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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 36 by Willum]

Just won't stop berating Jesus will you? Even when explanations are offered to you that explain that he did not place Caesar's laws ahead of God's. How sad.

You may be disgusted with Jesus, Jehovah and the Bible (and that's your prerogative), but I don't like it. I'm done listening to your acerbic accusations that have no substantiation.

Have a good week.

That was my final word to Willum.

Fare thee well, Willum.


.

[Revelations won]

The apostle Peter testified that Lot was a righteous man.

This portion of history regarding Lot is extremely limited and fragmentary. I suspect that anyone attempting to challenge Peter's statement could at some future time be found guilty of bearing false witness. Unless we have access to all that Peter had access to, we are on shaky ground.

As for the unsupported claims regarding Lot offering his daughters and the ensuing speculation that they were intended victims of gang rape, it is entirely possible that those outside his house were so obsessed with male sodomy that they had no interest in his daughters. He therefore may have been confident of their safety. This opposing view is just as valid as the others presented.

Also there is no evidence that Lot was seduced by his daughters. If this is in the Bible, please so inform me.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 41 by onewithhim]

But hopefully, not your lasts thoughts on the matter, you will see that Jesus was a Roman invention to get the Palestinians to obey Rome,be peaceful and pay their taxes.

[Justin108]

As for the unsupported claims regarding Lot offering his daughters and the ensuing speculation that they were intended victims of gang rape, it is entirely possible that those outside his house were so obsessed with male sodomy that they had no interest in his daughters. He therefore may have been confident of their safety. This opposing view is just as valid as the others presented.

If he was positive that the mob would reject his daughter, why would he offer them up in the first place?

[Revelations won]

Reply to Justin,

As mentioned in my first response, The information available to us today is very limited.

You and I or anyone could speculate on this issue forever. It appears that the Apostle Peter, who at the time of his pronouncement clearly declared Lot to be a "righteous man". Peter was the one who held the keys of the kingdom of God at that time. Considering his position, it would appear that he had documentation unavailable to us today or was informed by revelation regarding the issue of Lot.

[Justin108]

Reply to Justin,

As mentioned in my first response, The information available to us today is very limited.

You and I or anyone could speculate on this issue forever. It appears that the Apostle Peter, who at the time of his pronouncement clearly declared Lot to be a "righteous man". Peter was the one who held the keys of the kingdom of God at that time. Considering his position, it would appear that he had documentation unavailable to us today or was informed by revelation regarding the issue of Lot.

Alternatively, it could be that Lot did offer his daughters up to be raped by a mob but Peter didn't consider this act unrighteous. If there is some hidden truth about Lot's righteousness, why wasn't it included in the Bible? To assume that there was some hidden scripture about Lot is grasping at straws. Lot offered his daughters up to be raped. Your denial is nothing but confirmation bias.

[Revelations won]

Dear Justin,

I am not in a position to challenge the Apostle peter's declaration that Lot "was a righteous man". However I do not think that Peter would make such a declaration unless he had substantial evidence to defend his statement.

I can see at least two possibilities upon which his statement is based. One being that he had additional scriptural references that may have been lost sometime prior to AD 325. Second, that he received additional revelation which gave him a clearer picture of all the facts.

[rikuoamero]

Dear Justin,

I am not in a position to challenge the Apostle peter's declaration that Lot "was a righteous man". However I do not think that Peter would make such a declaration unless he had substantial evidence to defend his statement.

I can see at least two possibilities upon which his statement is based. One being that he had additional scriptural references that may have been lost sometime prior to AD 325. Second, that he received additional revelation which gave him a clearer picture of all the facts.

Some Germans who lived at the time of the Second World War claimed that Hitler was a righteous man. I do not have the evidence that they had. Should we defer to what they say, or is the Holocaust enough for to determine that maybe, just maybe, Hitler was not nice?

Your logic would have everyone be righteous, because of course, not everyone has access to all data about everyone else. Maybe Hilary Clinton had some justification for manipulating the Demoncratic nomination to ensure she ended up the Democratic candidate.

[Left Site]

Reply to Justin,

As mentioned in my first response, The information available to us today is very limited.

You and I or anyone could speculate on this issue forever. It appears that the Apostle Peter, who at the time of his pronouncement clearly declared Lot to be a "righteous man". Peter was the one who held the keys of the kingdom of God at that time. Considering his position, it would appear that he had documentation unavailable to us today or was informed by revelation regarding the issue of Lot.

Alternatively, it could be that Lot did offer his daughters up to be raped by a mob but Peter didn't consider this act unrighteous. If there is some hidden truth about Lot's righteousness, why wasn't it included in the Bible? To assume that there was some hidden scripture about Lot is grasping at straws. Lot offered his daughters up to be raped. Your denial is nothing but confirmation bias.

I see no reason to deny that Lot did just that.

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.

And you have to take into consideration that many cultures then, even as today, did not have laws requiring marriage as a prerequisite for sex between a consenting man and woman. On that basis it could have been in part that Lot's point was that those men would do better to avoid homosexuality. His daughters must not have thought about it as you do. We have to consider that as the story goes forward, his daughters showed their love for him by making sure he had a male descendant to keep his name living on after him. On that basis it seems that his daughters did not take offense to him making that offer. But if your intent is to look for bad then what you read you will interpret with as much harshness as seems right to you. For example, you will even see his daughters only having committed incest and pay no mind to the act of love that they showed for their father's name.

Even to day sex between unwed consenting male and female became acceptable long before sex between two consenting males. But the world has progressively grown more and more controlled by evil. The kingdom of the world has now reached the state of Sodom and Egypt just as foretold through John at Revelation 11:8.

[Justin108]

and likely believed that they would be forever destroyed if they followed through with their intent to rape those messengers from God.

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

Indeed sex between man and woman is not considered with the weight of sex between two men which is considered both idolatry and bestiality.

You clearly have no idea what idolatry or bestiality is.

On that basis it could have been in part that Lot's point was that those men would do better to avoid homosexuality.

So in your mind, homosexuality is worse than rape?

His daughters must not have thought about it as you do.

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?

For example, you will even see his daughters only having committed incest and pay no mind to the act of love that they showed for their father's name.

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.