No men around, and you want a baby? Sleep with your dad!

[TrinityPower]

Remember, Lot was the guy who was so righteous that God had to save him.

The LORD did that for Abraham's sake, not Lot's.

The bible says otherwise.

And [God] delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds 2 Peter 2:7-8

Yes according to the Bible, offering your daughters up for GANG RAPE and then having drunken sex with them yourself qualifies you a "righteous' in the bible.

variable----when I was in school---both primary thru undergraduate------LITERATURE class (from first grade 'reading" ----thru college 'freshman and soph. required LIT' ---
was kinda ------'separated' in accordance with 'ability' One
of my fondest memories is ninth grade Literature class---quite
sophisticated thanks to the teacher and thanks to that policy of 'separation'------the idiots had their own classes. I somehow ----especially based on the postings here in this thread and the "ability" of the various posters to deal with
literature----find-that our very dear fellow posters----joe and penelope-----were---somehow---not in the "advanced" classes or what they later called "honors" english. -------
ever wonder what it must have been like to know you are in the IDIOT class----ALWAYS?

I wouldn't know, I was in Honors English for most of HS. Oh, yeah, and I get paid for my writing.

But here's the point you kind of don't get. My first year in HS, we had a literature class where we took bible stories and compared them to other literature, including a discussion of Genesis 19. They ended the discussion BEFORE Lot had the drunken incest with his daughters, but they did discuss the part where he offered his daughters up for the gang rape and the men of Sodom would rather have the sweet, sweet Angel Butthole. (Do angels have buttholes?)

Now what made that ******* hilarious was the Christian Brother teaching the class wasn't just gay, he was ******* FLAMING!!! One of these guys who got "transferred" at the end of the school year, if you know what I mean. and here he was teaching us about how God was burning women and children because the men were gay.

I am strictly Old Testament. That characterisation of Lot is completely inaccurate.

I have noticed a pattern with you...everyone is labeled a catholic, muslim or in my case you have said I am both. Along with that you reject the New Testament. Then you give short answers telling everyone they are wrong, get them to start a debate but you do not contribute any insight of your own but demand it from everyone else and when they do produce it, it is rejected by you who demanded it saying it is wrong but again you offer no research or scriptures to give credibility to what you have to say. To me that defines you as a troller and not worthy of reading nor responding to your posts

 

[BluePhantom]

I do dislike you referring to the Bible as literature. It is so much more that a comparison belittles it.

The Bible is literature. Theology is the practice of taking that literature and applying it in such a way where greater meaning and life application is realized. This has been a point made for countless centuries and in fact the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, written somewhere between the 2nd and 4th centuries, makes a very strong point of this. Philip is a little like the Coptic Gospel of Thomas so it bounces around a bit, but in Philip it makes statements such as "But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things." and "Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way."

Essentially, what the author is saying is that the truth cannot be described in human terms, but we must us material examples to be able to relate to it. In other places the author argues that those who focus only on the material examples cannot know the truth. Essentially, what the author is saying is that those who read scripture literally are missing the point. Scripture provides material examples that mankind can understand in order to point the way toward the truth, but it is not the truth itself. The truth is too big for description. Tao Te Ching, chapter one comes to mind here where is says (paraphrasing) 'The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. Naming is the origin of the particular. Through the particular one realizes the illusions of life. Apart from the particular one begins to realize the mysteries of life.'

When one focuses on simply the words or gets caught up in irrelevant points ("where did Lot's daughters get the wine?"), they are focusing on the material examples (the particular) and missing the truth that the story is pointing to (the mystery). In other words, read scripture allegorically and not literally. The Bible is just words (a book of literature), the application of the principles is what is important.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe-----you wrote about your time in English Lit class in
High School and revealed that your class was of the advanced variety so you did analyze the bible as the literature it is---------and you had a homosexual teacher. and then asserted HERE IS THE POINT YOU DON'T GET --------so just what is that "POINT"???? Interesting story but I fail to see the BIG GIANT "POINT"

i can't help that you are kind of stupid....

I just found it hilarious that the Catholic Clergy that has screamed against homosexuality had so many homosexuals in it. But they'll you it's bad. Really.

They did leave out the daughter-******* part, though.

 

[irosie91]

Joe-----you wrote about your time in English Lit class in
High School and revealed that your class was of the advanced variety so you did analyze the bible as the literature it is---------and you had a homosexual teacher. and then asserted HERE IS THE POINT YOU DON'T GET --------so just what is that "POINT"???? Interesting story but I fail to see the BIG GIANT "POINT"

i can't help that you are kind of stupid....

I just found it hilarious that the Catholic Clergy that has screamed against homosexuality had so many homosexuals in it. But they'll you it's bad. Really.

They did leave out the daughter-******* part, though.

that's a "POINT" ????

 

[JoeB131]

Joe-----you wrote about your time in English Lit class in
High School and revealed that your class was of the advanced variety so you did analyze the bible as the literature it is---------and you had a homosexual teacher. and then asserted HERE IS THE POINT YOU DON'T GET --------so just what is that "POINT"???? Interesting story but I fail to see the BIG GIANT "POINT"

i can't help that you are kind of stupid....

I just found it hilarious that the Catholic Clergy that has screamed against homosexuality had so many homosexuals in it. But they'll you it's bad. Really.

They did leave out the daughter-******* part, though.

that's a "POINT" ????

Uh, yeah, it is. I'm sorry it keeps going over your head.

 

[aris2chat]

For the girls, it was then end of the human race as they knew it. Their desire was to perpetuate the species, to be the month of the new race of human.
If sheep, horses, camels and other animals breed with their aunts, sisters and daughters, this was the only way the girls believed there was hope for life to continue.

When you are the only people on an island and you believe that is the limit of human life on the planet, you follow the example of adam and eve or cain and his sister.

Considering what they must have been thinking, that life was being destroyed, it was a brave if misguided attempt preserve the human race.

Lot was a good an but he would have sacrificed his virgin daughter to the mob if it had come to that. The girls were making sure they would not be the last ones, that their being saved had some purpose.

It is not like they had sperm from any other source or knew of any way to artificially inseminate themselves.

Given their limited knowledge of the world, I wonder what many of you would have done under the same circumstances

If it was a brother and sister alone on the earth? The girls had no brother, they had only their father.

This was a time when Abraham and his wife Sarah were brother and sister. A time long before the ten commandments. Siblings and cousins marrying was part of the norm not the exception, even fathers marrying their daughters.

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Brother-Sister and Father-Daughter Marriage in Ancient Egypt

 

[TrinityPower]

For the girls, it was then end of the human race as they knew it. Their desire was to perpetuate the species, to be the month of the new race of human.
If sheep, horses, camels and other animals breed with their aunts, sisters and daughters, this was the only way the girls believed there was hope for life to continue.

When you are the only people on an island and you believe that is the limit of human life on the planet, you follow the example of adam and eve or cain and his sister.

Considering what they must have been thinking, that life was being destroyed, it was a brave if misguided attempt preserve the human race.

Lot was a good an but he would have sacrificed his virgin daughter to the mob if it had come to that. The girls were making sure they would not be the last ones, that their being saved had some purpose.

It is not like they had sperm from any other source or knew of any way to artificially inseminate themselves.

Given their limited knowledge of the world, I wonder what many of you would have done under the same circumstances

If it was a brother and sister alone on the earth? The girls had no brother, they had only their father.

This was a time when Abraham and his wife Sarah were brother and sister. A time long before the ten commandments. Siblings and cousins marrying was part of the norm not the exception, even fathers marrying their daughters.

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Brother-Sister and Father-Daughter Marriage in Ancient Egypt

I agree with your statement except that Abraham and Sara were not siblings. Abraham passed her off as his sister twice to avoid a ruler killing him to have her for wife. Was it a dick move? Yeah it was a total dick move and it's probably why the foot of God kicked him in the ding ding for many years and he had no children but that's just my own speculation.

 

[TrinityPower]

Judah's daughter in law had her way with him as well and he was drunk. She lured him into the bushes and did her due diligence then when it was found out she was with child he was the one who wanted to stone her until she told him he was the father because her husbands brothers refused to give her a son in her dead husbands stead. I struggle with these stories at times because I live in a time period where rights should be equal between women and men but back then it wasn't and men seemed to be exempt to the rules women were to adhere. The point of the story in this case is one of obedience and survival. If a woman had no son she was destitute and what some passages call truly poor

 

[Penelope]

Girls were just mouths to feed and many were left on the side of the road , or if old enough used as incubators.

 

[Synthaholic]

Travel was dangerous, especially for two women that were alone.

Dangerous how? You mean...they might get raped, and pregnant?

 

[Synthaholic]

It's a story intended to teach a lesson, not record a historical event.

Like Aesop's Fables? That's what I've always likened the bible to.

But fundamentalists claim that every word of the bible is true, and every word is God's word.

 

[Votto]

Genesis 19:30-38


Lot and His Daughters

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his nameMoab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.



These are the values we should be living by? Incest?

Please ignore the fact that they had just witnessed fire coming down killing everyone they knew.

Perhaps they thought Lot was the last man standing?

Not that it matters. Please carry on with your mocking post.

 

[Synthaholic]

Please carry on with your mocking post.

Okey-doke.

 

[BluePhantom]

It's a story intended to teach a lesson, not record a historical event.

Like Aesop's Fables? That's what I've always likened the bible to.

But fundamentalists claim that every word of the bible is true, and every word is God's word.

Read the rest of my posts on this thread and you will have your answer.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think the thing to take away here, Synth, is that the story of Lot's daughters is not saying how great it is to engage in incest. The scholarly view, according to Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, is that the story is intended to smear the Moabites and Ammorites by making reference to their questionable parentage and incestuous origins according to Genesis 19:36-38 which reads, "36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today." It is worth notice that you did not include that part in your OP as it seems to make the point quite clearly.

Other explanations have been advanced including the need for women to have children to care for them in their old age, the possible thought that it was because the girls thought they needed to repopulate the world, etc. Regardless of how you look at it, these all consider the acts a necessary evil, not something that should be done just for shits and giggles.

Your OP, that suggests that the Bible teaches that incestuous pregnancy is a good idea, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of merit unless you ignore the cultural context and/or cherry-pick it to remove verses that clarify the literary context.

Nice try though

 

[Hollie]

I think the thing to take away here, Synth, is that the story of Lot's daughters is not saying how great it is to engage in incest. The scholarly view, according to Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, is that the story is intended to smear the Moabites and Ammorites by making reference to their questionable parentage and incestuous origins according to Genesis 19:36-38 which reads, "36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today." It is worth notice that you did not include that part in your OP as it seems to make the point quite clearly.

Other explanations have been advanced including the need for women to have children to care for them in their old age, the possible thought that it was because the girls thought they needed to repopulate the world, etc. Regardless of how you look at it, these all consider the acts a necessary evil, not something that should be done just for shits and giggles.

Your OP, that suggests that the Bible teaches that incestuous pregnancy is a good idea, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of merit unless you ignore the cultural context and/or cherry-pick it to remove verses that clarify the literary context.

If you had read any of the bibles, you would understand that familial relations are a theme in the bibles.

The Noah fable leaves us with the gawds providing for Noah and his immediate family to re-populate the earth.

Lovely, lovely folks those gawds.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think the thing to take away here, Synth, is that the story of Lot's daughters is not saying how great it is to engage in incest. The scholarly view, according to Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, is that the story is intended to smear the Moabites and Ammorites by making reference to their questionable parentage and incestuous origins according to Genesis 19:36-38 which reads, "36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today." It is worth notice that you did not include that part in your OP as it seems to make the point quite clearly.

Other explanations have been advanced including the need for women to have children to care for them in their old age, the possible thought that it was because the girls thought they needed to repopulate the world, etc. Regardless of how you look at it, these all consider the acts a necessary evil, not something that should be done just for shits and giggles.

Your OP, that suggests that the Bible teaches that incestuous pregnancy is a good idea, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of merit unless you ignore the cultural context and/or cherry-pick it to remove verses that clarify the literary context.

If you had read any of the bibles, you would understand that familial relations are a theme in the bibles.

The Noah fable leaves us with the gawds providing for Noah and his immediate family to re-populate the earth.

Lovely, lovely folks those gawds.

Yeah clearly I have never read a Bible. Sheesh. Yes family relations are a common theme but they are not reflected in glowing terms. Further, as I pointed out, the stories in Genesis especially are legends designed to make a point. They are not records of historical events.Go back and read my post about the Gospel of Philip and the Tao Te Ching.

 

[Hollie]

I think the thing to take away here, Synth, is that the story of Lot's daughters is not saying how great it is to engage in incest. The scholarly view, according to Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, is that the story is intended to smear the Moabites and Ammorites by making reference to their questionable parentage and incestuous origins according to Genesis 19:36-38 which reads, "36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today." It is worth notice that you did not include that part in your OP as it seems to make the point quite clearly.

Other explanations have been advanced including the need for women to have children to care for them in their old age, the possible thought that it was because the girls thought they needed to repopulate the world, etc. Regardless of how you look at it, these all consider the acts a necessary evil, not something that should be done just for shits and giggles.

Your OP, that suggests that the Bible teaches that incestuous pregnancy is a good idea, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of merit unless you ignore the cultural context and/or cherry-pick it to remove verses that clarify the literary context.

If you had read any of the bibles, you would understand that familial relations are a theme in the bibles.

The Noah fable leaves us with the gawds providing for Noah and his immediate family to re-populate the earth.

Lovely, lovely folks those gawds.

Yeah clearly I have never read a Bible. Sheesh. Yes family relations are a common theme but they are not reflected in glowing terms. Further, as I pointed out, the stories in Genesis especially are legends designed to make a point. They are not records of historical events.Go back and read my post about the Gospel of Philip and the Tao Te Ching.

Oh, well as long as familial relations are not reflected in glowing terms, we can all feel better about incest.

Couldn't all of that have been avoided if the gawds hadn't first decided to wipe humanity from the planet? I'd have thought that the gawds wouldn't have magically poofed humanity onto the planet only to wipe them out a few thousand years later because they were a disappointment.

Seems kinda' petty, cruel and nasty, that serial mass murder, thing.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think the thing to take away here, Synth, is that the story of Lot's daughters is not saying how great it is to engage in incest. The scholarly view, according to Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, is that the story is intended to smear the Moabites and Ammorites by making reference to their questionable parentage and incestuous origins according to Genesis 19:36-38 which reads, "36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today." It is worth notice that you did not include that part in your OP as it seems to make the point quite clearly.

Other explanations have been advanced including the need for women to have children to care for them in their old age, the possible thought that it was because the girls thought they needed to repopulate the world, etc. Regardless of how you look at it, these all consider the acts a necessary evil, not something that should be done just for shits and giggles.

Your OP, that suggests that the Bible teaches that incestuous pregnancy is a good idea, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of merit unless you ignore the cultural context and/or cherry-pick it to remove verses that clarify the literary context.

If you had read any of the bibles, you would understand that familial relations are a theme in the bibles.

The Noah fable leaves us with the gawds providing for Noah and his immediate family to re-populate the earth.

Lovely, lovely folks those gawds.

Yeah clearly I have never read a Bible. Sheesh. Yes family relations are a common theme but they are not reflected in glowing terms. Further, as I pointed out, the stories in Genesis especially are legends designed to make a point. They are not records of historical events.Go back and read my post about the Gospel of Philip and the Tao Te Ching.

Oh, well as long as familial relations are not reflected in glowing terms, we can all feel better about incest.

Couldn't all of that have been avoided if the gawds hadn't first decided to wipe humanity from the planet? I'd have thought that the gawds wouldn't have magically poofed humanity onto the planet only to wipe them out a few thousand years later because they were a disappointment.

Seems kinda' petty, cruel and nasty, that serial mass murder, thing.

Read and learn No men around and you want a baby Sleep with your dad Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Perhaps if you put half the energy into learning about things as you do rolling your ball of elephant shit around the boards, you might actually come across as if you know what you are talking about.

 

[Hollie]

I think the thing to take away here, Synth, is that the story of Lot's daughters is not saying how great it is to engage in incest. The scholarly view, according to Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, is that the story is intended to smear the Moabites and Ammorites by making reference to their questionable parentage and incestuous origins according to Genesis 19:36-38 which reads, "36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today." It is worth notice that you did not include that part in your OP as it seems to make the point quite clearly.

Other explanations have been advanced including the need for women to have children to care for them in their old age, the possible thought that it was because the girls thought they needed to repopulate the world, etc. Regardless of how you look at it, these all consider the acts a necessary evil, not something that should be done just for shits and giggles.

Your OP, that suggests that the Bible teaches that incestuous pregnancy is a good idea, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of merit unless you ignore the cultural context and/or cherry-pick it to remove verses that clarify the literary context.

If you had read any of the bibles, you would understand that familial relations are a theme in the bibles.

The Noah fable leaves us with the gawds providing for Noah and his immediate family to re-populate the earth.

Lovely, lovely folks those gawds.

Yeah clearly I have never read a Bible. Sheesh. Yes family relations are a common theme but they are not reflected in glowing terms. Further, as I pointed out, the stories in Genesis especially are legends designed to make a point. They are not records of historical events.Go back and read my post about the Gospel of Philip and the Tao Te Ching.

Oh, well as long as familial relations are not reflected in glowing terms, we can all feel better about incest.

Couldn't all of that have been avoided if the gawds hadn't first decided to wipe humanity from the planet? I'd have thought that the gawds wouldn't have magically poofed humanity onto the planet only to wipe them out a few thousand years later because they were a disappointment.

Seems kinda' petty, cruel and nasty, that serial mass murder, thing.

Read and learn No men around and you want a baby Sleep with your dad Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Perhaps if you put half the energy into learning about things as you do rolling your ball of elephant shit around the boards, you might actually come across as if you know what you are talking about.

Perhaps if you were able to actually address the contradictions and logical errors of the gawds, you might actually be takes seriously.

Gawds who directly contradict the very standards of behavior you fundamentalists expect of these gawds, and for humanity to follow present obvious paradoxes. Thou shall not kill is contradicted by the gawds act of serial mass murder. The "covet thy neighbor's wife" thingy rings hollow when the gawds create the environment where such conditions will occur.