There are two prevailing views of the sin of Sodom in Christian thought. One is that the destruction of Sodom was due to inhospitality, as illustrated by the gifts of God to Abraham for his gracious action, contrasted with consequences of the behavior of the city's inhabitants. First we see hospitality and the way we should act, then inhospitality in that the people of Sodom seek to mistreat the newcomers. The second view is that the cities were destroyed for homosexuality.

Christian scholars and clerics often have disagreements about the meaning of specific texts, with the writings on Sodom and Gomorrah being no different. The latter view, while being the most common in modern times, is actually the least historical. The word, "sodomy" which first appeared in the 17th century KJV was then used simply to mean wickedness. Modern scholars in favor of the "homosexuality" theory point to two major parts of the Bible;

First, "to know" is a Biblical term for sexual behavior in this context. This is also understood as Lot offers his 'virgin' daughters to the men at the door instead of the visiting men. Thus,

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

—Genesis 19:5

is interpreted as a militant solicitation for homosexual sex. Second, they argue that homosexuality is the "strange flesh" mentioned in the following passage,

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

—Jude 1:7

The other view is derived from the classical Jewish perspective[perlu rujukan], already mentioned, and other portions of the Bible. This view sees the sin of Sodom as being about general malice, xenophobia and inhospitality, and that if "to know" is intended to be a euphemism for sex, it is clearly a case of gang rape.

Thus, "going after strange flesh" may refer to sex with strangers, sex outside of wedlock, or possibly something akin to bestiality

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

—Ezekiel 16:49-50

This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

—Matthew 10:14-15

This view of the Biblical story reflects that of other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was of singular importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods.[2] Also in these civilizations, men were held in a much higher regard than women, in Greece women being often seen as little more than property . Therefore, to demand not only a guest, but a male guest, be violated against his will, would be seen as more of a crime than to allow women to be used to save the guest.[perlu rujukan]