Yes, Many evangelicals and fundamentalists ARE bigots!

[bsd058]

I don't recall the Lord stating Lot was righteous.



Primitive? The elitist mentality toward which most people today tend to gravitate is comical. We're killing the unborn in America in record numbers over the past 20 years, and yet many dare to assume we're suprior to the ancients. That's worse than avarice and fleshly pride. It's blind indifference to the facts. We civilized only in the way we present our own evils. Instead of openly ripping babies from wombs where the public can see the handiwork of its immoralities, it's all hidden within unclean clinics, out of sight, so the public can feel more secure in its barbaric pursuits.

There are those who brandish the glowing irons of hate toward gun ownership, and who then turn around and fight against attempts at doing away with those people who take the lives of others while driving drunk. More children are killed in alcohol related deaths than gun related, but as long as people can stick their heads into the sand and assume civility in spite of it all, they can continue to assume they're superior to the ancients.

Your statement wreaks of the filth our culture consumes as if it were nourishing and wholesome. We're no better than they were back then. The intelligence of those people was no lower then than what we are today. Technology doesn't translate into intelligence. I'd go so far as to say that genetic deterioration has caused greater damage to our ability for intelligence over time, with a few exceptions throughout time.

It's written there's nothing new under the sun.



We can try to fill in the gaps all we want with those things that lack specific mention within scriptuer, but the fact remains that what was sin then is sin now where sexual conduct is concerned, even though the penalties vary.

BTW

I'm sorry, did they have the light of the law back then? I called it primitive because I'm a realist, I'm not going to say they were advanced. They weren't. They didn't even have the law, yet!

BTW nothing of what you said refuted what I was saying. You just don't like what I said. But you just don't seem to understand, I think. You're looking at Lot and Sodom (who existed without the law), through your 21st century eyes. You just cannot do that.

Try to get around it all you want, do you think anyone is righteous in and of themselves? Yet God said that for the sake of a few righteous people in Sodom, that he would spare it. Then he took Lot out of the city and destroyed it keeping his promise that he wouldn't destroy the righteous with the wicked. Even if this isn't convincing enough for you that Lot was righteous, let me quote Peter:

2 Peter 2:7 (NASB) - "and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men."

Sin then is sin now. Hmm...I hope people 500 years down the road don't judge you the way you judge the law of God given to Israel.

Rape is a sin because it breaks the 2nd commandment. But without the light of the law, how could Lot have known? And Lot was righteous. The apostle Peter, who was appointed by Christ himself said so.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I'm sorry, did they have the light of the law back then? I called it primitive because I'm a realist, I'm not going to say they were advanced. They weren't. They didn't even have the law, yet!

Realistically, the pagan cultures didn't have the Law. I agree. I never said otherwise. However, Abraham DID have Law that He understood as coming from the Lord. Again, simply read Genesis 25.

BTW nothing of what you said refuted what I was saying. You just don't like what I said.

Wow.....a mind reader. I thought I'd never run across one.....and through a computer screen, too.....that's even more impressive.....

But you just don't seem to understand, I think. You're looking at Lot and Sodom (who existed without the law), through your 21st century eyes. You just cannot do that.

You do indeed strain your arm patting yourself on the back. Be careful it doesn't break. The historicity of Abraham and Lot are both laid bare for us to examine without having to study what few intricacies of the pagan backdrop we may glean from secular history. Ignorance will never serve as an excuse for sin for any generation of people who have ever lived on this earth, regardless of what system of social law and cultural customes may be in the crosshairs.

Try to get around it all you want, do you think anyone is righteous in and of themselves?

And do you think painting my words whatever color suits your agenda will suffice in twisting them into something I never said? Any student of the Bible knows that no man possess righteousness in and of himself.

Sin then is sin now. Hmm...I hope people 500 years down the road don't judge you the way you judge the law of God given to Israel.

You do excell in girding up your loins with pride. The coming of Christ Jesus made no changes to God's moral absolutes. Morality hasn't changed at any point throughout history.....save only ONE, which was in the realm of sex and relationships.

Incest: Through science, we can understand WHY the Lord eventually disallowed incest on the basis of what He knew was genetic deterioration, which leads to a higher probability of crippling disfigurements and mutations as a result.

Rape is a sin because it breaks the 2nd commandment. But without the light of the law, how could Lot have known? And Lot was righteous. The apostle Peter, who was appointed by Christ himself said so.

Could you please regail us all with what you know of God's Law that existed BEFORE Moses penned the Law handed to the Israelites?

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell us all that rape was NOT against God's pre-Law Law?

If that's the case, then Abel violated no Law for murder until it was penned by Moses for the Israelites.

Come now. Rather than being so obtuse, let's deal on the basis of reason, and keep our feet on the ground, shall we?

BTW

 

[bsd058]

Realistically, the pagan cultures didn't have the Law. I agree. I never said otherwise. However, Abraham DID have Law that He understood as coming from the Lord. Again, simply read Genesis 25.

I'm trying to find what you are referring to. Could you be more specific as to the verse you are referring in Gen 25? Thanks.

Wow.....a mind reader. I thought I'd never run across one.....and through a computer screen, too.....that's even more impressive.....

I didn't need to strain my mind to realize you were merely bickering over my attitude and not offering a cogent argument for you case, which is kind of hypocritical if you think about it, considering you're the one judging my attitude without knowing anything about me.

You do indeed strain your arm patting yourself on the back. Be careful it doesn't break. The historicity of Abraham and Lot are both laid bare for us to examine without having to study what few intricacies of the pagan backdrop we may glean from secular history. Ignorance will never serve as an excuse for sin for any generation of people who have ever lived on this earth, regardless of what system of social law and cultural customes may be in the crosshairs.

I'll ignore the ad hominems.

I agree, ignorance would be no excuse, since all men can know about God by the things He has revealed to them in nature. And when men do by themselves, the things which are written in the law, they become a law unto themselves. (Rom 2:14)

But the law was meant to drive men to a Savior, since it is impossible to keep the things which are in the law perfectly. And there are things in the law that are commanded which no man has control over. For instance, loving God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. No man can cause this love to well up within them. And therefore, we are all disobeying the greatest command which is to love God with our whole being.

And this was the point of Paul in Romans. That no one is without excuse when it comes to the things which are in the law, since men are a law unto themselves.

And do you think painting my words whatever color suits your agenda will suffice in twisting them into something I never said? Any student of the Bible knows that no man possess righteousness in and of himself.

How did I paint them? I simply showed you where God called Lot righteous, and told you that he perceived the men of Sodom were going to try to have sex with men, and Lot offered something better. The two girls he was going to give up to the men of Sodom. Though the account isn't clear if they were going to rape the two men to begin with. It could be that they wanted to seduce them in order to have sex with them and Lot was offering his girls instead (since it was evil in Lot's eyes to commit homosexual acts).

In fact Peter did kind of make it clear that it was with their sensual behavior that the men of Sodom that oppressed Lot. These are phrases that definitely imply that Lot viewed homosexuality as evil in this account.

You do excell in girding up your loins with pride. The coming of Christ Jesus made no changes to God's moral absolutes. Morality hasn't changed at any point throughout history.....save only ONE, which was in the realm of sex and relationships.

No I don't think the law had changed. I merely said that it hadn't been given to Lot. And, BTW, I was merely stating that the law is a lot more merciful to rapists than we are today. I wasn't saying that it wasn't evil to rape someone (in fact, I believe I said the opposite), but I wanted to show you that while Lot did offer his daughters, he was still righteous. Obviously, it is wrong to rape a woman.

And actually, the law, in being merciful to the rapist, was actually being merciful to the victim, since without the rapist having to take care of them for the rest of their lives, they might not find a husband since they were no longer virgins.

Perhaps, Lot being the righteous man he was, offered his daughters up in faith that God would protect them (as Abraham offered Isaac in faith). Who knows? Only God. All I know was that Lot believed that he could prevent "this wicked act" with his two daughters.

I think I've offered a very coherent argument without calling you names or judging your character, but I'll let others be the judge of who has been judgmental and driveled on.

Incest: Through science, we can understand WHY the Lord eventually disallowed incest on the basis of what He knew was genetic deterioration, which leads to a higher probability of crippling disfigurements and mutations as a result.

Ya. This might be one reason why he disallowed it. However, you have to wonder how Adam and Eve's children procreated in the early years and if God allowed it back then, unless God created other "Eve's," which is a possibility, but unlikely considering the state of all of fallen mankind as opposed to just Adam & Eve's offspring.

Although, we can ask ourselves the question, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" In other words, did God curse these types of relationships with these deformities because He declared them evil, or did God declare them evil because they produced deformities? We can speculate all day the reasons. Fact is, God said it was evil in the law, but possibly allowed it in the early years of the human race.

Could you please regail us all with what you know of God's Law that existed BEFORE Moses penned the Law handed to the Israelites?

You seem to know more about it than I do. Enlighten me.

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell us all that rape was NOT against God's pre-Law Law?

I'll concede on this matter. Rape was evil before the law was written.

If that's the case, then Abel violated no Law for murder until it was penned by Moses for the Israelites.

I'll concede this too. I'm a man and I can err.

Come now. Rather than being so obtuse, let's deal on the basis of reason, and keep our feet on the ground, shall we?

BTW

I think I've kept my feet on the ground rather well. And without resorting to ad hominem.

So, tell me, in your opinion, why did Lot offer his daughters instead of the men to prevent the evil they were going to do?

Because clearly he did offer them in order to prevent them from doing that "wicked" thing. I think everyone would agree with at least that much.

Gen 19:1-10
Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.

I believe that the men thought Lot was judging them by calling what the men were going to do to the two men, "wicked," yet offering his two daughters instead. I don't think I can twist the meaning of the Scripture there. I'm merely being honest with the text and I think anyone with an unbiased heart would come to the same conclusion.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I'm trying to find what you are referring to. Could you be more specific as to the verse you are referring in Gen 25? Thanks.

My mistake. I meant to type Genesis 26, and it's in verse 5 to be more specific.

I didn't need to strain my mind to realize you were merely bickering over my attitude and not offering a cogent argument for you case, which is kind of hypocritical if you think about it, considering you're the one judging my attitude without knowing anything about me.

Attitude? Hardly. Your words betrayed an assumption of knowledge on your part that you couldn't possibly have about me. But, no biggie. Computer screens have that strange phenomenon attached to them whereby we assume things in order to try and fill in the gasps.

I'll ignore the ad hominems.

Come now. I was speaking generally (except the back-patting part), not about you specifically. Perhaps we can dispense with the martyr syndrome tact?

How did I paint them? I simply showed you where God called Lot righteous, and told you that he perceived the men of Sodom were going to try to have sex with men, and Lot offered something better. The two girls he was going to give up to the men of Sodom. Though the account isn't clear if they were going to rape the two men to begin with. It could be that they wanted to seduce them in order to have sex with them and Lot was offering his girls instead (since it was evil in Lot's eyes to commit homosexual acts).

Looking back to what I typed, I realized I had fat-fingered a statement not at all representative of my meaning, and that was certainly incorrect in relation to our righteousness. My apologies.

Perhaps the real issue is more along the lines of vantage point more-so than historicity. In the end, it really makes no difference what was in Lot's heart that we can't possibly know outside of what's actually written.

In fact Peter did kind of make it clear that it was with their sensual behavior that the men of Sodom that oppressed Lot. These are phrases that definitely imply that Lot viewed homosexuality as evil in this account.

Uhhh. That really wasn't an issue with me. What caught my attention was the statement that Lot considered his daughters being used in the place of the angels was a lesser evil. I don't think we can really gauge that one this far removed from the time that man walked this earth. Did he not know those angels could have leveled that entire city without breaking a sweat...to put it mildly? Was he really that ignorant? We don't know for sure, and won't know until after this life...perhaps.

No I don't think the law had changed. I merely said that it hadn't been given to Lot. And, BTW, I was merely stating that the law is a lot more merciful to rapists than we are today.

Feminism does have its effects.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't evil to rape someone (in fact, I believe I said the opposite), but I wanted to show you that while Lot did offer his daughters, he was still righteous. Obviously, it is wrong to rape a woman.

That still doesn't solve the quandary, but that's ok. Too many things are beyond our knowing for sure one way or the other this far removed from his life.

And actually, the law, in being merciful to the rapist, was actually being merciful to the victim, since without the rapist having to take care of them for the rest of their lives, they might not find a husband since they were no longer virgins.

That's a plausible statement. Yes. I agree. However, that simply doesn't work in our lowly, overly feminized culture today.

Perhaps, Lot being the righteous man he was, offered his daughters up in faith that God would protect them (as Abraham offered Isaac in faith).

I just wonder how that stacks up against what Paul said when stating that the man who doesn't see to the needs of his own is worse than in infidel, and has denied the faith. Those of our house also require protection, and he was going to cast his daughters to the wolves (so to speak).

Ya. This might be one reason why he disallowed it. However, you have to wonder how Adam and Eve's children procreated in the early years and if God allowed it back then, unless God created other "Eve's," which is a possibility, but unlikely considering the state of all of fallen mankind as opposed to just Adam & Eve's offspring.

I don't think there's any theological crisis to admit brothers and sisters married and had children together. That was never a sin until about the time of Moses when he penned the law against incest.

Although, we can ask ourselves the question, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" In other words, did God curse these types of relationships with these deformities because He declared them evil, or did God declare them evil because they produced deformities? We can speculate all day the reasons. Fact is, God said it was evil in the law, but possibly allowed it in the early years of the human race.

"Possibly" allowed it? They had no other choice(s). Other Eves? That would violate the concept of monogenism, which is a central tenet for how we understand Genesis.

BTW