Was Lot a righteous man?

[Justin108]

2 Peter 2:7

and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless

Well according to Peter, he was. Yet...

Genesis 19:5-8

They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!�

Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. He said, “No, my brothers! Don’t act so wickedly! Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please. Only don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.�

How can you possibly consider a man who offered his own daughters to be gang-raped a righteous man?

[Left Site]

So God would forever destroy them for attempting to rape the angels, but God would forgive them for gang-raping Lot's daughters?

You clearly have no idea what idolatry or bestiality is.

So in your mind, homosexuality is worse than rape?

At no point does Lot ask his daughters if they're ok with being gang-raped. How on earth would you consider this interaction consensual? Do you seriously think Lot's daughters wanted to be raped by a mob?

I haven't once mentioned the incest matter in this entire debate. If you're going to criticize something I said, make sure I said it first.

It seems to me that you don't have any desire to consider the matter beyond what you already think of it, for your reply seems even to have an overtone of hostility.

You assume that Lot didn't discuss it with his daughters but it wasn't written as a detailed account of the event and he may have discussed it with his daughters.

You insist it was the rape of his daughters that Lot offered but if his daughters did in fact willingly offer themselves to a lawless people to have their way with them then the rape issue is moot. It yet isn't an honorable thing those inhabitants were doing but is beside the point.

It is as I said in that previous post, you desire to see it harshly against Lot and you will see it harshly against Lot.

So be it. You are satisfied with your own beliefs on the matter and there is no discussion of it really possible.

I hope you don't mind that I feel your reasoning is not reasoning, but it doesn't really matter to me what you feel about it. I also hope you don't sit as a judge and jury over people in this life. As I see it here, No defendant would stand a chance of getting a fair shake.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 51 by BusB]

Lot being a righteous man even cared about the salvation of those sinners and likely believed that they would be forever destroyed if they followed through with their intent to rape those messengers from God. Indeed sex between man and woman is not considered with the weight of sex between two men which is considered both idolatry and bestiality.

How would Lot offering up his daughters to have sex with multiple partners, outside of marriage, in a night long orgy, have helped ensure their salvation? What about his daughter's salvation? I thought God valued the institution of monogamous marriage?

You insist it was the rape of his daughters that Lot offered but if his daughters did in fact willingly offer themselves to a lawless people to have their way with them then the rape issue is moot. It yet isn't an honorable thing those inhabitants were doing but is beside the point.

Are you saying that in your eyes, (God's eyes as well?), it is righteous for two women to have intercourse with multiple partners outside of marriage, in a night long orgy?

Besides, the story is pretty explicit in the timeline of events. From Genesis 19 NIV

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.�

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.�
Lot takes the two angels home, bakes a meal, the men of the city come to his house, Lot goes outside, locks the door and immediately offers his daughters. Let's also be clear that Lot says that the men from the city can do whatever they want. That's pretty broad. So not just sex then? Murder as well?
At no point in the narrative of the story does it even hint that he goes inside to ask his daughters' opinions.

Also, where else in the Old Testament is the permission of women ever asked for? I can't think of any off of the top of my head. Off-hand, I can remember Sarah, Abraham's sister/wife, offering her servant to Abraham so they can have a son (and the servant's son will be claimed as Sarah's, to boot).

[Justin108]

It seems to me that you don't have any desire to consider the matter beyond what you already think of it

And it seems to me you're eager to avoid addressing my points. I'll repost them for you

- Would God destroy them for attempting to rape the angels yet spare them for raping Lot's daughters?
- Do you know the definition of idolatry and bestiality?
- In your mind, is homosexuality worse than rape?
- Do you think Lot's daughters wanted to have sex with a mob?

You assume that Lot didn't discuss it with his daughters

And you assume he did, despite no such indication.

You insist it was the rape of his daughters that Lot offered but if his daughters did in fact willingly offer themselves to a lawless people to have their way with them then the rape issue is moot.

Ok suppose a gang of men came into a woman's house and said they were going to rape her daughter, and the woman said "no, have sex with me instead", is this not still rape? Clearly the woman does not want to have sex with these men. She's doing it simply to protect her family. Do you suppose Lot's daughters wanted to have sex with this mob? Or do you think they simply agreed because they wanted to protect the angels?

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 52 by rikuoamero]

I never said that their salvation would be guaranteed by such an admittedly poor choice of non-solutions.

You are reading into what I said which is a common tactic used to put the person you are speaking to on the defensive so that you can control the conversation.

So long as you do that I won't care to grace your comments with further reply.

I don't really care what you choose to think.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 54 by BusB]

I never said that their salvation would be guaranteed by such an admittedly poor choice of non-solutions.

I didn't say guarentee myself. I said 'help ensure'. You said

"Lot being a righteous man even cared about the salvation of those sinners and likely believed that they would be forever destroyed if they followed through with their intent to rape those messengers from God."

How would Lot offering his daughters (either with their own permission or without) have helped with the crowd's salvation? Notice I do not say guarantee.
Notice that you say that Lot might have cared about the crowd's salvation. Yet apparently the salvation of his daughters is a non-issue (unless night long orgies are a non-factor for God when it comes to determining one's salvation)?

You are reading into what I said which is a common tactic used to put the person you are speaking to on the defensive so that you can control the conversation.

Nope, I read what you wrote and responded to it, by pointing out things that what you write seemingly ignores entirely (the salvation of the daughters).

So long as you do that I won't care to grace your comments with further reply.

Since I didn't do that, I expect further replies from yourself then?

I don't really care what you choose to think.

So...why are you here debating?

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 55 by rikuoamero]

I don't debate.

I offer perspectives.

And I don't really care what anyone does or doesn't do with those perspectives. Some will ignore my perspectives, others will twist my perspectives, and some may even value my perspectives.

But I stopped caring long ago when I realized that it is the reader's responsibility how they comprehend things. I have no power or right over what anyone else chooses to think.

[Revelations won]

Dear Left Site,

Thank you for your perspectives.

My perspective is that when carefully searching Genesis 19, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those seeking to sodomize Lot's visitors had any interest to so abuse his daughters. From the account given in Genesis, there is clear evidence that their only passion was to sodomize Lot's visitors.

Having so stated my perspective according to the scant record given, it amounts to pure speculation for anyone to assume there was any threat to Lot's daughters. Lot having been well acquainted with situation, in all probability knew this.

Further the chief apostle Peter,s reference declaring Lot to be a righteous man would also indicate that he had other sacred records that we do not now posses. If such records were available today, it is entirely possible that our perspectives would have a different take.

Regards,
RT

[brianbbs67]

It is a curious story. The ending is curious also. The story actually indicates that LOt's wife was far enough behind him, for whatever reason, she was reduced to salt, in a pile. Story says Lot reached the town he wished before the fire rained down. And then it tells of Lot's wife's fate. So, did she not leave with him and came later? or maybe went back? Then there is the angel's words,' take your 2 remaining daughters and wife...' What really happened here?

So were Lot's other children killed? Besides the sons who laughed and ignored him.

[Revelations won]

Dear brianbbs67

Thank you for your response.

It would appear that any of his other posterity who did not choose to follow him suffered the same fate as those who remained.

One must remember that the entire book of Genesis gives very limited detail and unfortunately many chose to second guess or speculate not only on this issue, but on others as well.

I think it would be most interesting if we of today had the record which Peter had. The New Testament speaks of a time of restitution of all things in Christ spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began:

Acts
3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which was before preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

I think that when all the above prophesied events are fulfilled, then and only then will all confusion and and contentions cease. I will list some other Bible references that refer to the Lords marvelous latter day works performed and yet to be performed.

Isaiah 2:2 (2-5)
Isaiah 11:11 (1-16)
Isaiah 29:14 (1-24
Jeremiah 31:31 (31-34)
Ezekiel 37:26 (11-28)
Daniel 2:44 (26-45)
Joel 2:28 (28-32)
Amos 3:7
Malachi 3:1
Malachi 4:6 (5-6)
Matthew 17:11
Matthew 24:14
Acts 3:21 (20-26)
Romans 11:25 ((16-26)
Ephesians 1:10 (9-10)
Revelation 14:6 (6-7)

After searching all of the above, tell me what fascinating things you have been able to discover.

Best wishes,
RT

[brianbbs67]

Dear brianbbs67

Thank you for your response.


I think it would be most interesting if we of today had the record which Peter had. The New Testament speaks of a time of restitution of all things in Christ spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began:


Best wishes,
RT

We do have a sources. The easiest one is the JPS Tanakh. Look up 19:23-26 in that and you will see a footnote on the phrase "looked back" that says Literally Behind. (so, she either tarried, fell behind for some reason or went back to see)

There is a lot of this in there and a lot of footnotes saying "meaning of ancient Hebrew unknown " . Which means the Hebrews don't even know....

I will look at your verses and get back to you.