Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter safa92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
His daughters had husbands but had never known a man? Lot gets it , no man in this town to know… These two daughters just want offspring their husbands aren’t any help , the crowd of rapist refused to help. They ended up in a dark cave seducing their Father to give them a line of descendants.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
40.png
Freddy:
The bible skipped that bit.
Click to expand...
The story doesn’t use scientific jargon like the words “airburst” or “meteor” but it does describe an event similar to those terms.
Click to expand...
I’m really not sure what difference it makes:

“Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven”.

Incuding, as I said, children, infants, babies, those still in the womb…as Aulef said ‘everyone had ONLY evil intentions in their hearts. Not one good’.

Can an infant have evil intentions in her heart. I don’t think so. So how do we read it in a way that’s not superficial?
 
Freddy said:
Can an infant have evil intentions in her heart. I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that those infants who died would go to Sheol and eventually be taken to Heaven after Jesus’s death, which would be better than growing up and being corrupted by the town?
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
Freddy:
Can an infant have evil intentions in her heart. I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that those infants who died would go to Sheol and eventually be taken to Heaven after Jesus’s death, which would be better than growing up and being corrupted by the town?
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that it’s better to kill a child rather than have her brought up in an evil city. God could turn an individual into a pillar of salt and save one family, including two women who were to rape their own father, but couldn’t save any children.

Is that what you want to go with?
 
Freddy said:
God could turn an individual into a pillar of salt and save one family, including two women who were to rape their own father
Click to expand...
Seems that the woman who wanted go back in and the daughters who raped their dad and the dad who got were still craving the depravity of the city. So this salvation was only physical.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
Freddy:
God could turn an individual into a pillar of salt and save one family, including two women who were to rape their own father
Click to expand...
Seems that the woman who wanted go back in and the daughters who raped their dad and the dad who got were still craving the depravity of the city. So this salvation was only physical.
Click to expand...
So God didn’t know that at the time and so saved them. But the infants…no.

Look, I’m going with whatever you offer. But so far we have a woman who simply looks back at the city being killed by God, a man who offered his own daughters to be raped saved and those daughters who will commit sexual assault and incest against their own father likewise saved.

And innocent children killed.
 
Freddy said:
So God didn’t know that at the time and so saved them. But the infants…no.
Click to expand...
God knew.
Freddy said:
Look, I’m going with whatever you offer. But so far we have a woman who simply looks back at the city being killed by God, a man who offered his own daughters to be raped saved and those daughters who will commit sexual assault and incest against their own father likewise saved.
Click to expand...
You left one part out.

God explicitly told said woman NOT to look back. So she knew what was commanded of her.

And the others? Do you think their lives were a cakewalk? Obviously not, as the story shows.

So they were still addicted to Sodom’s depravity.
 
Freddy said:
So God knew that the infants were going to be corrupted as well. And had them killed too.
Click to expand...
I claim no expertise in this (indeed most) area of scripture. But God calling infants (his creation) back to himself ought not to be thought of as we think of earthly murder.
 
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
So God knew that the infants were going to be corrupted as well. And had them killed too.
Click to expand...
I claim no expertise in this (indeed most) area of scripture. But God calling infants (his creation) back to himself ought not to be thought of as we think of earthly murder.
Click to expand...
I did say killed and not murdered. But it makes me wonder why God took those infants because they were going to turn out immoral (or so it has been suggested) and not, for example, Martin Bryant when he was an infant. When we know that he did turn out to be evil.
 
So the sins of the infants were not, as you said, complete. They would probably die in original sin. So they were killed as innocents.

It seems to keep changing. I hope there aren’t any further revisions…
 
Freddy said:
Can an infant have evil intentions in her heart. I don’t think so. So how do we read it in a way that’s not superficial?
Click to expand...
First of all, the story doesn’t say anything like that.

The translation I read uses the word “righteous people”. That may mean people who have faith in God, but I’m no biblical scholar. So, if you really want to know what’s going on in the story you can find out what is meant by that term.
 
Freddy said:
But it makes me wonder why God took those infants because they were going to turn out immoral (or so it has been suggested) and not, for example, Martin Bryant when he was an infant. When we know that he did turn out to be evil.
Click to expand...
Matt Bryant turning evil is due to Matt Bryant. God gives multiple chances for Matt Bryant to repent. And we have no knowledge of what happened on Matt’s deathbed.
 
Freddy said:
40.png
1Lord1Faith:
40.png
Freddy:
The bible skipped that bit.
Click to expand...
The story doesn’t use scientific jargon like the words “airburst” or “meteor” but it does describe an event similar to those terms.
Click to expand...
I’m really not sure what difference it makes:

“Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven”.

Incuding, as I said, children, infants, babies, those still in the womb…as Aulef said ‘everyone had ONLY evil intentions in their hearts. Not one good’.

Can an infant have evil intentions in her heart. I don’t think so. So how do we read it in a way that’s not superficial?
Click to expand...
You read it with the mind of the Church, with Jesus Christ as the fulfillment and hermeneutical key to Scripture.
Ask yourself “is my reading of Scripture compatible with Christ’s revelation of God’s disposition towards humanity.”
The alternative is, well, fundamentalism, which is the radically individualist flip-side of atheism.
 
Last edited:
Not the case. People today often misunderstand what Christ taught and take that to think God would not do what was described, but that is not the case, and the apostles, the Church fathers, the church doctors all believed He would do, and did do, those things, as described.

He is reading correctly, as the Church always had, that God did in fact wipe out cities that included infants.

The one part he got wrong was that infants cannot will good or evil yet because they don’t have the capacity to reason.
[/quote]

Your sense of Tradition is not quite accurate. It’s a common misconception that Church Fathers were strict literalists. That is not so.
Read what Bp Barron has said on the issue of OT violence against innocents attributed directly to God. And Fr Robert Spitzer.

In any case, it’s de facto that Christ is the “ultimate hermeneutical key” for interpreting scripture (re P Benedict Verbum Domini Sec 42 and 44). Benedict is hardly out of touch with Tradition.
 
Freddy said:
So it was morally wrong then but acceptable considering the time and place.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t say it was “acceptable.”
Freddy said:
Beats me how they’d know it was immoral if everyone thought it was fine - including God.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that these Scriptures were placed into writing in the post-exilic timeframe? If so, then we can agree that the narratives within are meant for people living under the Mosaic Law. Fair enough?

And then, we cannot say that “they didn’t know it was immoral” or even that “God didn’t know (or tell) that it was immoral.” See Leviticus 19:18 – “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

So… they knew. 😉
Freddy said:
As we’re already working on the assumption that God commanded a massacre
Click to expand...
Well… only if you’re asserting a fundamentalist-style literalistic reading of the text…
Benadam said:
His daughters had husbands but had never known a man
Click to expand...
They hadn’t completed the marriage contract; the girls were still living at home with Mom and Dad. 😉
 
It seems Lot didn’t hold their lineage in high regard. Maybe they didn’t either so …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top