Thursday, March 1, 2007

A Case for Sodom and Gomorrah...

(Unforgivably long; but cant help it - like I said in my last post, it's an article that was published some time ago, so can't cut anything out ... )

Three days ago, I had a combustible argument in school. Against an `army' of 4 highly intelligent students, and two not-so-intelligent ones, I made my case for the rights of every human being to their sexuality.

One interesting thing I noticed was that whilst all of them were united against my argument, all of them had completely different reasons for opposing me… that should interest you, the implication being that when it comes to the issue of sexual rights and sexual freedoms, everyone already has a stand before desperately seeking ways to defend that stand.

To anyone who has followed my views over time, my somersault in principle as concerns this issue would be something of a shock, remembering the deliberate bile and calculated passion with which I tore at the Anglican Church for ordaining a gay man as a Bishop last year.

The gay bishop...

But since that time I have grown as a person, and I have learnt to listen to other people with other life experiences and to always look at the larger picture.

Now, in the course of the argument referred to above, one in the latter group informed me that God hates gays and that was why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. That really got me thinking, and pushed me into picking up my bible and reading through it again, in case I missed something…

What really happened in the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah? What I have discovered is that many Christians have deliberately misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the story and its morale simply to support a misguided campaign.

Did God destroy Sodom & Gomorrah because of homosexuals? N-O! And this I recently discovered to my eternal chagrin. Having done some biblical research on this issue, even against the backdrop of the fire-and-brimstone stand of US Evangelicals (we call them Pentecostals) who now want to consume America with their brand of `righteousness', I have realised that there are a lot of contradictions in their propositions – which, unfortunately, I used to accede to.

Now according to the bible, God sent His angels to destroy the two cities because "their sin was great". No sin was singled out.

Indeed, before the men got to the house of Lot and were harassed by Sodomites, they had already intended to destroy the cities. Do you remember that God and Abraham looked and looked and couldn't find even five righteous men in the whole city? Does it mean then that everybody in that city was engaged in the sin of homosexualism? Think about that …

Let's move forward: when the angels got to Lot's house, the book of Genesis reports that the `men' of the city "compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter" and said to Lot, "bring (the men) out, that we may know them."

Now, apart from the fact that the bible has so obviously explained the composition of the mob by qualifying the sentence with "all the people", it is standard etymology of the bible that it uses the generic word "men" for both the male and female gender. It is therefore obvious that by "men", it meant the people i.e. men and women of Sodom and Gomorrah as it had already qualified in the same sentence.

And if you still are not convinced, then remember that Lot first offered his daughters to the men of the city. If they were homosexual men, pray why would he give them his daughters for a session he must have known they wouldn't be interested in?!

Indeed, what becomes obvious is that, because it was a gender-mixed crowd, he was offering his daughters to be slept with by the men in the crowd. Because the people insisted on getting hold of the men in his house … by whose authority do we insist then that the angels were going to be raped by fellow men, and not the women in the group as should logically be presumed?

And even for those who say the angels blinded the `men' because they were gay, does it mean that if the assailants were women, the angels would have been happy, and would have then accepted? Does that make any sense to you?

It is abundantly obvious that the people of Sodom were only looking to perform depravity by any means – and not homosexual-specific sins. They wanted to defile the strangers in the city for some perverted reason – and it obviously would have made no difference to them if the strangers were male or female.

The book of Jude re-emphasises the point when it says: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner gave themselves into fornication …" The sin was fornication, not homosexuality …

It is important to state clearly that my point isn’t necessarily a claim that there was no homosexuality going on in those times, or that it is not a sin that God frowns out, what I am instead doing is give a lie to the obvious fallacy that God destroyed a whole city ONLY because of homosexuals!

As I have already noted, even if the men were homosexual, God had already decreed to destroy the city before they approached the angels, he didn't make the decision because of their subsequent actions. Their "sins were great" so "he was wroth".

In God's eyes, adultery is just as bad as homosexuality, being a liar is equal to being gay. Fraud and blackmail, which are crimes a good many of our `ministers of God' will be found guilty of, is just as bad as men sleeping with men. Where then do we get off with this silly notion that our sins are more acceptable to God than the sins of another because of the gender of our fornicating partners?

In James, the bible makes the point clearly. In the 10th verse of its second chapter, it informs us that: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law and offend in one point, he is guilty of all!" Is there need for further proof?

Of course, having failed here, the self-appointed defenders of God will accelerate to the new testament and put Apostle Paul on the witness stand: in his letters to the churches, he strongly condemned homosexuality. True. However we must remember that he also advocated that women should cover their hair in church, women should not speak in church and many other such controversial and somewhat rigid measures which we Christians have correctly explained away as advice or informed opinion, rather than law.

In legal terms, those writings are equivalent to opinion juris, rather than lex: they are rightly regarded by Ministers of the bible as the opinions of a respected Christian, rather than law laid down from the heavens, which is why they are not adhered to! Following that line of thought, it follows that the apostles only opined about gays and many other such sundry issues; and never said their writings were binding as law or were direct inspiration from God.

I do not intend to belabour the issue.

In America, a pastor – man of God, supposedly ordained to preach the message of salvation - was forced to apologise for saying ON THE PULPIT that he would commit murder if a gay man touched him. Again, there is a Christian website called, but it is more likely that the ones He hates are the people who built that site: the kinds of people the Book of 1st John refers to when it says: "If a man says, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar!" It continues: "He that loveth not knoweth not God." Period!

As I write, I remember that a valid point supporters made for the gay bishop last year was his record as an exemplary priest whose life showed forth the fruits of the spirit, and that his sexuality was a negligible, and therefore irrelevant, part of him. Indeed, I am tempted to say that it would be more palatable to have as a priest that kind of a bishop, whose parishioners would so staunchly defend, than the many pastors here who talk down at their members and add nothing positive to their lives.

What the bible advocates is that our lives should be a signpost that will draw others to Him and to righteousness. With the kind of bigotry, bullying and hatred we show, when our lives do not even follow the scriptures' more basic tenets, do we show the love the bible preaches when we say, "I would stab anyone that is a fag!"?

Get a life! What gives you that right? Is it better then to be an adulterer who abandons his children and steals government money than a gay who lives his life morally and legally? On what sane, rational basis would anyone make that conclusion?

I have had the rare opportunity in the last couple of months to come in contact with gay people, and I have read up on many others: the shocking revelation I got was that 90% of them would immediately change the situation if they thought they could – some have indeed tried very hard to, and failed.

Yet some have attempted suicide out of frustration, juts because the rest of us have decided to bully them, just the same way albinos, fat people, and minorities in general have been derided and bullied over centuries. But these people are neither evil, irresponsible, nor are they deviant - they are normal people just as much in search of salvation as I am from my sharp tongue.

It therefore becomes very convincing the argument that God created them that way.

But even if it is a sin, did God appoint any of us His law enforcers? Isn't He that made the law from heaven, who created the earth and all that is in it strong enough to see it to an end? Does he force anyone to follow his laws? Didn't he place in the same garden the fruits of good and evil??

Indeed, when Jesus was on earth, do you remember him force anyone to be holy? Didn't the saviour eat with sinners to the chagrin of all the `holy men' of Israel? When that prostitute ran to him and poured oil on his feet, wasn't Judas Iscariot the leader of the pack who sought to condemn her? And what did `Pope Judas' end up doing to the Master? How come we conveniently forget Jesus' reaction to people like you who sought to stone the adulterous woman brought to him? "He who is without sin …"

Jesus understood. He was pro-choice: he allowed people live their lives because he knew that any society founded on moral superiority is wont to hypocrisy, hatred and strife. In His original plan, he allowed man to make his own choices even if they would be wrong – all He did and still does is advise, solicit, persuade. In his years on earth, he absolutely detested the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and the Scribes. He knew that their moral-high standing was one to which they had no right – because "our righteousness is as filthy rags"!

He was a rebel. He hated the very idea that whoever did not conform to standard was ostracised, especially when those who were doing the ostracising were no better! The Creator did not fight sinners, yet those He created think they should! They insist on defending God better than Himself! And yet they piously take the front pews in church and imagine that they are saner than Osama bin Laden …

In fact, this whole homophobia thing makes no sense to me! Why are we so annoyed by the kind of sex two consenting adults have? What sort of fundamentally flawed sense of moral superiority makes us think we have a right to assault and condemn a lesbian or a gay man? Tell me, how does what any man or woman do in the privacy of their bedrooms, without forcing anybody, or harming anyone, actively affect your life or mine? And what makes us have the right to tell a man he must sleep with a woman simply because you and I are attracted to women? And how come we don't have commensurate disgust for such other "unnatural" sexual acts as masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex?

I cannot understand this HYPOCRISY in the Nigerian society, and even in more liberalised ones, as the American elections have shown us. The Church in America has not ceased to gloat that it gave George Bush victory based on `solid moral values' just because he hates gays … but does that really make any sense?

Does it make sense that the church celebrates giving victory to a murderer and a liar? Are you aware that certain American pastors (having decided that Bush had a `moral agenda' after he promised to amend the constitution to ban gay marriages) lied to their gullible members that Bush found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, just to get congregations to vote him?

Leading the global hypocricy battle...

Does it mean that being a murderer is better than being gay? So, Bush walks into Iraq, kills the innocent children of poor women, makes children fatherless and ruins thousands of lives all in the pursuit of petro-dollars, and somebody thinks because he calls the name of God, he is holy and has high moral values? In any case, have we forgotten just how much Osama an his teammates invoke the name of God?

In fact, I have severally asked, what qualified George Bush (Jnr.) a better Christian than Kerry? Doesn’t Kerry believe in God? Has he been shown to ever have an unconscionable and evil heart? Does the fact that when asked about gays, he answered, "we're all God's children" make him inferior morally simply because George Bush carries the bible on his head, while John Kerry probably carries his in his heart?

You cannot imagine how irritated I get when, here in Nigeria, I hear our band of hypocritical churchgoers, who fast for seventy days but still inflate contracts, round-trip in banks and tell lies in the course of government work, rejoicing that "God won the election for Bush". I heard one of these say the reason why America has succeeded thus far is because God is mentioned in their anthem. And then I wonder what happened to the "So help me God" in our own pledge? So how come Nigeria keeps moving resolutely backwards?

Indeed, are there any churchier people anywhere in the world than here - in the world's third most corrupt nation? And what has our religiosity, God-ism, and `high moral standards' done for us? Has it reduced the cases and incidences of rape, incest and child abuse our nation is riddled with?

This is one of the rare times I have spiced my writing so strongly with religion; but I have decided to write this piece from a Christian perspective so as to prove that one can be a Christian and still be liberal – with respect for the rights, freedoms, and choices of other beings just as our Perfect Master, Jesus, had. To show that these people do not understand the bible that they preach.

Even if I am a born-again Christian who believes that being gay is a sin against God and against the body, what I do know for sure is that the bible doesn't ask us to hate gays, and neither does it tell us to stop them from being gay. All it asks us to do is persuade and convict any who has gone ‘astray’ – and to live our lives in such a way that will re-enforce this message.

Of course, these remain biblical issues, and if anyone has superior arguments, I await them. But for me, I am unequivocal about my principle: that we must allow consenting adults to live their lives - as far as they do not harm us, or anybody.

And to those rabidly against this principle, I again ask the simple question: what is the basis even for our regarding someone as less than human simply because that person doesn't have sex the way you and I do?


Seun said...

Wow man, that was LOOOONG!

I swear my first thought was 'Who does he think he is expecting us to read this long a piece?'.

But the third paragraph sucked me in. It took me two days to read it, but it was worth it.

Great piece. These things need to be said. Give me time to really digest this. Will post again soonest.

laspapi said...

it took seun two days to read your post? Still trying to figure that out but I think it's you I'll call names, Chude.

"what is the basis even for our regarding someone as less than human simply because that person doesn't have sex the way you and I do?"- Does that include those who like animals or children? Following your argument to its logical conslusion. Its the advocacy in me raging.

Who's your "aunt" that refused to greet you? Be very careful, Chude.

You drove around the city with your ex on Valentine's day...Would that be Jerome? hehehe

Once you tried to be like the joneses? Even you, Chude? You're human after all.

Ok, enough of the name calling-I'm not even going to call your former car, names.

ps-I'm in love with Ebun Olatoye too.

Anonymous said...

Abeg Mr. Man were all the Lagos gist?!? That's why I come here o!

All this your big grammar... this country, they always do what they like so why bother?

Chude! said...


I see you did some comprehensive catch-up - thanks!

Oh I understand Seun's predicament. And then on following the argument to its conclusion, you're right: when I posted that article in Krazitivity, I ended it with "consensual sex the way you and I do". Consensual sex of course can also happen between human adults.

Which Auntu? I have had enough of being careful obviously. Gifts should only be given to people who can appreciate them.

Oh and my former car? That was a GOOD car man! Dont even slander it!! Lol
Take care!

Anonymous said...

I fell in love with your A Little Gossip piece. The things you spoke of always struck me just before I left Nigeria. Who knows maybe that is part of why I left? But the piece had beautiful and endless depth.

I like the passion of this one, but I am not liberal enough to be accepting of gays. Sorry.

More of the Little Gossip pieces please. Well done. How old did you say you were again?

Lola said...

Very good post chude! i enjoyed reading it but I just have one gripe. I passively agree with most of the points you brought up except one. Your reasoning behind why the "crowd" outside of Lot's house was both female and male. I'm sorry but that reasoning doesn't follow. It's not standard etymology of the bible to use men to mean male and female. Yes, it can be found but it's not "standard". There are many instances where the male and female gender are equally qualified. Also in a version that clearly distinguishes between young men and old men, i don't see why they wouldn't say women and men. That's that. Then...u go on to say why would Lot give out his daughters when he knows the men wouldn't want them? Therefore it's likely that they were both sexes. the same logic, why would he give out his daughters when they were women in the crowd? was he condoning lesbianism then? I think he suggested his daughters because he knew the sin of homosexuality and was trying to dissuade the men from that particular sin.

That's my only gripe! Other than that as I said earlier, I passively agree with much of what you've said. Including that which says a sin is a sin, homosexuality, adultery, fornication.... If we were to treat all fornicators like all gay people, especially in nigeria...

You know in nigeria what we practice is not actual religion of any kind but "religiousity".

Chude! said...

Fantastic points, Lola. But let us follow the arguments: I am sure we might need to argue a bit on what 'standard' means in this case. When I say standard etymology, I don't mean that it is a continuous happenstance; I am just saying it is standard i.e. it is an known practice for the bible in certain known aspects of the bible for the word 'men' to be used instead of 'people' Theologians and other bible 'experts' see this as a settled matter. The onus is now on the reader to identify those aspects where it is so used.

Now, let us go back to the bible: you will find that from the very first time the Bible mentions Sodom (check Gen 13: 13) it referred to it as 'the men of Sodom were wicked'; unless you want to be extremely feminist and say it is not also referring to the women and so ONLy the men were wicked, it would be obvious that in this case it was following the 'standard' etymology of substituting the word 'men' for 'people'.

IN FACT, this gets much clearer in Gen 19:14 when it says 'the men of Sodom ... all the PEOPLE from every quarter...' Here, the word people is clearly subsituted in the SAME sentence for the earlier word 'men'.

Bottomline, men AND women came and asked for the men in Lots house. Since the bible, up until now, had NEVER referred to men sleeping with men (i.e. homosexuality had NEVER been specifically referred to as a way of life ANYWHERE), my point is that the logical assumption would be that men were sleeping with women and vice versa. Now, tell me Lola, if Men AND Women come to a man's house and say 'Bring the men who are your guests, we want to sleep with them' - objectively now please, wouldnt the first assumption (without any intervening bias) be that it is the women amongst them that would end up sleeping with the men-guests?!?

I am not saying he wanted to give his daughters for lesbianism, no! I am saying this was a mixed crowd - and so whoever he gave to his guests, there were people of the opposite sex in thh crowd who would 'do the deed'!

If you say Lot didnt want to give the angels to the men because he knew about the sin of homosexuality, are you then saying that he preferred fornication? In that case it a man who gives his daughters away is not one of any morals: so in a city like Sodom where we are saying Homosexuality was common place, why would he flinch away from that sin i.e. why would he want to avoid Homosecuality only to allow the rape of his daughters?? It doesnt follow. Lot only wanted to save his guests because they were his guests not because he wanted to avoid homosexuality.

And that brings me back to my point again: since there was no reference anywhere to homosexuality: the only logical thing to assume is that the men in Lots house were going to be raped by the logical sex partners in those times, the females in the midst. Instead Lot offered his daughters to be raped by the men in the midst. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah werent so horny that they didnt have people to sleep with within themselves, they didnt come to Lot's house because they were in dire need of homosexual partners - they wanted to violate the visitors by any means. The MEN AND WOMEN of Sodom wanted to violate the men in that house! So how does it reasonably follow that the it was the MEN that would sleep with the guests? Why cant it be assumed that it is the WOMEN that would have slept with the guests???

The reason why it is difficult for us to accept this positive logic is because we have been schooled and re-schooled about the morale of the Sodom and Gomorrah story as referring to homosexuality; so much so in fact that the crime is called Sodomy!

But with facts, figures, and coming to these things with an open mind, Lola, you will find that there are plenty of errors and 'mind-fucking' (excuse me) that we need to un-learn.

If you still disagree, let us continue the dialogue please ...

Lola said...

Chude, still disagree! What is "standard" in the bible is more sexism (for lack of a better word) than using the word "men" to mean both men AND women. The bible generally doesn't shy away from distinguishing men from women. In the same chapter you quoted, we see several instances of this. "men, young and old", the angels were "two men", they asked lot "do you have anyone else here - sons in law, sons, daughters.." Even in the chapter before, the angels that went to see Abraham were "men", when Abraham was pleading for the Sodomites, it was for the "people". The fact still remains that in chapters where in manner people HAVE been qualified, men, people, sons, daughters, why wouldn't they say "the people came out and demanded the guests" for example? The bible doesn't "subsitute" men for men AND women, they mean MEN cuz the women weren't considered relevant, to that society in general, and to the story in particular. If it says the men were wicked it doesn't necessarily mean the women weren't wicked, it just meant, the men who were the heads of households et al, were wicked. If anything the wives were wives of wicked men. That kind of thinking.

Even still, by your own argument, the angels then could also be considered women. And then what would we have?

What is the point of this discourse anyway? That homosexuality is not considered a sin in the bible? We all know that it is, there are instances where it is explicitly stated. That homosexuality wasn't practiced in Sodom? But the morale of Sodom wasn't that homosexuality was the only sin there, but that there was sin there in general, homosexuality, was an example.

There's nothing to unlearn there. Chude, the bible is a simple document written in simple times. They didn't have the convention of thinking in the lines you're thinking right now. Imagine if this story happened NOW, in times of all kinds of civil rights, you know the story wouldn't have gotten told in the same way. Don't overrationalize these things, it is exactly what it says it is, c'est tout. When the bible writers say don't cover your head, they REALLY MEAN don't cover your head. How we take to it today (in light of our realities today) is our own business. But trust me, that's what they meant. Let's not try and add qualifiers to the bible so it can be more palatable (politically correct) in today's world.

Chude! said...

Okay let’s go further along this road, Lola. Let me first say that the last thing I am trying to do is qualify the bible in order to be politically correct, In fact, the whole essence of this piece is political incorrectness. What IS politically correct these days in fact is for people to agree that the bible is against homosexuality. EVEN homosexuals accept it. I in fact accept it. What is there not to accept? The New Testatemnt is unequivocal about that.

It is ALSO politically correct to say that God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah because of homosexuality. Again, even homosexuals accept that, including the guy I interviewed for the current edition of Farafina. But that is where my own political correctness ends. I have read that passage again and again, and that is unacceptable to me by comprehension.

Let me start from the end of your response – the bible is NOT a simple document as far as I can see o. And the fact of its being complicated lies mostly in the fact that the bible must be read as a complete document, and not several passages in isolation, meaning that several things relate and explain each other. You do know that there are PLENTY of contradictions in the bible, don’t you? (one example being in the book of Kings where the bible says God strucl David’s wife with barrenness and then went ahead to tell us of her children etc) and the only way we can make sense of them is reading them as a whole, so that we can accept those things that are most consistent, since we cannot throw the baby away with the bathwater.

When the bible says women should cover their hair, like I said, it is not as simple as ‘This is my rule, follow it’. After all isn’t it the same bible which says ‘give wine to a fool’ that also said ‘Timothy, use a little wine…’. So when the bible says women should cover their hair, people are not disregarding it because they are trying to give it ‘modern interpretations’, no - they are disregarding because if put in the context of the letter which apostle Paul wrote that to the Corinthians, it would be better understood as speaking specifically to a group of Christians. You do know of course that in the same letter to the church, Paul asks that women should not speak in church??

And then okay lets agree with you that the bible is a simple document that says only what it means how then do you define ‘the men of Sodom’ to mean the heads of the households? It is because the bible isn’t ‘simple’!! In fact, the bible itself says ion various verses that you should not read the bible with simplicity – but rather to read it with ‘understanding’, and ‘wisdom’.

Which is what Christians, including the rabid anti-homosexual ones, do normally. It is only when they get here that they refuse to do. The bible must always be put in context. If the bible were a simple document, we would have the confusion of understanding why the Old Testament for instance asks for sacrifices of animals etc, and then now Christians see that as unchristian because of the New Testament. Context!

The morale of the Sodom and Gomorrah story isn’t that there were sins of which homosexuality is one – no. The morale is that they were an extremely wicked (or sinful) people – and that was why the city was destroyed. Homosexuality – if at all it existed as at that time – was not given any prominence at all by that story. Fornication might have been, rape too maybe – but not homosexuality.

My point Lola is that homosexuality was NEVER referred to in that section of the bible, never. It might have been referred to as a sin in the news testament, but not in Genesis! Not in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah! That’s my point.

You asked ‘why wouldn't the bible say "the people came out and demanded the guests" for example?’ But in fact the bible did say so!!!!! The bible makes it VERY clear in Gen 19.4 that it was ALL THE PEOPLE, FROM EVERY QUARTER that were there! Check it, check it, check it.

So now that the bible has so confirmed that all the people i.e. men and women were in that mob, then you cannot validly say that women were silent in that mob because of ‘sexism’. Mobs are never constituted of silent people. If there was a mob, and women were in that mob, THEN they must have been active. So men were not the only ones asking for the angel’s butts! The PEOPLE were!

Then to also say that the women could only have been the wives of wicked men??? That would be stretching reality too far. To say that there were no wicked women? No wicked women in Sodom? So if only the men were referred to in terms of wickedness, why did God and the angels destroy the entire city – men and women for the wickedness of the men alone??

And you cannot possibly say, Lola, that the bible doesn’t ever substitute men for women. Haba. That’s a matter that ha been settled over time. All over the bible – it refers to ‘the men of Israel’ etc in circumstances where it is very clear that it was referring to both males and females. Yes it might have been sexist in that it doesn’t refer to women specifically, yes, but not that it DENIES THEIR EXISTENCE! Context again.

I am not arguing that homosexuality isn’t a sin. The New Testament says as much. My point is Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels didn’t blind the men because they were gay. God did not destroy the city because of homosexuals. All sins make God upset equally. Fornication is fornication – whether with same sex or opposite sex.

devil's advocate said...

But why centre on the Bible for discussions around sexuality? Why does something written so many thousands of years ago by a whole bunch of people have to be foundational?

People talk with such flagrant hypocrisy about homosexuality. Conservative Africans like to fool themselves that somehow its a colonial import. Anyone who does even an initial study of various African cultures will find sexual practises which do not fit into conventional categorisations going back in history. In Nigeria, we just have to look at the Yan Dauda culture in the North.. Instead of spouting opinions without substance, do the research.

It seems to me that in any human society, around 10% of the men are gay (see the Kinsey data). In Nigeria, we are therefore talking about 7 million gay men! Of course, most are married, repress their desires for fear of violence/discrimination etc.

Rather than prattling around with infantile debates about whether homosexuality is a 'sin' or not, there are far more serious issues to confront in Nigeria - the normalised attitude to violence (sexual or otherwise) against women, the widespread sexual abuse of young girls, the predominantly patriarchal culture and the stone age homophobia now enshrined in law..

Lola said...

Chude,let's ditch all the "touch points" and focus on what i'm trying to clarify which are:

1. Following your logic, assuming the crowd was mixed, what they did demand for was the guests so they could have sex with them. Your logic follows that it's the women that did the asking. Why would Lot respond to these women by saying they should take his daughters instead?

2. Following your logic, the angels that came to Lots house could also very well be female.

If that's your argument then.......alrighty then. I implore anyone reading this, to open the bible and read it. Simple. Gen.18 & 19. Don't try and interpret it, it's not German. It's English.

On a lighter note! I was speaking to a friend of mine about this and his first reaction, i swear, was..."why, was this guy (you) there?" LOL. and then he's like, "well, maybe all the women were in Gomorrah!!" LOL!!! THEN he says, "seriously, what did Gomorrah do to deserve all this that's what i want to know?"

Funny guy eh? :)

Chude! said...

Lola! Lola! Lola! Let's not twist this o. Sebi I made it clear. I am NOT saying it was the women doing the asking. This was a 'mob' and I have repeated that the mob was male or female. A typical mob has everybody shouting 'Bring them out! Bring them out!' Both male and female shouting.

Whether the angels appeared as men or not is irrelevant. My point is that no one knows what would have happened if they actually came out - whether the men would be the ones to assualt them, or the women. All we have had is dangerous and biased conjecture.

None of us - not me, not you, know what would have hapopened next. Angels were in a house, men and women came and said: bring them, let's lay with them!' So where does anyone come off saying it must have been the men who wanted to lay with them?!

Devil's Advocate makes the point that there are more important issues around homophobia than locating it as a biblical sin, no. The point of this laboured dissection of that biblical passage is because the worst homophobia in the world is that which feeds on misguided religiousity - and once these 'apostles of God' realise that our God is not a God that burns down an entire city simply because the males he created are sleeping with other mails - but one of Love and Free will, we might begin to win them over.

Oh Lola your friend says was i there? (Innocent puppy look), but why is he asking me that?! You too are claiming to know what happened there abi?????Lol

Anonymous said...

i agree with Devil's advocate. The tone of the whole debate is rather infantile. resulting to biblical argument is a lazy form of argumentation and lack of awareness and understanding about the discourse on homosexuality - international and within the continent.

Lola is right on so manys points (but can't get into it right now), especially about man essentially refering to the male species.

suggested readings to explore homosexuality in Africa that cannot be simply be reduced to christianisation and euro-colonisation.

Boy Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities

Tommy Boys, Lesbian Men and Ancestral Wives: Female Same-Sex Practices in Africa,

Anonymous said...

i agree with Devil's advocate. The tone of the whole debate is rather infantile. resulting to biblical argument is a lazy form of argumentation and lack of awareness and understanding about the discourse on homosexuality - international and within the continent.

Lola is right on so manys points (but can't get into it right now), especially about man essentially refering to the male species.

suggested readings to explore homosexuality in Africa that cannot be simply be reduced to christianisation and euro-colonisation.

Boy Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities

Tommy Boys, Lesbian Men and Ancestral Wives: Female Same-Sex Practices in Africa,

Chude! said...

Mr./Ms Anonymous,

The problem with responses like yours is that in trying to deplore narrow—mindedness, they display an even deeper narrow-mindedness that not just borders on but expands beyond the infantile.

I have made it clear again and again that the homosexual debate is one with many dimensions; I DECIDED to look at it from the religious angle this time around because it is the hypocrisy and homophobia of the church that irks me the MOST. Not because that is the only angle. Of course even a elementary pupil knows it is not! If you read the interview I referred to in Farafina (more than 10 pages I think and available on the net in fact) for instance, in that write-up, I explored its many dimensions – and extensively too, based on research spanning at least 5 months, thank you very much.

In THIS PIECE, I wanted only to explore its Christian dimensions and like I said, because the most stubborn and self-righteous homophobia is that which comes from so-called Christians, and that was the point of this piece. That dimension was my theme.

The reason I and Lola are arguing narrowly about the issue of what ‘men’ is ala the bile, is ONLY BECAUSE she agreed with everything other thing that I said except that and so we were having an argument over the sections she did not agree with.

In fact, if you had taken a climb down that intellectual high horse to read the ‘offending’ piece, you would have seen clearly where I explained saying: “This is one of the rare times I have spiced my writing so strongly with religion; but I have decided to write this piece from a Christian perspective so as to prove that one can be a Christian and still be liberal – with respect for the rights, freedoms, and choices of other beings just as our Perfect Master, Jesus, had. To show that these people do not understand the bible that they preach."

Moreover, the thing about the gay debate is that it is irritatingly stilted and stereotyped on both the pro and the anti side. And that is because the purpose unfortunately has been to declaim rather than to convince or to persuade. Even so called gay activists only want the issue to be discussed in one way. How myopic! How self-defeatist! And when someone tries to stretch the limits of debate, people like you charge in and say ‘No o! You can only argue about it this way! Arguing about Christianity is anti-intellectual. THIS is the way to argue about this – be secular, be post-mordern!’ Well sorry, homosexuality is not a university course; neither is it a philosophical school, iot is about human beings and the lives that they live. And like with all human beings, there are various dimensions – in this case, including the Christian dimension.

There are Christian gays all around who are hating and despising themselves because people like Pat Robertson and Peter Akinola keep telling them they will go to hell-fire. And these people are hating themselves everyday! And for these gays it is not enough to say ‘the bible is oppressive to gays, it’s homophobic – throw it away. Live you life as you choose!’ – no, it’s not as simple for them as it is for you. If you think THEIR dimension is not worth looking at because it is not the dimension that is politically correct and intellectually current, especially according to the books that you have read well sorry, this man here has decided to take cast his net wider – and deeper.

Forgive me for taking offence at the word 'infantile', but people who join discussions without first appreciating context are really as dangerous as people who charge into intellectual fora with half-education. And that is more infantile.

Talatu-Carmen said...

thoughtful and provocative. I love finding other Christians who struggle to think through these issues, too. thanks.

Ijeoma N. said...

AT last you have decided to speak to these people in their own language. Sometimes you behave as if you are afraid to say what's really on your mind. I think it was Devil's Advocate that first called you infantile and you let it go and i thought WHAT? Good that you've gotten back ytour senses.

Lola's argument-style really sickened me! Each time you caught her down she changed the goal post! The one that really pissed me off was when you had finally shown it very very clearly that it was both men and women that went to that house, quoting from the bible, instead of her to admit that and confess she was wrong, she just went ahead to start arguing some other point, like all of us couldnt see she had just been found out!

I actually kept wondering why you were wasting time on such a shallow commentator.

I do not agree with you that homosexuality should be given a free rein as I am not yet convinced that God creates anyone like that, but then your analysis of that section of the bible that we had all taken for granted was certainly illuminating.

People should commend the insight and the willingness to unwarp new layers from old material, and not watse time trying to sound intelligent. And then failing to!

Chude! said...

Had to drop in briefly to say this: Ijeoma thanks for sticking out your neck for me.

But hey chill! Lola isnt shallow. And she's also my friend.