In Praise of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

 Those who are looking for reasons to judge G-d to be cruel according to "modern, conventional morality" (the same morality that has condoned the slaughter of 60 million infants in this country since 1973,) do not have to look very far to find examples in the Tanakh. While G-d very specifically commands that the Israelites during the invasion of Canaan not wage war against any nation that claims descent from Abraham or Lot; for the rest the fate is not so kind. The Israelites are commanded to completely destroy them, every man woman and child, along with their personal possessions and especially any religious idols. They are all basically to be piled in the center of town, the inhabitants along with all their household goods and idols, and burned. How intolerant!

Now as time goes on, things get modified a bit, whether at the command of G-d or more likely despite it. Frequently the Canaanite towns are allowed to surrender and serve as slaves. Arguably it is the self-interest of the Israelites to blame, not the command of G-d, that this is sometimes an option. G-d is pretty unambiguous about the "no prisoners" thing, and constantly warns of the ill consequences of Israelites associating with the Canaanites in any way whatsoever. Total destruction is specified.

However in the Tanakh, G-d does not always delegate mass destruction to His servants. Sometimes He takes action directly. The first and most notable example of this is the destruction of the ante-diluvian world in the Flood. Now you can think what you like about the historicity of such things, but what is undeniable is that the Tanakh SAYS G-d destroyed them. So for the people who are looking for ammunition against the G-d of the Tanakh, grounds for an accusation of cruelty, that is what the Tanakh said He did. We don't know what numbers were involved, but it was clearly depicting a mass death event.

The second most notable example is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or rather the destruction of the whole Dead Sea valley because it was not strictly limited just to those two cities. In terms of total dead, probably 100,000 is not too high a number. And this again was the destruction of every man, woman, child, cow, donkey and chicken. It was a holocaust, which originally meant a burnt offering to G-d to the point of complete destruction.

And again you can argue one way or the other about the historicity of such an event. That's not the point. The point is that the Tanakh says G-D HIMSELF DID IT.

And I am about to argue that this was an act of kindness, a mercy towards humanity. In fact, if you are living in an era where Sodoms and Gomorrahs are NOT destroyed in such a way (as is currently the case,) that this signifies that G-d is really really very very unhappy with Mankind and we should be very very concerned. This is not to say that the Sodoms and Gomorrahs of the 21st Century will not meet destruction: they absolutely will, but through the fruition of their own evil. In other words the full fruit of the wicked cities of America and the world will be allowed to manifest, and that fruit will destroy them. Rather than G-d pruning those branches before they are allowed to fruit.

Evil is incapable of creation and can only destroy in the end. Comparing evil to a virus, the virus of evil eventually destroys the cell that allows it to replicate and so it must find new cells to destroy. America's most wicked cities will eventually lack even the most basic structures that allow them to continue, such as the rule of law and the protection of property and life.

It is a mercy of G-d to clean up Humanity's mistakes for it, and nothing cleans like fire. Like, clearly mistakes were made and G-d is going to clean up that mess for you, Humanity. You get a fresh start, a clean slate. That is in some ways the greatest of mercies: a second chance. Or in this case a third or more chance.

What would have happened if G-d had not destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? What is happening now, to us, today?

Future generations would have been raised completely saturated in evil and abomination. Opportunities for children to grow up to be righteous would have been very slim indeed: in fact without the grace and intervention of G-d there would be no chance of that whatsoever. The evil, the power hunger, the arrogance and the deviance of Man would have grown unbounded, distorting and blaspheming the image of Man who was made in G-d's image. The Devil likes nothing better than to blaspheme G-d by twisting His image into a perversion and a mockery. Those who have eyes to see can already see that happening so clearly. The innocent, those who have not yet seriously sinned, are a special target: either for destruction or for corruption. The Devil kills babies and those who are not killed he makes a special target for moral corruption. We should wish that America's cities be absolutely destroyed rather than for dozens of future generations to live as slaves to wickedness. You may call me evil, and according to "conventional, modern morality" I probably am, but I have often prayed for this. That G-d would give us the kindness that he showed the people of the age of Sodom and wipe out evil from the land. Scourge it from the land with fire. But that seemingly is not what is going on in this era. Evil is going to full flower and fruit.

Death is infinitely preferable to slavery to wickedness. It is infinitely better for the human race to be decontaminated from that evil. It was better for the future generations of Sodom not to be born, than to be born deeply entrenched in spiritual slavery. And that is why the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a blessing: to the rest of the human race that survived, and to the future generations who would now not be born into complete spiritual oppression.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was an event worthy of thanks and praise, not our all-too-human judgments about the "cruelty of G-d." Our hearts should pine and pray for fresh starts, for clean slates, for the mistakes and deliberate evils of humanity to be wiped away from the Earth. For the possibility of children being raised uncorrupted and clean, and old men going to their graves in peace, reconciled to their G-d. Amen.

By Daderot - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62711574

 

Eye and Cheek

 Theology has often struggled to reconcile the "eye for an eye" morality of the Tanakh, the Old Testament, with the "Love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" morality of the New. Did G-d change His mind? In the past, my solution has been simple: they cannot be reconciled. Indeed Christians frequently mix Old and New Testament morality rather eclectically, something the liberals (who might prefer an extreme surrender to evil theology) have tended to be quick to point out. To them, Jesus is only the man who forgives adulterers, not the man who yells at pharisees. Yet the issue remains: the Tanakh demands death for adulterers; Jesus rescued one who was lined up for exactly that punishment.

I think now that this conflict actually can be resolved somewhat harmoniously by looking at the very differing conditions of Moses and Joshua on the one hand, and Jesus on the other. G-d didn't change, but circumstances sure did.

While of course the germ theory of disease was not known then, the Tanakh can be thought of as kind of operating on a "germ theory of evil." In other words, you have to nip the contagion right in the bud and quarantine those affected, either by exiling them or in more extreme cases killing them. Evil has to be opposed vigorously and violently, or else it will surely spread and cause even more suffering.This was regarded as a communal obligation: both an obligation of the community and an obligation of the individual towards it.

And of course this theory is quite right: we see all the time how evil spreads through families and communities, the sins of the fathers do indeed rebound onto the sons and daughters. When you look at prison populations, virtually all of them have extensive family histories of violence, drug and alcohol abuse and other disorders. Sure, all of us have our family issues, but prisoners often have profoundly crippling ones.

Evil does spread like a disease. And the Tanakh's approach to that disease is like the approach to gangrene: when the finger gets gangrene, you chop it off to save the hand. But this chopping is not something that is left up to the individual, it is a responsibility of the community. When a crime calls for stoning to death, everyone is supposed to throw the stones. Not just one person. In some cases like idolatry, it specifies that even the closest next of kin of the condemned is to throw a stone; in fact they have to throw the first one.

But you have to ask the question: who was in charge of that community, that ancient Jewish society? Moses and Joshua. Who was in charge of them? G-d. This was, at least ideally, a society almost unique in human history. One in which G-d was in charge, when G-d was recognized as the authority.

What was the situation in Jesus' time? That disease control horse has long bolted the corral. The population was thoroughly infected. The disease was rampant and uncontrolled. The Hebrews had failed to live up to the opportunity to be a holy people led by G-d. The real people of G-d were not in charge of that society, they were refugees in it. Judea had been taken over by the Romans, a violent pagan torturing empire that watched people suffer and die for entertainment. The Jewish establishment had carved themselves out a niche of comfort and wealth and didn't have to give a damn. They made rules without caring what burdens they placed on the people. The Temple might not have had pagan idols in it as in times past, but it was still a corrupt institution run by self-serving elites.

Satan was in charge of the Earth. Satan was the authority. In that context, the communal authority authorized by G-d, which was required for much of Old Testament morality, didn't exist anymore. Sure the Sanhedrin existed, under Roman rule, and was about as representative of the "community" as today's elites are of the American populace. All of the individual obligations still existed: you were still supposed to not lie, covet or kill, and Jesus never once contradicted any of that with the possible exception of Sabbath observance. And you could argue that Sabbath observance was a communal obligation too. That community as an extension of divine rule functionally no longer existed.

What did Jesus change? Communal obligations. Stoning adulterers is a communal obligation, not an individual one. The COMMUNITY was supposed to put that person to death, not the individual. The community prosecutes thieves (if someone takes away your coat, give them your cloak.) The community prosecutes assault (turn the other cheek.) If a Roman slaps you, are you going to take it up with the Romans which are the authority in place? They will probably beat you for your pains.

So in Moses' time, G-d was in charge, of that community at least. In Jesus' time, Satan ruled the Earth. And still does.

Jesus evidences a point of view of the people of G-d as refugees in the world. Outcasts. The offscourings of the Earth. The dregs, in the eyes of the world.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.
As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
That is why the world hates you.

~John 15:18-19

This is the world of Jesus, and this is our world. Now, for a long time in Europe people sought to establish "Christendom," people in early America did too, and this no doubt had many good effects along with some not-so-great ones. But ultimately, this is the Day of Satan, and I don't believe that anything we do is going to change that until the end.

I really feel like this understanding is the resolution for me for the conflict between the Tanakh and the New Testament. While I believe that the idea that anyone other than G-d was G-d is contrary to the Torah (and it is,) I have often felt drawn to what Jesus taught regardless, and tried to figure out a resolution between conflicting Christian and Torah morality, and I believe this is it. I was a Christian for some years, and I often felt drawn to the refugee motifs in the New Testament that were largely lacking in the Old. We ARE refugees and outcasts in the world. Satan is "the prince of this world" as the Gospel of John says. These ideas are not present in the Tanakh because the Tanakh was written in a time when the rulership of G-d was either already established (Moses, Joshua) or was trying to be re-established. Well that horse had fled to Alaska by the time Jesus was born.

So then does that mean that I now accept the New Testament, despite its many differences from the Old, as being from G-d? Yes. Does that mean that Jesus was the Son of G-d? Quite possibly, whatever that exactly means. Some of these expressions are rather lacking in explanations. A prophet? Quite possibly.

Do I believe that he is the same as G-d? No, and there are many quotes in the gospels which indicate he didn't believe that, either. He always defers to his Father. If that is functionally the same as deferring to himself, that is a peculiar way of deferring. You defer to the other. Jesus defers to the Father. Jesus was a man.

However he was a man that seems to have had a revelation from G-d for these satanically-dominated times. We are not in charge of this world. Satan is.

Conservatives often fight for the establishment of at least some degree of holy authority over the United States, and that is both well-meant and probably would be good in its effects. But just like Christendom in Medieval Europe, it is a stopgap against a satanic world and often the forces that are supposed to be fighting on our side wind up fighting on theirs. Corruption in the Church, you just have to look at the Catholic Church to see how that works. Politicians who run on "family values" who wind up grabbing for the shiny baubles that Satan hangs down to lure the weak. That doesn't mean we stop trying, it means we understand our position. We are refugees and outcasts trying to seize back authority for G-d, and we are going to lose in that effort more often than win until G-d decides to wrap the whole thing up. 

 

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world,
but people loved darkness instead of light
because their deeds were evil.

~John 3:19