The cities were geographically close together, and both were destroyed via natural disasters of earthwuakes and itn explosion or ignition of natural gas deposits. I left out the second city, simply because I didnt' want to look up how to correctly spell it.

BTW, the idea of Sodom beign destryed due to Sodomy was nto the original theme of ht story. It was the lack of hospitality to travelers. In those times travelers were highly dependent on hospitality of strangers when traveling from place to place, and it was how traders were able to survive their travels. Culturally, it was considered a BIG sin to deny hospitality to travelers. As times an culture changed, and hospitality was no longer as necessary, only then they attributed the evil as sodomy. Modern biblical scholars will disagree on this point, but secular (unbiased) scholars pretty much agree the that the evil for which the cities were destroyed was their lack of hospitality.

I agree that there were no "angels" and nobody turned into a pillar of salt, but the ctities were destroyed, via and earthquake, release of massive natural gas deposits resulting in explosions and flames, as verified by archeologists and geologists. The religious stories though were created after the fact to explain why it happened.

Some are so dumbfounded that even today they point of a rock that is supposed to be the "pillar of salt" that was once Lot's wife.

Well, like I said, Sodom was actually destroyed because and earthquake released natrual gas deposits which then exploded and burned down the city. Most stories, biblical or otherwise have a spark of truth in them, even if the story told is far from reality. This has been pretty much confirmed by archeologists and geologists.

If a man killed his wife, because he lusted after his own daughters, and then due to a natural disaster, Sodom was destroyed, He might very well make up a story about angels and god to make himself seem innocent. Or, he might hve killed his wife after ti they city was destroyes seeing an opportunity.

The degree of confirmation is wildly less than you suggest. This from the historicity section on Wiki is correct "Some possible natural explanations for the events described have been proposed, but no widely accepted or strongly verified sites for the cities have been found. Of the five "cities of the plain", only Bela, modern-day Zoara, is securely identified, and it remained a settlement long after the biblical period."

Also, it not true that most stories have a kernel of truth to them.

From Genesis 1:1 until after somewhere in Judges there is virtually no history at all. There is no reason to think the story of Lott is closer to historical than Moses and we know that is UTTER fiction.

So, like I said... It makes more sense that none of it happened.

I guess the edit is broken, but I was trying to fix spell of Lott to Lot.

Could be. It also puts into scripture an excuse for men to have sex with their daughters if they are drunk.

Well, yes, the original story was a bunk, and had a lot of problems with it, which is why it always bothered me.

I think if a man like Lot ever existed, he killed his wife and attributed her death to the natural disaster of the earthquake and explosion of natural gas deposits in Sodom, and he probably killed his wife because he lusted after hie own daughters. I suspect he first demanded hsi daughters bring him wine, and then blamed them for getting him drunk and what he did to them afterwards. This would not atypical behavior of an aloholic or addict.

I'd think the messengers (angels) part of th story was just made up (or the whoel scene was generated by DTs). I think, if the story of Lot is based on a real person, he killed his wife because he lusted after his own daughters, and saw the natural disaster of Sodom as an opportunity to explain her disappearance.

I'd suspect Abraham would buy into the story told. People who want ot believe do so, despite holes in the logic or who fantastic the tale.

Remember the key to religious belief is the willful ignorance of anythign that does nto support that belief.