Risking some downvotes here, but just like most stories, not every character in the Bible is supposed to be a paragon of morality. Just like in any story, people do bad things.
Obviously this post is somewhat satirical, but dunking on something like this just reminds me of book banning arguments, and that general lack of literary comprehension. There’s better things to take issue with.
Lot of the bible is described as the only moral person in the whole city (two cities actually), the only one deserving to live. If that’s not the definition of being paragon of morality, I don’t know what is.
Then the story goes on with Lot’s wife turning around and perishing for it, and then Lot’s daughters get Lot drunk with the goal of getting him to get them pregnant.
And then there’s no further judgment about either Lot or his daughters in the rest of the story.
Even contrary: It displays the daughters as having given the circumstances and their actions a lot of thought and makes it sound as a very logical conclusion. And it says that the father was so passed out drunk that he didn’t notice the whole thing.
(That’s obviously hard to believe when taking it as a factual history, but like the rest of Genesis it’s not. The whole first book of Moses is basically the origin myth of the israelites, not a historical record. The general consensus is that Lot never existed, contrary to e.g. David, who is most likely an actual historical person. And since this is just a myth, it’s just as internally logically consistent as Harry Potter fanfiction.)
So the whole point in the OP is quite disingenous. Neither did Lot rape his daughters, nor does the text put the blame on any of them and nobody gets called a whore.
Yeah, that conclusion (in the OP) sounds a lot like some aita commenters who give judgements based on a bunch of assumptions they just made up in their heads. They don’t believe the original version where the daughters are at fault, so replace that version with their own and add the discrepancy (that they created in the first place) as another point against it.
It’s a fictional story where the daughters were written as villains. Or maybe it was erotica of its time, intended to sell more copies of the Bible or get people in to listen to what crazy shit happened next.
Though I just remembered another part that does really bring the paragon of goodness (and what they thought was good) into question: the city of Sodom was destroyed because the citizens, upon seeing an angel or pair of angels or something, insisted they needed to gang rape them. Lot, in his unquestionable goodness, offers his own daughters for the gang rape instead. So clearly, at best they saw his daughters as his possessions that he could “sacrifice” to do “good”, at worst they thought so little of women getting gang raped that it was just an “out” offered to the people that they refused and thus justified their destruction (because a normal gang rape must be fine, but angelic gang rape is something else).
Oh and the call for blind obedience just thrown in when the wife looks back after being told not to and is punished for disobeying.
Lol the story as told is fucked up enough, don’t know why anyone feels the need to act like it was based on true events but was actually just a coverup for a different rape.
Lot offering up his daughters is a commonly misinterpreted part of the story. It was meant to show how far you were obligated to go to protect guests in your house. It has been twisted into ‘homosexuality is so bad it’s better to allow your daughters to be raped than let anything gay happen.’
Either way it is pretty awful by today’s standards, but not exactly the way a lot of people want it to be.
Even that interpretation still leaves the whole “his daughters are just tools he can use to meet his obligations” thing. It’s values like this that the old testament was based on.
Wasn’t his issue that he got so drunk his daughters raped him? Turning that around seems to be horribly along the lines of saying women can’t rape men, an issue that is pretty bad in the modern era.
Implying that one can’t be moral if one has been raped is pretty horrendous.
His daughters thought they were the last people on earth after the destruction of their home. So they got him drunk for the purposes of using him to get pregnant to try to repopulate.
“Good” also doesn’t mean flawless at all times. Characters can make mistakes and still be “good” without you having to justify everything they’ve done as perfect.
An even better example is King David, the one and only “man after God’s own heart” taking another man’s wife while he was fighting David’s war, and then arranging his death to cover it up after he got her pregnant.
Arguing that that, or this, is advice for the reader, or meant as an example of something you should do, is a comical straw man. A narrative doesn’t usually stop to explicitly label “good” and “bad” for us like children. There’s loads to complain about with popular far-right Christianity, why would we invent ridiculous arguments that are easy to debunk and make us look like we don’t have good literary comprehension?
Risking some downvotes here, but just like most stories, not every character in the Bible is supposed to be a paragon of morality. Just like in any story, people do bad things.
Obviously this post is somewhat satirical, but dunking on something like this just reminds me of book banning arguments, and that general lack of literary comprehension. There’s better things to take issue with.
Lot of the bible is described as the only moral person in the whole city (two cities actually), the only one deserving to live. If that’s not the definition of being paragon of morality, I don’t know what is.
That’s the beginning of the story, yes.
Then the story goes on with Lot’s wife turning around and perishing for it, and then Lot’s daughters get Lot drunk with the goal of getting him to get them pregnant.
And then there’s no further judgment about either Lot or his daughters in the rest of the story.
Even contrary: It displays the daughters as having given the circumstances and their actions a lot of thought and makes it sound as a very logical conclusion. And it says that the father was so passed out drunk that he didn’t notice the whole thing.
(That’s obviously hard to believe when taking it as a factual history, but like the rest of Genesis it’s not. The whole first book of Moses is basically the origin myth of the israelites, not a historical record. The general consensus is that Lot never existed, contrary to e.g. David, who is most likely an actual historical person. And since this is just a myth, it’s just as internally logically consistent as Harry Potter fanfiction.)
So the whole point in the OP is quite disingenous. Neither did Lot rape his daughters, nor does the text put the blame on any of them and nobody gets called a whore.
In fact, Lot is not a king.
Yeah, that conclusion (in the OP) sounds a lot like some aita commenters who give judgements based on a bunch of assumptions they just made up in their heads. They don’t believe the original version where the daughters are at fault, so replace that version with their own and add the discrepancy (that they created in the first place) as another point against it.
It’s a fictional story where the daughters were written as villains. Or maybe it was erotica of its time, intended to sell more copies of the Bible or get people in to listen to what crazy shit happened next.
Though I just remembered another part that does really bring the paragon of goodness (and what they thought was good) into question: the city of Sodom was destroyed because the citizens, upon seeing an angel or pair of angels or something, insisted they needed to gang rape them. Lot, in his unquestionable goodness, offers his own daughters for the gang rape instead. So clearly, at best they saw his daughters as his possessions that he could “sacrifice” to do “good”, at worst they thought so little of women getting gang raped that it was just an “out” offered to the people that they refused and thus justified their destruction (because a normal gang rape must be fine, but angelic gang rape is something else).
Oh and the call for blind obedience just thrown in when the wife looks back after being told not to and is punished for disobeying.
Lol the story as told is fucked up enough, don’t know why anyone feels the need to act like it was based on true events but was actually just a coverup for a different rape.
Lot offering up his daughters is a commonly misinterpreted part of the story. It was meant to show how far you were obligated to go to protect guests in your house. It has been twisted into ‘homosexuality is so bad it’s better to allow your daughters to be raped than let anything gay happen.’
Either way it is pretty awful by today’s standards, but not exactly the way a lot of people want it to be.
Even that interpretation still leaves the whole “his daughters are just tools he can use to meet his obligations” thing. It’s values like this that the old testament was based on.
Now it makes sense why in Dante’s inferno traitors to their guests are buried further than traitors to their kindred
Wasn’t his issue that he got so drunk his daughters raped him? Turning that around seems to be horribly along the lines of saying women can’t rape men, an issue that is pretty bad in the modern era.
Implying that one can’t be moral if one has been raped is pretty horrendous.
His daughters thought they were the last people on earth after the destruction of their home. So they got him drunk for the purposes of using him to get pregnant to try to repopulate.
“Good” also doesn’t mean flawless at all times. Characters can make mistakes and still be “good” without you having to justify everything they’ve done as perfect.
An even better example is King David, the one and only “man after God’s own heart” taking another man’s wife while he was fighting David’s war, and then arranging his death to cover it up after he got her pregnant.
Arguing that that, or this, is advice for the reader, or meant as an example of something you should do, is a comical straw man. A narrative doesn’t usually stop to explicitly label “good” and “bad” for us like children. There’s loads to complain about with popular far-right Christianity, why would we invent ridiculous arguments that are easy to debunk and make us look like we don’t have good literary comprehension?
You really aren’t making good points on well, anything.
If you haven’t read the source it’s not surprising that you don’t understand the topic at hand.
What’s harder to understand is that you still think thay you know what’s going on.
It’s spelled that*
deleted by creator