Why Liberals Shouldn’t Talk About the Bible

lot

When liberals talk about the bible, they usually end up embarrassing themselves. This one comes from the case files of Kathleen Park who is a dime- store Maureen Dowd.

Ranting about Robertson, Parker dives into amateur biblical criticism.

Robertson’s words released an onslaught of fire and brimstone not seen since God unleashed his fury on Sodom. Speaking of which, it is tempting to note that God was rather selective in his outrage back then. Furious with homosexuals, he seemed to have no problem with Lot, whom he saved, when Lot offered his virgin daughters to townsmen who were demanding to “know” the angels hanging with Lot that God had sent to destroy Sodom.

You don’t need to know the Bible for this one. If you’ve spent any time shopping in the Middle East or at Middle Eastern stores and gotten a ridiculously generous offer that the owner had no intention of making good on, you already know how this works.

Part of the spectacle of bargaining in the Middle East is the “Show Offer”. The “Show Offer” is not a real offer, it’s there to demonstrate sincerity as a prelude to the real negotiations.

There is an example of a Show Offer in the Bible shortly afterward, when the Patriarch Abraham is looking for a burial spot for his wife.

Now Ephron was sitting in the midst of the children of Heth; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying: ‘Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee; bury thy dead.’

And Abraham bowed down before the people of the land. And he spoke unto Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying: ‘But if thou wilt, I pray thee, hear me: I will give the price of the field; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there.’

And Ephron answered Abraham, saying unto him:  ‘My lord, hearken unto me: a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead.’

(Genesis 23:10-15)

Abraham clearly understands Ephron’s offer to give him the field and the cave for free as a Show Offer. Rather than offering a freebie, Ephron is really laying out the parameters of the negotiations.

Instead of selling the cave, he wants to sell the whole field. And he expects a generous price in return for his fake generosity.

Lot is not offering his daughters to a mob of homosexual rapists. (That’s politically incorrect. I know.) He is telling the mob that the guests are under his protection without making any threats. “I am as likely to turn them over to you, as I am my unmarried daughters.”

The mob obviously doesn’t take him up on the offer because there is no offer. Instead it denounces him for presuming to rule over them. That seems out of context if you take the offer seriously, but with that “Show Offer” Lot had asserted his right to extend the protection of his home to his guests. The mob was contending that their way of life, which included sodomy of foreigners, trumped his rights as a homeowner.

All this has plenty of everyday implications in the Middle East where governments frequently say things that they don’t remotely mean.

Americans tend to operate on a single layer. Europeans often operate on three or four layers. Asia and the Middle East operate on dozens. In a multi-layered culture, only fools take things at face value. Few people get directly to the point unless they are intimately involved with you or unless they have a great deal of contempt for you and no regard for your ability to protect your own interests or function in society.

  • darnellecheri

    To digress, a little: As an American sitting in a Parisian cafe, a Jordanian man engaged in a lively conversation with me. At the right point, I asked him: “Why would the terrorist group, “Black September” — whose raison d’etre is to avenge the massacre of Palestinian refugees by the Jordanian military — massacre Jews?” With a smile, he told me that as an American I could never understand the illogical logic of the Middle East, AND, “…any reason is a good reason to assassinate Jews.” My Middle Eastern education in a nutshell.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Also internal political battles in the Muslim world are fought by killing non-Muslims.

      See September 11

  • guest

    I had to read the article after reading the confrontational lead. I hope liberals take note.

    I was going to write “I got schooled”, but I looked it up and it does not apply to me. but to Kathleen Park. I certainly received an education and am happier for it.

    “Americans tend to operate on a single layer.” I am not sure how true this is. certainly in English literature the teacher was talking about different levels and many of my classmates saw them or claimed to see them. I did not. I’ll have to keep this in mind when in the future to see if this comports with my future observations. But how many people take English lit? 30% of less based on how many people attend college or college prep courses? Some of those just pass and are checking off a requirement.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Academia deals in different layers of interpretation, but I’m talking more in terms of daily interaction.

      If an American says, “Good morning”, he usually means good morning and not,”You’re so lazy you probably consider this morning”

  • Paul of Alexandria

    As an aside, I highly recommend “Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospel” by Kenneth E. Bailey (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Through-Middle-Eastern-Eyes/dp/0830825681/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388157102&sr=1-1&keywords=jesus+through+middle+eastern+eyes+by+kenneth+bailey)

    Bailey spent several decades teaching in the Middle East, speaks the languages fluently, and understands the cultures well. While not offering any ground-shaking reinterpretations, he does offer many insights into understanding Scripture in the proper context of Middle Eastern social customs and norms.

    (My favorite is his chapter on the birth of Jesus. Just about everything that we think we know about the Nativity is wrong, primarily due to a 6th century story that didn’t understand Israelite culture.)

  • cacslewisfan

    Am I still being moderated?

  • Flicker

    And frankly, any discussion of Christianity or the Bible with those who don’t know and appreciate it is a lot like me trying to educate a phyicist on the charm of quarks.

  • trickyblain

    “Lot is not offering his daughters to a mob of homosexual rapists.
    (That’s politically incorrect. I know.) He is telling the mob that the
    guests are under his protection without making any threats. “I am as
    likely to turn them over to you, as I am my unmarried daughters.” (DG)

    “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof,” (Gen. 19:8)

    The “show offer” theory, while interesting, isn’t supported by credible religious scholarship. Lot is seen as unrighteous for doing this, as well as many other acts. Probably why we see the names David, Michael, Abraham etc., but not a lot of Lot.

    • mike

      The show offer would not work unless the other side had some decency left or some fear breaking community standards (nominal or otherwise). They would call Lot’s bluff.

      Then again there is a story in “Charlie Wilson’s War” told by some SAS commandos. They witness Mujaheddin cornholing a Russian prisoner. Yet one of these same people gave their life to save their guests, the commandos. by diverting the attention of a Russian Hind (p 198).

      “Honor, Hospitality, Revenge”

      Maybe it is like the old vampire myths. The vampire cannot enter you home. But if you invite him in, he can cross the threshold. The same might apply here. If the townspeople looking for something fresh, something strange, they invited the guests to come out and join them. But what they would not do is break the tradition.

      Also the townspeople had not devolved so much to consider outright r_pe or m_rder. So they feared Lot’s revenge.

      Sure Lot might give up his daughter to protect his guests to defuse the immediate criss. It does not mean that he would not now have a grudge that he would feel honor bound to fulfill and have no compunction out about executing his erstwhile townfolk.

      Why Lot is not popular and no one is named after him is not because of his conduct in town but out of town. If his conduct after fleeing was as good as in town, they would be naming children after him.

    • MiykaEl_TX

      2Peter 2:7 disagrees and calls Lot a righteous man.

      • darnellecheri

        Some have questioned whether Lot was truly righteous, as Genesis 19 exposed some of his serious sins. The righteous are never considered perfect and Lot is distinguished from the wicked of Sodom, as Peter states that Lot is greatly distressed by their wicked conduct. “His righteous soul was tormented day after day…but the Lord knows how to rescue the righteous…” And rescue him he did.
        (Apostle Peter)

        • Dave Roberts

          Lot, or anyone, Old or New Testament were considered righteous because of their faith in God, not because they were “good” people. Lot is a perfect example of every born-again Christian – none of us deserve to be saved, but God still reached down in His infinite grace and saved us anyway.

          I believe that all anyone needs to do to find God is sincerely seek Him. God doesn’t expect us to be righteous, that’s why He sent Jesus to die for our sins. If we had already been righteous enough to go to heaven and live with God then the Messiah would never have needed to set foot on the earth.

          Dave

          • darnellecheri

            Deeply understood and accepted as truth a long, long time ago. Bless His Name.

      • trickyblain

        Yes. Why do you think Peter called a man who offered his daughters for carnal ransom, before impregnating them himself, “righteous”?

        • Guest

          Peter who?

  • MiykaEl_TX

    I’ve read the passage many times and read it similar as the liberal. I went back and ready many Christian commentaries on it and not one of them had the same interpretation as Daniel Greenfield. As much as I wish you could, I don’t see how you can fault the liberal? I think Daniel Greenfield’s interpretation (which probably comes from a Rabbi) is reading into the verse something that is not there. Woman were not thought highly in that culture and hospitality was thought very highly. Maybe lot panicked. Maybe he knew they wouldn’t agree and it would give him more time. He apparently knew the men were from God so who knows. One of those hard bible passages

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s actually a straightforward cultural reading that is obvious enough for anyone with experience in the Middle East.

  • Horus

    Why Frontpage Mag shouldn’t talk about the Bible.

    If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.(Leviticus 20:13)

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

    If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

    When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    • Isis

      Why Horus should not talk about the Bible.

      He does not know the New Testament.

      • Horus

        Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Mark 5:17)

        Jesus was a Jew who followed Jewish law and the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.

        If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

        If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

      • Michiganer

        With no disrespect intended, I would venture to say that most Christians don’t fully understand what they call the “Old Testament” . Jewish Scriptures were never read superficially or completely literally, but always were understood through the prism of the Oral Torah (see my comments above to Horus).

    • Michiganer

      Traditional Jews understand that there were two components to the revelation at Mount Sinai—a written revelation (the written Torah, i.e the Pentetuch) and an oral explanation of the written text. By way of analogy the written text is somewhat comparable to notes that a student takes in a class which calls to mind the entirety of the lecture. If one who did not attend the lecture were to read the students notes, he would not fully comprehend the meaning behind those notes and might come to grossly misinterpret them. Similarly if one reads the Written Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) without the background of the Oral Torah, they are not going to even begin to really understand the intent of the text and will most likely completely misinterpret the meaning. All of the citations that you have given above are classic cases in point.. No educated Jew would presume to read the Torah superficially and literally and then proceed to act upon it. If you are truly interested in learning more there are many excellent scriptures with commentary and many qualified teachers available.

    • Dave Roberts

      Your point is?

  • stevethird

    Liberals are painfully literal minded. That’s why they don’t get jokes, that’s why they don’t understand much of anything. They don’t grasp irony. For them everything IS as it appears to be. That frame of mind is the birthplace of Political Correctness.

    • carltjohnson

      There in lies the dichotomy between Integrated knowledge and compartmentalized knowledge. (or no knowledge at all) I call it surface level misunderstandings…that’s not PC. But directly to the no holds bared, point…they are just plain stupid!

  • Ivan Prihhodko

    When naturalist is talking about religion, as I do sometimes, I keep asking few fundamental questions about existence of god, effects of religion on morality and psychology. Religious people normally start moaning nonsense real quick. But yeah, diving into some details of some biblical story is usually not very productive.

  • stevie1910

    Methinks liberals and conservatives should spend more time reading, and studying the Bible and bathing that time in prayer.

  • labman57

    The Bible is a collection of allegories and parables (with some elements loosely based on actual historical events) designed, in part, to provide answers for people who asked questions about matters which they could not yet comprehend and to provide guidelines for expected moral behavior as determined by the religious order of the time … 100% from the minds and hands of a series of mere mortals, not God.

    Anyone who claims that the Bible is a literal account of actual historical events, or that it was written by the Almighty Himself, is living in a state of denial.