A Double Standard?

In the both the Roman Lectionary and Revised Common Lectionary, the first reading today was
Genesis 18:20-32 -- the discussion between God and Abraham about Sodom and its impending
destruction. Those reading the thread should familiarize themselves with the story with a quick
review.

God says, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, that I must
go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me.'

For now, never mind the seeming non-omniscience here. That's not the purpose of this thread.
The purpose is to review the ensuing discussion, in which Abraham appeals to God in mercy not to
kill 50 innocent along with the wicked, and then 45, then 40 and so on until 10. That is, God will
not kill 10 innocent of grave sin along with the guilty.

For now, never mind the debate about what the sin was (homosexuality, lack of social justice, disregard
for the poor, or general immorality). Let's just call it a 'grave sin.'

So, God decides to destroy the place, but as per the conversation with Abraham, wants to save the
handful of righteous people there, that is Lot and his family (confer Genesis 19:12-13).

Sounds like a noble thing right?

But look at Lot's behavior. When accosted by the evil dwellers of Sodom who wish to rape the angels
visiting Lot, what does he say? He says, 'I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I
have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and
you may do with them as you please.'

This is the righteous man whom God wanted to save?

I think the first story (the discussion between Abraham and God) is so beautiful. But the fickleness
of God's judgment of righteousness in the second story is so ugly.

What do people have to say about this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
But the fickleness
of God's judgment of righteousness in the second story is so ugly.

What do people have to say about this?

It doesn't seem that out of character to me. OT stories about God rendering surprising judgments about what is righteous are a dime a dozen, aren't they?

Isn't this the same God who gave the Levitical laws regarding the permissibility of slavery, who turned a person to salt for merely observing the destruction He had just wrought upon a city containing at least 50 innocents, who sent a bear to maul children acting like children, who hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he could not rid his people of the plagues, who commanded a man to slay his own son as a sacrifice, and on and on and on? It's not really that surprising that if God judged these things as righteous, that he wouldn't find offering up your daughters to be raped unrighteous, is it?

Your surprise derives from your assumption that there exists a standard of righteousness which you can approximately discern and to which God adheres in virtue of being good, coupled with your observation that God is acting contrary to your discernment of that standard. Thus, you can eliminate your surprise in one of two ways. One is to reject that assumption and accept instead that what God does and judges to be righteous is the standard of righteousness. Alternatively, you can reject your discernment as being a very poor approximation, so bad that you believe offering your daughters to be raped is unrighteous when in fact it is exemplary of righteousness.


I highly doubt the conversation took place anyway, so I get to avoid being gored by either horn of the dilemma.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do with them as you please.'

In a society where women are treated more like property than human beings, that would not be as morally bad as you might think.

What do people have to say about this?
As an excuse for Gods behavior in the Old testament I have heard several explanations:
1. People needed harsher treatment in those days.
2. God is righteous by definition thus whatever he does is righteous. Or what God chooses to do with his creation is his up to him and who are you to question it.
3. You do not know the whole story and God may have had reasons that you do not know about.

My problem with 2. is that it usually ends up with circular claims such as "God is righteous".
My problems with 3. are:
a. if critical details were left out then why tell the story.
b. if critical details were left out then how do you know they were not left out of other parts of the Bible. For example maybe Jesus was crucified because God lost a chess game against Satan.

Originally posted by Nemesio
.................This is the righteous man whom God wanted to save?

I think the first story (the discussion between Abraham and God) is so beautiful. But the fickleness
of God's judgment of righteousness in the second story is so ugly.

What do people have to say about this?

Nemesio

Also remember that Lot was the same one that slept with his 2 daughters so that the family seed will be carried on. Many will say its a disgusting act. What I think God values is the willingness of people to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones for Him. In Abrahams case he was stopped before his son was killed. Same here. The angels stopped the fiasco from proceeding further.

But one of first things a Bible reader should realise is that what is referred to as the righteousness of God is not the same as what men call righteousness. What I think is our weakness is that we value human life too much whereas God has a grand purpose and plan for mankind. So the lives of a few are unimportant. Obviously God had a plan for Lot.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Also remember that Lot was the same one that slept with his 2 daughters so that the family seed will be carried on. Many will say its a disgusting act. What I think God values is the willingness of people to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones for Him. In Abrahams case he was stopped before his son was killed. Same here. The angels stopped the fiasco fr ...[text shortened]... e and plan for mankind. So the lives of a few are unimportant. Obviously God had a plan for Lot.

IIRC, in certain Jewish traditions, Abraham actually is held to have done the wrong thing. God wanted him to stand up and protest against the command, and instead he meekly accepted it.

In other words, Abraham was being tested, and he failed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In a society where women are treated more like property than human beings, that would not be as morally bad as you might think.

[b]What do people have to say about this?
As an excuse for Gods behavior in the Old testament I have heard several explanations:
1. People needed harsher treatment in those days.
2. God is righteous by definition thus w ...[text shortened]... the Bible. For example maybe Jesus was crucified because God lost a chess game against Satan.[/b]

Why don't we add 4:

4- This story is not correct. And Lot never offer his own daughters to be rapped, and the story in the Bible is corrupted to give bad picture about GOD's prophets.

Originally posted by Nemesio
In the both the Roman Lectionary and Revised Common Lectionary, the first reading today was
Genesis 18:20-32 -- the discussion between God and Abraham about Sodom and its impending
destruction. Those reading the thread should familiarize themselves with the story with a quick
review.

God says, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and s in the second story is so ugly.

What do people have to say about this?

Nemesio

I will talk from Islamic prospective , and from what I read about this story in Islamic writings. Becuase this same event exit in Quran as will.

(Nobel-Translation)(Hud)

(o 74 o)(74. Then when the fear had gone away from -the mind of- Ibrahîm -Abraham-, and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us -Our Messengers- for the people of Lout -Lot-. )

(o 75 o)(75. Verily, Ibrahîm -Abraham- was, without doubt, forbearing, used to invoke Allâh with humility, and was repentant -to Allâh all the time, again and again-. )

(o 76 o)(76. "O Ibrahîm -Abraham-! Forsake this. Indeed, the Commandment of your Lord has gone forth. Verily, there will come a torment for them which cannot be turned back." )

(o 77 o)(77. And when Our Messengers came to Lout -Lot-, he was grieved on their account and felt himself straitened for them -lest the town people should approach them to commit sodomy with them-. He said: "This is a distressful day." )

(o 78 o)(78. And his people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes -sodomy, etc.-, he said: "O my people! Here are my daughters -i.e. the daughters of my nation-, they are purer for you -if you marry them lawfully-. So fear Allâh and degrade me not as regards my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" )

(o 79 o)(79. They said: "Surely you know that we have neither any desire nor in need of your daughters, and indeed you know well what we want!" )

-The story ends at verse 83...


The word in black are added by the translator to clearify the meaning as found in the Islamic prospective.

To summarize:

1- Lot didn't offer his daughters for adultry or rap. He offered lawfull marraige. That make no double standards here.

2- Lot was not talking about his own daughter. He was talking about all women in the village that were sutible for marriage.

I think the same view could be applied to the Biblical story, but I'm not sure of that.

Quran doesn't tell us more about Lot, and what happened to him after that. But all Muslims don't accept the bible story about sleeping with his own daughters.