# Feelings on Lot



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

Greetings!

I'm not sure if this has been discussed on here yet, but I'll go ahead and post anyway.

I was wondering what some of you think about the Biblical character, Lot.  Was Lot a righteous man like written of in the book of Peter, or was he the wicked man portrayed in Genesis?

Thoughts?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 18, 2011)

Are you sure you posted this in the right forum?


----------



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

I think so.  It seems like an appropriate place for a question like this; discussing the various hypocrisies of the bible.  Where do you think it should go?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 18, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> Where do you think it should go?



I would put it in the Christianity & Judaism forum or the Spiritual Discussion forum.  Unless you're looking for a skeptic's opinions on Lot,  I wouldn't put it here.

You mention the books of 2 Peter and Genesis.  A lot of the guys here put more trust in _Mad_ magazine than any book of the Bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 18, 2011)

OK, you edited your post to add this:



bushidobam said:


> ... discussing the various hypocrisies of the bible.



If that's the point of your question, you're in the right place.


----------



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, you edited your post to add this:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the point of your question, you're in the right place.



Sorry, Centerpin.  I edited the post to be more fitting for AAA.  Thank you.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> I was wondering what some of you think about the Biblical character, Lot.  Was Lot a righteous man like written of in the book of Peter, or was he the wicked man portrayed in Genesis?



Yes.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes.






Thank you for that rousing defense of scripture RJ.


----------



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes.



  That is convincing.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> That is convincing.



Thanks...I thought it was pretty clever

Nothing I could write on these pages would satisfy what you are seeking.....so, in all honesty, I think my one word answer will have to suffice.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Are you sure you posted this in the right forum?



Sure he did! The christians frequent this place as much as the C/J forum and the S.D &S forum.
I am still trying to decide which A out of the AAA most christians that frequent here are.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Sure he did! The christians frequent this place as much as the C/J forum and the S.D &S forum.
> I am still trying to decide which A out of the AAA most christians that frequent here are.



I would say the last A.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Sure he did! The christians frequent this place as much as the C/J forum and the S.D &S forum.
> I am still trying to decide which A out of the AAA most christians that frequent here are.



eh, you guys might get bored without us.  It's no fun sitting around agreeing with each other.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> eh, you guys might get bored without us.  It's no fun sitting around agreeing with each other.



Oh it seems to go just fine in the C/J forum.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> I would say the last A.



Oh! 
Apologetics - from the Greek "apologia," a legal term meaning "defense" - is the branch of Christian theology concerned with the intelligent presentation and defense of the historical Christian faith.

a·pol·o·get·ics
â€‚ â€‚[uh-pol-uh-jet-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.


Quoting scripture to non christians is not intelligent or proof.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh it seems to go just fine in the C/J forum.



I don't hang out in there much.  I Go to the S,D & S, they all seem to think I'm a heathen though.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I don't hang out in there much.  I Go to the S,D & S, they all seem to think I'm a heathen though.



Yeah, you believe in God, but not enough...or the "right" way, or as much as.... or...........


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, you believe in God, but not enough...or the "right" way, or as much as.... or...........



It seems that way sometimes.  I don't base my beliefs on others though.  So I'm ok with it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 18, 2011)

When TWO or more agree....no?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh!
> Apologetics - from the Greek "apologia," a legal term meaning "defense" - is the branch of Christian theology concerned with the intelligent presentation and defense of the historical Christian faith.
> 
> a·pol·o·get·ics
> ...



If it were up to me, we'd go back to the "old" forum:  one for prayer requests and one for everything else.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> When TWO or more agree....no?



Expand on that comment please.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> If it were up to me, we'd go back to the "old" forum:  one for prayer requests and one for everything else.



But then there is no safe haven for C/J. 

OR

That is there safe haven and no one else can join the discussions.

Broken up this way gives everyone a fair place congregate even though there is no Hands-off area in the AAA forum.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh!
> Apologetics - from the Greek "apologia," a legal term meaning "defense" - is the branch of Christian theology concerned with the intelligent presentation and defense of the historical Christian faith.
> 
> a·pol·o·get·ics
> ...



I don't see where scripture is quoted all that much in here.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But then there is no safe haven for C/J.



As a "C", I never felt unsafe in the old forum. 

Maybe this way is easier on the moderators, though.  They have a tough job.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I don't see where scripture is quoted all that much in here.



Certain guys that frequent here cannot get through a discussion without including it. Some are decent at using it only when it is talked about. Unless scripture is the main topic, why include it? Why quote it to non believers in scripture?

It is used more than you think String.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Expand on that comment please.



It was directed to JB.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But then there is no safe haven for C/J.
> 
> OR
> 
> ...



Quite honestly, I don't see the need for a safe haven.  But that's just my opinion.  Your safe haven is the "back" button or the "ignore" function.  If you don't want to participate...don't.




> Maybe this way is easier on the moderators, though. They have a tough job.



Absolutely correct...and understandable.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> As a "C", I never felt unsafe in the old forum.



I believe that. Some are not bothered and enjoy the opposite views and conversation and others can't type a PM fast enough when someone comes into the S,D & S forum and says something that does not agree with the majority. I think it is THE reason Ronny T felt it necessary to post a Sticky about it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> As a "C", I never felt unsafe in the old forum.
> 
> Maybe this way is easier on the moderators, though.  They have a tough job.



True on the Mods.....true!


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> True on the Mods.....true!



Something we can all agree on.



Why quote scripture?

Because it is the basis for what I believe.  Without Scripture, I have nothing.

Sure, you might not believe it.  But at least it gives you an understanding as to why I believe it.


Edit to add:

The OP was asking in reference to scripture as well.  So why not use it?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Something we can all agree on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



RJ, I have NO problem talking scripture when, and especially if it is in the OP post, scripture is the topic of discussion.

Many times though guys will include it as their proof to non-believers in replies that are not initially about scripture. I understand you do believe it and why you do, but it is not a good tool to use  when trying to convince someone that does not believe it. Like the MAD magazine reference.....it would hold no water to quote skits from there....it would not be taken seriously by those who not think that is the word of God if someone was using it as the word of God.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

Bottom line is that some people just include it no matter what. They find a verse that they think fits the situation and share it with people in the AAA area that frankly do not care.
Up in the S,D & S forum someone is talking about avatar pics( how that fits that forum I have no idea....) and someone replies with a comment and verse. I "get" that in the S,D & S area that can be expected, here....not so much.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I "get" that in the S,D & S area that can be expected, here....not so much.



And I'd disagree.  Why?


Well...look at the OP of this thread.  Using Scripture.  Many of the threads in here are about the Bible.  So based on your line of reasoning, why would the OP even ask the question on this subject if he already has the conclusion you do about the Bible...that it is as real and as truthful as MAD?  Unless...of course...he's trolling and only wanting to see people agree with him that he's found the Bible disagreeing with itself.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 18, 2011)

> only wanting to see people agree with him...



That's as true in here as it is in the Christian sections of this forum.  There are many threads started in here supposedly directed to Christians for response.  The intent of many of them is to mock rather than to learn unfortunately.


It's no more silly for us to try to convince them using scripture as it is for them to try to convince us by saying "well your God is made up".


----------



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> And I'd disagree.  Why?
> 
> 
> Well...look at the OP of this thread.  Using Scripture.  Many of the threads in here are about the Bible.  So based on your line of reasoning, why would the OP even ask the question on this subject if he already has the conclusion you do about the Bible...that it is as real and as truthful as MAD?  Unless...of course...he's trolling and only wanting to see people agree with him that he's found the Bible disagreeing with itself.



No trolling here.  Not trying to stir the pot either.  I just want to see how everyone feels about Lot.  I have an opinion, but I was waiting for a few more responses before expressing it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 18, 2011)

> I just want to see how everyone feels about Lot.



He was a righteous man.  He did a wicked thing in an effort to do the right thing (I assume we're talking about offering up his daughters).  

His heart was in the right place.  His actions were wrong.

Righteous does not = perfect


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> No trolling here.  Not trying to stir the pot either.  I just want to see how everyone feels about Lot.  I have an opinion, but I was waiting for a few more responses before expressing it.



Okay...then can you quote where you think the disagreement between the passages occurs?  I read through both and don't really see the issue you portray in your OP.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> And I'd disagree.  Why?
> 
> 
> Well...look at the OP of this thread.  Using Scripture.  Many of the threads in here are about the Bible.  So based on your line of reasoning, why would the OP even ask the question on this subject if he already has the conclusion you do about the Bible...that it is as real and as truthful as MAD?  Unless...of course...he's trolling and only wanting to see people agree with him that he's found the Bible disagreeing with itself.



I agree that in this thread scripture quotes and talk is appropriate. When i said "here...not so much", I meant "here" as in the AAA forum overall specifically when scripture is not the main topic.


----------



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> He was a righteous man.  He did a wicked thing in an effort to do the right thing (I assume we're talking about offering up his daughters).
> 
> His heart was in the right place.  His actions were wrong.
> 
> Righteous does not = perfect



Yes, Huntinfool, that IS what I was talking about, and I'm actually with you on the opinion that ighteousness doesn't equal perfect.  However, Peter (2 Peter 2:7-8) claims that Lot was a righteous man, despite his wickedness in Sodom, and in the cave with his daughters (even though Lot supposedly knew nothing of the relations).

How can this even be conceivable?  Is it that the emphasis lies in Lot being a faithful servant of God, and not so much the atrocious acts themselves?  

Essentially a person can do as much harm as he/she can muster up, but as long as that person is faithful to God, he/she is on the right path.  That's what I get out of it.


----------



## bushidobam (Aug 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...then can you quote where you think the disagreement between the passages occurs?  I read through both and don't really see the issue you portray in your OP.



Genesis 19:8 and Genesis 19:30-36 seem to clash with 2 Peter 2:7-8.

Just saying, by our present standards--and I'd have to say by the standards of the Old Testament too--any act such that Lot committed in Sodom and the cave, is pretty much unforgivable.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> Yes, Huntinfool, that IS what I was talking about, and I'm actually with you on the opinion that ighteousness doesn't equal perfect.  However, Peter (2 Peter 2:7-8) claims that Lot was a righteous man, despite his wickedness in Sodom, and in the cave with his daughters (even though Lot supposedly knew nothing of the relations).
> 
> How can this even be conceivable?  Is it that the emphasis lies in Lot being a faithful servant of God, and not so much the atrocious acts themselves?
> 
> Essentially a person can do as much harm as he/she can muster up, but as long as that person is faithful to God, he/she is on the right path.  That's what I get out of it.



Well..throw David in the mix then.

I think he did worse than offer up his daughters and get drugged by his daughters.

I guess stories like this give me comfort...as long as I repent, God is faithful to forgive.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 18, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> Genesis 19:8 and Genesis 19:30-36 seem to clash with 2 Peter 2:7-8.
> 
> Just saying, by our present standards--and I'd have to say by the standards of the Old Testament too--any act such that Lot committed in Sodom and the cave, is pretty much unforgivable.



I'd say the cave incident wasn't really his fault.  He was drugged.  

Kinda like saying someone given a date rape pill is guilty of sin.  Not really anything you can do at that point.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 22, 2011)

> Essentially a person can do as much harm as he/she can muster up, but as long as that person is faithful to God, he/she is on the right path. That's what I get out of it.



Kind of....but not really.

It's not a "do what you want and as long as you make God happy he doesn't care what you do to anybody else" kind of proposition.

It's a "heart" issue (to use Christian terms).  Lot's heart was for and of God (as was David's).  Lot did some horrible horrible things in his life (as have we all).  But his heart was for God.  

Did he screw up?  Absolutely.  What we have to infer is that, once he realized what he had done, he went to God, hat in hand and repented.  That would be consistent with the declaration of righteousness.

It's not that he followed what God commanded and then maliciously did those terrible things.  He sent his daughters out in order to save the men who visited him.  At the moment, he thought he was doing what God would want him to do.  He was obviously wrong and so he have to infer that he was convicted of that at some point and repented.  

He didn't send them out to be raped for the sport of it.  He was doing what he thought would be pleasing in the sight of God.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 22, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> Essentially a person can do as much harm as he/she can muster up, but as long as that person is faithful to God, he/she is on the right path.  That's what I get out of it.



Read Romans 6.

Actually, read the entire book.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 22, 2011)

...and 7 would be a good idea too if you don't want to read the whole book.


----------

