[NGFP-BookClub] The sins of Sodom

[James Kugel]

    Dear Students:
    
    That's a lot about Lot, but what about Sodom? Remember, this course
is really about trying to understand how the Bible's first interpreters
went about their job. Why did they say what they said? Were they
suggesting some kind of common thread here, something connected to
hospitality? After all, they stressed how hospitable Abraham was, while
some of them said Sodom was guilty of "refusing to receive strangers"
and "hating foreigners." Was this an intentional contrast?
    
    And then there's Lot's wife. What did she do that was so bad?
    
    _____________
    James Kugel
    11 Efrayim St.
    93621 Jerusalem
    Israel
    Tel. 972 2 672-2197
    Fax. 972 2 673-3027
    
    -----Original Message-----
From: ngfp-bookclub-admin@lists.ngfp.org
[mailto:ngfp-bookclub-admin@lists.ngfp.org] On Behalf Of FREDERICKA
COHEN
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:33 AM
To: ngfp-bookclub@lists.ngfp.org
Subject: RE: [NGFP-BookClub] The sins of Sodom
    
    
    --- 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
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ________________________________________________
    NGFP-BookClub mailing list
    NGFP-BookClub@lists.ngfp.org
    http://lists.ngfp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ngfp-bookclub
    NGFP Kugel Course Email Archives
    http://lists.ngfp.org/pipermail/ngfp-bookclub/
    NGFP Kugel Course Information
    http://members.ngfp.org/Courses/Kugel/