Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Who is being seduced by whom?
- Gareth Lewis (24 December 2005)
-
Re: Who is being seduced by whom?
- Yoni M. Ross (26 December 2005)
-
Re: Re: Who is being seduced by whom?
- Gareth Lewis (27 December 2005)
-
Fascinating, but unconvincing.
- Peter W Hart (29 December 2005)
-
Misconceptions about the seduction theory episode
- Allen Esterson (29 December 2005)
-
The mind of the author and the mind of the reader
- Yishai Mintzker (30 December 2005)
-
Re: The mind of the author and the mind of the reader
- Steve Kelly (1 January 2006)
-
What next? Is the Editor on holidays?
- Steve Kelly (1 January 2006)
-
The Truth Of Scripture By Casting Lot
- P Tharma (2 January 2006)
-
Ignorance of biblical context
- Joel A Radford (3 January 2006)
-
Seriously Editor.
- Ramy El-Madany (4 January 2006)
-
Shifting the blame or ignoring the facts?
- Madeline Greenhalgh (5 January 2006)
-
Lot was innocent!
- Barbara D Cherry (6 January 2006)
-
The use of religious books as references
- Hussein Nagi (1 February 2006)
-
Lot deserves a "bad press"
- William H Konarzewski (1 February 2006)
-
The Word of God?
- Ivan F. Woods, Canada H2S 4K8 (13 March 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Gareth Lewis, Intercalated PhD Student Belfast City Hospital
Send response to journal:
|
Ilan Kutz's interesting article on arguably the first recorded case of father-daughter incest demonstrates his undeniable skill in Biblical eisegesis. 'Eisegesis' is the process of reading into a text historical, cultural, religious or other presuppositions that then bias or distort the original authorial intent of a text. 'Exegesis' involves letting the text speak for itself and can be a complex process necessitating careful investigation of the historical, cultural, lexical and geographical circumstances of the text. Dr Kutz's laudable attempt at cultural synthesis in his article unfortunately falls far short of historical credibility or the proper application of hermeneutical principles. For example, the late dating of the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) may have held sway in some liberal circles but it is now recognised that such a view cannot be supported on the basis of the available evidence. Perhaps the author of the essay has been seduced by a Freudian/liberal/evolutionary worldview that has biased the handling of the Biblical text in this instance. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yoni M. Ross, Patent Attorney Trainee Tel Aviv, Israel 61040
Send response to journal:
|
In response to Dr. Lewis' accusation of biblical eisegesis on the part of the author, it is interesting to note that the Babylonian Talmud, which contains one of the widest collections of biblical exegesis native to the Jewish tradition, comes to the same conclusion that Dr. Kutz does (see Horayot 10b). Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gareth Lewis, Intercalated PhD Student Belfast City Hospital BT8 7AE
Send response to journal:
|
Lot is indeed a striking figure of contradictions and bad decisions. The narrative in Genesis does not offer an explicit moral commentary on Lot's life but the reader does get the impression that Lot has only himself to blame for the events at Sodom and beyond. The reader herself is left to decide the moral integrity or otherwise of the story's characters. Blame is specifically attributed to neither Lot or the daughters, nor are any actions condoned or condemned. However, contra Kutz and Ross, it must be stressed that the Genesis text does not give much hope for discerning a pattern of incestuous abuse throughout Lot's life. Knowledge gleaned from contemporary sociological research may be interesting but Kutz allegorises the story into something that it is not - Lot's wife was crystallised very physically; the Bible unfortunately offers little insight into her psychopathology. The presence of there being 'no man in the land' may be a reference to their very immediate physical surroundings or a supposed restriction by Lot on whom they could come into contact with. Lot seems to have wanted to avoid Abraham like the plague. The Talmudic reference is interesting in that it offers insights into some streams of Jewish thought current several hundred years into the Christian Era. Whatever the historical and theological merits of this redacted collection of late oral tradition, it seems ironic to refute my charge of eisegesis from a source that arguably specialises in it. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter W Hart, Medical Student University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8QQ
Send response to journal:
|
Although Kutz has chosen an interesting perspective on the serious and terrible problem of father-daughter incest and the blame dynamics thereof, his evidence for a Biblical "cover-up" will surely only convince those who already thrive on baseless skepticism. For example, the interpretations of 16th- and 17th-century artists have no bearing whatsoever on the Biblical events, and Kutz's proposed motive for the cover-up, the preservation of the "noble name and family honour" of Abraham and his descendants, is hardly plausible given the myriad other sordid events for which the Bible portrays them as responsible. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Allen Esterson, Retired None
Send response to journal:
|
It is a pity that Dr Kutz apparently accepts a version of the seduction theory episode in Freud's early psychoanalytic career that has been discredited by several Freud scholars. Dr Kutz refers to "Freud's observations" in relation to incest involving "molested girls". This is the impression given in Freud's retrospective (and inconsistent) reports of the episode, but the original 1896 papers tell a different story. What they show is that the patients in question (one third of whom were men) did not report having been sexually molested in early childhood. At that time Freud claimed to have analytically "traced back" to unconscious memories of infantile sexual molestations with every one of his "hysterical" patients, thereby supposedly validating a preconceived theory announced to his colleague Wilhelm Fliess in October 1895. But the patients resisted his attempts to make them 'confess' to the infantile sexual experiences: The "patients have no feeling of remembering the [infantile sexual] scenes", Freud reported, and "assure me emphatically of their unbelief." (Standard Edition, volume 3, p. 204) Nor incidentally, did Freud claim at that time that paternal incest was involved: among the variety of categories of supposed abusers, fathers were not cited. Selected references: Esterson, A. "Psychoanalytic Mythology": http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 Esterson, A. (1998). Jeffrey Masson and Freud's seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths. History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), pp. 1 -21. (Abridged version at: http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html ) Esterson, A. (2001). "The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: deception and self deception in Freud's accounts of the seduction theory episode", History of Psychiatry, xii, pp. 329-352. Esterson, A. (2002). "The myth of Freud's ostracism by the medical community in 1896-1905: Jeffrey Masson's assault on truth", History of Psychology, 5 (2), pp. 115-134. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yishai Mintzker, Family practice intern Meir hospital
Send response to journal:
|
It was not a surprise to read men criticizing Dr.Kutz's article. No reading of text is devoid of bias. Traditional reading of the bible is not in itself a guaranty that the text is being read in it's full meanings. Reading is a reflection of the readers mind, not necesarily the authors' mind, and so it is more accurate to argue about a text in terms like "I didn't find in my mind the same association as you did" and not "The author didn't mean that". It would be very interesting to hear religious women's response to the hypothesis sugested by Dr Kutz. Competing interests: Working in the same hospital as Dr Kutz |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steve Kelly, CMO Gosford 2250 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Mintzker suggests we ought not discuss the meaning of the biblical author's story. If s/he is correct, nor then should we discuss the meaning(s) of Kutz's article, and everything becomes more than a little difficult. Conversely, though, we may (in my opinion) discuss what is available to each to read, and discourse on its meaning as intended by the author, so far as SOMETHING was meant. Then, for example, we can ABSOLUTELY conclude that the paintings referred to by Kutz cannot possibly represent the story behind the writings of 2000+ years prior, the paintings can only represent the painter's opinion (per Mintzker). And WE can, as observers of both, state that there is a clear difference between the story which states "and he knew nothing of ...(the daughters' actions)" and the painting shown which appears to display a man in a different state of mind than the story represents. We may also follow Mintzker, and talk of our inward responses to what we have read. But the story as passed over the centuries must stand on its own merits, as translated by others we presume to be experts in the (ancient) languages in which the story is actually offered. That story does appear to go against the flow of commonality. Kutz is allowed by the editors of the BMJ to be him/herself omniscient in stating that "father-daughter incest is universally perpetrated by the father". A big call, which I dare not dispute in detail, but I do ask for a better self-knowledge in such a publication - authorial humility ought to be the norm. To that, must we add the gender of the commentator, as if all females are ok and all men are beasts? Many of either gender in my experience may have either useful or ridiculous commentaries, from their personal experiences either as helpers or as abused persons. But let us judge the comments, not the commentators! Competing interests: I am a follower of the bloke represented in the New Testament histories. And I am a father of sons and daughters, in one family. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steve Kelly, Career Medical Officer Gosford 2250 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Kutz addresses an important and tragic reality which seems to appear in many (all?) ages and cultures and societies and nations. But the vehicle does not aid the cause, instead Kutz infers insults to the author, and hence the cultures which have perpetuated the story. It is amazing to me that a journal of the Medical profession should publish such a critique of an ancient writing. Whether taken from a Christian or Jewish or even Islamist perspective (I understand that Islamists revere the the histories given in the early Old Testament, and trace their heritage to Abraham), it seems injudicious to publish this, perhaps especially at this time of the year! Should we expect a similar revisionism of other sacred texts? What would a similar discussion of humanist or evolutionist texts be like? Without an external, sufficient Judge of morals, surely the humanists, and followers of evolutionism, must have no more than an opinion on sexual behaviours, which may as well be "Oh well, whatever works for him/her/them works for him/her/them." I am astonished at the extent of eisegesis (see Lewis, above) that Kutz indulges. Even the comment of the whispering father referred to by Kutz is nothing more than that - reading as one wishes, rather than transparent commentary on the facts of the matter. Of course the Bible has a host of statements which preclude the misuse of power. That a particular rapist chooses to ignore them is of no consequence to the veracity of the Book being mis-read! It would perhaps have been better by far if Kutz had simply re-oriented his/her comments away from an unclear term like 'incest' and called rape by its name. And one minor point - impregnation by a single episode of intercourse (or rape) may not be the norm, but it is certainly not unheard of! If the daughters did indeed engage their father's procreative physiology as the story actually states, it is of no surprise that they may have chosen their timing deliberately, with knowledge of the likely (indeed, planned) result. And it is at least 'medical' common knowledge that women who live together often cycle together. Perhaps Kutz should read the story as written, not as feared! Competing interests: I believe the New Testament histories, as they are written. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
P Tharma, Clinical Research Associate University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ
Send response to journal:
|
Editor-I am surprised that an author can publish work, in a medical journal, that disputes scripture, which is important to both Jews and Christians, without providing any evidence. The Book of Genesis also contains the story of creation, the origin of man and sin, and Noah’s Ark, all of which have been questioned, as to whether it is the literal truth. Granted the authorship of the book is Genesis is disputed, and I am sure for a lot of people, the book contains many abhorrent events, but to suggest that the myth of Lot was created in order to discredit the Moabites and Ammonites is worse. The reference the author gave (Deuteronomy 23) has nothing to do with the origin of the Moabites or Ammonites from incest. Deuteronomy 23: 3-6 “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.” The author suggests that the origin of the Moabites and the Ammonites was the basis for the prevention of intermarriage for the Israelites, yet in Numbers 36 (Book of Numbers) gives reference to marrying within a tribal clan. Other references for the Moabites and Ammonites in scripture include: Judges 3: The King of Moab joining forces with the Ammonites to attack the Israelites because of the sins committed. Judges 10: The Ammonites attacking and crushing the Israelites Judges 11: The Ammonites waging war on the Israelites Book of Samuel: David fought against the Ammonites At no time throughout these references is the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites mentioned, nor do I think, required. In the Book of Ruth, Ruth is described as a Moabitess who is blessed by God, and becomes part of the genealogy of David. As to the role of Lot being the perpetrator of incest, the author makes the following points: 1)According to modern research incest is: usually repeated; and the father perpetrator is typically an immature individual with low self esteem. That when the victim daughter reaches an age when she is able to resist or flee, the activity may be repeated with a younger sister. 2)That Lot is portrayed as the no-good nephew of Abraham and that Lot purposely chose Sodom because of its depraved sexual practice 3)That sexual activity has to be repeated in order to achieve pregnancy, sometimes over many cycles. The account given in the scripture is that the abuse is not repeated, nor is Lot portrayed as being an immature individual with low esteem. He showed hospitality to strangers (the 2 angels of God in disguise) by insisting that they stay in his house, and providing choice food for them. That Lot states that his daughters ‘have never known a man’ and therefore have not been abused. Although it does seem far-reaching that Lot would offer up his daughters rather than allow the strangers to be abused, the hospitality he showed to his guests was also far reaching in that: he called them lord; he bowed down with his face to the ground; he stated that the guests came under the protection of his roof. Also he tried to quell the crowd and he went out to try to rescue his future son-in-laws. Also if Lot was amoral why was he rescued by the angels? Why would Lot start to commit incest of his two adult daughters when he is now old? The dispute that Lot had with Abraham was over the fact that the land could not support their household and that their herdsman quarreled because of this. He chose Sodom because he (Genesis 13:10) ‘looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.’ Sexual activity does not have to be repeated in order to achieve pregnancy, as an example given in 2Samuel 11, involving David and Bathsheba. Paintings, such as the one reproduced by Goltzius (1558-1617) are often a very poor depiction of events. (What is that small domestic dog doing in that painting?) Sadly as the author quotes (1) ‘It is incest itself-and not the absence of incest-that has been universal…in most places at most times.’ However I do not believe that there was a cover up ploy in the bible as the author states. The author says that an explicit condemnation of father-daughter incest is not stated yet Leviticus 18 gives a list of unlawful sexual relations including: Leviticus 18:6: " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations’. I am the LORD” The bible references are from the New International Version. References: 1)DeMause L. The universality of incest. J Psychohistory 1991;19:123-64 Pritam Tharmarajah, Clinical Research Associate University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2QQ Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joel A Radford, PhD candidate University of Western Sydney
Send response to journal:
|
I am forced to respond to Kutz's article to point out Kutz's inferences that are contradicted by the Biblical text from which he quotes. Kutz writes: 'In the chapters preceding the destruction of Sodom, Lot is portrayed as the no-good nephew of Abraham. He causes his uncle so much grief that the patriarch demands to part ways: "Pray part from me. If to the left, then I to the right, if to the right, then I to the left" (Genesis 13, 9).' Kutz is suggesting that Lot had a bad character and this is the cause of their separation. Whereas the text says it was their herdsmen and a lack of space that caused their separation: “Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents. But the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together. And quarrelling arose between Abram's herdsmen and the herdsmen of Lot. The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time. So Abram said to Lot, 'Let's not have any quarrelling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let's part company. If you go to the left, I'll go to the right; if you go to the right, I'll go to the left.'" (Genesis 13:5-9) Further to this parting of ways Kutz writes: 'Lot chooses Sodom as his residence, a town infamous for its depraved sexual practices.' Kutz appears to be implying that Lot chose the area of Sodom due to its wicked reputation, however the Biblical text asserts that it is the fertile land that attracts Lot: 'Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east.' (Genesis 13:10-11). These two instances of disregard for Biblical context assist Kutz’s construction of Lot’s character as a wicked man. Both instances are opposed plainly by the Biblical text. I would encourage readers of Kutz's paper to read the Biblical text itself before drawing conclusions. Joel A Radford. Bible passages are quoted from the NIV translation. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ramy El-Madany, Medical Student Queens University Belfast
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, What further (in addition to what has already been rebutted) surprises me, even disappoints me, is that such a sensationalised 'headline' and article are permitted to be published with barely any supportive data as regards the clamorous assertions about the biblical account. We, as emerging medics, are instructed to be scrupulous in our research and referencing in order to acquire the basis we need as critical, evidence-based, professional medics. How can one reconcile this with an article that only holds ONE 18 year old reference about the entirety of the authors biblical assertions (which make up a majority of the article). If such an attack on the bible can enter the field of medicine under the guise of a peer reviewed piece, then it does not make a very good impression on me as a medical student. Ramy El-Madany Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Madeline Greenhalgh, Director of The British False Memory Society BFMS, Bradford on Avon BA15 3RL
Send response to journal:
|
Editor,
Putting aside the debate about the authenticity of Biblical accounts, speculation and bias on this scale concerning the serious topic of incest, are surely out of place in the BMJ?
However, as director of the British False Memory Society (BFMS) I can assure the reader that evidenced-based research is readily available to discredit Dr Kutz claim "that while not all recovered memories of incest are accurate most, painfully, are". There are many references to chose from but just a brief glance at the work of Dr Elizabeth Loftus or Professor Richard J. McNally will confirm that memory is malleable; wholly false memories can be planted and memories of trauma are seldom, if ever, truly forgotten. The BFMS, like the American False Memory Sydrome Foundation is all too aware of the devastation false memories of incest have brought upon thousands of families.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Barbara D Cherry, teacher home
Send response to journal:
|
Contrary to the article, the relationship between Abraham and Lot appears to have been very loving. As the men parted, after the disputes between their herdsmen, Abraham's words were "Let there be no strife between us". Some time after, when Lot and the people of Sodom were carried off by 'marauding hordes' from the north, Abraham immediately organised a small army to rescue them, thereafter refusing any reward for his bravery. It would be very hard for anyone in 600BC to discredit the Moabite nation through this 'event' or 'myth' (the writer has not made it clear what he believes the story to be), since Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David, was a Moabitess, and because of the time the event occured. The sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi, were born hundreds of years before the Law was given through Moses, and there was at the time of their birth no religious prohibition against a father-daughter sexual relationship. It could never be stated that either Lot or his daughters had knowingly 'sinned' (surprisingly!). It is well known that Sarah, Abraham's wife, and the mother of the Jewish nation, was, in fact, Abraham's half-sister (same father, different mother)- Genesis 20. In later times the reasons which made these relationships necessary and acceptable were obviously no longer applicable and the Law then pronounced them as 'sinful' if they occurred thereafter. However, if the writers in 600BC had inferred that the actions of Lot were sinful, they would also have had to question the marriage of the honourable father Abraham. It is completely credible that the daughters of Lot did initiate the sexual activity with their father, when one appreciates that the three survivors of the Sodom holocaust were living at the time in complete isolation in a cave, terrified of the violent inhabitants of the one remaining village of Zoar (Genesis 19). After the cataclysmic destruction of every other town in the area, the daughters could well have believed that the people of Zoar were the only other survivors of a global catastrophe, and that it was necessary for them to produce a more peaceable progeny. The daughters would also have been understandably convinced (Genesis 19) that 'there is not a man in the whole earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth', since, prior to the destruction of Sodom, a gang of men had surrounded their house, demanding that Lot's 'angelic' visitors should be handed over 'that we might know them'. Lot's alternative offer to hand his virgin daughters over- (however harsh that might seem)- had been completely refused. Has it not been reported that women living together often - if not always? - co-ordinate their menstrual cycles? It would therefore have been very possible that the sisters were fertile within a day of each other. It is a puzzle how anyone can state that pregnancy only results from more than one sexual encounter. A lot of women have had a different experience. In order to accept that Lot was the instigator of an incestuous relationship which produced the two sons, one would have to ignore the basic pattern which is apparent in most abusive family situations. Sexual abuse usually starts early in the life of the child. In ancient times it could therefore be expected that offspring would already have been produced in Lot's family as a result of a father-daughter relationship, since both daughters had reached puberty, and both Lot and his daughters obviously had no problems with fertility. This was not the case. Neither is there anywhere mentioned the presence of a younger sibling in the family, which would indicate that Lot's wife had 'adopted' a child born to Lot and a daughter. The townsmen who surrounded Lot's house probably knew the family well and they did not dispute his assertion that his daughters were virgins. Of course, in the case of an incestuous relationship, the true facts are often not apparent. However, it is notable that the daughters produced only two sons, apparently conceived on consecutive days. There is every indication from the Bible narrative that the sexual activity between Lot and his daughters was confined to these two encounters, since no further children were born to either woman. The decision to approach their father in these two isolated incidents therefore most probably resulted from the young women's faulty assessment of the situation after the destruction of Sodom, when they were completely traumatised by the loss of their family, home, society and every familiar landmark in their lives. All your readers would wish - and deserve - to have a true account of the subject matter rather than the changing of content to prove a point. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hussein Nagi, Consultant Anaesthetist City Hospital, birmingham, B18 7QH
Send response to journal:
|
To the Editor I have read with great interest the article by Ilan Kutz in BMJ volume 331, 24-31 December 2005 1507-1508, titled ( Revisiting the lot of the first incestuous family: the biblical origins of shifting the blame on to female family members. I would like to make few comments. I agree with the author that perhaps the motive for the Israelite biblical writers was the threat from the idol-worshipping neighbours, the Moabites and Ammonites. This is an essential fact that should not be omitted when quoting the bible as a reference especially for scientific and psychological issues. To be written hundred of years after the event and by many writers would disqualify any reference by our today’s standards Once we agree on that then it becomes easier to comment on this alleged story from Islamic point of view. Taking into consideration that the Quran has not been changed since its first copy at the time of Prophet Mohammed. 1) Lot was a prophet and a nephew of a prophet and to accuse him of such an act regardless to the reason behind negates the whole concept of prophets being models to mankind to show them how to be good servants to their maker; God. The danger her is if you believe that a prophet can commit such an act then anyone can also do it and that lead to loss of any good model in the society. 2) If his wife was crystallised into a pillar of salt as a punishment for her then what about him, if he was the wrong doer. And what about his daughters if they were the ones to be blamed why they have not been punished. The Quran states that to the contrary his wife was punished with the rest of the village and he and his daughters were rescued. His wife was punished as she was involved one way or another in the practice of the people of Sodom. 3) The Quran states that he offered his daughters to the villagers instead of his two guests, the angels to be, but that is in the context of offering them for marriage not for gang rape. “And his people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes (sodomy), he said: “O my people! Here are my daughters ( the women of the nation), they are purer for you (if you marry them lawfully). Do fear Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?”. I think even the author was astonished for that extreme hospitality according to the alleged story. 4) Going back in time to Adam and Eve and the “original sin”, Quran does state that it was a shared responsibility between Adam and Eve that lead to both of them eating from the tree and not blaming one or another. In the same issue of BMJ Dr Azeem Majeed wrote an editorial, 1486- 1487, titled “How Islam changed Medicine”. I hope that these comments will contribute to how Islam could change our understanding of history and some myths that have been passed from one generation to another with no foundation. Dr H Nagi
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William H Konarzewski, Consultant Anaesthetist Colchester General Hospital, Colchester, Essex CO4 5JL
Send response to journal:
|
I would like to praise Ilan Kutz for his provocative article on Lot and incest. In fact I am surprised that he has received so little positive feedback from the rapid responders. The biblical facts about Lot are as follows: (a)He offered his virgin daughters up for gang rape (b)When Abraham graciously gave him a choice of land, he chose the best for himself (c)He was a drunk (d)He impregnated his daughters. Without going into exegesis, or hermaneutics, it is plain to the unbiased reader that Lot is not a man to be admired in any way. At best he is weak and cowardly, at worst, he is a greedy,lecherous pervert. I share Kutz's cynicism about him. If Lot was so drunk, how come he was not impotent? And are we really expected to believe he only had sex once with each daughter? It is possible, but statistically improbable since they both became pregnant. If his incest was so acceptable, why does the writer of Genesis make a point to saying he was too drunk to know what he was doing? If God had such a high regard for him, why were his descendants cursed and excluded? The Bible portrays humanity in all its forms, the righteous and the not so righteous. Ilan Kutz has perceived, in the story of Lot, a model for incest and child abuse. I found his article well argued and stimulating. Those who do not agree with him should at least respect his right to express his opinion. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ivan F. Woods, Neurologist Montreal. Qc, Canada H2S 4K8
Send response to journal:
|
I agree with much of Dr' Kurtz's comments. My question is to all who dispute his comments and believe the Bible is the word of God. Why is the word of God, the Creator of the universe, known to be so wrong a few thousand years after those men(Moses and others) wrote it in the deserts of the middle east 2000 or 3000 thousand years ago? We know their world view was wrong on a few points (the world is about 4 billion years old, not about 6000 years for example). Did the Creator of the universe really tell them it began a few thousand years ago and was created in 7 days? And a talking snake persuaded Eve to induce Adam to sin? Surely God knew snakes don't talk. Don't you? Anyone who believes in creation or intelligent design displays only their ignorance of natural selection, to say nothing of neuroanatomy. The Bible is the story of men who wrote of the world as they saw it. They did their best and it was very poetic and persuasive in its day but we know better now. We should not deny their contribution, but it is time we moved on and stop parsing outdated ideas. Ivan Woods. Competing interests: None declared |
|||