Sodom and Gomorrah

[JoeB131]

Okay, I apologize for simply going on the word of a non-believer and responding to his edited scriptures.

I had to go read 18 and 19 for myself.

I say "edited" because our beloved OP-er conveniently left out any mention of Lot's son-in-laws or how they were sent away into the city before Lot and his family managed to escape.

I can't speak to why Lot would've offered his daughters as "not been with a man" to the hoodlums at his door except maybe as a lie and a trap since his sons-in-law were in the house as well.

As to his daughters getting him drunk in order to lie with him?
Their husbands were gone. Their mother was a "condiment". And, as far as they knew, they were the only survivors on earth.

I made mention, earlier, how this story appears in Genesis.
I said that because the human race hadn't been "leavened" with sin.
We were still "purebreds" populating the planet.
After the corruption of sin came the laws against incest.

I didn't leave them out, I just didn't consider them relevent to the point I was trying to make.

Not that it would be any LESS horrible if he offered his daughters for gang rape if they had sex with their husbands.

For the record, though, the relationship between Lot and the young men in 19:14 varies on which translation you subscribe to.

The KJV reads-

19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

It doesn't specify that they were married to the two daughters he offered up for the gang rape. They might have been married to OTHER daughters

But other translations read differently...

New Living Translation (©2007)
So Lot rushed out to tell his daughters' fiances, "Quick, get out of the city! The LORD is about to destroy it." But the young men thought he was only joking.

That would imply they were not married to them yet, and they rejected his warnings, thus they were still virgins. (And again, they were living with Lot and not these men.)

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
So Lot went out and spoke to the men engaged to his daughters. He said, "Hurry! Get out of this place, because the LORD is going to destroy the city." But they thought he was joking.

Now, most translations, DO read "Sons in law"... but then you have this explanation...

And Lot went out,.... From his house, after the men of Sodom were gone from it, and before the morning, very probably about midnight:

and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters: according to Aben Ezra, he had two other daughters that perished in Sodom, which he gathers from Genesis 19:15, "which are here", as if he had some elsewhere; and so Jarchi says, he had two daughters married in the city. And the Jewish writers (q) speak of one of them, whose name was Pelothith, married to one of the grandees of Sodom: but it seems rather, that these were the daughters Lot had at home with him; who, according to Josephus (r) were espoused to men in the city, but not yet married; and on account of such espousals, as were usual in the eastern countries, Lot calls them his sons-in-law, as they were intended, and so the words may be rendered, "that were about to take his daughters" (s); to take them for wives, and to their own houses, neither of which they had as yet done; for if these had been daughters of his married, and taken home, he would not only have spoke unto their husbands, but to them also; and would have been still more pressing upon them to arise and make their escape; of which nothing is said, nor of any answer of theirs to him, only of his sons-in-law, as they are called on the above account:


Again, this is a quibbling point. Let's assume that for some reason, these guys were married to Lot's daughters and had deflowered them accordingly, and for some reason, they were at their Dad's house instead of their husbands houses, despite tradition of the era. And Lot was totally lying to the crowd when he promised them virgins to gang rape. (Seriously, though, lying seems a bit petty compared to his other sins...)

It's still a really horrible story, used to justify horrible bigotry.

 

[jillian]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 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.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

and you wonder why we think the bible is mostly metaphor?

 

[earlycuyler]

Not sure where you are going, Curley, and not sure I want to know...

Wondering if Cammmpbell is your new username here, and Molotov was one of your alter ego's you used to debate your self at town hall. You are a more honest her, but you still edit your post to say what you want them to say. Sad. A guy would think you would get better the more you do something. So are you going to debate your self again ?

 

[JoeB131]

Not sure where you are going, Curley, and not sure I want to know...

Wondering if Cammmpbell is your new username here, and Molotov was one of your alter ego's you used to debate your self at town hall. You are a more honest her, but you still edit your post to say what you want them to say. Sad. A guy would think you would get better the more you do something. So are you going to debate your self again ?

You work on the assumption I was Molotov. (they also thought I was about six other people, but we won't go there.) I know a few of the wingnuts thought I was, but I really wasn't. IN fact, I operated no more than one screen name at a time.

I know where I am at. Center/right, bothered by the fact religious nutjobs and Wall Street tools have taken over the GOP. I'm a republican in the Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan mold, not the crazy nutbags that have taken over the party of late.

still think the overall GOP message is the right one- limited government, but not no government. I believe in capitalism when it is providing good results. When it doesn't, it needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

So which one of the whackjobs over at TH were you?

 

[earlycuyler]

Not sure where you are going, Curley, and not sure I want to know...

Wondering if Cammmpbell is your new username here, and Molotov was one of your alter ego's you used to debate your self at town hall. You are a more honest her, but you still edit your post to say what you want them to say. Sad. A guy would think you would get better the more you do something. So are you going to debate your self again ?

You work on the assumption I was Molotov. (they also thought I was about six other people, but we won't go there.) I know a few of the wingnuts thought I was, but I really wasn't. IN fact, I operated no more than one screen name at a time.

I know where I am at. Center/right, bothered by the fact religious nutjobs and Wall Street tools have taken over the GOP. I'm a republican in the Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan mold, not the crazy nutbags that have taken over the party of late.

still think the overall GOP message is the right one- limited government, but not no government. I believe in capitalism when it is providing good results. When it doesn't, it needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

So which one of the whackjobs over at TH were you?

Lurker/anonymous. Guest here for awhile.

 

[JoeB131]

and you wonder why we think the bible is mostly metaphor?

Actually, I think the bible is like your grandmother's attic. All sorts of stuff is up there, and sorting through it all is a bit of a chore.

My own interpretation of Genesis 19. There was some kind of natural disaster that was serious enough where people still remembered it, centuries later. And not knowing science, they tired to attach supernatural meaning to it.

I also think that the key passage where the crowd demands the Angels be sent out was not necessarily a desire to gang rape them. There were strangers in the town. Sodom had just fought a war back in Genesis 14 against a "great king" where the "Cities of the Plain" had to be rescued by Abraham's forces.

"Send them out so we may know them". - Send them out so we know they aren't spies! Actually, it seems to me to be a reasonable request.

Now, interestingly enough, there is a paralel story in Judges 19. Same deal, a Levite enters a town of Benjamanites (one of the 12 tribes) and they demand they send out the stranger. The Levites's concubine and the daughters are offered up. The Levite throws his concubine out the door, and they apparently gang rape her all night and she dies on the doorstep. These leads to all sorts of zany adventures involving dismembering a dead body, the near extermination of the Tribe of Benjamine, and the forcible abduction and rape of women from nearby towns.

 

[JoeB131]

Wondering if Cammmpbell is your new username here, and Molotov was one of your alter ego's you used to debate your self at town hall. You are a more honest her, but you still edit your post to say what you want them to say. Sad. A guy would think you would get better the more you do something. So are you going to debate your self again ?

You work on the assumption I was Molotov. (they also thought I was about six other people, but we won't go there.) I know a few of the wingnuts thought I was, but I really wasn't. IN fact, I operated no more than one screen name at a time.

I know where I am at. Center/right, bothered by the fact religious nutjobs and Wall Street tools have taken over the GOP. I'm a republican in the Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan mold, not the crazy nutbags that have taken over the party of late.

still think the overall GOP message is the right one- limited government, but not no government. I believe in capitalism when it is providing good results. When it doesn't, it needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

So which one of the whackjobs over at TH were you?

Lurker/anonymous. Guest here for awhile.

Honestly don't know why I wasted so much time there. What is obvious is that they are the farthest fringe of the GOP, and they'd call Reagan a RINO if he were alive today..

So you didn't post there, but you post here? Interesting....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 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.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

and you wonder why we think the bible is mostly metaphor?

Don't flatter yourself. No one has ever cared what you think enough to wonder why you think it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 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.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I notice that those who say "they don't understand this" have offered no interpretations of the passage to explain how it should be understood. Marie offered a completely different and unrelated passage of scripture, and AmericanFirst offered nothing.

Here is the OP's interpretation in a nutshell:

1) Lot offered to let a crowd gang-rape his virgin daughters rather than his guests.

2) Lot, in a drunken daze, later had incestuous sex with those same daughters, apparently on their instigation so they could get pregnant.

3) Lot was described as a "righteous" man, which, given the above, calls into question just what standard of "righteousness" is being advocated.

Now: just exactly how and why is that interpretation wrong? No platitudes, no unsupported statements, no reference to "the Holy Spirit" -- explain why and how the OP got it wrong. If you can't, you're just dodging.

Try this; point 1: Women in that day were consideded by man, not God, low class beiings. Saving the Angles was more noble. Not saying it was right, just the way it was. 2: Lot was drunk because his daughters wanted to have children got him drunk. 3: If God deems someone to be righteous, they probably are. With God it is more what you believe not do that makes you righteous. Like I said before, stop twisting scripture to support your lies.

The excuse to blame man for the low status of women is a bit silly. First, Greek and Roman women enjoyed greater freedom and status than Hebrew/Judean women did. So essentially, how is it that the Hebrews, who were talking to the "real" God while the Greeks and Romans who were talking to false gods, got it more right on how women should be treated. (In fact, women were probably set back horribly when the Abrahamic religions became dominant.

There really is no interpretation of that story that Lot Looks good in, which is why the Churches like to gloss over the "offering them up for gang rape" and "having drunken incest" aspects of the story. Nope, the important thing to remember about the Sodom folks is they were "sodomites", and it's become the justification for 2000 years of homophobia.

The problem with bible morality is that it reflects not the wisdom of a benificent god, but they bias of angry bronze age savages who were being knocked around by their neighbors for centuries. If we lose a war, have a plague, or a famine, why it must because we aren't following the silly rules close enough.

A "righteous" God would not invoke a rule against eating shellfish without addressing the obvious fact that one human being owning another is wrong.

In the context of the time, it makes sense. The Shellfish Rule probably got invoked because someone one ate one, and had a severe allergic reaction. That must have "angered god". Today, we have tests for that. And primitive societies without technology can't function without slavery, unfortunately.

You need to stop lying. You are wrong and you know it deep down.

 

[Againsheila]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 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.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

So you think that if you get a woman drunk and rape her, that you aren't going to jail?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

So you think that if you get a woman drunk and rape her, that you aren't going to jail?

Yes I would go to jail.

Just like I would go to jail if someone got me drunk, I drove and I wrecked and killed somebody.

The "I was injected with alcohol" defense wouldn't hold up I doubt.

 

[Newby]

Ahhh, nothing like throwing a grenade into the room.

Okay, fundementalists and others like to cite this story about how God hates gay people, and he thinks that Sodomy is wrong. (Never explain what the Gomorrah People were doing so they got it, too.) But then you look at the actual text, and the story becomes a bit more confusing.

God and two Angels visit Abraham in Genesis 18. God announces he's going to wipe out the City. And then Abarham asks God to spare the city if there are 10 righteous men in it. So God says he is going to send the two Angels to see if they are really wicked.

Well, next chapter, Genesis 19, the two Angels meet up with Lot, Abraham's no-account nephew. They go to Lot's house because the streets are too dangerous, and here's where the stuff gets tricky.

19:5 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.

Now, while "to know" is often used in other parts of the bible to indicate sex, it's not really clear that these guys actually wanted to gang rape the angels. But then Lot says the following.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Ooooookay. Don't rape my guest. Instead rape my two virgin daughters. Keep in mind, this is the "Good guy" that God had to go and save from this den of inequity. Keep that in mind the next time you pray for Aunt Millie's cancer to get better and it doesn't, where God's priorities are.

Well, I guess these guys didn't want any of the poonany, because they next threaten, 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Okay... Hmmmm. Well, the Angels blind everyone, Lot gets out of town. They tell him not to look back, but Mrs. Lot does and she gets turned into a condiment.

Then we get to the part they don't tell you in Sunday School. Lot and his two daughters are hiding in a cave. And then it occurs to the daughters that the only way they could have babies is to have drunken sex with their father.

Once again... this is the good guy that God had to save. Not those damned Sodomites, who were no doubt planning a killer Oscar Party.

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

This coming from someone who thinks it's perfectly okay for a woman to kill her child because it happens to be an inconvenience, you know they're 'free of blame' because it's legal? Maybe you should look at your own moral compass and quite worrying about everyone elses?? And here I thought it was just christians that were so judgmental??

 

[Dr.Drock]

Look at it historically....women weren't worth much back then. Lot had taken in the angels under his protection. The Angels were more important to him than his daughters. This certainly wasn't unusual at the time.

As for having sex with his daughters while inebriated...they got him drunk. They thought they were the last people on earth and the only way the human race could continue was if they had children by their father. They knew he would never agree so they got him drunk and you blame him????

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God, but written by men. All through it you can see how women are considered to be worth less than men. The church claims it's because of Eve's sin, being the first to eat of the tree of knowledge. I think it's because men know what women are capable of and want to keep them subjugated less they take over the world. Remember "written by men". IMO Eve was the first to eat of the tree of knowledge but only because Adam handed her the apple and said "here, you try it first."

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

This coming from someone who thinks it's perfectly okay for a woman to kill her child because it happens to be an inconvenience, you know they're 'free of blame' because it's legal? Maybe you should look at your own moral compass and quite worrying about everyone elses?? And here I thought it was just christians that were so judgmental??

I don't think it's ok, I want zero abortions to happen.

Do you agree that men are free of responsibility for their actions when they're drunk?

 

[MarcATL]

Getting back to Lot...he was a good man. He offered to give up his daughters to the crowd in order to save the strangers.....if he had just given them the strangers do you think his daughters would have been safe?

False dilemma. There may have been courses of action other than giving the mob EITHER the strangers OR his daughters to gang-rape, to wit:

1) Slip out the back way with all parties and escape.
2) Barricade the doors and windows, take up arms, and discourage the mob by violent means.

Either of those would have been a better moral choice than offering his daughters to be gang-raped.

Lot was not a good man. He was a monster. There is simply no other possible interpretation of what he attempted to do. He was a monster and an incestuous creep, the crowd consisted of monsters, his daughters were degenerates, and the angels were terrors who punished the innocent along with the guilty. There were no good people in this story art all.

Now as to the Bible, it's open to interpretation...all of it. You interpret it your way and I'll interpret it my way. The Bible is as close as we can get to "God's Word" today, unless you actually hear him talking to you.

I would say that we are presented with a spectrum of choices here. At one extreme is what the fundamentalists say: that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, and every word is true. At the other extreme is the position where the Bible has no authoritative power but is treated with respect and used selectively for inspiration.

The closer we come to the fundamentalist position, the more we run into problems like this passage, or the apparent approval by God of Joshua's genocide, or other truly appalling acts of the Children of Israel which met with divine approval. To say nothing of the passages that run counter to science, such as the miracle of the sun stopping in the sky. (This goes beyond such miracles as the fall of the walls of Jericho or Jesus' healing miracles, in that they require only the insertion of an unrecognized divine force, while the sun-stopping business would require that the sun actually move through the sky rather than the Earth around the sun.)

If we move far enough away from the fundamentalist position that this sort of thing no longer presents a problem, then we reach a point where the Bible has no significance other than sentimental attachment and a few passages that seem enlightened and wise -- of which there are indeed many.

But that's the dilemma. Either the Bible is of no authority, or it is a monstrosity.

You also have to take into account that there were several books that were never entered into the Bible. This was decided by convention in Constantinople, I believe. I know some people believe the Bible is THE WORD of God, but I don't think they realize how it's been changed and interpreted over the centuries. I don't think you can really understand it unless you can go back and read the original scrolls in their original languages. Historians are now saying that the stable Jesus was born in was a misinterpretation. That the word also meant "spare room". They also say that they may have stayed with the animals, on the bottom floor of the domicile...they lived differently back then.

Maybe so. I agree about the Council of Nicaea that established the canonical New Testament; however, it did not establish the canonical Old Testament as that had already been settled by Jewish religious authorities. All those details about the birth of Jesus, while they may be valid points, strike me as not very important. Does it really matter whether Jesus was born in a stable or in someone's spare room?

Any such linguistic concerns also run into the fact that all of the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, but Jesus actually taught in Aramaic, which is a very different language. So even the original Greek Gospels are only an approximation of what he taught and probably miss a lot.

I think it was pretty clear from your OP, that you simply wanted to get this "jab" in.

A poster already mentioned here that in order to understand the Bible you have to be in the Spirit...aka let the Spirit guide you.

Your simplified, worldly version sure makes sense to you and bolsters you're already unshakable pre-conceived notions about God and/or the Bible.

The Angels were messengers from Christ. Lot was well aware who they were. It wasn't so much that he wanted his daughters to get "raped" vs. he wanted to make sure protect God's messengers. Keep in mind sodomy's an abomination unto God.

The drunken thing speaks for itself, he wasn't in his right mind. The daughters thought wrong about their status in the world at the time. No where in Scripture is that condoned.

By the way, what would have been atheists argument if the Bible was chock full of perfect human beings that did God's work on earth? Think about and give an honest reply.

There is a reason why the Bible is chock full of sinners who were able to rise to a higher calling and serve God. Firstly, no human is perfect. The only perfect human that walked this earth is Christ. Secondly, it's to show that God changes hearts, minds...He changes people. He can take a group of gruffy, coarse, crude fisherman and turn then into pillars of Christ. He can take a little shepherd boy and make him a killer of giants and a destroyer of nations. God can do anything through us...if we let him. That theme is seen, witnessed and testified throughout the Bible. From Genesis right to Revelation.

Speaking of Revelation, the Bible speaks about the Catholic Church, which you used as an example of Church. No offense to good practicing Catholics, but the Bible refers to the Roman Catholic Church as the Apostate Church, for some of the very reasons you stated. The Law says not to take any graven images and the Catholics venerate the saints. Direct contradiction of God's Word. Many other examples to those who are interested in truth, but just to make that one point. Bottom line, the Catholic Church isn't the example to use when referring to Christianity and/or believers. Actually, no one is, we must all look to Christ, who is the only one who can save us from our sins and eternal death into eternal Life.

I think I better stop here. Good day sir.

 

[Newby]

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

This coming from someone who thinks it's perfectly okay for a woman to kill her child because it happens to be an inconvenience, you know they're 'free of blame' because it's legal? Maybe you should look at your own moral compass and quite worrying about everyone elses?? And here I thought it was just christians that were so judgmental??

I don't think it's ok, I want zero abortions to happen.

Do you agree that men are free of responsibility for their actions when they're drunk?

Being 'free of responsibility' is not the question here though? You do things that you wouldn't normally do when sober, often your actions aren't even recalled the next day. I'm not sure what the point is really? There's a story in the Bible that is teaching a lesson, you are free to take what you want from that lesson, even if it's nothing. Why you feel the need to use it as a weapon against those that interpret it differently than you is what I would say is the real question here?

I mean, what's the end result here? Your point is that since God said Lot was a 'righteous' man and he was drugged and slept with his daughters, then that makes God a liar and therefore the Bible is false?? Hey, you are welcome to your opinion, go for it! Like I said, what I find fascinating is that someone feels the need to go to all the trouble to use this opinion as a weapon against others who believe differently. What happened to 'diversity' and how it was good for all of us to be 'different'?? And how about not judging others so harshly by your own standards? Seriously?

 

[Againsheila]

Uhhhh men are free of blame for anything, no matter how immoral, as long as they're drunk?



I think I'd maybe take another look at that moral compass of yours.

So you think that if you get a woman drunk and rape her, that you aren't going to jail?

Yes I would go to jail.

Just like I would go to jail if someone got me drunk, I drove and I wrecked and killed somebody.

The "I was injected with alcohol" defense wouldn't hold up I doubt.

So you are saying that if you get a girl drunk and rape her, it's your fault but when Lot's daughter's got him drunk and raped him, it was his fault?????

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you think that if you get a woman drunk and rape her, that you aren't going to jail?

Yes I would go to jail.

Just like I would go to jail if someone got me drunk, I drove and I wrecked and killed somebody.

The "I was injected with alcohol" defense wouldn't hold up I doubt.

So you are saying that if you get a girl drunk and rape her, it's your fault but when Lot's daughter's got him drunk and raped him, it was his fault?????

It's not humanly possible to rape a man in that way, unless you're saying viagra was magically sent back in time and put in his drink.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This coming from someone who thinks it's perfectly okay for a woman to kill her child because it happens to be an inconvenience, you know they're 'free of blame' because it's legal? Maybe you should look at your own moral compass and quite worrying about everyone elses?? And here I thought it was just christians that were so judgmental??

I don't think it's ok, I want zero abortions to happen.

Do you agree that men are free of responsibility for their actions when they're drunk?

Being 'free of responsibility' is not the question here though? You do things that you wouldn't normally do when sober, often your actions aren't even recalled the next day. I'm not sure what the point is really? There's a story in the Bible that is teaching a lesson, you are free to take what you want from that lesson, even if it's nothing. Why you feel the need to use it as a weapon against those that interpret it differently than you is what I would say is the real question here?

I mean, what's the end result here? Your point is that since God said Lot was a 'righteous' man and he was drugged and slept with his daughters, then that makes God a liar and therefore the Bible is false?? Hey, you are welcome to your opinion, go for it! Like I said, what I find fascinating is that someone feels the need to go to all the trouble to use this opinion as a weapon against others who believe differently. What happened to 'diversity' and how it was good for all of us to be 'different'?? And how about not judging others so harshly by your own standards? Seriously? [/QUOTE]

The bolded part is a beautiful job of victim talk, but whoring your daughters out and banging your daughters is sick under any and all circumstances. I'm sure you agree with me, but you have to pretend otherwise because you think saying it's immoral will make your god angry or something.

 

[Foxfyre]

and you wonder why we think the bible is mostly metaphor?

Actually, I think the bible is like your grandmother's attic. All sorts of stuff is up there, and sorting through it all is a bit of a chore.

My own interpretation of Genesis 19. There was some kind of natural disaster that was serious enough where people still remembered it, centuries later. And not knowing science, they tired to attach supernatural meaning to it.

I also think that the key passage where the crowd demands the Angels be sent out was not necessarily a desire to gang rape them. There were strangers in the town. Sodom had just fought a war back in Genesis 14 against a "great king" where the "Cities of the Plain" had to be rescued by Abraham's forces.

"Send them out so we may know them". - Send them out so we know they aren't spies! Actually, it seems to me to be a reasonable request.

Now, interestingly enough, there is a paralel story in Judges 19. Same deal, a Levite enters a town of Benjamanites (one of the 12 tribes) and they demand they send out the stranger. The Levites's concubine and the daughters are offered up. The Levite throws his concubine out the door, and they apparently gang rape her all night and she dies on the doorstep. These leads to all sorts of zany adventures involving dismembering a dead body, the near extermination of the Tribe of Benjamine, and the forcible abduction and rape of women from nearby towns.

Except that the Hebrew word translated 'know' in English means 'to have intercourse with' in the ancient Hebrew, most especailly when used in the context in which it is used in Genesis in the Sodom passage as well as in the second creation story in Genesis 2. A thorough study of the text from that period suggests that the mob not only wanted to have sex with Lot's guests, but they would have done so in a most cruel and brutal manner. In other cases where a mob used people that way, the victim died.

You are correct, however, that a lot of 'sorting out' is necessary to understand the Old Testament which is an edited collection of manuscripts that include law, history, teachings, poetry, prophecy, explanations, metaphor, allegory, symbolism, a bit of humor and even some good old fashioned Jewish exaggeration.

Scholars have spent lifetimes studying, sorting out, debating, and agreeing on which is which among the passages we have. I have no problem believing it is God's book as it has remained a best seller for millenia despite the efforts of kings and others who have attempted to destroy it and wipe it from the face of the Earth.

I don't care if people take the Sodom story literally or metaphorically. I would not presume to attempt to destroy anybody's faith or understanding of that as it does not harm me in the least what somebody else believes about that. But I agree that the story is most likely the interpretation of a cataclysmic event. As there are numerous odd salt formations in the area of Jordan where Sodom is believed to have been, I can easily imagine a child tugging at his father's shirt and pointing to one and saying, "What is that?" And in true Jewish fashion, the father tells his son a story that becomes a part of the cultural lore. And if the destruction of Sodom was due to a volcanic eruption as was probably the case, it is easy to believe that Lot's wife disobeyed his counsel, paused on the hilltop to watch what was happening, was caught and incinerated in a pyroclastic flow.

There is currently an excavation at Tall el-Hammam in Jordan being led by one of our own local archeologists who, as the project has progressed, is increasingly convinced that the site could be that of the ancient Sodom.