premjan

She is Abraham's half-sister, from whom is the blonde hair supposed to have come?

storytime

I suppose Lot and his daughters didn't think to contact Abraham who had men of kinsmen in his group? It was, after all, Abraham who pleaded for the innocents. Surely the scumbag Lot would have known where Abraham had settled?

As the law against incest wasn't available at the time, do you think tradition and oral teaching would have prohibited incest?

And why would the angels run from the men of Sodom who were trying to break down the door of Lots house? If the angels had the power to destroy the city, why wouldn't they have the power to physically defend themselves against those offensive men at the door? Are you sure the angels weren't in fact angry men with matches in their pockets who decided to set fire to the city? Maybe they even burned a cross as a symbol of their white supremacy?

Susan2

I think the story can be seen as a teaching tool, for better or worse, and I am sure that for many people of that time, and forwards the story was used as a teaching tool.

Does it shock you, that Abraham had a habit of passing his wife off as his sister forcing her into a life of prostitution and slavery, to, quote, “save his own life”? Do you agree that Abraham’s life was more valuable then his wife’s? I think the question begged from the story is just that; Is Abrahams life more valuable then Sarah’s, and if so in whose mind?

Jewish women, as well as Roman women suffered many extreme indignities, and profound hardships, including burqas type clothing, and life styles not unlike what is seen in extremist Islam today.

Can this story be seen as an initial justification for those hardships and indignities, in the minds of the men of that time? It appears to me a perverse saving life by extinguishing it. This is seen throughout the scriptures, OT & NT.

I also think the stories are written in the form of metaphysical conceit.

My understanding of a metaphysical conceit is to say something shocking so as to draw attention to a conundrum, a paradox, or situation, ect., so as to elicit the readers acute and critical attention. I would imagine that the purpose is to cause them to think, but of course they must be allowed to think. Thinking is not generally recommended in religions. Perhaps that is why they are called, sheep led to the slaughter.


Notice that in the story of Jesus a lamb/innocent and a cross/guilty are yoked or juxtaposed together? But for what purpose? Is a child/lamb innocent until proven, which is to say, raised guilty? Can a man think for himself? Can women? Can they think for themselves if not given the right and appropriate ability (skills/education) to do so?

If God can be seen as a human construct, for the purpose of an explanation of good and evil, as a contrast and comparison, and as ultimate authority is the God of today any different then the God of yesterday? And if so where? And who decides?

I am the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, which simply means I am the Exiting One, Lord God. Does the appearance of God change with the appearance of mankind, if mankind is made in the image of God?

It seems to me that the atheist hates the word God, thus Occam's razor is taught to be applied, and understandably so, but the principle, the concept of ultimate authority doesn’t change. The concept is not lost on the intellectual atheist, nor on the intellectual theist, and to say so is perhaps no different then Abraham.

John Kesler

The OT text never refers to Lot as righteous or gives an explicit explanation for why he was saved. One possible hint is found in Genesis 19:29:

This passage seems to suggest that Lot was saved only because of Abraham's righteousness. This is the interpretation of the author of Jubilees:

However, the author of Wisdom of Solomon claimed that Lot was righteous:

This tradition, that Lot, despite his sinful behavior, was somehow righteous, is picked up by the passage you reference above, 2 Peter 2:6-8:

It appears that the authors of Wisdom and 2 Peter couldn't reconcile the fact that Lot was saved with the fact that Sodom was destroyed because of wickedness, and so they reasoned that, despite what the text says, Lot must have been righteous.

IamJoseph

Read the text carefully, without input and colorful adjectives. It says there was a nuclear type devastation, and the held premise was that no one survived but themselves [the texts]. This then is the criteria which answers whether they should or could contact Abraham, who lived in a different part of the region.

Consider the same situation today in this exaggerated example: if all humans perished, except for one man and his daughter remaining alive. Would you describe their actions to replenish humanity as incest!?

Actually, this was not the normal incest - which cannot apply with an aged father. Had the incest law been enacted, it would have still not applied in these circumstances [the text!]. Had incest been applicable, then Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, would have also been guilty in marrying two sisters - but we know these figures were, at least, devout men who clung to the law. And the law was not given till the time of Moses - 400 years later.

I don't know why - the text has to be further examined of its reasoning - they had power, because they rendered the attackers 'blinded'. But this is not related to the issue. I know that an angel, unlike humans, can only perform one task at a time - the reason Abraham recieved three angels: they had three messages.

IamJoseph

She was his neice - however, this only confirms the law of incest was varied then from now; incest was most rampant in Egypt, where marraiges occured to prevent loss of asset. Abraham and sarah were not Arabian or Arab - the latter had not yet emerged at this time. They came from Ur in Meso, which was then inhabited by the peoples replaced by the Persians today. Abraham's ancestry is further sourced to Shem, one of the sons of Noah. In any case, my premise relies on the text only.

IamJoseph

Everything stated there is antithetical and totally absurd. While Abraham did the right thing, and would have been guilty if he did not do so - it is the Egyptians which must be focused on here as the bad side. Wherefrom do you condone - worse, not even address - the Egyptian mode of confiscating a man's wife for a concubine - and bash the victims instead?! What do you suggest Abraham should have done!? :constern01:

rfmwinnie

Here is a Jewish viewpoint. The traditional Jewish viewpoint is that God needs man as much as man needs God. It throws the whole idea of an omniscient god out the window.

This is the traditional view. This particular one is found here.

IamJoseph

The term 'consult' hardly applies. Abraham incurred 10 tests, and his actions caused him to be blessed and magnified - only after those tests. That the Hebrew laws predate Abraham and begin from the time of Adam and Noah, namely numerous laws were already given - this says that the tests unto Abraham constituted forthcoming ancipated laws, and Abraham's answers were seen as correct only. It is akin to a parent who knows all the answers but is teaching a child.

However, there is the premise of:

NO SUBJECTS W/O A KING - and - NO KING W/O SUBJECTS.

steve_bnk

I think the point is that the actions of the biblical Jews were far from moral and exemplary, and are more inlinme with the warlike and agressive wandering tribes they started out as.

In fact the prophets were not popular among the Jews, they tended to point out the imorality of the times, not unlike JC.

Since slavery was not banned by god, then surely it is not imoral biblicaly. JC said if you are a slave, be a good one and a credit to your master. This was reinforced by Paul.