quote:
note that's not the case with the patrick story. the poor man is not rewarded, just his wife and son. note also the instances of a city being saved from destruction by the hospitality of a single citizen.
Cite the whole myth please, or point me to an onoine version, so I can asses it for myself.
quote:
it's clear from the story itself that lot presumed to be operating in some custom of hospitality. he protects his guests because they "have come under his roof." he offers his daughters to the town, as in T281. the townsfolk are trying to violate his guest-host obligation.
Nonsense - the townsfolk have no such obligation.
But remember, we are not discussing the Sodom myth - we are discussing your claim that the Sodom myth is "obviously" one of a large set. What we need to dop isv establish the consistent features of the set before we can move on to the detail of Sodom. So, where is the set?
quote:
but hospitality is definitally the issue in this story, whether or not they are punished for it directly.
Thats like saying the story of goldilocks is about porridge. Hospitality is mentioned exactly once, and then
after god has resolved to destroy the town. This is still invalid in terms of the story itself.
quote:
the allegation of the story is quite clear to any non-homophobic grade schooler
Resorting to personal abuse now are we?
quote:
other examples in hebrew literature show LOTS of collective punishment. egypt is a good example. because they did not allow their foriegn captives certain liberties, they were punished AS A WHOLE.
again thats anachronistic. Pharoah was punished; as the embodiment of Egypt, obviously his people suffer too. But this is nothing like the collectivity you are claiming. Please show the non-biblical precedent you claim to be working from.
quote:
and then you accuse me of an anachronistic interpretation? it's not interpretation. it's reading comprehension.
Well your reading comprehension is piss-poor, becuase god resolves to destroy the city before hospitality is ever mentioned.
quote:
i doubt you're aware, actually. it's not "folk-tale" in the modern sense. it's "folk-literature." did you notice that both the baucis story and the odyssey are in there? i think i would call the first of those "myth" wouldn't you?
Maybe. Its complicated with a society that develoepd as much as the greeks did. Certainly, I would expect it has been substantially modified. But anyway, seeing as you keep misinterpreting it, it hardly matters.
quote:
who's going on about moral homilies? i never said ANYTHING was a moral homily. that, i'm afraid, might be an anachronism. i don't suspect gen 19 is a moral tale at all. nor do i think any other story in genesis is. i was suprised on my last careful reading of the entire book how absolutely devoid of morals it was.
Exactly my point. Myths tend to explain how things came to be than teach moralo lessons. Bu the Sodom story does NOT teach any moral lesson UNLESS you impose one upon it, because the sin is not named.
quote:
also, no, it won't really help in determining what a story is ABOUT. just what's in it, and where to find it. it's just a LIST. but no one said genesis 19 is ABOUT hospitality. all i ever said (feel free to check) was that hospitality was an important issue, and what sodom is accused of doing wrong.
Except that Sodom is NOT accused specifically of doing wrong in any way related to hospitality, or anything else.
And furthermore, yes I knew it was a list, and I also knew that because it was a list, you couldn't possibly have the kind of information you claimed to have: a large set of hospitality myths. But at least if you had provided some names of alleged members of this set, they could be checked. It has been clear from the beginning that you are defending a favoured interpretation, and that the world-wide similarities you claim do not in fact exist.
quote:
it's not a SOURCE. it's an 'effin list. just a list. and hardly conclusive, i might add.
Well that's a pretty frail hook to hang so strong an argument on, wasn't it? And now that your bluff has been called, and you admit yourself you are NOT working from a study of comparitive mythology which shows a large set of corporate hospitality stories, what exactly is the basis of your claim?
quote:
you have blatantly misunderstood it. notice the bits about guests in disguise, and tests of hospitality? they reason i bothered typing that out is to show you that gen 19 follows that pattern of mythology, and show how they link back to the other myths. or did you not catch that?
And once again: HOW do we know there is a PATTERN, until the PATTERN can be shown? Please show evidence for the PATTERN.
quote:
now, i'm done debating, because you obviously can't make a coherent argument yourself. you have failed to show proof of anything, especially of a viewpoint that goes against the academic standard.
But there IS no academic standard, because there is no pattern. And in fact, such academic standard as there is, should presumably be that such collective hospitality stories are anachronistic - just as I said.
quote:
you have failed to even show a single shred of research.
Thats not valid: I was asking for YOUR evidence. And further more, I provided you with references to consult and you refused to do so.
Pot -> Kettle.
quote:
all you've done if deny the existance of elements in stories that any idiot can read for themselves.
And it is BECUASE I want to read them for myself that I keep asking you to show the pattern, and the stories of which it is comprised. And then when you finally revealed your list, guess what - there was no such pattern, and no content by which it could be checked.
quote:
but you're ignoring events in stories REPEATEDLY pointed out to you,
Umm, thats STORY, singular.
quote:
and you keep brushing them off with unproven assumptions: "the people back then wouldn't have seen it that way." see how this is circular? prove your point by making it the assumption.
that is most certainly NOT an assumption, as you would be aware had you reserached the topic. I point out again I referred you to two works that would discuss these aspects of these cultures, albeit not in a mythological sense. You rejected them. There is no assumption here other than your assumption that I am wrong.
quote:
and everyone here can see you're just being ridiculous.
Really? Despite the fact that your argument has been shown to be totally without content? That it cannot be supported? That there is no evidence for what you claim, and that you exaggerated the evidence you claimed to have seen? Are you QUITE sure?
quote:
"what happened to village in baucis?"
Shrug. Sure - you have no evidence and you know it, so you're gonna keep banging the same drum for lack of anything better to do.
Pitiful.
™ Version 4.2
