it has a lot more to do with what misogynistic old dudes did to retain power than what God's will is.that has less to do with Christian teachings and more to do with Lot's willingness to go to any lengths to protect the visitors.
it has a lot more to do with what misogynistic old dudes did to retain power than what God's will is.that has less to do with Christian teachings and more to do with Lot's willingness to go to any lengths to protect the visitors.
right. Women were treated lesser in society as a whole. I don't take Lot's position as "God told me to offer up my daughters" so much as "Hell, take these aggravatin' women and leave my house guests alone."it has a lot more to do with what misogynistic old dudes did to retain power than what God's will is.
So, he's a great host but a lousy father?that has less to do with Christian teachings and more to do with Lot's willingness to go to any lengths to protect the visitors.
by today's standards, yes. By the standards of the time, probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.So, he's a great host but a lousy father?
Yeah, that was one of those Bible stories that usually passed by without comment in the church I grew up in. That and the whole (Ezekiel 4:12-13) thing about eating barley cakes made out of human feces.Genesis 19 Story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah:
Yeah go ahead and gangrape my two daughters, just leave my visitors alone.
I realize it is old testament but isnt there something written about a house built on a weak foundation.........
ok I've stirred the pot enough. I just don't understand especially why any woman would support christianity as it is taught today. I'm not sure how any man that believes in even a pseudo equality between the sexes could support it either.
Honestly, I've never spent too much time on a lot of the OT stories. Not to sound like a heathen, but I have a hard time giving them much relevance, other than historical background. So, when Lot offers up his daughters, I take it as a product of the time in which they lived.Yeah, that was one of those Bible stories that usually passed by without comment in the church I grew up in. That, that whole (Ezekiel 4:12-13) thing about eating barley cakes made out of human feces.
So, when Lot offers up his daughters, I take it as a product of the time in which they lived.
I never said the Bible was rewritten. I said that when Lot offered up his daughters to spare the guests in his home, it probably wasn't a crazy concept in that time. If the Bible were like our constitution and capable of being rewritten based on current values in society, they'd probably write out the entire OT and a good bit of the NT these days. I value the OT pretty much for its historical information and significance only.....how's that rewriting anything?Hmmm so the Bible is, like our constitution, a living document capable of being rewritten based on the current values in society? Interesting....
The first few verses of Genesis 22 reveal that God ordered Abraham to offer up his only son, Isaac as a burnt offering.right. Women were treated lesser in society as a whole. I don't take Lot's position as "God told me to offer up my daughters" so much as "Hell, take these aggravatin' women and leave my house guests alone."
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
And I'll add to your excellent point. God created man and woman different and he did so because they were to play different roles. As you've stated it was to be a partnership, a team effort. In every TEAM effort there has to be someone that has to lead. God designated man to be the leader but it doesn't mean woman means any less to God. He loves both equally and both are just as important. He held woman in such high regard he instructed man to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Anybody want to know how much Christ loved the church? He died for it. He endured great pain and suffering because he love the church so much. Man is to hold woman in the same regard. Can't get much higher status than that.The first few verses of Genesis 22 reveal that God ordered Abraham to offer up his only son, Isaac as a burnt offering.
There also were several violent deaths of men, starting with Cains murder of Abel (Genesis 4).
My point is there was violence against both genders in the Bible.
Although, it is true, the Bible teaches that women should "submit themselves to their husbands". This isn't referring just to the bedroom.
Esther (in the book of Esther) was treated as royalty by the King of Persia. In fact, she was given the title of Queen. She was in a position of great influence in the land.
Today, most Christian scholars emphasize that women are to be treated with great respect and marriage is an equal partnership.
I think I need to clarify one thing. You speak of Lot doing this and doing that as if it actually happened. As a scientist, I find Genesis to be the ramblings of ignorant goat herders. As such I don't think Lot actually did or did not do anything. When I speak of the misogynistic attitudes it displays I am talking more about the old dudes about a 1000 yrs ago that decided to put this in the bible. Whether he actually did it or not, or even existed, is irrelevant in my book.I never said the Bible was rewritten. I said that when Lot offered up his daughters to spare the guests in his home, it probably wasn't a crazy concept in that time.
We can tell how "irrelevant" it is to you. You've only piped in your arrogant toned answers all throughout the thread. And I'm not sure why the need to add the "As a scientist" remark. As if it brought any credibility to your response. Being a scientist or not is pretty irrelevant in my book. Weather men and scientists are one of the few jobs that you can be wrong more than you are right and still stay employed.I think I need to clarify one thing. You speak of Lot doing this and doing that as if it actually happened. As a scientist, I find Genesis to be the ramblings of ignorant goat herders. As such I don't think Lot actually did or did not do anything. When I speak of the misogynistic attitudes it displays I am talking more about the old dudes about a 1000 yrs ago that decided to put this in the bible. Whether he actually did it or not, or even existed, is irrelevant in my book.
LOL! Thanks Buzzy, I needed that laugh.We can tell how "irrelevant" it is to you. You've only piped in your arrogant toned answers all throughout the thread. And I'm not sure why the need to add the "As a scientist" remark. As if it brought any credibility to your response. Being a scientist or not is pretty irrelevant in my book. Weather men and scientists are one of the few jobs that you can be wrong more than you are right and still stay employed.
Add evangelist to the list.We can tell how "irrelevant" it is to you. You've only piped in your arrogant toned answers all throughout the thread. And I'm not sure why the need to add the "As a scientist" remark. As if it brought any credibility to your response. Being a scientist or not is pretty irrelevant in my book. Weather men and scientists are one of the few jobs that you can be wrong more than you are right and still stay employed.
Why is it arrogance to state that the Bible is full of a myriad of contradictions, and (dare I say) parables and fables?We can tell how "irrelevant" it is to you. You've only piped in your arrogant toned answers all throughout the thread. And I'm not sure why the need to add the "As a scientist" remark. As if it brought any credibility to your response. Being a scientist or not is pretty irrelevant in my book. Weather men and scientists are one of the few jobs that you can be wrong more than you are right and still stay employed.
Nicely played.Weather men and scientists are one of the few jobs that you can be wrong more than you are right and still stay employed.
And touche!Add evangelist to the list.
I think I need to clarify one thing. You speak of Lot doing this and doing that as if it actually happened. As a scientist, I find Genesis to be the ramblings of ignorant goat herders. As such I don't think Lot actually did or did not do anything. When I speak of the misogynistic attitudes it displays I am talking more about the old dudes about a 1000 yrs ago that decided to put this in the bible. Whether he actually did it or not, or even existed, is irrelevant in my book.