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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Was Lot a righteous man?

The the evidence indicates that he was; ie the bible describes Lot as a righteous man. In my opinion, that is the description given to him in scripture.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Was Lot a righteous man?

The the evidence indicates that he was; ie the bible describes Lot as a righteous man. In my opinion, that is the description given to him in scripture.

Are you going to address the matter of him offering up his daughters to be gang raped? Do you personally consider that a righteous act?

[ttruscott]

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

It is like this: Yes he was a sinner and did a stupid evil thing in his desperation to keep his angelic visitors safe, but he was still a man under the promise of GOD to be forgiven from all his sins and to be sanctified until he was holy and heaven ready.

Righteous can be used to describe the state of holiness in a man or it can be used to state the status of a man as elect (under GOD's promise of salvation) though he is still in his sins.

[rikuoamero]

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

It is like this: Yes he was a sinner and did a stupid evil thing in his desperation to keep his angelic visitors safe, but he was still a man under the promise of GOD to be forgiven from all his sins and to be sanctified until he was holy and heaven ready.

Righteous can be used to describe the state of holiness in a man or it can be used to state the status of a man as elect (under GOD's promise of salvation) though he is still in his sins.

So...righteousness is a status that apparently (according to yourself) is wholly unaffected by one's actions.
There have been discussions like this in the world of Dungeons and Dragons. In that game, there is a spell that can be cast called 'Detect Evil', which is supposed to highlight objects that are 'evil'. Players have long debated on how, exactly, a sword is 'evil'. It's an inanimate object. If a holy paladin swings that sword, is the sword 'good'? If a vile cruel assassin swings the sword, does it become 'evil'? What exactly is the Detect Evil spell picking up?

[Justin108]

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

It is like this: Yes he was a sinner and did a stupid evil thing in his desperation to keep his angelic visitors safe, but he was still a man under the promise of GOD to be forgiven from all his sins and to be sanctified until he was holy and heaven ready.

Righteous can be used to describe the state of holiness in a man or it can be used to state the status of a man as elect (under GOD's promise of salvation) though he is still in his sins.

I am clearly not an elect, yet I would never do what Lot did. I can confidently say that nothing I have ever done comes close to this kind of immorality. How is it possible for an elect to be less moral than a non-elect? How is it that I am more moral than Lot, yet I will be going to hell while Lot will end up being saved?

[onewithhim]

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?

Well, somehow his goodness outweighed his ridiculousness. Most of the people that Jehovah accepted as His close friends had some seriously flawed tendencies. Abraham and Jacob had several wives and/or concubines. That was not according to Jehovah's original purposes. Abraham was a ninny, trying to make a king think that Sarah was his sister. David was incredibly stupid and immoral at times, and also had many wives. Jehovah must've seen around their faults and looked at their good qualities, which often are not obvious to us. Jehovah looks at the goodness in each of us, rather than the no-good garbage stuff.

"If errors were what you watch, O Jehovah, who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3)


.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by onewithhim]

Well, somehow his goodness outweighed his ridiculousness.

Offering up one's daughters to be gang-raped...you describe that as the man being 'ridiculous'? Why that word, and not other words that come to mind?
Just imagine how high my eyebrow is raised at reading that.

Most of the people that Jehovah accepted as His close friends had some seriously flawed tendencies. Abraham and Jacob had several wives and/or concubines. That was not according to Jehovah's original purposes.

Strange then that Big J didn't say anything to Abe and Little J to knock it off with the multiple marriages and incest.
Don't you find it odd that he commands Abe not to go through with sacrificing Isaac (an act that he orders in the first place, by the way) and this shows somehow how against the practice of human sacrifice God is...but he makes not a peep to the same people about multiple marriages?

Abraham was a ninny, trying to make a king think that Sarah was his sister.

Wow...what a great example he is. Besides, don't you think it odd that the Egyptians are stopped from taking Sarah simply by being told she's Abe's sister? If they had been told she was his wife, would that have stopped them in their tracks?

Jehovah must've seen around their faults and looked at their good qualities, which often are not obvious to us. Jehovah looks at the goodness in each of us, rather than the no-good garbage stuff.

You're not exactly selling these people as the supposed paragons they're supposed to be, the example set that Hebrews wanted to match.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 8 by rikuoamero]

Mmhmmm. And if I did present them as good examples you would castigate me for that. Can't win.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by rikuoamero]

Mmhmmm. And if I did present them as good examples you would castigate me for that. Can't win.

That's a problem for your theology. As you have so aptly shown within the last hour, you are defending men who offer their daughters up for gang-rape, men who lie and take multiple wives up as somehow being men of worth, of renown, men beloved by your God.
If God (and you) can look past those actions...why can't he look past anyone else's actions? If Lot offering up his daughters for gang-rape can be looked past...why the need for Jesus to do what he does?