-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lot, the Incestuous Rapist
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
- Status
jewscout
Religious Zionist
Orleander said:Lot's wife was turned into salt for looking back. Yet he had children with his 2 daughters. Does anyone ever worry that this will give rapist fathers a biblical o-kee-do-kee?
ummmmm noooo
read the story...the 2 daughters got their old man drunk and slept w/ him
This is quite a good article http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm
The conclusion here is that the father was at fault.
Who raped whom according to one liberal commentator?
Kutz suggests that the account of the conception of Lot's grandchildren/children might have been reversed and that Lot may have frequently perpetrated acts of incest with his daughters.
He points out that:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The daughters could not have believed that there were no men in the world. They had just come from Tzo'ar where there would have been plenty of men. Abraham, their great-uncle was situated about a day's walk away.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]If Lot had often committed incest with his daughters then they would have known just how we would behave after drinking wine and be able to predict the consequences.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The chances of two conceptions by two women on successive nights is very slim. Kutx writes: "So it's much more likely that these pregnancies were the result of repeated incestuous activity." The chances of pregnancy resulting from a single random sexual act by a fertile couple is on the order of one in 50. One might conclude that the chances of both daughters becoming pregnant on successive nights would be one in 2,500. Further, the chances of both producing a boy would be about one in 10,000. However, women who live in the same household often find that their menstrual cycles are synchronized. So, the chances would be much more than 1 in ten thousand, but would still be a very unusual happening.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]In Genesis 19:8, Lot offered his two daughters to be gang-raped by the men of Sodom. That could be an indication of Lot's sexually degenerative practices.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Lot's wife turning to salt could be interpreted as "...a metaphor for a mother who is frozen in her salty tears. Her older daughters have just perished in the disaster, while her younger ones are left exposed to the ongoing abuse of their drunkard of a father."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
He concludes that Lot himself was the incest perpetrator; his daughters were victims.
[/FONT]
The conclusion here is that the father was at fault.
Who raped whom according to one liberal commentator?
Kutz suggests that the account of the conception of Lot's grandchildren/children might have been reversed and that Lot may have frequently perpetrated acts of incest with his daughters.
He points out that:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The daughters could not have believed that there were no men in the world. They had just come from Tzo'ar where there would have been plenty of men. Abraham, their great-uncle was situated about a day's walk away.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]If Lot had often committed incest with his daughters then they would have known just how we would behave after drinking wine and be able to predict the consequences.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The chances of two conceptions by two women on successive nights is very slim. Kutx writes: "So it's much more likely that these pregnancies were the result of repeated incestuous activity." The chances of pregnancy resulting from a single random sexual act by a fertile couple is on the order of one in 50. One might conclude that the chances of both daughters becoming pregnant on successive nights would be one in 2,500. Further, the chances of both producing a boy would be about one in 10,000. However, women who live in the same household often find that their menstrual cycles are synchronized. So, the chances would be much more than 1 in ten thousand, but would still be a very unusual happening.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]In Genesis 19:8, Lot offered his two daughters to be gang-raped by the men of Sodom. That could be an indication of Lot's sexually degenerative practices.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Lot's wife turning to salt could be interpreted as "...a metaphor for a mother who is frozen in her salty tears. Her older daughters have just perished in the disaster, while her younger ones are left exposed to the ongoing abuse of their drunkard of a father."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
He concludes that Lot himself was the incest perpetrator; his daughters were victims.
[/FONT]
Orleander
Member
Passage Genesis 19:8:
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
from www.bible.com
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
from www.bible.com
d.
_______
from religioustolerance.org :Orleander said:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Genesis 19 describes how the two angels who accompanied God went on to visit the Canaanite city of Sodom. The city had just experienced warfare (Genesis 14:1-2) and was probably on high alert to forestall more conflict. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. They had been sent to warn him that God was displeased with the wickedness of the city's residents. God had decided to destroy a large geographical area, including the city of Sodom. All of the people from the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers to the mob so that they might "know" the angels. Sensing evil intent by the citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be raped by the mob, if that would appease them. Since young women were generally married by the age of 15 in that culture, his daughters would have had to be 14 years old or younger! The offer was declined. The angels blinded some of the mob. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her on the spot and turned her into a pillar of salt.
[...]
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Genesis 19:5 -- What does "ya,da" mean?[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Yada, Yada, Yada" is a phrase popularized on the Jerry Seinfeld show to imply sexual activity among unmarried persons. It may be related to the "ya,da' which appears in Genesis 19:5.[/FONT]
- [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:5 says: "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." (KJV)[/FONT]
- [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The New International Version translates the same verse: "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' "[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Ya,da´ is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Usually it means "to know a fact." In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; in these instances, the sexual meaning is always obvious. The text generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." All such references involve heterosexual relationships. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
- [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.
[/FONT] - [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This may the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them."[/FONT]
- [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. "Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected." As noted above, the city had just recently survived just such an attack, and may have been on high alert. 5[/FONT]
- [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Attack them physically.[/FONT]
either way, it is a particularly nasty piece of bible, isn't it?
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Orleander said:
It is not a metaphor. 2 angels were visiting with Lot and his family. The townspeople of Soddom came to Lot's house and demanded that he turn over the men so that the mob might know them carnally. This is how the KJV of the Bible puts it, if you will pardon my mild paraphrase from memory.
In an effort to save his 2 guests from being massively analy gang raped, Lot offered his daughters to the crowd in their stead. I have a hard time, personally, thinking someone who makes such an offer is to be held in high regard, but I hear that it was the proper thing to do, given the hospitality customs of his time.
B.
d.
_______
here's something from the same site on lot and his daughters :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm
Booko
Deviled Hen
Orleander said:
It's consistent with the cultural practice of the time, where continuation of one's line was of the utmost importance. There are similar examples in the Tenach, where if a man died before his wife had a child, his brother was obligated to do the duty so his brother's line would continue. Or as in the case of Abraham, where his wife Sarah could not get pregnant, law allowed to have a child by his servant in order to continue his line.
In a situation where your culture can be wiped out in one battle, keeping the progeny going is of great importance. Where there's no arficial insemination or other techniques we have today, you have to find another way.
These are not concerns for us in our cultures today. It would be very difficult to wipe out an entire culture in one smallish act, humanity is hardly short in numbers, and we can be remembered in writing and photos, not just through our family line.
To the ancients, things like this looked very very different. If you read the text in our cultural context, it seems very strange indeed. Read it from their pov, and it's very different.
Can you imagine taking someone from 3000-4000 years ago and plopping them in any of our cities wiht a book on our current events and imagining it would all make sense to them?
If not, why should you assume it works in the opposite direction?
Booko
Deviled Hen
michel said:
Rubbish.
The cultural practice then, and it still is in some places today, is that the law of hospitality requires you to protect guests in your house -- even if that means you have to sacrifice your own children.
Whoever wrote this appears to be culturally and historically ignorant.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Orleander said:
I added the emphasis above, because this is where Lot states the reason he would sacrifice his daughters.
The law of hospitality is still alive, though not necessarily well, in the Middle East. If you will recall the Taliban's excuses for not giving up Osama bin Laden, that he was a "guest" in their country and it would go against hospitality.
That was regarded as a feeble ploy here in the West. But the point was, it would be considered somewhat reasonable to the Taliban's real audience: their fellow Muslims who still follow this practice today.
I've seen the law of hospitality carried out even in this country among my coreligionists. There are a number of Persian Baha'i refugees here, and sometimes they have not been so acculturated. I've seen where, if you go into one of their houses and give what you intend as a nice compliment, like "Oh, I really love this vase!" -- they hand it to you to take home!
We who grew up in this culture see it as a mere compliment. In their culture, you do whatever it takes to make your guest safe and content.
What was that Dr. Seuss book about the moose character who has all sorts of creatures taking up residence in his antlers, and who is very patient and says "a host, above all, must be kind to his guests"?
The American take on this book and a Middle Eastern one would be *very* different. We think the moose is certifiable, because he ended up drowning in the river being weighted down by all of those unreasonable fools. Why didn't he kick them out, the freeloaders!?!
Someone from a culture that still practices hospitality would think the moose is a saintly creature who was doing the right thing, and what a nice lesson to teach the kiddies.
Booko
Deviled Hen
MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
Haha, my poor mother, one day I mentioned this passage and what it meant, and she got really mad. I dunno, maybe she thought Lot sent his daughters out to have tea with the townspeople?
I finally insisted she phone the pastor to settle who was right about what had transpired. It was very interesting hearing just her end of the conversation and watching her turn beet red. I think I was maybe 10 or 11 at the time. I'd been reading Shakespeare's Hamlet and read the glosses, so that's how I knew what the meaning of "know" was in the instance.
I wouldn't expect we really need those sorts of hospitality laws here. If someone is threatening my guests, I can call 911.
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Booko said:
Yes, I think a call to 911 followed quickly by a grab for .45 would be in order, personally.
B.
- Status