Lot, One of the Bible's bad Guys

[Saint Frankenstein]

Haha, fair enough. But that's the point though. That's what most guys assume and why Lot conveyed that fact.

I don't think that was the point. A virgin daughter in that culture would've been a great treasure of sorts to a father. So for him to offer up his virginal daughters as a sacrifice to protect his guests would have been viewed as an extremely selfless action and driving home the point of hospitality in a very blunt, hyperbolic manner.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I don't think that was the point. A virgin daughter in that culture would've been a great treasure of sorts to a father. So for him to offer up his virginal daughters as a sacrifice to protect his guests would have been viewed as an extremely selfless action and driving home the point of hospitality in a very blunt, hyperbolic manner.

I am not refuting that. My point was to illustrate to the posters that denied the mob was looking to rape, was that Lot conveyed the information to the mob that his daughters were virgins was to entice the mob to rape them and not the angel guests.

 

[InChrist]

That is one possibility.
Of course, you can also do the exact same thing and get the Bible to say whatever you want.
Thus the 100,000+ denominations of Christianity.

Yes, you are right. Anyone can make the Bible at least appear to say whatever they want and as you have pointed out there are so many denominations which have different perspectives. Along with the,various pseudo-Christian groups and cults which give the scriptures their own slant. I admit that I am just as vulnerable to doing the same thing. Yet, I think that is all the more reason for the importance of constantly seeking God to reveal truth through His word and to be willing to be corrected by the Holy Spirit, rather than depend on one's own human ability as final authority. I see the Bible as the living word of God that will bring correction and conviction when I'm wrong.

From what I've seen, pretty much all denominations of truly born again believers agree on the essential fundamentals of the biblical faith. The variations between denominations is often not over essentials, but less important issues simply because every believer or group of believers is unique and at a different place in their life and relationship with the Lord. I really appreciate that biblical Christianity allows for the uniqueness of each individual, as opposed to the conformity mentality of cults, yet I trust as the scriptures say that God is bringing all believers to a unity of the faith, in His own way, and in His timing, as He works in each believer's life.

...till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:13-16

 

[Thana]

It's been awhile so the name of the thread eludes me but I distinctly remember on another thread you spinning and ignoring scripture to justify your stance on accepting homosexuals. Yet when it comes to everything else, like genocide ect, you're justifying God's actions.

It's like you only think God is morally objective up until the point it becomes politically incorrect to do so.

"God exterminates men, women and children indiscriminately? Phew, I can live with that. For a second there I thought he was singling out homosexuals"

Is really how you come off.

Oh I am totally and perfectly fine calling homosexual acts sins. Just as adultery is sin and pre-martial sex is sin. But since 80% of us are guilty of one of those three, I don't think focusing on homosexuality or singling it out has much of a point. I don't accept homosexuality as right, Only that it is a personal choice and with God giving us Free will people should have the right to make that choice unhindered by the judgements of others. That's it. It's got nothing to do with political correctness. I could care less about it.

And we all die. We were born to die. Get over it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Only that it is a personal choice

But what of the constant insistence, from homosexuals, that it's not a choice? Why would someone choose a lifestyle that puts them at a much higher risk of being targeted for bullying, harassment, discrimination, and violence?

 

[Thana]

But what of the constant insistence, from homosexuals, that it's not a choice? Why would someone choose a lifestyle that puts them at a much higher risk of being targeted for bullying, harassment, discrimination, and violence?

I never said the attraction was a choice, just that the act was.

 

[Shad]

.

The kind of slavery seen in Southern American states in the past was not the kind of slavery undertaken in Israel. You have to understand "slavery" in Biblical terms, in the culture and the times.

Actually it was. European immigrants could become indentured servants to cover the costs of passage and settlement. This is the in-group. Africans could be buy, sold, as slaves and kept as slaves for life. This is the out-group. In the Bible Hebrews were the in-group and everyone else was the out-group. Read Leviticus as it has laws and regulation for two groups. The in-group and the out-group. How do you think Christian slave owners rationalized their views. They did it using the Bible.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It makes sense if someone has a militant pro-homosexual bias. Do you have a bias? Do you fervently support and accept homosexuals? Do you express strong disdain to those that oppose them? Do you engage in acts that homosexuals do such as sodomy?

I thought the heteros engaging in violence towards gays were the "militant" ones. I support those who are gay because I've been victimized by straight people who thought I was gay but I'm not. I realized gays weren't the evil ones bent on hurting others, but my fellow straight people.

 

[InChrist]

You CAN prove it to me. You can show from the texts that actually feature Lot that he is righteous. I'll wait.

It's like saying Darth Vader was a really great guy while ignoring all the genocides and such. Characterization does not rely on claims about the character ... it depends on the character's actual portrayal. This is why claims of Jesus' sinlessness doesn't work either, because he commits many. The bible likes deeply flawed characters. It's a theme throughout. To ignore that is to avoid the point about humanity the bible is trying to make (that messed up people can still do great things).

You integrate only what you wish to. Say that Lot is not righteous and you refuse to believe "the entirety" because you prefer Peter's spin on it.

Okay, looking at the account concerning Lot in Genesis 19, one main highlight is that despite Lot's foolish. thoughtless, wicked behavior he is delivered and saved from the destruction that comes upon Sodom. Not only that but right after he makes the sinful, repugnant choice of offering his daughters to the perverted mob, what happens? Do the angels strike him as they did the mob? No, instead they pull him away and deliver him from the wicked mob. Why? Because, according to the account just prior in chapter 18 when Abraham was talking to The Lord concerning the destruction of the city, the Lord told Abraham that He would not destroy the city even for the sake of ten righteous (Gen. 18:24-32). But the city was destroyed because there were not even ten righteous, but Lot and some of his family were delivered before the destruction because he was considered righteous by God and the angels, which Peter (as an apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit) verified calling Lot righteous three times (2 Peter 2:7-8).

So how can someone who did such bad things as Lot did be called righteous? I think you have hit on something that is an important point and theme of the Bible when you said that messed up people can do great things. I think this is true because, although the Bible is very clear that all are sinners who mess up, humans are made in the image of God. According to the scriptures, in Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3,22 it is shown how someone who is a sinner, who really messes up like Lot or David or Abraham or anyone can be called "righteous" when it explains...Abraham believed the Lord and it was accounted to him as righteousness. In Romans 4 and elsewhere throughout the Bible, a major theme revealed is that everyone is unrighteous on their own like Lot, but their belief or faith in God brings His righteousness to be accounted to their life.

This is the testimony of the Bible concerning the righteousness of Lot and the message which offers hope to all who sin, fall short, and mess up as Lot did.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works;
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”
Romans 4:5-8

 

[Skwim]

Okay, looking at the account concerning Lot in Genesis 19, one main highlight is that despite Lot's foolish. thoughtless, wicked behavior he is delivered and saved from the destruction that comes upon Sodom.

A highlight not unlike the one in which all the innocent women and children were fortunate enough to be burned to death by all the fire and burning sulfur raining from the sky.

Not only that but right after he makes the sinful, repugnant choice of offering his daughters to the perverted mob, what happens? Do the angels strike him as they did the mob? No, instead they pull him away and deliver him from the wicked mob. Why?

Actually, the two men didn't pull Lot away from the mob, but pulled him to go faster in his escape before the rain of fire and burning sulfur got them..

Because, according to the account just prior in chapter 18 when Abraham was talking to The Lord concerning the destruction of the city, the Lord told Abraham that He would not destroy the city even for the sake of ten righteous (Gen. 18:24-32). But the city was destroyed because there were not even ten righteous,

Nice guy, burning babies because their parents weren't righteous.

but Lot and some of his family were delivered before the destruction because he was considered righteous by God and the angels, which Peter (as an apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit) verified calling Lot righteous three times (2 Peter 2:7-8).

Nah. The righteousness part is only Peter's embellishment on the story. That's already been established.

So how can someone who did such bad things as Lot did be called righteous?

Because Peter was trying his best to reinforce a point about one of god's requirements for getting into heaven. A poor choice of stories in my estimation, but what the hey . . . . . . .

I think you have hit on something that is an important point and theme of the Bible when you said that messed up people can do great things.

So what was this great thing Lot did? Not charge the mob money for taking his two virgin daughters as whores? "Put your shekels and talents away mob people. I offer up my virgin daughters as whores for the taking. And what the hell, do with them what you will."

To be honest, the greater moral of the story is that as long as you're "righteous" you can do just about anything you can think of. Be it depraved, vile, or disgusting you're still good in god's eyes.

 

[McBell]

Yes, you are right. Anyone can make the Bible at least appear to say whatever they want and as you have pointed out there are so many denominations which have different perspectives. Along with the,various pseudo-Christian groups and cults which give the scriptures their own slant. I admit that I am just as vulnerable to doing the same thing. Yet, I think that is all the more reason for the importance of constantly seeking God to reveal truth through His word and to be willing to be corrected by the Holy Spirit, rather than depend on one's own human ability as final authority. I see the Bible as the living word of God that will bring correction and conviction when I'm wrong.

Which is fine until you get people with conflicting claims on what god told them...
Thus 100,00+ denominations of Christianity

From what I've seen, pretty much all denominations of truly born again believers agree on the essential fundamentals of the biblical faith. The variations between denominations is often not over essentials, but less important issues simply because every believer or group of believers is unique and at a different place in their life and relationship with the Lord. I really appreciate that biblical Christianity allows for the uniqueness of each individual, as opposed to the conformity mentality of cults, yet I trust as the scriptures say that God is bringing all believers to a unity of the faith, in His own way, and in His timing, as He works in each believer's life.

...till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:13-16

Why does this sound like you making excuses for your gods incompetence?
Do not get me wrong, I understand that that is not your intention.
However, that is how it comes off.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

which Peter (as an apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit) verified calling Lot righteous three times (2 Peter 2:7-8).

Peter also denied Jesus three times, so we have already established how interested he is in the truth ...

 

[InChrist]

A highlight not unlike the one in which all the innocent women and children were fortunate enough to be burned to death by all the fire and burning sulfur raining from the sky..

I think you are wrong about that, as Abraham knew...'Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”(Genesis 18:25)

How do you know there were innocent women in the city? You don't. According to the account there weren't. If there were, they too, would have been removed before the city was destroyed because God does not destroy the righteous with the wicked. Children, in historical, biblical times were at the mercy of their parents and culture. In this case both were so vile and wicked that such children would face perverted abuse, violence, possibly death or growing up to perpetuate the same evil upon others.

"Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has ended the physical lives of innocent babies are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship and evil influence at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic legitimately to charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm will always result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes...while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”

Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

Nah. The righteousness part is only Peter's embellishment on the story. That's already been established.

I don't see that any embellishment has already been established at all.

So what was this great thing Lot did? Not charge the mob money for taking his two virgin daughters as whores? "Put your shekels and talents away mob people. I offer up my virgin daughters as whores for the taking. And what the hell, do with them what you will."

To be honest, the greater moral of the story is that as long as you're "righteous" you can do just about anything you can think of. Be it depraved, vile, or disgusting you're still good in god's eyes.

I never said, nor do the scriptures say that Lot did any great thing. On the contrary the scriptures reveal that he did some pretty sinful, selfish, stupid, evil things.

The moral of the story is that like Lot, who displayed depraved, disgusting, self-centered, and vile behavior (as everyone at times does), we can be delivered and saved by faith in God's righteous, not our own. I think it is those who acknowledge this reality about themselves and seek salvation from God who are good in God's eyes.

 

[InChrist]

Why does this sound like you making excuses for your gods incompetence?
Do not get me wrong, I understand that that is not your intention.
However, that is how it comes off.

I don't know why you think it sounds like God is incompetent, except that you may expect that God would have to be some kind of Being that must control and force everyone to the point of uniformity without freedom or room for individuality.

 

[InChrist]

Peter also denied Jesus three times, so we have already established how interested he is in the truth ...

So, if you are saying that Peter in denying Jesus was denying the truth, then I assume you must be acknowledging that Jesus Christ is the Truth. I think Peter's denial simply shows how easily fear controls one's behavior. Of course, the scriptures go on to show the mercy and love of Jesus toward Peter despite his failure to be true to Him and then Peter's solid faithfulness to Jesus from then on until his death.

 

[Skwim]

I think you are wrong about that, as Abraham knew...'Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”(Genesis 18:25)

How do you know there were innocent women in the city? You don't. According to the account there weren't. If there were, they too, would have been removed before the city was destroyed because God does not destroy the righteous with the wicked. Children, in historical, biblical times were at the mercy of their parents and culture. In this case both were so vile and wicked that such children would face perverted abuse, violence, possibly death or growing up to perpetuate the same evil upon others.

Yeah, I purposely added women to the children to see if anyone would bite.

So, you asked "How do you know there were innocent women in the city?" and you're right, I don't, just like you don't know they were "vile" and "wicked" or that "such children would face perverted abuse, violence, possibly death or growing up to perpetuate the same evil upon others." What we do know is that this all powerful god, capable of doing absolutely anything he wanted, could have saved the children from a very ghastly death and made sure they did not grow up corrupted. One possibility being: save their mothers and make them see the error of their ways, if, in fact, they weren't innocent, and therefore raise their children to be decent adults.

"Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has ended the physical lives of innocent babies are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship and evil influence at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic legitimately to charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm will always result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes...while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”

Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260

I only got as far as your first quoted sentence when I decided to take a look at your linked article and happened to read the following.

ATHEISM CANNOT MAKE “MORAL” JUDGMENTS​

The extreme irony of the atheistic argument against God’s morality is that atheism is completely impotent to define the term “moral,” much less use the concept against any other system.

Such asinine, self-serving apologetics tells me that nothing in your source is worth my time. However, it does give me a good idea of where your thinking comes from.

I never said, nor do the scriptures say that Lot did any great thing.

Talking about Lot, Kelly of Phonix said: "To ignore that is to avoid the point about humanity the bible is trying to make (that messed up people can still do great things)."

Still Talking about lot You then said: "So how can someone who did such bad things as Lot did be called righteous? I think you have hit on something that is an important point and theme of the Bible when you said that messed up people [Lot in this case---being the object of discussion] can do great things. I think this is true because. . . ."
(It's all in post 189.)

On the contrary the scriptures reveal that he did some pretty sinful, selfish, stupid, evil things.

And nonetheless still remains a righteous guy.

The moral of the story is that like Lot, who displayed depraved, disgusting, self-centered, and vile behavior (as everyone at times does), we can be delivered and saved by faith in God's righteous, not our own. I think it is those who acknowledge this reality about themselves and seek salvation from God who are good in God's eyes.

"Everyone"? Errr . . . I think hyperbole has you in its clutches. Might want to shake free before continuing to post. In any case, as I said once before:

To be honest, the greater moral of the story is that as long as you're "righteous" you can do just about anything you want. Be it depraved, vile, or disgusting, you're still good in god's eyes.

 

[McBell]

I don't know why you think it sounds like God is incompetent, except that you may expect that God would have to be some kind of Being that must control and force everyone to the point of uniformity without freedom or room for individuality.

Interesting.
I mention how you make your god out to be incompetent and you are unable to even consider the possibility that you are the one to blame for it...

And people wonder why it is so difficult to take you apologists seriously...

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Oh I am totally and perfectly fine calling homosexual acts sins. Just as adultery is sin and pre-martial sex is sin. But since 80% of us are guilty of one of those three, I don't think focusing on homosexuality or singling it out has much of a point. I don't accept homosexuality as right, Only that it is a personal choice and with God giving us Free will people should have the right to make that choice unhindered by the judgements of others. That's it. It's got nothing to do with political correctness. I could care less about it.

And we all die. We were born to die. Get over it.

I think the difference is that people who engage in those other sins like adultery and pre-martial sex, stop doing those sins, then ask for forgiveness and make an attempt to pledge not to do those sins again. The focus on homosexuality is because those people have no intention to stop engaging in the sin. They want to continue consciously "sin" and be accepted whilst doing. That other thread I thought that's what you were accepting. Sorry if that was not the case and yeah, don't care about what anyone else thinks. Especially not from liberals.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Talking about Lot, Kelly of Phonix said: "To ignore that is to avoid the point about humanity the bible is trying to make (that messed up people can still do great things)."

To be fair, Lot is a jerk and I don't consider anything he did to be great whatsoever. That is not to say there aren't epic moments ... Lot just didn't partake in any of them.

To be honest, the greater moral of the story is that as long as you're "righteous" you can do just about anything you want. Be it depraved, vile, or disgusting, you're still good in god's eyes.

Especially if you have connections. Would God have bothered saving him had he not been Abe's nephew?

I think the difference is that people who engage in those other sins like adultery and pre-martial sex, stop doing those sins, then ask for forgiveness and make an attempt to pledge not to do those sins again. The focus on homosexuality is because those people have no intention to stop engaging in the sin. They want to continue consciously "sin" and be accepted whilst doing. That other thread I thought that's what you were accepting. Sorry if that was not the case and yeah, don't care about what anyone else thinks. Especially not from liberals.

Procreation is a lot about, well, creation, as well as free ranchhands (sorry, that was that Oregon guy who died ...). Adultery, then, is called a sin because you are stealing the husband's rightful ownership of his property's uterus. Pre-marital sex calls the legality of the children into question, so there's that (in ancient times, I would imagine). Homosexuality cannot produce children, so there's only love, not ownership, and we can't be having that, can we?

 

[InChrist]

So, you asked "How do you know there were innocent women in the city?" and you're right, I don't, just like you don't know they were "vile" and "wicked" or that "such children would face perverted abuse, violence, possibly death or growing up to perpetuate the same evil upon others." What we do know is that this all powerful god, capable of doing absolutely anything he wanted, could have saved the children from a very ghastly death and made sure they did not grow up corrupted. One possibility being: save their mothers and make them see the error of their ways, if, in fact, they weren't innocent, and therefore raise their children to be decent adults.

How do you propose that God, "make them see the error of their ways and raise their children to be decent adults"?

Talking about Lot, Kelly of Phonix said: "To ignore that is to avoid the point about humanity the bible is trying to make (that messed up people can still do great things)."

Still Talking about lot You then said: "So how can someone who did such bad things as Lot did be called righteous? I think you have hit on something that is an important point and theme of the Bible when you said that messed up people [Lot in this case---being the object of discussion] can do great things. I think this is true because. . . ."
(It's all in post 189.)

When I said "messed up people can do great things" I was speaking of people in general and the fact that humans are made in the image of God, so even sinners at times do great things. I was not referring to the specific behavior of Lot addressed in the passage, which I have already said I think was evil and far from great.

And nonetheless still remains a righteous guy.

According to the scriptures, no one is righteous in themselves. All fall short and sin to one degree or another. The scriptures show that Lot (along with every other character mentioned in the Bible) committed grievous sins. He was only considered righteous because he believed and had faith in God, which faith would necessarily include the realization of his own sinfulness and need of the promised Messiah.

To be honest, the greater moral of the story is that as long as you're "righteous" you can do just about anything you want. Be it depraved, vile, or disgusting, you're still good in god's eyes.

I don't think that is accurate because the scriptures are crystal clear about God's perspective on depraved, vile, sinful behavior, but if it makes you feel okay to believe that I guess can't convince you otherwise.