I have increasingly felt that Abraham's response is the equivalent of "But I know someone/have family there! Surely it can't be that bad."
When I hear responses like this in current conversation, I really want to say "Your friend, your family, they look like you and me, right? Are they cis and straight and white? No wonder you don't know about oppression - you and yours aren't on that side of the equation."
The day after the 2016 election, I called my boss to get ahead of possible complaints when I mouthed off to someone over the coffee machine in the breakroom. One of my coworkers had made a "They should go back where they came from" kind of statement in response to my saying that people were afraid of what the new administration would do.
He's a good man. He told me I should maybe have controlled my use of the f-bomb because it's the office, but that he would absolutely back me on the sentiment. No one actually complained, and I hope it's because they didn't want to have to repeat their end of the conversation to HR.
I always had trouble with this story, even with everything you have said, I truly don't think it is right what God did. I don't, killing a whole city no matter the cause seems like a horrible crime to me, no matter how bad the people in it were. I will also say, I truly think no matter what there is enough righteous people. Right now the world is shit and I deal with depression and suicidal thoughts daily, even I can see there are people fighting at every turn, even though it seems the fight is pointless, like the world will fail anyway, that doesn't mean there aren't righteous people trying, I have trouble believing Sodom is not the same, maybe that is my history instincts turning on, reading it as a historical text rather then one imbedded in truth, I don't know. Even if the whole city was that bad, if there truly were no righteous people, I feel there surely had to be a more just way of handling it.
The more I read, the more I think in some cases a reading of God as a metaphor for the interdynamics of the whole of life makes sense.
What do I mean with this? In that reading, it is less that God as a sentient being directly destructed those cities, but that the sulpherous fire is a metaphor for how a community that has forgotten to care and to help is destructing itself in greed and cruelty. Running itself dry, running itself down to the ground.
In that light, it perhaps makes sense the importance of the presence of those who still help and care. As long they are there, the self-destruction can be yet staved off.
Instead of being twisted into a morality tale about why homosexuality would be sinful, it would be a still relevant warning, as the Rabbi's last questions show.
Still, it is also interesting to read it there with God as a sentient being. I like to think that as with humanity God too is figuring out how to do things right. To, as Abraham asks, deal justly.
Perhaps there is an evolution to be found as God first punishes with calamities to teach humankind to be just, but gradually learns that strategy doesn't work quite well. (Would explain why after the Great Flood God to my knowledge seems to have stopped with that)
But I am not sure if that evolution is there, since I don't know the whole of the Torah.
Your interpretation makes sense when we look at the progression from Noah (who gives people a chance to see what he'd doing and repent but says nothing to prevent their being destroyed), to Abraham (bargaining unsuccessfully with God to save Sodom), to Moses (repeatedly talking God out of wiping out the children of Israel, even at personal risk and cost).
(woops, somehow I misremembered the story of Noah coming after Abraham's)
But it is interesting you mark the progression by the prophets. As Rabbi Ruttenberg (apologies if that is not the customary way to refer to a rabbi) spoke of Noah of a mediocre prophet, I think the progression doesn't concern God alone, but also the prophets and humanity they represent in those conversations.
Fits with my theory of God and humanity learning together.
I think I have a really similar reaction as you, Ryan.
This is not to say that the citizens of Sodom were not doing wrong and should not be held accountable and that we must not, as the Rabbi aptly puts it "stay engaged, the whole time."
But there is part of me that thinks we JUST did this, with the wrath, and the flood, and the miraculous saving of the righteous, and now, what seems like not terribly long after, especially if you are a metaphorical, non-anthropomorphic, probably unending being, back at it again. And yes, absolutely, humans are behaving sub-optimally, but now we have some evidence that wiping the slate clean and simply starting over, besides being brutal, seems to be pretty ineffective. Like - and this is where I have to admit I can be kind of familiar in my language with God, apologies in advance - dude, take some responsibility for what you created. Did you double check your code in between? Fix any bugs?
The idea that man was created in God's image was very central the the church I grew up in. To my mind, they took it to an unnecessary extreme and I'm still unspooling what it might actually mean to me. But also, you look at Sodom's behavior in this instance, next to God's (metaphorical, non-anthropomorphic), and it's maybe not that hard to see where we got it from.
Am I supposed to believe this is the work of a God who is "engaged the whole time," or a God who seems to be pretty ready to throw in the towel once things start going off the rails?
I think if you read it as metaphorical though, it holds up better ie. God isn't choosing to destroy the towns, it is inevitable that their economic systems and way of life will lead to their destruction (see: global warming). But I appreciate that's a very God-as-the-whole-universe-and-cosmic-order way of reading.
I think it is fair to treat the statement of "made in God's image" as cutting both ways. It is an interesting comparison you make, the behavior of a town that straight-up doesn't care anymore with that of God that has to be persuaded to try to spare the innocent that might be there before nuking it from orbit.
(Also, I find your image of God as a programmer who might have been a bit too hasty with the code funny, heh.)
It is important to remember the few righteous people everywhere. As Mr. Rogers said, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”
Ryan, I 100% agree with you. I have shared my trouble with this story in Torah study on a number of occasions. I always have found agreement that this story sends multiple bad messages. When a person can’t find “good” people in a city, the problem is with the person doing the looking, in this case God as portrayed in this story. So keep the people who are trying to make the world a better place in mind.
You have a visceral reaction to this story and you shared it with us and I and others are grateful for you.
I think, more than anything, Dennis was agreeing (I hope he'll correct me if I am wrong) and stressing that there are always people who are trying to help.
Remember, Abraham felt the same as you and tried to get G!d to relent.
Thank you for reiterating that in the Torah, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with loving, consensual sex between men. Just like “onanism,” which you will still find used as a term to condemn male masturbation, is really about using women, so “sodomy” should really refer to exploitation of and violence against immigrants and people considered Other.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the sin of Onan was about "using women", but yes, the most cursory glance at the text should make it clear that it had nothing to do with masturbation.
And yes, it's continually baffling to me that anyone can look at the text's account of what happened in Sodom and conclude that the Really Bad Thing there was the "between men" part.
Correct that Onan’s sin isn’t relevant to masturbation. But Onan wasn't using the woman he was married to. He was compelled to marry her and sabotaged the point of the marriage. Onan’s sin was failing to perform an important familial duty to carry on your deceased brother’s name. Quite relevant in a way to the discussion from last week.
Batya and Mark, you are both right that Onan wasn’t some kind of arrogant sexual predator (as we have seen too many of in our time). I would still argue that he had enough pleasure to have an ejaculation, whereas there is no evidence that poor Tamar got any pleasure out of it at all, nor did she get the child she was looking for. She then has to risk her life by disguising herself as a prostitute and having sex with Judah to produce an heir for her dead husband. (Genesis 38, for anyone following along). All her strong woman agency is on behalf of men and subject to their whims.
You could certainly argue that both Onan and Tamar are oppressed by the system, just as Rabbeinu Karl Marx argued that both capitalists and workers are alienated from what makes them fully human,under capitalism. But that doesn’t make them equals. So I think it’s fair to say that among other things going on, Onan used Tamar. But that’s not the full story, and you are right to point it out.
By the way, we have wound down a long path from Rabbi Danya’s thesis!
So if the rule is 10 saves the polity, I think we have way more than that here right now. But, they usually aren’t the ones in charge. I’d say there are clearly more than 10 in every city of size in this country. Though the Talmudic casting of the sin makes the sin of Sodom quite modern looking. Shocking the parallels we find when we look deeply into how people have wrestled with this for thousands of years.
Thing is, if we bumble into a climate disaster that reduces the carrying capacity of the earth drastically, we will have engineered a more general type destruction than a targeted Sodom type. And the righteous once again will die with the evil. One where the most appropriate parallels are not going to be found in Bereshit/Genesis, but rather in the two Tocheichah warnings (Deuteronomy 25 and Leviticus 26).
The economics of the Old Testament are extremely radical by modern standards. Look at the story of Ruth and the limits on taking the fruit of one's own land. I grew up in the Jewish tradition, and found the Old Testament to be full of economic reformers, crazed prophets denouncing the social order and, with the jubilee and limits on the lengths of contracts, an exotic economic world. Maybe I had the kid's version of the book but, to my surprise, it said remarkably little about sex other than that it was generally a good thing overall.
The sequel seems to be full of that kind of stuff too.
I had some bad brainjuice keeping me away for a bit, but wow, what a piece to come back to to start my catch-up.
Similarly to what I said before, I have to wonder if Abraham's questioning isn't more borne out of... desperation? defensiveness? "My town was full of idolators. Was there any righteousness there? Is there *any* righteousness anywhere? What is good enough to sway God, what is the smallest bit I can find that might save more, that might lead to better?"
But ah, standing up when there's so much bad around you is so difficult. A lot of times it isn't even maliciousness, it's apathy, or not wanting to make yourself the target of the evil surrounding you. But those are still evil, in their own way, for allowing evil to keep flourishing unchallenged.
I have increasingly felt that Abraham's response is the equivalent of "But I know someone/have family there! Surely it can't be that bad."
When I hear responses like this in current conversation, I really want to say "Your friend, your family, they look like you and me, right? Are they cis and straight and white? No wonder you don't know about oppression - you and yours aren't on that side of the equation."
The day after the 2016 election, I called my boss to get ahead of possible complaints when I mouthed off to someone over the coffee machine in the breakroom. One of my coworkers had made a "They should go back where they came from" kind of statement in response to my saying that people were afraid of what the new administration would do.
He's a good man. He told me I should maybe have controlled my use of the f-bomb because it's the office, but that he would absolutely back me on the sentiment. No one actually complained, and I hope it's because they didn't want to have to repeat their end of the conversation to HR.
I always had trouble with this story, even with everything you have said, I truly don't think it is right what God did. I don't, killing a whole city no matter the cause seems like a horrible crime to me, no matter how bad the people in it were. I will also say, I truly think no matter what there is enough righteous people. Right now the world is shit and I deal with depression and suicidal thoughts daily, even I can see there are people fighting at every turn, even though it seems the fight is pointless, like the world will fail anyway, that doesn't mean there aren't righteous people trying, I have trouble believing Sodom is not the same, maybe that is my history instincts turning on, reading it as a historical text rather then one imbedded in truth, I don't know. Even if the whole city was that bad, if there truly were no righteous people, I feel there surely had to be a more just way of handling it.
The more I read, the more I think in some cases a reading of God as a metaphor for the interdynamics of the whole of life makes sense.
What do I mean with this? In that reading, it is less that God as a sentient being directly destructed those cities, but that the sulpherous fire is a metaphor for how a community that has forgotten to care and to help is destructing itself in greed and cruelty. Running itself dry, running itself down to the ground.
In that light, it perhaps makes sense the importance of the presence of those who still help and care. As long they are there, the self-destruction can be yet staved off.
Instead of being twisted into a morality tale about why homosexuality would be sinful, it would be a still relevant warning, as the Rabbi's last questions show.
Still, it is also interesting to read it there with God as a sentient being. I like to think that as with humanity God too is figuring out how to do things right. To, as Abraham asks, deal justly.
Perhaps there is an evolution to be found as God first punishes with calamities to teach humankind to be just, but gradually learns that strategy doesn't work quite well. (Would explain why after the Great Flood God to my knowledge seems to have stopped with that)
But I am not sure if that evolution is there, since I don't know the whole of the Torah.
Your interpretation makes sense when we look at the progression from Noah (who gives people a chance to see what he'd doing and repent but says nothing to prevent their being destroyed), to Abraham (bargaining unsuccessfully with God to save Sodom), to Moses (repeatedly talking God out of wiping out the children of Israel, even at personal risk and cost).
(woops, somehow I misremembered the story of Noah coming after Abraham's)
But it is interesting you mark the progression by the prophets. As Rabbi Ruttenberg (apologies if that is not the customary way to refer to a rabbi) spoke of Noah of a mediocre prophet, I think the progression doesn't concern God alone, but also the prophets and humanity they represent in those conversations.
Fits with my theory of God and humanity learning together.
You got the attribution just right, at least in my tradition!
Oh wow, this is such a much more elegant, even-handed way of articulating more or less exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for this.
I think I have a really similar reaction as you, Ryan.
This is not to say that the citizens of Sodom were not doing wrong and should not be held accountable and that we must not, as the Rabbi aptly puts it "stay engaged, the whole time."
But there is part of me that thinks we JUST did this, with the wrath, and the flood, and the miraculous saving of the righteous, and now, what seems like not terribly long after, especially if you are a metaphorical, non-anthropomorphic, probably unending being, back at it again. And yes, absolutely, humans are behaving sub-optimally, but now we have some evidence that wiping the slate clean and simply starting over, besides being brutal, seems to be pretty ineffective. Like - and this is where I have to admit I can be kind of familiar in my language with God, apologies in advance - dude, take some responsibility for what you created. Did you double check your code in between? Fix any bugs?
The idea that man was created in God's image was very central the the church I grew up in. To my mind, they took it to an unnecessary extreme and I'm still unspooling what it might actually mean to me. But also, you look at Sodom's behavior in this instance, next to God's (metaphorical, non-anthropomorphic), and it's maybe not that hard to see where we got it from.
Am I supposed to believe this is the work of a God who is "engaged the whole time," or a God who seems to be pretty ready to throw in the towel once things start going off the rails?
I think if you read it as metaphorical though, it holds up better ie. God isn't choosing to destroy the towns, it is inevitable that their economic systems and way of life will lead to their destruction (see: global warming). But I appreciate that's a very God-as-the-whole-universe-and-cosmic-order way of reading.
I think it is fair to treat the statement of "made in God's image" as cutting both ways. It is an interesting comparison you make, the behavior of a town that straight-up doesn't care anymore with that of God that has to be persuaded to try to spare the innocent that might be there before nuking it from orbit.
(Also, I find your image of God as a programmer who might have been a bit too hasty with the code funny, heh.)
It is important to remember the few righteous people everywhere. As Mr. Rogers said, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”
Ryan, I 100% agree with you. I have shared my trouble with this story in Torah study on a number of occasions. I always have found agreement that this story sends multiple bad messages. When a person can’t find “good” people in a city, the problem is with the person doing the looking, in this case God as portrayed in this story. So keep the people who are trying to make the world a better place in mind.
Sorry if I am a downer or am doing something wrong
You are not a downer.
You did nothing wrong.
You have a visceral reaction to this story and you shared it with us and I and others are grateful for you.
I think, more than anything, Dennis was agreeing (I hope he'll correct me if I am wrong) and stressing that there are always people who are trying to help.
Remember, Abraham felt the same as you and tried to get G!d to relent.
I think you're on the right track.
Not at all! It's a really good and important point!
Thank you for this comment, sorry I didn't reply earlier, I am safe and have what I need though, sorry for worrying you
It's the Bible. mythology from the Bronze Age. All made up so don't worry about the poor Sodomites.
If you think Sodom was bad, you should see what he ordered his people to do to the Midianites.
Thank you for reiterating that in the Torah, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with loving, consensual sex between men. Just like “onanism,” which you will still find used as a term to condemn male masturbation, is really about using women, so “sodomy” should really refer to exploitation of and violence against immigrants and people considered Other.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the sin of Onan was about "using women", but yes, the most cursory glance at the text should make it clear that it had nothing to do with masturbation.
And yes, it's continually baffling to me that anyone can look at the text's account of what happened in Sodom and conclude that the Really Bad Thing there was the "between men" part.
Correct that Onan’s sin isn’t relevant to masturbation. But Onan wasn't using the woman he was married to. He was compelled to marry her and sabotaged the point of the marriage. Onan’s sin was failing to perform an important familial duty to carry on your deceased brother’s name. Quite relevant in a way to the discussion from last week.
Batya and Mark, you are both right that Onan wasn’t some kind of arrogant sexual predator (as we have seen too many of in our time). I would still argue that he had enough pleasure to have an ejaculation, whereas there is no evidence that poor Tamar got any pleasure out of it at all, nor did she get the child she was looking for. She then has to risk her life by disguising herself as a prostitute and having sex with Judah to produce an heir for her dead husband. (Genesis 38, for anyone following along). All her strong woman agency is on behalf of men and subject to their whims.
You could certainly argue that both Onan and Tamar are oppressed by the system, just as Rabbeinu Karl Marx argued that both capitalists and workers are alienated from what makes them fully human,under capitalism. But that doesn’t make them equals. So I think it’s fair to say that among other things going on, Onan used Tamar. But that’s not the full story, and you are right to point it out.
By the way, we have wound down a long path from Rabbi Danya’s thesis!
So if the rule is 10 saves the polity, I think we have way more than that here right now. But, they usually aren’t the ones in charge. I’d say there are clearly more than 10 in every city of size in this country. Though the Talmudic casting of the sin makes the sin of Sodom quite modern looking. Shocking the parallels we find when we look deeply into how people have wrestled with this for thousands of years.
Thing is, if we bumble into a climate disaster that reduces the carrying capacity of the earth drastically, we will have engineered a more general type destruction than a targeted Sodom type. And the righteous once again will die with the evil. One where the most appropriate parallels are not going to be found in Bereshit/Genesis, but rather in the two Tocheichah warnings (Deuteronomy 25 and Leviticus 26).
Wow! Not what I was taught in Hebrew school! Thank you.
The economics of the Old Testament are extremely radical by modern standards. Look at the story of Ruth and the limits on taking the fruit of one's own land. I grew up in the Jewish tradition, and found the Old Testament to be full of economic reformers, crazed prophets denouncing the social order and, with the jubilee and limits on the lengths of contracts, an exotic economic world. Maybe I had the kid's version of the book but, to my surprise, it said remarkably little about sex other than that it was generally a good thing overall.
The sequel seems to be full of that kind of stuff too.
I had some bad brainjuice keeping me away for a bit, but wow, what a piece to come back to to start my catch-up.
Similarly to what I said before, I have to wonder if Abraham's questioning isn't more borne out of... desperation? defensiveness? "My town was full of idolators. Was there any righteousness there? Is there *any* righteousness anywhere? What is good enough to sway God, what is the smallest bit I can find that might save more, that might lead to better?"
But ah, standing up when there's so much bad around you is so difficult. A lot of times it isn't even maliciousness, it's apathy, or not wanting to make yourself the target of the evil surrounding you. But those are still evil, in their own way, for allowing evil to keep flourishing unchallenged.