Genesis 19:30-36;

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 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.
19:34 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. The Seduction
of Lot
19:35 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.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

So Lot had one son with each of his children. This is the same Lot that offered up his virgin daughters as a trade for being able to see angels, and the same Lot who's wife never has a name in scripture, and who doesn't mourn when said wife is turned to salt.

The very same Lot that is praised as a Just and Righteous man in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8.


The Bible is rife with such entries, and they are hypocritical in their story. The Bible condemns incest, and yet Lot (the righteous) bears children with his daughters, and Abram marries and has children with his own half sister Sarai. And not only does Abram commit incest with his wife, but has an adulterous affair with Hagar on the side as well... which is also a sin in the Bible and yet he too is called righteous.

When you read the Bible, how can you not see all the convoluted stories and the ideas put forth as honest, righteous and just when they are hypocritical, absurd, and contradictory?

What makes people believe so strongly in something that can't keep it's story straight?

Here's another... God creates light on the first day, but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. Someone want to explain that one as well?

Those who wrote the bible weren't in thier right state of mind...remember, it's hot out there in the deserts of palestine. High heat can fuck up your mind...plus, all that wine...yeeeh.

"The bible is like a mirror: When an ass looks into it, an ass looks back out." (Augustine)

What makes people believe so strongly in something that can't keep it's story straight?

Very few Christians in the world consider the Bible as a verbatim history. And besides, many just believe the parts they like or want to believe, and don't believe the others.

We do that kind of thing all the time in our lives, why should the Bible be any different? Don't many of us do the same things with history? I mean, look at how people will argue about different happenings in history ...and use the same source for different events. If Hitler had won the war, history would have been much, much different ...but wouldn't some Americans disagree with parts of that history?

Baron Max

As a kid I wanted so badly to believe that there is some explanation for these inconsistencies. Well, there is! One I was ignoring: Moral standards do not exist and the bible is not the word of god, because god doesn't exist either.

So simple, yet the explanations people come up with are long and convoluted and hypocritical themselves. These people would rather argue for the rest of eternity than admit they have been lied to.

See if you can spot the difference.....

Once upon a time, blah, blah, blah , they all lived happily ever after.

In the beginning, blah, blah, blah, they all die only to live again and some if not most live happily ever after.

There is an eerie similarity.

"The bible is like a mirror: When an ass looks into it, an ass looks back out." (Augustine)"

* You are feeling drowsy. You are feeling very, very sleepy. ten, nine, eight, seven, six ...

...when I snap my fingers, you will forget all about God, ethics, and your mother.
You will be overcome with a strong desire to turn on the TV and buy buy buy.
You will forget about your brother dying in the Iraq war. Instead you will rent a porn flick and play with yourself on the couch.
You will ignore any urge to help neighbours, friends or family:
You will walk to the 7/11 and buy a tub of ice-cream, a bag of herb, and a giant bag of sourcream and monosodium glutamate 'chips' with a shelf-life of 60 years.
You will ignore the Hells Angels pimping your little sister in a hotel room,
and buy a pack of smokes and head to the bar to pick up aging divorcees.
You will ignore the danger of AIDS from the tranvestite hooker you just picked up,
and put on a defective condom.

...three two one...now wake up. and grow up.

So you don't have answers for the questions I've put forth, you just prefer to do name calling and dodge the actual issue. Very productive and mature.

Does anyone actually have an explanation, or reasoning behind what is written and why it's believed? Baron did a half-assed job, but I'd like to hear from the Christians who believe that the Bible is the one true word of God.

So you don't have answers for the questions I've put forth, you just prefer to do name calling and dodge the actual issue. Very productive and mature.

Does anyone actually have an explanation, or reasoning behind what is written and why it's believed? Baron did a half-assed job, but I'd like to hear from the Christians who believe that the Bible is the one true word of God.

Kotoko, please understand that the Bible was written BY HUMANS ...and as importantly, by humans who were living in very, very harsh conditions and under very harsh rulers and/or kings, etc. Those writers were trying to impress their congregations/believers in the "right way" to live and work and to die. There are inconsistencies also because the writers did not collaborate and/or edit their particular works ...there were many authors, each of whom tried to give explanations of their own beliefs, while at the same time, using their own lives/work/social conditions in those explanations. They didn't all have the same editor and publisher to spot the minor inconsistencies.

Baron Max

Josephus comments on this saying, speaking of Lot,

"But his daughters, thinking that all mankind were destroyed, approached to their father, (24) though taking care not to be perceived. This they did, that human kind might not utterly fail: and they bare sons; the son of the elder was named Moab, Which denotes one derived from his father; the younger bare Ammon, which name denotes one derived from a kinsman. The former of whom was the father of the Moabites, which is even still a great nation; the latter was the father of the Ammonites; and both of them are inhabitants of Celesyria. And such was the departure of Lot from among the Sodomites."

http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/b1c11.html

You also have to take in account they left Sodom, which according to the writ, wasn't the most holiest of cities. Lot and his families might have just been observers of the sin, and not partakers. But when his daughters did what they did; it's obvious they had some issues. I suppose they probably grew desensitized from having lived in Sodom.

Must have been some Crunk Juice that they got Lot drunk with, because he had to have been zoned out. That whole scene is just wierd.

So their perceptual world had come to an end, they thought to re-inhabit the land.

Well, you have to wonder: who wrote the story anyway? Isn’t it more likely that Lot was an incestuous child molester who finally decided to kill his wife and needed some sort of story to explain why his grandkids looked like a cross between himself and a hairy crosseyed goober :)

You know how it goes; the child molester always blames the child. So here we have Lot blaming (1) the children and (2) the wine*

*as if that weak arse wine back then is somehow going to make Lot lose all contact with reality such that he is persuaded to commit incest with his children. It’s never going to happen.

Well, you have to wonder: who wrote the story anyway? Isn’t it more likely that Lot was an incestuous child molester who finally decided to kill his wife and needed some sort of story to explain why his grandkids looked like a cross between himself and a hairy crosseyed goober :)

You know how it goes; the child molester always blames the child. So here we have Lot blaming (1) the children and (2) the wine*

*as if that weak arse wine back then is somehow going to make Lot lose all contact with reality such that he is persuaded to commit incest with his children. It’s never going to happen.
*************
M*W: Once again for posterity, Lot didn't write the story of his seduction. The mythical twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been grossly misinterpreted by religionists as two places of moral and sexual corruption when, in fact, the greatest sins of the area were man's inhospitality to visitors to his tent. Lot OTOH tried to do the "hospitable" thing (a sick perversion by today's standards), which was to offer the regular crowd his 'virgin' daughters, while the angel/visitors were safely in Lot's home.

"Sodom" became synonymous with "sodomy" when, in fact, that is a misnomer. "Sodom" was a mythical town (archeologists have found no proof of its existence) presumed to be at the southwesternmost point of the Dead Sea. This area sits atop a great salt "divide" that may have occurred during an earthquake or some type of explosion from the oil reserves stored deeply underneath the salt dome. The crack in the salt dome may have formed the Dead Sea. In any event, the name "Sodom" was taken from "sodium" and not from "sodomy." Then, of course, modern laws were enacted to make the practice of sodomy (anal intercourse) a crime whether it was between consenting male+male or male+female) when it was just another gross mistranslation of the bible by ignorant religionists.

{Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, Penguin Group USA, Inc., 375 Hudson St., NY, NY 10014, USA, 1996, pp. 411-416, 1996.}

The two daughters (Note: 2 mythical cities = 2 incestuous daughters = 2 inbred sons: Could this be a symbolic connection?). Well, Lot was not a very good father, but my opinion on this is that in Lot's day (c.3,500 BC), incest wasn't frowned upon. In fact, it was customary if not culture ordained. My guess, even though this is purely my observation of the mythical story, that since Lot offered his daughters to the mad crowd outside his door, he was probably banging them anyway. (The title "virgin" only means "young woman." It has absolutely nothing to do with an hymen being intact). Then we fast forward to the safe haven cave, where the little Lolitas thought their world had ended. So, they laced their old man's vinegar, and the little wenches seduced him and begot their own little bastards.

A final note: There are archeological records to confirm a great cataclysm occurred c.1,900 BC in the area of the Great Rift Valley near Mount Sodom. My question is: If Abraham lived c.3,500 BC, and Lot lived during the time of the documented cataclysm, c.1,900 BC, how could Lot literally be Abraham's nephew? My opinion of this as a mythical story is that it explains how Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt. That "pillar of salt" is Mount Sodom.

Ancient lore is made up of myths and legends of how mountains came to be. Many, many times throughout history, mountains were named for women since they oftentimes looked like and represented the breasts of Mother Earth.

~ Medicine*Woman

in my opinion religion was created by society to save itself from destruction. that statement could explain why religion is so wide spread.

In any event, the name "Sodom" was taken from "sodium" and not from "sodomy."Hmmmm sodium was "natrium" hence Na. But then again, medieval Latin was sodanum or soda. I suppose sodom is the English translation for a Hebrew word "salt" which must be related to the Latin soda?

"The bible is like a mirror: When an ass looks into it, an ass looks back out." (Augustine) that describes the religious person, brilliantly well done.

that describes the religious person, brilliantly well done.

That's not a very nice thing to say, is it? Is that because your parents didn't raise you properly, or because you didn't get enough religious teachings?

Baron Max

Hmmmm sodium was "natrium" hence Na. But then again, medieval Latin was sodanum or soda. I suppose sodom is the English translation for a Hebrew word "salt" which must be related to the Latin soda?
*************
M*W: You could be right. Thank you for your input.

Does anyone actually have an explanation, or reasoning behind what is written and why it's believed? Baron did a half-assed job, but I'd like to hear from the Christians who believe that the Bible is the one true word of God.

I doubt you really want to hear from a Christian Kotoko. Your attitude speaks very loudly and your words reveal how your mind has been bent into an illogical extreme in opposition to the God of Abraham, for you said in your first post:

Here's another... God creates light on the first day, but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. Someone want to explain that one as well?

Well well well. Can anyone see what is see? Come now athiests and all who believe in the scientific theory of the beginning of the universe. Why didn't any of you send a PM to poor kotoko and tell her that according to the big bang theory Light came into existence way before the Sun condensed and formed into what it now is??? Think of the embarrassment you could have saved Kotoko if you had PM'd and suggested she edit out this question.

So kotoko mockingly proclaims that the bibles assertion that light existed before the sun and moon existed reveals the illogical nature of the bible. Sorry kotoko your proclamation only reveals your own illogical nature.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Nice one, Adstar. That one was a bulls-eye. 'Let there be light', so far at least is one of the few things I like about the Bible. Tough to find fault with that. But were not the elements that made up the Earth already 300,000 years old before light escaped the original cosmic cloud? Another 'what came first', huh? One could argue that even though light didn't escape that it was still there

Adstar-

You make the assumption that I am an atheist, just because I am not a Christian? That's illogical in itself, as if anyone who questions the bible is the word of God is somehow an atheist and not a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Pagan, Humanist, Scientologist or a Hindu. And still, you attack the poster and not the subject matter, and assume that I believe in the big bang theory as well. Way to go, sir.

Everyone else-

Incest in that day was indeed frowned upon, and according to historical documents punishable by death. If Lot was righteous, why did he not turn his own daughters in to the correct authority? He was willing to let his daughters be killed by an angry mob to protect some angels, so why not turn them in?

Does anyone else not find it odd that not only did Lot's wife never have a name, but neither did his daughters? But the boy who were the incestuous result of Lot's own over-indulgence did have names.

There are two recorded births of females in the bible, and no more. The majority of women in the Old Testament never had a name in fact, and all of them seem to be made out as effected by the same serpent that Eve was. Is the OT bible telling us that not only are women unimportant and nameless, but also that they are evil by nature because of Eve's deception?

The Bible is rife with such entries, and they are hypocritical in their story. The Bible condemns incest, and yet Lot (the righteous) bears children with his daughters, and Abram marries and has children with his own half sister Sarai. And not only does Abram commit incest with his wife, but has an adulterous affair with Hagar on the side as well... which is also a sin in the Bible and yet he too is called righteous.

When you read the Bible, how can you not see all the convoluted stories and the ideas put forth as honest, righteous and just when they are hypocritical, absurd, and contradictory?

What makes people believe so strongly in something that can't keep it's story straight?

Here's another... God creates light on the first day, but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. Someone want to explain that one as well?

God keeps his story straight, but we have free will, and morality is relative. That is why it appears that God is hypocritical. But, like many things, they are not as they appear to be.

Why stop there? Every single character in the bible except Jesus was a hypocrite. But, they were real people, who knew God's truth. Some decided to follow it, some not, and some followed after they didn't, still some fell from grace. So, just because we read about righteous people sinning in the Bible, doesn't make it fall in line with God's laws of morality. It wasn't the sin that made the people righteous. Some suggest we have free will, I think this is further evidence of God's law, and people disobeying. Some followed, some didn't. If you are interested in finding God, then you must first find God before you can understand the history of God's people and God's plan that is found in the Bible.

So, when you read stories, and think, "Well, that's just unfair! God holds this standard for me I'm told by the hypocritical pastors, but allows this and this and this." Remember, that is why Jesus came to die for you as well as Abraham. The living and the dead shall be judged, and Abraham is no exception. No one can say, but there were many times that were written about the righteous things Abraham did. And God did have a close relationship with him, but so did Satan. No one can say whose name is written in the book of life.

Morality is relative. That is not a hard concept.

The only thing that matters is what you are doing with the time that is given to you, and do you accept the sacrifice made by God enough to sacrifice your own life, in like manner, as the son of God did.

"The bible is like a mirror: When an ass looks into it, an ass looks back out." (Augustine) that describes the religious person brilliantly, well done.That's not a very nice thing to say, is it? Is that because your parents didn't raise you properly, or because you didn't get enough religious teachings?

Baron Max
quite the opposite, my parents did raise me very well, thank you. however the church did try to ram its doctrines down my neck, but as it was and is so absurded, I did'nt get indoctrinated, and therefore, am a clear thing morally better person for it, I cant help if, the cap fits.
I did'nt say it, augustine did and einstruck quoted.

Incest in that day was indeed frowned upon, and according to historical documents punishable by death. If Lot was righteous, why did he not turn his own daughters in to the correct authority? He was willing to let his daughters be killed by an angry mob to protect some angels, so why not turn them in?
*************
M*W: Please provide some references to prove that incest was "frowned upon" in that day... and please confirm the specific "day" you are talking about.
Does anyone else not find it odd that not only did Lot's wife never have a name, but neither did his daughters? But the boy who were the incestuous result of Lot's own over-indulgence did have names.
*************
M*W: The whole story of Lot and his family is not only mythical but symbolic. Lot's "wife" was turned into a "pillar of salt" (sodium), which was the legendary name for Mount Sodom. Therefore, "Lot" must not have been a human nor his daughters flesh and blood. There is also a lot of symbolism regarding the brother-cousins, Ammon and Moab, who were conceived by Lot and his daughters in the cave. Could the cave have been a refuge in Mother Earth as in Mount Sodom? What does it mean when you hear the phrase, "the salt of the Earth?" In biblical references, "salt of the Earth," is translated as "rare to find," "good," "unique," "of high worth/value," "a truly good person," etc., but the literal translation of "salt of the Earth," means nothing more than "common," "abundant," "something not worth much because it is found everywhere," as in the human body, for instance.
There are two recorded births of females in the bible, and no more. The majority of women in the Old Testament never had a name in fact, and all of them seem to be made out as effected by the same serpent that Eve was. Is the OT bible telling us that not only are women unimportant and nameless, but also that they are evil by nature because of Eve's deception?
*************
M*W: The serpent of Eden was known for its wisdom. After all, the serpent didn't lie to Eve. It told the truth. The word for serpent in Hebrew is HWWH. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for Eve is also HWWH, both pronounced 'havvah'.

The whole story of A&E in the GoE is mythical. (For the trillionth time, the ancients made-up stories about the constellations they saw in the skies. The story of the serpent in the GoE was made-up about the Constellation Serpens. The symbolism of the GoE represented the Earth, not a specific flower bed on Earth.

~ Medicine*Woman

The very same Lot that is praised as a Just and Righteous man in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8.
Does this "Lot" creature has a last name?

Here's another... God creates light on the first day, but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. Someone want to explain that one as well?
Study astrophysics. To begin with, the sun wasn't the first star.

ts,

To begin with, the sun wasn't the first star. Riiiight - and the light from the brightest star will really be noticeable, huh? But note that the stars also weren't created until the 4th day.

Does this "Lot" creature has a last name?.
*************
M*W: Lot's full given name was Lot A. Twat.
Study astrophysics. To begin with, the sun wasn't the first star.
*************
M*W: And stars are still being born, so the entirety of the heavens could not have been created that first week.

*************
M*W: Lot's full given name was Lot A. Twat.
Oh really? I thought it was "Lots Of Twat".... :D

*************
M*W: And stars are still being born, so the entirety of the heavens could not have been created that first week.
Geeeeezz... God's a busy pal.... :D

Riiiight - and the light from the brightest star will really be noticeable, huh? But note that the stars also weren't created until the 4th day.
Maybe we got something wrong!
Like... the other day I thought the Canucks would win, but in the end it didn't happen. Maybe the universe is similar. Maybe there's a giant puck flying through the universe!

Everything is possible!
(To some degree?)

Yaba Daba :m:!

ts,

Everything is possible!
(To some degree?)Nah, some things are impossible.

Are you an atheist yet?

Very few Christians in the world consider the Bible as a verbatim history. And besides, many just believe the parts they like or want to believe, and don't believe the others.

Baron Max
That would explain all those that believe in the rapture.

Very few you say?

So you don't have answers for the questions I've put forth, you just prefer to do name calling and dodge the actual issue. Very productive and mature.

Does anyone actually have an explanation, or reasoning behind what is written and why it's believed? Baron did a half-assed job, but I'd like to hear from the Christians who believe that the Bible is the one true word of God.

Kotoko, Baron Max got it right--the Bible was written by Humans--they are fallible in all sorts of ways. I don't need to go into details. The problem is that there's a whole lot of stuff in the Bible that doesn't add up when you analyse it--that's the nature of a series of books that have been written over a long period by a number of different people.

jayleew-

I do not believe that most Christians would agree with you that morals are at all relative. In fact, most would argue that there is NO give on the laws, morals and values from the Bible. It is not open to interpretation.

Xylene-

If the Bible is fallible, why is it that Christians will argue that it is the one true word of God, and there is nothing you can talk to them about?

Baron-

If that is true, why is it that the laws written in Leviticus are held up for the most part (i.e. laws against homosexuality, etc.) but ones about eating pork, and tattoo's are mostly ignored? Then they use the NT as an excuse for not following the laws set out in Leviticus?

*************
M*W: Please provide some references to prove that incest was "frowned upon" in that day... and please confirm the specific "day" you are talking about.


Lot's time was about the same time as the Laws of Hammurabi were written. This does show the morality and general idea of law prior to their being any religious law, and thusly states;

Code of Hammurabi section 157;
If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

http://www.re-quest.net/g2g/historical/laws/hammurabi/index.htm

jayleew-

I do not believe that most Christians would agree with you that morals are at all relative. In fact, most would argue that there is NO give on the laws, morals and values from the Bible. It is not open to interpretation.


Well, if that IS true, then most Christians put their God in a box of limitations of morality and are no better than the Pharisees. They also told Jesus that it is written that no work should be done on the Sabbath and that it was a sin to even harvest corn, but yet him and his disciples did so at the shock of the Pharisees.

The Christians you speak of, I once was, and I found that if I limit God to the morality which is spoken of in the Bible, then I am not allowing God to be greater than what is written about him in the Bible. He may as well be dead, if I believe only what I read or hear about in a book, because something that is alive is not single-minded, unless he be a flawed individual. God is concerned about where your heart is, and that concept is found in Corinthians when Paul talks about eating meat.

It all boils down to not being the judge of another human being.

It is a sin to kill, but God killed. It is not the action God is concerned about, but the motives. That is the essence of morality, and God is bigger than a set of rules.

Another thing: if the Christians think the Bible is not open to interpretation, then they are not Christians by definition. The first Christians, which Paul started, DID interpret the Bible. In fact, it got a little out of hand and people began to think their interpretation was more accurate than another's. So, to be a Christian, you must follow Jesus Christ's teachings and interpret the Bible, just like the first church.

The Bible is absurd if you don't know God. If you don't know God, the Bible is nothing more than what Medicine Woman is saying. It is just a work of fiction. A fairy tale. If I don't believe aliens exist, then any book proclaiming aliens exist that has fallible proof or no proof, is also absurd.

If you don't believe in God, then I agree with you. If you do believe in God, then I don't agree agree with you. So, what is the point of this thread?

ts,

Nah, some things are impossible.
The only impossibility is the lack of possibility.

Are you an atheist yet?
I'm an antagonist. I mean.... I'm agnostic.
... inclined to absurdutism.

How about ya? :p

Yaba Daba! :m:

If you don't believe in God, then I agree with you. If you do believe in God, then I don't agree agree with you. So, what is the point of this thread?
Be silly and create a good atmosphere for a cup of coffee or a good fatty. :m:

Yaba Daba! :m:

Life is absurd.

Yaba Daba! :m:

Lot's time was about the same time as the Laws of Hammurabi were written. This does show the morality and general idea of law prior to their being any religious law, and thusly states;

Code of Hammurabi section 157;
If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

http://www.re-quest.net/g2g/historical/laws/hammurabi/index.htm
*************
M*W: Where do you get the information that Lot's time was 'about' the same time as the Laws of Hammurabi? The morality and idea of the common law prior to the establishment of monotheistic religious law is proof that human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong and, therefore, do not need man-made "religious laws" to supercede his own conscienceness of morality.

I also have a problem with the translation of section 157 and its interpretation. It is based on a son having incestuous sex with his mother after his father had sex with her. Sure, under Hammurabi's Code, this may have been against the 'code,' but it was still practiced and was culturally accepted. The Egyptians were famous for their incestuous breeding to keep the royal bloodlines intact. The tribe of the Abiru who became the ancient Hebrews also followed this law to keep their pharaonic bloodlines intact.

However, the myth of Lot was just a symbolic way of telling a story. Incest at that time wasn't frowned upon in that culture. Using the incest card was a way of telling the story about the genesis of the enemies of Israel even though this particular culture was actually Egyptian. (Has anything really changed in 5,000 years?).

The manner in which Hammarubi's Code was interpreted may leave much to be desired. After all, it wasn't decoded until the early 1900s AD, at a time when biblical scientists and archeologists were greatly influenced by the Church. I believe the connotation of the mother and son being 'burned' for incestuous sex follows closely the story of Isis, Osiris and Horus, and the mythical stories of Aten worship. The sun also burns.

God is good cause He created coffee and the magic leaf.

Yaba Daba! :m:

My contribution to this thread have become meaningless therefore I won't come back again and waste my time and everyone's time.

Time for party.

Yaba Daba! :m: