[NGFP-BookClub] The sins of Sodom

[FREDERICKA COHEN]

--- Elie Aharon <elie5764@peoplepc.com> wrote:

 Sodom was incorrigibly hedonistic.  Too many were
> acting too indulgently,
> with too much hubris and self-assurance.  Their sins
> were sexual to be sure,
> but the sex was merely one vehicle for the
> self-centeredness which was the
> central problem.  There was apparently minimal or no
> potential for
> redemption, unlike the city of Ninevah in the Jonah
> story, for example.
> Things were so bad in Sodom that a
> punitive/redemptive message apparently
> wouldn’t be heard by even 10.
> 
> 2. Lot:  Lot was, I think, a pretty average guy,
> committed to getting along
> in any situation; committed to whatever was most
> expedient.  

> 
> Elie

These, I think, are outstanding points!

The "self-centeredness" could be defended through the
years as expedient in a particular situation. ("I
better be nice to these strangers. I don't know who
they are.")

However, there are few  times where sexual activity
might be justified as expedient. Abraham and Sara in
the Pharoah's court was self-serving.

It became the least defensible of the Sodomites'
activities. After all, the interpreters explained,
haven't we all had to choose social or material
expediency once or twice?

So the prohibited sexual activity that was "one
vehicle for self-centeredness"  became the symbol of
Sodom we accept today.

Redemption and growth would have required
affirmative/outgoing action from the Sodomites.

Action like that suggested by Micah..."Do justice,
love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God." 

Since they did not have the potential to grow, they
had to be destroyed.

However, here's the next question for the
interpreters.  Based on their life style, they would
have destroyed their society within a few generations.

Did God choose to destroy them as an example to
mankind or to create a new generation  with greater
potential for redemption?

Fredericka Cohen