He knew he had an important message he needed to recieveAnd there was.He and his family lived and everyone one else was destroyedHe made the right decision that saved his families livesThat sounds pretty righteous to me.

So if I give you an important package to deliver for me the next town over and you run into trouble, it would be okay in your mind to offer up a promise of your wife to be sodomized in order to diffuse the issue? Of course you would get away with your life.

never mind u missed the point

Feel free to make one, although I simply pointed out to you that this is the Old Testament and we are dealing with the word of God here. Jesus did not exist yet. Take it from that frame of referance which is fair. Otherwise you might as well toss out half the bible.

1st point: You analogy doesnt make any sense in the context of this discussion. For one, Lot didnt deliver a message, the angels did.Without the message the angels delivered then Lot and his entire family would have been destroyed as well.


2nd point:The angels were his guests. In the ancient world, treating a guest with utmost respect was a sacred compact unto death(and still is in most of the middle east).

3rd point: Most people I know prefer living over dying and they usually do what they have to in order to survive.Nothing new about that

it's kinda the same thing as when God demanded Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Abraham could have refused but he didn't; he took his son to the Dome of the Rock and prepared to slash his throat. Just at the last second God said "That's cool, nevermind"

But Abraham was prepared to kill his son for God

My analogy makes perfect sense. It was not a verbatim instance for instance as I was making a comparison from 2000 years ago, to modern times. If I gave you a message to deliver and you were apprehended by thugs but instead of handing over my message, you offered your wife to be sodomized in order to spare your own life, then shall I call you righteous or a coward? Your choice. I am asking you.



No one misunderstands the importance of a guest in your home and especially in the Middle East. What I am asking is if that guest supersedes the lives of your daughters?



So in your opinion, sacrificing your own flesh and blood children makes it okay? After all, you lived? So that means it would have been okay with you if the angels got away to safety, god was happy, but your daughters laid brutally beaten and raped?

"My analogy makes perfect sense. It was not a verbatim instance for instance as I was making a comparison from 2000 years ago, to modern times. If I gave you a message to deliver and you were apprehended by thugs but instead of handing over my message, you offered your wife to be sodomized in order to spare your own life, then shall I call you righteous or a coward? Your choice. I am asking you."


Depends on the priority.If its in the interests of national defense, or a message from God, then I think that makes it more important.

"No one misunderstands the importance of a guest in your home and especially in the Middle East. What I am asking is if that guest supersedes the lives of your daughters?"


Not to me ,but for those people back then, yes.


"So in your opinion, sacrificing your own flesh and blood children makes it okay? After all, you lived? So that means it would have been okay with you if the angels got away to safety, god was happy, but your daughters laid brutally beaten and raped?"


To protect Gods messenger angels then yes I think that takes priority.

Uhh, well at least you are honest. I would have slit your throat years ago in that case.

I will see if anyone else responds.

Uh.....Thanks.........I think.........

Well its certainly a questionable position to take. Maybe not to a Christian though. We will see if anyone else responds. Maybe being a parent would change things.

Well, I try to answer your questions but you dont seem to like the answers you get.Don't be a "Funch".


Have a Happy Holidays Krimsa

Im not being a funches Its not that kind of question. There is no right or wrong because we already know what happened based on the outcome of the story. However we can still ask what each person would do if they were in Lot's position. I dont like your answer its true. I think it reflects badly on your moral fiber yet maybe all Christians feel the same way or maybe people who have children see it differently

Thats the point to the thread To find out.

A "Funch" is someone that asks a question but no matter what answers they get they are unsatisfied. j/k

I would just point out that Lot wasn't a christian and and he WAS a parent.And obviously peoples social values were different back then (so judging them by our social values isn't really fair). And apparently God had a problem with what the people were doing in those cities because he destroyed them (according to the story). I do my best but I never claimed to be a man of strong moral fiber. I am what I am I eat a lot of fiber though

now youll have to look this up cause im not sure im got the name right but im sure its in there...i believe it was moses, god told him to give his son as an blood offering, faithful he took his son to the alter and layed him on it, just before he killed his son, god stopped him, he was only testing him to test his faith, this is wat they were willing to do for god

i see im not the first to post this and im wrong it was abraham lol

You are quite right Mirror...

Actually, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah took place about 4000 years ago (2000 BCE)

This was before Moses and The Law...

From The Torah:

Genesis 19

7 And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

Lot knew that the act the Sodomites wished to commit was more of a moral wrong ("Crime against nature") than the rape of his daughters would be. (Still wrong, but not against GOD'S intent, ie; male-female.)

He was trying to prevent the city from being destroyed by offering his daughters....

He knew the punishment would be swift and merciless if the Sodomites harmed the Angels.

Also note that ALL of Lot's family was not spared, his sons-in-law with their wives (His daughters) refused to leave. Just his Wife and two virgin daughters were spared.

His wife then being disobedient, was turned to a pillar of salt.

Thanks for pointing that out

Hello,

The reason Lot offered his daughters is NOT because he thought the mob would leave him alone. He offered his daughters so the mob would leave the two messangers alone.

As for Lot being a righteous man, he did what was right in the eyes of the Elohim and not what is right in man's eyes. There is a BIG difference that most people don't understand.

exactly