:52 pm

It's intersting that whenever I check out an atheist site, atheists always seem to attack Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus. If atheism is the unbelief in any god, then why is only Christianity attacked? There are so many religions around the world that believe in their own different gods. It seems like the real issue isn't an unbelief in God, but enmity towards Christ. If that's so you're certainly entitled to your own belief, but just say so.

Comment by: Kim | June 3, 2006, 10:53 pm

Kim, I think the reason is that you tend to look at English-speaking websites, and in the English-speaking world the dominant religion is Christianity, so it is naturally the focus of most attention. I don't think atheists have enmity towards Christ, most of them don't believe he exists, which rather precludes having feelings towards them.

This particular entry has applications to Judaism as well, given it looks at the Old Testament.

Comment by: Philip Thomas | June 4, 2006, 3:19 am

I would also note that you've either missed an enormous range of atheist criticism aimed specifically at individuals who claim to be believers but act in a way that is flagrantly incompatible with a reasonable definition of morality and in many cases their own professed doctrine, unless you're under the impression that criticizing them constitutes a general attack on Christianity....

Comment by: Azkyroth | June 4, 2006, 4:26 am

Hello Kim,

If you take the time to thoroughly examine this site or my other one, Ebon Musings, you can readily determine for yourself that I do not confine my criticisms of religion solely to Christianity. I have articles that address ideas common to many different religions, as well as others that address doctrines of specific religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and in fact I have one coming up shortly about Hinduism.

I do not deny that I write about Christianity the most, and the reasons for that are twofold. First, I am an American and Christianity is by far the predominant religion there, so I write about what I am most familiar with. Second, I write about what concerns me the most, and at this moment I believe Christianity (specifically the right-wing, militant fundamentalist version) poses a greater threat to my civil rights than any other religion in the world. While there are fanatical Muslim groups who want to kill me as well as every other American, the danger they pose is widely recognized, and people of all belief systems have come together to oppose them. On the other hand, the militant Christian groups who want to oppress and control my life and strip me of civil liberties (and there are even some who would see me dead, if they could; look into "Christian Reconstructionism" if you're not familiar with it) are not as widely recognized as a threat. Indeed, a substantial number of people in America loudly approve of those goals, or at least silently assent to them. One of my primary purposes in writing for this site is to make people aware of this danger and make them realize that extremist religion of all types poses a serious threat to human rights everywhere.

Finally, I have one piece of advice for you, and I counsel you to accept it in the friendly spirit in which it is offered: Grow up. Everything that happens is not all about you or your religion, and my life does not revolve around your beliefs. I realize a great many Christians believe that Christianity is the only thing in the world worth paying attention to, but it does not follow that everyone else believes the same.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | June 4, 2006, 11:47 am

Kim, we don't (well, I shouldn't speak for all freethinkers) - not all of us have "enmity toward Christ". Most of us don't believe he exists; how can you someone that isn't real?

What you perceive as hatred for Christ is actually hatred for people who try to force their conception of Christ down our throats.

It's different.

Comment by: The Ridger | June 4, 2006, 3:42 pm

I think what he percieves as hatred for Christ is (in most cases), not even "hatred for people who try to force their conception of Christ down our throats". I sincerely hope most atheists don't hate even evangelical christians, although I can see they might get quite annoyed by them. Its more that people criticise his beliefs, not because they are his, but because they think they are wrong, and he misnterprets this...

Comment by: Philip Thomas | June 4, 2006, 3:49 pm

I think that most atheists actually respect the message of Christ, and his teachings. However, we've seen religion become so severely warped from it's original intentions that we've become absolutely disgusted by it. The divides it creates, the genocides it's induced, the wars and slaughter and oppression. Atheists are just absolutely done with religion and all of its evils.

Comment by: Raina Bee | June 4, 2007, 10:04 pm

I agree that the specific sin of Sodom is not mentioned. And, I think if they don't know they shouldn't fill in the gaps with their own pet political issue.

But, the Ezekiel passage is not meant, in my interpretation of the chapter as a whole, to be a literal reference to the actual Sodom. I think it's symbolic language directed at a different contemporaneous city/state and describing THAT city's sins - I'm not sure who the object of the term is. Edom, probably. They are to the south and they are related to the Israelites by OT genealogy thru Jacob's brother,Esau, which would explain all the "sister" talk. Samaria was the "older sister" to the north.
Anyway, it was meant to be insulting, just as today it would be insulting to call a city by the name Sodom...or Cleveland. Either way.

Comment by: Polly | June 5, 2007, 12:22 pm

At the beginning of this post you say, “The episode in this story from which conservatives draw this inference is in Genesis 19. When two angels come to Lot's house in Sodom to warn him of the impending destruction, the men of Sodom surround the house and demand that he "bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (19:5), using a biblical euphemism for sexual intercourse. Readers should notice, though, that this could not have been the sin for which God was determined to destroy Sodom, because he had already made that decision before this ever happened. The angels were coming to warn Lot to flee the city.”
You seem to indicate that the homosexuality or rape incident was an isolated event. This is doubtful, given the verses below which point to the fact that these cities (or at least Sodom) had a reputation for its gross sexual immorality.
Jude 1:7 seems to indicate that the sin Sodom and Gomorrah was of a sexual nature. "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
2 Peter 2:2-3, says, “Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." Then he gives the examples of the fallen angels, those who died in the flood and then of Sodom and Gomorrah in 2:6-10 as examples of how God does not ignore sin, "and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority."

Again, I'm not trying to prove that sexual immorality (homosexuality) was the ONLY cause for the cities' destruction, but it certainly was one of the reasons.

Comment by: Mollie | June 8, 2007, 8:45 am

Mollie:

New testament authors were writing long, long after the event (assuming it happened) -- not only were they using the old testament as their only sources, they were writing without the benefit of things like indices and concordances. They didn't know, any more than we know how the apostles died. (In fact, they probably had less source material to draw on that we have on the subject of the deaths of the apostles.) And since the new testament authors had a tendency to focus on sexual sin as one of the only ones worth talking about. (And their modern-day counterparts follow in this tradition; just once I'd like to see a mainstream Christian moralist start a major campaign against greed, since it does much more harm than lust in the world right now. But no, if you campaign against greed, you can't show slideshows of pornography to darkened rooms of Christian males -- yes, this does happen -- to, er, let them know what they're trying to fight.)

But if you take the standpoint that they were divinely inspired and therefore could only write truth, then you also run into problems. Jude says that there are people who are preordained to commit specific sins and are therefore condemned -- goodbye, free will! -- and Peter called Lot a "virtuous man" despite his giving his daughters to a croud of rapists to save his own skin, to say nothing of his incest.

It also means that the early church behaved like a disreputable cult -- Peter basically tells followers "give us all your money or god will kill you" in Acts 5, and I really, really doubt that they hesitated to spread that little anecdote around. (It's funny that nobody, at the time, seems to have wondered why god would take money from his presumably more-worthy and definitely poor followers, but allow nonbelievers of all stripes to go about their business unmolested. Of course, given how the apostles seem to have run things, believers who asked questions were probably accused of demonic influence and kicked out.) And people wonder why the early Romans were anti-Christianity...

Comment by: The Vicar | June 8, 2007, 11:03 am

to The Vicar,
I'm not sure what the deaths of the apostles have to do with what I wrote.

As far as their supposed 'sexual sin' bandwagon, the New Testament writers use the phrase immorality or sexual immorality 21 times while speaking of greed or the love of money 15 times. I'd hardly consider that a greater focus on sexual sin. And I agree that the church should focus more on the sins of the heart- greed, lust, anger, bitterness, etc. rather than just outward sins. That doesn't mean we should overlook other things like sexual sin though. However, I believe the church would do better to start a campaign of grace and forgiveness rather than condemnation.

Comment by: Mollie | June 8, 2007, 11:50 am

Mollie:

I'm not sure what the deaths of the apostles have to do with what I wrote.

It's an example of a topic on which there is, to say the least, uncertainty in our own times, analogous to the uncertainty which the authors of the new testament who you referenced would have had about Sodom and Gomorrah. To put it bluntly: the new testament is completely irrelevant to the discussion of Sodom because its authors had no more to work from than we do. Arguably less, since we have archaeological studies, concordances, indices, and access to materials which the apostles -- who admit themselves in Acts 4 to be ignorant and unlearned -- would not have known even by reputation.

Comment by: The Vicar | June 8, 2007, 12:47 pm

Vicar:
I am curious as to why you hold the Old Testament in higher regard than the New. If you want to talk about the lapse of time between an event and its writing, Moses was the one who wrote about Sodom and Gomorrah and he lived quite a few years after Abraham and Lot.

Comment by: Mollie | June 8, 2007, 1:20 pm

Mollie:

I don't particularly hold the old testament in higher regard; both are books of occasionally pretty-sounding lies which have been used to prolong human suffering for the benefit of professional priests. I'm just pointing out that in this particular debate, the new testament authors are so far out of the debate that your mention of them is just irrelevant.

By the way: I am always suspicious of word counts like the ones you quote; I'm pretty sure that Paul's writing alone accuses women of tempting men often enough to make your count unrepresentative of actual attitudes displayed in the text.

Comment by: The Vicar | June 8, 2007, 1:34 pm

Vicar:

I'm trying to recall any passages that Paul wrote regarding women tempting men. Could you name some?

Comment by: Mollie | June 8, 2007, 2:02 pm

...Moses was the one who wrote about Sodom and Gomorrah...

There is no evidence at all that Moses was the author of any part of the Old Testament. There isn't even any evidence that he was a real person or that the Israelite Exodus ever happened. (See part 2 of my essay "Let the Stones Speak").

Comment by: Ebonmuse | June 8, 2007, 5:57 pm

Mollie:

Well, I dunno. Paul feels it necessary to tell men to sleep with their wives. So they weren't doing that, otherwise he would have no reason to say anything. If they weren't doing that, what were they doing? Not abstaining, because Paul also sees fit to put forth a wish that more people could be celibate like him. So there's sex going on, and it isn't within marriage. (To steal a line which was written for Chico Marx but not used: they could be playing pinochle, but I don't think so.)

Why is this happening? Well, it can't be god's fault, because god is perfect. God is love, but not free love. And Paul is very careful to point out that men are made in god's image but women aren't. He doesn't come out and say "this is because women are evil evil evil" because he's aware that women are instrumental in converting their husbands (and in bringing up children in the faith, presumably, although Paul clearly thought that the world would end soon so that was a lesser consideration) and he's happy that this should be the case -- he says so. But he is very careful to make it clear that women are inferior and not worthy to speak in church, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, you can also put on the deliberate-obtuseness-colored glasses that people often use when reading scripture and deny this. Won't turn up in a word count, either way.

Comment by: The Vicar | June 8, 2007, 6:18 pm

Vicar:
I Corinthians 7 says, "each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Sounds like they were abstaining to me.

The call to abstinence was for those not yet married who could control their sexual desires. "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Also- I would like to carry on a decent conversation with you, but sarcasm isn't really necessary. Thanks.

Comment by: Mollie | June 8, 2007, 11:12 pm

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This verse is talking about the equality of mankind- no matter what gender, station or nationality- under Christ.

But he is very careful to make it clear that women are inferior

Most people misunderstand the concept of submission in marriage- seeing it as the oppression of women or something like that. This might be a bad example of how to explain the teaching about married men and women in the New Testament, but I'll give it a try (many Christians don't get it either, so I'm not being optimistic). It is sort of like how there is order in the government. The president has certain 'powers' and his cabinet members must 'submit' to his authority. They are all citizens of the USA and have the rights of a citizen, but he is the President, so they obey his orders. They are his advisors, so they talk things through and then he makes a final decision. Things work best when one person is making the decisions and the others follow. However, there are checks and balances in the system. If the President does something against the law, he is held accountable for it and his cabinet members are not responsible to obey him in those cases (as I understand).

Similarly (this is not a perfect analogy of course), God says that the husband/wife relationship works best with submission- it is a matter of ORDER, not WORTH. The husband has the last say- this is not to say that a woman is a doormat. I certainly don't feel that way in my marriage. We talk things through and he values my opinion on things. Usually we can come to an agreement on a decision that needs to be made. However, if a disagreement comes about, the husband makes the final decision. And, with the checks and balances system, if he chooses to do something that is sin, the wife is not obligated to obey him or submit to his authority in that instance.

As for WHY God chose the man to be the head of the household instead of the woman, I can't say. I guess I don't really care. I am married to a man who loves and respects me and values my opinion about things (which is how it should be). However, when it comes down to the final decision in areas where we disagree (which actually is very few things), it is his choice that stands and I choose to live with those consequences, be they good or bad. I guess if that's what you call a doormat, then I'm a doormat.

Comment by: Mollie | June 9, 2007, 10:17 am

Mollie:

Sounds really nice, except:

1. That verse from Galatians basically is, once again, "it really doesn't matter what you are in this world, because even if it never under any circumstances happens where you can see it, there is justice." In other words, yet another "don't try to change the status quo, even if you're a slave". As is so often the case, religion is a cover for maintaining injustice and suffering.

2. Nobody has any problems with you choosing to give up your rights in favor of your husband. If that's how you get your kicks -- I hope not literally -- then that's fine. But when you -- and if you're here trying to proselytize to atheists, you do fall in this group -- try to force others to do the same, then you are often giving the defenseless over to the care of the abusive. You sound like you've led a life sheltered from unpleasantness. Go volunteer in a battered women's shelter in a big city for a few days, and see if your perspective remains the same.

Comment by: The Vicar | June 9, 2007, 12:44 pm

Vicar:
1. I still disagree with the meaning of the Galatians verse, but ok.
2. I think that abuse would fall into the category of sin- where a woman is not obligated to obey her husband. God has given us brains to use, so (not saying that this is an easy situation by any means) getting out of a situation where you or your children are being abused and getting help for your husband (whether that be jail time, counseling, or whatever) is a good use of that brain. Also- these principles are given to believers. Your suggestion to volunteer at a battered women's shelter is a good one. I have volunteered at homeless shelters before.

Comment by: Mollie | June 9, 2007, 1:42 pm

Mollie,

I'd just like to point out that I, personally, think there is something wrong with the sexism of the idea of marriage that you have described, and find your claim that it doesn't imply that women are inferior disingenuous or at best irrelevant. I won't accept that every relationship needs to have one person with the ultimate power to make the decisions. Equal relationships can work, too -- my mother's a feminist and she and my Dad have been together more than 25 years. I'm very glad your husband respects your opinions, and of course you are free to live as you will, but that doesn't change the fact that women are most definitely given inferior status in the system you have described, and that strikes me as wrong.

Comment by: Lynet | June 9, 2007, 3:31 pm

"There is a valuable lesson here about what is most important. Homosexuals in stable, committed, loving relationships are not sodomites, not even according to the Bible. Instead, the wealthy and arrogant televangelists and preachers of the religious right - the people who are haughty and proud, who have much wealth and influence but hoard it selfishly rather than using it to advance the cause of happiness for all people everywhere - are the true Sodomites, and should be described as such."

These arrogant and wealthy televangelists and preachers will surely get what they deserve. God hates their ways the same way as He hated the ways of the Sodomites.

Comment by: dg | July 11, 2008, 9:23 am

If the sin of Sodom was truly homosexuality, then you have quite a few problems.

1) God already decided to destroy the town for other reasons long before the angels showed up.

2) Angels aren't human so any sex that would be occuring would not be homosexual, but cross species.

3) Depending on your translation, you either have ALL the town or all the men of the town. If it's everyone in the town, that seems to knock out the idea of this being about homosexuality, since you don't invite the wife and kids to your gay tryst. If it's all the men (and hell, even everyone in the town) we're still looking at a GANG RAPE. As in FORCED SEX. As in CONSENT IS NOT GIVEN. I don't see what that has to do with a gay couple consenting to have sex with each other.

4) You don't offer you're teenage virgin daughters to a group of men that you know to be rough, horny, aggressive gay men.

It's possible that the sins of Sodom do have something to do with sex, but the story points to rape. And plenty of places in the bible talk about the sins of Sodom being inhospitality, including Jesus (and he makes NO mention of sex).

Comment by: Rowen | July 18, 2008, 3:38 pm

Ugh... that tract... so bad... as if anyone threatens to taint the blood supply. That's why there is screening of blood, given how many people are infected with HIV for a while before they know about, and wouldn't know to avoid donating blood. That tract was so full of fail and logical contradictions.

Also, they make out like little children were also subject to rape. So why did God wait until after children were being abused to then burn the town down, presumably with the children inside? Why not change people's hearts so they wouldn't hurt children anymore, or at least let the kids escape instead of Lot, a man who offers his own children up to be raped...

You're right - the issue should be rape not homosexual relations. But obviously consent is not a big thing in Christian sexual morality, so long as it's all heteronormative.

Comment by: spider | July 28, 2008, 7:41 pm

"It also means that the early church behaved like a disreputable cult -- Peter basically tells followers "give us all your money or god will kill you" in Acts 5, and I really, really doubt that they hesitated to spread that little anecdote around. (It's funny that nobody, at the time, seems to have wondered why god would take money from his presumably more-worthy and definitely poor followers, but allow nonbelievers of all stripes to go about their business unmolested. Of course, given how the apostles seem to have run things, believers who asked questions were probably accused of demonic influence and kicked out.) And people wonder why the early Romans were anti-Christianity..."

The Vicar, Peter never "basically" told the believers that God would kill them if they didn't give Him all of their money. They were to give as much as they desired.
"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7 Ananias and his wife didn't die because they did not give all of their money to the postles but because they LIED. the last part of chapter 4 right before this story talks about how the church shared all of their possessions so none of them would need anything. Acts 4:32 says, "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common." right under that it says that those who owned lands or houses sold their properties and brought the money to be distributed to everyone. But Ananias, when he had sold his land, only brought a part of the money to the apostles without telling them, "oh, btw this isn't all of the money" which was UNFAIR because they all shared all of their stuff while he was deceitfully trying to keep a share to himself even though he would get his own share when everything had been distributed. He wasn't forced to give them any money. as Peter pointed out in verse 4 of chapter 5, Ananias could have kept the money. Further proof of his guilt shows when his wife comes and openly lies about how much money they had really gotten after selling their land.

lastly, you said no wonder the romans were anti-christianity because christians couldn't ask questions [which is a big ole lie: Abraham, King Hezekiah, Job and even Cain(who murdered his brother) questioned God and He listened to them and did not annihilate them- God is a PATIENT, loving Father who wants His children to learn the right way not some evil, psycopathic dude above the clouds with a giant hammer just waiting for us to slip so that BAM! his hammer can come down on us miserable mortals- but of course you don't believe HE exists] and supposedly had to give everything they owned. -_- the same romans whose law required everyone to worship the emperor or be thrown into jail, a stadium with hungry lions or worse and who paid taxes that they would hardly benefit from. no offense but please pay closer attention to your ancient history. ^^

Comment by: krysanthemum | August 3, 2008, 4:38 pm

"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver."

Yup, you can give as much as you want...just remember that god wants you to give and give 'til it hurts. This is nothing more than guilting people into giving so that they will please god.

Ananias and his wife didn't die because they did not give all of their money to the postles but because they LIED.

Glad to know that lying is grounds for death. Of course, it wasn't anyone else's business how much money they had according to your previous statement that they didn't have to give their money at all. So, we end up with a situation where they withheld money and were punished for it. Alas, the situation in the bible sounds a lot like a socialist system, which I thought the religious right was very much against?

...He listened to them and did not annihilate them- God is a PATIENT, loving Father who wants His children to learn the right way...

Yup, which is why he sends people to hell, because he loves us soooooo much, right? That's why he came down so hard on Saul, David's predecessor. That's why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah or flooded the whole world or ordered the genocide of the Amalekites or the Philistines. Yup, he's as patient and loving as any genocidal dictator.

...the same romans whose law required everyone to worship the emperor or be thrown into jail, a stadium with hungry lions or worse and who paid taxes that they would hardly benefit from.

Who told you that?

Comment by: OMGF | August 3, 2008, 6:18 pm