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?
Lot's two virgin daughters thrown to the mob
Moderator: Moderators
-
Angel song
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:22 am
Post #71
That's too funny. I believe God holds that position as well. How ironic.Nickman wrote: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?Sonofason wrote:
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.
I see the good in people.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.
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.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.
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.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.
-
Angel
Post #72
What Lot did was immoral just as it was immoral for King David to sleep with a married woman (Bathsheba). I don't see anything to explain here other than that these stories were included to report something (which includes the good and bad) rather than to prescribe something. I believe Lot's actions were immoral because he was willingly offering up his daughters to various men which would’ve lead to fornication. He had moral options, one being to fight and sacrifice himself or to rely on his faith and ask for supernatural intervention. If the Bible calls Lot a righteous man then it must be by some lesser standard, like how Abraham was counted righteous by faith Lot was certainly not perfect nor sinless.Angel song wrote: 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?
Someone made a point earlier about Lot choosing the lesser of two evils but I don’t see that as being moral or justifiable. If Christians really believe that God is omnipotent then there should know that God's power can overcome all evil and bad situations. So factoring that in, you shouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils in a difficult situation since asking God to help is an option and so is sacrificing yourself or just fighting the best you can. Even if God wasn't omnipotent, I would first need evidence or some biblical precedent (GOD approved) that shows that choosing the lesser of two evils or simply doing evil is a 'moral' option in some cases. There is biblical precedent for not settling for evil, for example, in Daniel 3:7-28, esp. verses 16-18 where 3 teens refused to bow down to an idol (bowing to idols is a sin) despite being threatened with death. I'm sure there are other examples but the one example I pointed to should suffice to show that God is an option.
-
Jack Stoddart
- Apprentice
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:34 am
Post #73
Which God? Of the Canaanite selection there is Yahweh, to whom volcanic activity around the Dead Sea was attributed. How many innocent children were murdered in that episode? Did they cry out to be spared (if they were old enough to have language) when that brimstone rained? Were they ignored? You would need to explain why.
Or is there no shelter to be found.
Let's pop over to Gomorrah. First we'll calculate the approximate population. Excuse the next paragraph which is a bit boring but it will get more exciting later on..
Noah » Ham » Canaan » Sidon his first-born, then Heth, and the Jebusites, the Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, Hamathites; later the Canaanite tribes scattered. The Canaanite frontier stretched from Sidon in the direction of Gerar and as far as Gaza, then in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, and as far as Lesha.
Comparing Luke's genealogy [font=Times New Roman]viz.[/font] Abraham « Terah « Nahor « Serug « Reu « Peleg « Eber « Shelah « Cainan « Arphaxad « Shem « Noah « Lamech « Methuselah « Enoch « Jared « Mahalaleel « Cainan « Enos « Seth « Adam « God, we have 12 generations from Noah to Abraham. Allowing the same number of generations to the inhabitants of 5 cities of the plain, and if 4 children survived to breed on average (Abraham had 2, others probably had more so I'm using 4 as an average per breeding pair starting with Noah's children) that's 2,048 altogether.
Throw in an extra generation, maybe allow 6 children per couple and we get to 354,294.
Let's call it half a million. Divided by 5 comes to 100,000 per city.
The lower estimate gives only be 409 per city which is a bit small, so somewhere in between = 35,634[right]Genesis 10 JB ©1966
Luke 3 JB ©1966[/right]
[center]Population estimate for Gomorrah: 35,634[/center]
From the description I doubt that these wretches were very long lived. Forty? Half the population would be under twenty, a quarter would be children or choose any other ratio you like, I'm going with 8,908½ dead children in Gomorrah.
[center]•
Or maybe it's Zeus? From Cleanthes we have hymns to Zeus:
[font=Georgia]“For we from Thee an offspring are, to whom, alone of mortals
“That live and move along the Earth the Mimic Voice is granted:
“Therefore to Thee I hymns will sing, and always chant thy greatness.�[/font]
Epimenides has a few lines too:
[font=Georgia]“A tomb they fashioned for you, Holy one, High one,
“..But you are not dead. You Live. You abide forever
“For in you we live and move and have our being.�[/font][/center]
Would Zeus really want to save righteous Lot and fry all those children? Let's see what Paul has to say. Here he is talking about "God" .. .. but which god..?
Maybe no bowing at all, just to be on the safe side. I don't even shake hands. Sometimes I might grunt, the convict heritage no doubt and perhaps that is why I disapprove of murdering babies. Intergenerational aversion therapy.
But disapprove I do, and most strongly. The proposition is that Zeus, or Yahweh or Shaddai or Elyon fried those babies, shoot holes in my maths all you like they must have been producing babies or they'd have gone extinct; check out my references: were they killed simply by the omission of not being sheltered? Or was it murder, according to the Genesis account. Then I would like to have it explained how this is a Loving God, as so many churches preach, and teach, and teach this stuff to children.
Perhaps Elyon will shield them from the somewhat arbitrary justice of Yahweh. Perhaps not. Often associated with El (who is also associated with Shaddai) in the following example they appear in their own right:PSALM 82:1-4 God stands in the divine assembly, among the gods he dispenses justice: 'No more mockery of justice, no more favouring the wicked! Let the weak and the orphan have justice, be fair to the wretched and destitute; rescue the weak and needy, save them from the clutches of the wicked!'[right]Jerusalem Bible ©1966 [/right]
Now obviously those children of the plain did not enjoy the protection afforded to Lot's daughters. They had not relied on El Elyon and were blasted by Yahweh. Or again, if they were aged, let's say 4 days, how could they remind Yahweh about El Shaddai's shadow? Why would Yahweh need reminding anyway? Could he not see the shadow? Does he have xray vision or something?PSALM 91:1-4b If you live in the shelter of Elyon and make your home in the shadow of Shaddai, you can say to Yahweh, 'My refuge, my fortress, my God to whom I trust!' He rescues you from the snares of fowlers hoping to destroy you; he covers you with his feathers, and you find shelter underneath his wing[right]Jerusalem Bible ©1966 [/right]
Or is there no shelter to be found.
Let's pop over to Gomorrah. First we'll calculate the approximate population. Excuse the next paragraph which is a bit boring but it will get more exciting later on..
Noah » Ham » Canaan » Sidon his first-born, then Heth, and the Jebusites, the Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, Hamathites; later the Canaanite tribes scattered. The Canaanite frontier stretched from Sidon in the direction of Gerar and as far as Gaza, then in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, and as far as Lesha.
Comparing Luke's genealogy [font=Times New Roman]viz.[/font] Abraham « Terah « Nahor « Serug « Reu « Peleg « Eber « Shelah « Cainan « Arphaxad « Shem « Noah « Lamech « Methuselah « Enoch « Jared « Mahalaleel « Cainan « Enos « Seth « Adam « God, we have 12 generations from Noah to Abraham. Allowing the same number of generations to the inhabitants of 5 cities of the plain, and if 4 children survived to breed on average (Abraham had 2, others probably had more so I'm using 4 as an average per breeding pair starting with Noah's children) that's 2,048 altogether.
Throw in an extra generation, maybe allow 6 children per couple and we get to 354,294.
Let's call it half a million. Divided by 5 comes to 100,000 per city.
The lower estimate gives only be 409 per city which is a bit small, so somewhere in between = 35,634[right]Genesis 10 JB ©1966
Luke 3 JB ©1966[/right]
[center]Population estimate for Gomorrah: 35,634[/center]
From the description I doubt that these wretches were very long lived. Forty? Half the population would be under twenty, a quarter would be children or choose any other ratio you like, I'm going with 8,908½ dead children in Gomorrah.
[center]•
Or maybe it's Zeus? From Cleanthes we have hymns to Zeus:
[font=Georgia]“For we from Thee an offspring are, to whom, alone of mortals
“That live and move along the Earth the Mimic Voice is granted:
“Therefore to Thee I hymns will sing, and always chant thy greatness.�[/font]
Epimenides has a few lines too:
[font=Georgia]“A tomb they fashioned for you, Holy one, High one,
“..But you are not dead. You Live. You abide forever
“For in you we live and move and have our being.�[/font][/center]
Would Zeus really want to save righteous Lot and fry all those children? Let's see what Paul has to say. Here he is talking about "God" .. .. but which god..?
So no statues of Zeus then, or at least no bowing in their vague direction.Acts 17:26-29 From one single stock he not only created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth, but he decreed how long each nation should flourish and what the boundaries of its territory should be. And he did this so that all nations might seek the deity and, by feeling their way towards him, succeed in finding him. Yet in fact he is not far from any of us, since it is in him that we live, and move, and exist, as indeed some of your own writers have said: "We are all his children". Since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone that has been carved and designed by a man.
Maybe no bowing at all, just to be on the safe side. I don't even shake hands. Sometimes I might grunt, the convict heritage no doubt and perhaps that is why I disapprove of murdering babies. Intergenerational aversion therapy.
But disapprove I do, and most strongly. The proposition is that Zeus, or Yahweh or Shaddai or Elyon fried those babies, shoot holes in my maths all you like they must have been producing babies or they'd have gone extinct; check out my references: were they killed simply by the omission of not being sheltered? Or was it murder, according to the Genesis account. Then I would like to have it explained how this is a Loving God, as so many churches preach, and teach, and teach this stuff to children.
[center][Replying to post 71 by Sonofason][/center]That's too funny. I believe God holds that position as well. How ironic.
Re: Lot's two virgin daughters thrown to the mob
Post #74[Replying to post 1 by Angel song]
When you read that chapter, why is THIS the first thing that catches your attention?
For me, the true evil in the chapter was an entire town of men gathering outside someone's house for a gang rape.
If I were to interpret Lot's actions, I'd have to do so in light of what happened immediately afterward when Lot's own daughters decided not only to stay with him but to mate with him. They seem to have taken Lot's actions to be something other than what the verse implies, perhaps desperation in the face of a violent mob?
They were very understanding under the circumstances.
When you read that chapter, why is THIS the first thing that catches your attention?
For me, the true evil in the chapter was an entire town of men gathering outside someone's house for a gang rape.
If I were to interpret Lot's actions, I'd have to do so in light of what happened immediately afterward when Lot's own daughters decided not only to stay with him but to mate with him. They seem to have taken Lot's actions to be something other than what the verse implies, perhaps desperation in the face of a violent mob?
They were very understanding under the circumstances.
