[ninurta]

Absolutely not. First, I know, the city was fictitious and never really existed. I am fully aware. Second, I am fully aware that it is a story of inhospitality, but I am relying on a christian reading of the story. Third, this is based on what the bible says.

If they accepted Lots daughters to rape instead of the male angels, then they in no way could possibly be homosexual. They are bisexual or something along those lines.

[NoRapture]

Of course they weren't. Since when can't a real man take it in the shorts every once in awhile?

[The Clockwork Rat]

If you're interested in homosexual cultures, check these out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... th_Pacific
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marind-anim

[Aekos]

Yeah, none of those cultures seem very nice to women or civilized:

a prepubertal boy would be paired with an older adolescent who would become his mentor and who would "inseminate" him

with marriage commencing with the gang rape of the bride by the husband's male kin

A woman who enjoys sex too much is seen as a witch trying to steal the life force from a man.

Gross.

[The Clockwork Rat]

They probably see our treatment of women as sacrilegious. We're only right because there are more of us and we are more powerful.

[Nets]

If they accepted Lots daughters to rape instead of the male angels, then they in no way could possibly be homosexual. They are bisexual or something along those lines.

Where are you getting this from? They refused Lot's daughters and again demanded the males.

Go back and read your bible.

[Potemkin]

They were also violating the rules of hospitality, which were taken very seriously in the ancient Middle East. The male angels were Lot's guests, and were thus supposed to be untouchable.

[Shadow Dragon]

I've yet to understand why Lot didn't also get punished. I fully understand why a deity would punish people for raping everyone that came to that city, but a guy giving up his teenage daughters to rapists being seen as the good guy is insane.

[Nets]

^ A good question. The best explanation I have is that

(a) Lot made the offer knowing it would be refused to buy time, or

(b) Lot was still being "relatively" good, even while being absolutely bad (which goes back to the whole what does Noah "being a righteous man in his generation mean"?)

Granted, both of these aren't in the text and would be midrash, but the first would probably be my explanation.

Part of it goes back to the culture of hospitality in the ME which Potemkin mentioned. Lot was faced with the choice of protecting his family or protecting his guests.

[Paradigm]

I've yet to understand why Lot didn't also get punished. I fully understand why a deity would punish people for raping everyone that came to that city, but a guy giving up his teenage daughters to rapists being seen as the good guy is insane.

According to the social customs of the time, women were property and he was just being a good host.


Actually, I've heard that in Eskimo culture, if you visit someone at their house(or igloo or what have you), it's considered rude if the host doesn't offer you his wife for the night.

[Brio]

Actually, I've heard that in Eskimo culture, if you visit someone at their house(or igloo or what have you), it's considered rude if the host doesn't offer you his wife for the night.

Really? I did not know that.

Oh and FYI, they are called Inuit. The term Eskimo is a derogatory name created by other more southernly first nation tribes that means "eaters of raw meat".

[Paradigm]

Really? I did not know that.

I'm not 100% on that, but I read about it in one of my anthropology classes.

Oh and FYI, they are called Inuit. The term Eskimo is a derogatory name created by other more southernly first nation tribes that means "eaters of raw meat".

Actually, the Inuit are subset of the Eskimo. There two groups of Eskimo: the Inuit and the Yupik, with the Aleuts being a related group.

[Nets]

Brio, what is your opinion here? You are generally pretty biblically-literate.

[Brio]

My opinion is that it is a moral story about the how one should always be hospitable to one's house guests (i.e. not let them be raped). Lot by offering his daughters to the mob, may have been reinforcing this principle to the extreme.

It also could be a story on how God hates homosexuality; although I think that people who take this view have political motivations behind this, as Sodom and its sister city were accused of general wickedness, not specifically homosexuality.

[Shadow Dragon]

It also could be a story on how God hates homosexuality; although I think that people who take this view have political motivations behind this, as Sodom and its sister city were accused of general wickedness, not specifically homosexuality.

I have to agree with you on this. To me, saying they got destroyed for homosexual acts is like saying a serial killer got executed for cursing at the police. Compared to the other stuff, it's the least of your worries.

[Potemkin]

My opinion is that it is a moral story about the how one should always be hospitable to one's house guests (i.e. not rape them). Lot by offering his daughters to the mob, may have been reinforcing this principle to the extreme.

It also could be a story on how God hates homosexuality; although I think that people who take this view have political motivations behind this, as Sodom and its sister city were accused of general wickedness, not specifically homosexuality.

The impression I get when I read this passage of the Bible is that the primary sin of the Sodomites is their violation of the laws of hospitality. In the ancient Middle East, this was regarded as a heinous offence. Lot's behaviour is presented as being exemplary - by offering his daughters to the mob in place of his guests, he was obeying the laws of hospitality in an exemplary fashion, even to the extent of being willing to sacrifice his own family members to save his guests. I suspect that to the writers and readers of this text, there would have been no moral ambiguity about Lot's behaviour - he was behaving 100% correctly, even above the call of duty. It is only our modern Western morality which is at odds with the moralistic intentions of the text.

[Todd D.]

It also could be a story on how God hates homosexuality; although I think that people who take this view have political motivations behind this, as Sodom and its sister city were accused of general wickedness, not specifically homosexuality.

This. They were destroyed for having descended in to wickedness in all aspects. It's not specifically about homosexuality, but it's not excluding their homosexual practices as wicked either.

[Ter]

I've heard that in Eskimo culture, if you visit someone at their house(or igloo or what have you), it's considered rude if the host doesn't offer you his wife for the night.

It's true, but don't think it is a favour.
Inuits wash only a couple of times in their summer, eat seal blubber and stuff and smell of rotten fish any time.
Happy fucking !

Ter

[Donna]

The Bible is littered with a bias that relates to society norms in the ancient Middle East. There is no intellectual justification to exclude homosexuals (yes, even proud and practicing) from the Christian fold. If a Christian is smart about his religion (or esoteric about it), he is going to err on a position that causes the least distress to gay people, and that is to fully embrace homosexuality while, perhaps, maintaining a guarded stance on promiscuity (in fact, mainstream gay activists today spend more time with progressive churches than anyone else). Eventually, I think Christian morality will be governed by the same guideline of harm-none secular ethics. Such theological reform is inevitable to Christian thought in the occident, America included.

[QatzelOk]

The Bible is littered with a bias that relates to society norms in the ancient Middle East.

And you reject this bias when it doesn't suit you, Donald?