A bedtime story for the young ones

[David]

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, lived a family. The fathers name was Lot. He had two daughters, and was "just and righteous".

One day, two angels came to visit Lot, and all the other towns-people decide to meet and greet the strangers. Lot decided that his guests were very important, and must be protected from being made to be too "friendly" with the group of people. So, he offered the group his two daughters (who, it turns out were already married... see Genesis 19:14, "his sons in law, which married his daughters"). But, luckily the two angels helped Lot.

So, Lot and his family left their town and everyone else in it was killed by the angels. Lot's wife (nameless) looked back and became a pillar of salt.

Later, Lot and his two daughters (who were married, but, now seem to have lost their husbands?) have drunken sex. Twice. And, they each bore their father a son.

So, now the new baby's had both a father and grandfather in one; isn't that a nice ending?

And, remember kids, Lot was the only one saved--so.. In order to be just and righteous with God, you must 1) Protect MEN guests, 2) treat WOMEN with little to no respect (offer their bodies up if it serves your larger purpose), 3) have sex with your daughters--but only after getting drunk, so you can 4) have boy children.

The End

[gordonliv]

Yeah...

You could do a similar thing with the book of Job. Come to think of it, you could do a similar thing with most of the 66 books in the Bible.

Except the book of Revelation, of course. That does it for itself!

[OldChurchGuy]

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, lived a family. The fathers name was Lot. He had two daughters, and was "just and righteous".

One day, two angels came to visit Lot, and all the other towns-people decide to meet and greet the strangers. Lot decided that his guests were very important, and must be protected from being made to be too "friendly" with the group of people. So, he offered the group his two daughters (who, it turns out were already married... see Genesis 19:14, "his sons in law, which married his daughters"). But, luckily the two angels helped Lot.

So, Lot and his family left their town and everyone else in it was killed by the angels. Lot's wife (nameless) looked back and became a pillar of salt.

Later, Lot and his two daughters (who were married, but, now seem to have lost their husbands?) have drunken sex. Twice. And, they each bore their father a son.

So, now the new baby's had both a father and grandfather in one; isn't that a nice ending?

And, remember kids, Lot was the only one saved--so.. In order to be just and righteous with God, you must 1) Protect MEN guests, 2) treat WOMEN with little to no respect (offer their bodies up if it serves your larger purpose), 3) have sex with your daughters--but only after getting drunk, so you can 4) have boy children.

The End

Your point is well made so far as applying current views and values to this story.

Personally, I understand the story to be something like this:

There probably were cities called Sodom and Gomorrah and they probably were somewhere near the Dead Sea, probably on the east side. There is speculation, for instance, that the settlements were on a peninsula known as "the toungue" due to it's shape. With the Dead Sea drying up, the tongue may be ready for some archaelogical digs in the near future.

An earthquake comes along and destroys them. Now, people have no concept of plate techtonics so all they know is that there were a couple of towns yesterday and today they are gone. So, human nature being what it is, a need arises to explain why it happened. People speculate and conclude it MUST have been something terribly bad for some unseen force to destroy these two places.

The most despicable thing that can be imagined for the time is for someone to not be hospitable to strangers. And for an entire town to be destroyed must mean that there were a number of people who were not hospitable to the strangers. An extreme case of not being hospitable would be to want to perform some kind of gang rape.

Hospitatlity to strangers was and is a major social norm for people in the Mid East. Lot's time was no different. Therefore, offering up his daughters was a way of showing his priority was toward being a gracious host to the strangers. Understand, there was no way to dial 911 like we have now.

Over time, stories begin to gel and the above speculation becomes accepted fact.

Regarding the daughters and their pregnancies, there is a theory that the two tribes the daughters as said to have helped originate were ones that claimed an early ancestry to the twelve sons of Jacob. But, since there were already 12 tribes and no one wanted to make it 14 tribes they were included here. Some might say it is an appeasement and others might see it as a slap in the face since the tribes originated out of incest.

That, in a nutshell, (and I am just the nut to believe this) is how I understand the story at this point in time; subject to change without notice.

On the other hand, the whole story could be true and accurate just as it is recorded. There is no way to prove or disprove it one way or the other.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Hi OCG!

Which version do you currently believe? Why?

S2R

[OldChurchGuy]

Hi OCG!

Which version do you currently believe? Why?

S2R

I would side the the longer version about the earthquake, hospitatlity, etc. The reason is because I think it makes more sense to the people responsible for the final editing of the story.

Yes, I know. This means I do not accept the Bible as the divinely inspired inerrant word of God. It also means I am a theist, but one who believes God gave me a brain to use.

On a lifelong journey of discovery and enlightenment like all of you I remain,

OldChurchGuy

[psychomonkey62]

I would side the the longer version about the earthquake, hospitatlity, etc. The reason is because I think it makes more sense to the people responsible for the final editing of the story.

Yes, I know. This means I do not accept the Bible as the divinely inspired inerrant word of God. It also means I am a theist, but one who believes God gave me a brain to use.

On a lifelong journey of discovery and enlightenment like all of you I remain,

OldChurchGuy

I think you're the most rational theist I've ever encountered...:)

[OldChurchGuy]

I think you're the most rational theist I've ever encountered...:)

Thank you for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated particularly in light of responses I have encountered with some people on the Christian discussion websites.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Hi OCG,

Certainly I think you'd get most of us here on gnawed to agree with you that more likely scenario is the one you describe. I was a bit of an outsider when, as a believer, I proposed rational examination of these stories. I'm curious; where does your belief in God come from? Is it based solely on personal experience? Parental instruction?

Quizzically,
S2R

[OldChurchGuy]

Hi OCG,

Certainly I think you'd get most of us here on gnawed to agree with you that more likely scenario is the one you describe. I was a bit of an outsider when, as a believer, I proposed rational examination of these stories. I'm curious; where does your belief in God come from? Is it based solely on personal experience? Parental instruction?

Quizzically,
S2R

I grew up in the Episcopal church. My parents were not very active in it but encouraged me and my siblings to attend. So, I would say my belief in God is more from personal experience. Granted, that makes it VERY subjective but I am OK with that because I do not feel any need to force my theology on anyone.

For me, the biggest change in my theology came when I was given the opportunity to teach the High School Sunday School class many years ago. At the time, I had a fairly strong "literalist" view of the Bible (the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!) because, frankly, I had not read it much. So, the first day of Sunday School I asked the kids what they wanted to study. They decided they wanted to study Revelation because they had never studied it.

I replied that was fine because I had never studied it either. Then I followed up with what turned out to be a most fateful question. I asked them if they wanted one view point or a variety of views. They enthusiastically said they wanted a variety of views. In my naieve way of seeing the world at the time, I figured that any variations would be minor. After all, this was the word of God we are studying. Surely there is much agreement over the main points. :)

The church had a great library so I checked out commentaries by Adam Clark, J. Vernon McGee, Matthew Henry, William Barclay, and the Interpreter's Bible. Basically, I had in my hands a representative sample of the broad range of interpretations. I was spending about 8 hours a week just to get a 1 hour lesson ready.

From that I came to realize that I was involved in a life long journey of discovery and that a "literalist" interpretation was no longer appealing. Mainly because it seemed to black and white; too much like having God in a box. So, I prefer the non-literalist view because, for me anyway, it seems to better represent the essential message of both the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament) and the New Testament which is love for God and love for each other.

I am afraid I have gone from explaining to preaching so will stop for now.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Hey OCG!

Thanks for responding! Given your experiential path to God, do you think that you would be a believer today if you'd been raised by non-believers or Buddhist if raised by such?

I was raised in a Seventh-day Adventist home. I always wonder how my life would be different if raised by atheists.

Best,
S2R

[OldChurchGuy]

Hey OCG!

Thanks for responding! Given your experiential path to God, do you think that you would be a believer today if you'd been raised by non-believers or Buddhist if raised by such?

I was raised in a Seventh-day Adventist home. I always wonder how my life would be different if raised by atheists.

Best,
S2R
I have no idea. The only speculation I can offer is that I am a firm believer that we are "wired at birth" with a certain temperment and outlook on life. Our environment has a big influence on that temperment but the basics cannot be changed.

Part of my temperment (as I understand it anyway) is a desire to keep learning. I suspect that I would have probably have ventured into other ideas regardless of the parents but it might have been much more painful for me and for them. I am reading a book right now entitled "Leaving the Fold" by Babinski. It is a collection of testimonies by Fundamentalists who left it for various reasons. None of the stories I have read so far has a happy ending. Either family or friends or both have rejected them since they left the "black and white" world of faith and are now in "the gray".

As to whether I would be a Christian if I had grown up among Bhuddists, I can say with absolute certainty, "I don't know".

There are just too many variables to give you a definitive answer.

As always,

OldChurchGuy