Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

[kapp19]

First of all, I do understand your difficulty, and I am happy to try to explain it better if you really want me to. The basic idea is that sins can be more directly committed against God or less directly. . . .

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Since rape requires that the rapist must have a penis, it is a crime that can only be committed by a man,

It would seem you’re relying on a legal definition of “rape” that is specific to a particular jurisdiction, probably your own. Some jurisdictions define “rape” as penile penetration only, and have other names like “sexual assault” or “assault by penetration” for other sexual assault crimes. However, I would note that MANY jurisdictions, including the one in USA where I am sitting right now, legally define the crime of “rape” very broadly to include numerous other acts that a woman, without a penis and even without any other object, could commit on a man, such as having intercourse with a male whose consent was impaired under the influence of drink or drugs, or having intercourse with a man who was mentally disabled or under a certain age.

Furthermore, it’s generally understood that the term “Rape” to the general public includes all kinds of sexual acts undertaken without consent, even though when one goes to court “Rape” means one set of acts and others are called “Sexual assault” or “Assault by penetration” or some other legal term of art.

In any event, many people who aren’t lawyers would consider it sexist and offensive to claim that only a person with a penis can commit rape. And in a lot of places, like right here, what you’re saying would be legally wrong also.

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

This is true as well. In many states a woman without a penis could definitely commit the legally defined crime of “rape” against another woman. For example, in the US state of California, the state law says that “All forms of nonconsensual sexual assault may be considered rape.” And also says, “The essential determination of whether an offender is guilty of rape lies in the outrage to the victim’s person and the feelings of the victim of the rape.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Another possible explanation was that Lot made the offer knowing it would be refused. The men of Sodom were xenophobic rapists,

I’ve also read interpretations saying that the male inhabitants of Sodom were primarily interested in committing homosexual acts, and therefore the idea of raping women wasn’t attractive to them; they wanted to rape the male visitors instead.

Your point about Sacred Hospitality is also well taken given that Origen emphasized that point (emphasizing lack of hospitality as Sodom’s greatest sin) in his teachings to early Christians. Nowadays we tend to see Sodom’s greatest sin as the fact that it bred a culture of violent gang rapists. Hospitality, or hospitality to God’s messengers specifically, doesn’t seem as important to us because we focus more on the awfulness of rape in our current culture.

In recent eras I think we are a lot more focused on the daughter-rape aspect because our current culture has a much greater sensitivity towards rape victims than the culture of ancient times. Back then, an unmarried virgin daughter was pretty much the property of her father, and raping her was more of an unlawful taking of father’s property and an insult to her father than a crime against her personal feelings or a ruining of her life, which she didn’t have much say over anyway.

In the same manner, some of the more modern non-Catholic interpretations of Sodom play down the homosexuality angle because of an interest/ agenda in not portraying homosexual acts as sinful.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I believe the logic of the poster was that one is rape+sodomy, the other is “just” rape. It’s a hard statement to make without sounding like an insensitive jerk.

 

[kapp19]

It’s important to be precise with language. The point is not “man” or “woman” but what kind of use of the sexual faculty is occurring - one that follows the order of reason with respect to the faculty itself, and the other that doesn’t. The latter is categorically worse, in general, even if particular acts might not be for this or that reason.

I believe the logic of the poster was that one is rape+sodomy, the other is “just” rape. It’s a hard statement to make without sounding like an insensitive jerk.

It is hard. And I hope I am coming off not as an “insensitive jerk” - I have no desire to downplay the seriousness of the one sin, I have a desire to reveal how bad the other sin is. And unfortunately, I do not care to continue trying to make the case

But surely you understand that rape goes far beyond a sin against chastity?

Yes. It’s an aggravation of a sin against chastity through the use of violence.

I must leave the thread unfortunately. I do not think it is worth continuing.

-K

 

[Tis_Bearself]

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?

I don’t see contortion, I see it as trying to understand Lot’s actions in the context of the time and culture where he lived.

I understand why the Catholic Answers official commentary on this relies on the “Lesser of the two evils, still bad” interpretation (which I note was also mentioned in the Haydock commentary posted by Vico).

Was it right for Lot to offer his daughters to be raped? | Catholic Answers Q&A

CA is trying to evangelize people in this modern age. Your average person looking into Catholicism today would be repelled by any sort of apparent “explaining away” of Lot’s action just as you and probably others on this thread are.

Plus, the “Lesser of two evils, still bad” interpretation is a reasonable one. Many scholars have noted that Lot brought all this on himself and his family in the first place by choosing to move to an area renowned for being super sinful, rather than moving someplace else, and it has been questioned why Lot would do this - did he find it exciting to be around sin, or was he accepting some level of sin in order to get more economic benefit for himself and in so doing exposing his family to potential harm. If Lot had made better moral choices, he wouldn’t be forced into these moral dilemmas with no good response. (There are other things Lot did that one can point to for support in arguing he made other poor moral choices.)

However, it seems clear that virgin daughters, children in general, and rape weren’t seen thousands of years ago in quite the same light as they are today. The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son is every bit as awful. On this type of forum where people do have some ability/ capacity to get past the immediate present-day emotional reaction of “how could a father do such a terrible thing?” and discuss the cultural implications and the biblical interpretation over time, it’s reasonable for people to do that.

I actually find it kind of refreshing that there’s a forum where we can have these discussions, because I certainly can’t have them with

• non-believers who read this stuff and say “This is horrible, God if he even exists is horrible, Scripture is horrible, Christianity is horrible” etc
• or sola scriptura Protestants who have one interpretation they think is correct and not open to others
• or your average Catholic “bible study” group who are often at some super basic level of reading Scripture, and don’t want to discuss these icky parts of the OT, and maybe even have a priest kind of shooing them away from it because people get upset by it or even start to doubt.

 

[twf]

This only looks at the objective nature of the physical acts themselves. Physically, in terms of the laws of nature, homosexual sex is more disordered than heterosexual sex. Yet I think this is a good example of development of doctrine… the Church is now more likely to take into consideration other factors. What about psychological damage for example? We now understand that a young woman who is raped by a man may NEVER recover… we take rape far more seriously today, for this reason, than we did in the past. I think moral theology has become more nuanced as our understanding of the human person has become more nuanced.

I’ll give another example… from a purely physical, objective Thomist perspective, masturbation is far more grave than fornication. Yet I can assure you that 99.9% of priests in the confessional take fornication WAY more seriously than masturbation. Why? Because they aren’t simply evaluating the objective nature of the physical act, but also looking at the broader consequences and implications.

 

[twf]

Yet as I just said in my previous post, I promise you that priests in the confessional take fornication much more seriously than masturbation. Objectively, in the sense that you are talking about, masturbation is a graver act than fornication… but the Church takes a more nuanced, holistic view when evaluating these matters…

 

[twf]

I see nothing that says Lot was righteous… or that God approved his decision to offer his daughters (assuming it wasn’t a bluff to begin with). As another poster said, it seems that Lot was spared on account of Abraham, not because of his own righteousness.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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”…

Not only is God literally separating the righteous from the unrighteous, but in 2 Peter 2 6-9 it’s stated twice that Lot was righteous:

if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly; 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

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

I already demonstrated where Lot is called righteous. That’s the benefit of actually having such 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”.

God has his angels rescue righteous Lot from being harmed by the mob. It wasn’t to admonish Lot for his actions, but to protect him. And why was he protecting him? Because he was righteous and didn’t have a problem with offering his daughters to be mass raped.

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…

It’s so foolish for me to think that punishment increases as the “crime” increases. If I’m on the boardwalk and hear a loud noise behind me I’m likely to turn around. This does not mean I have a “longing” for where that noise came from.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

Can you provide an instance where providing for one’s family was deemed more important than protecting them?

The question is whether he’s culpable for it.

In order for him not to be culpable he would have been compelled to do so either by a sheer lack of other options. As I’ve already demonstrated Lot had a great many options. It’s a question only for those who either will go to great lengths to defend the Bible or whose moral compass sees nothing wrong with such acts.

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

-K

I will never begrudge anyone for not wanting to continue in a discussion as they can go on for quite some time before they peter out. I feel it’s important that I continue on this thread, since it’s so shocking (to me) even after all this time people ponder the question, “How can I best defend a father who offered his daughters to be raped by a large amount of men?”

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?

It’s rare to watch/listen to Catholic media without a decrying of moral relativism. It’s also rare that in a discussion of these topics that moral relativism isn’t the first defense for such clear-cut moral issues. But that aside is a father who offers his daughters to be raped any better than a rapist?

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.

Just so we’re on the same page righteousness by the Church’s usage means living a life that has been judged pleasing to God. It pleases him to see a father offer his daughters to be horrifically raped. Don’t say this is an aberration, because such acts reveals the true depths of one’s lack of love for a child in a way few others acts can. Sure I understand the idea of forgiveness (an opportunity NOT given to Lot’s wife, who must have be so much worse than her husband) but in that moment no person using the most basic morality available to all humanity should even consider him close to righteous.

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?

I would call that reprehensible. Wouldn’t you?

 

[LilyM]

Gorgias:

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”…

Not only is God literally separating the righteous from the unrighteous, but in 2 Peter 2 6-9 it’s stated twice that Lot was righteous:

if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly; 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

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

I already demonstrated where Lot is called righteous. That’s the benefit of actually having such 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”.

God has his angels rescue righteous Lot from being harmed by the mob. It wasn’t to admonish Lot for his actions, but to protect him. And why was he protecting him? Because he was righteous and didn’t have a problem with offering his daughters to be mass raped.

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…

It’s so foolish for me to think that punishment increases as the “crime” increases. If I’m on the boardwalk and hear a loud noise behind me I’m likely to turn around. This does not mean I have a “longing” for where that noise came from.

“Righteous” is not to be confused with 'sinless". King David, for example, while quite obviously sinning grievously in relation to Bathsheba, in a manner that God quite clearly disapproves and punishes him for, is nonetheless a man ‘after God’s own heart’. I think the key is not being without sin, but recognising it and repeanting.

God did NOT approve of any of what happened in Sodom, otherwise the would be rapists would not have been struck blind nor the city destroyed

And Lot seems to have repented and thought better of what he had done, or he would have stayed behind or turned back as his wife did.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

@Gorgias and @Mike_from_NJ, didn’t you guys have this exact same argument 6 years ago?

Sometimes in the Bible righteous means not righteous Sacred Scripture

So I was on Catholic Answers Live on Friday, July 25th. You can check out my less than dulcet tones here. I was fairly nervous and I knew time was running short, so I may have spoken at hyper-speed. I am the last caller of the hour (not counting the surprise call at the end for the screener who was leaving the show – which was very nice). I want to thank the host, Patrick Coffin, and the guest, Dr. David Anders, for having on non-Catholics like myself. I also want to thank them for their cou…

I’m not sure what the big debate is, but:

• Lot was righteous when he lived with Abraham
• Lot was righteous in presumably not engaging in the sins of his neighbors in Sodom
• Lot was righteous in giving hospitality
• In some areas, Lot sinned (example: arguing with the angels telling him to flee to the hills rather than trusting in God and doing it; drinking to excess) or made questionable decisions that may have been sins (example: choosing to live in a sinful place, offering his daughters to the mob) - but even if he sinned, he had time to repent, and the Scripture is full of righteous men who sinned (for example, King David and Peter)

If Lot was not to some degree righteous, he would likely have been destroyed by the Lord, Abraham or not. The Lord certainly didn’t hesitate to pulverize his wife for looking back when told not to.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I actually find it kind of refreshing that there’s a forum where we can have these discussions, because I certainly can’t have them with

My intent wasn’t to shut down discussion. It just seemed that some posters were starting from the assumption that there must be a justification. I was trying to point out, perhaps not clearly, that we’re not required to defend Lot’s actions.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I guess we’re not required to defend them, but then we’re left with the conundrum of why the actions weren’t more roundly condemned by people like Peter (who calls Lot “righteous”) and Origen.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@Gorgias and @Mike_from_NJ, didn’t you guys have this exact same argument 6 years ago?

Sometimes in the Bible righteous means not righteous

Yep, but I didn’t want to say anything. Lucky for me rape is still a bad thing, so I don’t really have to change my arguments.

Plus these things go in cycles. Just because there was a thread on a topic only means it’ll die down and a new one will crop up later. If I were to search for threads about “knowing the day and hour” my screen would start going crazy like the climactic scene in act I of Colossus: The Forbin Project

I’m not sure what the big debate is, but:

• Lot was righteous when he lived with Abraham
• Lot was righteous in presumably not engaging in the sins of his neighbors in Sodom
• Lot was righteous in giving hospitality
• In some areas, Lot sinned (example: arguing with the angels telling him to flee to the hills rather than trusting in God and doing it; drinking to excess) or made questionable decisions that may have been sins (example: choosing to live in a sinful place, offering his daughters to the mob) - but even if he sinned, he had time to repent, and the Scripture is full of righteous men who sinned (for example, King David and Peter)

There’s a reason we don’t talk about how good of clown John Wayne Gacy or was or focus on how much charitable funds Jimmy Saville raised. If something had happened to those girls because of this horrid notion Lot allegedly spoke do you think they’d be talking about how gracious he was with his uncle?

There’s no rhyme or reason to what sins result in death (dropping the arc, having an affair, picking up sticks, not circumcising your kid in a timely manner) and which ones result in being spared death.

If Lot was not to some degree righteous, he would likely have been destroyed by the Lord, Abraham or not. The Lord certainly didn’t hesitate to pulverize his wife for looking back when told not to.

I agree on both counts, and both speak poorly of what God prioritizes and finds good.

I’m going to bed. I’ll follow up with everyone tomorrow. I’m sure there will be nothing but hugs and chocolates waiting for me then!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There’s a reason we don’t talk about how good of clown John Wayne Gacy or was or focus on how much charitable funds Jimmy Saville raised. If something had happened to those girls because of this horrid notion Lot allegedly spoke do you think they’d be talking about how gracious he was with his uncle?

There’s no rhyme or reason to what sins result in death (dropping the arc, having an affair, picking up sticks, not circumcising your kid in a timely manner) and which ones result in being spared death.

Well, this to me comes back around to the cultural difference between the times of the OT and the times today.
In the days of the OT, a lot of men relied on carrying women off and basically raping them in order to get wives.
It’s also likely that a lot of women were raped by their own husbands despite being legally given by their father in marriage (or the father being pressured into it).

And yes, people were struck dead or punished for all sorts of stuff that seems minor to us today, like Uzzah who used his hand to steady the ark of the Lord so it wouldn’t fall off a cart when the oxen pulling it stumbled and made the cart tilt.

It is what it is. We can either try and read and learn about what my history teacher would call “the social construction of the people’s reality” and the culture and how things were expressed and why at the time the events happened, or we can keep viewing it through a 21st century lens and gain very few insights and end up concluding just about everybody was a creep back then.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Okay.

So we all agree that Lot did bad things.
We also sought to understand the context in which he lived his life.

And you’re still incensed.

What more do you actuallly how to get out of this thread?

 

[Rau]

I would call that reprehensible. Wouldn’t you?

I would. But that’s not the relevant question, as I think my post makes clear.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

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.

They didn’t deem him righteous. They did it as a favor to Abraham.

So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.
Genesis 19:29 RSV

Genesis 19:29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt. | Revised Standard Version (RSV) | Download The Bible