Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

[EmilyAlexandra]

@LilyM @Tis_Bearself @kapp19

My apologies for any offence caused. In English common law, which I assume is the basis of the legal systems within which most people on this forum operate, rape was historically defined as meaning penetration of the vagina with the penis. This definition is now obsolete in England and Wales as the offence has been defined by statute. However, English law still specifies that rape requires penetration with the penis. I am sorry that I was not aware that there are other common law jurisdictions that have expanded the meaning of the term even further.

I’m sorry that this side issue has somewhat overshadowed my more fundamental point. Let us suppose that William is raped by John, while Emma is raped by James. Who among us is going to look Emma in the eye and tell her that her rape by James was “generically” or “categorically” a less serious crime than William’s rape by John, because Emma’s rape was “heterosexual” and “merely” an abuse of the sexual faculty, whereas William’s rape was “homosexual” and therefore an offence against God and against “the principle of human generation”? Who is going to say to Emma, “It could have been much worse: it could have been sodomy”?

I do not need anybody to explain the arguments to me. I think the arguments are very clear indeed. The argument is that according to natural law, in particular as defined by Thomas Aquinas, every part of the body, and every human activity, has a divinely ordained purpose towards which one must always be directed in order to be pleasing to God by fulfilling his plans. In the case of the sexual organs and sexual acts, their purpose is the reproduction of the human species. Therefore, when Emma is raped by James, the offence consists in the fact that Emma does not consent to the use of the sexual organs for their natural purpose. However, when William is raped by John, the offence consists in the fact that the sexual organs are being used for a purpose other than that intended by God. Therefore, John is the more heinous criminal compared with James. Opposite-sex rape is therefore only an offence against a human being, not an offence against nature.

I understand this, but I cannot bring myself to agree with it. It seems to completely fail to take into account the feelings of the victim. When a woman is raped by a man, I honestly do not think that she says, “Thank goodness that I was only raped by a man. If I had been sexually assaulted by another woman, the offence would have been categorically more grave, since it would have involved a disordered use of the sexual faculty and would not have been oriented towards the purpose of human generation.”

I also take issue with the idea that rape is an offence “against chastity”. That makes it sound as if the main thing that is wrong with rape is that it is not “chaste”, putting it on a level with premarital sex, adultery, even masturbating. The rapist does not typically rape because he wants to have sex with somebody. I am sure that most rapists could find consensual sex by some means, even if only by resorting to prostitution. I think it is better understood as a crime of horrific violence.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

P.S.

On the logic of the above, is it considered “more grave” if a man rapes a woman using a condom? Pragmatically, one would think that the use of a condom would be in a sense a small mitigating factor, as it would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy and contracting an STI, and perhaps psychologically places a barrier between the rapist and the victim. Any mitigation would of course be vanishingly small. But, using the arguments from natural law, would one have to say that in fact using a condom during a rape would if anything make it “more grave” because it would disrupt the divinely ordained purpose of vaginal intercourse, namely, reproduction, whereas a rape without a condom is non-consensual but not unnatural or disordered?

Extending this further, presumably if a male-on-male rape or female-on-female sexual assault are consider worse than a “heterosexual” rape, would one also have to say that the anal or oral rape of a woman is also worse than a vaginal rape, since anal and oral sex are held to be “sodomy”, whereas vaginal intercourse is natural intercourse as intended by God for the purpose of reproduction?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Culpability is a subjective consideration.

That some can suggest that hey, it wasn’t as bad as men being raped is chilling.

Again, they’re looking at it from a perspective in the context of the story, and you’re looking at it with 21st century eyes.

When you look at in the context of their time and place, you’re not saying “oh, yeah… objectively, they were right”. What you’re saying is “in his time and place, what they did fits cultural norms. He’s not morally good in what he does, but it would be hard to convict him of a crime in his own context.” That’s all.

When Lot and Abraham parted ways, Lot settled into the “suburbs” of Sodom, then eventually they moved into the city.

Which, for the writer, is already a sign that he’s lost his way. A livestock man? In the suburbs? IN THE CITY, for crying out loud?!?!?

 

[Gorgias]

Not only is God literally separating the righteous from the unrighteous

So, let’s look at who was “saved”:

• Lot, who left his way of life and moved into a (gasp!) city !
  • (Not to mention all the bad stuff we see him doing in that narrative)
• his wife – who, after being saved by angels, still nevertheless can’t turn away from her life back there
• his daughters, who take turns getting their father drunk so that they can commit incest and be impregnated by their father

This is a gallery of “righteous” people?

Well… let’s think about that for a minute…

in 2 Peter 2 6-9 it’s stated twice that Lot was righteous:

There we go! Now that’s a reasonable argument!

So, let’s keep thinking about this “righteous” thing. As you read 2 Peter 2, you see that there’s another “righteous” man – Noah. Is he any better than Lot? (Have you ever read the Flood story beyond the rainbow covenant finish? You should. The first thing that they say that Noah does is to plant grapes and get falling-down drunk, which has negative effects for his wife and family.

So… is Lot ‘righteous’? Well… are baptized Christians ‘righteous’? (I’d say so – we’re justified through baptism.). But, does that mean that we’re sinless? That we are pure and holy and upright? Hardly: we’re all sinners. Even when we’re in the midst of sinning, though, we’re still justified (even if we’re in big-time need of Reconciliation with God!)

So, if you’re asking whether Lot was righteous, I’d say ‘yes’, but I don’t think it’s the slam-dunk you’re trying to make it out to be.

So, to sum up: God saves Lot and his family because of Abraham, not Lot. And, ‘righteousness’ isn’t the bludgeon you think it is. If we call Lot ‘righteous’, we still have to admit he’s sinning, no?

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.

Sure, but that’s not the context of the ‘pillar of salt’ narrative, and you know it.

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

“Providing” in what way? And, are you talking about in the OT?

In order for him not to be culpable he would have been compelled to do so either by a sheer lack of other options.

Not true.

whose moral compass sees nothing wrong with such acts.

I don’t think we’re hearing “there’s nothing wrong”; we’re hearing “look at it in context and understand it from his point of view.”

(Edited to add: I see Lily has made the ‘righteous’ / ‘sinless’ distinction, too.)

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Even when we’re in the midst of sinning, though, we’re still justified (even if we’re in big-time need of Reconciliation with God

So simul justus et peccator?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Even when we’re in the midst of sinning, though, we’re still justified (even if we’re in big-time need of Reconciliation with God

So simul justus et peccator?

Not in the way Luther meant it.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Not in the way Luther meant it.

That’s not a no.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s not a no.

Of course it is.

Luther meant “a sinner who is already saved.” That’s not what we’re asserting.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You said:

Even when we’re in the midst of sinning, though, we’re still justified (even if we’re in big-time need of Reconciliation with God

Now explain how this isn’t the same.

 

[Gorgias]

You said:

Gorgias:

Even when we’re in the midst of sinning, though, we’re still justified (even if we’re in big-time need of Reconciliation with God

Now explain how this isn’t the same.

“Justified” (i.e., baptized) =/= “saved”. Luther was proclaiming that, having been justified, the Christian was saved. (He used the word “just”, of course, but in a way that Catholics don’t use it.)

So… are the words the same? Meh… perhaps. Are the meanings identical? By no means.

 

[LilyM]

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

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!

And yet Peter denied Christ, Paul persecuted Christians, David adulterered with a Bathsheba and Solomon was seduced by his wives and concubines into worshipping idols. IIRC. Are these grievous sins all they are remembered for? Do we discount completely the real good they did?

 

[Aulef]

First, in the culture of the time, male supremacy ruled. Stinks, but it’s history; one cannot change what happened, or hold people to the same standards as today.

It is important to know that Saint Thomas proved by ways of natural law that a woman being under the protection of her father or husband gives them certain rights over her. And this definitely isn’t male supremacy.

 

[Aulef]

Makes sense… What Lot’s daughters did to him afterwards was terrible…

 

[Freddy]

Again, they’re looking at it from a perspective in the context of the story, and you’re looking at it with 21st century eyes.

When you look at in the context of their time and place, you’re not saying “oh, yeah… objectively, they were right”. What you’re saying is “in his time and place, what they did fits cultural norms. He’s not morally good in what he does, but it would be hard to convict him of a crime in his own context.” That’s all.

I’m completely bemused by the fact that you are literaly describing relativism. But won’t admit to that.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

What Lot’s daughters did to him afterwards was terrible…

See, that’s the other thing.
Parent-child incest is taboo in nearly every culture of the world.
What were they exposed to in Sodom that would even put the idea in their heads?
What is the Bible not telling us about Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[Aulef]

Maybe the Bible gives us a hint.

The first time God wiped out a civilization, He did because everyone had ONLY evil intentions in their hearts. Not one good. Sodom and Gomorra were probably on the same level of evilness.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m completely bemused by the fact that you are literaly describing relativism. But won’t admit to that.

And I’m completely amused by the fact that you’re missing the fact that it’s not relativism that I’m discussing, but rather, the difference between objective sin and subjective culpability.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m completely bemused by the fact that you are literaly describing relativism. But won’t admit to that.

And I’m completely amused by the fact that you’re missing the fact that it’s not relativism that I’m discussing, but rather, the difference between objective sin and subjective culpability.

Again, that is relativism. Any immoral act is relative to the conditions that pertain to that act. The conditions do not absolve the act even if culpability is likewise relative to moral norms at that time.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, that is relativism. Any immoral act is relative to the conditions that pertain to that act. The conditions do not absolve the act even if culpability is likewise relative to moral norms at that time.

It really isn’t relativism. If it were, then the morality of the act would depend on the circumstances. It doesn’t. However, culpability can be increased or diminished by virtue of the circumstances.

 

[Leek]

I think the real issue here is that whatever the value of the natural law method when it’s applied by men with disgusting views of women your going to get an output of the same. All the focus is on conception and actually doing the dangerous work of bearing and raising children is ignored like it doesn’t exist. If women are supposed to be different from men why do men think they have any competence to speak for us.