FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2001, 08:24 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question Isn't this an illogical offer?.......

I apologize if this has been covered before. My question has to do with the following verses from the book of Genesis:

19:1
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
19:2
And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
19:3
And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
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.

I will pause here to say that I have always been told this means that the men of Sodom were interested in having homosexual relations with the male angels staying at Lot's home. If this is the case, now comes my quandry:

19:6
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
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.

Putting aside the completely disgusting idea that Lot offers up his own daughters to be used and abused by the entire male population of the town, does it make ANY kind of sense whatsoever to offer them something which they obviously do not want? If they want to have homosexual sex with the male guests, what good does it do to offer them your virgin daughters, whom they presumably knew had been living there all along and in whom they had never before expressed any interest?

I know this is small potatoes compared to some of the other topics, but it has me puzzled and I can't get any satisfactory explanations from the Christians I know.

[This message has been edited by katlynnhow (edited April 29, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by katlynnhow (edited April 29, 2001).]
 
Old 04-29-2001, 11:48 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by katlynnhow:

Putting aside the completely disgusting idea that Lot offers up his own daughters to be used and abused by the entire male population of the town, does it make ANY kind of sense whatsoever to offer them something which they obviously do not want? If they want to have homosexual sex with the male guests, what good does it do to offer them your virgin daughters
</font>
Duh, you silly girl. Gay guys don't actually feel a genuine erotic attraction to other men -- I mean, come on, how could any normal person get turned on by the male body? Rather, like all guys, homosexual men instinctively prefer tits and 'tang, but have developed an inconvenient addiction to being fucked in the ass. Thus, by offering his daughters, Lot was merely giving his "homosexual" neighbors that which they wanted along.

(Or, at least, that's how it was once explained to me by fundamentalist acquaintances...)

[This message has been edited by Throbert McGee (edited April 30, 2001).]
 
Old 04-30-2001, 12:36 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The explanation is simple. The story illustrates that something as bad as offering your virgin daughters to a mob pales far in the wickedness of gang-raping passing angels(or men). It also shows that that this kind of venial sin(heterosexual) is far less than the homosexual acts.

Some have argued that it has more to do with hospitality- that which had an extremely high value among the ancient Semites and Near East societies. Coming over to anally-rape house guests is just plain rude.(especially the 'angels' in disugise) Some claim that is the offence, rather than the homosexual connontations of it- the wickedness had to do with the inhospitality of Sodom towards strangers rather than their sexual appetites. I suppose that Lot's offer reveals a 'hospitality' to his neighboors, if you take that theory seriously.

[This message has been edited by a_theistnotatheist (edited April 30, 2001).]
 
Old 04-30-2001, 01:21 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
Some have argued that it has more to do with hospitality</font>
"Some have argued"? That's the strangest spelling of "Ezekiel" I've ever seen:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
 
Old 04-30-2001, 10:33 AM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Throbert McGee:
Duh, you silly girl. Gay guys don't actually feel a genuine erotic attraction to other men -- I mean, come on, how could any normal person get turned on by the male body? Rather, like all guys, homosexual men instinctively prefer tits and 'tang, but have developed an inconvenient addiction to being fucked in the ass. Thus, by offering his daughters, Lot was merely giving his "homosexual" neighbors that which they wanted along.

(Or, at least, that's how it was once explained to me by fundamentalist acquaintances...)

[This message has been edited by Throbert McGee (edited April 30, 2001).]
</font>
LOL... OH! I see.... so Lot was just trying to be neighborly by trying to set these wayward souls back on the path to heterosexuality!

YOU: "I mean, come on, how could any normal person get turned on by the male body?"

ME: I think I'm pretty normal and I'm turned on by the male body.... although I have wondered why from time to time.

YOU: "(Or, at least, that's how it was once explained to me by fundamentalist acquaintances...)"

ME: Is this a joke or is this really how someone has explained it to you? (realizing, of course, that you put your own spin on it for me) All I can ever get when I ask this question is "I don't know." I guess it makes the fundies heads hurt if they think too much.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 10:37 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
The explanation is simple. The story illustrates that something as bad as offering your virgin daughters to a mob pales far in the wickedness of gang-raping passing angels(or men). It also shows that that this kind of venial sin(heterosexual) is far less than the homosexual acts.

Some have argued that it has more to do with hospitality- that which had an extremely high value among the ancient Semites and Near East societies. Coming over to anally-rape house guests is just plain rude.(especially the 'angels' in disugise) Some claim that is the offence, rather than the homosexual connontations of it- the wickedness had to do with the inhospitality of Sodom towards strangers rather than their sexual appetites. I suppose that Lot's offer reveals a 'hospitality' to his neighboors, if you take that theory seriously.

[This message has been edited by a_theistnotatheist (edited April 30, 2001).]
</font>
How on earth do you arrive at varying levels of wickedness? Does the Bible spell it out? And why is raping women less of a sin than raping men? Once again, I am blown away at how ANY women can accept this doctrine.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 10:48 AM   #7
Lance
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS USA
Posts: 335
Post

Kat: You've got to remember the culture of the times girl. In this day and age, women were property--period. They did the chores, had the kids, and put out when and where the men said "so". And if your patriarch wanted to loan you to a friend for fun...your first protest would be your last.

Men had supreme right, and this was most certainly true in the Roman world, though quite a bit less restrictive.

Tell me, is it any wonder that a religion written by men, for men, would make women second class? This also explains to a degree why homosexuality is a "bigger" sin than "sexual" immorality.
Lance is offline  
Old 04-30-2001, 02:54 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Throbert McGee:
"Some have argued"? That's the strangest spelling of "Ezekiel" I've ever seen:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
</font>
Yeah there is the Zeke quote. However Jude says:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

"Even as Somom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to forniaction, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."(vs.6,7)

Jude views the matter as an object lesson about going after 'strange flesh.' Of course since both Ezekiel and Jude are the Word of God, we see that the sin of Sodom was multi-fold; which is not surprising that a city that became so offensive to God should prove sinful in various ways.

The Jude passage stresses the sin of 'going after strange flesh' rather than the violence implied in the situation- I don't think it has anything to do with the value put on women as such.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 03:33 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Thought this going "after strange flesh" refered to sex with the angels which caused such a bruhaha in Gen. 6, creating all them 'Nefilim' characters?
 
Old 05-01-2001, 07:39 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lance:
Kat: You've got to remember the culture of the times girl. In this day and age, women were property--period. They did the chores, had the kids, and put out when and where the men said "so". And if your patriarch wanted to loan you to a friend for fun...your first protest would be your last.

Men had supreme right, and this was most certainly true in the Roman world, though quite a bit less restrictive.

Tell me, is it any wonder that a religion written by men, for men, would make women second class? This also explains to a degree why homosexuality is a "bigger" sin than "sexual" immorality.
</font>
Lance, you have made a perfect argument for why there is no god, and why I absolutely reject the Bible and everything contained therein.... IF the Bible was the "inspired" word of God and we are all supposedly equal in his eyes, then the rape of women would be just as abhorrent to him as that of men. Rather, it is a book written BY men, FOR men, ABOUT men and all their cultural biases of the time. I think this also explains why, rather than condemning the practice of slavery, the Bible just gives out the nifty rules with regard to same. If a god had actually had a hand in writing the Bible, wouldn't he have explained to these ignorant menfolk that he loved ALL human beings equally and this treatment of them was patently WRONG? I think you have hit the nail on the head, my friend!
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:32 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.