Agnostic.com

11 3

I always had doubts about the story of Lot. I mean his wife suddenly dies, he claims in Sodom, when an earthquake released natural gas deposits which caused a massive explosion, (what you didn't think it was really god did you? Archeologists and geologist figured out what really happened.) Then, he claims his daughters, both of them, got him drunk and had sex with him, repeatedly, so they could have children. I mean the whole thing sounds like what any alcoholic would make up in order to try to justify what they did while drunk. For years being drunk was an excuse for misbehaving.

Just for the record, when I was getting my AA in addiction studies, they conducted studies with drunk people and no matter how drunk they got, even to where they had black outs, when questioned at the time of their actions they were aware of what they were doing and still knew right from wrong... which is why we now hold drunk drivers fully responsible for their actions.
So, no matter how drink he was, Lot knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.

I suspect that the daughters would tell a much different story; about how their father first demanded that they get him wine, and then once drink he proceeded to molest and/or rape them. The women weren't taught how to write, and so Lot got to put his spin on the story to make his actions not look so bad, but basically he was a man who raped his own daughters... drunk or not.

I suspect that Lot killed his wife because she saw how her husband was lusting after their daughters and was objecting to it. The natural disaster in Sodom just gave him cover for getting away with it.

I ask you, what makes more sense as to what really happened?

snytiger6 9 Jan 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Maybe, but this is all sort of like wondering why pixies are playing in your shoes and wanting to know what they might do next.

1

Lot was in Genesis. There is no reason to think it historical at all.

In the OT, there is virtually zero history until after Moses. We know the story of the Exodus and Moses are fiction. Genesis is the "what came before" this story of fiction.

"Archeologists and geologist figured out what really happened" This is not true. If you've got good evidence of this, whip it out and change my mind. People have offered those as hypothesis. I am aware of no credible scholar putting any stock into it. We don't know for certain that those cities even EXISTED, let alone how the might have been destroyed. Of the five cities on the plain, only Bela/Zoara is confirmed to actually exist.

What makes the most sense is the story is fiction, like the rest of the pages in Genesis.

1

First testament is a bunch of fairytales

1

Sounds a lot more plausible than the God story.

1

The story said that there were 2 evil cities, Sodom and Gemorra. God destroyed Sodom because they used to practise sodomy there. Gemorra got destroyed too, but I wonder what they did there that was so awful, was it Gemorrary?

The cities were geographically close together, and both were destroyed via natural disasters of earthwuakes and itn explosion or ignition of natural gas deposits. I left out the second city, simply because I didnt' want to look up how to correctly spell it.

BTW, the idea of Sodom beign destryed due to Sodomy was nto the original theme of ht story. It was the lack of hospitality to travelers. In those times travelers were highly dependent on hospitality of strangers when traveling from place to place, and it was how traders were able to survive their travels. Culturally, it was considered a BIG sin to deny hospitality to travelers. As times an culture changed, and hospitality was no longer as necessary, only then they attributed the evil as sodomy. Modern biblical scholars will disagree on this point, but secular (unbiased) scholars pretty much agree the that the evil for which the cities were destroyed was their lack of hospitality.

0

None of it happened ... Easy

I agree that there were no "angels" and nobody turned into a pillar of salt, but the ctities were destroyed, via and earthquake, release of massive natural gas deposits resulting in explosions and flames, as verified by archeologists and geologists. The religious stories though were created after the fact to explain why it happened.

Some are so dumbfounded that even today they point of a rock that is supposed to be the "pillar of salt" that was once Lot's wife.

2

cool forensic deduction Sherlock. I personally like this idea. For me I just read the stories and don't try to read to much into them. Human nature has not changed and so thses tales of human foibles ring as true today as when they were writen.

2

It makes more sense that none of it happened at all.

Well, like I said, Sodom was actually destroyed because and earthquake released natrual gas deposits which then exploded and burned down the city. Most stories, biblical or otherwise have a spark of truth in them, even if the story told is far from reality. This has been pretty much confirmed by archeologists and geologists.

If a man killed his wife, because he lusted after his own daughters, and then due to a natural disaster, Sodom was destroyed, He might very well make up a story about angels and god to make himself seem innocent. Or, he might hve killed his wife after ti they city was destroyes seeing an opportunity.

The degree of confirmation is wildly less than you suggest. This from the historicity section on Wiki is correct "Some possible natural explanations for the events described have been proposed, but no widely accepted or strongly verified sites for the cities have been found. Of the five "cities of the plain", only Bela, modern-day Zoara, is securely identified, and it remained a settlement long after the biblical period."

Also, it not true that most stories have a kernel of truth to them.

From Genesis 1:1 until after somewhere in Judges there is virtually no history at all. There is no reason to think the story of Lott is closer to historical than Moses and we know that is UTTER fiction.

So, like I said... It makes more sense that none of it happened.

I guess the edit is broken, but I was trying to fix spell of Lott to Lot.

1

Perhaps it's just a story told around a campfire or among a bunch of guys dreaming about having a lot of forbidden sex.

gearl Level 8 Jan 11, 2018

Could be. It also puts into scripture an excuse for men to have sex with their daughters if they are drunk.

1

More logical than the original, but the original story was bunk anyway.

Well, yes, the original story was a bunk, and had a lot of problems with it, which is why it always bothered me.

I think if a man like Lot ever existed, he killed his wife and attributed her death to the natural disaster of the earthquake and explosion of natural gas deposits in Sodom, and he probably killed his wife because he lusted after hie own daughters. I suspect he first demanded hsi daughters bring him wine, and then blamed them for getting him drunk and what he did to them afterwards. This would not atypical behavior of an aloholic or addict.

0

I like that; it would make a great jumping off point for a novel. How are you going to handle the Messengers? What do you think Uncle Abraham's reaction was when Lot told him the story? Do you think there's a tie-in to Noah's sons sexually abusing him after he got drunk?

I've seen the pillar of salt, but IIRC it's not anywhere near any of the candidate sites for Sodom.

I'd think the messengers (angels) part of th story was just made up (or the whoel scene was generated by DTs). I think, if the story of Lot is based on a real person, he killed his wife because he lusted after his own daughters, and saw the natural disaster of Sodom as an opportunity to explain her disappearance.

I'd suspect Abraham would buy into the story told. People who want ot believe do so, despite holes in the logic or who fantastic the tale.

Remember the key to religious belief is the willful ignorance of anythign that does nto support that belief.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:14422
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.