In a message dated 2/27/06 3:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, it would be rather difficult to provide you
with hard evidence at this juncture.  However, as
I've noted, there's excellent historical/cultural
evidence that anal rape was a means of intimidating
and humiliating people; and there's also Ezekiel's
complaint about Sodom, which emphasizes its refusal
to share its wealth with the poor and needy (in
this case, Lot's visitors).

There's also the unlikelihood that all the males in
the town--including the young ones--suddenly got
horny all at once on that particular evening, and
instead of satisfying their desires with each other,
decided to go after Lot's visitors.

In other words, the story doesn't make much sense in
your interpretation, whereas it makes perfect sense
in mine.
Actually I think my interpretation makes much more since. Lot's guests made no demand for charity from anybody in the city. As a matter of fact Lot met them at the gate to the city and invited them to stay in his house for the evening. Why would anybody object to that? On the other hand, can you imagine if two gorgeous angels walked into the Castro district of San Francisco and a bunch of gay biker types saw them and followed them to the house they went in. Do you think they would hang around to run them out of town or be  in hopes of getting a *date*?  


To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




SPONSORED LINKS
Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to