Sodom, bad arguments, and steelmanning as a vice

what Sodom actually did wrong + flimsy "gotchas" + my argumentative style resembles a 2017 horror movie villain

Promotional art of Samara Weaving as the character Bee in The Babysitter (2017). This movie, which seemingly nobody else cares about, will be relevant later, please be patient.

I’m going to tap at three-ish topics in this post. I want to clear up a basic error in biblical interpretation, rebut some bad “gotchas” to do with that, and reflect on how—despite making correct points—I’ll have just demonstrated an argumentative style that I realised can seem virtuous and charitable, but that can go too far and become a vice.

The real “sodomy,” per the Bible

Disinformation has long led readers who lack either reading comprehension or (more sympathetically) biblical knowledge to misunderstand the incredibly basic lesson of the story of Sodom. However, those who understand its basic lesson themselves often fall for basic disinformation and become smug because of their own lack of knowledge or inability to think independently.

Sodom’s sin was a lack of generosity to those in need, particularly when in their inhospitality toward foreign visitors. Not homosexuality. There’s not much question about this. This is not some “woke,” wobbly misreading. Nor will I be relying just on the Jewish tradition of interpretation; this goes out to Christians too.

The fact that Sodom’s sin is inhospitality—and lack of generosity, more broadly—is not really up for debate. The Bible says so.

Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy.

—Ezekiel 16:49

The people of Sodom viewed themselves as above other people, so they would not help those who needed support. There aren’t many other stories in the Hebrew Bible that are made so clear. G-d doesn’t exactly speak to a prophet to sum up the meaning of most other incidents in Genesis.

Sodom’s lack of generosity would include how they treat foreigners, and contextually, the story’s focus on inhospitality becomes apparent. Genesis uses basic plot structure to hammer in this point. Just before this incident, Abraham and Sarah graciously, even hyperactively welcome what seem like random visitors to their tent [Genesis 18:2-8]. This demonstrates that Abraham is holier than the people of Sodom, who shortly after try to rape the same visitors, referred to as malakhim (angels) [Genesis 19:1].

However, as G-d tells Ezekiel, the sin of Sodom was their monstrous lack of generosity and thus inhospitality, not their threat of homosexual rape. We only see a Sodom-and-Gomorrah type of targeted obliteration once, whereas we often see rape and other sexual transgressions of the same legal category as homosexuality (isurei biah, forbidden relations) in the Hebrew Bible. Sodom must therefore uniquely exemplify something, and indeed, the story dedicates a unique amount of space to Sodom’s inhospitality.

The English-translation-and-pop-culture-minded reader might be quick to point to the next verse:

In their haughtiness, they committed abomination before Me; and so I removed them, as you saw.

—Ezekiel 16:50

This is a purely hypothetical error, I’ve not seen it before, but I can imagine it happening. We tend to hear “abomination” used in religious contexts most often to refer to homosexuality. To which I say, the actual word, toevah, is used in the Bible for a massive array of transgressions and has nothing in particular to do with homosexuality. Accordingly, “abomination” is also used many times in English translations for other sins.

In the context of this passage in Ezekiel, too, it’s worth noting that G-d is saying that Israel is doing worse things than Sodom.

As I live—declares the Sovereign G-d—your sister Sodom and her daughters did not do what [i.e., as many things wrong as] you and your daughters did.

—Ezekiel 16:49

Hence emphasising that Sodom only had to transgress in one way to merit annihilation:

Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance!

“Only this” is accurate to the original (zeh).

Think about Sodom as a story in Abraham’s biography, not one of… cosmic geopolitics or whatever. At this point, Torah hasn’t even been handed down to the Jews; that’s centuries away. The universal (Noahide) laws have been given [Genesis 9:4-6], but not the Jews-specifically ones, Torah law. Nor can we derive laws sloppily from stories — I would think this goes for everyone who cares about the Bible, not just in the case of halakha, Jewish law.

Abraham has barely even received the Covenant when this episode begins. But he’s shown hospitality to others. He’s now seen what happens when someone doesn’t offer hospitality. He’ll be reliant on hospitality soon, in turn, and shows grace as a guest.

Then Abraham rose from beside his dead, and spoke to the Hittites, saying, “I am a resident alien among you; sell me a burial site among you, that I may remove my dead for burial.”

—Genesis 23:3-4.

Sodom’s destruction is not a story about sexual deviancy. It’s part of Abraham’s journey to becoming the most famously kind figure in Torah. Paying attention to the broader story during which the destruction takes place helps clarify its purpose in Genesis, but Ezekiel should be enough of a teacher to make the point.

Two weak “gotchas”

1. “…Therefore the Hebrew Bible does not actually prohibit homosexuality.”

Having established the basic fact that G-d did not destroy Sodom for its residents’ homosexuality, I want to make abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with whether the Hebrew Bible prohibits homosexuality. Again, it’s a story, not a commandment, and it’s a story that doesn’t have much to do with homosexuality, specifically. I sometimes hear Sodom’s actual sin brought up as a gotcha against people who believe that the Hebrew Bible prohibits homosexuality. But it does, quite famously.

Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.

—Leviticus 18:22

If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—and the bloodguilt is theirs.

—Leviticus 20:13

Needless to say, even the most orthodox conceptions of Jewish law at this point do not call for executions. It’s all more complicated than that and obviously less harsh. Although the rabbis did have to clarify that the prohibition extends to women having sex with women. (If the hypothetical reader at this point objects on the grounds of linguistic debates, see below.)

2. “…But only the Old Testament prohibits homosexuality, not the Christian New Testament!”

Now we get to the most frustrating bit I often see regarding this from either atheists or liberalised, formerly evangelical Christians. It’s frustrating to me not as a Christian but as someone who cares about having basic religious awareness before talking smack. And yes this is straying from Sodom in particular, but it continues the train of thought from “gotcha” #1 and speaks to a broader point I’ll get to in my meta-reflective conclusion.

In this famous scene from The West Wing, the fictional President Jed Bartlet ridicules a conservative Christian for claiming that her anti-homosexuality stance is purely the Bible’s stance. He does so by pointing out that she is clearly not following Torah law in almost any other way. This is one of the most irritating TV scenes ever because—well, he seems to misunderstand what “unclean” means in Torah, but aside from that—she is too stupid to hit back at his argument, which would be quite easy.

Bartlet is relying on the idea that she is selectively subscribing to one aspect of Torah law, in Christian terms Old Testament law, without the rest. This would be hypocritical, and indicate that her personal view is made apparent in her selecting one law over another. She doesn’t help this misperception, on his part or the audience’s, by leaping to cite specifically Leviticus 18:22, when she could cite Paul in the Christian New Testament:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

—Romans 1:26-27

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor men who practice homosexuality…”

—1 Corinthians 6:9-10

…understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strikes their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality…"

—1 Timothy 1:9-10

I am well aware that there are significant debates over the exact meanings of the terms Paul uses for homosexuality. It would seem that they had gone unexamined for a long time, at least unexamined by people who knew what they were doing, which is interesting to me. In fact I only have these verses so quickly in mind because I’m casually interested in the debates over Greek linguistics, not Christian religious law.

I won’t go into the vocabulary wars here, and I’m not the person to go to for solid stances on them anyway. This is not out of fear of saying something controversial. For firm stances, ask me mostly about earlier Greek, perhaps ask me about later Greek; this is a whole other complex domain that I can follow but in which I cannot lead. If anyone with the right expertise wants to chime in below, feel free, I’m always interested.

I’m also under the impression that for Catholics and other Christian sects that view a post-biblical tradition as authoritative too, this issue is less relevant. If the tradition interprets it one way, that’s what matters, for some. Similarly, in Judaism, academic debates over ancient Hebrew linguistics in Leviticus aren’t useful for figuring out law, since most Jews who care about halakha in their lives view one version or another of the rabbinic tradition as the authoritative reading. A philologist in an Ivy League classics department will not alter halakha.

However, to get back to the point: had Bartlet’s interlocutor responded with any of these passages from Paul, she would’ve beaten him. Not because she would be able to expertly defend one reading of the Greek phrases, but because Bartlet’s thundering momentum would be crushed and he would then have to try to persuade her on the basis of either his Greek expertise or her whole religion being fake.

There is no simple “gotcha” against conservative Christians who abide by the prohibition of homosexuality. Even if, as Christians tend to believe, the old law has been superseded, well, there it is again in the new law. If The West Wing’s character/caricature can be faulted, it would be for having not read her own book.

should I give less of a hoot? reflecting on the above arguments

Since I pay a lot of attention to the news and The Discourse™️, I spend some of my social life discussing politics. I find that many of my interlocutors buy into whatever convenient or sensational disinformation is being pushed about their political enemies, either in biased reporting or on social media. Sometimes they appreciate when I deflate the sensational and scary exaggerations or falsehoods that they’ve bought into, but often not. Fighting misinformation, disinformation, and dumb arguments tends to be knee-jerk reacted to as defending whoever’s being badly argued about or misrepresented. But it’s not, necessarily.

Calling out disinformation against a MAGA Republican or a Democrat or even a person who dislikes The Babysitter: Killer Queen (2020) does not mean I’m on their side. It means I want strong arguments to be made against them. Sometimes people on my side of whatever political or confessional debate need to be checked before being publicly stupid, for reasons of optics and their own embarrassment, but more so for the sake of morality: so they can be sure not to lie. There are legitimate reasons to point out bad arguments with or without considering whether we agree with those whom they’re against.

Looking at the above, I think I’ve given half its space to the story of Sodom, and a whole half to the basic rebuttals needed to burn up the fake “gotchas.” That is what prompted this reflection, especially #2, which was a bit off track from my initial plan.

If any hypothetical reader knows me outside this one post, she will be well aware that I don’t care about a lot of Torah prohibitions in my own life. I don’t buy some of the linguistic arguments against the standard reading of those passages in Leviticus, but I’m not Orthodox, so there’s no practical reason to care. My perspective on halakha is grounded in a long series of traditions of interpretation, and I can argue for it if I want. I have a few citations. Several times above, I mentioned the distinction between story and law, which is a big part of this and I might write about it another time. Whatever!

While there are situations in which it’s virtuous to shoot down bad arguments against an idea that’s wrong for other reasons, my true motivation here is probably just this shallow one: I get irritated when people say plainly silly things in serious conversations. I hate to see people ignorantly set themselves up to get “pwned,” like the woman in that West Wing clip. I mean, yeah, I’d have my own refutations to dole out. I’m defending something with which I disagree against incorrect attacks, keeping fully in mind that I believe it’s wrong for other reasons.

Max

I guess in this way, metaphorically speaking, I’m like Max (played by Robbie Amell), a villain in the horror-comedy movie The Babysitter (2017). The movie’s preteen protagonist, Cole, is a bit of a wuss, and the older and much stronger cultist Max has to murder him as part of a bloody ritual gone wrong. However, Max doesn’t like that Cole isn’t putting up a good fight, so he encourages him to do better at it. At one point during this scenario, Cole’s bully shows up to vandalise his house, and Max gives him a break so he can finally stand up to his bully. That doesn’t go well. Max wants Cole to be as strong an opponent as he can be. He’s bothered by his Cole’s flimsiness and won’t kill his prey until he has maximised his ability to fight back.

Why does it matter, though, if Cole becomes strong? Max intends to murder him anyway, immediately after. That’s the bizarre humour of the conflict: it’s weirdly wholesome and charitable of Max to try to help Cole have a coming-of-age moment… right before he’ll kill him. Of course, I’m not murdering anyone, except perhaps rhetorically. Nor do I make ritual sacrifices of human blood. (This should be obvious but I think to an increasing number of people it is not.)

It’s a bit of a paradoxical behaviour though, innit? I get frustrated that people are incorrectly arguing against religious beliefs that I think are wrong, and with people who fail to defend those beliefs competently. I can’t fully explain this, and it’s neither a scholarly urge nor an empathetic one. No, it’s just immature. It’s hard to describe how, though, exactly. It’s also hard to draw the line between situations in which it’s good or bad to do this. In politics it might be virtuous somewhat often; spewing disinfo and dumb talking points against opponents on behalf of my side actively hurts my side’s chances of succeeding. Lying about people is also bad, period. But when someone is bad at arguing for or against religious ideas I disagree with? I don’t know why I’m prone to weigh in there. It’s obviously fine to argue against blatant misreadings of Genesis, but something shifted in my attitude when I started laying into the evangelical caricature in that clip from The West Wing and I didn’t like how that felt. Then I noticed it’s an attitude I fall into often. Many questions on this vice remain for me to look into.

Thus much for my impromptu and inconclusive reflection on the above. I finally noticed that there is a difference between steelmanning and steel-Max-ing and I wanted to scrutinise my motives for engaging in any of it. I hope, though, that regardless of this last bit of angst, some of the points I made earlier in the post are helpful to a hypothetical reader or two. At least to one and a half.

---

For more on basic biblical literacy errors:

For more on charitable argumentation gone awry: