Talk:Lot (Bible)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Pictures
Im removing offensive picture of lot having sex with his daughters. It deeply offends me to have a nude picture pertaining to the bible, let alone, one of people having sex. It makes it seem to an unknowing reader, that he wanted to have sex with his daughters! Maybe, the pictures can be moved under the text. An unknowing reader is then able to understand the paintings. A very good website on bible and culture is http://www.statenvertaling.net, de Dutch translation of the Bible and comparable to the King James Version (KJV). It has a lot of pictures.
E.g, Lot and his daughters: http://www.statenvertaling.net/beeld/lotdochters_grt.jpg (the same category as the removed pictures.
But other examples include:
- The paintings of the Dutch painter Rembrand; e.g. http://www.statenvertaling.net/kunst/rembrandt-bijbel.html
Blubberbrein2 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
To say that you've removed something because it offends your sensibilites smacks of POV to me. The bible story says that Lot had sex with his daughters. Artists have depicted this event. Therefore, the history of this artistic theme belongs in this article and the picture should be included. If you take issue with the subject or its inclusion, you should call up the author of J and have a conversation with him/her.--64.230.78.95 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree so I have put the image back. I think it illustrates very well how even in the C17 rational people were able to make fun of these stupid myths Albatross2147 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Watch the tone here. If a picture is worth a thousand words, than what this picture seems to be saying may be POV. He is right, it looks like he wants sex with his daughters, which is not what the text we have says. I think we should have another picture. It may seem to you that this is just a myth, but to others it isn't, so be a little more neutral in your tone, please. Whether or not you think it is a myth, this picture portrays a POV which is somewhat unbalanced. Perhaps what is needed is a more neutral picture at the top and a discussion at the bottom (with the current picture) of the controversy of Lot. Wrad 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Content
This is "Sunday School" stuff. The book is Genesis, it needs chapter and verse reference; the midrash traditions are separate and should be identified; what is the use made of Lot? what of Lot's Wife? Are these etymologies of Moab and Amon any more than conventions? What use is made of Lot in the New Testament and the Qur'an? Wetman 13:39, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Salt
Salt is not hard; see Halite. Someone should fix this statement of fact to a (mis)statement of interpretation.
This 'pillar of salt' allows for a lot of interpretation as the opinions vary. That is why it is in another section
I fixed the statement about salt being "as hard as the hardest of rocks," it is indeed one of the softest in relation to most rocks. Furthermore, I also agree in incorporating the Qu'ran's version of Lot (Luth) I'd suggest simply filling in the information that differs where needed, by simply writing "according to the Bible" and "according to the Qu'ran" 142.35.4.130 02:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rename
see discussion in Talk:Lut. --Striver 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed section
This needs to be WP:CITEd or otherwise it looks like a combination of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Megapixie 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Critics have attacked the story of Lot in the Bible as supporting rape, homophobia, racism, and disrespect for the victims of incest. They point to the following:
Note that some of the above criticisms (e.g. the story of incest) do not apply to the Islamic account, since Islam denies the incest occurred. However, other criticisms, e.g. Lot's willingness to offer his daughters to the men of Sodom, apply to the Islamic account also.
- Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped. The text nowhere condemns this act. The text implies that one's (male) guests are to be valued more highly than one's daughters. Some also see in the text a suggestion that raping women is a cure for homosexuality, and that homosexuality is a worse sin than the rape of women
- Some argue that the depiction of the citizens of Sodom and Gommorah is a ethnic slur against the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. Likewise, in making the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites the descendants of incest, critics see another ethnic slur against the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. This slur, they argue, forms part of the foundation for the genocide of the Ammonite ethnic group repeatedly advocated in the Old Testament
- Some also point to the portrayal of the men of Sodom is a slur on homosexuals
- Many find the story that Lot was seduced by his daughters highly implausible. To many, it seems far more likely that Lot would rape his own daughters, and then attempt to shift the blame on to them for what he did. From a feminist perspective, this is in line with patriarchial society which seeks to make victims of rape and incest responsible for their abuse, rather than the perpetrators
I looked up some citations and added the rape and homophobia stuff, but I couldn't find anything on racism and incest. Wrad 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pass the salt
I added this:
- "Finally, it has been suggested this is a metaphor meaning she was made barren, in allusion to salting fields making them infertile."
I recall reading this someplace, but I'm damned if I can recall where, or I'd cite the source... Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 13:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LOT and LUT shouldent be merged
dont merge my history with the quran lot and his story and its interpretations are part of the bible and of the jewish history and not the quran "lut" can have its own page and the islamic view of him
[edit] 'midrash' duh!
i misread/thought 'mishnah' (spot the gentile). i assume it is from comentary on Tanakh? can someone provide more specific reference? → bsnowball 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
