(April 10, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:(April 10, 2016 at 6:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I also like how, in the story of Sodom, she focuses on the attempted gang rape of the angels (the homosexual hatred angle, as if rapists are the same as homosexuals if they target men), and ignores that Lot offered two of his virgin daughters in their stead.
Now why, if the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and not rape, would Lot think that might be an acceptable solution?
Because in the bible, forcing sex on a women, or what we modern humanists arrogantly call rape, is not a sin against the woman but against her husband. Since there daughters had no husbands and their father saw fit to hand them over, the man in the city were free to do whatever they liked. It's like when you're walking through the grocery store and the salesperson hands you a free sample of frosted marshmallows.
oh she's a she? I really don't know what to think about women who have no problem with the misogyny in the bible. It's o in your face.
The interesting thing about the Lot story is that it doesn't specify how many daughters the scumsucker supposedly had. He had some sons, that he left to get roasted. He had some daughters, who were married. They also got roasted along with their husbands. And he had the two skanky ones, who may or may not have been married. So it's possible that he had at least ten people in his family who should have met the criteria of being righteous but in the end he ran out of town with just his wife and his two skanky daughters and enough wine to keep him drunk for months on end.
