When Lot offered his daughters to the angry mob...

[JollyRoger]

Actually, that would be the Jewish view. The Christian view shows its Godly man as unflawed.

 

[civ2]

Except, since when is Lot one of them?
(Sure, in SODOM, he was "righteous", but as a PERSON...)
Oh, I do wonder, what about Laban???

 

[holy king]

ah, homosexuals vs christianity. the final battle has begun. there can only be one.

 

[civ2]

hk
Um... I'm neither.

 

[holy king]

i was referring to the battleground bit a bit earlier.

 

[El_Machinae]

I wonder if anyone knows when scholarly commentary (rabbi, priest, prophet, etc) started presented Lot's offer to have his daughters raped as fundamentally sick and unfatherly?

 

[civ2]

EM
Like, immediately?
I mean, it's pretty clear, that he was mistaken to do so.
I'll look for links.

Oh, first one.
More to go.

 

[El_Machinae]

That seems to be about the incest. What I mean is when did scholars start writing about how evil it was for Lot to offer his daughters to the mob? When did it turn from being a "noble act to protect the visitors" to "a sick act to protect the visitors" from the viewpoint of theologians or priests? It cannot have started in 2012 CE, there must have been scholarly consensus well before then.

 

[civ2]

EM

According to the midrash (Tanhuma, Vayera 12), Lot, from the outset, decided to dwell in Sodom because he wanted to engage in the licentious behavior of its inhabitants. His negative behavior comes to the fore when the townspeople mill about his door, demanding that he hand over the angels, and he instead offers his daughters to the mob. The Rabbis observe that a man usually allows himself to be killed in order to save his wife and children, while Lot was willing to allow the townspeople to abuse his daughters. In response to this, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to Lot: By your life, the improper act that you intended to be done to your daughters will indeed be committed, but to you. This midrash sharply focuses the reversal between these two episodes. In the first event, in Sodom, Lot was ready to force his daughters, against their will, to engage in sexual relations with the townspeople. In contrast, in the second episode, which takes place after the upheaval of Sodom, Lot’s daughters engage in relations with their unwitting father. Consequently, these acts of incest are Lot’s punishment for his unseemly behavior.

Wiki dates this Midrash to be around 5 century CE.
Tanchuma C is mentioned by Rashi, of 11/12 century, so it must be much older anyways.
But all this is about RABBINIC literature - and has nothing to do with what PEOPLE of the preceding times thought about it.
I mean, we can quite positively say, that even Lot's uncle Abraham would be AGAINST such behavior.
(I mean, Lot had to protect his guests - but he could as well just "SHUT UP!" the people... Especially, since he was a JUDGE of the city at that time. Or think of anything else. The path he chose, shows HIS thinking, not that it was needed to do so.)

 

[JollyRoger]

Abraham was the equivalent of Andrea Yates except that he heard another voice just in time. I'm not so sure he would have disapproved.

 

[civ2]

Maybe something more ON topic???

 

[JollyRoger]

Were YOU there when Andrea Yates killed her children? How do YOU know that God did not tell her to do it? To me, the situations appear similar, save for hearing the voice to not do it.

 

[civ2]

Simple answer - in her case, it didn't end up as a major moral lesson for ages, which btw should've stopped HER from doing it, if she ever listened to it.

 

[kramerfan86]

Oh it has plenty of potential as a major moral lesson in demonstrating true faith to God. I mean its no more demented then mutilating your own genitalia because a voice told you to.

 

[JollyRoger]

Simple answer - in her case, it didn't end up as a major moral lesson for ages, which btw should've stopped HER from doing it, if she ever listened to it.

The moral lesson for the ages being that you should listen to voices telling you to kill your child?

 

[civ2]

JR
Well, after listening to that "voice" for like a century, being promised that very child by the same "voice", GETTING the child "on time"...
That's my point - you're taking the story out of CONTEXT...
simple example:
A "voice" promises you to win a million next week - and you DO.
Would you also listen to it, if it says "now give that million away to charity"?
Honest answer, please.

 

[kramerfan86]

Oh the delicious irony of complaining about rudeness while calling others childish and moronic. I dont believe anyone personally attacked you.

 

[JollyRoger]

I grew up Christian. I have recently read the entire Old Testament, including respected annotations and commentary and much duplicative rereading of verse as the annotations directed me there. If I somehow misunderstood that Abraham, like Andrea Yates, was willing to kill his child based on the perception that God was telling him to, I apologize for my ignorance.

 

[civ2]

useless
HUH?

kramer
Exactly my point - you're attacking my beliefs.
Do you have a LOGICAL basis for it?
If so - I wanna DISCUSS it.
Not get a childish "beh-beh-beh" and a pointing finger.

JR
Andrea wasn't REALLY talking to G-d, unless you can prove THAT.
As of Abraham, you either take the story for TRUTH (then the very birth of Isaac is a MIRACLE), or you don't (then there's no difference between them).
Choose one.
Since I see your choice, so again - how do you KNOW?

 

[kramerfan86]

Your beliefs =/= attacking you. The only one who has been rude is you by mouthing off with personal attacks. It isnt your right to have everyone agree with you nor is it your right to personally attack others when they do not. You are the rude one.