The End of Sodom, A Heartwarming Tale Where a Righteous Man Tries to Rescue Angels by Having a Mob Rape His Daughters.

Please read  Sodom and Gomorrah, Countdown to a Massacre first.  It is integral to understanding this post.

If you have already read it then let us continue.  The two angels who visited Abraham  finally make it to Sodom. At the city gate they meet Lot, Abraham’s favorite nephew.  Lot, nearly as sycophantic as Abraham, knows who they are and bows very low, face to the ground.  He begs them to come and stay at his house for the evening.  They refuse wanting to sleep in the town square, but Lot is quite persistent, so finally, they consent to be his guests.

Just before turning in for the night, they all mob at the door. It seems that every townsman, every single person in Sodom has turned out for an angelic gang bang.  “They call to Lot and say to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.'”  This must have been a hot pair of Angels.

So Lot goes out to talk with them.  He says “I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don’t do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof.”   To paraphrase, he is perfectly willing to give up his virgin daughters to be raped repeatedly just to protect his very powerful guests.  You will note that he fails to offer his own body to the crowd, but those of his girls are fair game.  Quite the humanitarian!

When the deeply evangelical christian try to point out how bad the world has gotten, how we are presently so terrible and so sinful that God is nearly ready to return, I like to think of righteous men like Lot who would throw his own girls to the wolves to protect his god, but less willing to give  of himself.  If this event were to happen today, how would our “fallen” morality judge Lot?  How would this terrible and sinful age view him? Would he be a righteous man, bright in the eyes of the Lord?    If he were to run for president today, what would America make of this action.  Do you really think he would stand a chance if the public knew he offered his virtuous girls to rapists to protect his male guests.  I think not.  He who would not protect his family to the bitter end is no man, divine guests or no.

Offering your daughters to the gang bang, has to be the worst possible moral answer in this admittedly difficult question. But Lot is a righteous man of his age.  This is one of God’s chosen on Earth.  This.. , this “man” is the contemptible creature who God chose to rescue from Sodom’s destruction.  Lot was selfish and a coward. His behavior reminds me greatly of how the worst elements of Islam treat their women,as property, as chattel, as conveniences.  I see nothing redeeming in Lot’s character what-so-ever.  His vileness is only matched by the god he protects.

More questions arise.  Why would angels need protecting?  These are beings with the power to destroy the entire countryside, yet Lot thinks they need saving?  Why?  Does he just want to make an impression with the angels, a “Hey! Look at what I’m willing to give up for you!!” kind of thing.   The reality is they should be saving him, which they did, but not before that horrible offer Lot made.  For that offer alone Lot should have been shackled to his doorpost to witness the destruction of Sodom first hand.

So Lot is warned to flee with his family and off he goes.  Some minor bargaining ensues as to where he should flee, as he reaches the minimum safe distance, sulfurous fire begins to rain onto Sodom.  Lot’s wife turns to look and is transformed into a pillar of salt.  Lot and the ‘nearly given to rapists’ daughters escape.

Whew!  It’s been quite a ride!

So Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt for the grand and great crime of looking at the destruction God wrought.  Why?  Is the crime of looking at what is likely the greatest show in the world such a terrible one?  Is merely witnessing the sacred genocide worthy of destruction?  This is absurd!  This is another of those arbitrary rules that God just makes up as he goes along.  He simply throws out a minefield to destroy a few people. What other possibility is there?  He couldn’t control his own death ray?  That smacks of impotence.  Didn’t he know that she would turn?  That smacks of a lack of prescience.  If he is truly all-powerful he could have topped her destruction.  He didn’t.  If he is all-seeing, he should have known she was going to turn to look.  He didn’t do this either.

Either he lost control and therefore isn’t perfect, or he wanted it to happen for such a paltry crime and therefore he isn’t merciful. I can see no other direction for the needle to point.  You can’t have it both ways.   It takes a vast amount of spin doctoring to weasel your way from under both of these possibilities. By a reading of only this section, anyone can see that either he is potentially kind but inept or he reigns supreme but is cruel.

Have you ever wondered if, perhaps, the wrong one was thrown out of heaven?

    • Joel Wheeler
    • February 9th, 2010

    You skipped the part where Lot makes babies with his daughters!

    • donK
    • February 11th, 2010

    That’s not the spin I remember growing up in the church.

    • ottoman, BTIT
    • February 13th, 2010

    The girls and I thank you for mentioning them today.


    Bubbles and Trixie Institute of Theology

    • Grikmeer
    • February 24th, 2010

    I always thought Satan was the good guy in that story. Then again, I’m mildly obsessed with Paradise Lost…

      • gestalt1
      • February 24th, 2010


    • CHRIS
    • March 2nd, 2010

    Joel, the daughters actually rape Lot, don’t they? They get him drunk and rape him. Out of pity because his wife died without leaving him sons. Or something.

    Is that right? I read the Bible for Lent as a six year old devout Catholic. Is turning atheist before you make your Communion some kind of record?

    No horrible godless atheists were necessary to turn me away from the Church. The Old Testament did it just fine.

    • numpty
    • March 6th, 2010

    I’ve always wondered how one recognises an Angel. Is it the wings, the halos, the saintly look, the angelic expressions of utter joy or is it something more simple like a “I’m with God” T-shirt!?

  1. All of this absurdity threw up alarm bells when I was first exposed to all this. It’s what ended up pointing me away from a literal (or even semi-divine) reading of the bible, toward viewing it as a historical, ethnic document.

    It sounds like either an explanation for why a region was salt-ridden and desolate (dead sea?) or for a natural disaster of some kind. Moral embellishments followed.

    It’s hard to stick my head in the literalist tent for very long…

    • jester700
    • October 18th, 2010

    Apparently the original text isn’t clear on a few things, like were the mob all male, and did they really want to rape the angels and why.

    This is a great blog. I’ve always been atheist, so it’s helpful to read stories like yours when I often wonder “WTF are these religious folks thinking?”

  2. Good article from Religious Tolerance–their stuff is generally very good, very even-handed. I’ve read through a lot of their stuff, but hadn’t seen that particular article. Thanks!

  3. I’d never come across the Religious Tolerance site before. Thanks Jester.

    Re Lot’s daughters date-rape of their father that Chris mentions. I’ve always read it as meaning they thought they were the sole survivors of the Human race, so did what they did as an extreme measure to carry on the race. A good example of morals changing with circumstances as we were talking about elsewhere.

    As regards the angels, I’ve never understood why presumably supernatural beings couldn’t look after their own defence…

    • Nancy B
    • October 19th, 2010

    Reading the Religious Tolerance article, I got to thinking, there sure is a lot of sex in this book. I mean, the people that push this book the most are always harping about “family values,” and “think of the children.” I remember when Monica Lewinsky was on the news, that also on the news were christian parents complaining, “What are we supposed to tell our children?”

    Then they force those same children to read the bible. “We want to bleep the angels.” “Here, rape my daughters instead!”

    Please. Won’t someone think of the children. ;-)

    • Posted on There are two fundamental prmelbos with your belief unfortunately. The first is what document did you use to determine Jesus is a divine authority ? The Bible? If so, how were you able to determine what parts of the Bible apply to society and which parts do not? And given that you apparently believe in parts of the Bible and not others, what makes you believe in the parts that declares Jesus divine? How are you not questioning all parts of the Bible? Simply put, only mankind can take parts of the Bible and outright declare some of it wrong. God breathed the words (2 Timothy 3:16) and man put ink to scroll. So when it comes to the first problem, you have written off chunks of the Bible while retaining others at your own whim. Additionally that still doesn’t explain why God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and not Moses and Paul. Secondly, where does it show that Jesus supports homosexuality? It doesn’t. Love does not constitute support. Jesus loves all humans, even those that have committed the worse kinds of sin. But that doesn’t change the fact that a sin is a sin and can get you a first class ticket to hell. So hopefully you are not confusing love with support. But there is nothing from Jesus that declares homosexuality appropriate nor does he declare any part of the Bible inaccurate.Bottom line, while there are several places in the Bible that declares homosexuality a sin, there are no places in the Bible that say it is not a sin. That requires a leap from the pages. The Bible is divinely written and without error.

  4. “…there sure is a lot of sex in this book.”

    Yeah….that’s what I always thought when you get to that bit in Exodus where it goes on…and on… about whose nakedness you’re not supposed to uncover. My first thought was “wow–there sure must have been a lot of uncovering going on in those Hebrew camps…” and then “They never used *this* passage for the readings at church!”

    It’s pretty bad when you have to bowdlerize your holy text so it’s appropriate for a mixed audience…:))

  5. “It’s pretty bad when you have to bowdlerize your holy text so it’s appropriate for a mixed audience…”

    After spending 2,000 years browbeating them into seeing nakedness as sinful in the first place…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers

%d bloggers like this: