Facts seem like a simple concept, they just are. Yet so often people manipulate facts or even reach conclusions that go against the facts.
So has anyone ever...
... looked at the
facts and to followed them to a conclusion even when the facts go against
your previously held views?
or
... held a position that is contrary to objective fact?
Just curious.
109 comments:
Given your deleting of my answers to your questions, I'm inclined not to comment further here (and won't respond further to the post below where you keep deleting my answers to your questions short of an apology and restoration of the comments - your blog, your rules, but I don't have to bow down to your rules, I can walk away), but since this seems like a straightforward question and similar to one you asked on my blog, I'll give it a shot. For what it's worth...
... looked at the facts and to [sic] followed them to a conclusion even when the facts go against your previously held views?
If I'm understanding your question correctly: My theological positions on sola scriptura, homosexuality, the penal substitutionary theory of atonement and probably other positions fit into this category. I had thought - and was taught - that the "facts" were clear on the Bible and these three ideals. I accepted those teachings as facts, as "known and demonstrable" ideas.
However, the more I studied the Bible, the more I tried to take it and Jesus' teachings seriously, the more I had to abandon the notion that these theories were facts. They simply aren't. They're theories that can not be proven and, in my opinion (ie, not a fact, but my opinion), they don't hold up to reason or to consistent biblical reckoning.
The Bible, as a point of fact, does not teach sola scriptura, for instance. That is a human construct, a human theory. Now, the theory can be reasoned and debated and I'm fine with that, as long as it's recognized as a theory , not as "God's Word" or as a fact, because as a point of fact, it is demonstrably neither.
I had to draw a different conclusion than what I'd been brought up with because the facts did not support my "previously held views" in each of those examples.
... held a position that is contrary to objective fact?
I used to hold that the story of Lot's angelic visitors and their attempted rape was as clear as could be - that it was demonstrable proof that homosexuality is wrong. But I did so contrary to objective fact.
Now, I see that, as an objective fact, that the story is condemning rape - specifically gang rape - not touching on the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself. I no longer hold that opinion because it is contrary to objective fact (ie, the literal facts of the story - whatever one may do with it from there).
To answer your two questions.
Dan, the facts are that I did not delete any comments of yours with answers, I deleted comments that did not contain answers. Further I was quite clear what would happen if you chose to move forward without answers to the very relevant questions asked. One could assume that you were feeling boxed in and seized on something you could misrepresent and make into an excuse to leave without answering questions.
The question I asked were pretty much yes or no question. I have to wonder why you chose to assume and read so much into them instead of just giving the yes or no. It's not that complicated, is it possible for you to actually just give a yes or no answer?
If you can muster up a yes/no answer to the questions I just might take the time to deconstruct your self serving respinse.
If you can muster up a yes/no answer to the questions I just might take the time to deconstruct your self serving respinse.
The question I asked were pretty much yes or no question. I have to wonder why you chose to assume and read so much into them instead of just giving the yes or no. It's not that complicated, is it possible for you to actually just give a yes or no answer?
Yes.
To your post, then:
Yes.
Yes.
One can't keep consistently misunderstanding/misrepresenting an Other's view and reasonably be surprised that they either, 1. Quit dealing with you and/or 2. Over-explain things, in an effort to avoid misunderstandings.
This is why I hardly ever delete any comment. People like Dan can delete comments based on lies about the comment, or something blown out of proportion to rationalize deleting the comment, but whine when their own comments are deleted, usually for reasons that justify doing so in the mind of the host. I'd much rather let the idiocy stand for all to see, and I can deal with it by either ignoring it or pointing out the idiocy or why I regard it as such.
As to idiocy, there's this:
"I no longer hold that opinion because it is contrary to objective fact (ie, the literal facts of the story - whatever one may do with it from there)."
OK, this might be just a blatant lie, but then, it is idiocy to actually publish a comment with a blatant lie. The literal facts of the story do not support Dan's position. He has to ignore facts about the story in order to rationalize holding his position about the story. This has been explained to him, and he never did anything to address my objections to his revisionism.
So there you go...Dan demonstrates once again that he is one of those people who "reach conclusions that go against the facts." I believe he doesn't so much reach conclusions that go against facts, he simply holds positions that the facts don't support, or of which the facts get in the way.
Once again somehow Dan assumes something,acts on his assumption and somehow makes it my fault.
But thanks for the simple straightforward answers it's refreshing.
I rarely do either, but in this case Dan admitted that he knew very little about the topic and subsequently demonstrated that his knowledge of the legal system is lacking as well. I had asked some specific questions so that I could understand the limits of his knowledge and to respond appropriately. I was specific about what I wanted and specific about what would happen if Dan chose not to cooperate. In fact I was fairly generous in applying these restrictions until I had no choice. My mistake was not to copy them first.
"I can walk away"
And frequently do.
"My theological positions on sola scriptura, homosexuality, the penal substitutionary theory of atonement and probably other positions fit into this category."
Since you claim this as an answer to my first question, I guess I'd be interested to know what "facts" convinced you that the three Orthodox doctrines you mentioned do not accurately represent Biblical teaching? I realize that you determined that those were not "facts" (I'd argue that of someone taught you that those three were "facts" then they either weren't good communicators or you misunderstood them), but what specific "facts" let you away from those Orthodox doctrines? Conversely, what "facts" did you discover that provided you with alternatives to those Orthodox doctrines?
"I used to hold that the story of Lot's angelic visitors and their attempted rape was as clear as could be - that it was demonstrable proof that homosexuality is wrong. But I did so contrary to objective fact."
According to you, Genesis and Exodus are "myth". They are not history in any reliable sense, if it is a "fact" that Genesis and Exodus are "myth", the how can you read a "myth" and extract "objective fact" out of said "myth"?
"Now, I see that, as an objective fact, that the story is condemning rape..."
If this is actually an "objective fact", then can you provide the objective evidence to support your claim?
"not touching on the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself."
So are you making a claim about the "morality or immorality of homosexuality"?
"I no longer hold that opinion because it is contrary to objective fact (ie, the literal facts of the story..."
So are those "literal facts" of a "literally factual" story, or are they "literal facts" from a non historical myth?
I'm confused about how one extracts "literal facts" from what they believe is essentially a fictional story. Just literally doesn't make sense.
Unless we are using "objective", "literal", and "fact", in non standard ways.
It really doesn't matter, Craig, how he responds to your questions about the Lot story since he ignores the facts of the story anyway. Instead, he inserts his own opinions about the intentions of the men of Sodom that the story itself does not relate to the reader. With this insertion, he then makes the story say what he needs it to say to allow a more palatable message that he prefers. Typical Dan.
Art I think it will be interesting to see how that answer goes. It's certainly going to be interesting.
RE: This whole group of questions about the Lot story...
1. I do, now, consider this story to come from a part of the Bible that is more likely more figurative in nature, if not mythic.
2. When I refer to the "objective facts" I am referring to the facts AS THE STORY PRESENTS it. In the story, as told, it is literally speaking of an attempted gang rape, or at least that's how it appears on the face of it. A group of men (the entire town, I believe is how it's phrased) come to Lot's house and demand that Lot send out the men/messengers/angels so they can engage in sex (presumably against their will, ie, literally rape).
That is, in fact, literally how the story reads.
3. To give another example, in Aesop's story of the grasshopper and the ant, the ant works hard to store up food and later, when times are hard, the grasshopper begs for some assistance. Now, if I were referring to that story, I would say that in the story, the grasshopper literally begs for food, as an objective fact.
4. In that case, I am speaking of the literal words of the story and what they factually do and don't say. The literal words. That doesn't mean I think the story is referring to an actual incident that factually happened, I'm speaking of the literal words of the story.
Similarly, in the Lot example, I am speaking of the objective fact of the words in the story, not the objective fact of a literal factual incident in history.
Now do you all understand what I'm saying and how I am not being in any way inconsistent and that I am being factually, literally correct? That literally, the story is not saying anything at all one way or the other about homosexuality's moral status, but about gang rape?
"Now do you all understand what I'm saying and how I am not being in any way inconsistent and that I am being factually, literally correct?"
Actually, no. While you are seemingly claiming a wooden literal adherence to the text of what you believe is a fictional story, you miss the fact that any conclusions drawn from a fictional story are at best simply interpretations, as there just are not any objective facts to be had. I do understand that it is convenient for you to pick and choose which of these "myths" you decide to be worthy of gleaning "objective fact" from, but I fail to se how you can pass off your interpretation as "objective fact" to the exclusion of all possible alternatives.
"That literally, the story is not saying anything at all one way or the other about homosexuality's moral status, but about gang rape?"
That, of course, is your opinion based on your interpretation. It is clear that if one reads the story, it does not clearly and unambiguously state what the "moral of the story" is.
So, feel free to try to tweak "objective fact" from "myth" if you like, but in the end it's all about how you interpret the myth that drives your conclusion.
Dan,
I'm going to leave your last comment as it was an attempt to address in general some of the questions asked.
Having said that, I know and appreciate the demands on your time that caring for your parents is causing and I want you to know that I believe that what you are doing is important.
So, I'd suggest that instead of trying to fit in a bit here and a bit there in the midst of your busyness, that you'd deal with your family matters then come back and participate here to the extent you can without that weighing on you. What I fear will happen is that you will by not going back and dealing with the questions in an orderly manner, simply make the conversation harder to keep up with and more scattered.
No rush, take your time, when your ready, then you can get caught up and deal with the older issues first.
It was a complete and full addressing of the questions asked, Craig. By deleting my direct and clear answers, you are indicating a failure of good faith.
"2. When I refer to the "objective facts" I am referring to the facts AS THE STORY PRESENTS it. In the story, as told, it is literally speaking of an attempted gang rape, or at least that's how it appears on the face of it. A group of men (the entire town, I believe is how it's phrased) come to Lot's house and demand that Lot send out the men/messengers/angels so they can engage in sex (presumably against their will, ie, literally rape)."
The facts, as the story presents itself, do not speak of any attempt at force until after Lot refuses to allow ALL the men of the town. According to NIV, "...all the men from every part of the city of Sodom---both young and old---surrounded the house."
From this, Dan, in his own words, "presumes" force is the intention. But the FACTS of the story, reading it as it happens, one step at a time, clearly demonstrates that no sign of any such intention is evident until after Lot tries to turn them away.
However, what we DO see clearly, is that Lot refers to their request to get jiggy with the visitors as "this wicked thing". So, at the very least, we're seeing a rebuke of the notion of sex between men. Lot, called a righteous man, knew before the Law was handed down to Moses, that homosexual behavior is "wicked". What we don't have in this story is any info referring to the act the men attempted...why they chose to have group sex with the visitors, whether or not this was in any way common or customary, whether or not physical looks of the visitors turned them on in a way that Lot's looks never did...nothing. Only that they wanted sex with them. It didn't become a rape situation until after Lot's refusal, and thus to say it's a message about homosexual gang rape is worse than speculation, it's purposeful corruption of the story to separate one form of homosexual behavior with another one wishes to support.
Dan has more issues with facts than he needs to believe is common with me. Thus, he also has a problem understanding what it means to act in good faith.
"It was a complete and full addressing of the questions asked, Craig. By deleting my direct and clear answers, you are indicating a failure of good faith."
Since it did not directly address all of the questions asked I don't think "complete and full" is an accurate summary.
However, and this just goes to prove how little you actually pay attention to what anyone actually says.
I DID NOT DELETE YOUR COMMENT.
You just assumed I did and got all pissy over nothing. Thanks for confirming what I've always suspected (that you rarely actually read and pay attention to what others say).
Well done.
Art,
Dan seemingly needs to believe that his interpretation is somehow the equivalent of "objective fact", I'm beginning to doubt he'd know an "objective fact" if one bit him in the ass.
"By deleting my direct and clear answers,..."
Oops, I didn't actually delete your comment, so what's your excuse?
Didn't actually bother to look before you went off?
Once again decided to assume, instead of ascertain the facts?
Didn't bother to read and understand my comment?
Just looking for another excuse to leave?
"literally speaking of an attempted gang rape, or at least that's how it appears on the face of it."
1. So which is it? Is it "literally speaking of a gang rape" or is it what "appears" to be a gang rape?
2. What kind of "gang rape" was this?
3. If the goal of the entire town was simply "gang rape", then why did the men of the town say "“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”? Why specify the men?
4. If this is simply about "gang rape" why then does Lot offer this; "No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”, as a solution to the problem? Why would the "gang rape" of the daughters have been OK, if this was simply an indictment of "gang rape"?
5. Even after the men turn down the heterosexual option, they then say this " “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”. If this is simply about "gang rape" why do the townsfolk have absolutely zero desire (or at least make zero mention) of "gang rape" of any of the womenfolk?
One more reason to suspect that Dan doesn't actually read others comments before he launches.
So when I said;
"Dan,
I'm going to leave your last comment as it was an attempt to address in general some of the questions asked."
Dan assumed that I meant the complete opposite of what the clear plain meaning of the words I wrote actually said.
So in response to the above, Dan writes;
"By deleting my direct and clear answers, you are indicating a failure of good faith."
I guess Dan's presumption was that I was using the word "leave" in a non standard way.
FYI, when I suggested that you should take the time you needed to deal with your family and come back when you had the time, this is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid.
The biggest problem I have with Dan's poor reading of the Lot story, is the assumption he makes, which he claims is based on a literal reading of the story. That is, that the intention was gang rape. But again, it doesn't suggest any such thing until after Lot tries to turn away the men of Sodom. Up until that point, all we know for sure is that they stated a desire to "know" the visitors, which for most theologians means sex...in this case, homosexual sex. If Dan is cool with speculating about intentions, the story does not indicate that force is intended at all to this point in the story. If speculating about intentions is cool, what is described to this point can easily be indicating that the men of Sodom felt threatened by the visitors. All the men of the town were there and they surrounded the house. Dan wants that to mean they intended to prevent escape from their rape intention. It could simply mean that the offer of sex was a ruse and the surrounding of the house was a more defensive/security measure for dealing with visitors of whom they were suspicious. Note that there is no other mention of having sex with the visitors after Lot rebukes them. There is only anger at having been rebuked.
So speculation if all fine and dandy, but one can't state any speculation as fact when so little in the story supports the speculation. The incredible irony here that Dan would suggest as fact that the story is "literally" speaking of an attempted gang rape, when all we know for sure is that there is the request to engage in sex with men.
Art,
I think that it's reasonable to conclude that the "request" was more of a demand than a request. Having said that we're still left with ignoring the fact that it's somehow more acceptable for Lot's daughters to be gang raped, than the men. Which opens up the possibility that at least part of the problem is the homosexual aspect of the rape. While I agree with you, we need to be careful that we don't fall into the same trap as Dan has in insisting that we can somehow come up with "objective facts" based on our interpretation of the passage. To conclude that something not clearly spelled out in the passage is "objective fact", is problematic for either side.
"I think that it's reasonable to conclude that the "request" was more of a demand than a request."
While it may seem reasonable, particularly in light of what follows, it still requires speculation without basis. If all we had was the story up to that point, it can only be a request, even if it lacks something like, "We request the pleasure of the company of the two visitors" or words to that effect.
As to the acceptability of the raping the daughters versus allowing the men to rape the visitors, we must consider that the excuse given by Lot was that the visitors were under his protection. So throwing them the girls was to satiate their lusts while the guests remained unmolested (literally in this case). The question then would be whether or not Lot would respond the same way if the visitors appeared to be female. I think it is quite enough that Lot referred to their plan as "wicked". It clearly referred to the fact that the men of the town hoped to have sex with the visitors, who appeared to be men.
The story, then, actually provides two possibilities for why he offered the girls:
1. The visitors were under Lot's protection and the girls, he hoped, would satisfy their lusts.
2. The request to have sex with the visitors is wicked and the girls, he hoped, would satisfy their lusts.
A third possibility would be both of the above.
As to the protection angle, it was an important thing for a host to take that position with regard to any under his roof. In some parts of the world, this notion is still taken seriously. Consider "Lone Survivor" (book or movie) in which Marcus Lutrell is offered protection by a villager who took him in against the extremists who were hunting him. Not only the villager, but others of the village joined the villager in protecting the person, Lutrell, who was in his care. They were willing to risk their lives to fight off the scumbags. So, it is possible that the idea behind handing over the girls was as much about protecting Lot's guests as it was to turn away their wicked intentions of having sex with them.
More to the point here, of course, is that the story is not about gang rape, regardless of whether or not the men of Sodom were angered enough by Lot's interference to engage in it.
I agree with your contention that getting to that reasonable conclusion does require some degree of speculation. My point was that it is a reasonable speculation. I'm not suggesting "objective fact", because the text doesn't support that, but given the entirety of the story, I think we agree on the reasonableness of the speculation.
Again, I agree with your 2 options regarding the girls. Unfortunately Dan is the one for whom that is a problem because for whatever reason they emphatically turn down the heterosexual option and insist on the homosexual option. It seems that the text does support a conclusion that they were only interested in sex (however that is defined) with the men. Obviously this is problematic for the conclusion that the story does not touch on same sex sexual activities.
Not that I really wish to belabor the point, but I don't actually agree that any conclusion based on speculation is reasonable. My point is the speculation completely. In order to get to the message, I take pains to avoid speculation where no support from the text compels it. That's why I balked at the suggestion that the "request" was more like a "demand". How it is worded doesn't necessarily suggest a demand simply because the request wasn't "asked".
As to the men only interested in sex, that would be more than a conclusion given that scholars have long insisted that "to know" is a commonly used phrase to indicate sex. But yeah, anyone who does not think the specific homosexual aspect of the story is significant (as opposed to mere sex-by-force as Dan needs to believe), is taking liberties. The biggest liberty of all is that homosexual rape is intended merely because the men of Sodom get pissed when Lot turns down their request.
But just for fun, here's some speculation of my own: While the men were pissed after Lot's rebuke, the text still does not say anything about them intending force the visitors into sex. Their anger may just as easily have been compelling them to beat the heck out of everyone in the house for Lot, the alien, daring to judge them. That's a reasonable speculation in my opinion given that they pretty much state that they will do worse to Lot than what they now intend to do with the visitors for his daring to judge them. Indeed, the whole "know them" thing could have been a ruse to get their hands on strangers they may have suspected of being spies. This speculation thing is fun, but it no more can be the result of a strict connect-the-dots of the story than can Dan's homosexual gang-rape theory.
I DID NOT DELETE YOUR COMMENT.
My apologies. I came back and saw an additional comment there by you, saw that the one before had been deleted and figured you had deleted another of my comments. I didn't look closely enough to the ones before to see that you had not. An innocent mistake on my part, but my apologies for not being diligent enough to check. And yes, I saw your comment about not deleting it, which puzzled me, but thought perhaps you had made a typo or changed your mind or something. Regardless, my fault. Sorry.
1. So which is it? Is it "literally speaking of a gang rape" or is it what "appears" to be a gang rape?
2. What kind of "gang rape" was this?
The passage has all the men of Sodom demanding that the visitors come out for sex, insisting upon it, getting angry when it didn't happen. Forced sex, against one's will, is the definition of rape. By a group is the definition of gang rape.
How is this not literally an attempt at gang rape?
The story from Gen 19:
they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may [c]have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly..." [IN THE STORY, it is considered "wicked" to force this sex upon people/visitors]
So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. [Attempted force to get these visitors to force sex upon them, literally gang rape, which Lot IN THE STORY literally considered evil.]
the fact that any conclusions drawn from a fictional story are at best simply interpretations, as there just are not any objective facts to be had.
Aesop's fable...
One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.
In the FICTIONAL story of the ant and grasshopper, the grasshopper literally begs the ant for food. It is literally what happens in the story. It's not an interpretation, it's the literal text, an objective fact of what the text says. Of course, the details told in the story is not an objective fact, but factually and literally speaking, it is literally the facts represented in the story.
I don't know how else to explain it.
It's the difference between "What does the text literally say?" THAT question can be answered 100% factually and objectively. "The text literally says 'men shall not lie with men...' That the text literally says this as a point of fact can be established 100% objectively.
What does it MEAN is something else, but what the text literally says can be determined.
What am I missing? Or what are you missing?
I do understand that it is convenient for you to pick and choose which of these "myths" you decide to be worthy of gleaning "objective fact" from,
I'm gleaning objective fact from what the text literally says. It literally says, "DO NOT ACT WICKEDLY..." by forcing this group sex [again, by definition, gang rape] upon these visitors.
That Lot offered his daughters for gang rape does not mean that he thought the attempted gang rape of these men was not wicked, it does say something about the value of women in this culture as well as the value placed upon good treatment of visitors (as Marshall rightly noticed).
Not sure what is in dispute here.
Marshall...
How it is worded doesn't necessarily suggest a demand simply because the request wasn't "asked".
Context, Marshall. It's all about context. Many stories in the Bible are pretty sparse outlines. That doesn't mean that one can't reasonably draw conclusions on the story. Clearly, these men wanted to do something that Lot considered "wicked." Clearly, they were prepared to break down the door. This was a violent situation, forced gang rape is clearly implied in the context of the story.
I will note this: Marshall is helping make the case that, even when a point is clearly implied in a story, people will still sometimes not get the point and we can't say for certain that our interpretation is an objective, demonstrable fact.
I mean, if it isn't a demonstrable fact that these men (who were clearly out for rape) were not out for rape, then nothing is a provable fact in the Bible. I will concede that, gladly, that I can't prove it as an objective fact, no matter how clear it is to most people.
"What am I missing?"
You're missing that you can't get "objective fact" from a story that is not factual.
"Or what are you missing?"
An answer to this; "1. So which is it? Is it "literally speaking of a gang rape" or is it what "appears" to be a gang rape?", as well as answers to a number of other questions.
"I'm gleaning objective fact from what the text literally says. It literally says, "DO NOT ACT WICKEDLY...""
Yes, it does literally say that, unfortunately it doesn't literally specify what Lot is calling "wicked". It says that something is wicked, you are inferring that the term "wicked" refers to "gang rape" exclusively and only "gang rape". The text literally does not support the inference you are drawing.
"...by forcing this group sex [again, by definition, gang rape] upon these visitors."
Again, the text clearly does not specify what was being called "wicked", therefore to conclude that there is only one possibility for what is "wicked" when there are clearly several possibilities is not "objective fact" based on what the actual text says.
"Clearly, these men wanted to do something that Lot considered "wicked.""
Correct, Lot did consider "something" to be "wicked", the text just doesn't specify what he considered "wicked".
OK, so is the " point is clearly implied" or is it "objective fact", obviously it can't be both, so which one is it?
OK, if you can't prove it to be "an objective fact,", then why do you continue to insist that it is "an objective fact"?
I hope that your return means that your parents are OK and the you will have the time to fully address the questions asked prior to your family situation.
"... but I don't actually agree that any conclusion based on speculation is reasonable."
I'm not sure how you function in real life then because we all reach reasonable conclusions based on speculations on a regular basis. I think the difference is honestly acknowledging that the conclusion is based on speculation and not trying to pass of speculation as "objective fact" when it is not.
Dan,
"I will note this: Marshall is helping make the case that, even when a point is clearly implied in a story, people will still sometimes not get the point and we can't say for certain that our interpretation is an objective, demonstrable fact."
No, what you say is "clearly implied" is what you choose to infer from the limited information supplied by the text.
On the other hand, what I'm actually attempting to make you understand is that when you take the story as it is written, step by step, you cannot make such inferences honestly and objectively. You say,
"Context, Marshall. It's all about context."
...yet you are not considering the context, but drawing conclusions based on what happens later and speculating motives and intentions not presented to the reader. Let's again take it in steps.
Step one (From the NIV):
"4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”"
(I included verse 4 to demonstrate that all the men of Sodom indulged in homosexual behavior and hoped to do so with the two angels, as the NIV describes them).
Here you infer, indeed prefer to infer, that "Bring them out" can only be a demand. If you're in a bar and see a cute chick and say, "Hey, Babe! Come over here and sit on my lap.", Does that mean you're demanding that she does, suggesting that she does or requesting that she does? I don't see any reason to insist that the men were making a demand at this point simply because they don't say "pretty please". YOU can't either unless you presume that what happens later proves intent to rape. There's nothing that indicates they expected rebuke and we have no idea why every man in town was there to partake, if this was in any way a common practice in those times and in that area...nothing but the words on the page, which don't at this point suggest anything but that they were looking to have sex with the angels.
So when Lot then rebukes them, and refers to a "wicked thing" they intended to do, there's still no indication that it was to be a gang rape and not a consensual orgy like situation with the angels as guests of honor. There is just nothing to indicate either at this point. All we know is that up to the point Lot refuses their hopes, they get pissed. But look what the text says:
"9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”"
So having been refused, they became pissed. Still no talk of rape in any way, shape or form, but only that they are now angry for Lot daring to get in the way of their plans. For all we know, based on the limited information, it is now just an ass-kicking for refusing their affections.
So if we're going to talk about context, then the only fact we can glean from the context is that the men wanted homosexual hi-jinks, Lot said it was wickedness. From there, the facts only show that they got angry at being refused and intended to do harm. We can't say the harm was of a violent sexual nature or just outright violence.
I would think that if rape was the intent, at any time during the story, then rape would have been more strongly implied if not plainly stated. That way Dan, and other defenders of sexual immorality, wouldn't have to pretend they see what isn't there in the text. They need it to be about gang rape because they refuse to accept the truth about homosexual behavior being sinful no matter the context in which it takes place.
One more thing:
"I mean, if it isn't a demonstrable fact that these men (who were clearly out for rape) were not out for rape, then nothing is a provable fact in the Bible. I will concede that, gladly, that I can't prove it as an objective fact, no matter how clear it is to most people."
And I'll concede, sadly, that people like Dan are willing to pretend something is obvious if they need it to be. A true, serious study in this case does not prove what he needs to believe it says. Not when you take the story as it comes. Those "most people" you like to cite aren't reading the story seriously, either, if they also pretend that men intended gang rape. They, too, aren't considering the story as it is written, but choosing to assert intentions the story itself does not describe the men as having.
Craig,
"I'm not sure how you function in real life then because we all reach reasonable conclusions based on speculations on a regular basis."
To me, a "reasonable" conclusion requires facts. Speculation is basically wishful thinking, a hope that what needs to be true is true when there aren't enough facts to be more certain. I don't deny that I sometimes hope for the best in such situations. That is speculating, or taking something to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence. That's not reasonable. That's just hoping, wishing or taking a chance that what one wants to be true is. It might be reasonable to take such chances, when inaction seems more certain to bring about negative consequences, but the conclusion based on speculation is not itself reasonable.
Just sayin'.
"So they pressed hard against Lot and came near TO BREAK THE DOOR."
Yeah, that's consensual. People always break down the door to pull someone out for "consensual sex."
Craig, to answer your question about my family, my parents continue to decline and over the next few months, I'm having to sell their belongings and their house, so I will have limited free time or energy for the foreseeable future. Thank you for asking.
Contextually, you point out what I pointed out, that this was the whole town's worth of men, not just the gay men (presumably ~2%,give or take, if modern figures can be inferred backwards). This was an attempted gang rape by primarily straight men. In the context of the text. Truly a wicked thing. As rape always is.
I'll concede, sadly, that people like Dan are willing to pretend something is obvious if they need it to be. A true, serious study in this case does not prove what he needs to believe it says.
I'll remind you, once again, when I reached this conclusion, I was primarily a conservative young man. I had no desire to "need" this to be gang rape, it's just what is there in the text. You, on the other hand, appear to really want this obvious rape attempt to be not rape, for some reason. Why is that?
Art,
Sorry to disagree, but it is totally possible to draw a reasonable conclusion with few or no facts. Police do it every time they enter a crime scene. As long as the conclusion fits what is known, and can be modified as more information comes to light I see no problem at all drawing reasonable if tentative conclusions from situations where few facts are available. In this case you, as Dan usually does, are arguing for s position that is not a majority position in Christian scholarship. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the text doesn't demand one clear conclusion.
Dan,
I understand what you're going through and the demands on your time. No Rush at all for you to answer questions I'll try to wait till you get caught up before asking any more.
Craig, I appreciate the patience. I'm just telling you that I'm not sure what questions you are looking to have answered. From where I sit, it appears that you all do not appear to be understanding my point(s). You are asking questions based on premises I do not share and I've tried to explain the difference of opinion on your starting premises.
To repeat: One can factually cite the details of a story and say, as a point of fact, that those details are there in the story. It's not a matter of opinion, but fact.
That one cites the facts in a story as told does not mean that one necessarily is acting under the presumption that the facts in the story told equate to actual real world events and facts.
One need not accept the literal factual nature of a fable in order to cite the factual points in the story.
At any rate, in the real world, I'm telling you that the facts of the literal story about Sodom and Lot and the visitors is actually what factually made me begin to change my mind from a conservative view on homosexuality to a more progressive view. That happened in the real world. In spite of what Marshall wishes was true, I did not "want" or "need" to understand the story the way I have come to accept it, just the opposite - I had NO desire to change my opinion. What I did have a desire to do was to be honest in following God as I understood God and taking the Bible seriously as I understood it.
The literal details (instead of "facts" if you prefer, if that helps you understand) in the literal story of Sodom/Lot are what made me begin changing my mind. That is just a fact in the real world. It happened historically and is demonstrable (in that I was firmly against homosexuality in any form and thought that the Sodom story taught literally against homosexuality). Given all that, I'm not sure what questions you've asked are germane to what I'm speaking about or have not already been answered by clarifying my points.
Giving me time to wait til I'm less busy won't help me understand what questions you think remain unanswered. Do you see what I'm saying?
Yes I completely understand what you are doing here, it's not new or surprising.
Oh? What am I "doing..."?
Dan,
"Yeah, that's consensual. People always break down the door to pull someone out for "consensual sex.""
And once again, you refuse to acknowledge the reality, which is that their having been refused was what led to the intent to break down the door. Can you tell me what in the preceding verses indicate such an intention? No. You can't. Before they were refused by Lot, there is no indication that force was intended. No "or else" attached to the request to bring out the angels. Thus, up to the point that they were refused, there is no evidence that they expected rebuke or that they were prepared and intended to exert force to rape anyone. So yeah, up to Lot's refusal, we can't rule out the possibility that they fully expected willing compliance. Don't forget...they're sexually immoral people. Sexually immoral people do not regard their immorality as immoral. You know how you people are..."Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?!!"
"Contextually, you point out what I pointed out, that this was the whole town's worth of men, not just the gay men (presumably ~2%,give or take, if modern figures can be inferred backwards). This was an attempted gang rape by primarily straight men."
You're assuming again. We're talking about a people that are wicked and depraved. And no, we cannot infer backwards what is true today. Especially not to this period in time when God's morality was not expressly mandated as with Leviticus. It was not until modern times, within the last hundred years or so, that the notion of "orientation" was invented to excuse this particular form of sexual immorality. Back in ancient times, it was simply whatever one discovered was pleasurable. For example, in ancient Rome, it wasn't a big deal for a man to penetrate another man, but those men who allowed themselves to be penetrated were considered less than manly and were considered disgraceful.
So what you're doing now, citing this 2% stat, is referring to those who self-identify, which assumes their BS about being born that way. Such things were not even a point of discussion for most of human history, but only that such desires, and more specifically the behaviors those desires provoked, were rightly regarded as unnatural and depraved...which they clearly are.
Worse, however, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that any of these men were "straight" at all, given that they were a part of a culture Scripture describes as "wicked". More likely is that they engaged in every behavior prohibited later in Leviticus 18, if not more. "Straight" men? Hardly. But you go ahead and continue lying about what the story is saying, making up what you need in order to defend sexual immorality. It's what you do. But in the context of the text, the wicked thing is the intent to engage in homosexual behavior. As homosexual behavior always is, being an abomination and all.
"I'll remind you, once again, when I reached this conclusion, I was primarily a conservative young man."
Blah, blah, blah. I'll remind you again, you've never in all the years I've seen you on the blogs demonstrated that you understand what it means to be conservative, either politically or theologically. Simply opposing homosexuality doesn't indicate conservatism, nor does it indicate that you know your backside from a hole in the ground.
"You, on the other hand, appear to really want this obvious rape attempt to be not rape, for some reason. Why is that?"
Because it isn't. And it also isn't clear that they intended to rape the angels after being rebuffed by Lot. While I can concede that they may have so intended AFTER being refused their request, I'm not willing to read into the text what the text doesn't suggest regarding their intentions before Lot refused them. It's NOT obvious that rape was the idea from the start, but only homosexual sex. You're desperate need to believe it was has still not been justified. You've still not shown how the initial verses suggest a planned rape as opposed to merely an orgy-like activity between the men of Sodom and these visitors. You're injected what you need into the story. I'm doing nothing more than taking the story as it is presented.
Because all that is obvious is that they wanted to have sex with the visitors.
Because all that is obvious is that they were refused their desire by Lot.
Because all that is obvious is that they were offered Lot's daughters instead of his guests.
Because all that is obvious is that Lot's refusal pissed them off.
Because all that is obvious is that the men of Sodom then moved to force their way into the house while promising to treat Lot worse than they intended to treat the angels, however it was they intended at that point to "treat" the angels. (They didn't say.)
Because all that is obvious is that you'll do anything to deny the truth about God's opposition to sexually immoral behavior, particularly homosexual behavior in whatever context it might take place.
"...I had NO desire to change my opinion. What I did have a desire to do was to be honest in following God as I understood God and taking the Bible seriously as I understood it."
And yet, you choose to dishonestly inject your own preferred notions about what the story is saying and not saying, and then lying, and clearly so, about what is obvious in the story.
As to what I wish was true, it was that you have been kidding all these years and aren't really the defender of sexual immorality and heresy that your own words have convicted you of being. I wish that somewhere, sometime there was some evidence that you really were a conservative person beyond merely your stating that you were. I wish that you would repent of your rebellion and actually show some spine in dealing with the clearly revealed Will of God, as opposed to your equivocating and corruption.
Craig,
"Sorry to disagree, but it is totally possible to draw a reasonable conclusion with few or no facts."
The fewer the facts available, the less reasonable the conclusion. That's only logical. And really, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from a situation totally devoid of facts is that there isn't enough facts to draw a reasonable conclusion about the situation at hand. I believe cops take this very attitude.
"In this case you, as Dan usually does, are arguing for s position that is not a majority position in Christian scholarship."
I've found nothing anywhere that doesn't conclude the story is a rape situation (especially the "gay" sites that need to believe it...as if it makes a difference with regards to their own abominable behaviors and/or desires). I think it is presumption without evidence that the story begins with rape as the intention. Homosexual behavior was the norm in Sodom. Why would/should anyone believe it was always rape and thus it must be rape here? It wouldn't matter anyway whether rape is at all to be inferred by the story, as the carnal nature of the people of Sodom was enough to bring about God's destruction, the reason the angels were there in the first place.
Art,
I agree that the fewer the facts the less reasonable the conclusion, but less reasonable is not the same as not reasonable.
I also agree that the focus is more on the homosexual aspect than the rape aspect, but since I think we can conclude that the angels were not cruising for gay sex, that if any sex was going to happen that it was not going to be consensual.
"Oh? What am I "doing..."?"
Laying the groundwork that allows you to leave the conversation while maintaining the fantasy that you have done a spectacular job of engaging on a back and forth mutually respectful conversation.
Art,
Take a look at the first chapter of Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace for a great example of how the police arrive at reasonable conclusions with a minimum amount of facts.
Dan,
It's interesting that you have decided that since you reject the premise of my questions, that you simply can ignore them is pretty laughable, and one more example of the double standard you embrace.
The reason I am asking you the questions I am, is that the premise that you have based your entire line of argument on is flawed. So, I guess in your world it is perfectly reasonable for you to decide that my premise is flawed and use that as one more excuse, while just assuming that your premise is correct and is not subject to questioning.
Craig,
"...since I think we can conclude that the angels were not cruising for gay sex, if any sex was going to happen that it was not going to be consensual."
Not a point I was arguing. When I mentioned consensual sex as a possibility, it was from the perspective of the men of Sodom in defending the proposition that we can't know that their intent was rape from the beginning. I see that as an illogical conclusion at which one cannot arrive without forcing that intention onto them. Indeed, I don't think most rapes begin with the intention to rape, but only result in rape when the advances are spurned.
"Take a look at the first chapter of Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace for a great example of how the police arrive at reasonable conclusions with a minimum amount of facts."
I don't think it helps your case. When the chapter begins, we see the veteran detective engaging in assumption. This is what is required to insist the men of Sodom intended to rape. It's not until later that the Wallace deals with the hypothetical man-face-down-in-a-pool-of-blood scenario, and in doing so deals with known facts. There are none that tells us the purpose of the men of Sodom was anything more than a night of sexual hi-jinks. We have no way of knowing how things would have played out had Lot said, "C'mon in, boys! Enjoy!" We only know Lot refused them and they got pissed. Yet even then we aren't told what they meant to do once they got inside, especially given their threat to "do worse" to Lot, whatever that means. All we can do is assume. That is why I maintain that it is not a story about rape, but about the sexual immorality of the men of Sodom, a hint at just how morally depraved they were.
So to talk about what evidence exists to come to a conclusion, we can only conclude according to the list I presented above:
--Because all that is obvious is that they wanted to have sex with the visitors.
--Because all that is obvious is that they were refused their desire by Lot.
--Because all that is obvious is that they were offered Lot's daughters instead of his guests.
--Because all that is obvious is that Lot's refusal pissed them off.
--Because all that is obvious is that the men of Sodom then moved to force their way into the house while promising to treat Lot worse than they intended to treat the angels, however it was they intended at that point to "treat" the angels. (They didn't say.)
The only "reasonable" conclusion based on this small list of evidence is that the men suggested the men come out for sex and Lot called it wicked, and thus that this story is also a message about homosexual behavior being wicked is a legitimate conclusion. A homosexual rape conclusion is NOT reasonable based on what we know.
Look Craig, you can ask me, "Dan, I want to know why you think God was okay with Cain marrying his sister?" all day long. My DIRECT and clear answer to that is that I don't share the premise. I don't hold the view that Cain represented a literal person. That is a direct answer to your question.
What is wrong with that?
Laying the groundwork that allows you to leave the conversation while maintaining the fantasy that you have done a spectacular job of engaging on a back and forth mutually respectful conversation.
Well, you are free to hold to that hunch, but as it turns out, in the real world, you'd be factually mistaken. That is not my intent, as a point of fact.
Free to hold other guesses all you want, I am the one and only one (at least between the two of us) who can authoritatively tell you my intent and that is not my intent.
In this post, you asked a question. I answered it directly and elaborated to be more clear.
You chastised me for not answering it with a simple yes or no and for adding all the elaboration. No problem. I responded by answering with a simple yes/no.
Then you asked me several follow up questions that all dealt with a mistaken premise/premise I do not share. I answered according to the premises I do hold, rather than try to answer based on premises I do not hold.
What is wrong with any of that?
And, as a point of fact, I do not know what questions you think remain unanswered, as I think my clarifying answer dealt with all your questions. So, if you think there remain unanswered questions, you will have to ask them again if you want me to answer them, as I think I have answered them all. What else can I do? Guess at what questions you think are unanswered? No thanks.
Marshall, it's not an uncommon view that clearly, this was a rape attempt. Here's a sampling from some traditional/conservative sites...
"These citizens of Sodom clearly came to homosexually abuse and rape these two visitors."
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0119.htm
"The residents of the town wanted to rape the angels..."
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/how-are-we-to-take-the-fact-that-lot-offered-his-daughters-for-rape
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels
http://www.str.org/articles/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah#.VsNQSmco670
(That's the Stand to Reason website, by the way). I think you're trying too hard to convince yourself of something that is obvious in a plain reading of the text.
"What is wrong with that?"
1. I didn't ask you about Cain.
2. Your conclusion that Cain was not a real person is based on your unproven premise that the OT histories do not reflect reality.
3. You want to have the right to reject my questions based on your hunch about my premise, yet put forth your own premise as something that cannot be questioned.
4. As long as you cannot demonstrate that the premise underlying your hunch is factually correct, you have no basis to question what you perceive mine to be.
"What is wrong with any of that?"
In your world where you take double standards for granted probably not a thing.
"So, if you think there remain unanswered questions, you will have to ask them again if you want me to answer them, as I think I have answered them all. What else can I do? Guess at what questions you think are unanswered?"
Ah, this tactic again. Well, I guess you just can't do your own research and must depend on others to do it for you.
As for me, I will continue to answer virtually every question you ask (at least the first or second time you ask it), you are free to continue to make excuses.
Art,
As much as I hate to even give the appearance of siding with Dan, this is one where I think you are potentially wrong. As opposed to Dan (who needs for this to be about rape to maintain his position), I'm just suggesting that a conclusion of forced sex is not 100% ruled out by the evidence. It's just not explicit either way. It's obvious that the homosexual aspect was significant, but you just can't make the text say that any potential sex would have been consensual. I think your hanging on to this one a little too tight for some reason.
Dan,
Ultimately, your problem is that you've admitted that you haven't answered all of the questions asked because you don't agree with what you perceive that "premise" to be. As I've pointed out, as long as you make arguments based on unsupported premises, your failure to answer for that reason is just one more area where you are inconsistent.
"1. So which is it? Is it "literally speaking of a gang rape" or is it what "appears" to be a gang rape?"
The above question is a great example of one not answered. Given that the "premise" of the question is to get you to clarify which of the contradictory terms you used is the one that you actually mean.
Are you suggesting that trying to get you to clarify two conflicting statements of yours is somehow an invalid premise?
Are you suggesting that your conflicting statements are somehow exempt from clarification?
Or is this premise BS just one more excuse for you to avoid answering questions?
One last comment, I can see at least two of my comments full of questions that are unanswered and based on getting you to clarify your position. I guess that you reject me trying to get you to explain your position as a faulty premise. I would have thought that trying to help people understand your position by answering questions was a reasonable and respectful thing to do. I guess not.
. As I've pointed out, as long as you make arguments based on unsupported premises
I changed my position - began changing my position - when I realized that this text was not about homosexuality in general, but about rape. The premise is supported by the text.
I will gladly concede that we can't know proof-positive that the author intended this to be clearly about rape, but it is a reasonable conclusion, based on the text. It is, then, a reasonable premise to begin a change from my old position to my new one.
It is absolutely NOT an unsupported premise. In what world and for what possible reason would you conclude that the premise is not supported?
Your premise that the OT history of myth is unsupported, therefore any conclusions you draw based on that premise are unsupported.
Your premise that the Sodom story is about "gang rape" an only "gang rape" is unsupported as you acknowledge.
Had you bothered to answer some of the earlier questions, maybe some of this would have been cleared up by now.
"It is absolutely NOT an unsupported premise. In what world and for what possible reason would you conclude that the premise is not supported?"
If the above statement is true, then please provide the support for your premise. If it was supported you would be able to provide support for it.
"1. So which is it? Is it "literally speaking of a gang rape" or is it what "appears" to be a gang rape?"
The above question is a great example of one not answered. Given that the "premise" of the question is to get you to clarify which of the contradictory terms you used is the one that you actually mean.
What is contradictory? I have clarified for you that I am glad to concede (if you all are) that we can't know with complete confidence what the author's intent was in this selection, so do not know this as a verifiable fact. So, it does not matter if it is literally speaking of gang rape or appears clearly to be speaking of gang rape. The fact that either of these are true is sufficient to have caused me to change my position, which it literally did in the real world.
So, to clarify: Are you agreeing with me that we can't state authoritatively that just because a text appears to clearly be saying something does not mean that we know as a fact the author's intent? This would seem to undermine a bulk of at least Marshall's opinions (the ones we conflates with facts) if not yours.
Are you suggesting that trying to get you to clarify two conflicting statements of yours is somehow an invalid premise?
I'm saying it is an irrelevant premise to the point I was making. I don't see these as conflicting statements.
If the text appears clearly to be saying something, to the point that I as a more literal reader (as I was back in the day) would take it as a fact, noting that it "factually" or "clearly" is saying something are effectively the same. In what way are they different?
Are you suggesting that your conflicting statements are somehow exempt from clarification?
Not saying that.
Or is this premise BS just one more excuse for you to avoid answering questions?
Given the reality that I have a years long tradition of answering most questions, and given the reality that this is not my intent, ever, no. You are mistaken in this guess.
Your premise that the OT history of myth is unsupported, therefore any conclusions you draw based on that premise are unsupported.
It is not unsupported. (And I have not said the "the OT history of myth" line - whatever you mean by that. I've noted that parts of Genesis are told using classically mythic tropes).
1. Historians generally agree that the era prior to ~500 BC - ~500 AD is a time before modern history telling in the way that we modernists strive to tell history, linear and with an effort at factual accuracy; That is a reality.
2. The OT was passed on entirely from the time period where modern history;
Thus, it is a supported and reasonable conclusion that those stories that were told in a time prior to modern history telling should not be expected to be told in a modern history style. It's a tautology.
Further, as noted above, I've said that many stories in Genesis are told in a mythic style, using the tropes of myth.
Oftentimes, myths are stories told to explain origins of things in a non-scientific or literally factual historic manner, they often include phrases like "...and that is how the tiger got his stripes..." "and that is why the snake crawls on his belly..." "and that is why we have many languages..." etc. These stories read like other myths, common to that time and later.
Thus, it is supported that these stories DO sound mythic in nature and they don't read like modern histories. These are supported premises.
You are mistaken when you say they are not supported.
By supported (in case you are misunderstanding me), I do not mean "proven" or "a factual known..." I simply mean that they are reasonably, rationally supported, propped up, based on other known events. Now, it is possible that although we have ZERO known instances of literal histories told in a modern style from that time, that one of these ancient stories that exist out there COULD be told in the more modern style, but we have no data to support that claim. It's a fine guess, but one that has no data to support it.
Almost for a fact, you do not consider any other ancient text to be a literal history, do you? Do you take Gilgamesh to be a literally factual history? If not, why not?
I do not take a literal flood story as supported by reality (whether that story occurs in Gilgamesh or Genesis) because
1. There is no data to support the notion of an earth completely underwater;
2. It is not physically possible for the earth to be completely underwater - there isn't enough water to cover the land;
Thus, there IS reasonable hard data to support the idea of dismissing the flood story as not a modern, accurate history story because of the data. There is support for the premise. On the other hand, there is no support for the theory that Gilgamesh's recording of a flood is literal history, or that there was literally a monstrous giant called Humbaba. You presumably have no problem acknowledging Gilgamesh's non-literal history status... why do you do so for Gilgamesh but not the Bible?
Regardless, as I have demonstrated, I do have support for my considering parts (at least) of OT stories to not be told in a modern history style, and are likely more figurative/epic/mythic/symbolic in nature. How do I not have support?
If your OT is myth theory is supported, then why have you not ever provided a specific example of one of the "historians" who will support your hunch.
As far as the unanswered question, you made two claims which cannot both be true, how is trying to pin you down to one of them a false premise?
"However, Thucydides’ History was by no means the first history, which might be argued to have originated from Homer’s oral ‘history’ of the Hellenes’ heroic age. Still, a clear distinction to make is that whilst Homer was inspired by the Muses, Thucydides was inspired by his “histories”, his inquiries (our word for history comes from the same Greek word which means an inquiry). But again, Thucydides was not the first person to write down their findings as a 'history'; it was Thucydides’ near contemporary Herodotus who did that (on a grand scale, even though there were 'proto-historians' who wrote before him on a lesser scale). And whilst Herodotus was not inspired by the Muses (despite some of his passages feeling like they might have been), he still involves the gods and superstitions as motives and reasons for events."
http://www.ancient.eu/Thucydides/
Thucydides and Herodotus are widely acknowledged as the first historians in the modern sense. Do you disagree? Based on what?
If your OT is myth theory is supported
Do you understand that I do not hold an "OT is Myth" theory? I have never said that, nor do I believe it, do you understand that?
I'm okay with you using that phrase if that's just a short hand way of saying, "Dan does not take all parts of the OT as literal history as told in more modern literally factual style..." although that might be confusing to visitors/other readers. Anyway, I'm correcting it so you better understand/so as to try to avoid later confusions.
I do NOT believe "the OT is myth."
I also do not believe that the OT is literal history, as told in a more modern, factually-oriented style.
I believe the early parts of the OT were written in the earliest time of passing down stories and sound/appear to be mythic in nature.
I believe there is nothing morally or rationally wrong with myth as genre, as long as you understand that this is the genre.
I believe that suggesting (demanding) that a text MUST be taken as literal history when there is no reason to presume it is and that those who don't are hateful of the text is just silly/a poor scholarly approach.
I believe other parts of the OT are written in a variety of styles - poetry, epic history, legend, etc. Some parts of it are clearly SOME TYPE of history, but I have no reason to presume or bow to demands that it must be taken as more modern, literally factual history.
Just to clarify.
"Do you disagree? Based on what?"
But you might have missed the part in your cut/paste job that acknowledges that there were people before them. Further, you haven't addressed your actual claim. Your claim is that the Biblical historical books are myth. Your out of context snippet doesn't address that claim specifically. Your out of context snippet also points out that the person you claim wrote the first "modern" history filled his "history" with "...gods and superstitions as motives and reasons for events.". So, clearly the support you offer has some flaws in supporting your claims.
"Do you understand that I do not hold an "OT is Myth" theory?"
I understand that you have a hunch that certain (unspecified) sections of the historical books of the OT are myth. I also understand that you haven't proven your hunch. I also understand that my term is in the nature of a shorthand phrase to acknowledge a general sense of your hunch.
"I have never said that, nor do I believe it, do you understand that?"
Why does it bother you when you think people have attributed to you something you never said, yet you don't have a problem doing it to others?
But even having regurgitated your hunch, you still have the problem of making claims that contradict each other.
You claim that the Sodom text is ""literally speaking of a gang rape", the fact that you made that claim is undeniable. It exists in a comment made by your in this thread.
You later made the claim that the text is reporting something that," "appears" to be a gang rape". Again, your exact words.
You've made two claims that say two different things about the same text. The premise behind that particular unanswered question was to try to ascertain which of the two claims you actually meant. Up until now you keep insisting that the "premise" behind the question is somehow false. How can asking you to clarify your own words indicate any premise other than a search for clarity. Perhaps if you were not so imprecise in the words and phrases you choose, some of this would be avoided.
So, I'll give you the option to answer the two comments full of questions or not, but as long as you choose not to, (or to suggest that you aren't willing to differentiate between my questions or Art's) then I see no reason that prevents me from concluding that you are unable or unwilling to answer.
You do realize that simply asserting "I believe..." is not the same as providing support for your belief, don't you?
Yes. You DO understand that me telling you what I actually believe so you can know is a way of giving support to YOU so you know what I actually believe?
I understand that you have a hunch that certain (unspecified) sections of the historical books of the OT are myth.
Yes, the ones that read like myth are, I believe, more rightly understood as myth, just as the ones that read like poetry are more rightly understood as poetry. Is this not reasonable to you?
I also understand that you haven't proven your hunch.
Yes, I have not proven that the authors intended it to be taken as a myth AND conservatives have not proven that the authors intended it to be taken as history. Further, I understand that neither of us can prove what the author's intent was.
Do you understand that?
On the other hand, I can prove (as much as anyone can prove anything) that, for instance, the world is not 6,000 years old, that the land on earth was never covered by water, etc. So, regardless of the author's intent, we can KNOW that parts of the Genesis stories, for instance, are demonstrably not factual history, not in a literal sense.
Do you understand that?
So, given that, and given that you can't prove that the authors (or "Author," if you prefer) intends for us to take these stories as literal history, and given that they seem clearly to me (and many others) to read like myth, on what basis would I think otherwise? I have no great desire to "prove" to you what is not provable or to convince anyone that they must take these stories as myth. If you prefer to hold the opinion that they are literal history, knock yourself out. Just don't demand that others must agree with your unprovable opinions.
(not saying you are, just clarifying for people like Marshall who might want to insist something to that effect.)
I also understand that my term is in the nature of a shorthand phrase to acknowledge a general sense of your hunch.
Again, for our sake - just the two of us in a conversation - that's no problem, as long as you understand it is not an accurate description at all of what I believe. But as a general rule, in public conversations, I'd suggest we'd be better off sticking closer to actual positions rather than inaccurate summaries.
You do recognize, I suppose, that some people consider the term "mythic" offensive, as if the almighty God of the Universe could never make use of a myth or a fiction (in spite of the fact that biblical contributers - Jesus included did just that)? Given that, saying someone "thinks the Bible is myth" becomes a shorthand way of dismissing the views and the person as a "Bible hater" and, by extension, God hater, when the truth is just the opposite. Just a suggestion. I will probably continue to clarify for the sake of clarity and accuracy.
No, I do understand that you actually believe this stuff. I just don't think you understand why "I believe" is convincing to anyone else in the absence of any actual evidence. The simple fact that you claim to believe something has absolutely zero value in the real world.
For example, I really believe that you really believe that you answer 95% or the questions you are asked, I also believe that nothing anyone says, does or shows you will actually change your belief.
I also believe that the reason why you act the way you do, is that there is a point in virtually every conversation you have where you realize that of you answered the questions asked clearly and honestly you might actually have to stake out a specific position.
I believe that you are a coward. I believe that if you were not you would simply answer questions when they are asked and not go through all this crap to avoid answering them.
Finally, I believe that you knowingly make statements in a way that makes them appear to be claims of fact, then when confronted, try to convince yourself that "seems like" and "is" are really the same thing.
"I'd suggest we'd be better off sticking closer to actual positions rather than inaccurate summaries."
You mean "inaccurate summaries" like "By deleting my direct and clear answers,...", hey if you finally decide to stop that would be great.
I do understand that you actually believe this stuff. I just don't think you understand why "I believe" is convincing to anyone else in the absence of any actual evidence.
The point, Craig, was not to make my case.
Do you understand that?
The point was to clarify what I actually believe because you often sound like or write words that indicate you do not understand my actual position.
Do you understand that?
I believe that you are a coward.
You are free to believe whatever you want. Doesn't make it so and, again, I don't think the evidence would ever bear out the silly belief.
But to clarify: When Craig, Neil, Glenn, etc, etc, etc, over and over refuse to answer respectful, reasonable questions, do you think that this is an indication of cowardice on their part?
Or are you partisan and biased when it comes to false charges of cowardice?
Dan, you had the perfect opportunity to prove your point and you chose not to take it.
To be accurate I did not charge you with cowardice, I simply expressed my opinion.
Unfortunately you had the opportunity to prove that my belief was wrong, but chose something else.
As I pointed out,I'm quite sure you believe what you spout, the problem is you think that your beliefs mean something without any actual proof.
Do you understand that when I ask questions about what you believe that I am trying to understand what you say you believe? Do you also understand that your refusal to answer the questions makes it more difficult for me to understand,
Only you can change my belief about your cowardice.
Craig, I don't give a flying fuck what you think, my man. I've answered questions and you've not understood. I've tried to explain and you've not understood. I've clarified and re-explained and you've somehow taken this as "cowardice." (Really? In what way? How are you defining cowardice? Because I don't think "he didn't answer the questions in a way that I liked" is an English definition of the word cowardice.)
So, given a lack of any serious questions or points, you can answer my questions or not. You can ask questions that you think I've missed or not. That's all on you.
Peace and grace to you.
Sorry, I should have said, "I don't give a flying fuck about what you believe," especially when it's based on practically nothing rational or solid other than your own feelings and emotions.
And, for the record, when one refers to "your cowardice," that IS a charge, however flimsy and baseless the "belief" may be.
Since I've answered your questions, and you've chosen expletives and non answers I guess you can try to make your choices my fault. I guess if that is easier than just stepping up and having a two way conversation and helps you rationalize your choices I can't stop you. But for you to seriously try to play the "Craig won't answer my questions" at this point is just delusional on your part.
Yes,I do take your choice to refuse to answer questions as cowardice, in the absence of any other rational option and the fact that I served up an opportunity for you to prove me wrong, I believe coward is appropriate. Especially considering the fact that all you have is foul language and blaming others.
Since I've answered your questions, and you've chosen expletives and non answers I guess you can try to make your choices my fault. I guess if that is easier than just stepping up and having a two way conversation and helps you rationalize your choices I can't stop you. But for you to seriously try to play the "Craig won't answer my questions" at this point is just delusional on your part.
Yes,I do take your choice to refuse to answer questions as cowardice, in the absence of any other rational option and the fact that I served up an opportunity for you to prove me wrong, I believe coward is appropriate. Especially considering the fact that all you have is foul language and blaming others.
So by your measure, YOU are a coward, because you are opting to not answer the questions I put to you.
These questions, in case you don't know what I'm speaking of:
When Craig, Neil, Glenn, etc, etc, etc, over and over refuse to answer respectful, reasonable questions, do you think that this is an indication of cowardice on their part?
Or are you partisan and biased when it comes to false charges of cowardice?
The point, Craig, was not to make my case.
Do you understand that?
The point was to clarify what I actually believe because you often sound like or write words that indicate you do not understand my actual position.
the ones that read like myth are, I believe, more rightly understood as myth, just as the ones that read like poetry are more rightly understood as poetry. Is this not reasonable to you?
I have not proven that the authors intended it to be taken as a myth AND conservatives have not proven that the authors intended it to be taken as history. Further, I understand that neither of us can prove what the author's intent was.
Do you understand that?
On the other hand, I can prove (as much as anyone can prove anything) that, for instance, the world is not 6,000 years old, that the land on earth was never covered by water, etc. So, regardless of the author's intent, we can KNOW that parts of the Genesis stories, for instance, are demonstrably not factual history, not in a literal sense.
Do you understand that?
Cowardice, much? Inconsistency, much?
Some days, you seem like you are sincere and want to engage in respectful conversation. Other times, you come across as if you were deliberately striving to be a jerk. On those days, I'm less inclined to continue trying with you.
Just fyi. I would hope you could understand that. I believe rational people can get that and I believe you are a rational person. But do you get that?
Wow butch and impatient. I haven't answered your questions YET because it's difficult to copy paste from my phone and I've been at work.
So, not only have I answered every single question up until this point, which you haven't, but you're just going to make up lied to try to cover your own cowardice.
Any other excuses
Wow butch and impatient. I haven't answered your questions YET because it's difficult to copy paste from my phone and I've been at work.
So, not only have I answered every single question up until this point, which you haven't, but you're just going to make up lied to try to cover your own cowardice.
Any other excuses
No lies. As a point of fact, you have not answered these questions. It sounded like you were done. Glad to hear that you'll be addressing them.
No lies, no cowardice (depending on how you define it, I suppose... not cowardice in the standard English meaning, at any rate), no excuses.
"No lies, no cowardice (depending on how you define it, I suppose... not cowardice in the standard English meaning, at any rate), no excuses."
No answers either.
"So by your measure, YOU are a coward, because you are opting to not answer the questions I put to you."
This is quite clearly a lie. I did not opt not to answer the questions, I opted to put more important things ahead of satisfying your bitchy impatience.
"When Craig, Neil, Glenn, etc, etc, etc, over and over refuse to answer respectful, reasonable questions, do you think that this is an indication of cowardice on their part?"
In the absence of any specific examples, I am hard pressed to give you a definitive answer. I will say that I cannot speak for others (one of your queer predilections is your fetish for lumping all "conservatives" together), nor should I be expected to. Further, I was unaware that I am required to defend you when you feel wronged. Having said that, and in the absence of any specific instances of what you claim, I would say that I could see a circumstance where their refusal to answer your "respectful and reasonable" question could be construed as cowardice. I will say that I have on multiple occasions interceded on your behalf with several of the people you've mentioned though.
When you say "respectful and reasonable" is this " I don't give a flying fuck what you think, my man." what you consider respectful and reasonable?
"Or are you partisan and biased when it comes to false charges of cowardice?"
No.
"Do you understand that?"
I understood it the first three times you asked, still do.
"...because you often sound like or write words that indicate you do not understand my actual position."
That, Dan, I why I so frequently quote you and ask specific questions based on the actual words you use.
"...the ones that read like myth are, I believe, more rightly understood as myth, just as the ones that read like poetry are more rightly understood as poetry. Is this not reasonable to you?"
If there was as much explicit reason to presume that the parts you think are myth are actually myth, then I'd agree with you. But until you demonstrate that what "seems like" myth actually is myth, then I can't agree with your unsupported premise. I know I've told you more than once that reading things according to genre is important, the problem is you can't say specifically what sections are myth and what are not, nor can you prove that your hunches are more correct than anyone elses. So, given the lack of foundation for your myth hunch, I'd say no.
"Do you understand that?"
I do. I'm not the one making assertions that cannot be proven, that would be you. Much of this would have been avoided had you not attempted to impose "objective fact" on a passage you consider myth.
"Do you understand that?"
I understand that you are making several claims of fact. I would be interested to see how you "prove" them since you claim you can.
"Cowardice, much? Inconsistency, much?"
Nope, none at all. Impatient much? Bitchy much? Double standard much?
"Some days, you seem like you are sincere and want to engage in respectful conversation."
Yes I do, until you decide that you are going to choose to ignore questions and make stuff up. I usually am until you start flinging expletives and bitching. I usually am until you start the blame and excuses game. Once those things happen, I pretty much don't put as much effort into being respectful with someone who choose not to be respectful themselves.
"I believe rational people can get that and I believe you are a rational person. But do you get that?"
I completely get that. You are unaware that your double standards provoke reactions in people you converse with. You are unwilling to accept that any unpleasantness could possibly be attributed to you and your actions but instead always blame others. So, yeah I get it.
As I said earlier, you had the perfect opportunity to prove me wrong and you right and instead of stepping up and taking it, you chose a different route. One filled with impatience, blame, and expletives. I assume you think that's respectful and adult.
So, yes, I think that anyone who passes up a golden opportunity to prove them self right but chooses attack instead can reasonably be called a coward.
"It sounded like you were done."
This is the kind of thing that happens all to often with you, you make a wrong assumption, overreact, and end up looking foolish. I keep respectfully suggesting that basing your response on assumptions, presumptions, and "seems like" is not a good strategy. But you just double down.
"You DO understand that me telling you what I actually believe so you can know is a way of giving support to YOU so you know what I actually believe?"
Yet, it still doesn't speak to the veracity or rationality of your beliefs.
"(and many others)"
1. In the past you've claimed that arguing from numbers is a logical fallacy. Yet you use it when you think it helps.
2. Define "many".
3. Identify "many". (Obviously answering "Me and my friends" is a ridiculous answer)
"You are free to believe whatever you want. Doesn't make it so..."
You seem to understand this concept when you apply it to others. Why can you not apply it to yourself in the same way?
"I've answered questions..."
This isn't entirely accurate, is it. You've chosen to answer some questions while ignoring or blowing off others.
"(Really? In what way? How are you defining cowardice?..."
You had the opportunity to stand up, be brave, and prove you were right. Instead, you chose to attack and blame. As far as I'm concerned anyone who can't stand to answer questions about their claims is a coward. But, (and here's the lie here) I didn't actually call you a coward nor did I say you were a coward, I simply expressed my personal belief (an opinion as it were). Perhaps had I decided to engage in a rant (maybe called you "scum"), that would have been OK. But heaven forbid I express an opinion.
"So, given a lack of any serious questions or points,..."
You must mean, "Given that I've chosen to ignore or dismiss your serious questions...". What exactly gives you to gall to decide that someone else's questions aren't "serious"? If I tried that you'd throw a fit.
RE "your cowardice", my initial comment was expressing my belief(opinion) that you are a coward. The reference you've chosen was in response to the fact that you did not choose the path of courage but of a coward, and that you could have demonstrated that my belief was wrong but you chose not to. My apologies if I wasn't clear about that. (It's sometime hard to do this from a phone when I should be working)
"So by your measure, YOU are a coward, because you are opting to not answer the questions I put to you."
You ignore questions for days and come up with some smarmy self justification, yet you jump to unwarranted negative conclusions because I don't do what you want immediately.
Hypocrite much?
One note for now: While you may consider the flimsy "flying fuck" to be "vulgar," I view slander and false charges like "coward," to be not only silly, unsupported, irrational and immoral, but much more vulgar than a mere four letter word. I'm not alone in this.
You had the opportunity to stand up, be brave, and prove you were right.
About what? Something that is unprovable? Again, by THAT measure, you are a coward, and we all are, as no one can prove something that is unprovable. It becomes a meaningless word then, when misused in that non-standard manner.
it still doesn't speak to the veracity or rationality of your beliefs.
So, NO, you DON'T understand that this was not the point, is that what you're saying? Because that's what I'm hearing/seeing.
You've chosen to answer some questions while ignoring or blowing off others.
Giving an answer that you fail to understand/don't like is neither ignoring nor blowing off. I can explain something to you, I can't understand it for you, as the saying goes.
Hey I'm not the one who has to resort to vulgarity because that's all you have to offer.
If you had actually answered questions I wouldn't have a problem, it's the ones you won't answer that I have a problem with.
So rant all you want to about the opportunity you chose not to take its not my problem.
My point is that when all you offer as support for your hunches is "I believe", then you engage in what you criticize in others, just one more example of the double standard you embrace.
Hey I'm not the one who has to resort to vulgarity because that's all you have to offer.
If you had actually answered questions I wouldn't have a problem, it's the ones you won't answer that I have a problem with.
So rant all you want to about the opportunity you chose not to take its not my problem.
My point is that when all you offer as support for your hunches is "I believe", then you engage in what you criticize in others, just one more example of the double standard you embrace.
I did not "resort to vularity" because "I have nothing else to offer." I said I don't give a flying fuck about your belief about me because I literally do not give a flying fuck. I do not view that as vulgar. I view that as actual.
Your "beliefs" are based on nothing factual. your use of the word coward is not based on standard English understandings of the word. Thus, your beliefs are meaningless and entirely devoid of gravity.
I admire your ability to always be able to come up with some excuse for your uncivil behavior.
If you truly cared as little as you claim you wouldn't be wasting all of this time trying to substitute insults and expletives for civil discussion.
You had the chance to put this all to rest, to totally prove me wrong, but you chose to behave in a cowardly fashion, then to try to cover your cowardly behavior with insults and expletives. As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, you made your choice and you have to live with the consequences.
If it helps you to blame me I certainly can't stop you, but the longer you hide from the truth the harder it is when you finally face it.
Whatever you construct to try to marginalized and belittle me really is more amusing than anything else. So you go right ahead and spew all the insults and expletives you want if it helps your self esteem.
Just remember, you could have chosen differently and demonstrated courage instead of cowardice.
Dan,
You keep insisting that you've answered all of the questions asked or that you've simply dismissed them because of some "premise" you have perceived. So, what I'm going to do is copy paste one comments worth of unanswered questions. Now you have some choices in terms of how to handle this.
1. You can use whatever excuse you like to explain why you "missed" them, then you can answer them.
2. You can go through them individually and point out what you perceive as the faulty premise, make your case against the premise, then answer them.
3. You can link to (or quote in context) the specific places where you already answered these questions. If you can, I will apologize.
4. You can continue to pretend that you've already answered them and ignore them again.
Your choice.
"literally speaking of an attempted gang rape, or at least that's how it appears on the face of it." (This a an the actual quote of your actual words which inspired the questions below. I know sometimes you like to respond as if one of your quotes was actually said by someone else so I'm clarifying.)
1. So which is it? Is it "literally speaking of a gang rape" or is it what "appears" to be a gang rape?
2. What kind of "gang rape" was this? (heterosexual/homosexual/whatever they could get)
3. If the goal of the entire town was simply "gang rape", then why did the men of the town say "“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”? Why specify the men?
4. If this is simply about "gang rape" why then does Lot offer this; "No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”, as a solution to the problem? Why would the "gang rape" of the daughters have been OK, if this was simply an indictment of "gang rape"?
5. Even after the men turn down the heterosexual option, they then say this " “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”. If this is simply about "gang rape" why do the townsfolk have absolutely zero desire (or at least make zero mention) of "gang rape" of any of the womenfolk?
Dan,
While I realize that you are choosing not to interact with my last few comments, which kind of provides support for my belief that your behavior is cowardly, I want to note that once again I have interceded on your behalf at the blog of someone on "my side". I know you earlier suggested that my failure to do so was some kind of character flaw or something, yet I again try to speak up for you.
I'll come back when I get a chance. In the meantime, grace.
Whatever, no rush. Just pointing out the fact that I still continue to intercede for you.
For what it's worth, I posted (again) on a liberal friend's fb page a correction when they posted a meme with a quote supposedly from Trump, but which wasn't his quote at all. I continue to intercede for truth even when it's correcting someone on my "side," as well. And thanks for your doing so.
Craig,
"As much as I hate to even give the appearance of siding with Dan, this is one where I think you are potentially wrong. As opposed to Dan (who needs for this to be about rape to maintain his position), I'm just suggesting that a conclusion of forced sex is not 100% ruled out by the evidence. It's just not explicit either way. It's obvious that the homosexual aspect was significant, but you just can't make the text say that any potential sex would have been consensual. I think your hanging on to this one a little too tight for some reason."
I reprint the entire comment for my own convenience as it is quite a ways up the page to go back and forth.
I again seek to clarify my position. When I mentioned the possibility of consensual sex, it was from the perspective of the men of Sodom prior to their being rebuffed by Lot. That is to say that we cannot have any way of supposing that their intention to do anything more than to have the angels brought out to engage in one big orgy with all the men of Sodom. Said another way, there is no reason to suppose they expected to have any trouble getting the angels to engage in sex with them. Nothing whatsoever in the text suggests that in any way. Said yet another way still, from the point where the men of Sodom are first mentioned in this story, Gen 19:4, to the point at which Lot goes out to meet them in verse 6, what indicates rape is intended? There is nothing. Thus, only the expectation of the men that the angels would consent to sex is possible to infer. This does not suggest that the angels would consent, or that there is any possibility that consensual sex would take place. Indeed, there is nothing in anything I've said that should have left that impression in either your mind or Dan's, though Dan does look for that which he can use to put an opponent in the worst possible light.
Furthermore, while it is reasonable to imagine that the men intended to force the issue after having been rebuffed by Lot, as their moving forward to break down the door might suggest, there is nothing that clearly and unambiguously states that forced sex is their intention. Thus, to make the case that rape is in fact intended can only be speculative, even if that speculation from the point of verse 9 seems reasonable.
With that in mind, to suggest the message of the story is about forced rape as opposed to merely illustrating the level of immorality of the townsmen who would greet visitors with an invitation to orgy is injecting meaning into the story that is unnecessary. Violent behavior, as Dan always tells us, is self-evidently wrong and does not require a story, factual OR in parable form, to tell us this. And it doesn't matter how many people, scholar or otherwise, wishes to say the story is about rape as opposed to merely the wickedness of homosexual behavior.
And as if that isn't enough, it also shows the double standard character of Dan, who when taken through the story step by step, still insists on reading into the story that which is not explicit, and at best only barely implicit based on that step by step process. I listed all that we can say with certainty is obvious. There exists only a few words more, none of which supports the claim that it is primarily and definitively a story about rape.
Here's the best inference with regard to just how wicked Sodom was: homosexual behavior was commonplace, and they weren't above violently reacting to being told "no". Why anyone feels the need to say anything more than that is beyond me, except that proponents of SSM need to separate "loving, committed homosexual relationships" with any passage or verse that condemns homosexual behaviors.
Consider this: if the men simply turned away disappointed at Lot's refusal, the LGBT crowd, and Dan, would still try to distinguish Lot's accusation as referencing something other than "loving, committed homosexual relationships". Insisting on the rape story is just more of the same equivocation.
Art,
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, my problem is that in both your case as well as Dan's there is a certain amount of reading into the text. You may be reading less in than Dan, but you are still making assumptions about the motives of the men of Sodom that are not explicit in the text. IMO, your mistake is in minimizing the non consensual aspect of the situation, while Dan's mistake is to minimize or eliminate the homosexual aspect of the situation. As I pointed out, it seems reasonably clear that the men were only interested in sex with other men which supports the probability that this is a homosexual thing, yet it is equally reasonable to conclude that they were perfectly willing to use force to get what they wanted. Ultimately Dan's mistake is that he has concluded that the story is only about the evils of "gang rape" to the exclusion of any other possible option. The question we'll never really know the answer to is whether his conclusion is shaped by his acceptance of homosexuality as something that is "good" and "blessed by God", or if this is part of what led him to that conclusion. Obviously he will insist it is the latter, but I suspect that he's not exactly an unbiased source on this issue (really when it comes to things like this I suspect none of us are, no matter how much we try to be). So the reality is, we'll never know for certain. Personally I can't see any way to reach the conclusion that the story is exclusively about "gang rape" if one comes to the text without bias and looks at what is explicit in the text.
Anyway, from what I can see, it looks to me like you and Dan are two sides of the same coin on this one. Sorry.
Post a Comment