Randy,
I'll have to go back and read the text cause I was posting from memory. Not sure if Lot is deemed "just", what Abe wanted was to get the "just" people out of there so it's logical the Lot is deemed "just" because he got out.
I'll have to re-read the text to see if his daughters were virgins or he just stated they were to intice the mob, STILL that's a pretty harsh way to treat your kids in favor of strangers.
And I completely agree with you Randy regarding the Bible being a GREAT BOOK whether or not you "believe". I don't "believe" but there are some great lessons and stories in that book (good and bad).
Guest (Joe?),
You want to spin what Lot did in a positive light, you cannot spin what he said. He offered up his daughters, that's sick. You can spin Lot's words and actions many different ways, all of which are feasible.
Like I said earlier to Joe, there are books that are not included in the bible for whatever reason. It's not because they didn't stand up to critique, it's because a group of bishops decided what goes in and what stays out. There were basically three catagories, stuff they wanted in, stuff they were not sure about and stuff they wanted to surpress/destroy. The agnostics/nogstic (sic?) stuff they wanted surpressed as well as the gosphel of Mary Magdeline (IMO most favored amoungst the apostles). But the scripture they decided to omit, NOT surpress, included the conversation/revelations by Jesus referring to EVERYONE going to heaven.
Can anyone honestly say a bunch of bishops who were trying to gain control of the population and power in the midst of great empires were completely honest and correct in selecting the books to be included in the bible. God nor Jesus said we needed a bible, the stories were circulating amoungst the believers and a group of bishops decided those stories needed to be put into ONE book.
WOW, I don't agree with your sentiments that it's only "logical" that Lot was a "just" man because he was allowed to leave. Abe wasn't asking God to allow the "just" to leave -- he was asking that the city be spared if enough just were found. You can make a lot of "logical" assumptions based on why that Lot was allowed to leave -- and while one COULD be that Lot was a just man -- my response would be: 1) he doesn't look too just by his actions (both before, during and after this passage) and 2) other "logical" assumptions could also be true (such as Lot being allowed to leave as a favor to Abraham, or because of his connections to Abraham, etc.
While your logical assumption presents a problem -- I think there are other logical assumptions that don't, IMO.
I'll have to re-read the text to see if his daughters were virgins or he just stated they were to intice the mob, STILL that's a pretty harsh way to treat your kids in favor of strangers.
This passage is from Genesis 19:1:
"See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."
I didn't make this original comment -- Joe did. However, I'd be happy to throw in my two cents.
1) It's pretty clear that they were virgins (not knowing a man).
2) Personally, I think Lot knew who these strangers were (angels) -- also, you need to understand a bit more of history of the time and entertaining guests. Guests were treated higher than family in the Jewish culture.
3) Lot makes an incredulous offer (about his two daughters) -- one that no sane father would ever make -- however, it becomes clear that Lot wasn't what I would call a very good father (his later sin, IMO, is just as bad -- if not worse -- than this one). However, while we are talking about logical assumptions -- if Lot DID know who the men were (angels) -- then does he not know that the right thing to do is protect them at any cost? Not saying that justifies his sin -- the fact is that he SHOULD have offered himself to the people rather than his daughters -- but we could make some logical conclusions about that as well.
4) Why were the angels there? A fact finding trip? Umm, if this story is true -- then wouldn't God have already known the results of such a trip? So the trip isn't as much a fact finding trip but a trip to allow Lot to do the right thing (for once). Not saying he did the right thing in the right way -- but I think because he did the right thing -- he is allowed to escape with his family (notice that his son-in-laws blew him off).
Obviously, these are some "logical" assumptions -- believe it or not, I wasn't actually there -- just offering a different perspective for you to consider and think about.
You want to spin what Lot did in a positive light, you cannot spin what he said. He offered up his daughters, that's sick. You can spin Lot's words and actions many different ways, all of which are feasible.
I think you are spinning some of this negatively, WOW -- it doesn't have to spin that way (i.e. making Lot a "just" man -- that assumption doesn't need to exist) -- however -- I agree with you -- offering up his daughters is sick and wrong! I don't see anywhere else in scripture that would make that right (therefore make him just).
Like I said earlier to Joe, there are books that are not included in the bible for whatever reason. It's not because they didn't stand up to critique, it's because a group of bishops decided what goes in and what stays out. There were basically three catagories, stuff they wanted in, stuff they were not sure about and stuff they wanted to surpress/destroy. The agnostics/nogstic (sic?) stuff they wanted surpressed as well as the gosphel of Mary Magdeline (IMO most favored amoungst the apostles). But the scripture they decided to omit, NOT surpress, included the conversation/revelations by Jesus referring to EVERYONE going to heaven.
There are books that aren't included -- and some of them are GREAT reads -- not negating anything else in scripture. I'd like to see this quote you are referring to -- as it contradicts what Jesus says in the other gospels.
I also think there are three groups of critics out there (when it comes to the Bible): 1) those who want to prove the Bible as truth; 2) those who want to evaluate it and see for themselves; and 3) those who want to prove it wrong. And all three of those categories have existed FAR longer than any of us (and they will continue).
You can find writings of all three -- when you are talking about "additional" writings to scripture -- it's better to take the word of critics in the 2nd group rather than in the 1st or 3rd.
