So for LOT. Is it ok if the daughters initiate it? What is the lessen here? Is it trying to make some point about, better to keep the family going if there aren't any other men around?

▲

graemep 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

No, it does not endorse it, mere recounts it. Claiming it is endorsing incest is a bit like saying Agatha Christie endorses murder.

There does not seem to be a clear interpretation of this AFAIK. A lot of the other bits of Genesis have clear messages (e.g. the creation myth, the near sacrifice of Isaac, etc.) but not all necessarily. It might be that there were no other men and they were desperate for children.

	▲	yencabulator 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Endorsing or not doesn't matter if it's still "sexual content". Re-quoting: > Since its passage in 2023, Florida schools have removed hundreds of books under House Bill 1069 (HB 1069). HB 1069 required that school librarians remove materials from their collections that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the value of the book.

▲

komali2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, it's not ok. Contextually the daughters believe the world just ended because Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed so they think they need to re-seed the world, which one might consider a justification, but the etiological purpose is to describe the origin of the Moabites and the Ammonites, who are the historical enemies of Israel, and is supposed to show how these two enemy tribes have a shameful beginning (incest). So, it's bad what they did and ew look how gross the Moabites and Ammonites are.

▲

FrustratedMonky 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"Lesson" SP.

For real. For Lot, was wondering about if there was supposed to be some message here.

Others noted. It was more anti-propaganda. Lot was part of adversaries of Israel so this was painting them in a bad light. Just funny how we are still reading this holy book, and here is really some very local, very time specific propaganda that we are still reading.