Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 213 (193245)
03-22-2005 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by arachnophilia
03-21-2005 6:50 AM


quote:
you failed to answer the question. what happens to the town in the story of baucis and philemon?
Of course I failed to answer it, becuase it is trivial. YOU have failed to answer many questions, not least of which "how do you know there is a pattern without a corpus?"
Your argument has been eviscerated; it is a nonsense. Belabouring your erroneous interprtation of Baucis and Philemon only makes you look progressively more stupid; there is a time to take your lumps and admit defeat, you know.
quote:
added by edit: just to help you a little, here are the stith thompson NUMBERS: K1811. (Gods/saints in disguise visit mortals) and Q1.1. (Gods/saints in disguise reward hospitality and punish inhospitality). now, the second bit i suspect is the one you're insisting just doesn't exist.
No no, the part I said does'nt exist is the destroying of whole groups of people for hospitality - not the existance of hospitality as an issue at all. This must be the 20th time I have pointed this out to you, and nevertheless you still propagate this outright lie abaout my argument.
So where is the list? Show me the list, as the say in the classics. You have no list, becuase there is not one. It seems quite obgvious that you lazily, and without inspection, assumed that any story about hospitality must contain the same moral. That was stupid.
It now turns out that your argument is on shakier ground that even I thought, for Thompsons work is, it turns out, not related to myth at all. It's related to folk-tales, aka fairy tales, a rather diofferent order of phenomenon. I doubt you are even aware of the distinction. But this completely destroys Thompson as a relevant source, becuase all he has done is record the incidence of these events. It no longer seems at all likely to me that Thompsons work will even assist in determining what a given story that contains this element is actually about, and therefore, whether it can plausibly be construed as relvant to moral homilies.
you have failed to provide the evidnce you claim you have; you do not show a grasp of the subject; you appear to misunderstand your own sources, and you have point blank failed to accept any responsibility for your position or to do any reserach to support it.
This nonsense can be dismissed as lunatic ravings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by arachnophilia, posted 03-21-2005 6:50 AM arachnophilia has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 213 (193246)
03-22-2005 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by arachnophilia
03-21-2005 1:17 PM


Re: stith-thompson
quote:
yes, but new ancient literature has not been written.
80-year old research is still 80-year old research, son.
quote:
Q1. Hospitality rewared--opposite punished. Irish mtyh: *Cross.
C282. Tabu: refusing a feast.
Hehe. Yes, I can discuss this one at some length, seeing it is the geas of Cuchulain. It is 100% certainly about personal responsibility, and no large groups are wiped out. As a result, this is NOT a demonstration of a pattern of collective responsibility hospitality myths. Oh dear.
quote:
Q141. Reward: man's cows magically multiply.
Note the ABSENCE of any collective punishment mentioned, and the precise personal reward.
quote:
A2222. Animal characteristics reward for hospitality.
B391. Animal grateful for food.
K1812.4. Incognito king is given hospitality by fisherman.
P320. Hospitality. Relation of host and guest.
Q1. Hospitality rewarded--opposite punished.
Q111.2. Riches as reward for hospitality.
Q152.1. Hospitality of a citizen saves a city from destruction.
Q292. Inhospitality punished.
Once again, no COLLECTIVE punishment in evidence. In fact, it specifically addresses the realtionship between host and guest, a personal rather than institutional relationship.
quote:
Q45.1.2. King refuses to invite Patrick to feast. Poor man kills only cow and uses his only measure of meal to entertain Patrick. Patrick blesses his wife and son. Irish myth: Cross.
Yep, personal relationship again, as I predicted right from the outset.
quote:
P320. Hospitality. Relation of host and guest. Irish myth: *Cross.
... and again. Remember I myself pointed out that Irish myth is rich with hospitality stories, none of which are collective, not even the death of Bricrui. You will note that not a single one of the items mentioned here has a collective element, and all of them discuss personal relationships, just as I pointed out they did.
--
So, now that we have actually gotten to see this index, it is abundantly clear that it does not in any sense support your claims. There is no mention anywhere in this index of corporate punishment; this fully accords with my claim that hospitality as an issue is not applicable to collective entities. It is simply meaningless to these cultures in those terms - a city cannot be hospitable or inhospitable, only a person can. So, there is no body of evidence from which you can draw paralels with Sodom; there are no external myths that lend support to the claim. The claim that the biblical story is "about hospitality" has therefore been shown to be complete fiction. It is totally unsupported and unsupportable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by arachnophilia, posted 03-21-2005 1:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:07 AM contracycle has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 213 (193288)
03-22-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by contracycle
03-22-2005 6:07 AM


Re: stith-thompson
Note the ABSENCE of any collective punishment mentioned, and the precise personal reward.
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.
note how this is NOT usually the case with jewish mythology. rahab's hospitality fails to save jericho, for instance. and since i'm sure you'll point it, jericho was already condemned, as was sodom. the difference being that sodom was tested, and failed on the account of its treatment of foriegners.
so now, back on topic.
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.
whether or not you think they had any notion of hospitality as a town, the allegation of the story is quite clear to any non-homophobic grade schooler: sodom does not respect lot's customs. it's possible their custom was to accept their visitors as a town, meeting them at the gate, and LOT broke their customs of hospitality. but hospitality is definitally the issue in this story, whether or not they are punished for it directly.
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. what happened in egypt was very similar to sodom, and very similar to a hospitality issue.
Belabouring your erroneous interprtation of Baucis and Philemon only makes you look progressively more stupid; there is a time to take your lumps and admit defeat, you know.
i'm sorry, but i'm not the one who looks like an idiot here.
now, the "belabour" the point: what happens to the town in which baucis and philemon live?
No no, the part I said does'nt exist is the destroying of whole groups of people for hospitality - not the existance of hospitality as an issue at all. This must be the 20th time I have pointed this out to you, and nevertheless you still propagate this outright lie abaout my argument.
and you have been pointed out multiple examples of such stories in this thread. and just won't accept that you're wrong, and shut up about it. you won't accept that inhospitality gets a town destroyed in baucis, you won't accept that a violation of host-guest relationship gets troy levelled, and you won't accept that abuse of the host guest a whole group of suitors slayed by odysseus.
furthermore, you've refused the accept the nature of the book THIS story is contained, and it's principles of generalizing slander. you don't accept that there patently similar stories in other hebrew books. and you don't accept the atmosphere under which these stories we're written: you're several thousand years off, actually.
and then you accuse me of an anachronistic interpretation? it's not interpretation. it's reading comprehension.
It seems quite obgvious that you lazily, and without inspection, assumed that any story about hospitality must contain the same moral. That was stupid.
no, actually, i left out most of the ones that went the other way. (there are a few in there though, mind you).
It now turns out that your argument is on shakier ground that even I thought, for Thompsons work is, it turns out, not related to myth at all. It's related to folk-tales, aka fairy tales, a rather diofferent order of phenomenon. I doubt you are even aware of the distinction.
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?
It no longer seems at all likely to me that Thompsons work will even assist in determining what a given story that contains this element is actually about, and therefore, whether it can plausibly be construed as relvant to moral homilies.
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.
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.
you do not show a grasp of the subject;
you're the one who posted objections to related topics. i thought about not typing those to save space. there's a reason they was written all tiny like.
you appear to misunderstand your own sources,
one more time for the little children.
it's not a SOURCE. it's an 'effin list. just a list. and hardly conclusive, i might add.
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?
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. you have failed to even show a single shred of research. all you've done if deny the existance of elements in stories that any idiot can read for themselves. if you don't see it as part of pattern, ok. but you're ignoring events in stories REPEATEDLY pointed out to you, 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.
now THAT is the ravings of a mad man. and everyone here can see you're just being ridiculous.
from now on, if you keep repyling, i'm just going to respond in the following way:
"what happened to village in baucis?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 6:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:09 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 185 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 9:39 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 184 of 213 (193290)
03-22-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
03-22-2005 9:07 AM


Re: stith-thompson
oh, and since pg pointed this verse out in another thread, look what jesus says regarding what his disciples should do when not treated with hospitality:
quote:
Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
notice any particular name pop up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:07 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 9:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 213 (193306)
03-22-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
03-22-2005 9:07 AM


Re: stith-thompson
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:07 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 10:39 AM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 213 (193308)
03-22-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by arachnophilia
03-22-2005 9:09 AM


Re: stith-thompson
quote:
Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Hiroshima, than for that city.
As you can see, the statement still parses perfectly well if any city that suffered cataclysmic disaster were substituted.
The COINCIDENCE of Sodom being mentioned in conjunction with hospitality is so far the most compelling argument you have proposed. Any more?
This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-22-2005 09:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:52 AM contracycle has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 187 of 213 (193312)
03-22-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by contracycle
03-22-2005 9:43 AM


Re: stith-thompson
how many such coincidences will it take? how many midrashim? how many biblical verses?
and what happened to the village in baucis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 9:43 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 10:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 188 of 213 (193313)
03-22-2005 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by macaroniandcheese
03-21-2005 8:40 PM


Re: The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are unnatural or contrary to nature
Curious.. which passage do you think refers to oral sex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-21-2005 8:40 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-22-2005 11:28 AM ramoss has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 213 (193320)
03-22-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by arachnophilia
03-22-2005 9:52 AM


Re: stith-thompson
quote:
how many such coincidences will it take? how many midrashim? how many biblical verses?
So far you have exactly one. Any more?
bang * bang * bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 9:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 10:52 AM contracycle has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 213 (193333)
03-22-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by contracycle
03-22-2005 9:39 AM


Re: stith-thompson
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 9:39 AM contracycle has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 191 of 213 (193338)
03-22-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by contracycle
03-22-2005 10:22 AM


extra-biblical literature
So far you have exactly one. Any more?
midrash? sodom hospitality - Google Search
quote:
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a
The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.
quote:
Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer
Rabbi Ze'era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked...
quote:
Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5
The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance."
quote:
Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 50:7
R Menhama in the name of R Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, As to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and take away his money.
quote:
Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis, 13th century
Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land... many will come there and they despised charity... they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor... In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin - i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy - since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.
do i need to quote the luke and ezekiel verses again? you're going against 2000 years of interpretation here.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-22-2005 10:54 AM
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-22-2005 10:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 10:22 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 11:08 AM arachnophilia has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 213 (193345)
03-22-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by arachnophilia
03-22-2005 10:52 AM


Re: stith-thompson
quote:
do i need to quote the luke and ezekiel verses again? you're going against 2000 years of interpretation here.
Oh please; all you have is a verse in the bible and wow, some passages in the same book. This is irrelevant to your claim; you said that this was obviously a hospitality myth like a pattern of thousands. Unfortunately there is no pattern of thousands. Please stick to the issue.
Because an alleged Jewish interpretation was mentioned previously, I already located a copy of the Torah and looked up the same story - did you? And guess what - its almost identicical to the biblical version, unsurprisingly. Its quite clear, again, that whatever sin Sodom was supposed to have committed is not mentioned.
But lets see what else you have. Unfortunately this still does not say what you seem to want it to say. The first question is how Lot gets into Sodom. the second question is how the angels get in as far as the market place, and are only suibsequently attacked. The third is why this exercise of power is construed as a hospitality issue. You even highlighted "charity", as if hospitality and charity are the same thing.
Its not clear what it is you thought this would show. I've already pointed out that beinf iunpleasant to the poor RATHER THAN hospitality appeared to be their sin, but you rejected this - so I'm not sure why you raise this now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 10:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 11:24 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 197 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-22-2005 11:44 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 198 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 11:53 AM contracycle has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 193 of 213 (193353)
03-22-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by contracycle
03-22-2005 11:08 AM


Re: extra-biblical literature
Oh please; all you have is a verse in the bible and wow, some passages in the same book. This is irrelevant to your claim; you said that this was obviously a hospitality myth like a pattern of thousands. Unfortunately there is no pattern of thousands. Please stick to the issue.
now you're DEFINITALLY being dishonest, not to mention completely blind.
tell me again which page the book of josephus is? i can't find it in my bible. nor can i find any babylonian talmud. or any talmud, for that matter. do you even read these posts? you asked me to show you extra-biblical hebrew literature. there it is!
Because an alleged Jewish interpretation was mentioned previously, I already located a copy of the Torah and looked up the same story - did you?
HOLY CRAP. you ARE an idiot. i don't mean to derisive, but oh my god.
"torah" is hebrew for "law." the books of the torah are bereshit (genesis), shemot (exodus), vayikra (leviticus), bamidbar (numbers), and devarim (deuteronomy). do these sound familiar to you at all?
the book i read from is called a tanakh, which is not actually a hebrew word, but the abreviation tnh, for torah (law), nevi'im (prophets), and ketuvim (writings), and is exactly equivalent to protestant old testament, although in a different order.
thank you for NOT KNOWING ANYTHING.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-22-2005 11:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 11:08 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by contracycle, posted 03-24-2005 4:57 AM arachnophilia has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 194 of 213 (193359)
03-22-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by ramoss
03-22-2005 9:59 AM


Re: The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are unnatural or contrary to nature
oh crap. i knew someone was gonna call me on it. now i have to look it up.
Song of Solomon 2:3
Song of Solomon 4:16
Song of Solomon 5:1
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-22-2005 11:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ramoss, posted 03-22-2005 9:59 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 11:30 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 195 of 213 (193361)
03-22-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by macaroniandcheese
03-22-2005 11:28 AM


Re: The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are unnatural or contrary to nature
you know that page is a joke, right?
right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-22-2005 11:28 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 11:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024