Lot's two virgin daughters thrown to the mob

[Angel song]

In Genesis 19:1-11 we read that Lot threw his two virgin daughters to the mob of Sodom to do with as they pleased rather than have his two male guests violated.

I'm at a loss as to how to explain his actions (not to mention the ethics of his act) given that virginity was highly prized at that time and not being a virgin virtually made a previously unmarried female unmarriageable.

Okay, I'm aware that the societal culture was highly patriarchal at that time in history but I still can't really understand his actions or how we should interpret this particular piece of scripture today.

Can anyone offer some insights?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to Sonofason]

If you think he did the right thing I would not a want to be a woman in yours.

Well, sometimes we are forced to make choices. Sometimes we must choose not between that which is good and that which is evil, but between two evils. Hopefully we choose the lesser of the two evils. Perhaps Lot had other choices. Perhaps he was afraid. Maybe he made the wrong choice. I don't know. I wasn't there. I think he did what he thought was best at the time he made his choice. And thankfully, for Lot, everything worked out well.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 30 by Nickman]

How long where you a Mormon? This is one of the passages of the Bible that Joseph Smith "corrected". He "corrected" it to say that Lot the men of the city not to touch his daughters.

About five years. JS did alot of revising because I think he even realised the problems in the scriptures.

[Nickman]

So you say that your point is, among others, that Lot lacked moral character. That is not surprising to me. Notice what Paul said in Romans 3:10: He said, ""There is no one righteous, not even one".

Given this statement by Paul, who I believe, why would I think for one second that Lot was a moral human being? There are no moral human beings, nope, not one.

If you are correct, and this particular story is pointless, then so be it. Perhaps you can explain how the rest of the story is pointless as well. History contains a lot of mundane truths. Not all history is significant. Nevertheless, history is history. If nothing else, it's an interesting story further revealing the depravity of mankind.

Because the Bible says he was, twice.

2 Peter 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless

And Genesis 19!

[Nickman]

[Replying to Sonofason]

If you think he did the right thing I would not a want to be a woman in yours.

Well, sometimes we are forced to make choices. Sometimes we must choose not between that which is good and that which is evil, but between two evils. Hopefully we choose the lesser of the two evils. Perhaps Lot had other choices. Perhaps he was afraid. Maybe he made the wrong choice. I don't know. I wasn't there. I think he did what he thought was best at the time he made his choice. And thankfully, for Lot, everything worked out well.

If Lot made the wrong choice, God called him righteous. So did the author of 2 Peter. There is always a better choice, the better choice would have been for Lot to not offer up anyone to the mob. Lot was willing to offer up his own flesh and blood over two people he didn't even know. Regardless if he believed they were messengers of God. If he truly believed they were angels, then he would have known that they can do anything they needed to do to appease the mob, or stop them.

[Sonofason]

So you say that your point is, among others, that Lot lacked moral character. That is not surprising to me. Notice what Paul said in Romans 3:10: He said, ""There is no one righteous, not even one".

Given this statement by Paul, who I believe, why would I think for one second that Lot was a moral human being? There are no moral human beings, nope, not one.

If you are correct, and this particular story is pointless, then so be it. Perhaps you can explain how the rest of the story is pointless as well. History contains a lot of mundane truths. Not all history is significant. Nevertheless, history is history. If nothing else, it's an interesting story further revealing the depravity of mankind.

Because the Bible says he was, twice.

2 Peter 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless

And Genesis 19!

I believe that you are confusing terms.
moral - holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
righteous - morally right or justifiable

So the question goes, was Lot morally right? Or was Lot justifiable.

Please note what Paul said in Romans 5. He says, Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)

You see, we immoral human beings can be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, ie justified by God. Even though none of us hold or manifest high principles for proper conduct, we can be considered righteous if we can be considered justified, which just so happens to be what Christ is capable of providing for every sinner.

[Jack Stoddart]

Morality is not a biblical concept. Righteousness is.

Righteousness is frequently described with many examples presented. The two are clearly different. I have already posted some examples of righteousness.

[Nickman]

So you say that your point is, among others, that Lot lacked moral character. That is not surprising to me. Notice what Paul said in Romans 3:10: He said, ""There is no one righteous, not even one".

I don't care what Paul says. I am just as much a moral authority as Paul, whom you have no idea whom he actually is. You set him up on a pedestal as if he is different from any other human. Lot lacked moral character in his decision to offer up his daughters to a mob of men. You want to defend such immoral behavior.

Given this statement by Paul, who I believe, why would I think for one second that Lot was a moral human being? There are no moral human beings, nope, not one.

Again, Paul is no better than any other human. His words have to be examined just like everyone else's. He is not an authority, you just make him one for yourself and your preconceived ideas.

I believe that you are confusing terms.
moral - holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
righteous - morally right or justifiable

So the question goes, was Lot morally right? Or was Lot justifiable.

Please note what Paul said in Romans 5. He says, Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)

Again, I could care less what the immoral Paul says. We can trade terms here if you would like. Lot was not justified by my standard. You never throw your children out there for any reason. You protect them at all costs, even it it means you lose your life. Lot was a coward in my eyes.

You see, we immoral human beings can be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, ie justified by God. Even though none of us hold or manifest high principles for proper conduct, we can be considered righteous if we can be considered justified, which just so happens to be what Christ is capable of providing for every sinner.

We humans, can be moral and righteous. Hindsight is 20/20. Many of us manifest high principles.

Ever heard of John Levitow? Martin Luther King? JFK?

[OnceConvinced]

You never throw your children out there for any reason. You protect them at all costs, even it it means you lose your life. Lot was a coward in my eyes.

Exactly. Now when I look at Lot I see a dispicable immoral human being who was no better than the other Sodomites and Gamorrians.

The question that I still have is why would two supernatural beings need protecting at all? They were angels! What harm would a mob be able to do to them?

[Sonofason]

So you say that your point is, among others, that Lot lacked moral character. That is not surprising to me. Notice what Paul said in Romans 3:10: He said, ""There is no one righteous, not even one".

I don't care what Paul says. I am just as much a moral authority as Paul, whom you have no idea whom he actually is. You set him up on a pedestal as if he is different from any other human. Lot lacked moral character in his decision to offer up his daughters to a mob of men. You want to defend such immoral behavior.

Given this statement by Paul, who I believe, why would I think for one second that Lot was a moral human being? There are no moral human beings, nope, not one.

Again, Paul is no better than any other human. His words have to be examined just like everyone else's. He is not an authority, you just make him one for yourself and your preconceived ideas.

I believe that you are confusing terms.
moral - holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
righteous - morally right or justifiable

So the question goes, was Lot morally right? Or was Lot justifiable.

Please note what Paul said in Romans 5. He says, Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)

Again, I could care less what the immoral Paul says. We can trade terms here if you would like. Lot was not justified by my standard. You never throw your children out there for any reason. You protect them at all costs, even it it means you lose your life. Lot was a coward in my eyes.

You see, we immoral human beings can be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, ie justified by God. Even though none of us hold or manifest high principles for proper conduct, we can be considered righteous if we can be considered justified, which just so happens to be what Christ is capable of providing for every sinner.

We humans, can be moral and righteous. Hindsight is 20/20. Many of us manifest high principles.

Ever heard of John Levitow? Martin Luther King? JFK?

It is well known that King and JFK were adulterers. You may find such conduct moral, but I don't. King was also a plagiarist. You can certainly say that adultery and plagiarism is manifesting high principles, but I would disagree. I find it interesting that you would include yourself in a group of individuals that cheat on their wives, while having the audacity to call such a group of individuals high principled.

[Nickman]

It is well known that King and JFK were adulterers. You may find such conduct moral, but I don't. King was also a plagiarist. You can certainly say that adultery and plagiarism is manifesting high principles, but I would disagree. I find it interesting that you would include yourself in a group of individuals that cheat on their wives, while having the audacity to call such a group of individuals high principled.

How many "atta boy's" does it take cover an "Oh $H**?" Is it impossible for them to also be good? Should we discedit their good qualities because they exhibit some "not so good" qualities?