The Invasion that is underway:

[foodcritic]

not really....

it depends on what the meaning of the sotry is. if the meaning of the story is that sexual depravity is wrong, then Lot and his daughters should have been punished. if the meaning is that homosexuality is wrong, then the lack of punishement indicates that incest is OK, at least at that point in time.

Oh and I think the verse is pretty clear. Like I stated most reasonable people would consider a daughter to be a close relative. Knuck and now you apparently do not. Instead you point to the fact that he was not (obviously) punished. Why not just a stick to the point that it is clearly articulated in the verse that sex with a daughter is wrong.

No one is justifying or excusing what Lot did. It was wrong. The bible said it was wrong. You can't even see that clear point? We can look at Lot's punishment in another debate.

 

[This_person]

I'm thinking that Originally there was a comandment about a Father having sex with HIS daughter (try all you want 18:17 only relates to a Man having sex with a woman and her progeny). But the Bible by Committee werent comfortable with that since it would cause an conflict with the Grand story of S&G, and the escape of Lott.

Is this from the notes they kept of their meeting, or an assumption you're making about the decisions (based on an assumption you're making about the story, based on an assumption you're making about the motives of God)?

18:1 handles it just fine. 18:17 handles it just fine, as having sexual relations with a man's daughter would and could only be accomplished after having sexual relations with the daughter's mother - thus having sexual relations with a woman and her daughter. You know, the thing specifically spelled out as not to do, and includes step-children in the way it's worded (sorry, Woody Allen). Just because the specific words you want to see there aren't there doesn't mean the specific action is denied (it is!).

Here you have this detailed story about how God lays waste to 2 cities for not following his edicts and commands, and the One guy that gets saved (because he is a Pillar to look up to) is involved in the type of Hedonistic acts that caused S&G to be wiped out.

If your trying to get a theme out, wouldnt it be in your interest to minimize that your Hero is just as corrupt as the Sinful towns he was saved from? Easiest way to do that, remove any reference where the Hero broke Gods commandments.

Its obvious that something has been removed, or not told, since the ONE situation that is not included in your LEV 18:XX verses is a Father having sex with HIS daughter. ALL other situations are expressely called out EXCEPT for that one.

I think you're mixing a couple of things here. S&G is about God's wrath towards the incredibly and intentionally sinful (as opposed to the occaisional and repented sins we all have). Lot is about proving that, even in His wrath, He does not always take out everybody and wipe the slate clean (Noah also proves this). Lot with his daughters is about the origins/lineage of two nations of people, albeit with a sinful start. And, intention being a huge part of sin, Lot being drunked up by his daughters and presumably effectively raped makes him not responsible for his sinful action, but his daughters responsible.

You also need to remember that the Bible (according to most on here) was written for the people at the time (begs the question about where's today's version?) are you trying to claim that the verses EXPRESSLY state EVERY possible combination of family you can not have sex with, but on this ONE particular instance its inferred?

It's not inferred, it's specifically spelled out - not with a woman and her daughter (which, by physical limitations of reproduction, includes a man and his own daughter - so obvious it is not needed to be spelled out for a third time, after 18:1 and 18:17).

 

[This_person]

if that is the case, then why was lot not punished for banging BOTH of his daughters?

Where does it say he was not punished? Just because it doesn't specifically spell out the punishment does not mean it was not there.

You're attempting to prove a negative - I thought that wasn't possible. Think of Lot's punishment like the mechanism of abiogenesis - no one has any idea, or even a theory that could possibly work, but it's there. Trust me.

 

[foodcritic]

Where does it say he was not punished? Just because it doesn't specifically spell out the punishment does not mean it was not there.

You're attempting to prove a negative - I thought that wasn't possible. Think of Lot's punishment like the mechanism of abiogenesis - no one has any idea, or even a theory that could possibly work, but it's there. Trust me.

I think i like you..

 

[MissKitty]

God what I wouldn't give to see talking serpents, flying flaming chariots, people turned into salt before your very eyes, and talking donkeys.

 

[This_person]

But when told that you are not to have Sex with a Woman and HER daughter it is your interpretation that it also means HIS daughter?

Seriously......

If HER daughter happens to be HIS daughter, there's no interpretation at all, it just means no sexual relations with her.

If HER daughter does not happen to be HIS daughter, it's still not acceptable.

So, whether her daughter is his or not, it's not allowed. Therefore, the subset of this clear-cut, obvious point is that a father cannot have sexual relations with his daughter (because, it would happen to be her daughter, too).

Show me what leap of logic is there that is not incredibly obvious! Is it that she may have borne his daughter? It doesn't matter if it's his daughter or not - if it's hers, he can't "be with" the daughter". The only way to have sexual relations with his daughter, then, would be to violate this order. It is simply impossible to do without violating this specific, clear cut, incredibly obvious order (well, that, and 18:1, too).

 

[foodcritic]

Thanks

Now your grasping, the story about Lott and his daughters goes into GREAT detail about how the Daughters seduced him. It even goes on to explain how his Progeny went on to create nations. There is no implied or inferred punishment for Lott, thereby there was no Sin.

After reading these posts it pushed me to taking another look at Lot.

Knucklesack feels that Lot should be punished...WHY. The text is clear that each of his two daughters get him drunk and in essence take advantage of an old man. The text clearly states:

Gen 19:33 ...."He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up." Further down the second daughter does the same thing and the text clearly says again that ...."Again he was not aware of it....."

The fact that the writer let's the reader know in less than 3 verses that Lot was unaware of what happened shows that Lot was a victim to his daughters misguided thinking that they needed to repopulate the earth. They apparently thought civilization was over. They refer to the start of Adam and Eve's offspring and how they populated the earth (close relatives) when the Lot's daughters say to each other in 19:31 there is no man around to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.

Misguided yes...they were not alone in the world. Lot was not to blame.

Even more important still was that the LAW has not been given. The law is not handed down to Moses until about 1600 BC. Lot's story is 300 years prior at around 1900 BC.

 

[foodcritic]

Wrong

Now your grasping, the story about Lott and his daughters goes into GREAT detail about how the Daughters seduced him. It even goes on to explain how his Progeny went on to create nations. There is no implied or inferred punishment for Lott, thereby there was no Sin.

You even stated what momisnc stated that :

Nucklesack;3169301]Now your grasping, the story about Lott and his daughters goes into GREAT detail about how the Daughters seduced him.

You also state:

There is no implied or inferred punishment for Lott, thereby there was no Sin.

How in the world do you know...and you call me arogant.

While Lot's daughters did have offspring one was called Ammonites and the other Moabites. These groups did not become "nations" that I am aware. They were tribes that were always in confilct with Israel...( Which may have been the punishment for the original sin.....)

Not a sermon just a thought

 

[This_person]

This_Person and Foodcritic are the ones that stated Lott was punished, they have nothing to base this on, they just assume it is so.

Actually, my first answer was:

A fair and reasonable question. I have no idea what the answer is, but that's a fair and reasonable question.

That the answer is not directly given, though, does not in any way detract from the prohibition against incest (LEV 18:6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.) Again, the book is not complete, and in no way does it seem to claim to be complete. Just what you need to know.

Since then, I joking described his punishment as similar to the mechanism of abiogenesis, but I presumed it was realized I was being tongue-in-cheek.

I on the other hand posted not only was Lott NOT Punished, according to the instruction Manual, he didnt do anything wrong.

Where did it say that again?

Oh, yeah. You still haven't demonstrated that, nor provided the scenerio where a man could have sex with his daughter without having had sex with her mother.

You really are tenacious in your misrepresentation, though.

 

[Marie]

A better question would be "should" you stand up to this invasion.

If you believe in the Bible, then you know the end times are coming and Christians will be persecuted for their faith. So do you just accept this, or are you supposed to fight against it? Knowing that defeat is prophesied, and you'll receive your reward later?

That's a more interesting discussion than just religion-bashing, which is extremely boring.

I dont think it's a matter of fighting for your faith, but more fighting for your country, and personal freedoms. Personally I dont want Sharia law imposed on me or to have to accept, it as a dual justice system like England currently is dealing with.
England is not the first country that has ever seen an Islamic take over.
Perhaps you might want to read this article.
Author sees Islam's 20-year plan for U.S.

Putting your head under the covers and waiting for the bad man to go away only works before the age of 6 years old.

 

[Xaquin44]

Putting your head under the covers and waiting for the bad man to go away only works before the age of 6 years old.

so does thinking there is a bad man waiting for you to get out of bed.

 

[tommyjones]

I dont think it's a matter of fighting for your faith, but more fighting for your country, and personal freedoms. Personally I dont want Sharia law imposed on me or to have to accept, it as a dual justice system like England currently is dealing with.
England is not the first country that has ever seen an Islamic take over.
Perhaps you might want to read this article.
Author sees Islam's 20-year plan for U.S.

Putting your head under the covers and waiting for the bad man to go away only works before the age of 6 years old.

england has been taken over by islam?????

you better hurry up and tell them.