The Story of Lot (Sodom & Gomorrah)

Started by ElectricKoolAid2 pages

The Story of Lot (Sodom & Gomorrah)

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?

Genesis 19
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he 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."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [a] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."

16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"

18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, [b} please! 19 Your [c] servant has found favor in your [d] eyes, and you [e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."

21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. [f] )

23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Lot and His Daughters
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 lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie 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 lay 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 lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie 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 and lay 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 [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

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.

Numbers 2:2-14
2 Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch.
3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.
4 And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred.
5 And those that do pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Issachar: and Nethaneel the son of Zuar shall be captain of the children of Issachar.
6 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred.
7 Then the tribe of Zebulun: and Eliab the son of Helon shall be captain of the children of Zebulun.
8 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.
9 All that were numbered in the camp of Judah were an hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred, throughout their armies. These shall first set forth.
10 ¶ On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben according to their armies: and the captain of the children of Reuben shall be Elizur the son of Shedeur.
11 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were forty and six thousand and five hundred.
12 And those which pitch by him shall be the tribe of Simeon: and the captain of the children of Simeon shall be Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai.
13 And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred.
14 Then the tribe of Gad: and the captain of the sons of Gad shall be Eliasaph the son of Reuel.

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.

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.
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.

This passage is history. It has no moral.
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
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: [1] for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

John 1:18

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

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.