Chick-fil-A’s Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day: Lot (Genesis 19:30-36)

Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters.

And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.”

So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.”

So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.

"I've looked it up: the modern Riksdag of Sweden still was divided into four estates ..."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)
"In medieval times the Scandinavian representative assemblies met in four "estates". The usage of "fourth ..."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)
"Evangelicals. Specifically, Assemblies of God denomination. That particular denomination also hates Catholics with a passion."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Robyrt

    That seems like a lot of effort. Couldn’t they just go back down to Zoar? Maybe “the hill country” is farther away than it sounds.

  • Wednesday

    Am I the only one who read this as the story Lot made up after the people in the city of Zoar found out that the young women who lived with their creepy father in a cave were somehow pregnant? It just reeks of unreliable narrator to me.

  • Carstonio

    I hadn’t thought of that, but then, the meaning of “know” was something that I didn’t, uh, know until later. So the first time I read the Sodom and Gomorrah story, I was confused as to what was supposed to be so wicked about those two cities.

  • victoria

    Yes, especially considering that earlier in the chapter we read that Lot was totally OK with offering his daughters to a mob to be gang raped, I think it’s totally possible that Lot had a bit more agency in how these pregnancies came to be.

    And Fred, I really hope this “Family of the Day” is a regular feature!

  • JKPS

    “What? No, no, no, THEY got ME drunk. It’s the women’s fault! Damned harlots.”

  • Timothy (TRiG)

     The idea that they managed to pull the same trick twice in two nights really makes it hard to believe.


  • Carstonio

     Plus, if he was that drunk that he couldn’t recognize his daughters or remember anything that happened, as the story claims, I would think the alcohol would render him unable to perform.

  • Nicholas Kapur

    Spermjackers! They wanted to steal his precious sperms so they could accuse him of rape and get child support! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

  • Magic_Cracker

    Clearly, they we’re trying to get themselves some anchor babies or whatever kind of baby it is that keeps your dad from selling you into slavery as was not uncommon at the time.

  • Jeff Weskamp

    “Spermjacker” should be made into an official word.

  • John Alexander Harman

    Don’t know about that; the only use of it I can see, apart from Nicholas’s use of it to make fun of men’s rights assclowns, is by men’s rights assclowns whining about women “trapping” men into fatherhood.

  • Madhabmatics

     MRAs and PUAs are the best people in the world to mock, I love that one dude who was like “I almost got arrested approaching women and telling them I wasn’t going to rob them and asking for a penis… why do people treat me as though I am weird and call the cops on me!!”

  • Dave


    if he was that drunk [..]  I would think the
    alcohol would render him unable to perform.

    If only that were so.

  • Ross Thompson

    Plus, if he was that drunk that he couldn’t recognize his daughters or remember anything that happened, as the story claims, I would think the alcohol would render him unable to perform.

    Yeah, I’ve often thought it less likely that Lot’s daughters managed to get him precisely drunk enough that he couldn’t recognize his own daughters, but could perform sexually twice than that Lot was kinda incest-rapey. I’ve never been quite sure what is says that god considered him the one person worth saving…

    It’s also worth pointing out that he was lying to the mob when he promised that his daughters were virgins (Gen 19:8), as Gen 19:14 says that they were married.

  • Wednesday

    @ Ross

    To be fair to Lot, one has to be careful about the words “virgin” and “married” in the bible, for two reasons:

    (1) The prophecy in the OT/Torah about “a virgin shall be with child” that Jesus supposedly fulfils does not actually say “virgin” in the original Hebrew, it says something more like “young woman”.* It was mistranslated as “virgin” in Greek, which lead to the whole virgin-birth mythos.
    (2) Some translations of the NT refer to Mary as Joseph’s wife before they were living together (at a time which other translations refer to them merely as betrothed), ie, when Jesus was conceived.

    *My understanding is that in Hebrew, taking verb tenses and context into account, the prophecy is more like “and this young woman will soon be pregnant, and this will be a sign to you that God is going to end the siege soon”. I’ve had this confirmed repeatedly by Jewish and atheist sources, but no Christian ones.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Also, regarding the “prophecy” of the “virgin” birth: It’s pretty clear that Isaiah  is making a prediction specific to a particular situation and in case case, was fulfilled centuries before Jesus’s birth.

    Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son (Isa. vii. I4), has been interpreted to mean the person called Jesus Christ, and his mother Mary, and has been echoed through christendom for more than a thousand years; and such has been the rage of this opinion, that scarcely a spot in it but has been stained with blood and marked with desolation in consequence of it. Though it is not my intention to enter into controversy on subjects of this kind, but to confine myself to show that the Bible is spurious,—and thus, by taking away the foundation, to overthrow at once the whole structure of superstition raised thereon,—I will however stop a moment to expose the fallacious application of this passage.

    Whether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah, to whom this passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only to show the misapplication of the passage, and that it has no more reference to Christ and his mother, than it has to me and my mother. The story is simply this:

    The king of Syria and the king of Israel (I have already mentioned that the Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel) made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies towards Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says (Is. vii. 2), Their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

    In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign. This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing; giving as a reason that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says, ver. 14, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son;” and the 16th verse says, “And before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest or dreadest [meaning Syria and the kingdom of Israel] shall be forsaken of both her kings.” Here then was the sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or promise; namely, before this child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

    Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him, in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet, and the consequences thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find a girl with child, or to make her so; and perhaps Isaiah knew of one beforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any more to be trusted than the priests of this…

    ~ Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

  • LoneWolf343

     That last paragraph is a gross example of affirming the antecedent.

  • Robyrt

    Paine here is making the classic error of treating a prophecy like a weather report. Christian theology, starting with the writers of the New Testament, has always held that prophecies like the one in Isaiah speak on multiple levels and do not only refer to a single, testable future event. It’s the same rationale as any other magic utterance, like “No man born of woman can defeat me”, which inevitably turns out to be true in a way the original audience did not expect.

  • EllieMurasaki

    …now I want to write a story where someone declares, with magical force to the words, that “no man can defeat me”, and realizes his error and quickly adds “nor any woman either”, and later gets his ass whooped by a genderqueer individual.

  • CharityB

     Heh. If it was me, I would just say, “I cannot be defeated.” It has a little more oomph to it, and avoids embarassing loopholes like dying from an allergic reaction to a bee sting.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Now I’m thinking of this one song that repeats the bit “we cannot be defeated” several times. Title? “Anthem for the Already Defeated”.

  • mistformsquirrel

     Isn’t that on the same level as “I AM INVINCIBLE!” – Which inevitably is disproved moments later? >.>

  • Dave

     “Man delights not me. No, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.”

  • The_L1985

     You should read the 500 Kingdoms series by Mercedes Lackey.  It uses a force called The Tradition that causes life in the fictional world of the story to imitate folk tales.  There are still ordinary people, but now and then you get a Cinderella-type or a Rapunzel-type or a Fortunate-Fool-type.  And of course, you get evil magicians of both sexes.  And The Tradition deliberately makes it so that every curse has that kind of loophole.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Read, own, adore. That series frustrates me, though, as the imprint they’re published under is heterosexual romance, so while she does nod at the possibility of same-sex relationships, she is not, in this series, ever actually going to go there. Trans and genderqueer folks, like usual in fiction, are simply not there.

  • Lliira

    What do you do, though, if you’re a straight woman who only has had and wants to have sex with cismen, and doesn’t want to end up writing stuff that’s on par with all the slash out there that acts as if cismen have vaginas? If I tried to write two men having sex, or even sex with a trans or genderqueer person involved, I’m pretty sure it would be a disaster. It doesn’t matter how much I read of people describing what it’s really like — sex is sadly not something I can imagine from the perspective of anything but a ciswoman. I’d probably have better luck writing two ciswomen together, but I’m afraid it would not be at all hot, because it wouldn’t turn me on at all. (I once kissed a girl. I did not like it.)

    So… what if main characters are friends with trans and genderqueer and non-straight people? And those romances are there, and important, but there are not explicit sex scenes for them?

  • Hexep

    Didn’t care for the cherry chapstick?  Naah, I kid, I kid, though it’s a mad catchy song ne’ertheless.

    That’s the great dilemma for writers, I think; the urge to ‘write outside oneself’ is always opposed by the question of whether it has real versimilitude.  One wants to get inside the head of one’s characters, and the further they are from one’s own experience, the more one enjoys the stretch of it… but there’s always the wariness of doing a shitty job of it, and it’d just be embarrassing to commit a signature to something wrong or half-done.  The difference between professionals and amateurs is that professionals care about doing a good job above and beyond juts satisfying themselves, and the greater risk an author takes in escaping their comfort zones, the more likely it is that one *won’t* do a good job…At least, that’s my experience.  Do you ever feel that way?

  • Lliira

    I do like stretching my comfort zones. The people I write have lots of experiences that are way outside my own, but of course I feel I can do a certain amount of justice to them or I wouldn’t write them. I feel I cannot do justice to a non-ciswoman’s perspective during sex. I can’t even seem to imagine it. I could write a bunch of goofy metaphors or something — but ick. 

  • Hexep

    On a tangent similar to that, I wonder if there’s a good word for the phenomenon when a person is from a unique situation, and what feels profoundly ordinary to them is actually quite rare.  Like me: I’m from the Tropics, so the only time I ever see trees without leaves is when they’re stone dead.  Most of the population of the United States lives in a more temperate climate, where (I assume) most trees drop their leaves in winter and grow them back in spring.  But to me, tree – leaves = corpse.

    But on the topic of choice, yes.  If one can’t do justice to a topic, best to avoid doing it and making a botch of it.  When in doubt, abstain – Zoroaster.

  • mattepntr

    “I feel I cannot do justice to a non-ciswoman’s perspective during sex. I can’t even seem to imagine it.”

    I don’t really get this. What’s to imagine? Things like desire, passion, lust etc. are common amongst all humans who experience sexual desire and actually….well, hook up. The only thing that really varies is mechanics, and you can research that in many places on the internet these days (or so I hear).
    Seriously, a little research should be on every writer’s to-do list. You’d research the specifics of a job you’ve never worked, or a field you were unfamiliar with. You may not understand the fine details of what it’s like to be a postal worker in a rural California town, but in a broad sense, you understand “why people work and what they get from their chosen profession besides money”. I don’t really see why writing a human enjoying sexual intimacy is all that different.

    I think that if we fixate on the differences in our experiences, we risk overlooking the commonalities, which are vast. (See also “Brokeback Mountain” by Annie Proulx)

  • Dave


    The only thing that really varies is mechanics

    Not in my experience.

  • Hexep

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my own (albeit slim) authorial experience, if one elects simply to leave the whole question silent, then one’s work is simply part of the crowd and nobody will take much note of it for those reasons.  If one sticks out one’s neck and goes off half-cocked on such a topic, then one risks actively offending people, which is never a good idea.

    For me, at least, it’s better and safer not to speak than to say something foolish, especially about something sensitive – especially because, when it comes to questions of sincere human identity, there’s the risk of getting it grievously wrong.  An author strives for verisimilitude  for the sense that the events the portrayed are internally consistent and flow naturally from each other and from what is established.  Why take a chance on it, possibly breaking the verisimilitude of one’s work, to include elements that one can’t speak to authoritatively?

    I’ve never been to South Africa and know nothing about the place; moreover, any facts and figures I pick up about it will just lead me further into the trap of thinking I know about it properly, and miss all the details that a real South African would know about.  Why would I set a story there, or involve my narrative with it, if every word I say is another chance to slip up?  If I can say what I have to say, why not stick closer to home?  After all, there’s nothing about being transsexual that also makes you illiterate; there are probably millions of them who could shed more light on their situation for a trice than I could for a grievous strain.

  • The_L1985

     “I’ve never been to South Africa and know nothing about the place;
    moreover, any facts and figures I pick up about it will just lead me
    further into the trap of thinking I know about it properly, and miss all
    the details that a real South African would know about.  Why would I
    set a story there, or involve my narrative with it, if every word I say
    is another chance to slip up?”

    The ghost of Michael Crichton would like a word with you.

  • Hexep

    What would Michael Crichton have to say to me?  I’m not familiar enough with his work to know what we’re insinuating here.

    Dave has written me a more meaty response, which I pledge I will respond to when I’m ready and recomposed.

  • Dave


    For me, at least, it’s better and safer not to speak than to say something foolish, 

    That’s a legitimate stance, and you are of course free to adopt it.
    But if that were your only motivating principle, would you be writing at all?

    It seems to me that writing is always taking a risk of seeming foolish.
    The question is, what motivates us to do it anyway?
    Once I understand that, I can make a sensible decision about whether that thing-which-motivates can be satisfied by sticking closer to home.

    If it can, awesome… I win.
    If not, then it helps to have some tools for estimating and mitigating the risks of voyaging further abroad.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I’m not sure how you get from ‘Mercedes Lackey isn’t going to write same-sex relationships in this series, even though she has done so in other series’ to ‘but what if I don’t want to write explicit queer sex?’ Nothing wrong with fading to black. Or indicating by other means that sex happened offscreen, especially if the sex doesn’t involve a point-of-view character. Or having no sex at all and indicating by other means that these characters are queer.

  • Lliira

    Thing is, I don’t want to write main characters who don’t have explicit sex.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Ah. That does make a difference.

    There is nothing wrong, on the individual level, with writing only heterocis main characters. Increasing queer visibility with secondary characters only is still increasing queer visibility. It’s not how I’d prefer to do it, but I write stories too. If I want a story written my way, I know where to find me, you know?

  • Lliira

    I don’t know that it’s a matter of preference exactly. It’s a matter of where I get ideas and where my imagination takes me — what interests me enough to write it. And what interests me enough to write it is ciswoman straight characters with fraught and sexy romantic relationships with awesome cismen, and who are related to/good friends with characters who are mostly not straight ciswomen.

    Apparently I can write a world with dragons and magic easily, but I’m not so good with personal lives that aren’t quite a bit like my own :-P. 

  • The_L1985

     Read Dragonseye (I think that was the one) by Anne McCaffrey.  It has an explicit sex scene between two gay men.  Frankly, I’d rather a het author stick solely to het in sex scenes than have….that.

  • banancat

     To be fair, McCaffrey’s het sex scenes aren’t very good either.  Or her writing in general, IMO.

  • Dave

     More generally, what do I do if I want to write about a character who has  experiences that are important to them, but those are experiences that I have never had and do not trust myself to imagine?

    It seems to me that I have a few options.
    * I can write about the character without ever depicting those experiences, merely referring to them. This is poor writing, but I can make up for it in other ways. Also, if I do this about experiences actual people have, I should accept that some readers might take this as expressing a negative judgment of those experiences and people who have them, especially if I do depict analogous experiences had by other characters.

    * I can set up my character’s environment such that those experiences don’t occur during the time periods I’m writing about. (Some readers may take this as above.)

    * I can find other people who have had those experiences, or who I do trust to imagine them, and recruit their assistance… perhaps as writing coaches, perhaps as collaborators, perhaps as reviewers, perhaps as interview subjects.

    * I can work harder at imagining myself in the position of someone who has those experiences, until I get better at it.

    * I can not write about that character.

    * I can write about the character, depicting those experiences in uncompelling, inaccurate ways.

    Which options I choose will depend on how much I care about the emotional experiences of my readers, how much time and effort I’m willing to put into writing, and how important writing about that character is to me.

  • The_L1985

    A pity.  At least the het stories are good ones, though. :)

  • Mathbard

    Not to mention in that world there were also dwarves and elves. And ghosts, so the wording probably should have been more like “No being of any sort can defeat me.”

    At first, I tried thinking “No living or dead or undead man or woman or child…” but then I decided that list would get too long.

  • Dave

     Not to mention that “not being defeated” isn’t necessarily the most important victory condition. If I’m not defeated, but I can’t achieve my goals anyway because they just take too long and are too complicated for me to implement, that kind of sucks too.

  • Ross Thompson

    To be fair to Lot, one has to be careful about the words “virgin” and “married” in the bible, for two reasons:

    The KJV translation says they “have not known man”, and the others I just looked at seem to concur, so I’m inclined to believe it means what it appears to say. It is possible that they were married but hadn’t had sex, but this seems unlikely, given the culture.

  • Lliira

    “To be fair” to the man who offered up his daughters to a rape mob.

    Yeah, no, I’d rather be fair to the daughters.

  • Wednesday

     @ Lliira,

    To paraphrase Sam Vimes, I want for Lot to have a fair trial, that ensures the bastard will be be found guilty. So yeah, we should be fair to Lot. =P

    The only actual defense that could be made for his behavior that I’ve seen was the suggestion that Lot’s offer was sarcastic, meaning roughly, “You want me to let you to rape my guests? You might as well ask me to let you rape my family.”

  • VMink

    I’m kind of agreeing that this is totally ‘unreliable narrator’ territory.  What are we supposed to come away with from this story, anyway?  Is there a moral?

    This is one of the stories that my 4th grade Lutheran grade school kind of glossed over, though “‘knowing’ in the Biblical sense” wasn’t clear to us until rather later.

  • The_L1985

     Honestly, the point of the story comes later.  See, Lot’s daughters both get pregnant in this story.  And they name the new sons Moab and Amalek.

    Lesson to the ancient Israelites:  The Moabites and Amalekites are descended from incest-babies, and that means it’s OK to kill them.

  • AnonymousSam

    A lot of Genesis pretty much ignores the entire concept of morals. It’s filled with lying, cheating, thieving murderers and rapists — and those are supposed to be the good guys.

  • Lliira

    It’s filled with lying, cheating, thieving murderers and rapists — and those are supposed to be the good guys.

    Genesis is much like other ancient myths. “Heroes” in Greek mythology weren’t heroic because they were good; they were heroic because they were larger than life and had the favor of some god or other. People weren’t supposed to look up to Heracles in a moral sense. The Romans confused things because they wanted their heroes to be good, but they adopted myths in which they weren’t. I can’t help but think there was a lot of that going around in about 0-ish B.C.E.

  • AnonymousSam

    Quite possibly, yes. Either that or we’ve had some serious morality drift over the years and things like this were considered superior traits, which I’m not entirely certain is not the case. After all, the Bible has its share of poetic celebration about the majesty of a god who can destroy anyone in his followers’ path.

  • Lliira

    Well, being able to destroy anyone in one’s path is majestical in a certain way. It’s not good, but it’s impressive. The Old Testament in particular seems to be a lot of sucking up to the biggest bully in the world. And that makes a lot of sense for a world in which so many things are unpredictable, dangerous, and not understood, in which lots of other people are trying to kill you and the only way to survive is to kill them instead.

    It also makes sense for a slave society; slaves aren’t slaves because their masters are good, they’re slaves because their masters are powerful. And most of the population consisted of slaves — almost every single woman except the occasional lucky widow and most men. One thing slaves get good at because they have to is sucking up. In a society where one could buy one’s freedom if the master allowed, sucking up would be an even better survival mechanism. It’s no stretch to imagine that God was seen as the biggest slavemaster of them all.

  • Carstonio

     The difference is that the Greek myths weren’t presented as authoritative works on morality, such as Dan Cathy’s claim about biblical marriage.

  • mud man

    Likewise the story of how Ham was a very very bad boy because he Told. Ham was the father of Canaan, that is, the Palestinians, who are consequently also evil people.

  • The_L1985

    You’re not. Remember, this is the same guy who offered up these same daughters to be raped and murdered by the people of Sodom. (In fact, if that story had gotten around Zoar, it would explain why “there is no one on earth to marry us.”

  • aunursa

    Please pass the salt.  I use a Lot of salt on my meal.

  • friendly reader


    (Still liked it, though)

  • Albanaeon

     Ugh…  That one leaves a bad taste in my mouth…

  • Amaryllis

     Wislawa Szymborska considers Lot’s Wife.

  • Albanaeon

    You know, they sure seemed to have carried a lot of wine with them for fleeing from a city in terror.

    Yeah, unreliable narrator seems a safe bet.

  • aunursa

    Even the conservatives are having fun with this (in the comments.)

  • Renee

    The two babies born of Lot’s daughters turn out to be the ancestors of two nations traditionally at odds with Israel. The story shows the daughters naming their children and giving explanations of their names which derive from the supposed manner of their conception. (So Moab supposedly comes from me-av, meaning “from the father”–almost assuredly not accurate as the actual story of where the name “Moab” comes from, but it makes a kind of sense.)

    So rather than taking this story to be about Lot as an unreliable narrator, it’s far more likely that it’s a story made up to explain where those nasty Moabites came from. The story was purposely made up to offer an account of why they’re sort-of related to us, but still awful.

  • Carstonio

    Good theory. Is that yours, or do scholars also make that conclusion? I’ve never heard the story explained that way.

  • The_L1985

    If you read the rest of the chapter, it says very clearly that that is the point.

    It’s just that most people re-telling the story stop with the incest for some horrible reason.

  • Carstonio

     I’m not talking about the origin of those tribes, I’m talking about your suggestion that the story is intended to explain the tribes’ awfulness

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Good theory. Is that yours, or do scholars also make that conclusion? I’ve never heard the story explained that way.

    Scholars. Maybe also Renee, but that sort of interpretation is very common among biblical scholars.

  • Cee

    “So rather than taking this story to be about Lot as an unreliable narrator, it’s far more likely that it’s a story made up to explain where those nasty Moabites came from. The story was purposely made up to offer an account of why they’re sort-of related to us, but still awful.”
    I’m not entirely disagreeing with you, but I do think it interesting and perhaps significant that Moab is an ancestor of King David (through Ruth). The explanation a Rabbi gave me for why the issue of Lot and his daughter merited being part of this exalted lineage is that Lot’s daughter was acting selflessly out of a desire to save humanity; although she was mistaken in thinking that the three of them were the only people left alive, her motives were righteous and God rewarded her for her faith and determination.

  • Mr. Heartland

     Yes, then add to that the need to portray Lot as a good guy, somebody worth the great amount of effort that ‘Father Abraham’ put into securing his safety, and you go a long way towards explaining why this story is even sketchier than a tale of drunken incest would already be. 

    Personally I very much prefer David’s model for the biblical family.  I had a loyal subordinate killed so I could have his wife for myself.  Now our kids are all scheming to have each other snuffed so that they can have the inheritance all to themselves.  Little whippersnappers :)  

  • Carstonio

     That sounds like something out of Downton Abbey or Game of Thrones…

  • The_L1985

    And let’s not forget about the Jacob/Rachel/Leah love triangle. “Fine, I’ll just marry you AND your sister!”

  • Lori


    Personally I very much prefer David’s model for the biblical family.  I
    had a loyal subordinate killed so I could have his wife for myself.  Now
    our kids are all scheming to have each other snuffed so that they can
    have the inheritance all to themselves.  Little whippersnappers :)   

    Well, all the kids except that first one I had with the woman I got by murdering her husband/my subordinate. God killed that one to teach me a lesson about being an adulterous murderer. Sucks to be him.

  • mud man

    The Lord told Abram not to bring Lot … Gen 12:1,  “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you…” And sure enough, Lot caused nothing but trouble. When the Lord speaks, listen very carefully.

  • SisterCoyote

    Man, this story is so confusing when you don’t know what ‘know’ means, what alcohol does to people (besides make them loud), or why it’s different to ‘lie together’ when you’re an adult.

    You gotta feel bad for Dan Cathy. Someone get the man a dictionary!

  • AnonaMiss

    The webcomic Holy Bibble had a great riff on the daughters-getting-Lot-drunk bit; unfortunately it seems to have gone to the big recycle bin in the sky.

    Though the expressions were what really sold it, here’s the gist:

    “Here dad, I brought you some wine.”
    “Thanks!” He takes a sip. “Oh man I am totally wasted!”
    “Are you sure? You’ve only had-”
    “Oh definitely. I certainly won’t be able to remember any of this tomorrow!”
    Cut to sexy discretion shot.

  • The_L1985

     I prefer the Brick Testament when I feel like snarky Bible quotes.

  • Fusina

     I love the brick testament. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard at bible stories before seeing that.

  • Bev

    Real or apocryphal is irrelevant since fundamentalist believe the Bible is true, every word of it, hence when Dan Cathy refers to biblical families, he must take Lot’s family with the rest.

  • PandaRosa

    I’m still very surprised there is no protesters outside Chick-fil-A.

  • ReverendRef

    Another thought about the virgin birth . . . One source I have (a commentary on Luke by Sharon Ringe) points out that in the story of Mary and Gabriel, Gabriel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will come upon her and overshadow her.  That word, “overshadow,” is used elsewhere in the NT, most notably in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) in the story of the Transfiguration, when a cloud overshadowed Jesus, Moses, Elijah and the disciples.  It’s also used in Acts when Peter’s shadow fell on people, “overshadowing” them and conveying healing.

    “In these places the verb clearly refers not to impregnation, but to divine presence and power . . . In short, nothing in the language of the passage itself requires the interpretation of a “virginal conception” or a birth any more “miraculous” than every occasion of new life.”


  • Zippy

    Sin doesn’t get the last word, though. Ammon was the ancestor of Solomon’s wife Naamah, and therefore the ancestor of Mary’s husband Joseph. And Moab was the Moab was the ancestor of Ruth and of David (and Joseph, through Solomon), and of the Virgin Mary (through Solomon’s brother Nathan). 

  • Randy Owens

    Ah, Solomon.  Glad we’re back on good familiar traditional Biblical family matters, now, instead of that pervy Lot stuff.

  • Hawker40

    When I first heard that “Chick-fil-A Supports Biblical Families”, I thought of Solomon: One man and seven hundred Wives of political convenience, plus three hundred  ‘concubines’ for, you know, real fun.  But I suppose that’s too obvious.

  • Ann Unemori

    Remember. seven hundred Wives also means seven hundred Mothers-In-Law, oooooohh boy.

  • Dave


    seven hundred Wives also means seven hundred Mothers-In-Law

    It needn’t. Both siblings and orphans exist in the world.

  • Lliira

    Ooooohh boy what a sexist comment that is.

  • Ann Unemori

    Some ideas, even sexist ones, are a long time dying. Mother-in-law jokes were around in ancient Greece and will probably be around for a good while yet.

  • Hexep

    Of course, there was an ancient Greek joke that’s still funny today:

    A man goes into the barbershop and asks for a haircut.  The barber asks, ‘how would you like me to cut your hair?’  The man thinks for a time before saying, ‘in silence.’

    Works for both barber and beauty shops, from what I understand…

  • Hawker40

    “Remember. seven hundred Wives also means seven hundred Mothers-In-Law, oooooohh boy.”

    Kings of the Oriental style rarely have problems with nagging MiLs…
    (“Where’s my mom.’ 
    ‘I had her executed.”
    “She was a nag.  We’re better off without her.”
    “Now see here…”
    “Vizier, tell the headsman not to pack the axe yet.”

  • Ross

     Nah. Childbirth had a mortality rate for the mother in antiquity of between 2.5% and 8%, so that’s like 18-50 mothers-in-law dead right there (Plus more for the mothers who survived, but then subsequently died giving birth to a younger sibling of the wife), and plenty more who were orphaned in other ways.

    And besides, some of the wives were probably sisters, and had the same mother. I mean, if you’re shooting for 700, “Hey, do you have a hot sister?” is probably a question you ask a lot.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I actually doubt any of the wives were sisters. I’ll bet that some of the concubines were sisters of either wives or other concubines, but self-evidently none of these marriages were for love. (All the wives, says 1 Kings 11, were of royal birth. That was probably the prime criterion.) And given that Solomon marrying one daughter would have been enough to ally her family with his, why would he have married her sister too?

    Though on the other hand, how would he have come by seven hundred royal wives of as many different places? Especially if we assume that none of the wives were too old or young to make babies with.

  • Hawker40

    They probably weren’t “royal” but merely “noble”.  Daughters of kings, sure, but also important city rulers, well connected tribes, townships, etc.  None for love, but about alliances.  (Bribes, tribute, taxes…)

  • Ross

    And given that Solomon marrying one daughter would have been enough to ally her family with his, why would he have married her sister too?

    Off the top of my head answer: To stop anyone else from doing it. The thought occurs that if you’re taking 700 wives, all of royal blood, you might be looking to take “strategic marriage” off the table for your rivals.

  • P J Evans

    seven hundred Wives also means seven hundred Mothers-In-Law 

    I wonder how many of those wives were part of political agreements: ‘I’ll marry your daughter/sister so we can have an alliance’.

  • Ruby_Tea

    Can I trust Jim?  I don’t know.  Do I have a choice?  No, frankly, I don’t.  Will I trust Jim?  Yes.  Should I trust Jim?  You tell me.

    /Dwight Shrute

  • Hawker40

    “All of them”, most likely.

  • Justin

    I can’t wait til you’re an atheist, Fred.

  • Lori


    I can’t wait til you’re an atheist, Fred.  

    No, this isn’t rude at all.

  • The_L1985

     What’s that supposed to mean?

  • veejayem

    You could argue that Lot, David, Solomon et al were pre-Christian. But I’m racking my brains trying to think of a family in either of the Testaments that wouldn’t have at least raised neighbourly eyebrows or required the intervention of various state agencies.

  • Lliira

    On reflection, I doubt Dan Cathy would have any real problems with anything Lot did.

    The anti-marriage equality people aren’t just anti-same sex marriage equality. They’re anti-equality within a marriage. They think fathers own their daughters. They think that it’s much, much better for a man to rape a woman than to have consensual sex with a man. Consent doesn’t mean anything to them anyway. What matters is if the father said you can use his daughter sexually. Women are not fully human to them.

  • Random Lurker

    Considering the medical difficulty of keeping it up while drunk to the point of oblivion…

    Lot was one naughty old man.

  • B

    Many years ago I was surfing the Web for I-remember-not-what and I stumbled across a website run by a gay man who was into fanfic.  It was meant as a resource for straight people writing slash fanfic, where they could learn all about gay male sex and thus write more realistic slash.  As a straight woman I found it very educational despite not writing fanfic.  :-)

    Re: The 500 Kingdoms.  I started reading the first of those books and never got into it despite being a fan of (some of) Lackey’s work.  (Mostly her older stuff.)  I didn’t even finish the book, which is unusual for me.  Maybe it’s worth a second try, though.

  • Lliira

    I found a site like that. He recommended using motor oil as lube. I hope it is not the same site you found. Because HELL NO.

    I’ve actually seen a few sites like that. And what I don’t get about them is their tendency to act like women are unable to have anal sex.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Is the correct response to the motor oil thing ‘ew’ or ‘ow’?

    To be fair, the prostate’s presence or absence is relevant when receiving anal sex, and if someone without a penis is giving it it’s called pegging. But yeah.

  • Hexep

    The correct response is ‘call poison control.’  The anus is full of semi-permeable membranes, and petrochemicals are poisonous as shit.  The penis has mucous membranes on it.  If you slather either of them in WD-40, you’re going to get septicemia and die.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *shudder* Got it.

  • Hexep

    I probably should have TW’d my answer, and this is just a continuation of the same, so let’s just…

    TW: Septicemia, massive genital damage (both sexes), gruesome illness leading to painful death

    … and say that the symptoms and their onset, though IANAD, would probably be about identical to what would happen if a women inserted a tampon that had been dipped in motor oil, since, while vaginal and colonic tissue aren’t identical in form or function, they’re both made of epithelium and are semi-porous.  ‘If you wouldn’t put it on a tampon, don’t put it in your ass’ seems to be a good rule of thumb with regards to petrochemicals.  The penis, on the other hand, is straight-up mucous membrane, which is even more porous, and will thus absorb even more of it and make you die faster and more painfully.  Symptoms of hydrocarbon toxicity include pulmonary aspiration, cyanosis, nausea, vomiting, ataxia, nervous system collapse, arrhythmia, bone marrow toxification, coronary vasospasm, drastic blood vessel dilation, sudden drop in blood pressure, and otherwise everything going wrong in the worst possible way.

    In short, this is a horrible way to die, and I am ashamed I’ve devoted this much thought to it.  If anyone out there, in the present or in distant posterity, is considering putting motor oil on any of their soft tissues – DON’T DO IT.  YOU WILL DIE IN AGONY.

  • Randy Owens

    The penis, on the other hand, is straight-up mucous membrane, which is even more porous….

    Wait, what?  Are you referring to the urethra, or did you mean something else entirely?

  • Hexep

    The glans is also a mucous membrane, but honestly, I would prefer to stop thinking about it.

  • Randy Owens

    Wow, I had no idea.  I learned something new today! :D  Even if it was in a squicky context.

  • B

     Motor oil!?!  Oh, dear.  No, that was definitely not the same site!

    That was probably about 10 years ago… it’s likely the site isn’t even online anymore.

  • The_insane_protagonist

    This is one area of life where I guess being genderqueer has its perks? *evil grin*

    On the other hand, the end result for me is that nearly all of my characters end up being pansexual, so… Yeah.

  • mistformsquirrel

    Am I terrible for thinking of the Tin Man in regards to the whole motor-oil thing?  >.>

  • Carstonio

    I might be even more terrible for imagining a key being turned in someone’s anus and hearing a motor cranking…

  • PepperjackCandy

    If you are talking about Minotaur’s sex tips for slash writers site, then yes, it does mention motor oil, not as a recommendation, but as something that he actually used.  He was apparently very lucky to have survived the experience.

    Minotaur passed away in 2009 of heart problems.