Then the story goes on with Lot’s wife turning around and perishing for it, and then Lot’s daughters get Lot drunk with the goal of getting him to get them pregnant.
And then there’s no further judgment about either Lot or his daughters in the rest of the story.
Even contrary: It displays the daughters as having given the circumstances and their actions a lot of thought and makes it sound as a very logical conclusion. And it says that the father was so passed out drunk that he didn’t notice the whole thing.
(That’s obviously hard to believe when taking it as a factual history, but like the rest of Genesis it’s not. The whole first book of Moses is basically the origin myth of the israelites, not a historical record. The general consensus is that Lot never existed, contrary to e.g. David, who is most likely an actual historical person. And since this is just a myth, it’s just as internally logically consistent as Harry Potter fanfiction.)
So the whole point in the OP is quite disingenous. Neither did Lot rape his daughters, nor does the text put the blame on any of them and nobody gets called a whore.
Yeah, that conclusion (in the OP) sounds a lot like some aita commenters who give judgements based on a bunch of assumptions they just made up in their heads. They don’t believe the original version where the daughters are at fault, so replace that version with their own and add the discrepancy (that they created in the first place) as another point against it.
It’s a fictional story where the daughters were written as villains. Or maybe it was erotica of its time, intended to sell more copies of the Bible or get people in to listen to what crazy shit happened next.
Though I just remembered another part that does really bring the paragon of goodness (and what they thought was good) into question: the city of Sodom was destroyed because the citizens, upon seeing an angel or pair of angels or something, insisted they needed to gang rape them. Lot, in his unquestionable goodness, offers his own daughters for the gang rape instead. So clearly, at best they saw his daughters as his possessions that he could “sacrifice” to do “good”, at worst they thought so little of women getting gang raped that it was just an “out” offered to the people that they refused and thus justified their destruction (because a normal gang rape must be fine, but angelic gang rape is something else).
Oh and the call for blind obedience just thrown in when the wife looks back after being told not to and is punished for disobeying.
Lol the story as told is fucked up enough, don’t know why anyone feels the need to act like it was based on true events but was actually just a coverup for a different rape.
Lot offering up his daughters is a commonly misinterpreted part of the story. It was meant to show how far you were obligated to go to protect guests in your house. It has been twisted into ‘homosexuality is so bad it’s better to allow your daughters to be raped than let anything gay happen.’
Either way it is pretty awful by today’s standards, but not exactly the way a lot of people want it to be.
Even that interpretation still leaves the whole “his daughters are just tools he can use to meet his obligations” thing. It’s values like this that the old testament was based on.
You got to remember that the old testament was written over a very long time. The books of moses were likely written over the time from 1200-400 BC, with different souces mentioning different time frames.
So it’s hard to point to these as being one consistent thing with consistent values, same as it would be hard to claim that there were consistent values between now and 800 years ago.
That’s the beginning of the story, yes.
Then the story goes on with Lot’s wife turning around and perishing for it, and then Lot’s daughters get Lot drunk with the goal of getting him to get them pregnant.
And then there’s no further judgment about either Lot or his daughters in the rest of the story.
Even contrary: It displays the daughters as having given the circumstances and their actions a lot of thought and makes it sound as a very logical conclusion. And it says that the father was so passed out drunk that he didn’t notice the whole thing.
(That’s obviously hard to believe when taking it as a factual history, but like the rest of Genesis it’s not. The whole first book of Moses is basically the origin myth of the israelites, not a historical record. The general consensus is that Lot never existed, contrary to e.g. David, who is most likely an actual historical person. And since this is just a myth, it’s just as internally logically consistent as Harry Potter fanfiction.)
So the whole point in the OP is quite disingenous. Neither did Lot rape his daughters, nor does the text put the blame on any of them and nobody gets called a whore.
In fact, Lot is not a king.
Yeah, that conclusion (in the OP) sounds a lot like some aita commenters who give judgements based on a bunch of assumptions they just made up in their heads. They don’t believe the original version where the daughters are at fault, so replace that version with their own and add the discrepancy (that they created in the first place) as another point against it.
It’s a fictional story where the daughters were written as villains. Or maybe it was erotica of its time, intended to sell more copies of the Bible or get people in to listen to what crazy shit happened next.
Though I just remembered another part that does really bring the paragon of goodness (and what they thought was good) into question: the city of Sodom was destroyed because the citizens, upon seeing an angel or pair of angels or something, insisted they needed to gang rape them. Lot, in his unquestionable goodness, offers his own daughters for the gang rape instead. So clearly, at best they saw his daughters as his possessions that he could “sacrifice” to do “good”, at worst they thought so little of women getting gang raped that it was just an “out” offered to the people that they refused and thus justified their destruction (because a normal gang rape must be fine, but angelic gang rape is something else).
Oh and the call for blind obedience just thrown in when the wife looks back after being told not to and is punished for disobeying.
Lol the story as told is fucked up enough, don’t know why anyone feels the need to act like it was based on true events but was actually just a coverup for a different rape.
Lot offering up his daughters is a commonly misinterpreted part of the story. It was meant to show how far you were obligated to go to protect guests in your house. It has been twisted into ‘homosexuality is so bad it’s better to allow your daughters to be raped than let anything gay happen.’
Either way it is pretty awful by today’s standards, but not exactly the way a lot of people want it to be.
Even that interpretation still leaves the whole “his daughters are just tools he can use to meet his obligations” thing. It’s values like this that the old testament was based on.
You got to remember that the old testament was written over a very long time. The books of moses were likely written over the time from 1200-400 BC, with different souces mentioning different time frames.
So it’s hard to point to these as being one consistent thing with consistent values, same as it would be hard to claim that there were consistent values between now and 800 years ago.
Now it makes sense why in Dante’s inferno traitors to their guests are buried further than traitors to their kindred