PDA

View Full Version : Incest? Gang rape? - No big deal


Rick336
11-21-2008, 12:28 PM
The American Family Association website argues that the Biblical story in Genesis of Sodom and Gomorrah proves without a doubt that homosexuality is wicked and God dooms anyone who practices it.

Here's their story --> http://www.afajournal.org/2003/novdec/111203sodom.asp

But what about the part where Lot offers his virgin daughters as a gift? Where on the scale of wickedness does this fall?

Genesis 19:6 - So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. “Please, my brothers,” he begged, “don’t do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection.”

So apparently, Lot offering his virgin daughters to the men to rape is not such a big deal to the American Family Association. There's no mention on their website about how wicked Lot was to hand over his daughters to be brutally gang raped. After all, Lot is the hero in this story.

Apparently you can't let an issue like the gang rape of children divert people's attention away from the real issue here; homosexuality and its attack on the family.

And there's even more to Lot's story of Sodom and Gomorrah that the American Family Association conveniently forgets to mention:

Genesis 19:30 - Afterward Lot left Zoar because he was afraid of the people there, and he went to live in a cave in the mountains with his two daughters. One day the older daughter said to her sister, “There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can’t get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will have sex with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father.”

So that night they got him drunk with wine, and the older daughter went in and had intercourse with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again.

The next morning the older daughter said to her younger sister, “I had sex with our father last night. Let’s get him drunk with wine again tonight, and you go in and have sex with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father.” So that night they got him drunk with wine again, and the younger daughter went in and had intercourse with him. As before, he was unaware of her lying down or getting up again.

As a result, both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their own father. When the older daughter gave birth to a son, she named him Moab. He became the ancestor of the nation now known as the Moabites. When the younger daughter gave birth to a son, she named him Ben-ammi. He became the ancestor of the nation now known as the Ammonites.

Funny how the American Family Association somehow forgot to include any of this from Genesis 19 in their story about Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess it somehow slipped their mind.

But I guess it makes sense that when pushing "family values," Biblical heroes involved in gang rape, incest, drunkenness, and birth out of wedlock need to be downplayed at all cost. After all, it was Lot who said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.”

The most important thing is to keep fags the main target. And if anybody hollers "hypocrite," bash them for attacking Christianity.



A member's comment from the AFA website:

"Read the Bible about Sodom & Gamorah and then you will understand that the homosexual community is deranged mentally and will stop at nothing to achieve their ends, which in fact is the ability to seduce physically their will on young children. They are a lost people and God has turned them over to their reprobate minds. The Book of Romans, first chapter will say it all. Buckle up America, she committed suicide on 11-04-08."



Rick

Gennee
11-21-2008, 01:38 PM
Rick, a gay friend of mine did an in-depth study on Sodom and Gommorah.
Below is the website you can find it.

www.epistle.us

Click on 'Homosexuality and the Bible', then scroll down to the two sections on 'Sodom'. It opened my eyes about the subject and confirmed some ideas that I long suspected to be questionable. Keep me posted on what you discover.

Gennee

BruceChris
11-21-2008, 01:56 PM
And we don't have any soundbites to throw at them, even if we could afford it. So how can we hit where it hurts, without forcing everyone to read a few chapters of Genesis, which they are probably not inclined to do? :disagree:

BC

Alecto
11-21-2008, 04:24 PM
See, Lot was a good guy, cause he was offering up his property in an effort to save his male guest any humiliation or violence.

what's that? Women aren't property?
what? And the year is...what???

Unmasked
11-22-2008, 04:57 PM
According to the standard of the times, Lot was correct to do so. Guests were always supposed to come first. However, to offer ones daughters is not exactly morally sound either, but then again, children have never really been given much value. Jesus loved children, yet Christians spend their time demeaning and silencing them, unless they're not born yet, then they're alright.

Rick336
11-22-2008, 06:38 PM
And we don't have any soundbites to throw at them, even if we could afford it. So how can we hit where it hurts, without forcing everyone to read a few chapters of Genesis, which they are probably not inclined to do? :disagree:

BC

We need to be demanding that they read their Bibles. In fact, everybody should read it. It's the number one best selling book in history. But few Christians have ever bothered to actually pick it up and read it. They'll read verses out of it, they'll carry it around with them, they'll put it on their coffee tables, but they never actually pick it up and open it to Genesis and read all the way through Revelation.

If they did, they'd learn how absurd a lot of it really is. Here's what President-elect Obama says about the Bible:

“If we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.”

I agree.

Rick

tymejumper
11-22-2008, 09:30 PM
I'm not exactly a Christian Scholar, nor am I really a Christian at all....however, I have read the Bible and with interest to the whole tale of Sodom and Gomorah. The sin that God felled the city for was "inhospitality". In other words, they were lousy hosts! That is because it was so inportant in the desert to be a good host, it could mean life or death. If you turned away a person, they may die of dehydration or starvation in a harsh land like that.

BruceChris
11-22-2008, 10:17 PM
And WHO in our present confrontation are the ones being inhospitable?
i.e., who are the real "sodomites"?

The irony here is too painful to put into words.

BC

BruceChris
11-22-2008, 10:33 PM
Rick, the people that Jesus talked with, who stood for the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law, just as many modern proof texters try to do, weren't they called Pharisees?

I wonder just how long it will take them to come to the same conclusion as Pogo did, when he said "We have met the enemy, and he is us"?

Who was it, recently, who said in a post, that "It doesn't get any better than this"?

BC

pnggrad79
11-23-2008, 07:50 PM
It is also funny that the AFA conveniently leaves out the fact that in at least two places the sin of Sodom was specifically laid out to be NOT HOMOSEXUALITY but their hardness of heart and not being hospitable to strangers. Jesus himself said that Sodom's sin was not accepting the grace of God, and rejecting him. If God himself didn't call a spade a spade, then why is the AFA saying, "Look God, you got this one wrong, it was homosexuality, and you need to step up your game, God. Get with the program! We know the real deal." But, then again the Church has been playing God for a very long time. Nothing new...just another persecution to keep themselves looking holier than thou.

Rick336
11-23-2008, 11:08 PM
It is also funny that the AFA conveniently leaves out the fact that in at least two places the sin of Sodom was specifically laid out to be NOT HOMOSEXUALITY but their hardness of heart and not being hospitable to strangers. Jesus himself said that Sodom's sin was not accepting the grace of God, and rejecting him. If God himself didn't call a spade a spade, then why is the AFA saying, "Look God, you got this one wrong, it was homosexuality, and you need to step up your game, God. Get with the program! We know the real deal." But, then again the Church has been playing God for a very long time. Nothing new...just another persecution to keep themselves looking holier than thou.

The bottom line is, they feel threatened by LGBT people. And so they hate us. It has nothing to do with what God supposedly said. They pulled this same bullshit on African Americans 50 years ago. And 100 years ago it was the Native Americans and the Chinese immigrants. There's always somebody who they see as a threat. And they're always afraid.


“The homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids…” - James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire


Being afraid of your neighbors is no way to go through life.


Rick

RedneckDyke
11-25-2008, 08:05 AM
You can't argue with these people. It doesn't matter what verse you show them. Don't confuse them with the facts. They have made up their mind already.

Gennee
11-26-2008, 02:10 PM
The best thing we can do is to pray for them and live our lives.

Gennee


:pray:

Emproph
11-30-2008, 02:00 AM
Revisiting the lot of the first incestuous family: the biblical origins of shifting the blame on to female family members (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7531/1507?ck=nck)

The author suggests that it was much more likely that it was Lot who seduced his daughters:
Re-reading Genesis 19, this time with the hypothesis of Lot as the abusive father, unmasks certain inconsistencies in the plot and reveals additional clues to support his culpability. For instance, the daughters' rationalisation for their unusual, desperate action: "Our father is old, and there is no man in the land... let us have our father drink wine and lie with him," may hold a lot of wine but does not hold much water. There were plenty of men in the land, specifically in the nearby town of Tzo'ar to which Lot had insisted on going after the Sodom disaster and from which he was later driven away. And about a day's walk away were the tents of the tribe of Lot's illustrious uncle, Abraham, who was observing the calamitous seismic activity of the destruction of Sodom from the hills surrounding the valley.
[…]
Also unlikely is the story of the double instant impregnation, with only one nightly contact for impregnating each daughter. Usually, sexual activity has to be repeated to achieve pregnancy, sometimes over many cycles. So it's much more likely that these pregnancies were the result of repeated incestuous activity.
[…]
If it was Lot who abused his daughters, why not openly place the responsibility of the incest where it belongs rather than pinning the blame on his daughters? Sadly, the cover up ploy, which the ancient biblical narrators choose, is as familiar as the act of incest itself. Abusive men have been shamelessly mouthing excuses throughout the ages. "It wasn't my fault; it was she who seduced me, walking around the house like that. Besides, I didn't do it, I couldn't have, I was too drunk."
[…]
As befitting the dynamics of an incestuous family, Lot's wife is conspicuously missing from the scene. She is mentioned only when the family flees the smoking ruined city, and she turns into a pillar of salt. Rather than the biblical misogynist view that attributes her fate to female curiosity, I see this frozen brackish crystal as a metaphor for a mother who is frozen in her salty tears.

As an aside, I once heard a similar explanation of the “pillar of salt” phrase being a metaphor. It was explained that Lot’s wife was told not to look back, as in ‘don’t long for’ her past days of the city life in Sodom. She was already a “pillar” in that she was the matriarch of the family, but by longing for the life she’d lost, she, as the author above says, became “frozen,” or ineffective, due to her regret, in her role as a mother.

Salt dries up water, and water is a metaphor for life, ergo, pillar of salt.
--
That said, I see the anti-gay industry heads, who are mostly men, as being exactly the same as the mysogynist Biblical authors, at least when it comes to the Old Testament.

They could trade places in an instant and you wouldn't know the difference. Vindictive, petty, spiteful, high on their own masculinity egomaniacs. Except that this time around they have the Bible to "confirm" that that's how God is too.

Slap the label "love" on the whole thing and now your most basal and debaucherous (ie greed, war for oil, materialism, pride) human desires are in accordance with everything Jesus taught.

As BruceChris said, "The irony here is too painful to put into words."

Jester25
12-08-2008, 05:12 PM
And WHO in our present confrontation are the ones being inhospitable?
i.e., who are the real "sodomites"?

The irony here is too painful to put into words.

BC

Bruce, you have no idea how hard I have been laughing at the absolutely *stupid* AFA beliefs this whole thread long. :lol: