Fandom Forums - View Single Post - jekyl_hyde's Thread of Bullshit
View Single Post
Old 05-11-2012, 11:36 AM   #59
Mal's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: jekyl_hyde's Thread of Bullshit

Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
As much as I respect you, Mal, and your vast knowledge on Christian affairs, you flunked here.

For example, Lot, who tried to shove his virgin daughters to the Sodomites to save the angels' rectums just to have sex with them while drunk on whine, is elevated to the status of righteous man who fought the ungodly deeds of others day after day and an example of God's intervention when helping his chosen ones in the Second Epistle of Peter. In other words, incest and drunken sex included as examples to follow by the righteous.

I'm not saying Christianity elevates all its stories as righteous and examples to follow, but there are enough cases of early (and even modern) Christian Theology doing said elevation while containing pure what-the-fuckery by contemporary standards.
There's a bit of controversy surrounding how this passage was translated. Some argue that the equivalent of "to know" in the original Hebrew should be translated as "to become acquainted with" rather than "to have relations with." I don't think there's really any way to know for sure which was intended by reading the English translations, there are just too many ways to read what you want and find evidence for either theory in the verses.

Reading the full passage in the original Hebrew would be about the only way to know for sure, but for some reason no one seems to have ever bothered. However, for reasons of consistency and what I understand of Old Testament culture, I am inclined to believe the non-rapey translation:

In short, Lot was an outsider in the city of Sodom, and the citizenry became suspicious of him inviting two strangers into his house. They wanted to "know" them in the sense that they wanted to question them, trying to discover if they were spies. Lot wasn't cool with that because it wasn't his idea of hospitality, so he offered up his daughters for one of two indeterminable reasons: 1) as collateral, sort of like voluntary hostages, or 2) as wives for whoever wanted, because he didn't consider himself an outsider and was willing to give away his daughters as a sign of good faith, as was the style at the time.

The idea that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of rampant homosexuality has no basis other than the likely misinterpretation of this story. In reality, it's much more likely that the sin the cities were guilty of was pagan sex rituals, where citizens would have sex with priests who acted as proxies for various pagan fertility gods.

As for the drunken incest, "[Lot] did not know when she lay down or when she arose." This was entirely planned by the daughters; Lot wasn't even aware of it at the time, let alone intent on doing it.
Mal is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Numinous (05-11-2012)