Punditry Quick thought by Jeffrey Miller July 26, 2006 written by Jeffrey Miller July 26, 2006 If the claim made by many progressives that the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality is true, then why aren’t bad hosts called Sodomites? 19 comments 0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest Jeffrey Miller previous post Pitty the fool who doesn't repent next post Shrine on You may also like The Uvula Mysteries August 24, 2008 Up the mountain November 30, 2004 Coverage April 2, 2005 Looking in a mirror for advice February 14, 2005 Costumes November 5, 2006 What's in the flask Father? November 25, 2004 Framing the debate August 13, 2004 The Weekly Francis – Volume 255 – 27... December 27, 2018 False axiom July 1, 2005 My employer is trying to kill me! November 4, 2012 19 comments Jane July 26, 2006 - 9:54 am Actually, if you check the Book of Ezekiel, he too was a progressive who believed the sin of Sodom was living like Americans. 😉 Ezekiel 16:49-50 reads 49 ” ‘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 did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” Who knew Ezekiel (and by extension the Holy Spirit) was so progressive? Reply Enoch_Root July 26, 2006 - 11:02 am In actuality, there is a slight difference. The Progressive “Sodomites” (the pig-dog Americans Jane refers to) want the government to subsidize their bad behavior: along with killing babies (and yes including those of the embyonic persuasion), McDonald’s, Nintendo, and a host of other “passtimes”). Firther, they would like the government to usurp that which is God’s authority and call every activity, no matter how morally base, “grey”. So that, in the end when the time comes to pay up, they can claim they weren’t responsible for their behavior (after all, it is government-sanctioned). The Forces of Evil (I guess that would include me, seeing as I am not a Chuck Schumer reletavist) also have their share of Pig-Dogs, who have the audacity to want to keep more of what they earn, so as to be able to donate to organizations like the Church, and anti-abortion groups. And anyway, we have seen how the “enlightened forces” of the rest of the world have behaved themselves. Placating real evil, hiding in their cacoons, scared to offend, scared to act in defense of themselves. Hell, with people so resistant to taking a stand, one can only wonder why us Pig-Dogs bother. Does WWI or WWII ring any bells? Oh, no. I thought not. – Your fat Pig-Dog, uneducated, poor white trash conservative friend, -Enoch Reply CaesarMagnus July 26, 2006 - 11:15 am I am sure that if I went to the house of someone who is “gay” and tried to tell them their sin was wrong, that I would not be welcomed either. I think the two sins go hand in hand. LOL. Reply R July 26, 2006 - 11:28 am Simple: because the term was already in existence and had another meaning attached to it. It’s not like “progressives” invented the term, after all. Reply Enoch_Root July 26, 2006 - 11:29 am Didn’t someone cover this thusly: “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Reply Esther July 26, 2006 - 12:23 pm That is what they are teaching in some of our Catholic high schools here. Our son’s classmates were also taught that that Jonathan and David were lovers. We now homeschool 🙂 Reply Enoch_Root July 26, 2006 - 12:53 pm Her ein Milwaukee we have an abundance of rougue priests and such. you know the ones that have “their own agenda”. For instance, one parish concerns itself purportedly with “human rights”, but will not speak to the 4,000 babies that are murdered every day in the States. Rather they are ocncerned with more “imperative” issues like “access to univeral healthcare” and “prescription drug benefits”. I think they’ve confused Socialism and Emotional Passion with Reason and the mandate of the Church. Reply Matt C. Abbott July 26, 2006 - 1:10 pm Hmmm… Reply Ed Pie July 26, 2006 - 1:38 pm I think “hate the sin, love the sinner” is an incomprehensible distinction with no difference…to a functionalist. Strip away the mores that have any scent of transcendence, and all we have left to judge a thing by is its usefulness. Oh, and the intensity of any emotional response to that thing, as Enoch_Root also points out. Reply Dean Soto July 26, 2006 - 2:35 pm If the claim is true. . . I’ll make sure everyone brings sun screen to my next dinner party. Just in case I’m inhospitable. Reply Teresa July 26, 2006 - 2:35 pm I think the progressives are somewhat correct here. The act we call sodomy is inhospitable. Although, catagorizing it as such is bit like calling a angry hammer whack to the head an “ouchie” instead of aggravated assault. Reply Enoch_Root July 26, 2006 - 2:43 pm Ed – Interesting. I recently had a discussion with my brother, who was speaking to the concept of how the word “mythology” has been bastardized. His point was that “mythology” was at one time taken to be “fact”, and that now it is reduced to mean essentially the opposite. From that conversation, we moved on to the word “hypocrite”. It was a very spirited discussion, wherein we ultimately decided being called a hypocrite was akin to a major compliment. Here is roughly the idea: folks who are accused of being hypocrites are those who have standards (life philosophies) that cannot at all times be met. And if there is one life philosophy for which we all fail from time to time is that of trying to live in a manner like Christ. In this case the bar is sooooo high (aand necessarily high, I might add) that being able to even touch it day-to-day is an impossibility. That does not mean, however, that when we fail, we should feel bad for having tried. Those who would accuse those of us who are human of being hypocrites really mean to say that it is better to believe in nothing, have no standards, et cet. So, really this is why I am so disgusted by the notion that in order not to hurt anyone’s “feelings” or “sensitivities” we should never point out what is right and what is decidely wrong. The Church in her wisdom remains a constant and un-changing warrior despite pop culture. And I for one am proud for this reason to be a hypocrite. And being accused of being one reminds me of the perfection I am after. There is no grey. No matter how much the world may insist upon it. Reply Darren M. Cary July 26, 2006 - 7:49 pm Ezekiel 16:49-50 reads 49 ” ‘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 did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” It’s not surprising that a community consisting of people involved in shamefully open and aggressive homosexuality is also guilty of arrogance and indifference to the poor. Concerning the “haughty” and “destable things” the Sodomites did, that shouldn’t be a great mystery. If you’re struggling to piece it together, the Genesis account — pardon the pun — fills in the cracks (see, e.g., Genesis 19:3-5). Reply Karen Marie Knapp July 26, 2006 - 8:32 pm the inhospitable are not called “sodomites” because we do not use improper words to refer to sins we are tempted by, only the sins that tempt those who are safely Other. It’s much easier to condemn and ridicule sins I don’t happen to be tempted toward…… Reply Michaelus July 26, 2006 - 9:11 pm I thought the real Sodomites were very hospitable. They went out in the evening after dinner to greet Lot’s guests. Sodom was a welcoming and diverse community – and I bet the houses had great interiors, there was a thriving musical theatre, the restaurants were great and the parties were fabulous. Reply Consanescerion July 27, 2006 - 2:06 am I wasn’t aware that Sodom only had one sin. I thought it’s cup of iniquity was full. Reply Scott W. July 27, 2006 - 7:34 am It’s much easier to condemn and ridicule sins I don’t happen to be tempted toward…… It may be easier, but sins are still sins. And there is one major difference: Most people who commit “other” sins are not attempting to intimidate every sector of society into saying that these sins are not really sins at all. For instance, I may steal (I’m don’t, but for the sake of example), but I am not out organizing a Thieve’s Pride Week. Reply Jeff Childers July 28, 2006 - 12:22 pm I had a joke I was going to crack, but after reading Karen Marie Knapp’s comment, I’ll just say, “fair enough.” Reply Puzzled July 30, 2006 - 9:37 pm The inhospitality of Sodom was the massive, incomprehensible violation of the laws and customs of hospitality by wanting to homosexually rape the Angels. Does no one even have a glimmering of natural law anymore, or even Scripture? Reply Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.