The Sex, the Violence, the Hideous Crimes in the Holy Bible: Lot’s Story

[Imwashingmypirate]

Not what I said, but I admire the creativity and imagination.

And who knows? Maybe it happens to some people.

WHile I wasn't going for creativity and imagination, I'll take that as a compliment.

I was vaguely drawing a clumsy parallel with the idea some folks have that books that contain non-binary people will make the reader gay.

AHH this makes more sense. I nearly commented on how on earth would reading the Bible turn someone into a fetish fiend.

[markc]

This is like a trash talk through Genesis.

Sure, as long as the trash talk is telling the truth; in that case, I say we should do more trash talking.

Any upcoming thoughts to publish on Revelation?

That's an interesting thought, but no. It's a book totally open to wild interpretations, and it is NOT "harmful."

My intention in writing the article "trash-talking" the Old Testament--not only Genesis--is to point out the descriptions of sex and violence that are way more graphic than the banned books. These stories are by NO means the guidelines for a righteous life, yet ignorant and/or hypocritical people choose to ban other books and praise the Bible.

If any reader misses my point, it's unfortunate. To be honest, it's sad I have to repeat this.

[markc]

I don't think disgusting and delighting people is the point of sex. I can't visualise the Bible being written to entice people and to feed their kinks. I doubt the writer was sharing it like a dirty novel.

Imagine if this Lot story is NOT in the Bible, but as a random novel. Now, can you see it as a dirty novel? I share it to show you that a book with this story should be held to the same standard as other banned books. Why on earth does a book discussing homosexuality should be banned, yet a book depicting gang rape, incest, and degrading women like a dirty novel should be praised?

[Imwashingmypirate]

I think giving the daughters to the mob doesn't necessarily imply they are beneath human because clearly there is the thought that they would be preferred over the angels. (I haven't read the story so just responding to the article). Meaning they are better than the angels.

When women live together, their cycles tend to sync up. And before contraception and other hormone altering things, cycles tended to follow the moon. There are times when my cycle falls into sync with the moon. There are also ways to tell if you are ovulating (as long as you aren't altering your hormones). Women (pre contraception) were probably more likely to listen to their body and use natural fertility tracking as a contraceptive.
So there is a possibility that if they intended to get pregnant they may have aligned it precisely. Also women often get hornier when ovulating.

Another thing you could consider is that if this happened once and they had no issue with it then they probably did it multiple times. If a man wrote the story then it's probably written to make Lot innocent given that he is probably being portrayed as righteous and God worthy.

[Imwashingmypirate]

I don't think disgusting and delighting people is the point of sex. I can't visualise the Bible being written to entice people and to feed their kinks. I doubt the writer was sharing it like a dirty novel.

Imagine if this Lot story is NOT in the Bible, but as a random novel. Now, can you see it as a dirty novel? I share it to show you that a book with this story should be held to the same standard as other banned books. Why on earth does a book discussing homosexuality should be banned, yet a book depicting gang rape, incest, and degrading women like a dirty novel should be praised?

You are right. It wouldn't be suitable for children. I don't let my children read the Bible. It would be considered in that genre.

The Bible is different because it's the Bible. (I don't know if this is a British perspective). We live in a Christian country (or at least it used to be when kings actually had power) where the church and the monarchy are considered one (in a sense). The Bible is regarded as a holy book. That is given more power and authority than any other book. It is placed on a pedestal if you will.

It is this feeling surrounding it that gives it permission to be free to exist in the state it is. But I personally wouldn't encourage children to read it. There are children's Bibles that have the main stories that are nice.

Most people don't imagine the stories in the Bible that are a bit grim. They tend to think of the main ones that have purpose. I doubt there is much purpose to sharing the story of incest in my understanding of the purpose of the Bible.

I find it odd that many stories have been removed from the Bible but some that should be removed haven't. They should have left it fully intact in my opinion.

[markc]

Hi all, I'm a bit surprised after reading some posts. Maybe I misunderstood something, and I think maybe I should clarify something.

I am NOT bad-mouthing the Bible. The Old Testament, as I said, is a book of history and probably tales. It is what it is. My point is: comparing the Bible to the books being banned by the far-right, it is way, way more graphic and "dangerous." Yet they ban many educational books and praise the Bible. Isn't that messed up?

If my comparison of Lot's story to porn upsets you, it should--because if it were not in the Bible but in a random novel, I bet most people, if not all, would call it perverted. That is the point. Why does a book like this get to stay on the bookshelf just because it's a religion's holy book? Is there anything holy about the story?

Just my 2 cents.

[markc]

I think giving the daughters to the mob doesn't necessarily imply they are beneath human because clearly there is the thought that they would be preferred over the angels. (I haven't read the story so just responding to the article). Meaning they are better than the angels.

When women live together, their cycles tend to sync up. And before contraception and other hormone altering things, cycles tended to follow the moon. There are times when my cycle falls into sync with the moon. There are also ways to tell if you are ovulating (as long as you aren't altering your hormones). Women (pre contraception) were probably more likely to listen to their body and use natural fertility tracking as a contraceptive.
So there is a possibility that if they intended to get pregnant they may have aligned it precisely. Also women often get hornier when ovulating.

Another thing you could consider is that if this happened once and they had no issue with it then they probably did it multiple times. If a man wrote the story then it's probably written to make Lot innocent given that he is probably being portrayed as righteous and God worthy.

I personally disagree with this view, but I respect your opinion.

I don't know how it is related to women's sync cycle. And I hope you're not implying the daughters should be given to the mob because they might be horny. Being gang raped by 50 aggressive men (100/2) who might kill you (see the next story I'll share next week) probably isn't every woman's idea of a vacation.

Just my personal view.

[markc]

Imagine if this Lot story is NOT in the Bible, but as a random novel. Now, can you see it as a dirty novel? I share it to show you that a book with this story should be held to the same standard as other banned books. Why on earth does a book discussing homosexuality should be banned, yet a book depicting gang rape, incest, and degrading women like a dirty novel should be praised?

You are right. It wouldn't be suitable for children. I don't let my children read the Bible. It would be considered in that genre.

The Bible is different because it's the Bible. (I don't know if this is a British perspective). We live in a Christian country (or at least it used to be when kings actually had power) where the church and the monarchy are considered one (in a sense). The Bible is regarded as a holy book. That is given more power and authority than any other book. It is placed on a pedestal if you will.

It is this feeling surrounding it that gives it permission to be free to exist in the state it is. But I personally wouldn't encourage children to read it. There are children's Bibles that have the main stories that are nice.

Most people don't imagine the stories in the Bible that are a bit grim. They tend to think of the main ones that have purpose. I doubt there is much purpose to sharing the story of incest in my understanding of the purpose of the Bible.

I find it odd that many stories have been removed from the Bible but some that should be removed haven't. They should have left it fully intact in my opinion.

Yes, indeed that's my point. The Bible is no more suitable for children than many unjustified banned books. Again, the double standard sickens me. Thanks for pointing that out.

[huckelberry]

Hi all, I'm a bit surprised after reading some posts. Maybe I misunderstood something, and I think maybe I should clarify something.

I am NOT bad-mouthing the Bible. The Old Testament, as I said, is a book of history and probably tales. It is what it is. My point is: comparing the Bible to the books being banned by the far-right, it is way, way more graphic and "dangerous." Yet they ban many educational books and praise the Bible. Isn't that messed up?

If my comparison of Lot's story to porn upsets you, it should--because if it were not in the Bible but in a random novel, I bet most people, if not all, would call it perverted. That is the point. Why does a book like this get to stay on the bookshelf just because it's a religion's holy book? Is there anything holy about the story?

Just my 2 cents.

Markc, I do not think you are entirely wrong here but I have difficulty relating to your post. In general I do not support book banning but can imagine some books as not appropriate for children. I am not aware of any large scale book banning movement but there are local ones in various places concerned with school or public libraries. I can imagine some books such as actual porn as not appropriate for school libraries but that is not where disagreement arises. There are books intended to be educational which some people object to not because they mention sex but that the books promote views about sexuality which some people view as unhealthy and dangerous. I do not think you will change those people's minds by observing that the Bible has some stories not appropriate for children.

I would be more hopeful that the realization that ideas parents do not like cannot be hidden from teenagers can protect libraries. If a parent wishes to disagree with the views of some book in the library it is better for the parent to explain why to their children than to hope to keep different views hidden.

[huckelberry]

But I personally wouldn't encourage children to read it. There are children's Bibles that have the main stories that are nice.

Most people don't imagine the stories in the Bible that are a bit grim. They tend to think of the main ones that have purpose. I doubt there is much purpose to sharing the story of incest in my understanding of the purpose of the Bible.

I find it odd that many stories have been removed from the Bible but some that should be removed haven't. They should have left it fully intact in my opinion.

Imwashingmypirate, I remember the idea that there is Jewish tradition of not letting children read Genesis until they reach a certain age. I do not know how common such a tradition is but there is a certain sense to it.

The Bible is a collection of stories so it is most likely that there were stories that were considered for inclusion but were not. I may think it could have been better to skip the Lot's daughters story but it is not up to me. I am puzzled by your concern about removed stories. What sort of stories are you thinking of and why would you think of them as removed? Are you thinking of the Apocrypha? You can purchase Bibles which include that material.