Jump to content

Can Any Christian Answer This?


Recommended Posts

Why wasn't Lot destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah? He seems to be as degenerate as anyone else; in Genesis 19:6-8, he offered his daughters to a pack of rapists.

 

I am interested in secular answers, but I would love to hear what seasoned believers have to say about this. Can you guys ask Xians you know and get back to me? Thanks.

 

Where's Doug? Did we scare him off? It would have been fun to debate this one with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secular answer- offering them up was (somehow) the honorable thing to do then. Because women were property, the host was being generous with his property. Although we all really know that no matter the context, that's never morally allowable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wasn't Lot destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah? He seems to be as degenerate as anyone else; in Genesis 6-8, he offered his daughters to a pack of rapists.

 

I am interested in secular answers, but I would love to hear what seasoned believers have to say about this. Can you guys ask Xians you know and get back to me? Thanks.

 

Where's Doug? Did we scare him off? It would have been fun to debate this one with him.

The story of Lot is in Genesis 19.

I suspect the Christian apologetic would assert that Lot was protecting the angels.

Offering his daughters was keeping with the practice of honoring guests in his house.

Lot requested that the angels stay in his house and as house guests they were to be protected at all costs.

 

2 Peter 2:7 declares that Lot was a righteous man, and a skilled apologist can also work that into the explanation of why Lot was rescued by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that 1) women/daughters were little more than property in those days and 2) raping foreign men was just a way to assert dominance over them and to humiliate them. They weren't really after sex, they were attempting to disgrace the visitors. Lot offered his virgin daughters, that way it would have been more acceptable in the eyes of the lord, but Lot probably knew that wasn't what they were after wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Angels are supposed to be invisible spiritual beings, how is it that the people of Sodom could see them? And since Angels are supposed to be powerful, why did they need protecting? Why do we have to explain Myths to Christians anyway? People that believe in talking serpents and cursed fruit trees will believe anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of my first 'biggest' questions about God in my escape from religion.. Read the rest of the story. After Lot offered his daughters instead of the men, I was disgusted. But the worst part is after they escaped and Lot's daughters 'seduce him.' Bullshit!!

 

No decent man would have sex with his daughter, no matter what they did to 'seduce' him. He was guilty of pure incest of his own children.

 

Why would anyone believe in a God that does that? Is Jerry Sandusky promised a seat next to him in the afterlife? If so, to quote Mark Twain, : 'Well all right. I will just go to hell.'

 

I know several Christians disgusted with the story when they learn it. Their excuse is, of course, Jesus changed God from the Old Testament. Really? Then why do Xians consider Lot Righteous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of my first 'biggest' questions about God in my escape from religion.. Read the rest of the story. After Lot offered his daughters instead of the men, I was disgusted. But the worst part is after they escaped and Lot's daughters 'seduce him.' Bullshit!!

 

No decent man would have sex with his daughter, no matter what they did to 'seduce' him. He was guilty of pure incest of his own children.

There are many Old Testament passages that show Jehovah as a petty tribal deity, but this one doesn't say what you think it does. I never had any issues with this story as a Christian that Lot had knowingly had sex with his own children. It says clearly in the passage he was unaware of what they did:

 

"
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.

 

There's plenty else in the OT that jars our sense of morality that there's no reason to read this other that what it says of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response, but I respectfully disagree. This story, to me any way, was about this jerk who had sex with his daughters then blamed it on them. And, the chance that both of them got pregnant with one sex act is possible, but not likely. That alone makes me think he considered them as nothing. Do you believe any man that was so drunk he didn't know he was having sex with two daughters? Really? If you are that drunk, you are passed out and can't have sex.

 

Morality should not come from religion, religion should have came from morality. No matter how many verses or bible quotes you use, a man having sex with his daughters is awful. Even if you believe this crap, why was he drinking wine so much wine around his daughters when he knew they wanted children? And I know a lot of women of many religions, and not one of them would consider seduction of their father.

 

I find this one of the most disgusting god stories. I have thought about how real victims of incest see this story. If they know the tale, that story alone would make them think about how disgusting god is, and I am sure some of them have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of my first 'biggest' questions

about God in my escape from religion.. Read the

rest of the story. After Lot offered his daughters

instead of the men, I was disgusted. But the

worst part is after they escaped and Lot's

daughters 'seduce him.' Bullshit!!

 

No decent man would have sex with his

daughter, no matter what they did to 'seduce'

him. He was guilty of pure incest of his own

children.

 

There are many Old Testament passages that show Jehovah as a petty tribal deity, but this one doesn't say what you think it does. I never

had any issues with this story as a Christian that Lot had knowingly had sex with his own

children. It says clearly in the passage he was

unaware of what they did:

 

"
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.

 

There's plenty else in the OT that jars our sense of morality that there's no reason to read this

other that what it says of itself.

 

Given what we know of the Bible, there is no reason to believe the girls seduced their father.(Maybe none of this happened at all, but here we are concerned with the Bible's attitude

toward women.) Xianity already blames women

for original sin, and Paul mentions that in 1 Timothy 2:14. Why wouldn't the Bible's authors blame rape on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response, but I respectfully disagree. This story, to me any way, was about this jerk who had sex with his daughters then blamed it on them. And, the chance that both of them got pregnant with one sex act is possible, but not likely. That alone makes me think he considered them as nothing. Do you believe any man that was so drunk he didn't know he was having sex with two daughters? Really? If you are that drunk, you are passed out and can't have sex.

If you read it between the lines, the motive behind the story, I can see how you can see what you say. I guess as a Christian at the time I never took it as a later spin on the story and that what I was reading wasn't stating the truth of the story. What I was saying is that that passage didn't present a problem to me because I took it as factual, like all the other passages. What caused a problem for me was applying that same rule of accepting what it says as the real truth of it and reading crap like this:

 

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,
you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. "

 

~De. 25:11-12

 

Here you have it directly stated, and taking it as fact, not reading the story behind the story, it rattled me back then, to say the least.

 

This is all I was saying, not that in looking at what might have been the real story behind Lot and his daughters may have been. Christians don't normally read the Bible that way. Personally, I don't believe the story ever even happened. But what makes me curious is is there some other stories from other cultures that they lifted this from, like the Genesis stories of the creation myths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the whole story is probably a myth. But we should remember the bible was written for men, by men. Did some tribal dude have sex with his daughters? More than likely, and it may have been common. What has always been shocking to me is that Lot was considered to be a good man, even after he offered his daughters up for rape, then raped them himself. How can anyone believe in a god that would call this a 'righteous' man? His wife was turned to salt for just looking while he treats his daughters as sex slaves and he is the good guy? Also, Xians frequently use Sodom and Gommorrah (sp?) as a reason to hate gays and Lot was the good guy, ergo gays are worse. See how much horror this one story has caused for both women and gays?

 

The problem is not the 'he said she said story.' The problem is that men were given a reason to do these things because god said so. What woman could have any chance back then? What god would say 'men, I have excuses for you?' If god is eternal, he should have figured out we would get an Internet one day and it would help us figure out this stuff and how disgusting much of it is. He should also have realized that the oppressed eventually always rise up or die out. Women obviously can't die out if men were to live, but we were going to be able to read and say: 'I don't think I want to have anything to do with a god that not only sanctions rape and incest, but calls the man a righteous man.'

 

I do understand how when you were a xian, you just accepted as true. I did too, but I wasn't happy about it. It is only when I realized so much of the Bible is just evil that stuff like this jumped out as really, really awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the whole story is probably a myth. But we should remember the bible was written for men, by men.

A more accurate way to state it would be that the Bible was written by males for a culture that included women and their roles within a patriarchal society. It wasn't about excluding women, or about dominating females for reasons of power and crushing their spirits, but rather a certain order that evolved with males in the dominant roles in religion and politics, not that we've moved a hell of lot beyond that today.

 

An interesting thought to consider in looking at these things, these orders really had more to do with technologies and its role in society. In early horticultural societies, men and women shared equally in the roles of gathering crops. Their roles in culture were equal in this way. But when the plow was invented and it created agricultural societies, women took on other roles and the males predominantly took on the task of the heavy labor using the plow. A pregnant woman for instance could easily miscarriage working with a heavy plow through a field.

 

It's not that men suddenly said "Hey, let's fuck over women!", but its more these roles evolved as a matter of economy. From there then, cultural norms evolved and various beliefs and values emerged which led to these patriarchal societies through them. The Great Mother Goddess, become male, etc. The birth of the hero in myth, slaying the Great Mother; man conquering Nature, etc. Our culture today is a holdover of all this, because our technologies today again level that playing field where the physical factors between male and female are overcome. There is absolutely no reason women are somehow less capable to use their minds in business than a male is. Arggh... eventually our culture will evolve again to support the current reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What intrigues me is that these Jewish stories weren't officially loaned to the Christians...The Christians took the Old Testament and called it their own. Am I wrong or did the daughters get their Father drunk. So it isn't rape of the daughters, it may seem the daughters were the hunters in this case. So if this is so, they are all as bad as each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman, you are probably correct that men did not sit out to make women their property. I am sure there was many men then, just as now, who loved and cared for their spouse more than themselves. I am also sure that is true today in fundamentalist religions: Some of the people in these religion really care about and for their spouse, both men and women. But overall, these are the exception more than the rule in fundamentalist religion households. I know that part very well.

 

But it is the overall patrirachal society that has prevailed. Men rule, always have--but that will start to change more when we have more women assume positions such as Angela Merkel in Germany.

What intrigues me is that these Jewish stories weren't officially loaned to the Christians...The Christians took the Old Testament and called it their own. Am I wrong or did the daughters get their Father drunk. So it isn't rape of the daughters, it may seem the daughters were the hunters in this case. So if this is so, they are all as bad as each other.

 

Just wanted to comment on this. My earlier post explains why I do not believe this story. A man so drunk he doesn't know he is having sex with his daughters is passed out and cannot have sex. I do not believe the daughters started this, I believe he took them as his property. See after reading my points, you might agree. Wendyeaves.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What intrigues me is that these Jewish stories weren't officially loaned to the Christians...The Christians took the Old Testament and called it their own. Am I wrong or did the daughters get their Father drunk. So it isn't rape of the daughters, it may seem the daughters were the hunters in this case. So if this is so, they are all as bad as each other.

 

Like I said, be skeptical of whatever you read in the Bible because it already hates women, so of course it would want to put them in a bad light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.