Genesis 19 and the carnal definition of 'know'

jar writes:

quote:

---

By today's standards there is no way to justify Lot's behaviour.

---

Of course. But the mere thought of applying today's standards implies that we today know more about rightousness than God did at the time Genesis was written. If God knew that this sort of mistreatment was wrong, which he absolutely would have, and made no judgement or even comment on it, then what he did was to reinforce the old standards rather than condemn them. This leaves the question open: how is God any better than Satan?

Berberry:For a much more detailed accounting of the customary behavior regarding the requirement to offer hospitality to travellers, using women as a shield against personal violence aimed at a man, subsequent horrific retaliation for the defiling of the woman, disregard for the woman herself by the man who used her as a shield, and resolution of the resulting blood feud by pillage, kidnap, and rape, please read and comment on Judges Chapters 19, 20, and 21 which seem to have been written along the same lines but subsequent to the story of Lot at Sodom.However, my underlying agenda in this regard is to point out that nothing much has changed in the region of origin of these folktales specifically regarding the apparently acceptable (by the backward denizens of those regions) of such practices as using women and children as shields and scapegoats, while at the same time pridefully promoting the vane values of "hospitality" and blood feuds.Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-01-2004 01:11 PMThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-01-2004 01:12 PMThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-01-2004 01:13 PM

berberryThe fallacy in your argument is the assumption that GOD wrote the Bible. Not everyone, infact not even all Christians, believe that.I am not implying that I know more about rightousness than GOD. I am still a child and see as a child, through glass darkly.I believe your argument is far more with those who would interpret the Bible literally. What you point out is simply another example of the corner into which they paint themselves time after time. I am sorry they do that because I believe that it helps drive people away from the real meaning of the Bible.If they insist on the Literal Truth of the Bible, then they have to try to twist things to fit. They need to find someway to explain why owning slaves is not okay even though Leviticus clearly says that it is or that eating shellfish is not as big an abomination as homosexuality even thought Leviticus clear says both are an abomination.IMHO, God says something quite diferent. And what God says is quite moral and timeless, "Love God and Love others as you love yourself".It really is as simple as that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ab, yes I am familiar with the passages from Judges. They simply add fuel to the fire of my anger over the behavior of God. You are also correct that these standards still prevail in that area of the world. Even though I am opposed to the Iraq war, if anything good could possibly come from it then perhaps democracy will take root in Iraq and grow across the region. If that happens (which I must say I doubt) then I will be the first to admit that GWB has been justified. The Iraq war will have been worth it if it somehow succeeds in bringing the Middle East into the 21st century. As I say, I doubt it, but we'll see.

jar writes:

quote:

---

The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that GOD wrote the Bible. Not everyone, infact not even all Christians, believe that.

---

Nor do I. I used to believe as you do, jar; I used to go to church most every Sunday. I was Episcopalian. After the ordination of Bishop Robinson, however, biblical innerancy began to be preached at my church. I left and I haven't gone back.It is the fundamentalists who use disgusting biblical passages like this one to condemn homosexuality. My argument is not with you, it is with them.

Yup. The issue of Bishop Robinson has been contentious. However, the important thing to remember is that he was elected Bishop. Certainly there will be many that are offended by that act and unfortunately, many will be lead to act as you say your parish did. Fortunately, if you follow the teachings of the Episcopal faith then you also know that the Church is neither the building or the congregation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've had a bit of time to look into this and I can see where you're coming from; you seem to have the correct translation of 'know'. However, there is still the small matter of Lot, at verse 7, saying 'do not so wickedly'. Why the word 'wickedly' if all the men wanted to do was question Lot's guests? Is there a similar translation issue at work here?

jar writes:

quote:

---

Read a little further and you would find that the two stragers pulled Lot back in, said "Listen man, no need to do something that outlandish, just stand back while we kick butt and take names. It's time for you and your family to split this place because we are about to do some serious asswhomping".

---

Incorrect.Instead, what happens is that the crowd, incensed over the fact that Lot thought he could buy them off with sex, turn their wrath toward him. Then the angels pull him back in.The angels pull Lot in not to rescue Lot's daughters but rather to rescue Lot:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.19:10: But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

quote:

---

So GOD certainly would not have approved of Lot giving his daughters to the crowd

---

Then why did they refuse to stop Lot? Why did they refuse to act until Lot was threatened?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Well, I disagree with your interpretation, but I can see how you might read it that way. However, under either interpretation the issue is one of Lot trying to protect his guests and not related to homosexuality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

berberry writes:

quote:

---

Fundies aside, at the very least God should have known that this sort of treatment of little girls was wrong. He's God after all! The fact that this is not the message of Gen 19 leaves no conclusion available other than that God is no better than Satan.

---

Don't forget that this little plot gets repeated later on in Judges 19. A Levite takes a concubine who apparently likes sex a little more than he does. She leaves him to go to her father's house and the Levite chases after her. Her father manages to get him to stay five days, but he eventually manages to leave, taking his concubine with him.They travel and come across Jebus which is Jerusalem, but the Levite refuses to stay in the city of strangers and instead goes to Gibeah, of Benjamin. An elderly man who is not born of the city but is rather a sojourner is the only one who takes them in.And then the men of the city come to the house, beat on the door, and ask that the elderly man bring out the Levite "so that we may know him." He says to them no, do not so wickedly, and offers his daughter and the concubine (there is some confusion as to whose concubine she is) to them. They refuse.The Levite then proffers his concubine alone and this time, the crowd takes up the offer and rape her all night long, leaving her for dead on the doorstep.The next morning, the Levite takes her up, cuts her into twelve pieces, and sends the remains across Israel.About the only good thing to come out of this story is the final verse:Judges 19:30: And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

[added by edit]

Sure enough I'm going to consider it, take advice, and speak my mind:What an absolutely horrible thing. This is supposed to be an example of good behaviour? The proper treatment for a woman who is unfaithful is to rape her nigh unto death, kill her, and dissect her body to be scattered?It only lends credence to my somewhat farcical claim that the Bible was actually written as a test to see if one would follow it when it so clearly advocates reprehensible behaviour. We were given the ability to distinguish right from wrong, so do we blindly follow a book or use that gift to help us determine what we should do?This message has been edited by Rrhain, 06-07-2004 02:13 AM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I disagree with your interpretation

---

There is nothing to interpret.If the angels had disagreed with Lot's proferring of his daughters, they would have stopped him immediately when he made the offer or even before.They did not, therefore there is no way to claim that they did.Instead, they wait until Lot is physically threatened to act.Notice, the crowd speaks twice:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.If the angels were trying to protect the daughters, why didn't they pull Lot back when the crowd simply repeated their demand that Lot step aside and allow them to interrogate the strangers?The angels wait until the physical act of violence comes along before they do anything.Lot was offering them a physical act of violence to be visited upon their daughters. Why didn't the angels act?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain asks:

quote:

---

We were given the ability to distinguish right from wrong, so do we blindly follow a book or use that gift to help us determine what we should do?

---

An excellent point, and if I may say so it is precisely the same point I made just the other day here.