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.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    The only thing that really varies is mechanics

    Not in my experience.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

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

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • The_L1985

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

  • The_L1985

     What’s that supposed to mean?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ 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.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ 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.

  • 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…)

  • Hawker40

    “All of them”, most likely.

  • 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.

  • banancat

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

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com 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.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X