If think according to christianity, its ok for men to rape women, just not men.
I dont think he was righteous
2006-11-04 14:12:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by CJunk 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
If the earlier verses of Genesis 19 are to be believed, Lot was supposed to have been a "good" man. Of course what "good" man would offer his daughters to a mob to be raped?
Did Lot really mean it? Would he really have handed his two daughters over to the mob? Or, was it intended as some sort of a stall tactic, an offer that would not be accepted, because he knew that those men had no interest in women? This seems to be the case in view of the mob's response - they continued to ignore the two daughters, and decided to assault Lot along with the two men/angels. Thats the best I can come up with. Lot is considered by some a picture of the "carnal Christian", saved but not walking with God. He was able to escape Sodom, as Scripture indicates, he owed this more to Abraham's merits than his own.
2006-11-04 14:20:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by thundercatt9 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think his daughters had real problems too, both of them ended up pregnant by their father later on. Obviously living among that immoral society did not help any of their moral values. Interestingly the New Testament refers to Lot as a righteous man in 2 Peter 2:6 "...He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
2006-11-04 14:20:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by oldguy63 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hm. distinctive selection: A. Lot replaced into attempting to transform the adult males. That Christlike compassion -- loving the sinner mutually as hating the sin -- is why God spared him. B. Lot had dressed his daughters as boys on account that early existence. How else have been they ever going to seize a husband in Sodom? C. Lot figured his daughters have been safer with the mob than with the 1st heterosexual adult males to step interior Sodom in a coon's age. D. Lot needed the visitors all to himself.
2016-10-21 06:58:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lot was a righteous man. He also had faith that God would offer him protection for himself and his daughters. He offered them to the men of Sodom in order to protect God's servants and what happened? GENESIS 19:11 tells us--"And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door."
God did punish the wicked men for their actions and eventually the entire city was destroyed.
2006-11-04 14:41:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Micah 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most definitely! The choice was easy: his daughters were safe. The mob outside his door were just a bunch of homos, and not interested in females..
2006-11-04 14:41:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by thvannus@verizon.net 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes he was, God should always come first.Lot and his family were the only ones saved,the wife was no so righteous she had to look back, meaning she did not want to live all the evil and sin.
2006-11-04 14:18:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by gwhiz1052 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
And Abram offered his son Isaac as a sacrafice too.
Lot was righteous for placing God above all else, even his own flesh and blood.
Notice that God did not let the daughters be defiled, nor did Isaac get sacraficed.
2006-11-04 14:12:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Andrew 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
He may not have been righteous by today's standards but he lived while his wife was turned into a pillar of salt.
Isn't it really a parable any way.
2006-11-04 14:13:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not me. Trying to sate an angry mob by sacrificing your helpless daughters to be savagely raped and tortured? Sorry, doesn't sound very righteous to me.
2006-11-04 14:11:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋