The Lot Controversy - Again

[Syrtis16]

I’m sorry to bring this up, I’m sure it has been discussed numerously - however I need to ask.
Why did God not punish Lot for attempting to offer his daughters to a wild bunch of marauding rapists? I understand why Lot would wish to defend the angels, but offering innocence to protect innocence - particularly in the form of women, seems reprehensible and somewhat defeating of the same ideology and beliefs in God’s virtue.

Also, we believe Jesus was at the beginning with the Father, therefore, can we really believe Jesus would permit such a treacherous, misogynistic act upon his own kin?

Thank you for understanding.

 

[jmjZelie]

I think Gid DID punish Lot for that when He permitted the evil of his daughters getting him drunk and raping him, taking turns to get pregnant by their own father.

What evil we do to others is often revisited upon ourselves, without need for divine intervention.

 

[Syrtis16]

Of course. That does make sense, and we know their children went on to become enemies of Israel. Though the raping, or taking advantage of their father story has trouble for me, because I cannot realistically imagine a man being taken advantage of by his daughters - twice. A man would surely know that the only women in his presence, his daughters, are attempting to fornicate with him? And why punish his daughters? Allowing, or even administering the incestuous relationship between father and daughter, after the daughters were almost thrown into the hands of rapists, is a strange way to reek retribution upon the Lot, because ultimately the daughters shall suffer in their fathers suffering.

 

[Wesrock]

The daughters weren’t made to take the action they did by God. They still did so of their own free choice, which was also wrong. So in a way, they brought their own justice on themselves. It’s one of those ways justice was carried out by humans, but still as rational and free actors they exercised their own will.

 

[jmjZelie]

No, I wasn’t implying that is was God’s will for any of it to occur. But when a person destroys the innocence of others, that person cannot then expect God to shield him from retribution or revenge or even just natural consequences.

God permitted it, just as He permits any act of free will that brings about an evil.

Lot did not protect his daughters. He allowed them to become betrothed to sodomites and offered their virginity to rapists. He failed to protect their innocence and they got him drunk to the point of passing out so he was unaware that they were using his unconscious body sexually. How humiliating!

The consequences of sin ripple out for generations. Sometimes, God intervenes in a miraculous way as He did with Onan, to make a clear statement of condemnation about specific behavior. Other times, He permits the natural consequences to speak for themselves. Even without God’s intervention, everyone knows offering one’s female family members to be raped to save one’s own neck (or to save some other person) is not an act of justice.

 

[1ke]

Why did God not punish -]Lot for attempting to offer his daughters to a wild bunch of marauding rapists/-] Hitler for killing 6 million Jews?

The problem of evil in this world is not a new one, and it continues to this day. Temporal punishment by direct intervention of God is rare.

We can’t answer “why”. We knowonly that in God’s permissive will evil happens but in his perfect will good triumphs.

Also, we believe Jesus was at the beginning with the Father, therefore, can we really believe Jesus would permit such a -]treacherous, misogynistic act upon his own kin/-] genocidal act upon his own people?

Because sometimes punishment comes after this life, as does reward.

I can suggest reading some of Peter Kreeft’s writings on suffering and evil.

 

[Stephen_says]

I’m sorry to bring this up, I’m sure it has been discussed numerously - however I need to ask.
Why did God not punish Lot for attempting to offer his daughters to a wild bunch of marauding rapists? I understand why Lot would wish to defend the angels, but offering innocence to protect innocence - particularly in the form of women, seems reprehensible and somewhat defeating of the same ideology and beliefs in God’s virtue.

Also, we believe Jesus was at the beginning with the Father, therefore, can we really believe Jesus would permit such a treacherous, misogynistic act upon his own kin?

Thank you for understanding.

Hi!

I’ve heard it suggested that it wasn’t a bunch of marauding rapists, they were a bunch of marauding HOMOSEXUAL rapists, and so Lot KNEW they would not want his daughters, so maybe he was just trying to buy some time.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Here is a very good commentary on this, and it also deals with the subject of Middle Eastern hospitality at that time:

fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2015/01/stump-priest-lots-daughters.html

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Things Lot did not do:

1. Offer himself to the mob instead of his daughters
2. Bribe the mob
3. Threaten the mob
4. Stall the mob so that the angels and his daughters could attempt escape
5. Ask council from the angels
6. Pray (which is odd since his uncle had haggled with God down to 10 righteous people)

Lot’s sole plan was to offer his daughters to an entire town worth of men. It’s ludicrous to say that God punished Lot when he was literally separating the righteous from the unrighteous. The righteous lived and the unrighteousness were killed.

Hi!

I’ve heard it suggested that it wasn’t a bunch of marauding rapists, they were a bunch of marauding HOMOSEXUAL rapists, and so Lot KNEW they would not want his daughters, so maybe he was just trying to buy some time.

So this was allegedly a town full of homosexuals. Were they all adopted or did perhaps some of them have heterosexual intercourse? Do we not know of bisexuals? Are there not rapists who perform such acts based on opportunity and not gender? Who but even the most twisted person would take a such a risk? Who but a complete sociopath would even conceive a such on an idea against his own daughters?

It’s vile to offer up one’s daughters to a town-sized mob and it’s vile that a deity would consider such an act righteous?

Edited because I fell victim to homophones.

 

[Stephen_says]

So this was allegedly a town full of homosexuals.

Yes, for that is the reason the town was to be destroyed.

Were they all adopted or did perhaps some of them have heterosexual intercourse?

I don’t know.

Do we not know of bisexuals?

Perhaps, but it is shown by the evidence that the men did take the women that they had no desire for them.

Are there not rapists who perform such acts based on opportunity and not gender?

Perhaps there are, but again, based on the evidence, not in this situation, they specifically wanted the visiting men (angels).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Stephen, first I would say that you can’t assume that none of the mob members would have had their way with the daughters before they were blinded. This is an angry mob comprised of an entire town’s worth of men.

Second, it’s not even about what the mod did or didn’t do (had they not been stopped). It’s about showing that there is no way Lot could have assumed the response of an entire town worth of me when offered the chance to gangrape his daughters. The argument that Lot did so to “buy some time” fails to make sense on two levels. Offering something to a mob that it doesn’t want doesn’t buy time. Lot had to have known that it was possible that one or more of an entire town of men wouldn’t have taken him up on his disgusting offer. Still he should have done one of the many things that I suggested in my earlier post, none of which he did.

No loving father would have even conceived of such a response. More important than providing for his family, a father’s first job is to protect his family. Lot failed in the most horrific manner, and God (at least the God described in the Bible) failed as well for calling him righteous.

 

[jmjZelie]

Stephen, first I would say that you can’t assume that none of the mob members would have had their way with the daughters before they were blinded. This is an angry mob comprised of an entire town’s worth of men.

Second, it’s not even about what the mod did or didn’t do (had they not been stopped). It’s about showing that there is no way Lot could have assumed the response of an entire town worth of me when offered the chance to gangrape his daughters. The argument that Lot did so to “buy some time” fails to make sense on two levels. Offering something to a mob that it doesn’t want doesn’t buy time. Lot had to have known that it was possible that one or more of an entire town of men wouldn’t have taken him up on his disgusting offer. Still he should have done one of the many things that I suggested in my earlier post, none of which he did.

No loving father would have even conceived of such a response. More important than providing for his family, a father’s first job is to protect his family. Lot failed in the most horrific manner, and God (at least the God described in the Bible) failed as well for calling him righteous.

When did God call Lot righteous?

He didn’t find any righteous in the town and He destroyed it. He told Lot and his family to get out immediately, and Lot dilly-dallied and complained. He rescued Lot because of the righteousness of his uncle, Abraham. Lot was not a native Sodomite, nor his family. Lot’s wife looked back and died. His daughters’ fiances laughed at him and refused to leave. They died. His daughters got him drunk and used him sexually (essentially raped). He became the father of his own grandchildren, and not by choice.

Lot was not righteous and he nearly refused to protect himself and totally neglected the protection of his family. His own life was spared, due to his familial relationship with Abraham and because he was not practicing sodomy with the Sodomites, but death and destruction and sorrow followed him the rest of his days. How is any of that a sign of God’s approval???

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When did God call Lot righteous?

As I mentioned before, God was literally separating the righteous from the unrighteous. If the angels found 10 righteous the unrighteous would be spared. If not, the unrighteous would die.

He didn’t find any righteous in the town and He destroyed it. He told Lot and his family to get out immediately, and Lot dilly-dallied and complained.

So dilly-dallying in complaining would make Lot worthy of death? Hardly. Lot and his family were righteous as demonstrated by the fact that God saved them.

If that’s not enough 2 Peter 2:7 says as much. Since the Catechism says that all scripture is true, we can take it that God considered him righteous.

He rescued Lot because of the righteousness of his uncle, Abraham.

Citation needed. It’s certainly not in the Bible.

Lot was not a native Sodomite, nor his family.

That doesn’t mean anything. I’m sure that at least one member of the angry mob wasn’t a native Sodomite. Death rained down upon them by their actions not their place of origin, and God saw nothing wrong with Lot’s actions.

Lot’s wife looked back and died.

Lot in his monstrous mind offered up his two daughters to be gangraped and was rescued. Lot’s wife happened to look back as chaos was all around and was killed by God. I’m not sure how this speaks in favor of God’s discretion or goodness.

His daughters’ fiances laughed at him and refused to leave. They died. His daughters got him drunk and used him sexually (essentially raped). He became the father of his own grandchildren, and not by choice.

You’re saying this is a punishment by God. A citation is needed on this one, too. This would also mean that the daughters were punished too.

It’s a rabbit hole to try and explain away why God called evil (Lot’s actions) as good. You’re adding to scripture to justify what is clearly wrong. Lot failed. God failed.