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?

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 19 by Goat]

Goat wrote:

If you break the 'laws of men', you break the laws of the New Testament.

Exactly. If you obey God, you will never be held in judgement by anyone.

If God asks you disobey the law you will.

To me, your argument is nonsensical. God has never asked me to disobey the law. Therefore, it seems absurd to consider your hypothetical of God asking me to disobey the law, especially when, according to scripture, God has commanded that we obey the law.

But he did tell these people,

[youtube][/youtube]

And these

Children murdered by Christian parents. God told them to

[Sonofason]

But as you said, the men outside might have been bisexual. Maybe having the two daughters would have made them content. Maybe it wouldn't. It seems to me Lot's faith in God paid off.

We can only go off what the men supposedly said,

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

Apparently they had no interest in the daughters.

I guess my attention span is a little short. Please remind me of the point you are trying to make.

Are you suggesting that because Lot was a Biblical character that he must have been a "good" man?

Are you suggesting that because Lot was a Biblical character that he must have been a "wise" man?

Are you suggesting that Biblical characters never made mistakes?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Are you simply trying to convince me that you are a better person than Lot?

What exactly is your point?

[Nickman]

But as you said, the men outside might have been bisexual. Maybe having the two daughters would have made them content. Maybe it wouldn't. It seems to me Lot's faith in God paid off.

We can only go off what the men supposedly said,

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

Apparently they had no interest in the daughters.

I guess my attention span is a little short. Please remind me of the point you are trying to make.

Are you suggesting that because Lot was a Biblical character that he must have been a "good" man?

Are you suggesting that because Lot was a Biblical character that he must have been a "wise" man?

Are you suggesting that Biblical characters never made mistakes?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Are you simply trying to convince me that you are a better person than Lot?

What exactly is your point?

If the daughters are of no interest to the men, then the story is pointless. Either way, the man that your god calls righteous offered his children to be raped by a mob of men. It matters not if they raped them or not. That fact that he was willing to take that chance is where we see a lack of moral character.

[Sonofason]

But as you said, the men outside might have been bisexual. Maybe having the two daughters would have made them content. Maybe it wouldn't. It seems to me Lot's faith in God paid off.

We can only go off what the men supposedly said,

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

Apparently they had no interest in the daughters.

I guess my attention span is a little short. Please remind me of the point you are trying to make.

Are you suggesting that because Lot was a Biblical character that he must have been a "good" man?

Are you suggesting that because Lot was a Biblical character that he must have been a "wise" man?

Are you suggesting that Biblical characters never made mistakes?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Are you simply trying to convince me that you are a better person than Lot?

What exactly is your point?

If the daughters are of no interest to the men, then the story is pointless. Either way, the man that your god calls righteous offered his children to be raped by a mob of men. It matters not if they raped them or not. That fact that he was willing to take that chance is where we see a lack of moral character.

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.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 42 by Sonofason]

God said in the Bible that Lot was a good man, but him offering his daughters showed that he wasn't. You keep claiming that Lot had faith in God, but no where in the Bible does it say that God told him to offer his daughters, so how does that show faith?

[help3434]

[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.

[Jack Stoddart]

II Peter 2:4-9 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

[center]The Bible is quite clear that Lot was a just, righteous & godly man possessing in addition a righteous soul.[/center]

There is a difference, in my world, between right and wrong. Offering daughters to mobs for a rape party is wrong. And you know perhaps there is something wrong with me? but producing inbred children with them in a cave also qualifies as wrong. Not righteous in any way. According to the source there were plenty of people around for them to marry. The only thing preventing that would seem to be mental health issues. There can be no doubt that throwing women out for raping to death even if they were the property of your guest was not regarded in a poor light as the casual reference to exactly that activity makes plain in Judges 19, mentioned in POST 4.

Very few people would want to live in a world like that. Especially not virgin daughters or concubines. I know I wouldn't. But my standards are not God's standards. From the original post:

I'm at a loss as to how to explain his actions (not to mention the ethics of his act) … can't really understand his actions or how we should interpret this particular piece of scripture today.

When the cities of the plain were blasted, remember that there had been an entreaty to spare them if even ten righteous persons were to be found there Genesis 18:20-32. Evidently that did not eventuate, no pregnant woman, no infant, no toddler or child or teenager was deemed worthy to be spared. Now what do you think happens to a baby when it's hit with a gushing plume of molten sulphur at 113-445 °C? Let's take the lower temperature range. That would be like pouring boiling water over the baby. Since this was admixed with fire however I'd expect higher temperatures. Picture with me a 4½-year-old getting the treatment at 445° and this is presented as just? As I say, I have different standards.

• My submission then is that ethics simply do not exist in this material.


[center]________________________________________________[/center]


How should we interpret this particular piece of scripture today? While Lot's actions are relatively easy to understand in an ethics vacuum, that is not where we live and move and have our being today. All cultures have legendary heroes, whether or not historicity is claimed for them (Jack & the beanstalk for example or Hercules or Dick Whittington), and the setting for Lot is the Dead Sea transform fault. NASA SATELLITE PHOTO. Volcanic activity is no more surprising than brimstone themed legends. This is one of them. The Christian position is that God loves your children. Perhaps you might use a loving stereotype to communicate that concept to a child. But Christianity also announces that our understanding of love is meagre and incomplete. God's standard of love is perfect. That 4½-year-old flayed alive by molten sulphur then must be a participant in God's perfect love. If that is assessed as harsh then the question arises: by what standard is it harsh? Where does that standard come from?

• My second submission is less one of interpretation—this is a hero legend—than of reflection: Are these the values we desire for our children? For educating the next generation? When we adjust our thinking to accommodate Lot as a just and righteous man and transmit that thinking as part of education, what consequences might there be? Which societies have better educational outcomes, secular democracies, theocratic autocracies or somewhere in between? I know where on that spectrum I would want my children to be.




[center][/center]


[right].[/right]

[10CC]

II Peter 2:4-9 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

[center]The Bible is quite clear that Lot was a just, righteous & godly man possessing in addition a righteous soul.[/center]

There is a difference, in my world, between right and wrong. Offering daughters to mobs for a rape party is wrong. And you know perhaps there is something wrong with me? but producing inbred children with them in a cave also qualifies as wrong. Not righteous in any way. According to the source there were plenty of people around for them to marry. The only thing preventing that would seem to be mental health issues. There can be no doubt that throwing women out for raping to death even if they were the property of your guest was not regarded in a poor light as the casual reference to exactly that activity makes plain in Judges 19, mentioned in POST 4.

Very few people would want to live in a world like that. Especially not virgin daughters or concubines. I know I wouldn't. But my standards are not God's standards. From the original post:

I'm at a loss as to how to explain his actions (not to mention the ethics of his act) … can't really understand his actions or how we should interpret this particular piece of scripture today.

When the cities of the plain were blasted, remember that there had been an entreaty to spare them if even ten righteous persons were to be found there Genesis 18:20-32. Evidently that did not eventuate, no pregnant woman, no infant, no toddler or child or teenager was deemed worthy to be spared. Now what do you think happens to a baby when it's hit with a gushing plume of molten sulphur at 113-445 °C? Let's take the lower temperature range. That would be like pouring boiling water over the baby. Since this was admixed with fire however I'd expect higher temperatures. Picture with me a 4½-year-old getting the treatment at 445° and this is presented as just? As I say, I have different standards.

• My submission then is that ethics simply do not exist in this material.


[center]________________________________________________[/center]


How should we interpret this particular piece of scripture today? While Lot's actions are relatively easy to understand in an ethics vacuum, that is not where we live and move and have our being today. All cultures have legendary heroes, whether or not historicity is claimed for them (Jack & the beanstalk for example or Hercules or Dick Whittington), and the setting for Lot is the Dead Sea transform fault. NASA SATELLITE PHOTO. Volcanic activity is no more surprising than brimstone themed legends. This is one of them. The Christian position is that God loves your children. Perhaps you might use a loving stereotype to communicate that concept to a child. But Christianity also announces that our understanding of love is meagre and incomplete. God's standard of love is perfect. That 4½-year-old flayed alive by molten sulphur then must be a participant in God's perfect love. If that is assessed as harsh then the question arises: by what standard is it harsh? Where does that standard come from?

• My second submission is less one of interpretation—this is a hero legend—than of reflection: Are these the values we desire for our children? For educating the next generation? When we adjust our thinking to accommodate Lot as a just and righteous man and transmit that thinking as part of education, what consequences might there be? Which societies have better educational outcomes, secular democracies, theocratic autocracies or somewhere in between? I know where on that spectrum I would want my children to be.




[center][/center]


[right].[/right]

Huzzah Jack Stoddart.
According to forum rules I must say more that that, so let me say.
That not only is Lot one of the most despicable fictional characters I have ever read about but that the god who allegedly saved him makes him look like the most saintly person to have ever existed in comparison!

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 42 by Sonofason]

God said in the Bible that Lot was a good man, but him offering his daughters showed that he wasn't. You keep claiming that Lot had faith in God, but no where in the Bible does it say that God told him to offer his daughters, so how does that show faith?

I suppose you are right. It seems that within the verses being discussed there is no mention of the faith of Lot, and there is no mention that God told Lot anything. It appears that his actions were simply a result of his own thinking.

But if you are suggesting in any way that Lot made the wrong decision, I'd have to admit, I wouldn't want to be a guest in your house.

[help3434]

[Replying to Sonofason]

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