• LocoOhNo@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    And the other part of that fucked up story is that the “moral” (and I use that word very loosely) is supposed to be about being kind to strangers in your Country.

      • Match!!@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        The major issue is that women are property in that culture, whereas the guests are men and have rights

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      What’s arguably even more fucked up is that the basic assumption the story relies on is that the audience is intended to see Lot’s choice not as a betrayal towards his daughters, but as a personal sacrifice in giving up his property. This was considered to be so obvious to the people of its time that it goes unstated.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nah, it’s guest rites. Or guest rights, depending on your perspective

      It’s a huge thing in all ancient cultures and probably all religions. Not even just ancient cultures, the US had similar things in the frontier days.

      People used to walk across continents - humans can’t just hike for 6 months, we’re not built for that - we have to take breaks and build up a bit before we keep moving, it takes time to keep yourself supplied.

      Humans leap frog, it’s how we spread worldwide. We have guest rites - sets of expectations for guests and hosts, and violating them is a major taboo. Even in our media, it still fills us with instinctive revulsion

      Is this example ridiculous and morally dubious even in it’s own context? Absolutely.

      But it’s not just about shielding a foreigner, it’s about the moral imperative to follow through once you’ve offered someone shelter