Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For those who don't know it, here's a version I found on the internet at the bottom of my post. No the same exact words but basically the same storyline as in the Bible.

Now I was (loosely) raised a Catholic. Meaning we didn't usually go to church on non-holidays but my parents always taught me to believe in God and Jesus and they got me baptised when I was 7. I basically accepted that I was a Christian up until I took Bible Study as a class in high school, and we read and studied a few books of the bible. In this class I read some things I liked and some things I didn't like, but I read enough things I didn't like to denounce Christianity. One of these things was the story of Lot.

Now we were taught in bible study that all stories in the Bible are there for moral guidance. Nothing is coincidental, everything you read has a message. If a couple generations of Abraham's descendants lived lives that no significant moral story could be deducted from, then they just listed their names and said nothing else.

This is where my view on the story of Lot comes in. This story was recorded in detail, so obviously it has a message they wished to convey. Now some people debate on whether this story is anti-gay or not, some argue it could be anti-rape, or just sexual deviance in general, but if you look at the close details it reveals otherwise.

Note that when the men come to Lots door to rape the two angels, Lot offers them his daughters instead. So instead of them raping these two men, he was subjecting his own daughters to rape. The men declined and were stuck by blindness. Lot and his family (minus his salty wife) got out of the city and it was destroyed, and Lot and his two daughters decided to live in a cave in the mountains. In this cave, Lot's daughters intentionally got their father drunk so they could "lay with him" and get pregnant. Not only is this the first recorded "date rape," it's also DIRECT incest. Not that cousin to cousin isn't bad enough, but father to daughter is just sickening. NONE of these other sexual deviances (forced rape, date rape, or incest) were condemned in the story. ALL of these acts were seemingly accepted by the righteous descendants of Abraham and by God. It was only once gay sex was brought in the picture that these cities had to be destroyed. Any Christian scholars wanna set me straight on this one? Am I just perceiving it wrong?

The verse does not condone the act. It is inference that states that the actions of the daughters was accepted in any form, the verse merely states the fact to give the historical origins of the Moabites and Ammonites.

But the Bible is not a history book, it records certain stories and details to send a moral message. These people are righteous, they are the descendants of Abraham, if they sin they are condemned by God. I doubt they just stated it for historical purposes, and if they did then it still wasn't condemned by God in any way shape or form.

But I believe the message in there is clear: preserving the family bloodline is related in a way to homosexuality being wrong.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
But the Bible is not a history book, it records certain stories and details to send a moral message. These people are righteous, they are the descendants of Abraham, if they sin they are condemned by God. I doubt they just stated it for historical purposes, and if they did then it still wasn't condemned by God in any way shape or form.

But I believe the message in there is clear: preserving the family bloodline is related in a way to homosexuality being wrong.

As more and more sciencist try to prove the Bible wrong, more and more sciencist find no fault in it.

What.....?

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
What.....?

No one has been able to prove the Bible wrong.

Are you in the wrong thread or something? This thread has nothing to do with proving the bible "wrong." It's about the message contained within a certain story, which certainly has no hope of being scientifically proven "right" or "wrong."

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
But the Bible is not a history book, it records certain stories and details to send a moral message. These people are righteous, they are the descendants of Abraham, if they sin they are condemned by God. I doubt they just stated it for historical purposes, and if they did then it still wasn't condemned by God in any way shape or form.

But I believe the message in there is clear: preserving the family bloodline is related in a way to homosexuality being wrong.

You did mention the Bible

Yeah, I did..

Not questioning it's historical accuracy, questioning the motivation behind it recording certain stories. I believe that if it recorded a story in detail as it did with Lot, it's not just for historical purposes, it's to give moral guidance to the reader. You ever notice when you read the bible and they skip over like 10 generations at a time? And then B, son of A had C, and from C came D, and D gave birth to E, and so on. That's because those people had nothing of moral significance to record.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
But the Bible is not a history book, it records certain stories and details to send a moral message. These people are righteous, they are the descendants of Abraham, if they sin they are condemned by God. I doubt they just stated it for historical purposes, and if they did then it still wasn't condemned by God in any way shape or form.

But I believe the message in there is clear: preserving the family bloodline is related in a way to homosexuality being wrong.

The Bible is only a history of the interaction between God and the Israelites and their descendants and ancestors. The fact that it holds spiritual truths is merely a bi-product of that history.

The message is not so clear. Lot offered his daughters to the men of the city, this would have negated any means by which his line could have been saved. His wife looked back, and was destroyed. Or perhaps she became bitter, and our literal interpretation of the "pillar of salt" is wrong.

This passage is history. It has no moral.

Originally posted by Regret
The Bible is only a history of the interaction between God and the Israelites and their descendants and ancestors. The fact that it holds spiritual truths is merely a bi-product of that history. If you say so, but either way a moral message can clearly be deducted from this story based alone on which actions God did and did not condemn.

That's not so, because in those days it was the man who passed on the bloodline, not the women. Hence why their father had to be the one to impregnate them in order to maintain their bloodline.

That's not a "story" though. I think you know exactly what I'm saying..

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You did mention the Bible
Right and that automatically means he's denying the accuracy of the bible.
Anyway, scientists don't need to bother proving the bible wrong, it does that fairly well on it's own. Genesis 32:30


John 1:18

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
That's not a "story" though. I think you know exactly what I'm saying..

Yes, and I think you are wrong.

Without evidence to support your claims your argument is without merit. Lack of evidence is not evidence, unless of course the atheists that claim there is no God are right due to the same logic.

Originally posted by Eis
Right and that automatically means he's denying the accuracy of the bible.
Anyway, scientists don't need to bother proving the bible wrong, it does that fairly well on it's own. Genesis 32:30

John 1:18

Unless of course the Godhead are separate and distinct beings, in which case the verses are not contradictory, merely referring to different persons in the Godhead.

John 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared himself

That's not God the Father they are talking about. That's God the Son (Jesus Christ) who was never seen at any time until his birth. God the Father showed himself to Adam and Eve in the garden.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
That's not God the Father they are talking about. That's God the Son (Jesus Christ) who was never seen at any time until his birth. God the Father showed himself to Adam and Eve in the garden.

This is only a valid statement if the Trinitarian doctrine is false. Otherwise it is a lie and misleading on God's part.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, and I think you are wrong.

Without evidence to support your claims your argument is without merit. Lack of evidence is not evidence, unless of course the atheists that claim there is no God are right due to the same logic. "Evidence?" What do you think this is, court? It's an opinion, and I've backed it up with logic. That's all I really need.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
"Evidence?" What do you think this is, court? It's an opinion, and I've backed it up with logic. That's all I really need.

Then the atheists have the same amount of logic supporting the nonexistence of God as you do in support of this opinion.

Do you accept their logic in support of their opinion?

The existence or nonexistence of God is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact that we don't yet have the answer to, but either he exists or he doesn't.

My opinion is that the stories in the bible are there for the moral message, and the logic behind this rests on the fact that generations without significant moral stories are basically skipped, and that any story reported on a personal level with detail in the Bible arguably has a moral undertone. My opinion doesn't rest on the fact that there's no evidence that it's wrong, so I don't even know where you're pulling the Atheist comparison from.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
The existence or nonexistence of God is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact that we don't yet have the answer to, but either he exists or he doesn't.

My opinion is that the stories in the bible are there for the moral message, and the logic behind this rests on the fact that generations without significant moral stories are basically skipped, and that any story reported on a personal level with detail in the Bible arguably has a moral undertone. My opinion doesn't rest on the fact that there's no evidence that it's wrong, so I don't even know where you're pulling the Atheist comparison from.

You pull your moral from the lack of evidence of condemnation for the acts of Lot's daughters. Your opinion in this case is based in the lack of evidence of condemnation for this act. The fact that is your moral, in this case, is based in the exact same logic that atheists deny God with. The logic is the same, no matter the type of argument presented. That is where the comparison comes from.

The logic is either flawed or not, but if it is not, the atheists have the right of it from the same logic.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. I don't only pull it from the "lack of evidence," I take the story as it is told.

You see, with story telling it's different. Even if there WAS condemnation by god towards the daughters of Lot, it wasn't recorded and therefore was erased from the moral message. I think this is unlikely but if it's true then my point still stands because the author of this story included what they included for a reason. It doesn't matter if something else happen that they aren't telling us about, if it's not part of the story then it's not part of the message.

You can't always apply the same logic to two totally different scenarios and have it work the same.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I don't only pull it from the "lack of evidence," I take the story as it is told.

You see, with story telling it's different. Even if there WAS condemnation by god towards the daughters of Lot, it wasn't recorded and therefore was erased from the moral message. I think this is unlikely but if it's true then my point still stands because the author of this story included what they included for a reason. It doesn't matter if something else happen that they aren't telling us about, if it's not part of the story then it's not part of the message.

You can't always apply the same logic to two totally different scenarios and have it work the same.

The problem with that is that it is editing to meet someone's view of what was right. It invalidates the Bible as a credible source of information, and leaves it as nothing more than a fable based in possible history, that has a moral point.

Which is what I believe it is..

If you believe it's the infallible word of God, then the remote possibility that God would leave out the condemnation of Lot's daughter's actions disappears. If it was a point God wanted to make, he would've done so.

Either way we're off topic. No matter what you believe the Bible is, the story is there and this thread is for the interpretation of that story. We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Which is what I believe it is..

If you believe it's the infallible word of God, then the remote possibility that God would leave out the condemnation of Lot's daughter's actions disappears. If it was a point God wanted to make, he would've done so.

I agree that it is not the infallible word of God. I believe it to be an account of God's dealings with man as well as a history of a group of people. Lot was discussed because he dealt with God's messengers, not because of any point being made.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Either way we're off topic. No matter what you believe the Bible is, the story is there and this thread is for the interpretation of that story. We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said.

We are not off topic. We are discussing the validity of the method you used in your interpretation, and comparing/contrasting that interpretation with my own. The method of interpretation is integral to interpretation of that story. What the Bible is effects any interpretation made.

"We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said." You are assuming consent based on something "that wasn't mentioned." You cannot base an interpretation on this verse as condemning or condoning the action based "on what WAS said." Although, if the Bible is consistent it does condemn this type of act, and thus it can be more strongly inferred as an act that was condemned than it could be inferred as condoning.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
As more and more sciencist try to prove the Bible wrong, more and more sciencist find no fault in it.

Bro, you don't need to be a scientist to find the plentiful amount of faults it contains.

No, you just need to have a brain.

Originally posted by Regret
I agree that it is not the infallible word of God. I believe it to be an account of God's dealings with man as well as a history of a group of people. Lot was discussed because he dealt with God's messengers, not because of any point being made.So to you, the bible is nothing more than a history book? All the moral lessons in there are coincidental? I think that's probably more of a "downplay" of the bible than I've ever heard from even the most stubborn atheist. Even when people call it a "fairy tale" at least you can learn something from a fairy tale."

Really, I think you are just looking for a loophole where the bible can still be viewed as a credible source yet doesn't have to take responsibility for the messages conveyed in the stories. I find it no coincidence that everytime they get down to intimate details of a certain person or people there is a moral message to be found. When the bible was arranged I think these stories were kept for a specific reason, and i'll continue to judge the book based on the messages it conveys.



Your interpretation of the story? From what i understand your "interpretation" is that it's just a history book and the message means nothing. But apparently even though it's GOD'S history book God might've punished Lot's daughters without it making it into the story, for whatever reason you can think of..

You CAN assume that God didn't condemn the acts because it didn't mention God condemning the act and the very point of the Bible according to me is to convey Christian morality and according to you is to record the history of God's interaction with Abraham's descendants. Either way, if God had condemned Lot's daughters it should have been recorded. If it's the moral message then it's obvious why it should have, and if it's just a historical passage then it should have been included for historical accuracy.

But by the way, whether or not God condemned Lot's daughters isn't a vital part of the point I was making with my first post. That was just an addition, the part where Lot offers his daughters to be raped by the crowds of men and still receives deliverance from the Lord is quite enough for this story to have one ****ed up moral message.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
As more and more sciencist try to prove the Bible wrong, more and more sciencist find no fault in it.

First, scientists don't try to prove the bible wrong. That is just Christian propaganda.

Second, much of the bible has already been disproved as fact.

For example;

*The Earth has never been cover with water in a great flood. The fossils found on the mountain tops are fossils of living creatures in their environment that lived millions of years ago. The marine environments are fragile and could not have been deposited by a flood with out being destroyed.

*Moses of the OT never existed. The Egyptians where almost fanatical where it came to record keeping, and there is no record of Moses.

*The OT refers to the kingdom of Israel as a great world power, however, records of the Egyptians, the Babylonians and other neighboring nations that were supper powers of the day, do not reflect this opinion. It is more likely that the Israelis were a small unimportant kingdom.

*The Earth is much older then 6,000 years old. The Earth is ~4.6 billion years old.