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.
Source please, indicating that Jesus Christ views his Father as one who wills the painful death of children.
We’ll wait.
 
Because the Church is living. And we rely on the living wisdom of the Church.
And Catholics don’t do scripture exegesis in an individualist vacuum (that’s more of a protestant idea)
 
Gorgias said:
Would you agree that these Scriptures were placed into writing in the post-exilic timeframe
Click to expand...
Genesis is a book of Moses. Even if he didn’t write it, the oral tradition was carried by him.
 
goout said:
Source please, indicating that Jesus Christ views his Father as one who wills the painful death of children.
We’ll wait.
Click to expand...
By that logic you’d have to say God willing the painful death of anyone is contrary to His character.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
goout:
Source please, indicating that Jesus Christ views his Father as one who wills the painful death of children.
We’ll wait.
Click to expand...
By that logic you’d have to say God willing the painful death of anyone is contrary to His character.
Click to expand...
Am I allowed to simply ask the question that I asked?
Since when are simple questions an invitation to diversion?
 
then do me a simple thing: show me the hammered metal dome that God fixed in the sky.
 
You’re using a double standard. The orders in Genesis are portrayed as orders, and it is the Word of God spoken in creative activity.

Yet you want to hold some passages to literalist fundamentalist standards, but not others.

At least, you recognize that scripture admits different genres of literature. That’s great.
What’s incomprehensible is the envisioning of a God who orders the slaying of children, in the Christian context. That is incomprehensible. And it has nothing (literally nothing) to do with Christ.
The passages you picked do not show Christ condoning his Father as a retributionist who takes the life, or orders the taking of lives, of innocent human beings.

You can lump Pope Benedict in with others you don’t like, but at least you ought to know how the living Magisterium speaks about these issues.
This is a good read:
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
Sec’s 42 and 44 are especially illuminating.

Have a great day and the peace of the non violent Christ be with you.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Genesis is a book of Moses. Even if he didn’t write it, the oral tradition was carried by him.
Click to expand...
Sure, but we’re looking at it as Scripture, aren’t we? It’s only ‘inerrant’ once it’s compiled and presented as such. And, at that point, its context is “post-exilic Israel”. So, that’s the context we’re looking at, isn’t? Otherwise, as mere oral tradition, it’s just a story that’s being passed along. Do we hold all stories to that high standard? Of course not. It’s being asked precisely because it’s Scripture.
goout said:
Am I allowed to simply ask the question that I asked?
Since when are simple questions an invitation to diversion?
Click to expand...
🤣
Since… internet forums!
🤣
 
goout said:
40.png
Freddy:
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.
Click to expand...
If you have done that then could you explain to me why apparently innocent children can be killed?
 
So the innocent children were killed because of the sins of the adults who lived there?
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
Freddy:
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.
Click to expand...
But not the children.
 
No one will said to a woman that has been raped that it could have been worst, such as been against nature.
It would be very cruel and in no way a consolation for the trauma she had lived. On the contrary we need to support her in ackowledge that she had lived (and still live because rape’s trauma may never end) one of the worst offense against a woman that exists.

But it does not mean that rational, intellectual, practical and religious categorizations of sins and crime cannot be made. A hierachy can in some circunstance be made. Not all the acts and their possible consequence are the same. It is true even if it is not recognized in crinimal law and even with no link with the psychological consequence of the crime. because all rapes are very traumatic.
 
And apparently knew how Bryant would turn out as well. And apparently gave him chances to repent. Why not give the same opportunity to the children?
 
Those children were in the clear. As we’ve been trying to say to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top