Anti-Biblical message of "Batman Begins"

CorSec · Post by **CorSec** » 2006-03-22 09:28pm

wolveraptor wrote:Well to be fair, the town's men did want to rape the angel, meaning they were pretty much assholes.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2006-03-22 11:23pm

To be nitpicker, The Genisis is not made of several paraboles; they have some, but overal Abraham story is more a mythological epic than anything.
And Faery tales are a style of writting that appeared much latter, they are more like popular narratives, not as the official religious texts, they describe moral sittuations not whole stories with foundation meaning...
But well, it is all fantasy. ( among some of Grimm's tales have some traditional stories with Peter and Jesus, Peter was usually the duffus idiotical who is the comic relief for jesus's teaching)

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-03-22 11:25pm

CorSec wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:Well to be fair, the town's men did want to rape the angel, meaning they were pretty much assholes.
Common misconception.

So what exactly did they want to do to the angels & why did Lot offer his daughters to the mob in exchange for sparing the angels declaring that they 'had not known men'? Why was their status as virgins of any relevance if the mob didn't have something sexual in mind for the angels?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-03-23 12:06am

Keep in mind, inhospitability isn't just an asshole thing to do in this story. In that time and place, it was likely a death sentence for travelers, which is why hospitality is such a major part of Middle Eastern cultures to this day. So by any moral standard you care to use, the adult inhabitants Soddom and Gomorrah DID deserve some kind of punishment. Annihilation from above, however, isn't it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-23 12:09am

RedImperator wrote:Keep in mind, inhospitability isn't just an asshole thing to do in this story. In that time and place, it was likely a death sentence for travelers, which is why hospitality is such a major part of Middle Eastern cultures to this day. So by any moral standard you care to use, the adult inhabitants Soddom and Gomorrah DID deserve some kind of punishment. Annihilation from above, however, isn't it.

And similarly, Rhas Al'Gul points out that Gotham City is unspeakably corrupt, with organized crime having a virtual stranglehold on the city, its inhabitants, and in particular, its government. In both cases, the city is judged to be filled with sin, and hence deserving of destruction. But people who praise Sodom and Gomorrah as righteous justice see Batman Begins and see villainy when the League of Shadows does the same thing.

General Soontir Fel · Post by **General Soontir Fel** » 2006-03-23 12:14am

wolveraptor wrote:Do 30 ton tanks count as "iron chariots"?

LOL. I've never seen it that way. I should remember this.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-03-23 12:25am

RedImperator wrote:Keep in mind, inhospitability isn't just an asshole thing to do in this story. In that time and place, it was likely a death sentence for travelers, which is why hospitality is such a major part of Middle Eastern cultures to this day. So by any moral standard you care to use, the adult inhabitants Soddom and Gomorrah DID deserve some kind of punishment. Annihilation from above, however, isn't it.

It's doubtful though that the annihilation of Soddom and Gomorrah did much to improve the inhabitants hospitality or the prospects of needy travellers in the area.

CorSec · Post by **CorSec** » 2006-03-23 06:47am

Plekhanov wrote:So what exactly did they want to do to the angels & why did Lot offer his daughters to the mob in exchange for sparing the angels declaring that they 'had not known men'? Why was their status as virgins of any relevance if the mob didn't have something sexual in mind for the angels?

It's a mystery for the ages. How about that for an answer? Lot is supposed to be the one righteous man in all of Sodom and Gamorrah, but here he is offering up his daughters to his neighbors. It doesn't seem very righteous at all, does it? Heck, it looks like the total opposite of righteous to the modern reader!

And what's more, it gets more disgusting a little later! After Lot's wife gets turned into a pillar of salt, his daughters - thinking they're the last people on earth, get daddy drunk and have sex with him. According the the book, they even bear children from it!

If you want to try and make sense of it, you're welcome to try. For all the good it'll do we could use the Chewbacca defense.

If it doesn't make sense, you must acquit.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-23 07:09am

That's the shittiest answer I've ever seen. You didn't even respond to the content of his post. If you're going to concede, concede.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-03-23 08:46am

wolveraptor wrote:One wonders why God didn't magically transport the children and women away into some good Israelite town, adding them to Jews population.

His Ha'tak was not capable of it.

Err, I mean, he was not capable of it.

CorSec · Post by **CorSec** » 2006-03-23 09:00am

Unsolved Mysteries Presents...

Genesis 19:5 -- What does "ya,da" mean?

"Yada, Yada, Yada" is a phrase popularized on the Jerry Seinfeld show to imply sexual activity among unmarried persons. It may be related to the "ya,da' which appears in Genesis 19:5.

According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:5 says: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (KJV)

The New International Version translates the same verse: "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' "
Ya,da´ is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Usually it means "to know a fact." In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; in these instances, the sexual meaning is always obvious. The text generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." All such references involve heterosexual relationships.

It is not clear whether the mob wanted to:

Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.

Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This may the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them."

Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. "Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected." As noted above, the city had just recently survived just such an attack, and may have been on high alert.

Attack them physically.

Genesis 19:8 -- Lot's offer to have his daughters gang raped:

From the context, it is obvious that the mood of the mob was not friendly. Lot may have assessed that they had sex on their minds, because he offered his virgin daughters as an attempt to placate the mob. Some Christian interpreters maintain that all of the men in the city were present in the mob, and that all were homosexual. Lot would certainly have know of this, for he was a resident of the city. If they were all gay, then he would hardly have made a gift of his daughters to be raped; the mob would have had no sexual interest in women. Instead, he would have given the mob a gift of his two future sons-in-law. His daughters were both engaged to men from Sodom. In their culture, engagement was a binding arrangement, with many of the properties of marriage. It gave Lot authority over his future sons-in-law, much as he had control of his daughters. So he would have been able to sacrifice his daughters fiancées. But he didn't. Thus, we can conclude that most or all of the men of Sodom were not gay.

Other indications that all of the men of Sodom were not gay are:

A number of biblical references which emphasize that one of the serious sins of Sodom was their neglect of orphans and widows. If all male "Sodomites" were gay then there would be few or no marriages and thus few or no widows and orphans.

As mentioned above, Lot's daughters were engaged to two male residents of the city. If they were gay, they would have had no interest in marrying women.
God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. If he were, he might have decided to not save Lot and his family.

To reiterate: If the crowd were so hell bent on having humiliating dominant sex with the strangers Lot took in, it makes no sense for him to produce his daughters as a peace offering. If the crowd were adamant to simply find out who those strangers were then it makes no sense for Lot to offer them his daughters to do with as they wish.

In short, Lot offering his daughters to the men (and boys) of Sodom makes no sense.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-03-23 09:12am

Because of course, it's absolutely flat out impossible for someone to 'enjoy' both men and women.

CorSec · Post by **CorSec** » 2006-03-23 09:31am

The point being that Lot offering his daughters was a meaningless gesture. The crowd already knew Lot's daughters. They didn't know the strangers.

If it were about getting sex, wouldn't someone in the crowd have taken Lot up on his offer?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-03-23 09:47am

CorSec wrote:The point being that Lot offering his daughters was a meaningless gesture. The crowd already knew Lot's daughters.

No they didn't Lot explicitly states "I have two daughters which have not known man" so they clearly didn't 'know' the mob.

They didn't know the strangers.

If it were about getting sex, wouldn't someone in the crowd have taken Lot up on his offer?

Maybe they wanted to have another go at the pretty strangers before settling for Lot's daughter.

Anyway you have still failed to answer my initial question which is if Lot didn't think the mob had sex in mind then why did he inform them that his daughters were virgins?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-03-23 10:26am

Flagg wrote:No, Al'Gul was basically doing the same thing as Yahwe did in S&G. The only real difference was that he didn't give them a "last chance" like god did in the fable.

Actually, I think he did. Rhaz A'Gul mentioned that they had already resolved to destroy Gotham City when Bruce's parents' death shocked the city into taking some steps toward improving itself. But in the end, they just ended up as apathetic as ever.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-03-23 01:17pm

Durandal wrote:
Flagg wrote:No, Al'Gul was basically doing the same thing as Yahwe did in S&G. The only real difference was that he didn't give them a "last chance" like god did in the fable.
Actually, I think he did. Rhaz A'Gul mentioned that they had already resolved to destroy Gotham City when Bruce's parents' death shocked the city into taking some steps toward improving itself. But in the end, they just ended up as apathetic as ever.

Actually, they had tried a less violent, and "more sophisticated" tactic to destroy Gotham usinf economics. The murder of Bruces parents thwarted that attempt, so they went back to the old standard of destroying it. I think it just took that long for them to infiltrate and prepare for what they eventually almost pulled off.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-23 02:47pm

God never really gave Sodom a chance to be spared. He was bullshitting to Abraham big-time. He said that if there as few as ten people in the city who were "righteous", he would spare it. But it is inconceivable that there were not even ten people in the whole city who were not bad, especially when you consider the presence of the women and children. So he either lied, or he does not consider women and children to be relevant at all, which is just as damning.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2006-03-23 02:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:God never really gave Sodom a chance to be spared. He was bullshitting to Abraham big-time. He said that if there as few as ten people in the city who were "righteous", he would spare it. But it is inconceivable that there were not even ten people in the whole city who were not bad, especially when you consider the presence of the women and children. So he either lied, or he does not consider women and children to be relevant at all, which is just as damning.

Or for some reason there were no children, and Women can be bad also Y'know.
Saying that "There can't be only bad people" isn't possible with a counter source, therefore if the scenario is "They were all evil" then:
A) Either the children were'nt counted
B) There were no children.
C) All kids past a very young age were corrupted.
[/Devils advocate]

CorSec · Post by **CorSec** » 2006-03-23 04:35pm

Plekhanov wrote:No they didn't Lot explicitly states "I have two daughters which have not known man" so they clearly didn't 'know' the mob.

This demonstrates, I think, how using one word to describe a variety of activities can facilitate misunderstanding. Above I'm using know to explain that the mob recognizes Lot's daughters as Lot's daughters.

The crowd's beef was with the strangers. Not with Lot or his children.

Anyway you have still failed to answer my initial question which is if Lot didn't think the mob had sex in mind then why did he inform them that his daughters were virgins?

Simply because Lot was willing and desperate enough to offer his daughters as sexual objects does not necessarily imply that they were presented as sexual surrogates. The texts are unclear enough that an implicit meaning cannot be taken.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-03-23 06:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:God never really gave Sodom a chance to be spared. He was bullshitting to Abraham big-time. He said that if there as few as ten people in the city who were "righteous", he would spare it. But it is inconceivable that there were not even ten people in the whole city who were not bad, especially when you consider the presence of the women and children. So he either lied, or he does not consider women and children to be relevant at all, which is just as damning.

Of course your typical raving fundy will insist the entire city population was all homosexual, so there wouldn't be any kids.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-03-23 06:36pm

Darth Servo wrote:Of course your typical raving fundy will insist the entire city population was all homosexual, so there wouldn't be any kids.

Sorry if this breaks the moratorium, but Jack Chick's Twin Citties tract cites rampant pedophilia for justification of God... wait for it... killing all the children.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-03-24 03:49am

One of my favourite lines of all time is from the movie Batman Begins.

'It's not who you are inside that counts, it's what you DO that makes you what you are.'

That simple saying made me realize how important our actions really are. We tend to assume how we feel and think are what defines us, but really, our actions are the only true importance as far as reality is concerned.

Of course you could theoretically have a miserable fuck that held hate in his heart his entire life and put on a fake smile while he gave his time and money to less fortunate people, and conversely you could have a really nice guy at heart that lives a very selfish and negative lifestyle.

But regardless, who actually DID something that was actually meaningful?

Maybe that's the real motto of the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you are serious about how you want to live your life as a good human being, you don't need intentions. Another quote I like is from Edgar Cayce. "Don't just be good, be good for SOMETHING".

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-03-24 10:28am

CorSec wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:No they didn't Lot explicitly states "I have two daughters which have not known man" so they clearly didn't 'know' the mob.
This demonstrates, I think, how using one word to describe a variety of activities can facilitate misunderstanding. Above I'm using know to explain that the mob recognizes Lot's daughters as Lot's daughters.

The crowd's beef was with the strangers. Not with Lot or his children.

Anyway you have still failed to answer my initial question which is if Lot didn't think the mob had sex in mind then why did he inform them that his daughters were virgins?
Simply because Lot was willing and desperate enough to offer his daughters as sexual objects does not necessarily imply that they were presented as sexual surrogates. The texts are unclear enough that an implicit meaning cannot be taken.

Bullshit, Genesis 19 makes some kind of sense (still morally abhorrent obviously but it makes sense) if you take it that the author used the term ‘know’ to mean the same thing in verse 5 and then again in verse 8. Why the fuck would he use the exact same word to mean two completely different things 3 verses apart from each other when doing so renders the whole passage incomprehensible?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-03-24 01:23pm

Plekhanov wrote:Bullshit, Genesis 19 makes some kind of sense (still morally abhorrent obviously but it makes sense) if you take it that the author used the term ‘know’ to mean the same thing in verse 5 and then again in verse 8. Why the fuck would he use the exact same word to mean two completely different things 3 verses apart from each other when doing so renders the whole passage incomprehensible?

Unless we can look at the original Hebrew we cannot say that. The copies we have are copies of copied.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-03-24 01:36pm

Which is more likely

a) Mob “give us the angels so we can fuck them”
Lot “Why don’t I give you my teenage daughters, who’ve never been fucked by a man before and you can do whatever you like to them instead”

Or

b) Mob “give us the angels so we can talk to them and get to know them better”
Lot “Why don’t I give you my teenage daughters, who’ve never been fucked by a man before and you can do whatever you like to them instead”

The latter interpretation makes no sense whatsoever, so unless you can actually come up with either some evidence or sound reasoning why we should interpret the text (no matter how poorly preserved) in that manner I’m gonna stick to the much more sensible former interpretation.