Lot's daughters praise?

[muddleglum]

I have a question about, I suppose, teachings of other groups.

Assuming you know that the cultural milieu that Lot lived in is different than today's and assuming that you accept that Lot was righteous, then doesn't Lot's offer of his daughters to the Sodomites actually imply that he knew his daughters' minds and that he therefore was implicitly praising them?

That is the conclusion I have arrived at. Yet, in general, other Christians seem to think of the whole scene as something that should be ignored, or condemned.

Has any other person or group in your knowledge ever arrived at this same conclusion?

Edit:
Looks like some people are missing the point. Lot had daughters. He lived in the same house as they did. I'm assuming that he met them and talked to them. I also am assuming that he and his wife taught them the laws of hospitality that were based on love. My most dangerous assumption is that they expressed agreement when they understood. Yes, these are assumptions, but why do most assume the opposite?

Other assumptions is that Lot knew what was happening. Blood on the ground would be a tip-off. Screams at night as both sexes were violated before being killed so that the story would not spread. Things like that. Don't accept those assumptions? Then you are assuming otherwise, right?

Yet, that seems to be the general trend of assumptions except for mine. However, Peter thought Lot a righteous man and he only had a the same scriptures that we have to go on. So I'll stick with my assumptions.

My question still remains: am I the only one? Any other group?

 

[Purge187]

He could read their minds and they were secretly thinking, "I'd love to be gang-raped by all of these men"? I doubt it.

 

[muddleglum]

He could read their minds and they were secretly thinking, "I'd love to be gang-raped by all of these men"? I doubt it.

This sounds harsher than I want, but read Titus 1:15. Does that fit you? Now, could there have been other considerations? Why are you going for the ugliest possibility? Or, if you don't know the culture of that time, why not check up on their ideas of hospitality?

Remember that Lot was considered a righteous man and also considered offering his children for the sake of the stranger. Are you contradicting scripture?

[Edit]
BTW, I'm not saying this is true but I'm at the stage where I'm looking for other's opinions that are positive. Thank you.

 

[Linehogs]

I have a question about, I suppose, teachings of other groups.

Assuming you know that the cultural milieu that Lot lived in is different than today's and assuming that you accept that Lot was righteous, then doesn't Lot's offer of his daughters to the Sodomites actually imply that he knew his daughters' minds and that he therefore was implicitly praising them?

That is the conclusion I have arrived at. Yet, in general, other Christians seem to think of the whole scene as something that should be ignored, or condemned.

Has any other person or group in your knowledge ever arrived at this same conclusion?

I think of it as a sacrifice. Lot knew the men were angles. Or at least he knew they were something special. This is speculation of course. But I tend to think Lot was willing to sacrifice his daughter. I don't think he threw her out freely or without care. I think he was willing to protect those angels anyway he knew how. And look what happened. God is good. God protected them.

Also consider the time in the covenant. God was just reveling himself to man. This is in the days of Abraham. God even told Abraham to sacrifice his son. And why? I believe it was to teach him. What's the lesson? That god is good. God doesn't want you to hurt. God doesn't demand the blood of your children. At the last moment god rewarded Abrahams trust.... that God is good.... with a lamb instead of his boy. But false idols? Carved images? "Gods" made by men? Had man's spirit. The "carved images" demanded sacrifice because they were made by man. In man's own heart... he was foolish and cruel enough to create a god from the same wood he used to make a fire and give to it all the evil attributes of his own heart.

Look throughout the bible.... in fact.... don't piecemeal it. Read it from cover to cover. You'll gain a new understanding of it. You'll see step by step the way in which god dealt with man. It is as a father to son. There are times when god brought calamity but if you read, and learn, you begin to understand why. Instead of thinking, "how could god do x, y, or z" you feel sorry.... truly sorry... that god loved men so much and men scorned him so.

Even today we forget. Even today we've lost sight. The two things which really irked god in the old testament were false idols, and people leaving others to suffer. When he came down on Israel it was usually for one of those two things (or both.) Israel let the widows and orphans suffer. And Israel worshiped carved imaged. God said, "I know of no other like me." But man will kneel and cry before a piece of wood. He will rip his clothes and shake with zeal.

That's why I believe Lot threw his daughter to the crowd. Because the heart of man and the heart of god are two different things. Man can NEVER reach what god is.... other than what he tells us. When Lot threw his daughter to the crowd it was not what god saw as just.... but it's what Lot saw as necessary.... and the men in the crowd saw as necessary. Because their hearts were evil. That's WHY they were condemned. That's WHY they were to be destroyed.

All through the bible... and today.... we are troublesome children lol. But there is a better way. And it is the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. It is the promise god gave that he would write his law on the hearts of men and remember their sins no more. I say.... Amen.

 

[muddleglum]

I think of it as ...

Thank you for that perspective. I've never seen it expressed before and find it interesting.

I'll agree that Lot and his daughters were ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the strangers. BTW, the grand language they used back then doesn't mean that Lot knew the strangers were angels. Know Spanish? If you do, you know usted has that type of history. It doesn't just mean you but, rather, it is a grandiose way of referring to another. Same as Lot's manner of speaking.

You are referred to as a saint and as a son of God by scripture as well as a Christian. So you are one of the holy ones and a son of God. Furthermore, you are in the image of Christ, so Christ-like or "little Christ". Perhaps we have a way of diminishing one another instead of building one another up. I think I'll try for the grand and scare people...

Look throughout the bible.... in fact.... don't piecemeal it. Read it from cover to cover.

Yep. The O.T. once a year and the N.T. twice a year for many years, but now I'm slowing down. I also read the entire bible in easy versions so that my kids would get a good overview of what God inspired.

That's why I believe Lot threw his daughter to the crowd.

You mean that he was thinking of doing that, don't you? He didn't, of course.

All through the bible... and today.... we are troublesome children lol. But there is a better way. And it is the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. It is the promise god gave that he would write his law on the hearts of men and remember their sins no more. I say.... Amen.

Amen.

 

[Messy]

He could read their minds and they were secretly thinking, "I'd love to be gang-raped by all of these men"? I doubt it.

Lol

 

[muddleglum]

Lol

Do you realize what you are assuming?

You are assuming that Lot never spoke or knew his daughters, though they lived in the same house as he did.
You are assuming that neither Lot nor his wife taught his daughters the duties of hospitality for strangers. Either that, or you assuming that the two girls would rather have pushed the two strangers out the door to be raped and killed. If so, then you assume the worse of them, don't you?

What would you do in their place? If it was your life for a stranger's life, would you die for that stranger?

What if Christ had said to the Father that he didn't want to come down and give his life for the sinners? Yet, we praise his love for us. The girls didn't have to show their love in this case, because right then the angels cut off the test. BTW, the girls left their fiances and ran from the city. Christ warned, "remember Lot's wife," which implies that he thought well of both Lot and his daughters at that time.


abide in our Blessing,
Finally, in 1 Cor 13, Paul talks about love and that it "believes all things, hopes all things," and, because Peter called Lot a righteous man, I'm assuming the best.

 

[Messy]

Lot chose to live in that place. He could have left. His daughters raped their dad after giving him wine and then you got the Ammonites and the Baal worship. Terrific daughters. They were dragged out of the city. They didn't want to go. Lot and his daughters were only saved because Abraham prayed.

 

[Messy]

Do you realize what you are assuming?

You are assuming that Lot never spoke or knew his daughters, though they lived in the same house as he did.
You are assuming that neither Lot nor his wife taught his daughters the duties of hospitality for strangers. Either that, or you assuming that the two girls would rather have pushed the two strangers out the door to be raped and killed. If so, then you assume the worse of them, don't you?

What would you do in their place? If it was your life for a stranger's life, would you die for that stranger?

What if Christ had said to the Father that he didn't want to come down and give his life for the sinners? Yet, we praise his love for us. The girls didn't have to show their love in this case, because right then the angels cut off the test. BTW, the girls left their fiances and ran from the city. Christ warned, "remember Lot's wife," which implies that he thought well of both Lot and his daughters at that time.


abide in our Blessing,
Finally, in 1 Cor 13, Paul talks about love and that it "believes all things, hopes all things," and, because Peter called Lot a righteous man, I'm assuming the best.

Well they could have prayed for protection for all of them. Show their love, yeah well if you let yourself get raped so they don't rape your kid that would be noble, but to throw your kids out..
I can follow now how you think, that like Jesus they said we'll offer ourselves up, but seeing what they did to their dad later I doubt that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have a question about, I suppose, teachings of other groups.

Assuming you know that the cultural milieu that Lot lived in is different than today's and assuming that you accept that Lot was righteous, then doesn't Lot's offer of his daughters to the Sodomites actually imply that he knew his daughters' minds and that he therefore was implicitly praising them?

That is the conclusion I have arrived at. Yet, in general, other Christians seem to think of the whole scene as something that should be ignored, or condemned.

Has any other person or group in your knowledge ever arrived at this same conclusion?

Edit:
Looks like some people are missing the point. Lot had daughters. He lived in the same house as they did. I'm assuming that he met them and talked to them. I also am assuming that he and his wife taught them the laws of hospitality that were based on love. My most dangerous assumption is that they expressed agreement when they understood. Yes, these are assumptions, but why do most assume the opposite?

Other assumptions is that Lot knew what was happening. Blood on the ground would be a tip-off. Screams at night as both sexes were violated before being killed so that the story would not spread. Things like that. Don't accept those assumptions? Then you are assuming otherwise, right?

Yet, that seems to be the general trend of assumptions except for mine. However, Peter thought Lot a righteous man and he only had a the same scriptures that we have to go on. So I'll stick with my assumptions.

My question still remains: am I the only one? Any other group?

By the standards of his day, Lot was righteous. Those standards included viewing women as much less of value than men and, therefore, a sacrificing women to save the men is a very reasonable course of action.

We have today a different opinion about the relative worth of women vs men. So Lot's proposal seems horrific to us.

And there are a few things we are still doing today that would seem horrific to us if we only knew the heart and mind of God.

 

[muddleglum]

By the standards of his day, Lot was righteous. Those standards included viewing women as much less of value than men and, therefore, a sacrificing women to save the men is a very reasonable course of action.

Or do you mean the standards of the Apostle Peter's day? OTOH, wasn't he, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, being moved to write that Lot was righteous? So perhaps you should say the Holy Spirit's eternal day.

Read that passage again in 2 Peter 2 and see which applies.

May the Lord bless you as you abide in His day of rest.

 

[muddleglum]

Well they could have prayed for protection for all of them. Show their love, yeah well if you let yourself get raped so they don't rape your kid that would be noble, but to throw your kids out..
I can follow now how you think, that like Jesus they said we'll offer ourselves up, but seeing what they did to their dad later I doubt that.

Thanks for understanding, which can be better than agreeing.

Apparently Lot knew his daughters well.

I'm not saying that any of these are filled with the Spirit nor, considering the amount of scripture (and oral tradition, perhaps) that they had well-versed in Christianity. Hospitality of the stranger was taken very seriously back then, from all that I can dig up and then major sin of these cities was the breaking of that.

I can see Lot discussing love and hospitality with his family at after dinner devotions but being the last people in the world wouldn't have come up for discussion, don't you think?

And Lot didn't throw anyone out. He went out himself and made himself vulnerable to being raped. The girls knew that, didn't they? So he gave an example, too, which I hadn't thought of. Thank you.

Drop the rape out of your mind and think about crucifixion, which is mainly much worse.

Finally, I'm still waiting for someone who agrees with this. I want to see their reasoning as a cross-check, not force my reasoning on anyone. Otherwise I would have written this point for point in the beginning.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Or do you mean the standards of the Apostle Peter's day? OTOH, wasn't he, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, being moved to write that Lot was righteous? So perhaps you should say the Holy Spirit's eternal day.

Read that passage again in 2 Peter 2 and see which applies.

May the Lord bless you as you abide in His day of rest.

Lot was righteous as far as he knew on this subject and none of us can be more righteous than what we know. Today we know his choice to be unacceptable. It's not that the Holy Spirit changes His idea about what is righteous and what is not; its that Lot did the best he knew how, in his ignorance.