Whacked Bible Contradictions: 4

November 3, 2009 at 6:02 pm 38 comments

Folks tend to think of the Bible as the go-to source for family values. Seems the Bible is a bit confounding on this topic though.

The Bible says Lot was a righteous man.
II Peter 2:7, “he [God] rescued Lot, a righteous man,”
But
The Bible also says that Lot got drunk, had sex with his own daughters, and got them both pregnant.
Genesis 19:33-36, “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. 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.” 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. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.”

Now some friends of mine from the South of the U.S. like to make jokes along these lines, but honestly, if any man did this with his daughters, would anyone call him a righteous man?

Enough incest. How about looking instead at attainder?

Exodus 20:5 says that God will punish a child for his father’s sin, “for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,”.
But
Ezekiel 18:20 says he won’t, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

Lot’s sons would probably have hope that latter passage was right.  Oh wait, Lot was righteous… or was he?  I’m confused.

And now just to add to the confusion; the Bible tells us:

Gloat:
Psalm 58:10 — “The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
Gloat not:
Proverbs 24:17 — “Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice,“

The law can convert us:
Psalm 19:7 — “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul”
The law can convert us not:
Romans 8:3 — “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son”

- LeoPardus

Entry filed under: LeoPardus. Tags: , , .

Whacked Bible Contradictions: 3 Whacked Bible Contradictions: 5

38 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Joshua  |  November 3, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    These are getting better with each post, keep ‘em coming!

  • 2. Roy  |  November 3, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    Obviously Lot’s daughters had issues, but what is actually hard for me to grasp is how a guy could have sexual intercourse with his two daughters in a drunken stupor and be completely unaware of it happening. I suspect that maybe they spilled his seed on themselves for perverted reasons that we shall never know. Talk about a families dirty laundry being aired.

  • 3. DSimon  |  November 4, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Now some friends of mine from the South of the U.S. like to make jokes along these lines, but honestly, if any man did this with his daughters, would anyone call him a righteous man?

    Well, based on only the section pasted, it seems like he didn’t do anything wrong; his daughters raped him.

  • 4. LeoPardus  |  November 4, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    I dunno. Getting so drunk that you have blackouts would qualify in my book as doing something wrong. And remember that according to the story, there were just him and his two daughters living in a cave. You’d think staying alert for danger would be important. Definitely not an example of fine fatherhood. And not who I’d hold up as a “righteous man”.
    But then,,,,,,,, God’s ways are not our ways…. :P

  • 5. mikespeir  |  November 4, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    Sure, here it’s easy to protest that it was his daughters who were at fault. But what about 19:8? That’s what makes me question just what “righteous” meant to “Peter” and why I would want to be righteous in that way.

  • 6. Joshua  |  November 4, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    Talk about a families dirty laundry being aired.

    It sounds like legend to me. Like that whole pillar of salt thing.

    There is just too much symmetry and too few obvious questions unanswered… it is as if the author does not want things questioned but wants us to be unquestioningly mesmerized by the story.

    In our Genesis class, we discussed in detail how “Moses” heard about these stories so that they could be written down. Oral transmission is an unavoidable element.

    If Moses was “inspired” and did not take from oral transmission, he still would have had conflict with the oral stories of the people. If Moses borrowed from the orally transmitted stories, the text is dependent upon their format and accuracy.

    The point is that the best orally transmitted stories must not be packaged in picture-perfect accuracy, they must be packaged in a way that is easily remembered. This involves symmetry, poetic elements, emotional cadence, etc.

    At that point, it is irrelevent to ask “which portions of the story are true?” Since there is no possible way to know. Is it “true” that Lot was blacked out or conscious of what was happening? Goodness, that little question makes a massive difference in Lot’s guilt in the matter!

    However, for a fundamentalist, they could simply argue that since God does not say, it means that Lot’s guilt is irrelevant to the point of the story. Ummm, right.

    Not to mention that each person’s interpretation and subjective emotional reaction to the story is going to be different.

    It is better to ask the question “does this story do us any good, right now?”

    And I, quite frankly, think this story does not do us any good, except to teach us not to get drunk around your horny daughters that you forced to grow up in a city where gang-rape apparently was an expected occurrence.

  • 7. Joe  |  November 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    What happened with Lot was horrendous. But I think the “righteousness” being spoken of in the NT is an “imputed righteousness”. Abraham wasn’t considered righteous in himself either—it says his “faith counted as righteousness”.

    Paul is also a good example of this. Remember, before he was Paul he was Saul, and was persecuting and having Christians stoned to death. If we look at Paul and his past behavior we would sincerely question his “righteousness” also. I think we have to look at Lot in this way also—-he did some horrendous things but his “righteousness” isn’t based on a few failures (though admittedly they were quite severe), but on his faith towards God.

    Probably not a great explanation, but just my thoughts.

  • 8. mikespeir  |  November 4, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    “Probably not a great explanation….”

    Oh, it’s a great explanation from a Christian standpoint, just a sorry concept.

  • 9. Joe  |  November 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    You’re welcome.

  • 10. Lucian  |  November 4, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    If someone gets a girl drunk and has intercourse with her while she’s unconscious, whose sin is it? His, or the girl’s? If You say it’s his, why do You blame Lot?

  • 11. Roy  |  November 5, 2009 at 12:01 am

    And I, quite frankly, think this story does not do us any good, except to teach us not to get drunk around your horny daughters that you forced to grow up in a city where gang-rape apparently was an expected occurrence.

    I have to agree that it does us no good. I don’t think that any part of the whole Sodom story does us any good except to provide a name for ludicrous laws that criminalize consensual behavior.

    If someone gets a girl drunk and has intercourse with her while she’s unconscious, whose sin is it? His, or the girl’s? If You say it’s his, why do You blame Lot?

    According to the story, they made Lot drink wine. I’m not sure I understand exactly how you would make somebody drink wine. He did not perceive the laying down or the getting up. The question is did he perceive what happened between the laying down and the getting up? It is certainly possible for a woman to engage in intercourse without being conscious of it, but I’m not sure it is for a man. Anybody have any experience with this?

  • 12. Quester  |  November 5, 2009 at 2:09 am

    In the Hebrew scriptures, righteousness is an odd concept for me. It can’t be gained through adherence to the law before the law was given. It can’t be from being people of the covenant, before the covenant was formed. The Christian scriptures, as Joe points out, argue that righteousness came through faith. Again, this faith was not expressed through adherence to a law that wasn’t given, nor being a part of a relationship that wasn’t established. Nor was faith something that made one righteous if given to the unnumbered “false” gods of the time. What made Noah, for example, better than anyone else of the time period?

  • 13. Roy  |  November 5, 2009 at 2:45 am

    What made Noah, for example, better than anyone else of the time period?

    Nothing except perhaps the foresight to build an ark.

  • 14. Joe  |  November 5, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Roy (#11)–

    A guy here at work said that once he got so drunk he walked through a plate glass door and woke up the next morning with blood on his shirt and glass in his shoes, and had no idea how it had happened. Someone had to tell him he had crashed through a glass door.

    So, could a man get drunk enough to have sex with a woman and not recall one moment of it? I believe so. :>)

  • 15. HeIsSailing  |  November 5, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    Joe says:

    So, could a man get drunk enough to have sex with a woman and not recall one moment of it? I believe so.

    As a 45 year-old man of some experience, let me say this:

    If you are old enough to have two grown daughters, there is NO WAY you are ejaculating on two consecutive nights while being so drunk you cannot remember a moment of it.

  • 16. BigHouse  |  November 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    If you get so drunk that acts like these can take place without your knowledge, then fault the guy for horrible choices with alcohol. It doesn’t absolve someone of the repercussions of their actions that they got blotto enough for them to occur.

  • 17. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    “As a 45 year-old man of some experienc… there is NO WAY you are ejaculating on two consecutive nights while being so drunk you cannot remember a moment of it.”

    I am now either extremely curious or extremely concerned. I’m not sure which :)

  • 18. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Hmmm, I meant in reference to the two grown daughters thing… not just having sex on two consecutive nights.

    *joshfail*

  • 19. Roy  |  November 5, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    So, could a man get drunk enough to have sex with a woman and not recall one moment of it? I believe so. :>)

    My point was actually that an erection is necessary to consumate the deed. Drunkenness to the point of unconsciousness is not good for erectile functionality.

    If you are old enough to have two grown daughters, there is NO WAY you are ejaculating on two consecutive nights while being so drunk you cannot remember a moment of it.

    It has to be erect first.

    Hmmm, I meant in reference to the two grown daughters thing… not just having sex on two consecutive nights.

    LOL. I’ll leave that one for HIS to ponder.

  • 20. Roy  |  November 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    … and besides the alcohol induced stupor, he was probably a couple a hundred years old when the sordid affair went down. If you asked me, I would say the deck is ever so slightly stacked against the truth of this story.

  • 21. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    “If you asked me, I would say the deck is ever so slightly stacked against the truth of this story.”

    Alas, this sums up religion.

  • 22. Joe  |  November 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Hels (#15)—

    My Dad (God rest his soul) was an alcoholic. He told some amazing stories of “binges” he went on. One morning he woke up and found that he had gone to Sears the night before and bought enough merchandise to fill about 5 large bags. He recalled nothing of going to the store or of purchasing the merchandise.

    The point I am trying to make is that it is very possible for people to get so drunk they don’t remember things. I would have to admit though that the story about the man whose wife became a pillar of salt and then had sex with his daughters and didn’t recall it is peppered with inconsistencies.

  • 23. BigHouse  |  November 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    “The point I am trying to make is that it is very possible for people to get so drunk they don’t remember things.”

    Does this absolve them of their actions theretofore?

  • 24. Roy  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Does this absolve them of their actions theretofore?

    Of course not. Moderation is the key when using ethenol or any other intoxicant.

  • 25. Joe  |  November 5, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    BigHouse (#23)–

    Of course not. My point had nothing to do with absolving anyone—I was just commenting on the fact that people can get so out of their mind drunk that they could forget they had sex with someone.

    In the movie, “Me, myself and Irene” Jim Carrey gets extremely drunk, gets up in the morning and begins to pee. He then shouts out loudly “Did I have sex last night??!!?”

  • 26. BigHouse  |  November 5, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    If it doesn’t absolve them then the discussion is mostly a red herring. Lot is not righteous because he got blotto on multiple occasions, leading to sex with his daughters!

  • 27. Joe  |  November 5, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    BigHouse (#26)—

    I don’t know about “multiple occasions”—we know of two. Yes, Lot got “blotto” as you put it, but people have been known to drink away their sorrows—and he had just lost his wife. Doesn’t excuse what happened, but kind of gives you an idea how he might be susceptible to getting drunk.

    I do also have to point out that it has happened where a “loser drunk” might do a supreme act of valor, loke saving someone from a burning house and he is called a “righteous hero”–so one act of righteousness may outweigh many acts of foolishness. Just a though—just playing “devil’s advocate” here. :)

  • 28. BigHouse  |  November 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    2 doesn’t count as multiple in your lexicon, Joe? You might want to get a new dictionary and perhaps a new apologetics pretzel recipe too :-)

  • 29. Joe  |  November 6, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Big—

    Normally, one speaks like this:

    Once, twice, multiple occasions (meaning you are starting to lose count). :)

  • 30. Joe  |  November 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Big—

    I mean do you say to a friend if you went to visit twice “I went to your house on multiple occasions” or do you say “I’ve been to your house twice” ? :)

  • 31. BigHouse  |  November 6, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Joe, are you focusing on this meaningless semantic sidepoint because you fear your understanding of this story and it’s place in the Bible has been shaken?

  • 32. Anonymous  |  November 6, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Big–

    You’re too funny. You started it in #28. I’m sinply responding to your enquiry my friend. :)

  • 33. Joe  |  November 6, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Big—

    You started it in #28. I am simply responding to your enquiry my friend. :)

  • 34. Joe  |  November 6, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Sorry for the repeat—-came up as anonymous the first time. :)

  • 35. BigHouse  |  November 6, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    So, you agree, then that Lot being characterized as righteous is a Biblical contradiction?

  • 36. BigHouse  |  November 6, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    And my 28 was in response to your start to 27.

  • 37. Joe  |  November 6, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    bIG (#35)–

    I already shared my reasons (playing devil’s advocate) as to why Lot is called “righteous” biblically. One can do horrendous things —-David is a great example of that—–yet still be considered a “righteous” person due to their faith, and from asking for forgiveness for their horrible sins. The “righteousness” declared is coming from the divine perspective, not the human, as He would in the end know the hearts.

  • 38. Ken  |  December 2, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Could be that they all just went nuts after seeing everyone and everything they had known blown to smithereens including mom turning into a giant salt lick. Girls just acting out from what they’d learned in the ‘hood and Dad a drunken wreck. No excuses, just the way it was written. Good folks do crazy things in tough times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,007,130 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers