Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

[EmilyAlexandra]

Either he can let his male guests be raped, or his daughters. Sodomy is much worse.

So a man being raped is worse than a woman being raped? On the face of it, this seems like an indefensible distinction to draw.

 

[Fauken]

So a man being raped is worse than a woman being raped? On the face of it, this seems like an indefensible distinction to draw.

It is if the rapist is also a man in this case. The issue isn’t a man being raped, but the fact they’re the same sex. The fact it is a homosexual act makes it more grave than if it were between members of the opposite sex, regardless whether both of them are men or women. A man raping a man is equally as bad as a woman raping a woman, and a man raping a woman is equally as bad as a woman raping a man.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There’s an important thing to note here, that despite Lot offering his daughters to be raped by a gang of men God still deemed Lot righteous. That’s a searing indictment on Jehovah.

It’s not as if Lot couldn’t have done other things. He could have:

• Bribed the men
• Threatened the men
• Offered himself to the men to spare his wife, daughters, future sons-in-law, and guests
• Asked the angels for help
• Prayed to God (his uncle had a conversation with God earlier)

It’s also notable that not only did God not see a problem with Lot offering his daughters to be raped by a townful of men, but that this action was somehow more acceptable than Lot’s wife turning to look back as fire and explosions were occurring as she and her family were running away.

 

[kapp19]

So a man being raped is worse than a woman being raped? On the face of it, this seems like an indefensible distinction to draw.

It is a difficult category to grasp. But yes, acts that utterly discard the principle of human generation are generically graver offenses against the virtue of chastity, as they go directly against the One Who made the sexual faculty and its order in the first place, as opposed to merely misusing it with violence. That does not necessarily mean that each act in each category is worse/better than the other, but it is a matter of the category itself…

 

[kapp19]

There’s an important thing to note here, that despite Lot offering his daughters to be raped by a gang of men God still deemed Lot righteous. That’s a searing indictment on Jehovah.

It’s really not. When is the last time you had an angry mob at your door, who you thought you could get to do something merely bad instead of something even worse?

Your alternatives do not make sense… A bribe for a mob? A threat against a mob? A single victim instead of multiple instances of “new meat”? He does get help from the angels (whom he doesn’t know are angels) and from God through them…

Lot’s wife is interesting. But can we acknowledge that Lot is not doing something evil first?

 

[Gorgias]

There’s an important thing to note here, that despite Lot offering his daughters to be raped by a gang of men God still deemed Lot righteous.

He did? Where do you read that? Certainly not in God’s promise to defer destroying the cities if he found ten righteous folks living there! No, there’s a different reason that Lot was preserved when God destroyed the cities for their wickedness: “When God destroyed the cities of the Plain, he remembered Abraham and sent Lot away from the upheaval that occurred when God overthrew the cities where Lot had been living.”

You see, God spared Lot because Abraham was righteous. That’s not “a searing indictment on Jehovah”…

It’s also notable that not only did God not see a problem with Lot offering his daughters to be raped by a townful of men

I think the “searing indictment” is on your exegetical skills!

Notice that angels are seen as messengers of God in the OT, and they are as if God Himself has visited. When Lot makes the offer, they open the door, yank him inside, and tell him “enough – we’re razing this town to the ground!” I don’t read that as “God didn’t have a problem”.

And Lot’s wife? The point is that, even in the midst of all she’d seen, she still longed for that environment that God had just destroyed. It’s an indication of judgment, not of “it’s better to offer one’s daughters”. C’mon, man…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s really not. When is the last time you had an angry mob at your door, who you thought you could get to do something merely bad instead of something even worse?

Any father – any real father – would do anything to protect his children, even at the expense of his own life. I would go so far as to say that a father’s purpose of protecting his family supersedes even providing for his family.

Your alternatives do not make sense… A bribe for a mob? A threat against a mob? A single victim instead of multiple instances of “new meat”? He does get help from the angels (whom he doesn’t know are angels) and from God through them…

Even if the chances are slim that it would work, it beats the alternative. The father doing any of those things may give his family and guests enough time to escape.

By the way, who would even conceive of offering their children to a mob. Remember the mob wasn’t even asking for the girls, they were asking for the angels. Yet somehow righteous Lot gets the notion and acts on it.

Lot’s wife is interesting. But can we acknowledge that Lot is not doing something evil first?

There are few things as evil as what Lot allegedly did. Reprehensible barely scratches the surface of just how monstrous such an act is.

 

[Gorgias]

Any father – any real father – would do anything to protect his children, even at the expense of his own life. I would go so far as to say that a father’s purpose of protecting his family supersedes even providing for his family.

And again, you’re interpreting from a 21st century western point of view. That actually is how we see it these days. That’s not how it was seen in that time or that place. If you’re going to interpret it anachronistically, you’re gonna get it wrong. Sorry.

There are few things as evil as what Lot allegedly did. Reprehensible barely scratches the surface of just how monstrous such an act is.

The question is whether he’s culpable for it.

 

[kapp19]

Call me unconvinced. And I don’t think it’s worth continuing this conversation.

-K

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

despite Lot offering his daughters to be raped by a gang of men God still deemed Lot righteous.

I’ve pondered on this a lot, but my takeaway is different than yours.

Think about it. God is prepared to wipe out an entire city for its sins.
We also know that nobody is perfectly sinless.
So if God’s “bar” was low enough to save a man like Lot, just how incredibly depraved was the rest of the city?

I’ll also point out that part of Judeo Christian theology is the possibility of repentance for the most vile sinner. But that’s a gift of God, not something we have coming to us.

 

[Freddy]

Mike_from_NJ:

Any father – any real father – would do anything to protect his children, even at the expense of his own life. I would go so far as to say that a father’s purpose of protecting his family supersedes even providing for his family.

And again, you’re interpreting from a 21st century western point of view. That actually is how we see it these days. That’s not how it was seen in that time or that place. If you’re going to interpret it anachronistically, you’re gonna get it wrong. Sorry.

There are few things as evil as what Lot allegedly did. Reprehensible barely scratches the surface of just how monstrous such an act is.

The question is whether he’s culpable for it.

So…it wasn’t objectively wrong. It would be wrong now but maybe not then. And I can’t believe I actually suggested that maybe it wasn’t wrong under some circumstances.

I agree with Mike. I find it difficult to think of a more heinous act. It is literally indefensible. That some can suggest that hey, it wasn’t as bad as men being raped is chilling.

This will be the last post I make on this thread. There is way too much risk of me posting what I really think and getting banned.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

There are few things as evil as what Lot allegedly did. Reprehensible barely scratches the surface of just how monstrous such an act is.

Assuming Lot wasn’t bluffing or attempting some kind of manipulation, I agree. Lot and his family were…troubled.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I don’t get why we need to try to defend this. Lot made a hideously immoral offer, perhaps in a moment of panic. But it was an awful thing to do. Why are we contorting ourselves to avoid acknowledging that?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Understatement of the century. I honestly think

So if God’s “bar” was low enough to save a man like Lot, just how incredibly depraved was the rest of the city?

is a good way to look at it, along with

You see, God spared Lot because Abraham was righteous.

Lot and his family were…pretty bad people. This guy offers his daughters to a mob of rapists, and his daughters ended up raping him later. I think the story highlights the depth of depravity in S&G, things so bad that such terrible things were pretty much the best the city had to offer.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I don’t get why we need to try to defend this.

Totally agree.
I see the Lot Family as a cautionary tale against how easy it is for people to start out righteous then descend into sin and dysfunction.
They didn’t start out in Sodom,
When Lot and Abraham parted ways, Lot settled into the “suburbs” of Sodom, then eventually they moved into the city.
We don’t know how they descended into the sin of the city.
In some ways it seems they were “better” than they’re neighbors, but not by much.
I’ve always seen Lot as somebody in whom the spark of Faith isn’t completely dead, but enormously compromised.

 

[BornInMarch]

There are a few possible explanations.

One of them is that the idea that Sacred Hospitality was held in the highest regard. As a host, a person’s highest moral duty became to protect their guest at all costs. If he handed the angels over to the angry mob that would be considered an extreme act of evil on his part.

Another possible explanation was that Lot made the offer knowing it would be refused. The men of Sodom were xenophobic rapists, and most modern psychologists believe sexual crimes stem in large part from a perpetrator’s desire for control and domination over his victims. By offering his daughters Lot was taking control out of the hands of the mob, something they wouldn’t have wanted. It’s worth noting that, rather than accept the offer, they threatened to rape Lot himself (at which point the angels made all the men in the mob blind). Adding to this is that when Lot made the offer he was outside his house, with his daughters still inside and the door closed behind him.

 

[Rau]

There are few things as evil as what Lot allegedly did. Reprehensible barely scratches the surface of just how monstrous such an act is.

If I understand, you read the story as Lot choosing to place his children in grave danger? Is that the basis of your judgement of reprehensible behaviour?

 

[BornInMarch]

Dismissing all opposing opinions as “making excuses” isn’t conducive to a good discussion.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

It is if the rapist is also a man in this case. The issue isn’t a man being raped, but the fact they’re the same sex. The fact it is a homosexual act makes it more grave than if it were between members of the opposite sex, regardless whether both of them are men or women. A man raping a man is equally as bad as a woman raping a woman, and a man raping a woman is equally as bad as a woman raping a man.

. . . .
That being the case, the comparison is between the scenarios in which a man rapes a woman and in which a man rapes a man. I honestly cannot understand how anybody can claim that one is worse than the other. Can you not see that the vast majority of people would actually find this comparison to be not only pointless but actually deeply offensive and insensitive? I for one could not bring myself to say to a female rape victim that her rape was less serious than if a man were raped.

I think that you also make a fundamental mistake in assuming that male-on-male rape is a homosexual act. The vast majority of people now understand that rape has very little to do with sex per se. It is more a crime of power and violence. This includes, for example, rape as a weapon of war, which has both male and female victims. It is very unlikely that many of the perpetrators of such male-on-male rapes would consider themselves to be gay or bisexual.

It is a difficult category to grasp. But yes, acts that utterly discard the principle of human generation are generically graver offenses against the virtue of chastity, as they go directly against the One Who made the sexual faculty and its order in the first place, as opposed to merely misusing it with violence. That does not necessarily mean that each act in each category is worse/better than the other, but it is a matter of the category itself…

It is indeed a difficult category to grasp. It seems to suggest that a crime against “the principle of human generation” (an abstract philosophical concept) is in some way more serious than a crime against the right of a woman not to be raped. It sounds as if you are saying that homosexuality is a crime against God, whereas rape is “merely” a crime against women. The very phrase “merely misusing it with violence” seems to suggest that the rape of a woman is deemed a comparatively trivial crime.

 

[LilyM]

Fauken:

It is if the rapist is also a man in this case. The issue isn’t a man being raped, but the fact they’re the same sex. The fact it is a homosexual act makes it more grave than if it were between members of the opposite sex, regardless whether both of them are men or women. A man raping a man is equally as bad as a woman raping a woman, and a man raping a woman is equally as bad as a woman raping a man.

You seem to be working from the premise that it is possible for a woman to commit rape. Since rape requires that the rapist must have a penis, it is a crime that can only be committed by a man, unless you accept the idea that a person with a penis can be a woman, as many do these days, of course. It is therefore unhelpful to introduce the scenarios in which a woman rapes a man or in which a woman rapes a woman.

That being the case, the comparison is between the scenarios in which a man rapes a woman and in which a man rapes a man. I honestly cannot understand how anybody can claim that one is worse than the other. Can you not see that the vast majority of people would actually find this comparison to be not only pointless but actually deeply offensive and insensitive? I for one could not bring myself to say to a female rape victim that her rape was less serious than if a man were raped.

I think that you also make a fundamental mistake in assuming that male-on-male rape is a homosexual act. The vast majority of people now understand that rape has very little to do with sex per se. It is more a crime of power and violence. This includes, for example, rape as a weapon of war, which has both male and female victims. It is very unlikely that many of the perpetrators of such male-on-male rapes would consider themselves to be gay or bisexual.

It is a difficult category to grasp. But yes, acts that utterly discard the principle of human generation are generically graver offenses against the virtue of chastity, as they go directly against the One Who made the sexual faculty and its order in the first place, as opposed to merely misusing it with violence. That does not necessarily mean that each act in each category is worse/better than the other, but it is a matter of the category itself…

It is indeed a difficult category to grasp. It seems to suggest that a crime against “the principle of human generation” (an abstract philosophical concept) is in some way more serious than a crime against the right of a woman not to be raped. It sounds as if you are saying that homosexuality is a crime against God, whereas rape is “merely” a crime against women. The very phrase “merely misusing it with violence” seems to suggest that the rape of a woman is deemed a comparatively trivial crime.

Since when does rape require a penis? Many jurisdictions include , without wanting to be too indelicate, other forms of penetration in their legal definitions of rape, and in those senses women are perfectly capable of raping other women