There should be a second part of this comic that documents the ending where Lot's daughters fuck their dad to be sure they are impregnated by a "godly" man
I can't tell if you are just trying to trick me into reading the bible to find out about all the degenerate shit in there.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
There's also a song in it that celebrates Israelite soldiers killing babies by bashing their heads against rocks.
But you know, god told them to do it so clearly it was a good, moral thing to do.
Remember a few months ago when conservatives in America were banning books due to violence and sexual tones? Yeah someone submitted the bible and it unsurprising got banned due to numerous passages not just having such themes but glorifying them. If any book should not be around children due to sex and violence the bible should absolutely top that list. If you wanted to make a true to source material series on the Bible, getting it rated R would require serious cuts and revisions, and a totally accurate adaption would easily be NC-17
Yeah, but that’s just the kind of thing that a guy who forcibly raped his daughters would say.
the kind of thing that a guy who forcibly raped his daughters would say.
They got me drunk and took advantage of me...
Yeah. The story served as propaganda against two of Judah's neighboring countries. It claimed that each were descended from incest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_JRZX0zwPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCSQg1jteAo
Boy I'm showing my age on this one. I miss the Newgrounds cock though.
Satan's Guide to the Bible is new and fresh though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8j3HvmgpYc
There's a theme in the old testament that people become nations, e.g. Israel (Jacob) was one of the the sons of Isaac who begat the tribe/nation of Israel. Lot's daughters who had nonconsensual sex with him while he was unconscious begat Moab and Ammon which went onto create the nations of Moab and Ammon who were neighbors of the ancient Israelites, they were in fairly constant conflict with the Israelites. The story of lot's rape can be interpreted as a very old and elaborate "your mother fucked her father" joke.
It's not just the old testament. That's how those with power tend to think, that their "empire" is a literal physical extension of the self. That's why Alexander the Great declined to pass his throne down to anyone else, and instead made them all fight to build their own empires.
Gonna call bull on the Alexander part. He died unexpectedly at 32 and no obvious heir or designsted successor. His only legitimate child was still in the womb at the time of his death and his lieutenants recognized their only chance to seize power was to fight for it.
Absolutely was not Alexanders intent for his empire to be ripped apart after his death or he wouldn't have spent so much time conquering. As far as historians can tell he conquered all he did with the goal of making an empire that could not possibly have a rival strong enough to challenge it. And in those times, people assumed that means they would continue forever, as they had never seen am empire exist long enough in those days to stagnate and implode inward thanks to political infighting.
Similarly, the nation directly south of Moab was Edom.
Edom means red in Hebrew, so the Bible has Edom being founded by Isaac's oldest son, Esau, who has red hair and sells his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of red lentil stew because he was hungry.
It's less of a jab than the origin of Moab, but it's still not super flattering.
You got that a little mixed. God considered Lot a godly man. That's why he sent the angels to bail him out.
Lot's daughters were simply distraught at being denied their lot (heh) in life, i.e., baby making.
The bible more directly endorses war rape:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ESV
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Yahweh was originally a Levantine god of war, which explains the violent and weird accounts in the Old Testament.
Wait, hang on. This particular deity is the one people started to worship during the bronze age collapse, and that belief system has stuck around since the worst dark ages in history? Fuckin hell.
I guess the demand to worship only one god-- and a god of war at that-- will make that deity worshipped almost forever.
On the other hand, the worship of Yahweh as we know today also has had influence from Zoroastrian god, Zarathustra, who is an icon of love. Zoroastrians also believe only in one God, but it's not Yahweh. Although, the image of Yahweh as an all-loving deity probably was inspired from the Zoroastrian god, despite the contradicting image of violent behaviour from the bible.
Religion is just a game of telephone basically, before phones were invented.
Yeah, as a Baha'i I'm aware that most of the non-Abrahamic religions, and even the non-religic philosophies, started with deities of creation, or at least love. It seems a bit frustrating that the other three Abrahamic religions seem so interested in ending the world, again.
Also explains why it's the most common religion in much of the world. If you have one group of people worshipping a god that says "be cool and don't kill each other," and another group worshipping a god that says "be uncool and kill anyone who doesn't worship me," one of those religious beliefs is far more fit to survive than the other
'Spoils of war' sounds a little different when you consider this, and the medieval blindness to the age of consent. I wonder how many incels of the past joined the crusades to get a pussy without any responsibilities.
Probably a lot. Think about the most rural places in Afghanistan, a culture disconnected from the world without a modern education. That was the majority of people in the past.
How does "she gets a month to mourn and then you get married" equate to "pussy without any responsibilities"?
Shut the fuck up, why are you ignoring the rest of the context for that? Forced war brides and rape are fine if you give them a grieving period??
Well if it's context you want, back in those days - and let me stress before you jump to another incorrect conclusion that I don't agree with this - women were possessions, not the independent equals they are today. Before marriage they belonged to their fathers, and after marriage they belonged to their husbands, and in both cases she was provided for by her owner. An "unowned" woman was in a horrible position, with no provider and no ability to provide for herself, there was little option but to become a slave or a prostitute.
If her husband was killed in war then being taken on as a wife by someone else was in her better interests. And if you want to call the resulting sex rape that's up to you, but in effect you're calling all marital sex back then rape (because war bride or otherwise, she had no say in the matter), so it kind of loses its meaning.
is this something they really put in the Bible to adhere to? Like you can do the deed but let them cry for a month first 😭
•
People will always draw the line for acceptable behavior just past where they find themselves.
With that in mind we can surmise that the person that wrote this was very likely guilty of war rape, but he thought highly of himself for letting the woman grieve first. Very likely the people he was writing this for were also commonly guilty of war rape and thought little of it.
That time and that culture, women didn't give consent. Their fathers or husbands did. If she had no father or husband, then there was no one to deny a man that lusted for her. Some parts of the world still operate on this barbaric thinking.
Not just grieving, but making her his wife, which also means taking care of her.
It's still rape by todays standards and I won't be defending it. But making someone your wife was a lot better than raping a woman and then leaving her, unweddable, in a time where a woman couldn't earn their own income
Even up until recently, marriage has still been seen as economically motivated. It's especially the case in many developing countries. Where I'm from originally, some people still say "being practical" in terms of marrying someone. Of course you want to marry someone not just out of love but also who could provide economically. Though in many cases, the notion of "being practical" is looking for someone to be sugar daddy or sugar mommy.
The entire old testament is included for the explicit purpose of reminding people how terrible the world was before Christ's new covenant.
No, not even close. The old testament is a product of its time, a few thousand years ago. The entire religion was built around keeping power with the elders and "wise" rather than the brutalist young men. So they found ways to justify things young men would do, its approved by god, and actions that would jeopardize the power of the elders or their holdings was now a sin. By defining whats good and evil in this way they could enforce control on younger generations that could just as easily put them to the sword as they so readily did their enemies, and cast out or exiled those who challenged the status quo.
The new testament came about largely thanks to Roman incursions into Judea. Where an elder could cast out a member of their tribe and condemn them to death, a Roman officer of the legions did not fear any such reprisals of what they saw as some foolish desert cult. They killed and displaced much of the Hebrew power structure and most of the men that would rise against them that a generation of younger and milder (by standards of the day) men could add their own testament displacing the elders and giving the upcoming generation an early chance at the reigns, forming a breakaway religion we recognize as Christianity today, while those who stuck to old Orthodox Hebrew ways is what we would recognize as the Jewish religion today.
So while it is true that much of the new testament was written in a way to contrast itself against the old testament, that was done centuries after the Torah and greater part of the old testament had been the basis of the Hebrew faith for centuries.
Can't say I disagree with you. What you wrote is more of an in depth version of what I did, in my estimation.
Not really, you stated the old testament is there to show people were wicked and evil before Christianity in the new testament. That's not why its included in the bible or why it was written.
It's included because the entire Christian religion is built off the Hebrew writings so they are included for continuity. At times the old testament was even seen as a set of laws and ways a good person should live their life.
people were wicked and evil before Christianity
I've not once said such a thing. I said that it was included to make clear the contrast between how terrible the world was before Christ, so people can appreciate what Christ did for them. And again, you don't have to agree with that, but you ought to at least be honest about the purpose for which it was included.
That's not really true, it's there because the god in it is supposed to be his dad and that's where he gets all his authority from. What's the point of listening to jesus if his dad is a vile idiot?
The people who selected the books for the Bible would have very literally killed you for saying that those passages are abhorrent, and you could have been executed for the same crime for all over a thousand years after
It's not that the passages are "abhorrent" but rather that it is a historical telling of what the world was like before Jesus "saved" everyone. Feel however you like about that, but that is the entire point of the book.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ESV
The whole Bible is full of insane ridiculous shit like this. It baffles me that people say they live their lives by it and don't even know what it says.
To be fair, there's zero expectation in most of Christianity that the entire Bible needs to be read and followed equally. Most Christians follow mostly the New Testament, and particularly the gospels. Some of this stuff in the Old Testament is less often talked about, taught, or even brought up. The stuff they focus on from the Old Testament are lessons about being tested and having faith (like Job) or the "generally love people and be a good person" niceties from books like Psalms.
I'm not defending it. But having grown up in that world, it's not at all like they give the same weight to these crazy verses as they do to the stories about Jesus. It's somewhat disingenuous to mock them simply cause these verses exist. Most don't follow these parts of the bible.
It's not mockery, it's a counter to the frequent assertion that religion is a source of morality.
Also when you consider most Christians consider the text to be wholly sacred, and many consider the Bible to be fully literal and without any fault.
No, that's history. Back then taking defeated enemies as slaves was pretty much standard. And with the slavery part of course there also came the rape part. That was how wars were done for the vast majority of human history.
In today's, especially western, point of view? Sure. But luckily there really aren't Christians anymore who actually do this today.
then why are millions of people still using an incredibly outdated book as a "source" of their "morality"
They largely only study and follow parts of that book. The entire thing doesn't hold equal weight to them.
Then they're choosing which parts of the book to follow based on their own morality, disproving that the Bible is the source of their morality.
That's kind of the whole point of Jesus existing. Jesus brought forth the new covenant. Before this, God was worshipped by sacrifices, strict rules, etc. In the old testament, the Jews(God's chosen) failed to keep God's law, and they were repeatedly punished for it.
The Messiah the Jews expected was going to be the savior and liberator of the Jews and "put them on top" so to speak.
Instead, Jesus offered salvation to all(gentiles). Clearly, Jesus and his new covenant stands in defiance of the old testament.
The old testament is mostly viewed in historical context.
That's a complete different question. But from the historical context the stuff in the Bible does make sense. After all it's written by people living in this reality.
God also turned Lots wife into a pillar of salt for commiting the heinous crime of checks book again looking over her shoulder, that harlot!
Also, once they were homeless those same daughters drugged and raped him!
The Bible: fun for the whole family!
The pillar-of-salt thing is really weird, even for a deity as capricious as Yahweh. He doesn't strike her dead. He turns her into salt. There must be something that got lost in translation there.
I think that area where the story was supposed to have happened is known for having salt pillars, so maybe it was like a warning, "look at all those that got punished"
No, Sodom & Gomorrah were where the Dead Sea is. Very very salty & unique sea. So wife to pillar of salt follows the theme of violent, quick, salty death.
As HAL 9 TRILLION had numerous examples, there are more like John the Baptist's father & Abraham's wife Sarah, etc etc etc. All are related by a general rule: do not question the religion/authority figures of the religion, do not talk back or doubt the religious authority, do as you are told & nothing more, nothing less. The Bible calls for blind, unquestioning obedience in all things. I guess it could also be called 'faith'.
In the story, Lot’s wife had gone around to neighbors asking to borrow salt, which alerted them to the strangers’ presence. Hence the irony of the punishment. Still, cruel and bizarre and more befitting a medieval fairytale than… well, a bronze-age one.
Funny thing. I had an illustrated kid's Bible when I was young. The angels clearly told Lot's feeling family not to look back. Figured it was a FAFO lesson.
Just got done reading the story. No one told anyone not to look back.
No, the angels told them. It's still stupid. God kills a woman for looking back, he kills a kid for picking up sticks on the sabbath, he kills a guy who tries to keep the ark of the covenant from tipping over. He calls up a bear to maul 42 children because they called one of his prophets baldy.
The Biblical God's just complete bullshit, honestly.
@MrJameGumb @zarkanian
That whole punishment for not resisting the temptation of looking back seems to have been borrowed from the Greek myth of Orpheus & Eurydice. Like many other biblical stories.
Images of Mary holding baby Jesus are indistinguishable from images of Isis holding baby Horus.
It's fanfiction all the way down.
•
I think it was more that she was metaphorically looking back, as in she was missing the life she used to have. But yeah, god sucks
I've been getting into some early Christian / Biblical textual analysis and history and apparently the people who wrote the Sodom story would not have understood the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, their conception was entirely act-based and focused on penetrator vs penetrated.
So this story, the primary anti-gay biblical story, is better understood as showing the Sodomites violating Guest Right, and Lot being such a good host that he expends resources (gives away his daughters to be raped) to keep his guests safe.
Just goes to show how cultural context is important in reading texts.
The preceding chapter is all about Abraham badgering God over the destruction of a city. He starts by saying "Okay, but would you destroy the city if fifty of its inhabitants didn't deserve it? What about forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Ten, even?" And in the end, God sends Angels down to pull the last righteous man in Sodom out of town before its destroyed.
The guest right passage is intended to illustrate him as a self-less man who would stand at the door before an angry mob to protect his new friends.
•
apparently the people who wrote the Sodom story would not have understood the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, their conception was entirely act-based and focused on penetrator vs penetrated.
This is true for every culture except the current postmodern context in which we find ourselves.
The development of our current understanding of sexuality is a byproduct of the Green Revolution and the massive abundance of food in the western world. When you're hungry or in fear of being hungry, sex occupies less of your mind.
The story of Lut in Quran is explicitly about homosexuality. Idk how well they understood homosexuality but they were at least aware of it well before the green revolution
I love that it's an anti-gay story, and it was completely made up. Sodom and Gomorrah were not real places. The guy who wrote Genesis literally couldn't think of a real world reason why homosexuality or just sodomy was immoral so he made up a fairy tale.
Maybe it's the primary anti-gay story, but aren't there verses about "not lying with a man as with a woman"? And the punishment for that is to be stoned to death?
There is, but the translation is not perfect and I have seen the argument that the Hebrew translates closer to "you shall not lie with a close male relative as you would your wife" since there is a lot of incest mentioned in the list of prohibitions, or I've also seen it argued that it's implying "male sex worker", the word for "man" in that passage is not the normal word for "man" used in the rest of the Bible.
And I have also heard the context of the entire section being about priestly purity, so it's more like you wouldn't be able to perform rituals after having the wrong type of sex until you are purified, but it's on the same level as women being unclean when they are menstruating.
But the better argument to me is that Leviticus is specifically part of the Jewish Law, and people since the Apostle Paul have been saying you can't keep the Jewish Law and be a good Christian, because Jesus replaced all those rules. So it's actually a sin if you're Christian and insisting people abide by the rules in Levitivus.
(This is why I think this stuff is interesting)
But married heteros doing oral, anal, mutual masturbation, or sex during a period is all forbidden. Yet all queer hating Christians don't speak out against any of that hetero/married sin.
Oh, I'm sure if the killjoys managed to outlaw homosexuality again they would come for those things next.
I thought only my former religion, Islam, had this bullshit. Turned out they're all the same.
All Abrahamich religions that stem from the same root, Christianity was a direct fork from Judism and Islam having its own roots in both and a few other inputs further east of Palestine.
The Holy book of Jews, Christians and Muslims are the same (at the start). They only differ where they stop. New testament is a revision of the old one. So is the Muslim part, but I do not know that too well. This is why you can always find this and contradictions. They only wrote patches, not erratas.
They seems to be copies of each other are far as i can see . some of the books from hinduism seems to be loosly based on them too.
Other way around actually. Judism/Christianity claim to be 4,000+ years old but there is little evidence to back this claim that wasn't written centuries after the supposed fact.
Hindu religion has temples and manuscripts dating at least that far back and its known that sporadic trade from Rome to China did happen and lands that are now in modern India were a leg on that unofficial trade road. So the various authors of the old testament very well could have had copies of Hindu writing and tales, or been told them second, third or fourth hand through those with a connection to the unofficial trader networks that moved goods and information between the two continents.
Now that's a load of BS if I ever seen one, not as bad in Bible but still par. Hinduism books based on islamic or Christin ones? Like from 19 th century that's possible, but anything before that highly unlikely.
All Abrahamic shit is just mind control. If there was a Holy Messiah who embodied everything good and pure, do you think he'd want everyone to be an acolytic zealot that follow contradictory and sexist messages written by mortals?
Magic booze - got him so polluted he couldn't recognize his daughters, but left him functional enough to get it up and fuck them...
Ahhh stories like this in the Bible are always conveniently overlooked during Sunday school. I wonder why that is? 🤔🤔
Turns out, half of the bible was just a bunch of dudes talking about their rape and incest kinks.
This is so easily fact checkable
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NKJV
Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
They also conveniently forget about Numbers 5 : 11-31, the only time abortion is even mentioned in The Bible, and if you read The Old Testament, The Mishrad, and The Talmud, you'll realize that The Bible just told you to perform a barbaric abortion method, in case of suspected infidelity. The mother died of the "bitter waters" as well as the fetus, if it was made incorrectly.
#TheF-ingBibleIsProChoice
For those of you who don't know your full Biblical history, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah continues with Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt and then his daughters get drunk and fuck Lot.
his daughters get drunk and fuck Lot.
I've always understood it to be the other way around: Lot's daughters force Lot to get blackout drunk, then they fuck him while he's blacked out. Repeatedly.
Yeah, evidently they wanted children abdly enough to justify raping their dad.
Which is a sentence I just typed. Ew.
Nah, this was just Lot's story as to why his daughters were pregnant. Just like Mary's obviously bullshit sorry ("ok, I'm pregnant, but I'm a virgin, honest! God must have done it!"), this was Lot's excuse because he was raping his daughters. "I got drunk and THEY made me have sex with them!". Talk about blaming the victims.
And the other part of that fucked up story is that the "moral" (and I use that word very loosely) is supposed to be about being kind to strangers in your Country.
What's arguably even more fucked up is that the basic assumption the story relies on is that the audience is intended to see Lot's choice not as a betrayal towards his daughters, but as a personal sacrifice in giving up his property. This was considered to be so obvious to the people of its time that it goes unstated.
The major issue is that women are property in that culture, whereas the guests are men and have rights
Nah, it's guest rites. Or guest rights, depending on your perspective
It's a huge thing in all ancient cultures and probably all religions. Not even just ancient cultures, the US had similar things in the frontier days.
People used to walk across continents - humans can't just hike for 6 months, we're not built for that - we have to take breaks and build up a bit before we keep moving, it takes time to keep yourself supplied.
Humans leap frog, it's how we spread worldwide. We have guest rites - sets of expectations for guests and hosts, and violating them is a major taboo. Even in our media, it still fills us with instinctive revulsion
Is this example ridiculous and morally dubious even in it's own context? Absolutely.
But it's not just about shielding a foreigner, it's about the moral imperative to follow through once you've offered someone shelter
y'know... maybe if I were a 2100 year old Palestinian goat-herder living under Roman rule, I just might believe this shit...
The kind of person that considers women as chattel, and less valuable than the favor of strangers,
Edit to add: there’s another passage in judges that follows the same pattern- judges 19:22; except it’s the guy’s concubine instead of daughters.
This is the fucking best, I love the Professor Brothers… And Baby Cakes and his DnD adventures.
The cartoon is good except they show the daughters as too old. In those times the girls were married off by 16, so if you're showing two daughters they should be more like 15 and 12. Imagine that for a fucking second.