7

According to the Genesis 19:30-38, when Lot escaped out of Zoar, he went up to the mountains and settled in a cave. While in there, his daughters seduced him while he was drunk so that they could bear children and save their family line.

Does this mean saving one's family line is/was so important that you could have sex with your own offspring? Was Lot really drunk to a point that he didn't know what he was doing? Were the daughters wrong to do it? If so, why didn't Lot take any action afterward?

Mr. Bultitude
  • 15,268
  • 7
  • 81
  • 129
Noah
  • 173
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
    Who justifies this act? I have never met anyone that would justify it. – zefciu Oct 08 '12 at 09:45
  • @zefciu: edited the question. – Noah Oct 08 '12 at 10:35
  • 2
    As @zefciu says, who justifies it? Even with your edits, I don't understand any Christian needs to explain it. I don't know any Christian who thinks they were doing something moral. – Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE Oct 08 '12 at 11:20
  • @Wikis: Lot is considered a prophet in the Bible. And to the best of my understanding, he was a pious person. So, how could a pious person like Lot or his offspring do such a thing? If the story doesn't have any morale behind it, why did they mention it in the first place? – Noah Oct 08 '12 at 11:28
  • 3
    Nowhere in the Bible does it say Lot was a prophet, nor can I think of anywhere he is put forward of a model of piety. Quite the contrary, his history is a long string of compromises, selfish and even immoral acts. Your question specifically asks "how Christian theologians justify this", but you haven't noted a single Christian theologian that does so. As far as I know, there are none. So what is your question? – Caleb Oct 08 '12 at 11:54
  • 2
    Lot is described in 2 Peter as a righteous man, but that doesn't mean that everything he did was righteous, and it certainly doesn't mean everything his kids did was righteous (ask any parent!). As to your last question, the Bible presents the Truth without Photoshopping out inconvenient details. – Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE Oct 08 '12 at 11:55
  • 2
    In addition to @Wiki's comments, it should be noted that that when the NT talks about righteous people, it doesn't mean they were roll models of good behavior, it means that through faith they were people God chose to MAKE righteous. This in no way justifies their immoral acts as sinful people, it just means that God made them part of his people through faith. – Caleb Oct 08 '12 at 11:58
  • @Wikis: Yes, righteous man, sorry for that. In addition to that it's mentioned that Jesus is from his descendent through David's great-grandmother Ruth. Does it mean everything Jesus did was not righteous either? – Noah Oct 08 '12 at 12:12
  • @Caleb: I see. Sorry, I thought he was a prophet of some sort. Do you want me to delete the question? – Noah Oct 08 '12 at 12:14
  • 1
    No, there is no inheritance of righteousness or unrighteousness. Each will be judged on their own works. – Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE Oct 08 '12 at 12:16
  • @Noah: No but I removed that part of the question because without a specific reference to one who does, it's pretty silly for anybody to try to defend them. The rest of your question seems to be addressed nicely already by David's answer. – Caleb Oct 08 '12 at 12:28
  • 1
    We could also mention that this was *before* the Biblical prohibition against incest, similar to : http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5049/did-adam-and-eves-progeny-commit-incest/5050#5050 – David Stratton Oct 08 '12 at 13:04
  • As an FYI, lot's great-grandniece Tamar did the same thing... – Affable Geek Oct 08 '12 at 14:05
  • @Wikis: Looks like I am still confused. If he wasn't a prophet, why did the angels come and ask him to leave? I don't think angels would communicate with an ordinary, run-of-the-mill guy. – Noah Oct 09 '12 at 04:34
  • I think you have a different definition of prophet. I think it would make a good new question, but the Christian definition I would use is someone who speaks the words of God. Hope this helps. – Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE Oct 09 '12 at 05:29

1 Answers1

14

There is no denomination or teaching that I'm aware of that approves of this. Your question shows a lack of understanding of the basic nature of that the Bible is.

It is not a collection of stories, showing heroes in a positive light.

It is a collection of books including teachings, but also, largely in the Old Testament in the Pentateuch and the Books of History, a book of history. In a historical book, at least one that is honest and accurate, the failures, frailties, and sins of the people chronicled are not covered up.

Lot's daughters are not the only ones whose sin is shown. Adam and Eve eating the apple, David's sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's pride, lust, and disobedience, and hundreds of others. The Bible includes these sins because they happened, not because they are somehow approved of.

Far from it, in most of the cases, there are repercussions. Perhaps not immediate, but they happen. This is in line with God's nature. He often gives people the chance to repent of their sins.

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE
  • 17,735
  • 25
  • 84
  • 152
David Stratton
  • 43,923
  • 9
  • 129
  • 233