Pastor: Sodom, Gomorrah, Blah Blah Blah


Bob Russell, a retired minister, has a column in Charisma News saying that if America does not experience a Christian revival we will turn into Sodom and Gomorrah. He doesn’t say what will happen next, but I assume that means God will destroy us and it will all be because of gay people. And Christians have to go to war to stop it:

Jesus warned His disciples that following Him would put them in conflict with the culture. “If the world hates me, it will also hate you.” “I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” “I am sending you out as a sheep among wolves.” “I will set father against son and … daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

That’s why our forefathers used to sing songs that were battle cries, like, “A mighty fortress is our God,” “Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war,” and “Stand up, stand up for Jesus, you soldiers of the cross.” They understood that Jesus had not called them to a playground but a battlefield. They took seriously the admonition of Paul to “put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.”

In recent years, however, many churches have dropped all images of war in favor of a peace treaty with the world. We speak of Jesus as the healer and leader but not Lord and King. We shout grace and whisper repentance and make inordinate attempts to ingratiate our selves with those who oppose us. We retreat into silence in the face of horrendous evil and hope it will all go away.

Do you suppose our children and grandchildren will one day ask us, “Where were you when America lost the cultural war? What did you do when the world approved cohabitation, same-sex marriage, the proliferation of pornography, abortion on demand and the teaching of evolution as the source of life in public schools? Did you stand up and fight when the anti-God forces insisted on removing any reference to God and the Bible from the public arena?” How will we answer when those questions come?

Ah yes, the battle cry of the clueless. Of course, they read their own Bible quite selectively. What did the prophets themselves say was the great sin of Sodom and Gomorrow? Here’s what Ezekiel 16: 49 says:

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.

In fact, the Bible contains far more verses commanding that the poor be supported and the hungry fed than it does verses against homosexuality. But the only thing the fundamentalists can ever seem to think about is buttsex.

Comments

  1. says

    “Do you suppose our children and grandchildren will one day ask us, “Where were you when America lost the cultural war? ”

    Given the trends, it’s more likely those children and grandchildren will be asking “Why were you so bigoted back then?”

  2. sugarfrosted says

    @0 To be fair the next line is “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.” Though I’m pretty the abomination referred to isn’t in reference to the abominations of Levite law, but to not helping the needy in the previous line, which you cited.

  3. Larry says

    And if god chooses to do nothing, well, we’ll have to take matters into our own hands and go out and kill some doctors and some queers.

    Oh, wait…

  4. tbp1 says

    He was pastor of the one of those Six Flags Over Jesus megachurches where I live (Louisville). He’s a very good public speaker, if you ignore the content. He never seemed to be the worst of the lot. Certainly while I’m sure he made a good living, he didn’t flaunt a lifestyle that would embarrass a Czar, like so many of them do. Of course that’s damning with faint praise.

  5. says

    “Where were you when America lost the cultural war?

    In my wigwam. There was talk of killing all the white men from across the water, but many voices urged that we wait.

  6. countryboy says

    “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.”

    Kinda sounds like most Republicans, don’t it?

  7. says

    The full quote that countryboy mentioned in #7 :

    Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. — Ezekiel 16:49:50, Revised Standard Version

    I think that the Talibangelicals are far more to blame for turning the United States into Sodom.

  8. matty1 says

    cohabitation, same-sex marriage, the proliferation of pornography, abortion on demand and the teaching of evolution as the source of life in public schools

    Wow all that in school, sounds like one hell of an end of term party.

  9. D. C. Sessions says

    Well, he and his talk a good line. However, I notice that when the momentum shifts against them their troops vanish like the morning dew.

    Perhaps he can succeed where other Christian leaders failed and get his followers to defend this hill to the last Christian soldier.

  10. raven says

    Do you suppose our children and grandchildren will one day ask us, “Where were you when America lost the cultural war?

    Naw.

    They probably won’t say anything or care much. But they will wonder why we believed a kludgy old book of mythology had anything worthwhile to say and in an imaginary friend in the sky.

    They might ask us, why we handed them a broken world though. I do think kids today have it harder than we did. College is much more expensive and less subsidized so many students start out with huge debts. Unemployment seems permanently high, good jobs are scarce and come and go often. The economy creeps along. Global warming is going to do something and gasoline is near $4 a gallon. It was 40 cents or so when I was a kid.

  11. raven says

    Where were you when America lost the cultural war?

    Won he should mean.

    Religion has been on a downhill slide since the Dark Ages. Many scholars date the beginning of the end to 1349, the Black Plague year. One third of Europes population died and the church could do absoutely nothing.

    Followed by the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and the development of modern science.

    Serfdom is gone, slavery is gone, hunger and disease are all but gone, we live in a free democracy. Mostly, religion just got in the way and has held us back.

  12. eric says

    In recent years, however, many churches have dropped all images of war in favor of a peace treaty with the world.

    Because, um, that is the way most of your cited verses were meant to be read. Of the four quotes:
    1. the first is not a call to for christians to commit violence, its a warning they will experience it at the hands of others.
    2. the second, ditto.
    3. the third, ditto. This one is pretty obivous, too.
    4. the fourth, ditto, though maybe the confusion is more understandable here. The “set father against son” thing is a reference to christians abandoning their families, jobs, giving up their belongings to the church, etc… This will naturally upset the non-christian family, both because they care very much for that person and want them to be prosperous – not a penniless beggar following Jesus around – and because when the breadwinner suddently decides to drop everything and join a cult, that’s going to cause hardship to the family. “Set against’ here isn’t a call for christian daughters to attack their parents with knives, its saying that your parents (or kids) are very likely to try and argue you out of joining the cult.

  13. eric says

    Do you suppose our children and grandchildren will one day ask us, “Where were you when America lost the cultural war? … How will we answer when those questions come?

    The likely truth is that around 90% of your children and grandchildren will be on the victor’s side, and at best they will kindly tolerate your bigotry the way the young often tolerate the uncomfortable bigotries of the old.

  14. Sastra says

    But the only thing the fundamentalists can ever seem to think about is buttsex.

    No, that’s contradicted in this very sermon. “What did you do when the world approved cohabitation, same-sex marriage, the proliferation of pornography, abortion on demand and the teaching of evolution as the source of life in public schools? Did you stand up and fight when the anti-God forces insisted on removing any reference to God and the Bible from the public arena?”

    Buttsex is just part of a larger problem: secular humanism. The real scourge.

  15. D. C. Sessions says

    Serfdom is gone, slavery is gone, hunger and disease are all but gone

    They’re working on the first (decline of wages, increase in capital income), they’re starting to do the historical revisionism on the second, the third has never been far away and climate change will finish the restoration, and the last is coming along nicely.

    It’s slow progress, but the Church has always had a long view.

  16. matty1 says

    Horrendous evil.

    A gay man from the southern Russian city of Volgograd who was tortured to death in an apparent hate crime, was sexually assaulted with beer bottles, and had his skull “smashed with a stone”, authorities said on Sunday.

    Where were you Bob Russell when this was done in the name of your God?

  17. matty1 says

    @18 That depends on what you mean by slavery, forced labour absolutely still exists and is, to coin a phrase, horrendous evil. However there is now nowhere on Earth when one person can claim another as property and see that claim upheld by the law, this is not a minor achievement.

    Just ask yourself the following questions, if you were a slave in 1800, escaped and ran into a police officer, what would happen? Now if you were a slave in 2014, escaped and ran into a police officer, what would happen?

    The difference between those two answers represents one of the best things humanity has done.

  18. eric says

    @18: “quite extensively” misses Raven’s point, I think. The historical trend for all these things is distinctly downward, and we live with far less of such social evils than our forbears. Any amount of slavery above zero is bad and could rhetorically be considered “too exensive.” But if by “quite extensive” you mean to draw a comparison between the amount of slavery in the US in the present vs. the past, no, it is not extensive at all.

  19. cry4turtles says

    I’m not so sure about slavery being illegal. There’s a big stink going on in Youngstown about using prisoners to fill potholes. They claim it was to assist the city employees, but logically, it deprived them of work while the job was done by free (slave) labor.

  20. dingojack says

    Raven – I don’t like to ask how old you are but:

    Value of $0.40 commodity (unskilled / production compensation value of labour) in 2013 dollars
    [% inflation if now at $4.00 (-ve represent falling prices, +ve rising prices)]

    1955: $4.50 / $5.45 [-11.11% / -26.61%] (just for completeness)
    1960: $3.61 / $4.40 [+4.99% / -9.09%]
    1965: $3.08 / $3.72 [+29.87% / +7.53%]
    1970: $2.36 / $2.84 [+69.49% / +40.85%]
    1975; $1.64 / $1.86 [+143.90% / +115.05%]
    1980: $1.07 / $1.22 [+273.83% / +227.87%]
    1985: $0.84 / $0.89 [+375.19% / +349.44%]
    1990: $0.72 / $0.78 [+455.56% /+412.82%]

    Just so you get some idea how the prices have risen above the general creep of price inflation.

    :) Dingo
    ———–
    Yes, I’m kinda obsessive that way..
    Also, here petrol is about US$4.57/galleon (US)

  21. matty1 says

    Dingo

    Also, here petrol is about US$4.57/galleon (US)

    You buy your petrol in galleons? That is cool, is it pumped for you by a man with an eye patch and wooden leg?

  22. dingojack says

    Matty – Arrrr(gh)!. :D

    AUST: US$4.54/ Gal. (US)
    UK: US$8.22.Gal. (US)
    Venezuela: US$0.06/ Gal. (US)

    Dingo

  23. says

    matty1, #17,

    Where were you Bob Russell when this was done in the name of your God?

    The link says nothing about the attack being religiously motivated. Do you have some more information?

  24. D. C. Sessions says

    Now if you were a slave in 2014, escaped and ran into a police officer, what would happen?

    Well, first you’d get the snot beat out of you for dissing the officer and resisting arrest. Then you’d be brought up on charges. If not, the police would find someone to pick you up — probably your owner — and you’d be released.

  25. fmitchell says

    @ Sastra (15)

    There’s a simpler common denominator: sex. (Even in evolution, when you think about it.) Evangelical neo-Puritans are aghast that people are having sex, or possibly having sex, or (shudder) having “wrong” sex. The mere existence of same-sex relationships, “unsanctified” relationships, (only) women having sex out of wedlock, masturbation, or even species changing radically over time threatens their Bronze Age patriarchal ideal of unchanging bloodlines, unquestioned male authority, and the barter value of female virginity. Whether evangelicals realize this or simply parrot the values learned at Grandpa’s knee is debatable.

  26. matty1 says

    Really? Everyone who approaches a police officer gets beaten and arrested? When I said ran into I didn’t mean literally collided with while running. Is it really the case that most police officers if someone approached them and asked for help because they were being kept as a slave would beat them and return them to the ‘owner’?

    Maybe it is that bad where you are, I hope not.

  27. busterggi says

    C’mon heddle – those are Eastern Orthodox in Russia, not ‘real Christians’ like you and your fellow Calvinists.

    You don’t have to defend them just because you count them as Christians when its convenient for you.

  28. says

    fmitchell,

    Name one non-religious motive for hate crimes against gays.

    Dammit, I forgot that every non-religious person is a superb free-thinker with no possibility of irrational thoughts, non-critical thinking, prejudices, presuppositions, or bigotry.

    Sorry, it won’t happen again.

  29. says

    busterggi #30,

    You don’t have to defend them

    Well, I do see, given the quality of thinking that you’ve demonstrated repeatedly, that you would conclude that I have defended them.

  30. busterggi says

    heddle @ 25 – you are defending the religiosi.

    heddle @ 31 – you still haven’t given a reason.

    Care to go for argument from authority next?

  31. matty1 says

    I was actually considering this anyway, I withdraw the end of that comment. Please now read the last sentence as “Where were you Bob Russell when this was done?”

    Now you’re wondering why I did this, first Heddle does have a point, they could have been motivated by a childish gays are icky view rather than Orthodox doctrine I suspect both but it isn’t the argument I want to have.

    Second and more important my point doesn’t depend on why the attack happened. My focus was on the kind of person Mr Russell must be to condemn gay marriage as a horrendous evil while remaining silent on the far worse (even if you accepted gay marriage is bad) evil of homophobic violence.

    It is a bit like condemning someone for stealing white sheets from the KKK while ignoring lynchings.

  32. matty1 says

    Not that I’m saying gay marriage is equivalent to theft, I’m trying to say that even if you think a set of people is doing something bad it is hypocritical to not mention linked and far worse things being done to them.

  33. dingojack says

    Matty1 – not mention the foulness of paedophilia within the, so-called. moral-bastion of the church.
    Dingo

  34. says

    busterggi #33

    heddle @ 25 – you are defending the religiosi.

    I don’t how anyone could go out on a limb and claim that my question: do you have a link? (that gives evidence for a religious motivation) could argue, in any manner of seriousness, that it amounts to a defense. When a few days ago Ed posted that some chowderhead immediately blamed Muslims for Ft Hood, did you have a similar bunched-up-skivvies reaction to people who pointed out that the aforementioned chowderhead assigned guilt with no evidence?

    You actually call asking for data a defense? Do I have it right? And apparently you think you have made some sort of cogent point?

    you still haven’t given a reason.

    The reasons are legion. There are a lot of people with hatred. Maybe someone commits a gay hate crime because they are in denial. Do you really think the onus is on me to come up with reasons why someone might be a homophobe for non-religious motivations, rather than on someone who makes the far more extraordinary claim (or implication) that the only possible motivation for a homophobic act is religion? Seriously?

  35. cjcolucci says

    Well, we know what people were getting up to in Sodom, but I never did learn what was happening in Gomorrah. What does a gomorrahite do?

  36. busterggi says

    “I don’t how anyone could go out on a limb and claim that my question: do you have a link? that gives evidence for a religious motivation) could argue, in any manner of seriousness, that it amounts to a defense. ”

    The person claimed the criminal was Christian – somehow from years of reading your posts I doubt that you’d have asked for a link if he’d said he was an atheist. When you act denfensive its generally because you’re defending something.

    “Do you really think the onus is on me to come up with reasons why someone might be a homophobe for non-religious motivations, rather than on someone who makes the far more extraordinary claim (or implication) that the only possible motivation for a homophobic act is religion? Seriously?”

    i think someone asked you a simple question which caused you to go into a defensive rant rather than simply answer the question – which you did answr now after being poked enough.

    But I’ll bet you wouldn’t put cash on the line about the guy not being a Christian.

  37. says

    busterggi,

    The person claimed the criminal was Christian – somehow from years of reading your posts I doubt that you’d have asked for a link if he’d said he was an atheist. When you act denfensive its generally because you’re defending something.

    You’re wrong. Of course if the person had posted, with no evidence, that the attacker was an atheist, then I would absolutely ask for evidence–although by the time I got to it probably 20 other people would have already asked.

    You are just totally, 100% wrong that “asking for evidence” is the same as defending. I honestly don’t know how you can be that wrong and keep doubling down.

    The commenter whom I questioned, matty1 has stated in #34 that I have a point. You, and you alone (at least so far) are claiming that I am defending someone.

    But I’ll bet you wouldn’t put cash on the line about the guy not being a Christian.

    True but irrelevant. If someone were to commit a suicide bombing in the middle of Moscow would you, before anything was known, put money on the perpetrator not being a Muslim? That is actually some sort of meaningful test for you? I wouldn’t. On the other hand I also wouldn’t assume it was a Muslim. And if I asked someone who did make that assumption for data, I wouldn’t be defending the culprit (or the culprit’s religion) except, I guess, in your mind.

    Also irrelevant if he turns out to be a Christian. And irrelevant if (more to the point) his motivation was indeed religious, as opposed to simply being the Russian equivalent of a drunken, uneducated redneck with issues. The point here, which you don’t seem to grasp, is to wait until you know before you claim a motivation.

Leave a Reply