Skwim
Veteran Member
Considering how extremely bad porno plots are, I'd have to agree,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lot, One of the Bible's bad Guys
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
I suppose that is all the same to me.
I swear, using scripture as a reference for morality... that is just weird.
Thana
Lady
I just told you. Righteousness is attributed to those that fear God.
And I've done terrible things, you've done terrible things, maybe not something as morally reprehensible as serial child abuse but none of us are innocent. So yes, sure, if they were truly repentant than they could be considered righteous. Goodness, righteousness, when it comes to human beings those things don't require a perfect record otherwise none of us would be considered good enough.
Repentence isn't saying sorry, It's being repentent. In your heart, in your soul, you are changed forever.
Thana
Lady
Of course not.
Morality is not a divine concept.
An apology for misinterpreting my post and getting all stuffy about it wouldn't go amiss. But it's up to you
According to some. Despite the ample evidence that it is not.
I don't think I will ever understand that, either.
(Edited to add; gosh. I somehow read "is a divine concept" there). Of course morality is not a divine concept)
An apology for misinterpreting my post and getting all stuffy about it wouldn't go amiss. But it's up to you
What did I misinterpret?
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Our sins do not negate what's in our heart, it reflects what's in our hearts.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Guilt is also tons of fun. Your afternoons just fly by.
Thana
Lady
Right.
So it would be fine for me to judge you as a person based solely on the bad things you've done?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Just not sure what "fear of god" means.
Okay, then can I take it that fearing god means repenting one's sins? If so, then the trouble with the Lot story is that from what I can tell he never repented. Have a I missed this somewhere?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
No. You judge the totality of the person. Not one aspect. Your art and personality are one and the same; sins tint that, they don't color it.
Thana
Lady
No, fearing God is in all ways revering Him.
And I don't think it's fair to judge Lot based on a story about Him. A persons life is more than that, And Lots entire life and every thought was not accounted for so I cannot say. All I know is that he was deemed righteous because of his fear of God. His sins do not negate that.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Of course, "bad" is a subjective term. According to literalist Evangelic Christians, I am a blasphemous abomination who was defied the will of God, and simply unforgivable for my denouncing of the Holy Ghost. According to some people I have my "quirks" and "indulgences" that no good person would do, but I'm other wise a good person. To some people I don't do these "bad things."
But, the point still remains, our "sins" reflect our heart, and it isn't necessarily a reflection of a wicked or bad person, but they could also be "damaged," or just not into the whole concept of sin and living by a totally different code of morality that doesn't consider the same actions as morally wrong (sex easily falls under this).
Skwim
Veteran Member
Thanks.
Fine, then it still stands that if one is a serial child sex abuser who poisons little old ladies, as long as you revere god you're a righteous guy. BOY, this sure puts a spin on the meaning of "righteous." We then have two very different meanings of "righteousness"
1) Common meaning:
a. morally good
b.acting in accord with moral law
c.morally right or justifiable
2) Christian meaningb.acting in accord with moral law
c.morally right or justifiable
a. Fearing (revering) god
Thana
Lady
In what way is abusing children and poisoning little old ladies (Is that the best imagery you could conjure btw?) revering God? Only someone who has truly repented of that is capable of righteousness.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
How could David have truly repented to the man he sent on a suicide mission? He couldn't have, and that is the one he needed forgiveness from. Doing what David did, there is no justification in calling him "righteous" just because he was a "god fearing" man. Lot offered his daughters to be gang raped. Someone who would resort to such a thing has no right or business being called "righteous." God fearing or not, offering your daughters as expendable pieces of meat is something only a real ******* could do.
Thana
Lady
When David realized what he'd done he howled and tore his shirt and fell to his knees. All very dramatic. Everyone does terrible things, the only difference is some are sorry afterwards and want to change and some are not.
Lot wasn't a perfect man, David was not a perfect man, none of us are perfect and by your general definition none of us are righteous. But Lot and David were men of God, men who wanted to be better than what they were. If that's not good enough for you then fine, I can't argue with impossible standards.
Skwim
Veteran Member
First that came to mind I guess.
I wouldn't say it is. My point is; from what you've said, as far as being a righteous person it doesn't make any difference what one does (hence my two examples) as long as one fears god. Because fearing god will make you righteous.
Okay, let's get this straightened out.
In post 43 you said one can be considered righteous if one repents.
then and in post 51 you said
a) to be righteous one must must fear god,
andb) fearing god is revering him.
Therefore, it follows that to be righteous one must revere god
Therefore, it follows that to be righteous one must revere god
So we have two ways one can be righteous
1) repent (post 43)
2) revere god (post 51)
Which is it?2) revere god (post 51)
Thana
Lady
First that came to mind I guess.
I wouldn't say it is. My point is; from what you've said, as far as being a righteous person it doesn't make any difference what one does (hence my two examples) as long as one fears god. Because fearing god will make you righteous.
Okay, let's get this straightened out.
In post 43 you said one can be considered righteous if one repents.
then and in post 51 you said
a) to be righteous one must must fear god,and
b) fearing god is revering him.
Therefore, it follows that to be righteous one must revere god
So we have two ways one can be righteous
1) repent (post 43)Which is it?
2) revere god (post 51)
For goodness sake, it's not either or.
Repentence is what God calls us to do, it is an act of revering God.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Okey dokey, but the Bible never says Lot repented of anything, much less of what he did to his daughters, yet Christians say he was righteous. The Bible never says Lot revered god, yet Christians say he was righteous. Of course one can always suppose he repented, or suppose he revered god, but this could be said about anyone. So the big question is, why make an issue of his righteousness?
Why does 2 Peter 2:7 make a point of calling him a righteous man? Why not say Lot ate lamb last Thursday? It's no less significant.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It's not an impossible standard to expect someone to not abuse their power in a way that he sends someone to die so he can have his wife, or expecting someone to care enough about their daughters (or sons) to not offer them up for a gang rape. No one is perfect, but those deeds are utterly despicable. David could have starved himself to death over guilt and stress, but it wouldn't have done the victim any good. Lot made an offering that no reasonable or good parent would even think of. Being "men of god" should not be sufficient to excuse such abhorrent actions and proclaim them "righteous."