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]

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?

Yes, it is impossible for them to be good. You cannot wash away your sin. You cannot wash away their sin. You can not make an atonement for it. It is water under the bridge. It is a blemish that can't be removed. It is a stain that you can't wash away. That which is nearly good is not good. Good is good. It is the not so good qualities of a man which entitle him to an eternity in hell. It is the blood of Christ alone that can make him righteous.

I do not think we should ever discredit a good quality. But at the same time, I would not confuse a good quality with a good man. A good quality does not make a man good. Many good qualities do not make a man good. If a man is good, he is always good. And that man doesn't exist outside of Christ.

[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?

Yes, it is impossible for them to be good. You cannot wash away your sin. You cannot wash away their sin. You can not make an atonement for it. It is water under the bridge. It is a blemish that can't be removed. It is a stain that you can't wash away. That which is nearly good is not good. Good is good. It is the not so good qualities of a man which entitle him to an eternity in hell. It is the blood of Christ alone that can make him righteous.

I do not think we should ever discredit a good quality. But at the same time, I would not confuse a good quality with a good man. A good quality does not make a man good. Many good qualities do not make a man good. If a man is good, he is always good. And that man doesn't exist outside of Christ.

You cannot wash away your sin, but you can wash away your good? That doesn't make since.

[Sonofason]

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?

Yes, it is impossible for them to be good. You cannot wash away your sin. You cannot wash away their sin. You can not make an atonement for it. It is water under the bridge. It is a blemish that can't be removed. It is a stain that you can't wash away. That which is nearly good is not good. Good is good. It is the not so good qualities of a man which entitle him to an eternity in hell. It is the blood of Christ alone that can make him righteous.

I do not think we should ever discredit a good quality. But at the same time, I would not confuse a good quality with a good man. A good quality does not make a man good. Many good qualities do not make a man good. If a man is good, he is always good. And that man doesn't exist outside of Christ.

You cannot wash away your sin, but you can wash away your good? That doesn't make since.

Yes, you're right; what you just said doesn't make any sense, unless you include what God has done through Christ to redeem you from your sins.

[Nickman]

Yes, you're right; what you just said doesn't make any sense, unless you include what God has done through Christ to redeem you from your sins.

So good means absolutely nothing is what you are saying. Only, faith means anything. If you say good is worth something, then you run the risk of violating Pauline Christianity.

[Sonofason]

Yes, you're right; what you just said doesn't make any sense, unless you include what God has done through Christ to redeem you from your sins.

So good means absolutely nothing is what you are saying. Only, faith means anything. If you say good is worth something, then you run the risk of violating Pauline Christianity.

Yes. You just got done telling me that you were a member of a group of individuals who cheat on their wives. I'm not saying that you do of course, but that the others in this group were adulterers. You implied that they were all highly principled individuals. You included yourself in this group. It seems you think they were good. I wonder if their wives thought they were good. Good apparently is quite a subjective term. It is not a term that qualifies for this sort of discussion. So yes, being good is worthless. Faith in God is the only meaningful attribute. If you love God, if you have faith in God, if you obey God, you will be righteous. You will be justified.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 51 by Sonofason]

It worked well except for the part of Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt, and Lots daughters raping Lot. Its a wonder that the God of the Bible bothered with this family at all.

[Nickman]

Yes. You just got done telling me that you were a member of a group of individuals who cheat on their wives. I'm not saying that you do of course, but that the others in this group were adulterers. You implied that they were all highly principled individuals. You included yourself in this group. It seems you think they were good. I wonder if their wives thought they were good. Good apparently is quite a subjective term. It is not a term that qualifies for this sort of discussion. So yes, being good is worthless. Faith in God is the only meaningful attribute. If you love God, if you have faith in God, if you obey God, you will be righteous. You will be justified.

We are all part of a group of people who have done some bad things, i.e. humans. You dismiss the good they have done and focus on the bad only. This is where we differ. In your view, once a person does a bad thing, they are condemned forever. Regardless of the amount of good they have done in their lives. You equate mistakes with even the most evil things we can think of.

[Sonofason]

Yes. You just got done telling me that you were a member of a group of individuals who cheat on their wives. I'm not saying that you do of course, but that the others in this group were adulterers. You implied that they were all highly principled individuals. You included yourself in this group. It seems you think they were good. I wonder if their wives thought they were good. Good apparently is quite a subjective term. It is not a term that qualifies for this sort of discussion. So yes, being good is worthless. Faith in God is the only meaningful attribute. If you love God, if you have faith in God, if you obey God, you will be righteous. You will be justified.

We are all part of a group of people who have done some bad things, i.e. humans. You dismiss the good they have done and focus on the bad only. This is where we differ. In your view, once a person does a bad thing, they are condemned forever. Regardless of the amount of good they have done in their lives. You equate mistakes with even the most evil things we can think of.

I certainly do not dismiss the good that people do. I most certainly recognize it when I see it. But I'm certainly not going to go about praising everyone for every good deed that they do. It is in my opinion expected. While on occasion, it might be beneficial to encourage others when they are doing well or when they do good, but I don't praise daily workers who show up to work on time on a daily basis. Getting to work on time is good, but it's expected. They don't deserve praise for getting to work on time. But if they don't come into work on time, they do deserve condemnation. They deserve the condemnation even if it's the first time they've done it. And they deserve condemnation every time they do it. Now we can have some compassion on this person, especially if it is a first or second offense. But it is right, it is good, and it is expected that workers come to work on time every single day.

So yes, I focus my attention more on the wrong actions that people take. I focus more on the lies that people tell. I focus on the depravity of mankind, because it is in my opinion, unacceptable. It is always unacceptable.

I do not believe that all mistakes are equal. I would certainly be less offended by someone stealing my pencil as compared to something of much greater value. But when you get right down to it, the state of depravity of each sort of thief is the same. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. It doesn't matter if you cheat on your wife 1 time or 100 times. Cheating on your spouse one time makes you an adulterer. And such a person will forever be an adulterer.

A person does not deserve forgiveness. Christ certainly demands that we forgive others, but it is not because they deserve to be forgiven. They don't.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 51 by Sonofason]

It worked well except for the part of Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt, and Lots daughters raping Lot. Its a wonder that the God of the Bible bothered with this family at all.

You're right. It's a wonder He bothers with anyone at all. Yet my personal experience confirms that He does bother with a few, myself included, of course.

[Nickman]

I certainly do not dismiss the good that people do. I most certainly recognize it when I see it. But I'm certainly not going to go about praising everyone for every good deed that they do. It is in my opinion expected. While on occasion, it might be beneficial to encourage others when they are doing well or when they do good, but I don't praise daily workers who show up to work on time on a daily basis. Getting to work on time is good, but it's expected. They don't deserve praise for getting to work on time. But if they don't come into work on time, they do deserve condemnation. They deserve the condemnation even if it's the first time they've done it. And they deserve condemnation every time they do it. Now we can have some compassion on this person, especially if it is a first or second offense. But it is right, it is good, and it is expected that workers come to work on time every single day.

A person shouldn't be condemned for being late. One time is excusable, and not a time to condemn. Repeat offenders, we shouldn't condemn, we should reprimand. Much different. If you only point out the bad, you cannot see the good. What do you say to a person who has perfect attendance? Shouldn't you praise their devotion to the job?

So yes, I focus my attention more on the wrong actions that people take. I focus more on the lies that people tell. I focus on the depravity of mankind, because it is in my opinion, unacceptable. It is always unacceptable.

I see the good in people.

I do not believe that all mistakes are equal. I would certainly be less offended by someone stealing my pencil as compared to something of much greater value. But when you get right down to it, the state of depravity of each sort of thief is the same. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. It doesn't matter if you cheat on your wife 1 time or 100 times. Cheating on your spouse one time makes you an adulterer. And such a person will forever be an adulterer.

According to your god, stealing a pencil will land them in an eternity of torture. Oh man, the good ole Ray Comfort tripe. So if you tell the truth once shouldn't that make you honest? According to your logic, it should.

A person does not deserve forgiveness. Christ certainly demands that we forgive others, but it is not because they deserve to be forgiven. They don't.

I see the good in people and many people deserve forgiveness if they ask for it sincerely. I would be in the wrong to not forgive someone when they sincerely ask.