As expected, Mark can’t answer my question that I asked him the other day. He gave some jumbled response, but it made no sense. It was something about God’s will, which really translates that he knows God’s will. I keep forgetting that he has all the answers and anyone who questions him is a fool. 😉
I think that a lot of these people who use this story in Genesis and in Judges don’t want to think about it too closely. They don’t want to think about the women–the virgin daughters and the concubine (from Judges) and how they were feeling when God told their fathers/owners to toss them outside to be raped to death (as happened with the concubine). They are only concerned with the so-called homosexual men and NO ONE has been able to tell me why a bunch of men who could gang rape a woman to death could be even remotely homosexual. Raping a woman is the realm of straight men, not homosexual men. This just tells me that these stories are just that–just stories. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that Lot is virtuous for what he did. Or the father who threw out his concubine (and who wanted to toss out his daughters) to some men to be raped. That is sick. There is nothing moral in that story. DL Foster tries to reason it was by saying that Lot knew beforehand that the men really didn’t want his daughters. That is a good way to not think about what this story is really about. He states:
"Lot’s actions were to protect God’s messengers even at the expense of his own children. But I think that he knew they didnt want the women anyway. That was clear per their threats."
This also makes me wonder why God’s messengers couldn’t protect themselves–you would think with God on their side it wouldn’t have to come down to either facing the crowd themselves or tossing the nearest virgin outside to be killed. I wonder if these messengers were having their tea and scones while all this was happening?
And not to be left out, the rabidly anti-gay Dani makes a reappearance on Mark at Chesterstreet. She has this to say:
"I can barely stomach the twisted perversion of Scripture put out by queer theologians these days.
NO matter how hard you try to convince them that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION – it’s like climbing a mountain of jello because they are so utterly depraved and completely comfortable in their SIN, nothing we say makes any difference.
If "inhospitality" is what really brought God’s judgment of fire and brimstone on Sodom, just imagine how much more wrath God would pour out for gross sexual immorality?
And I wonder where we get the term ‘Sodomite’ from anyway? Perhaps it’s from not bringing the new neighbors a basket of muffins? I dunno?"
6/10/2008 10:08 PM
‘I dunno’ is certainly the correct answer, Dani.
And I would love to know how her stomach would react when her father grabs her by the arm, takes her to the door of the house while a crowd of men are screaming outside, and tosses her outside only to be raped endlessly to death just because he thinks his God told him to. Or how her stomach would be when her husband grabs her young daughters by the arms and tosses them outside to a bunch of men only to be raped to death, just because he thinks God told him to. Knowing Dani, she might see this as a one-way ticket to heaven for her or her virgin daughters or that pesky concubine of her husband’s, but I imagine that she can’t think about that aspect of the story. Most women can’t and they ignore it because it is too horrible to think that their God sacrificed them like this. That is why they have to focus on the other aspect of the story and ignore what it is really talking about.
These stories are great indicators of the treatment of women in that society. They didn’t have shelter under their father’s house like strangers would. They were property, to be sold to the highest suitor and then they would be under the control of their husbands, or if he died, his father, or if he was dead, her son. Sounds like great family values…