Lot, One of the Bible's bad Guys

[LuisDantas]

You tend to ignore all the things you claim to know about your unknowable god the second they get in the way of what you want your god to be.
Don't get me wrong, you are free to do so.
Just do not expect everyone to offer up the same free pass you give to your god.

Precisely.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Dunno, but I think offering his daughters could mean for marriage too? Or maybe as mentioned before the stress of the situation made him talk without thinking? Or maybe he was comparing the two; he thought in the spur of the moment that raping the guests is a greater problem? Sometimes people have to choose a loss over the other, and the choice sometimes could be illogical and spontaneous because of the pressure.

I don't think this much of a context is enough to judge. There are so many thoughts one could have when a mob comes to their door wanting to rape their guests.

I dunno guys. Fear makes people do wonders.

 

[Deeje]

To be as academically blunt as possible, so what? How does that excuse the behavior or make it acceptable or pardonable? How does it make it "less bad?" How does it make it anything else or less than "hey, don't **** these guys, **** the **** out of my daughters instead!"? Does that mean we should not be so harsh on Southern American slave owners, because, hey, that's just how it was? Those child slaves, that's all they knew. If they were forced to be separated from their parents, that's just how it was. They lived their entire lives in slavery, after all, in cultures that that had economies and societies entirely built upon slavery. Should we say "oh well," because that's just how it was, or should we make sure that we realize and remember just how wrong wrong was?

So how did we get onto slavery in this topic? The Patriarchal system was male dominated, but it was not dictatorship, it was headship...do you even know the difference?
You have completely ignored the reasons offered about Lot and his situation to cling to your petty opinions about a man you don't even know who lived at a time and place you can't even imagine.
You want to judge him when God didn't. You want to paint him as unrighteous, when the apostle Peter called him righteous.
God says that the way you judge others is the way you will be judged yourself. Perhaps it would benefit you to think about that.

The Southern American slave owners should have known better since most claimed to be Christians. There is no justification for the kind of slavery they practiced. It was anything but Christian.

The slavery spoken about in the Bible was nothing like that. Slavery was a way to repay a debt. It provided a place to live, food and shelter whilst a man worked off his debt. There were strict laws about how to treat slave...more like hired men.
There was even a provision that if the slave loved his Master and wanted to extend his service, then the Master pierced the man's ear and he was a voluntary slave for life....does this sound anything like what took place in Southern America? You have a very warped idea about the way things were in Bible times.

 

[McBell]

Mmhmm....
And yet you tell me I'm the one who is adept at avoidance.
I think someone needs to look in the mirror.

What is it you claim I am avoiding?

 

[McBell]

So how did we get onto slavery in this topic? The Patriarchal system was male dominated, but it was not dictatorship, it was headship...do you even know the difference?
You have completely ignored the reasons offered about Lot and his situation to cling to your petty opinions about a man you don't even know who lived at a time and place you can't even imagine.
You want to judge him when God didn't. You want to paint him as unrighteous, when the apostle Peter called him righteous.
God says that the way you judge others is the way you will be judged yourself. Perhaps it would benefit you to think about that.

The Southern American slave owners should have known better since most claimed to be Christians. There is no justification for the kind of slavery they practiced. It was anything but Christian.

The slavery spoken about in the Bible was nothing like that. Slavery was a way to repay a debt. It provided a place to live, food and shelter whilst a man worked off his debt. There were strict laws about how to treat slave...more like hired men.
There was even a provision that if the slave loved his Master and wanted to extend his service, then the Master pierced the man's ear and he was a voluntary slave for life....does this sound anything like what took place in Southern America? You have a very warped idea about the way things were in Bible times.

What was the purpose in piercing a slaves ear?
The answer to that question shows you are just plain flat out wrong.
Nice try though.

 

[Desert Snake]

Lot isn't bad.

 

[viole]

That's not the right analogy.

If you were a potter and made a vase, do you have the right to destroy it whenever you want?

Yes, but I am not sure that comparing conscious agents, able to feel pain, emotions, love, etc. with a vase, is the right analogy.

So, do you think we are to God the same as we are to a vase? I am not sure. For starters, I doubt it makes sense to say I created a vase in my image and liking. Alas, I never made a vase, so I am not 100% sure

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Genesis 6:5
"The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time"

A reboot is always good. I think you are confusing God with an unskilled SW operating system designer.

I'm pretty sure that's on a whole other level than making a mistake in defence of your guests.

I am not sure what horrible mistakes all the womem and children, and pets, could have committed, to deserve drowning to death. Apart from having the same disposable value as a vase.

By the way, would you call offering your daughters to public rape a mistake? everybody can do mistakes. But mistakes of this level are, in my opinion, sufficient to lose the "righteous" label for ever. If not, then Jack the Ripper could have been righteous too. After all, he just made a couple of mistakes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As I said, why does 2 Peter 2:7 make a point of calling him righteous? And where does Peter get his information from? Certainly not from the ancient Hebrew writings that were passed down in Genesis, because it's not there. Nope, Peter's characterization of Lot as righteous smacks of baseless hyperbole. Unwarranted and embellished story telling.

Ol' Pete needs Lot to be righteous so that when asked about why he denied Jesus three whole times, ran away from jail instead of taking it like a man, etc ... he can say that he really is righteous, just like when televangelists say they are "forgiven" whenever caught with their pants down...

That's not the right analogy.

If you were a potter and made a vase, do you have the right to destroy it whenever you want?

Interesting metaphor. God uses the same metaphor to describe us and He has no problem just chunking His piece of crap (if He's a good potter, how did it get messed up?) when He doesn't like it.

So you don't consider yourself superior to ants then? You don't kill them whenever you please and swat away flies and eat cows and just do whatever you want because you're King of the Jungle, so to speak?

I don't try to kill things if it's avoidable. If ants are in my house, it's because I'm a slob. It's not their fault. Encourage proper ecological setups and you'll never have the problem in the first place. We shouldn't be killing living things unless there's a good reason (eating, health threat, etc).

Might makes right.

There's always someone mightier on the food chain. Besides, you can kill ants all you want, but one day you're going to fall asleep in your bed with crumbs all over and they'll swarm over you and eat you alive. Never understimate the little guy.

Because Lot saw the evil in Sodom and it tormented Him. He recognized it and tried to help people from it in the name of God. That is specifically what was considered righteous about him.

Yes, he was SO upset about their evil reputation that he specifically chose to live there.

Then I would assume you have an issue worth of some attention.

My father is much the same way. He's a monster. I recently learned from my mother that prior to their marriage, he said he would never love her and that he hurt animals for fun. There's a reason one of his horses never threw me and constantly threw him ... he's a horrible person. He threw my brother too, but my brother resembles my father in looks sorta, so I guess the horse was just taking it out on him. I never rode Star unless he agreed to it. I respected Star's opinion on things. I like animals with some personality.

I have a real problem with him offering his daughters as rape puppets to the depraved masses to spare the angelic messengers. "Don't molest the angels, here take my young daughters". I think angels would be well able to protect themselves. Doesn't say much for the worth of women in that culture does it?

Doesn't say much for how powerful God was seen as, either. Like you said ... why would superpowered angels have trouble with these people?

Again, you are missing the point. Lot was not offering his virgin daughters to be gang raped for the simple reason that these deviates did not desire sex with women. These girls had lived in Sodom probably all their lives....they were still virgins...get it? They were engaged to be married and yet they were still virgins. God's people had morals, unlike the people in that city.

If their betrothed were from Sodom, I bet THE MEN weren't virgins.

So according to the Bible why was Lot considered righteous?

a) his wisdom
b) his behavior
c) his faith
d) his community status

e) None of the above. He is not wise, his behavior is immoral, his faith is suspect (angels have no power to deal with sexual harrassment?), and he CHOSE to live in this vile environment.

 

[InChrist]

e) None of the above. He is not wise, his behavior is immoral, his faith is suspect (angels have no power to deal with sexual harrassment?), and he CHOSE to live in this vile environment.

Yet, option (e) is not offered, since according to the account in the scriptures Lot was a sinful person who made unwise, sinful choices, as you have pointed out, yet he was called righteous because in spite of his sinfulness he believed and had faith in God. This is the theme throughout the Bible... everyone sins, makes wrong choices, falls short, is immoral to one degree or another, harm others, yet faith in God brings deliverance and eternal righteous through His power and righteousness, not human ability.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Thana]

Yes, but I am not sure that comparing conscious agents, able to feel pain, emotions, love, etc. with a vase, is the right analogy.

So, do you think we are to God the same as we are to a vase? I am not sure. For starters, I doubt it makes sense to say I created a vase in my image and liking. Alas, I never made a vase, so I am not 100% sure

Ciao

- viole

The only reason you think sentience makes you special is because your sentience makes you.
It's kind of amusing if you think about it.

And I think you're taking something that isn't literal and making it literal, which is obnoxious. But so is your attitude so I won't hold it against you.

A reboot is always good. I think you are confusing God with an unskilled SW operating system designer.

I am not sure what horrible mistakes all the womem and children, and pets, could have committed, to deserve drowning to death. Apart from having the same disposable value as a vase.

By the way, would you call offering your daughters to public rape a mistake? everybody can do mistakes. But mistakes of this level are, in my opinion, sufficient to lose the "righteous" label for ever. If not, then Jack the Ripper could have been righteous too. After all, he just made a couple of mistakes.

Ciao

- viole

Well I'm sure you can imagine all the abhorrent things humans are capable of. Maybe, just maybe, they weren't very nice people. Just a thought though.

And comparing Lot to Jack the Ripper is like comparing a Neanderthal to Charlie Manson. They lived in different worlds, different times, different societies. The people of Lot's time might not have even frowned at what he did. How can you expect people from thousands of years ago to somehow follow moral ideals that have only been around less than a few hundred years?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yet, option (e) is not offered, since ccording to the account in the scriptures Lot was a sinful person who made unwise, sinful choices, as you have pointed out, yet he was called righteous because in spite of his sinfulness he believed and had faith in God. This is the theme throughout the Bible... everyone sins, makes wrong choices, falls short, is immoral to one degree or another, harm others, yet faith in God brings deliverance and eternal righteous through His power and righteousness, not human ability.

Have a blessed day.

You get to prove how Lot proved his faith in God. Can you do so without Peter holding your hand?

 

[outhouse]

Dunno, but I think offering his daughters could mean for marriage too?

Not the context being relayed here.

It was never a historical event being described. It is known allegory to teach the lessons and morals that were important.



Our OP has taken the literal reading out of context AND asked everyone else to swim in this opinion.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think this much of a context is enough to judge.

There is.

One has to remember that 2500 years ago women were viewed as property not as equals.

What was righteous then is NOT now.

 

[InChrist]

You get to prove how Lot proved his faith in God. Can you do so without Peter holding your hand?

No, I don't get to prove it, nor can I and it isn't my job to since the scriptures, Peter specifically as noted by you, was already inspired by God to record the needed information in reference to Lot's faith. If that is not enough for you then certainly nothing I say will prove anything.

 

[Deeje]

What was the purpose in piercing a slaves ear?
The answer to that question shows you are just plain flat out wrong.
Nice try though.

I seem to recall reading posts of yours before Mestemia, you never seem to back up anything you say. Are we to take your word as gospel perhaps?

The piercing of the slave's ear served to identify him as his master's lifelong servant. It showed that he belonged to a benevolent master.

"“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment...But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently." (Ex 21:2, 5, 6)

 

[Skwim]

No, I don't get to prove it, nor can I and it isn't my job to since the scriptures, Peter specifically as noted by you, was already inspired by God to record the needed information in reference to Lot's faith. If that is not enough for you then certainly nothing I say will prove anything.

It's convenient enough to claim god did this, that, and the other thing because it answers a question, but where's your evidence? Where's the evidence that god inspired Peter to note the information? Peter certainly doesn't claim god inspired his writing. And after all, this is a god who had to actually go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if the reports about the two towns were true (Gen. 18:20-21). Nope, concocting explanations out of thin air doesn't cut it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I dunno guys. Fear makes people do wonders.

Honestly, it's never really okay to offer others for anything with patently negative consequences that they didn't agree to themselves. None of us would like that happening to us - so it falls under the golden rule.

And if you are a father, and the intended target is your child? You offer yourself first, or you get the hell out - strangers/angels be damned. If they can't understand your need to abandon them to save your own children - then screw 'em. I mean it - if it were somehow presented as a real life scenario before me - angels would die before I let my children do the same in their stead. Hands down. No question.

As a matter of fact, even if I knew for certain that sacrificing my child would save the rest of humanity - my response, without hesitation, would be "Sorry world - you had a good run." I recommend the movie "Cabin in the Woods". I agreed with the circumstances surrounding the ending - I honestly felt it was the only "right" thing that could have happened.

 

[McBell]

I seem to recall reading posts of yours before Mestemia, you never seem to back up anything you say. Are we to take your word as gospel perhaps?

Perhaps you should take a look at my 36,413 posts instead of relying on faulty memory?

The piercing of the slave's ear served to identify him as his master's lifelong servant. It showed that he belonged to a benevolent master.

"“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment...But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently." (Ex 21:2, 5, 6)

Yes, the piercing of the ear was to differentiate between indentured servants and the slaves you claim did not exist in the Bible....
I understand that since your god did not condemn slavery that you have to butter it up to make it seem less immoral than it is.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Honestly, it's never really okay to offer others for anything with patently negative consequences that they didn't agree to themselves. None of us would like that happening to us - so it falls under the golden rule.

And if you are a father, and the intended target is your child? You offer yourself first, or you get the hell out - strangers/angels be damned. If they can't understand your need to abandon them to save your own children - then screw 'em. I mean it - if it were somehow presented as a real life scenario before me - angels would die before I let my children do the same in their stead. Hands down. No question.

As a matter of fact, even if I knew for certain that sacrificing my child would save the rest of humanity - my response, without hesitation, would be "Sorry world - you had a good run." I recommend the movie "Cabin in the Woods". I agreed with the circumstances surrounding the ending - I honestly felt it was the only "right" thing that could have happened.

I completely agree with you.