AIG Defends Lot’s Righteousness

We have often thought that if creationists can defend their bizarre creationist doctrines, they can defend anything. Apparently that’s true. We found proof at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

AIG’s article is Contradictions: A Lot of Righteousness. It’s the latest in a long series of articles explaining away contradictions which abound in scripture. This time they’re concerned that Lot — of Sodom and Gomorrah fame — is referred to in scripture as “righteous.” According to this Wikipedia article: “Jesus is a descendent of Lot through David’s great-grandmother Ruth, who is descended from Lot’s son Moab.”

Remember that name, Moab; it comes up later. But how can Lot — of all people — be considered righteous? Although a nephew of Abraham, Lot lived in Sodom. AIG’s article says, with bold font added by us:

[Scripture] records that Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom when the angels came, and he invited them to his house. When a mob of men came later that evening to molest Lot’s guests [scripture reference], Lot offered his daughters to the crowd in an attempt to satiate them. Providentially, he was prevented from doing so. The angels pulled Lot back into the house and blinded the mob [scripture reference].

The angels saved Lot’s daughters, but Lot was quite willing to give them to the mob. AIG doesn’t go into detail, but we will. Here’s what the Good Book says of Lot’s behavior that night. This is from Genesis 19:8 (King James version, of course). Lot says to the mob:

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Nice guy. Great family values. Then AIG reminds us of Lot’s incest with his daughters. Again, they don’t go into detail and neither shall we; but the tale is told in Genesis 19, starting at verse 30 and running through verse 35. Then the next two verses say:

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

So there’s the Moab connection (but AIG never mentions it). Then AIG returns to the problem with which their essay grapples:

How can we reconcile this in our minds? Lot, the ineffective leader, the indecisive family man, the comfort-loving hedonist, the drunken dad — how could this man be called righteous?

“Drunken dad”? That’s one way to put it. Anyway, we have confidence that AIG can handle this dilemma. If they can believe that Genesis is good science, and Noah’s Flood was a recent historical event, they can talk themselves into believing anything. Here they go, with scripture references deleted:

We only know of Lot’s actions during a short period of his life. We are not told of Lot’s final days, but we do know that while living with Abraham he was a witness to Abraham’s humility, kindness, and faithfulness to God. He also saw Abraham make poor decisions and sin, and then saw him repent. So it is not unreasonable to presume that Lot repented of his sin later in life, and God forgave him as He has promised.

See? It’s “not unreasonable” to assume that Lot was forgiven. Wow — maybe even a Darwinist can find forgiveness! Then, after some gobbledegook, AIG wraps it up with this:

Lot spent too much time around the creature comforts of life in Sodom, and consequently his testimony was tarnished. Yet even in all of this, God was faithful and did not forget that Lot was His servant. God twice delivered him physically, and through the Holy Spirit He conveyed to us that Lot was righteous, signifying more importantly that He delivered Lot from his sins. Though Lot did not live a very outwardly righteous life, he believed in God by faith, and God counted that faith as righteousness.

So there you are. If Lot could be forgiven, maybe even you, dear reader, may yet hope. Oh, wait — AIG has a footnote that helps to explain things:

Note that the laws forbidding sexual relationships between close relations were not codified until the time of Moses in Leviticus 18. Abraham married his half-sister, and Adam’s and Eve’s children married each other. Either way, these actions were carried out by the daughters, who were never called righteous by the Scriptures.

Ah, it was the girls’ fault. Yes, it has always been thus. In conclusion, we return to what we said at the start: If creationists can defend their bizarre creationist doctrines, they can defend anything.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “AIG Defends Lot’s Righteousness

  1. Ken Ham gives me the shivers. He looks just the preacher in the “Poltergeist” movies.

    Either way, these actions were carried out by the daughters…

    Right. The daughters seduced their Dad. Right-o.

    If you talk to anyone from NAMBLA, they always say, “The boy initiated it.”

    Note also that Ken Ham believes in moral relativism. The laws of morality depend on the time you live in. Incest, including having sex with your sister (Seth, Cain) is necessary and ordered by God and all of us are descended from incest.

    Incest (having sex with your daughters and impregnating them in a cave) was OK hunkey-dorey at one time.

    Maybe not now. So, moral values change over time, according to fundamentalists.

  2. Perhaps Ken Ham should form a new organization:

    NAFDLA (North American Father-Daughters Love Association)

  3. Big Lots, the store, totally needs to come up with a new name.

    I suggest using ” Ham and Limas”, (the C ration meal
    referred to in the grunts as” Ham and Motherf*****s” )
    So, “Ham and Limas” the store where everyone, especially dads, get alot.

    No? I’ll bet Ken would like it.

  4. NeonNoodle

    Either way, these actions were carried out by the daughters, who were never called righteous by the Scriptures.

    Well, at least some OT women were righteous. I hear Lot’s wife was a pillar of the community. Or was it salt of the earth?

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    “Note that the laws forbidding sexual relationships between close relations were not codified until the time of Moses in Leviticus 18.”

    Hey, where does “Answers in Genesis” Ham get away with poking around in Leviticus for answers to behavioral questions? Next thing you know Ham will be noting that laws forbidding sexual relationships between humans and animals were not codified until the time of Santorum in Pennsylvania.

    It’s creepy to see biblical authorities spend so much of their time explicating biblical passages that mention human sexuality.

  6. So Ken Ham is going after not only the Bible’s contradictions with reality but also the Bible’s contradictions with itself? Does he really want to open that can of worms? The whole Lot incest thing was added specifically to slander people the Genesis authors didn’t like (the Moabites).
    Incest in its biological context is a movable standard and is generally defined by whatever the local incest taboo is. The genetic purpose of the incest taboo is to prevent recessive lethal alleles from manifesting itself in the next generation. Small gene pools tend to weed these out rather quickly.

  7. but we do know that while living with Abraham he was a witness to Abraham’s humility, kindness, and faithfulness to God.

    How do you know? Were you there?
    (Sorry. Couldn’t resist.)

  8. Ham pretends to “debunk” this contradiction, but he doesn’t actually “debunk” anything. He just supposes that Lot was forgiven. That’s it. He’s not even clear on what the supposed contradiction really is.

    What we know from the Lot story is that (1) women are expendable, and can be used to placate a mob if necessary, (2) that if a father gets drunk and rapes his daughters it must actually be their fault, and (3) that people of other tribes are generally wicked and one shouldn’t live with them lest one be destroyed.

    There is no contradiction between those lessons and other biblical teachings. Ham needn’t have bothered with this one.

  9. The story is nothing but an Israelite “your momma” insult on the Moabites. Only in this case, it’s a “your pappa” insult. The truth or falsity of the story isn’t the point; its to teach young Israelites that those Moabites are a dirty, nasty bunch of inbred hicks.

    It doesn’t even make story-internal sense. I’m supposed to believe Lot got so drunk he collapsed into unconsciousness, but his equipment still worked?

  10. eric says:

    The story is nothing but an Israelite “your momma” insult on the Moabites.

    I never thought you’d turn out to be a Moabite sympathizer.

  11. So it is not unreasonable to presume that Lot repented of his sin later in life, and God forgave him as He has promised.

    But his wife makes one mistake (hardly in the same category as incest/pimping) and gets zapped into a pillar of salt.

  12. johnpieret says: “But his wife makes one mistake …”

    Using the rationale of the article, what happened to Mrs. Lot was not unreasonable.

  13. ‘Note that the laws forbidding sexual relationships between close relations were not codified until the time of Moses in Leviticus 18.’ Euthyphro Dilemma resolved.

    ‘Abraham married his half-sister, and Adam’s and Eve’s children married each other. Either way, these actions were carried out by the daughters, who were never called righteous by the Scriptures.’ Moral relativism sanctioned and sanctified.

  14. I recall Omni magazine had Lot’s wife’s vanity plate as “MS NACL” :-)

  15. The Curmudgeon says:”Using the rationale of the article, what happened to Mrs. Lot was not unreasonable.”

    Nor unseasoned.