guide?

....

You act like it's being put forward as a positive example. A smidgin of context indicates that it's not. Moab and Ammon, the nations which are said to come from the children were historical enemies of the Jewish kingdoms. Related ethnically, but distinct politically. Both controlled parts of the important trade route between Egypt and Syria.

We know from external sources that Moab and Omri, king of Israel were at war. Torah identifies Moab as a source of idolatry amongst Israelites. Moabite and Ammonite men were forbidden to marry into Israel because of that.

The story may have been political propaganda against economic powers. It may have been a Just-So story about their common origins. It may have been a warning tale against ritual sexual practices and child sacrifice practiced amongst the Moabites. We don't know enough to understand its role at the time it was told.

But it's highly unlikely that it was seen as a model of good behaviour.

If you're not interested in history, how about reading it as part of the Abraham sequence? Judaism emerged because it vehemently rejected religious practices common to its neighbours. In the sequence, the Jewish covenant has yet to be made. The story is part of where we came from, of what was rejected and left behind.

In terms of today, do you honestly mean to suggest that ONLY simple, positive examples can be used to discuss morality?

Judaism says no. The most complicated, problematic stories - the ones that are hardest to swallow and understand - are the ones that stimulate the richest discussions. The ones that challenge us every time we read them.

Do you want us to whitewash the literature of our ancient past so that people like you who insist on reading the stories as simply as possible don't have to bother with context? We're not going to. They're far too valuable as they are - complicated, messy and challenging.