You can tell it's fake because the children aren't getting molested
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
796 points (94.5% liked)
Political Memes
9200 readers
3508 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Cmon at least get the story right. Lot's daughters got him drunk on wine and raped HIM
Edit: Don't remember him being a King either
He wasn't a king.
Also, he offered a group of angry Sodomites his daughters to rape just to get the crowd to leave him and the other dudes alone, because they showed up to rape the dudes because they weren't from there.
After his wife was turned to a pillar of salt, he flaked out of living in a city and moved the family to a cave, where said incest happened.
Ultimately, this is one of those "WTF are people doing taking this literally?" stories. It's not a convoluted story about the real and least lucky person not killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, but a 3-hour movie that should have been 3 seasons of 10 episodes about 1) showing hospitality, 2) if you're living in a messy situation, just get out of there, 3) lessons on genetic diversity among Hebrew elders and leaders 4) "proper subjugation of women!" /s 5) Yahweh hates the gays! ("It's the gays! They're trying to kill me!" -Lot) 6) Vehicle for lesson from unnamed wife about living in the past, and 7) Be careful about stealing the sperm of descendants of King David! Collectors love the stuff! (this is actually a thing in the ancient and modern world. It's all been Jerry Springer all the time since we learned to write down how trashy people are.)
This. There's more than enough to criticise about this story without inventing story points.
load more comments
(8 replies)
came here to point this out
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[a]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[b]; he is the father of the Ammonites[c] of today.
so yeah, not a king, and he was raped (not the rapist)
though he did offer his two daughters up to be raped to protect his guests (if that seems strange, the story is ultimately about the importance of hospitality, since back then, hospitality was more life or death):
3 But [Lot] insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 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.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
Risking some downvotes here, but just like most stories, not every character in the Bible is supposed to be a paragon of morality. Just like in any story, people do bad things.
Obviously this post is somewhat satirical, but dunking on something like this just reminds me of book banning arguments, and that general lack of literary comprehension. There's better things to take issue with.
Lot of the bible is described as the only moral person in the whole city (two cities actually), the only one deserving to live. If that's not the definition of being paragon of morality, I don't know what is.
That's the beginning of the story, yes.
Then the story goes on with Lot's wife turning around and perishing for it, and then Lot's daughters get Lot drunk with the goal of getting him to get them pregnant.
And then there's no further judgment about either Lot or his daughters in the rest of the story.
Even contrary: It displays the daughters as having given the circumstances and their actions a lot of thought and makes it sound as a very logical conclusion. And it says that the father was so passed out drunk that he didn't notice the whole thing.
(That's obviously hard to believe when taking it as a factual history, but like the rest of Genesis it's not. The whole first book of Moses is basically the origin myth of the israelites, not a historical record. The general consensus is that Lot never existed, contrary to e.g. David, who is most likely an actual historical person. And since this is just a myth, it's just as internally logically consistent as Harry Potter fanfiction.)
So the whole point in the OP is quite disingenous. Neither did Lot rape his daughters, nor does the text put the blame on any of them and nobody gets called a whore.
In fact, Lot is not a king.
Yeah, that conclusion (in the OP) sounds a lot like some aita commenters who give judgements based on a bunch of assumptions they just made up in their heads. They don't believe the original version where the daughters are at fault, so replace that version with their own and add the discrepancy (that they created in the first place) as another point against it.
It's a fictional story where the daughters were written as villains. Or maybe it was erotica of its time, intended to sell more copies of the Bible or get people in to listen to what crazy shit happened next.
Though I just remembered another part that does really bring the paragon of goodness (and what they thought was good) into question: the city of Sodom was destroyed because the citizens, upon seeing an angel or pair of angels or something, insisted they needed to gang rape them. Lot, in his unquestionable goodness, offers his own daughters for the gang rape instead. So clearly, at best they saw his daughters as his possessions that he could "sacrifice" to do "good", at worst they thought so little of women getting gang raped that it was just an "out" offered to the people that they refused and thus justified their destruction (because a normal gang rape must be fine, but angelic gang rape is something else).
Oh and the call for blind obedience just thrown in when the wife looks back after being told not to and is punished for disobeying.
Lol the story as told is fucked up enough, don't know why anyone feels the need to act like it was based on true events but was actually just a coverup for a different rape.
Lot offering up his daughters is a commonly misinterpreted part of the story. It was meant to show how far you were obligated to go to protect guests in your house. It has been twisted into 'homosexuality is so bad it's better to allow your daughters to be raped than let anything gay happen.'
Either way it is pretty awful by today's standards, but not exactly the way a lot of people want it to be.
Even that interpretation still leaves the whole "his daughters are just tools he can use to meet his obligations" thing. It's values like this that the old testament was based on.
You got to remember that the old testament was written over a very long time. The books of moses were likely written over the time from 1200-400 BC, with different souces mentioning different time frames.
So it's hard to point to these as being one consistent thing with consistent values, same as it would be hard to claim that there were consistent values between now and 800 years ago.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wasn't his issue that he got so drunk his daughters raped him? Turning that around seems to be horribly along the lines of saying women can't rape men, an issue that is pretty bad in the modern era.
Implying that one can't be moral if one has been raped is pretty horrendous.
His daughters thought they were the last people on earth after the destruction of their home. So they got him drunk for the purposes of using him to get pregnant to try to repopulate.
"Good" also doesn't mean flawless at all times. Characters can make mistakes and still be "good" without you having to justify everything they've done as perfect.
An even better example is King David, the one and only "man after God's own heart" taking another man's wife while he was fighting David's war, and then arranging his death to cover it up after he got her pregnant.
Arguing that that, or this, is advice for the reader, or meant as an example of something you should do, is a comical straw man. A narrative doesn't usually stop to explicitly label "good" and "bad" for us like children. There's loads to complain about with popular far-right Christianity, why would we invent ridiculous arguments that are easy to debunk and make us look like we don't have good literary comprehension?
load more comments
(5 replies)
Cat owners?
Spicy food?
Actually, yeah. Raised fundamentalist.
Cats are animals and don't have souls, intensely loving and personifying a pet can be seen as sinful. Also, having pets instead of childen is sinful as you're supposed to be fruitful and multiply.
I'm not sure if there is a particular verse for spicy food, but sobriety in all things. I used to get in trouble for using more than a drop of Tabasco or too much black pepper. IIRC, I got whipped once for too much Tabasco in my grandmother's chicken stew, (it was seen as an insult).
Gotta go. Saying goodbye to Lulu the cat, who's a person. Leaving for a clothing optional BDSM weekend and bringing habanero hot sauce for taco night.
A Catholic guy I worked with had similar "animals don't have souls" argument, and argued animal abuse laws were bullshit and people shouldn't get in trouble for abusing animals. He had lots of other troublesome options too.
Spicy food is a gateway to anal sex.
Please don't ask for proof.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Whoa, wrong way round! The daughters got him drunk on purpose so they could rape him and have his kids.
And why is he "King" Lot in this? I actually can't tell if this is 7D gigabrain satire or if this comes from some loose recollection of hearing a Bible story 20 years ago.
Edit: also, the image looks GPT-generated. What the fuck is up with the boy's Polnareff-ass head, why is his left leg melting, and how is the dad's left arm wrapping around him?
load more comments
(7 replies)
That's his story.
Dude disappears into the desert for years with his daughters and comes back with both of them pregnant. I'm not going to lend to much credence to what he says happened.
The same story says that a bunch of towns people showed up at his door to rape his guests. Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped instead.
For some reason, Lot and his family were considered the only ones worth saving in that city. But not his wife, because she really wanted to be back there. That's unforgivable.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Dude didn't exist. Genesis is a collection of myths, not a historical record.
The old testament consists of books that were old legends when they were written down (like Genesis), books that were contemporary fiction (like the story of Iob), books that are poetry (like Song of Solomon) and books that are historical (like the Book of Kings).
Of course, even the historical books need to be taken with a chunk of salt, they have a lot legends, folk tales, miracle stories and other fictional elements mixed into them. But the difference is that the historical books contain real people who for the most part actually existed, while the other types of books in the bible are completely fictional, either expressly (as in the case of Iob) or due to them being legends.
Sadly, there's a ton of people (both christians and non-christians) who don't know that and think that everything in the bible was meant as a hard historical record, and then you get stuff like in the OP. (OP went a bit farther, misquoting pretty much everything about the story.)
That's about as smart as picking up a random book from the library, believing that everything that's written there is meant as pure fact, and then complaining that a caterpillar doesn't eat all the different kinds of food that the little caterpillar ate.
load more comments
(1 replies)
LOL, I was gonna say! King James Version for the purists:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And they started two major lines! Good one girls!
Somehow, this bit was left out of my Sunday school instruction. No idea why.
Yeah, sounds more like they raped the dad. Also as another comment pointed out, I don’t recall him being king either.
I know we all hate the right, but come one at least do it without the slop ??
People who use GPT4o as an "upscaler" by feeding images to it with the "clean up the image" prompt are a plague to the internet...
Tampons and spicy food is woke?!!
"Everything I dont like is woke. The less oi like it, the more woke it is!"
load more comments
(6 replies)
This is so perfect.
I'm from a conservative white american family, and some of the odd-sounding ones are still perfect for illustrating the issue in that culture where different people are not just different, they are bad and scary until proven otherwise.
Obviously things like hate, bigotry, and other-ing are a problem for the entire human race. I'm just thinking of the particular flavor that you get with dumb trumpers.
Bidets are woke??
Having a clean ass is for homosexuals and Communists, duh!
In case people don’t believe this, it’s a real thing. Idiots aren’t wiping their asses because they legitimately think that touching your own ass is gay. And these people are allowed to just walk around freely in the world, no death penalty or anything.
Finding out that eating pussy, washing your hands or ass are all gay helped me come to terms with being a trans lesbian
Legit some men think if you even wipe (!!!) your ass, then you're signaling to gay men you're available for sex. Well, at least this can lead to some Darwin awards (normal fecal bacteria can be somewhat nasty, but bacteria in poop that is not fresh is extremely bad).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›