Cite the whole myth please, or point me to an onoine version, so I can asses it for myself.
the important events of the story are contained in the list you didn't bother to look at.
Nonsense - the townsfolk have no such obligation.
no, but lot does. they are trying to violate that relationship.
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?
i already posted a long list of related stories. and you're commiting a huge fallacy here. not all myths everywhere will have 100% the same set of features. world-wide mythologies, like flood myths, are relatively uncommon. but you knew that.
however, this myth shares keey features with a bunch of otherwise unrelated myths. kings, saints, gods, angels in disguise arriving to test the people, these are a common set of tales, as that list showed.
however, this may be operating under a false impression, which i am currently researching. the text does not actually indicate the angels were in disguise. that would definitally explain the townspeoples reactions, demanding to see the visitors. and in which case, lot's reaction would not be hopsitality, but servitude.
so it's quite possible that are you right, just in the wrong way.
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.
irrelevant. the story is still acusing the citizens of something specific. (and i would say goldilocks is about trespassing, not poridge.)
Resorting to personal abuse now are we?
no, if i wanted to call you a name, i would have been direct. but the point of the matter is that this relatively clear to everyone else here, except those who insist it's about god hating gay people.
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.
uh, haven't read exodus either, have we? pharoah himself was punished exactly the same as every other member of country. did the water turning to blood only affect pharoah? how about the gnats, frogs, lice, and locusts? all the livestock dying? how about the boils? what about the hail and darkness? what about the death of every first born in egypt? hey, maybe all the rest really just happened in a little cloud around the head of ramses ii, but you'd think the fact that EVERY FIRST BORN CHILD IN EGYPT DIED affected everyone, wouldn't you?
it's not pharoah gets punished, and the runoff hurts the people. the whole freakin nation is punished.
play the word change on this one, i know you will:
quote:
Exd 3:20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.
sure, it works if you change "egypt" to "pharoah" but that's not what it says, is it? this story is simply never viewed as god picking on ONE person, it's god waging war on an entire nation.
i don't CARE if it's anachronistic. the whole text is anachronistic. this stuff almost certainly never happened. it doesn't matter. that's what it says.
Well your reading comprehension is piss-poor, becuase god resolves to destroy the city before hospitality is ever mentioned.
sure. but the story is STILL making an accusation. and that accusation is...
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.
this isn't "one or the other" here. to read genesis as just one thing is grossly mistaking the book. sodom, at it's heart, is a myth. if it's based on a real destroyed city, it's an etiology of what happened to said city.
on another level, genesis is a political book. i'm concerned with the political allegation this myth is being used for. genesis is one big anachronism -- i'm looking at the later interpretation the redactors put on this myth.
Except that Sodom is NOT accused specifically of doing wrong in any way related to hospitality, or anything else.
does it take a verse saying "hi, i'm god, and i told these people to write this story in order to say i didn't like these people for this specific reason?" would a neon highway sign be good enough?
what do the townspeople DO in the story?
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.
someone else help me out here. what's he talking about? i provide a list, which means i don't have a set, and then i didn't provide such a list? i'm confused.
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?
ok. now i'm gonna call you a name.
this thing is six volumes. it takes up 1/3 of a shelf in the reference section of the library. if it's NOT a collection and study of comparitive mytholgy, NOTHING IS. this is the book that defines comparitive mythology. but it's just a list of common story elements, not an encyclopedia.
And once again: HOW do we know there is a PATTERN, until the PATTERN can be shown? Please show evidence for the PATTERN.
i did. see all the stories of gods/angels/saints/kings in disguise? that's the common elements to this story, the buacis story, and most of the other stories that SCREAM hospitality myth.
i knew i shouldn't have even bothered typing all that up. it's like showing a creationist a catalog of transitional fossils. they're still gonna say "nope, that's a bird." "nope, that's a lizard." "nope, still in this kind. still in that kind."
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.
take a bible class. really. just do it. i can't argue with you any more if you're just gonna ignore the mainstream academic world. and for the last freakin time - YES IT'S ANACHRONISTIC. all of genesis is.
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.
you provided me with research on economies in bronze age societies. genesis was not written in the bronze age, nor is this an economic issue. your research doesn't apply. i'll gladly look up something that does.
Pot -> Kettle.
sliver -> log.
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.
*sigh*
Umm, thats STORY, singular.
heh. ironies upon ironies. now you're denying the other ones, just because we haven't beat them into your head nearly as much?
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.
no, NOT in those cultures. in bronze age cultures. i'm not talking about bronze age cultures. i'm talking about an exiled culture in 600bc iron age babylon. not a nomadic bronze age hebrew culture. get it straight. you're operating with COMPLETELY the wrong set of assumptions, starting with when the story was written.
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?
take a poll of the thread, buddy. how many people are arguing your point? how many people have argued mine?
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.
no, pitiful is someone who cannot follow a simple line of logic because it totally defeats their entire point. swallow your pride for a second, and answer the question.
what happened to the town in baucis?
™ Version 4.2
