Lot, One of the Bible's bad Guys

[Skwim]

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

I'll leave that up to god, who can do anything.

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.

Sorry, but your words say other wise, and we both know it.

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.

Yup. As I've said

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.

Nope, you can't, because that's how it all comes out in your wash. One can be a depraved, vile, and disgusting miscreant and still be righteous.

 

[InChrist]

I'll leave that up to god, who can do anything.

I don't think your words quite line up with what you practice or actually believe because if you really left it up to God you wouldn't be saying in the first place that God should have done something differently. Your attitude would be more along the lines of realizing and admitting that an all powerful God knows more than you know about any person or given situation, therefore the way He chooses to do things are perfect based on His higher, perfect, all-knowing wisdom.

INope, you can't, because that's how it all comes out in your wash. One can be a depraved, vile, and disgusting miscreant and still be righteous.

According to the scriptures everyone is sinful, depraved, and vile. Do you place yourself it that category?
Or do you consider yourself righteous?
Who decides, you or God?
Do you believe there is no hope for anyone to change from sinful to righteous?
Do you think you know all that God knows about each person or their future?
Do you think a transcendent God sees only the sinful moments of Lot's life ( or anyone's) or would He view the entire life of Lot in determining to call him righteous?
Do you fully know the mind of God and understand His reasoning?
Are you sure there is no valid reason God may have for calling Lot righteous of which you may not be aware?

 

[Ingledsva]

You have hurt people, it's not right to think lies don't hurt people. And maybe in your mind you're morally untouchable but what about in the minds of the people you've hurt? Maybe someone in high school you said something cruel too or maybe something unconcious you did that offended someone else, To them you're a villian. Maybe not a serial baby killer, but undeserving of forgiveness is undeserving of forgiveness.

But God doesn't measure. Your unbelief is just as bad as my lies, and vice versa. He's got a blanket of forgiveness for everything and everyone.
He gave consequences to David's actions and then forgave Him and loved Him, just like He does for all of us. That is just. Because we're too flawed, biased and hypocritical to judge anyone.

Again you miss the point!

David who committed a crime is forgiven, - but it says your God MURDERED an innocent baby for David's action.

This is unconscionable, depraved, and villainous.

And you cannot call a God that would do such - moral.

I would call him fake, - made up by patriarchal males - whom considered women and children possessions to be abused for men's actions, - and destroyed at will.

This is being done to this day in the Middle East! We - for instance - read of a boy's sister being raped - because the brother walked a girl home and thus wrecked the girl's FATHER's reputation by family. The male who walked her home was not hurt! The innocent sister was raped. This is immoral. This harming of women and children for the crimes of men is what the religions of Abraham teach as moral.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

He didn't have sex with them, He was raped.
My goodness you all complain about how people don't acknowledge male rape and here is a very obvious case of it and you're just going to victim blame because it suits your agenda?
Thats beyond despicable.

...

Absolute BULL!

You cannot be so drunk you don't recognize your own daughters, and still get and maintain an erection to orgasm!

"... Alcohol is a depressant, and using it heavily can dampen mood, decrease sexual desire, and make it difficult for a man to achieve erections or reach an orgasm while under the influence. In fact, overdoing it on booze is a common cause of erectile dysfunction." http://www.everydayhealth.com/erectile-dysfunction/why-boozing-can-be-bad-for-your-sex-life.aspx

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Again, you are missing the point. 1. 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.
Their moral character was not corrupted by those around them.

As to the daughters getting their father drunk in order to preserve offspring to carry their father's name, it was a male dominated society. Patriarchs ruled in households. Women had a supportive role. Part of that role was to produce children. 2. With no one else about, alone in the mountains after what appeared to be a nuclear holocaust, they could have believed that they were the only survivors. The daughter's motive were not evil, but actually noble.

3. You cannot see their actions and judge by today's standards. People back then were cultured very differently....and there were no laws on incest in existence at that time to break.
How do you think Adam and Eve were supposed to populate the earth? There were just two of them.....brothers and sisters were expected to marry and multiply. It wasn't until Israel was formed into a nation that laws on incest were written. Lot was not an Israelite. (The descendants of Jacob were called Israelites.) Lot was Abraham's nephew.

Uhmmm! You need to read this thread from the beginning.

1. He offered them because the people (not homosexuals) wanted the angels so they could ascertain/judge and punish, - just as the angels had come to judge and punish, them. He offered pure (nothing to judge and punish) for their abuse, - in place of the angels.

2. I have already pointed out that they were told ZOAR was a safe city - so obviously there would be men to sleep with in Zoar. Also the only places they said they were destroying were the cities of the plain, which included Sodom and Gomorrah, - and which was a small area on one side of the Dead Sea. The rest of the whole country would have been swarming with suitable men. For instance those whom split off with Abraham - when Lot went toward Sodom.

3. Yes we can. Killing the innocent for the supposed crimes of a few - is immoral. That does not change no matter the age! This story has far to much crap and contradictions to be considered anything other then a story.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

I think the whole story changes when we realize the people didn't surround Lot's house so they could rape angels.

They understood that the angels had come to JUDGE - and PUNISH them, - so they surrounded the house demanding that the angels be handed over to be JUDGED and PUNISHED - by them - FIRST.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

When looking through a few of your more recent posts Mestemia, I haven't changed my mind. You are obviously just a sniper. You have nothing but criticism for anyone who posts something with which you disagree, yet there is nothing to back up what you say.....it must be tiring to constantly see things in such a negative way.

If all of your 36,421 posts are like that, its not really much of a positive contribution, is it?
I wonder what would make you post something positive? The "Revolting" one seems to get a lot of your attention for some reason.

What slavery are you speaking about? The Bible speaks freely of slavery. Something that in this day and age is considered unacceptable....but it was something that was quite acceptable and even beneficial in the times when the Bible was written.

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.

The thought of "owning" another person is repugnant in today's thinking, but in Bible times it was a way to pay off a debt. Instead of going to jail, a thief was "sold" so as to be able to pay off the value of what he had stolen. Instead of the victim being out of pocket, the perpetrator was put to work to compensate the victim, sometimes well over what he stole. There was no supporting a prison system where the victim paid for the upkeep of the prisoner in taxes, as well as losing what was stolen.

Someone who found themselves in debt but unable to pay were also sold into service until the debt was paid off. It was a good system. The slave's owner provided food and lodging and he was to be treated as a hired worker.

There were strict laws governing the treatment of slaves, remembering the times and the culture. We cannot put today's standards on yesterdays norms. What was acceptable back then is not acceptable today. Culture dictates what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Some people in African or Asian countries, even today, sell their children or put them to work to support their family. The spoiled brats in the Western world would never come at that.

Your comment is not based on fact but on your uninformed opinion. You are entitled to it of course, but your views are not fact just because you say so. If you don't substantiate what you say, then they are just empty words...devoid of any substance. What is your opinion worth? More than anyone else's?

I don't know why we have to repeat over-and-over that they had real slavery.

Only the Hebrew were treated as indentured servants and ritually set free on certain years.

We are specifically told the Hebrew can hold ALL other people as REAL SLAVES - FOREVER - passed on as an inheritance to children, bred like animals to make more slaves, etc.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them FOREVER. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

*
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Breeding of slave to pass on.)

*

 

[Ingledsva]

...

People with a militant pro-homosexual bias want to whitewash other peoples beliefs to make them conform to them. You're right though, it wasn't the exclusive sin of Sodom nor the main point of the story. No pun intended, it's just a facet that sticks in thier throat.

The facts are that it doesn't say anywhere that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. That is a fact.

Where does it say the mob that surrounded Lot's house were exclusively homosexual? Yeah I didn't think so. It says right in Jude 1:7

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

I suggest you look up all uses of "Strange flesh" in the Bible. It does not refer anywhere -to homosexuals. It does refer to going after other Gods - and Sacred Prostitutes.

Biblically that would be including and not limited to; homosexual, bi-sexual, pedophilia and bestiality. That is why Lot thought that offering his daughters was a legitimate potential offer because the mob were not exclusively homosexual and even volunteered the information that they were virgins! The implications of that is that virgins have a smaller vaginal cavity thus providing a more pleasurable sexual experience. Not being a male, I don't expect you to factor that in, but another reason you are out of your element in the assessment.

Now that is an absolutely hilarious conjecture. We are told the angels are going down to ascertain, judge and punish. YHVH uses the same word when telling us this, - and I'm guessing he wasn't going down for some gay sex! The people young and old - realizing they are there to judge and punish THEM - surround the house demanding the angels be sent out so they can judge and punish them FIRST. That is the way the word is used in the God sentence.

He offers his daughters because they are PURE like the angels, not because they are virgins. An attempted PURE for PURE exchange to save the angels.

Once again, the fact that you are not fluent in Hebrew makes your pieced meal translations irrelevant and out of your element. We have had Jews on this forum, fluent in Hebrew, even Liberal ones, state that the translation is written Yada, euphemistically, to have sex with. Even if they did want to judge, they still wanted to punish them via *** rape. The story you quoted, they still raped his concubine to death. You contradicted your own premise.

LOL! And Jews on this forum have explained that the words have multiple meanings! And - AGAIN - YHVH uses the word.

LOL! Again! The other story AGAIN tells us they wanted to YADA the MAN, - and goes on to explain what they wanted to do to him - and it wasn't have sex with him!!!!! In other words what YADA meant there. The rape of his concubine after he threw her to the wolves is secondary, - and obviously they weren't homosexuals.

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 think if you answer yes then that will give us the answer.

LOL! Since when does caring about the human rights of my fellow humans make me biased militant pro-homosexual? And I will add - why are you trying this slant - rather then continuing to debate what the text actually says?

That mob had the full intent of raping those angels like what was done to poor ol' Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction, with or without "judging" them. They even told Lot they would do worse to him. No need to judge when they already had a intent. Why did they reject the daughters? Maybe the collective thought of the crowd was the "fresh meat" that wandered in. Who knows, it's fiction.

It is indeed fiction. However, we are debating what the text actually says. It says NOTHING about homosexuality anywhere in that story.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

That's a hoot!

Heterosexuals can engage in pre-marital sex, ask forgiveness, get married, and continue on with the sex.

But you expect Homosexuals to give up their sex, ask forgiveness (for something you can't even prove is condemned in the Bible,) and then go without sex and love forever.

NOT!

Human Rights are for all people.

*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But you expect Homosexuals to give up their sex, ask forgiveness (for something you can't even prove is condemned in the Bible,) and then go without sex and love forever.

NOT!

Human Rights are for all people.

I could go on a counter of "human rights" and all that, but in the end none of them make any sense. We are nature, not above nature. Murderers are not a valid argument because there is no slippery slope in homosexuality. Bestaility is not valid as that is something entirely different. Pedophilia is not valid either, because that is something entirely different. I'm not Wiccan, but "harm ye none" is probably the best, simplest, and greatest approach towards morality that has every been written. Unfortunately, we're not much for thinking beyond the immediate effects of our actions, the consequences are often lost on us, and we are so totally oblivious to the fact our very way of life does indeed harm many.