- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 02 2008,20:08) Would you eat a human being? Would you do it if you were born in a cannabilistic tribe in New Guinea? Maybe. You see, the setting, environment, knowledge, all have their part to play. In different circumstances it might surprise you what you are could be capable of.
But my point was that Lot was supposed to be righteous. He was also aware of the unwritten and written “laws' of God. Incest is clearly written. Yet he was not destroyed but the town that he came from was!! Could it have been that he asked for forgiveness and the other's did not? Perhaps….It is true that a lot of what your saying sounds like justification to me but it also could be a lot more complicated than I realize and maybe we don't have all the information?
Thanks t8,
MandyQuote (t8 @ Oct. 02 2008,20:09) I tend to keep away from societies tendency to condemn those who make mistakes. I think of the woman caught in adultery and all the people that were ready to stone her. Jesus said “let him who is without sin, cast the first stone”, and nobody stoned her. They all walked away.
I love this passage but irony has it that it is up for debate whether or not it was included in the original manuscripts. Go figure.Dave,
Quote “So they kept giving their father wine to drink during that night; then the firstborn went in and lay down with her father, but HE DID NOT KNOW when she lay down and when she got up.”
Um, Dave, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the male anatomy is such that you have to WANT IT to be able to function properly….there is a level of desire that needs to be there to start the mechanics of it all, right?
Quote Lot actually deplored the “lawless deeds” of Sodom’s inhabitants. (2 Peter 2:6-8) The very fact that Lot’s daughters got him intoxicated suggests that they realized that he would not consent to having sexual relations with them while he was sober. But as aliens in the land, his daughters felt that this was the only way to prevent the extinction of Lot’s family. The account is in the Bible to reveal the relationship of the Moabites (through Moab) and the Ammonites (through Benammi) to Abraham’s descendants, the Israelites.
And so I'm sure that God understood completely.Quote Yes, your arguments against God, don't sound right. They sound like they're missing any part of any scripture that at all hints that Lot 'wanted to have sex with his kids' as you state, and they ignore the fact that the Bible indicates the opposite–they knew they would have to get him drunk out of his mind for that to ever take place.
Again, I'm sure God will understand why they did it. Obviously he did understand because they were not burned to the ground like Sodom was for breaking, essentially, the same laws. That sounds fair, sure it does.David, listen, I know you are protecting the written Word – but Lot allowed both of his girls to have sex with him (probably multiple times in order to become pregnant). You can't tell me that he didn't have a hint of what was going on, I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think a man wrote the account of Lot because only a man would believe these justifications.
Quote The fact is, candor does suggest truth. Over and over, we see nations through history leaving their defeats or any embarressing things out of the books.
Or it just may suggest that God is unfair in his anger and discipline.Quote Actually, my response, as it turned out, showed that upon actual examination of what the text actually says, there was no contradiction.
Of course. David, an open mind is a terrible thing to lose.Thanks for your predicted response, though. I guess I'm done with this Lot story. In the end there is justification and certain explainations that don't seem to add up. The only explaination that there could be is that we do not have all the information surrounding this story and the events written. I'm willing to accept that. But to excuse Lot's behavior based on the fact that he was loaded and that the girls didn't have any other men to have sex with is crazy. The story just doesn't lend itself to such explainations. Lot would have had to of been loaded on many ocassions to impregnate TWO daughter's. Plus, as a man of God I'm sure God would have spoke to him at some point as he did regarding Sodom. I'm going to put this one in the “Too Hard Basket” and leave it there.
Thanks guys,
MandyQuote I know you are protecting the written Word – but Lot allowed both of his girls to have sex with him (probably multiple times in order to become pregnant). You can't tell me that he didn't have a hint of what was going on, I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Listen, perhaps I'm unaquainted with drunkeness and the level of control or functioning power one has when they are made to be drunk by someone else for the purpose of taking advantage of them. I've never experienced drunkeness and especially never to the degree that, as the Bible says, “HE DID NOT KNOW when she lay down and when she got up.”
So I am somewhat unfamiliar or inexperienced in this particular area. All I can tell you is what the Bible actually says.
As for not having a hint of what was going on, as you say–maybe he did have a hint, but in extreme intoxication, do you really have control of what is going on? Do you have control of your thoughts, and actions? Understand that I'm not defending the daughters. I'm pointing out that the Bible says Lot was unaware of what was going on. Remember, he was “old” as the account says. I can't remember his age. If someone feeds an elderly person wine to get them drunk to take advantage of them, that is wrong. But what the elderly person does in this drunken state, how much blame can be cast on him?Quote But to excuse Lot's behavior based on the fact that he was loaded and that the girls didn't have any other men to have sex with is crazy. The story just doesn't lend itself to such explainations. Lot would have had to of been loaded on many ocassions to impregnate TWO daughter's. You have read the account, correct? Yes, it was more than one occasion, as the account states. Mandy, if someone slips that certain drug into your drink that makes you lose your inhibitions, it is certainly a crime on the part of the one who did this. But would you also be guilty?
Quote Thanks for your predicted response, though.
What was your prediction again? Oh ya.–“But I know you can make it sound right, David.”
“right” isn't the right word. “understandable” is. What they did wasn't right. But what the elderly Lot did was, under heavy influence that was given to him by people he should have been able to trust, he did something bad while “unaware” of it.In their taking over the land east of the Jordan River, the Israelites, under divine orders, were careful not to trespass on the landholdings of the Ammonites and Moabites.—Deut. 2:9, 18, 19, 37.
But who are the Ammonites and Moabites? Where did they come from and why was Israel given these orders?
The relationship of the Moabites and Ammonites to the descendants of Abraham who became known as Israelites is explained in the account of Abrahams nephew Lot and his daughters.
Lot and his two daughters were the only persons to survive the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. After this destruction they began residing in the city of Zoar. However, for some reason Lot was afraid to continue dwelling there and, with his daughters, took up residence in a cave. (Gen. 19:30) Thereafter the firstborn said to her younger sister:
“Our father is old and there is not a man in the land to have relations with us according to the way of the whole earth. Come, let us give our father wine to drink and let us lie down with him and preserve offspring from our father.”—Gen. 19:31, 32.
The fact that they sought to get their father intoxicated suggests that they realized he would never have consented to having sexual relations with them in a sober state. But under the circumstances, they felt that this was the only way to prevent the extinction of Lot’s family. They were aliens in the land and there was no one of their kindred with whom they could enter into marriage and thus preserve the family line. It should also be remembered that Lot’s daughters had resided among the morally debased inhabitants of Sodom. In view of these factors, it would not have been difficult for them to justify their course of action in their own minds.It is true that in Genesis chapter 19 the historical facts are conveyed without any comment respecting God’s approval or disapproval of Lot’s twice committing incest in an intoxicated state. But in later portions of the Bible record, God’s condemnation of drunkenness is clearly stated again and again. (Prov. 20:1; 23:20, 21, 29-35; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10) Likewise, in his Law to Israel, God later made clear his prohibition of incest, saying: “You people must not come near, any man of you, to any close fleshly relative of his to lay bare nakedness. . . . The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare.” (Lev. 18:6, 7)
The penalty for violating the law on incest was death. (Lev. 18:29) While Lot and his daughters were not under the Law, they were, nevertheless, aware of the impropriety of having relations with their own father, as shown by the fact that they first got him intoxicated.
Why, then, is Lot called a “righteous man,” at 2 Peter 2:8?
Not because God approved of his getting drunk, nor because God approved of incest. God did not approve such conduct. But it should be noted that there is nothing in the record to indicate that Lot was a habitual drunkard, nor was he habitually involved in acts of incest. His reputation was that of a “righteous man,” and this reputation he had with God, who examines the heart. Lot deplored the “lawless deeds” of the people of Sodom. And, evidently, for the Examiner of hearts to view him as righteous, Lot must also have grieved over the wrong conduct in which he himself got involved.The inclusion of the information about Lot and his daughters in the Scriptural record should really help us to appreciate that the Bible is a book of truth. Even when persons who were known as God’s servants became involved in improper acts, the Bible does not conceal this. However, at all times such things are recounted to provide a background for understanding other events.
–Parts taken from W 72.Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2008,23:23) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 02 2008,20:08) Would you eat a human being? Would you do it if you were born in a cannabilistic tribe in New Guinea? Maybe. You see, the setting, environment, knowledge, all have their part to play. In different circumstances it might surprise you what you are could be capable of.
But my point was that Lot was supposed to be righteous. He was also aware of the unwritten and written “laws' of God. Incest is clearly written. Yet he was not destroyed but the town that he came from was!! Could it have been that he asked for forgiveness and the other's did not? Perhaps….It is true that a lot of what your saying sounds like justification to me but it also could be a lot more complicated than I realize and maybe we don't have all the information?
Thanks t8,
Mandy
Mandy,
You say it was written but that came hundreds of years later did it not. The question is was it so from the beginning?Wm
I just want to be clear while today it is clearly taboo there had to be some differences early on if two people populated the earth. With the loss in the gene pool over many generations any offspring from even cousins now will most likely have problems but it most likely was not a problem with the diversity in Adam and Eves Genes. I''m not trying to defend what happened (I don't know) but why assume that there is something wrong if the same person who wrote Lot was righteous wrote the rest of the story and He saw no conflict.
My opinion – Wm
Why don't all of you reinvent natural science and human psychology while you are at it? I was waiting to see how long it would take someone to point out that:
“It should also be remembered that Lot’s daughters had resided among the morally debased inhabitants of Sodom. In view of these factors, it would not have been difficult for them to justify their course of action in their own minds. “
Of course it is a carboard cut-out absurdity to write off an entire population as 'morally debased' no matter what your definition of that is. Scripture says it and scripture is proven wrong in this thread in five other instances (of many), so why believe it here?
As for “With the loss in the gene pool over many generations any offspring from even cousins now will most likely have problems but it most likely was not a problem with the diversity in Adam and Eves Genes”, where do you start? How can two breeding pairs of humans have any difference in 'diversity'? They each have two versions of every gene, no more. There are only a certain number of recombinations possible and evolution by mutation selection must have occurred at impossible speed for the variety we see in Homo Sapiens to have arisen from that myth. You can't have a 'loss in the gene pool' and greater variation in the population at the same time.
Dream on people.
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 03 2008,04:23) But my point was that Lot was supposed to be righteous. He was also aware of the unwritten and written “laws' of God. Incest is clearly written. Yet he was not destroyed but the town that he came from was!! Could it have been that he asked for forgiveness and the other's did not? Perhaps….
Did Lot have the written law?As for repentance that is obviously something that God requires. But I also think that some sins are overlooked if a person has no knowledge of it. Not sure if this fits in with Lot's situation. But God chose to save him for a reason.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 03 2008,04:23) It is true that a lot of what your saying sounds like justification to me but it also could be a lot more complicated than I realize and maybe we don't have all the information?
Only faith is not of sin. You and I are just as filthy as Lot and anyone else. Only by faith are you not sinning and that is why we all need a savior. So if anything it shows God's mercy that Lot was considered righteous even though he sinned. Obviously it was his faith that made him righteous if he was considered righteous and if you read Hebrews and read about faith, you will see that it is faith that pleases God. It doesn't say that less sin pleases God, but faith please God.But I repeat that I am not prepared to judge Lot as you seem to be. I know sin is sin, but I also know that we all sin, albeit in different ways. It seems hypocritical to say how sinful someone else is when we are all sinners. I am not going to get caught in that trap. We should be more concerned about our own sin than the sin of others.
Incest is an interesting sin because it increases the match of a defective genetic code when like parents (in genetic code) produce offspring. The defective recessive genes have a higher chance of matching up and thereby becoming dominant, where as in genetic diversity, recessive defective genes are usually countered by a dominating good gene. Obviously God commanded that incest was unlawful for a good reason because he knows all about the genetic code.
It wasn't called incest in the first human families, but the genetic code was probably less defective as sin and its consequences were not as full of consequences as now.
Rather than saying that I am making excuses Mandy, maybe just maybe it is possible that it is your own lack of faith in God that is trying to make me condemn Lot? Otherwise, why is arguing that Lot was considered righteous as it is written making an excuse? Why do I need to make any excuses if I am not Lot.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 03 2008,19:33) Why don't all of you reinvent natural science and human psychology while you are at it? I was waiting to see how long it would take someone to point out that: “It should also be remembered that Lot’s daughters had resided among the morally debased inhabitants of Sodom. In view of these factors, it would not have been difficult for them to justify their course of action in their own minds. “
Of course it is a carboard cut-out absurdity to write off an entire population as 'morally debased' no matter what your definition of that is. Scripture says it and scripture is proven wrong in this thread in five other instances (of many), so why believe it here?
As for “With the loss in the gene pool over many generations any offspring from even cousins now will most likely have problems but it most likely was not a problem with the diversity in Adam and Eves Genes”, where do you start? How can two breeding pairs of humans have any difference in 'diversity'? They each have two versions of every gene, no more. There are only a certain number of recombinations possible and evolution by mutation selection must have occurred at impossible speed for the variety we see in Homo Sapiens to have arisen from that myth. You can't have a 'loss in the gene pool' and greater variation in the population at the same time.
Dream on people.
Stuart
Dream on says the man who touts science, hasn't got a clue about what caused the Big Bang, and is almost certain that it wasn't God.Stu, you are quite funny. I don't know if you can see that, but pretty much every accusation you throw at others is the very thing you are doing. It is often the case when people point the finger, they forget that they should be pointing at themselves.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2008,21:25) As for repentance that is obviously something that God requires. But I also think that some sins are overlooked if a person has no knowledge of it. Not sure if this fits in with Lot's situation. But God chose to save him for a reason.
Is the sin of not knowing Jesus as your saviour overlooked if a person has no knowledge of Him?Is ignorance of the law, or ignorance of His existence an excuse?
Tim
Hi t8,
Quote But I repeat that I am not prepared to judge Lot as you seem to be. I know sin is sin, but I also know that we all sin, albeit in different ways. It seems hypocritical to say how sinful someone else is when we are all sinners. I am not going to get caught in that trap. We should be more concerned about our own sin than the sin of others.
Perhaps I haven't made my beef clear? I understand how sinful I am and wouldn't dare judge Lot today. My beef is with the fact that God didn't judge Lot but judged Sodom. I don't think that was fair. But as I also said, perhaps it was because Lot asked for forgiveness or perhaps we do not have all the information at this time. Believe me, t8, I wouldn't cast the first stone. Unlike our David here, I do know what it is like to be drunk out of your mind….and a few other unmentionables. I wouldn't dare say that Lot was more sinful than myself.Quote Rather than saying that I am making excuses Mandy, maybe just maybe it is possible that it is your own lack of faith in God that is trying to make me condemn Lot? Otherwise, why is arguing that Lot was considered righteous as it is written making an excuse? Why do I need to make any excuses if I am not Lot.
Oh, certainly it is my lack of faith! Of course, it is. I won't deny that at all. But I'm also trying to make those of you who defend the faith realize that some things are hard to reconcile no matter how hard you try. We HAVE made some pretty good excuses for Lot. I'll even buy some of them for a dollar. But they still don't add up when you consider his sin versus sodom's. This is just one example where God has chosen to discipline/put to death one clan of people for evil and kept alive another clan of people for righteous reasons – even tho they also committed evil. There are other examples of this same pattern. I guess we'll never know why. Remain faithful, regardless……Thanks,
MandyQuote Dream on says the man who touts science
Yes,Quote hasn't got a clue about what caused the Big Bang
No one has, time and causality are meaningless at that point, it may not have even had a cause. You certainly have no idea,Quote and is almost certain that it wasn't God.
As opposed to those who are completely certain with no reason to be.Quote I don't know if you can see that, but pretty much every accusation you throw at others is the very thing you are doing. It is often the case when people point the finger, they forget that they should be pointing at themselves.
What finger? What accusation? I don't even think the choir you play to here would be able to back you up on this little rant. Facts and t8 are not happy bedfellows, are they?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 04 2008,07:45) No one has, time and causality are meaningless at that point, it may not have even had a cause. You certainly have no idea,
Interesting. So some effects have no cause? Is that what you're saying here Stu??…He believes more that something can come from nothing than something from someone.
His bias prefers nothing to someone as the cause.
But he admits that he knows nothing on the subject, even though he proudly proclaims there is no God.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 04 2008,07:39) Quote You and I are just as filthy as Lot and anyone else. 
Speak for yourself t8!
Stuart
God is holy and we all fall short of his glory. This is what sin is, and we are all in the same boat.But not all take the lifeboat on offer.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Oct. 03 2008,22:07) Is the sin of not knowing Jesus as your saviour overlooked if a person has no knowledge of Him? Is ignorance of the law, or ignorance of His existence an excuse?
Tim
To some degree I think it is a legitimate excuse.But all men have the knowledge of God's law, it is called conscience. So I think that all men can be judged by at least this.
Con= With
Science = KnowledgeQuote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:32) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 04 2008,07:39) Quote You and I are just as filthy as Lot and anyone else. Speak for yourself t8!
Stuart
God is holy and we all fall short of his glory. This is what sin is, and we are all in the same boat.But not all take the lifeboat on offer.
I count myself ethically ahead of your god because I have not commited genocide. I think 'he' fails to live up to my standards. Of course non-existence makes his prosecution for murder somewhat unlikely.At least if you want to admit your failings don't arrogantly include me in that.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
