CAA said- You bring up a good point as well about the situation with LOT. How can God think it admirable to offer his daughters up to men to commit fornication??? Not only was Lot a coward he was a freak.
If you're a Xian who believes the book of 2nd Peter is inspired by God, you'd know that Lot is declared "righteous" by 'Peter', even AFTER offering his daughters to a mob and committing drunken incest with them. How many victims of incest have suffered due to the Bible's portrayal of a perp in Genesis, only to be portrayed as "righteous" in the NT?
I wrote a three-part article on the moral mess created by the anonymous author of 2nd Peter, since it forces Bible believers to defend unrighteous Lot, who was intentionally made out to be as someone who turned his back on Jehovah and was unrighteous on his own merit, but was saved as a personal favor extended by Jehovah to his clearly-righteous uncle Abraham:
http://awgue.weebly.com/article-pt-1-revisiting-sodom-was-lot-supposed-to-be-viewed-as-a-righteous-man.html
Not only that, but you'd THINK Xians would be storming to protest a case of ID theft committed against the real Apostle Peter long ago, but nope! Not a moral backbone in the bunch....
"Angels don't have bodies or hormones." Yet another small yet huge detail. :(Really if he sees everything why even let them do this? Why would you give angels the ability to create sperm and penises???
Worse though, is that the Genesis flood account says that angels were able to create offspring with humans both before and after the Flood, so even after wiping out the entire human population because of the corruption of humans caused by the Nephilim half-breeds, God forgits (sic) to patch the loophole in Heavenly rules which allowed them to corrupt human lineage, in the first place.
The reason that early listeners of the tales weren't bothered by such mistakes is they were gullible and didn't even think to ask such questions, since they weren't concerned with little continuity details: ancient people generally weren't abstract thinkers, but concrete thinkers. Abstract thought (i.e. being able to apply PRINCIPLES to other situations than those originally presented) was only emerging in humans at the time, and generally wasn't found in ancient people. Besides, asking such questions was to question Divine authority, and hence was blasphemy, punishable by death. Abstract thinking was a crime.
However, the shift in thinking towards abstractions is seen in Jesus' use of more abstract thought (eg he readily relied on parables). But even there, Jesus only confused his audience (and his apostles) since parables are simply begging to be misunderstood, due to their nebulous interpretations. Jesus also exploited the power of abstract thought by going overboard, since he advocated taking it to extremes, eg by advocating faith as a virtue. Jesus even polemicized those (such as 'Doubting Thomas') concrete thinkers who still demanded concrete evidence upon which to base their beliefs, rather than simply going with the evidence that they could imagine in their minds.
Adam
