No, but what Lot did isn’t being cross with his wife or some other not-so-good thing that a normally good person would do.
I know. Thanks for the long post which I do not have time to read. I think it is more appropriate for you to discuss this in the non-Catholic religion. Probably you have better audience there where they can answer you better.What specifically are you claiming I said that is trying to shift the conversation away from what the Bible says? I’m specifically citing it and not turning a blind eye to what it says. I’m also not adding to scripture as some defenders of Lot do.
I pass it with flying colors.It helps that when the Bible says X I don’t savage the English language to make it say “not X”.
So that means offering up one’s innocent daughters to gangrapists (instead of trying to protect both the men and the daughters) is not a sin. That speaks very poorly of God.
The fact that a crime or evil act was unsuccessful doesn’t negate the intent of the person who committed it. Just because his daughters weren’t raped doesn’t mean that Lot hadn’t committed one of the most evil things a father could ever do. It doesn’t negate that God looks upon all this and sees nothing wrong with it.
That rest includes Lot’s wife, who didn’t try to get her daughters raped, but had the audacity to look back while running for her life escaping a fireballed city.
What happened to Lot’s wife (Notta) and what didn’t happen to Lot was a mockery of what true accountability is.
Unless I’m wrong, I believe the non-Catholic section pertains to faiths that are not Catholic as opposed to posters who are not Catholic. For example, people might ask what faiths believe in consubstantiation or what Hindus think about the afterlife.
perhaps in his desperation to save the guests he blurted it out, which isnt Okay but we should not assume he is evil. he probably repented of it.
In order to blurt it out one has to first think it. I ask the parents who are viewing this thread, in particular the fathers, if they would even conjure up such an idea. How far down the list of possibilites would Lot’s idea be below the ideas I mentioned above (including threatening, bribing, pleading with the mob, creating a diversion, prayer) including the idea of self-sacrifice?
You’re not forgetting the possibility that he repented later.
One of the biggest mistakes that ‘modern’ people make in looking back at historical people and events is projecting their own values and belief systems onto them.
It’s possible that he repented, although we would first have to assume thta Lot realized what he did was wrong.
We don’t know that. How long does repentance take? Five years? A millisecond?
Tantum ergo, let’s travel back – back in time! Let’s go to the time of Lot and put ourselves in Lot’s shoes. Now we just invited in two strangers. Others have said that in that culture it was very important to bend over backwards to serve the needs of one’s guests. I have no reason to dispute such a notion, so we will accept that.
Mike, I’m not your mommy or your teacher. Your scenarios are based simply and solely on your personal opinion of behavior as viewed through the lens of a 21st century Western atheist male.
No, as I presented them they showed that a man at that time and place had at least 5 different things he could have done to both protect his guests and his family. These same options are not contingent on where and when they occur. A man in the Viking age could threaten his tresspassers just as Lot could have. A man in the midst of the height of the Ottoman Empire could have prayed to his god just as Lot could have prayed to his. A man in modern day Perth Amboy could charge into the crowd to try and give his guests and family an opportunity for possible escape, just as Lot could have.
I’m not asking you to do my work for me, but it’s appropriate that you do your work. In other words, this is a discussion forum. We are to argue various points on opposite of ends of an idea. I proposed that what Lot did was wrong partially on the other things he could have done but didn’t. You suggested that I needed to consider the time and place when making statements about Lot’s action (and inaction). I layed out how the time and place has no bearing on not putting your daughters up to be raped. I showed that one’s obligation to protect one’s guests is in no way in conflict with the obligation to protect one’s children.
The two angels had to drag the four out forcibly to get them to leave. And right after that his daughters committed incest. Pretty righteous family huh?
The president’s body guard is confronted by an angry mob of gay persons. He grabs his daughter and books it, he is called a traitor. The bodyguard dies trying to save the president but the president gets it and so does everyone else in the resulting ‘feast’. he is a failed hero of sorts. The man sacrifices his daughter to save the president he is called a hero.
