"I Have Two Virgin Daughters......

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 86
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
........do what you like with them".

 How generous of this man Lot,  to offer his virgin daughters in place of  two  strangers said to be messengers of god himself.

One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest  at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped  to save their  skin ?   And where was god to reprimand Lot?


8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”   Genesis 19:1-21

It is as if this was the normal practice for a father  to offer his little girls when he or his god sent guests are in danger.



and someone on another mentioned Morals: 

 The tale goes on to tell the familiar story  about Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt <<(I know, )  and eventually Lots two virgin daughters rape Lot while he is drunk or asleep or both. 

Of course;  Lot cannot of course be held accountable for this incestuous depraved and immoral  licentious act , because he was out of his head and  "didn't know a thing about it, honest guv" . Genesis 19:30-38





 



 


#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I came with questions and left with more.
#3
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I came with curiosity and left knowing the OP had not read the story he's talking about.
#4
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
........do what you like with them".

 How generous of this man Lot,  to offer his virgin daughters in place of  two  strangers said to be messengers of god himself.

One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest  at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped  to save their  skin ?   And where was god to reprimand Lot?


8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”   Genesis 19:1-21

It is as if this was the normal practice for a father  to offer his little girls when he or his god sent guests are in danger.



and someone on another mentioned Morals: 

 The tale goes on to tell the familiar story  about Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt <<(I know, )  and eventually Lots two virgin daughters rape Lot while he is drunk or asleep or both. 

Of course;  Lot cannot of course be held accountable for this incestuous depraved and immoral  licentious act , because he was out of his head and  "didn't know a thing about it, honest guv" . Genesis 19:30-38

I can't seem to recall anywhere in the Bible  where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  

In fact it seems his relevance really is because of his uncle Abraham. 

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so. 

From the beginning - he was in it for himself.  Selfish and loyal only to himself.  I would suggest that what he does in this story - is exactly making that point. 

He was scared of the men in the town. But he was more scared of the angels in his house.  He wanted to live - in his own way and would do anything to get there. He had no loyalty to his daughters.  I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral.  


#5
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest  at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped  to save their  skin ?   And where was god to reprimand Lot?
I am not sure if you read the story or not? 

The angels did not accept Lot's proposal.  They reached out and pulled Lot in and then blinded the men in the street.  Then they destroyed the entire city. 

To say they did not bat an eyelid is incorrect. They prevented it from happening. Lot was looking out for no 1. The angels prevented needless abuse. 

in relation to God reprimanding Lot, can you read or not? HE lost his home, his wife, and his dignity. God has not left a lovely record of Lot.  Eventually his children and descendants will be judged to be annihilated for ever. 


#6
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Of course;  Lot cannot of course be held accountable for this incestuous depraved and immoral  licentious act , because he was out of his head and  "didn't know a thing about it, honest guv" . Genesis 19:30-38
Your head is not in the right place because you said a story from the bible that teaches us what happens when we leave God but then it is so what. You got the story messed up and your head is messed up because you didnt say anything so what about the story der.
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Intelligence_06
I came with questions and left with more.

 That is what these biblical stories  do to me.  They cause me to ask  more questions . The vile and disgusting nature of this verse alone tells us how cheap a  females chastity and  lives were even if it is ones own daughters or how young they were!

The first thing that this type of biblical story causes me to think is whether or not a teacher of religious education such as a  Vicar, a Chaplin, a Pastor or  Priest would ever highlight and discuss this vile verse with his or her young pupils or students?   Would they risk the possibility that they themselves would be seen in a different light and risk  watching their own authority and status crumble before their own eyes for believing and agreeing and worst of all defending Lots  vile and disgusting proposal.



Topic's author
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.  



2 Peter 2:7

"and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" . 

The Brother had you tagged from day one didn't he?  


I am not sure if you read the story or not? 

 I have serious doubts whether you have ever read the whole  scriptures for yourself, or questioned them for yourself, Reverend Chaplin Tradesecrete? 
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Good pickup Stephen,

yes, I did forget about that passage.  And it is fascinating isn't? 

I suppose that goes with Abraham's prayer to God to save Sodom and Gomorrah if there were even 5 righteous men in it. 

Yet, at first blush I admit I do find it difficult to it be so black and white.

I accept that Lot certainly indicated to the men in the city that he would give them his daughters. I find this a repulsive thought. 

And the angels clearly thought so too - given that they prevented it from happening.  

Yet, Lot's example in that picture and I suggest in many episodes in his life, are not meant for us to follow.  

(Just also thought I would point out your inconsistency in quoting this verse when very often you fail to use other passages from the NT when interpreting the OT) You choose not to use the book of Hebrews for instance. Refuse to engage completely. AND if it wasn't you - then certainly you never said otherwise did not like me referring to the Hebrews passage in relation to Abraham and Isaac. ) 

But I have no issue using this passage. If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past. See, Stephen, you can teach me too. 

Of course Peter is also talking about rescuing people - and he did that with both Lot and his daughters.  

So getting back to his daughters, how could he have done this? I honestly don't know. Did he know these men were angels? yes. Was he somehow cognizant that they were powerful? I don't know. Surely he might have asked them for help.  But he did not.  I said above that he was acting selfishly for himself - more fearful of the angels than of the men.  It seems that I was wrong.  Yet, again - being a righteous person does not make you a perfect person. David is also called righteous but look at what he did. 

So if he did not do it out of a selfish reason or motivation (and I am not saying he did not do that either), why did he do it? Possibly to protect them from the men and violation. Perhaps as a middle eastern culture - it was more shameful for guests in the house to be violated than for one's own family? Perhaps this shame and honor culture played quite a significant role - even as it still does in many cultures around the world?

Whatever the case - and again I have had to think more about this - so thanks.  The daughters were not harmed.  The angels did not let it happen. the men in the city were judged. As was the city and Lot and his family survived.  God rescues his people. That is a great thought.  

The other thing you mention initially is that perhaps this sort of act was normal in that society.  And I think that is probably the case- - but the society we are talking about is specifically Sodom and Gomorroh. A wicked and evil city - where the wickedness that occurred tortured Lot's soul.  

The other thing worth noting is that God did not order this. God is not using this an example of righteousness.  Even righteous people can be tainted by sin. This is a good example for all of us not to think we are somehow immune to such a thing.  So Good pick up Stephen. 
Topic's author
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I did forget about that passage. 

Do you actually realise what you have said there Chaplin/Pastor?  You are telling us that in all your years of study and with all of your claimed qualifications that this question has never once been raised neither by   your own students, that you proudly mention here: #20,  and that you hadn't ever discussed it with your  academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church, that you proudly tell us that you were "tutored by" that you have proudly mentioned here : #91 BUT  worst of all, you have never raised the question yourself. 

 It is realisations such as these above ^^^^^^^^^^^ that cause me to believe that you are simply a fraud and have only made these claims to elevate yourself above others  and give credence to your claims to being a lawyer and a pastor and a Chaplin there by making yourself an  authority ABOVE OTHERS on matters biblical  . It hasn't worked on me, Reverend. 

 It must be case of either your biblical students are the dumbest on the planet OR , like all religious teachers of religious matters,  you have steered them away from these awkward and problematic questions that arise from the biblical scriptures themselves.



You  hadn't forgot,   you just didn't know.  If you had you wouldn't have taken the time to challenge me with both these stupid replies.

@Tradesecret I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? [because } I can't and I would never hold him up as so.  

So again Yes and I have   shown you, Reverend.  2 Peter 2:7  "and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" . 

Once I pointed  2 Peter 2:7 out to you, IT WAS ONLY THEN  in your total embarrassment that  you desperately scrambled for reasons why Lot was indeed called righteous.  With all of your qualifications and  experience as a Tutor,  Lawyer a Pastor AND a Chaplin, you should have UATOMATICALLY  known that Lot in the bible is called "RIGHTEOUSE"!


And it matters not for what reason  the scriptures actually say  "LOT was righteous ", it is enough that they do , no matter how YOU  now  all of a sudden want to write into the scriptures your own beliefs why they  have called Lot righteous .   


  But YOU,  a lecturer of religion that tells us ,  " I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them", #20 couldn't remember if  or not  the central biblical character in a well known biblical story, was righteous or not!!!!? 

But you couldn't stop there could  you?

 So with your lawyers cap now firmly on your head, lets look at your other bullshit attempts at defending these  biblical characters and their actions.



The angels did not accept Lot's proposal. 


Where in scripture does it say these messengers “did not accept Lot’s proposal”? It doesn’t does it? 

So within just two posts you are attempting already  to rewrite the scriptures and put words in the mouths of the biblical authors in an attempt to explain away  this vile biblical episode and justify the actions of these biblical characters.   You just cannot help yourself can you?

So let us stay with the biblical evidence of that we do know from the ACTUAL scriptures, shall we, our lawyer friend? #20    And not what you believe  should only now be inserted into the actual  BIBLICAL evidence of the statement  in the verses of the biblical author to defend your clients, Lot and gods messengers



WE DO KNOW the towns folk showed no interest in Lot’s horrific proposal don’t we?    Lot made his proposal and they  ignored it  and   “Get out of the way! “ they said.

Job was outside talking to the mob and the messengers were on the other side of the closed door inside Lots house.


And it was only after this disgusting proposal was ignored by the townsfolk and the towns folk started for Lots door  do the scriptures actually state that these  messengers from god:    “ reached out and pulled Lot in [to the house] and then blinded the men in the street” .

Here read it for yourself :

Genesis19 - 9 But they replied, “Get out of the way! This man came here as a foreigner, and now he’s acting like a judge! So we’re going to deal more harshly with you than with them.” Then they pushed hard against the man (that is, against Lot), intending to break down the door.

10 But the angels  inside reached out, dragged Lot back into the house with them, shut the door.

So clearly they were not interested in having sex with Lot’s young virgin daughters. But told Lotto “stand back out of the way “so they could “ have sex with them” as THE SCRIPTURE clearly states they wanted to do at Genesis19-5.

And it was only at the point of the attempted forced entry into the house of Lot did these men/messengers of god decided to act.. How gallant of them?


And do you notice what they say here. These townsfolk that want to harshly have sex with these messengers and then with Lot himself , but more harshly.
They called out to Lot and asked, “Where are the men who came to visit you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”
 Genesis19-5.



#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Why is it so important to you - to try and humiliate me. You don't call any of this an attack.  ????

I had forgotten about the verse.  There are many verses in the bible and I have not memorized them. Once you reminded me - I recalled and then I knew that you would try and lie about me. But, you see I don't care what lies you say. I know what I know - and I know the truth.  Why would I need to raise it? 

You seem to think that everyone is like you - with hours of free time able to pour over every passage and ask every question.  Some people actually have jobs. They work. They have families. They need to spend time with. They have a life. 

I also come to the bible quite differently than you do. I ask questions from my position and you ask from yours. Yours is to find as many ways to prove God is evil and the bible is inconsistent.   Mine is not. 

As for rewriting the story. Go and read it yourself. The city men rejected Lot' proposal. Yes. We are in agreement there.  Yes they wanted to have sex with the angels and pushed past Lot. Yes we are in agreement there. The angels then pulled Lot in and blinded the city men.  We agree with this as well. The difference is that you say or imply without any evidence that the angels were happy to let the girls get exploited.  And I say the angels were not in agreement with Lot's proposal and did something about it. You say - the angels did not do anything until their lives were put on the line. I say - the girls and the angels were inside the building SAFE and protected from the city folk. I say the angels never had any intention of letting the girls be harmed.  They were angels and knew their powers. And were not afraid of the men. Lot's proposal was wrong. 

And the angels did not do anything particularly ungallant. You just make stuff up.  As I said previously.  Lot and his daughters escaped unharmed. The city was judged. 

Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks.  You perhaps think you are just being critically helpful or constructive. I don't have a reason to lie. 

Words are words - and causes are causes.  The Bible is the bible which is full of flawed people.  Even the righteous make mistakes - since they too are sinners.  And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul. And still you try you complain. Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?  How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example - and rather than saying - Well done God, you still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil. 
Topic's author
#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it so important to you - to try and humiliate me. You don't call any of this an attack.  ????

No. I call it showing you for what you are and your lack of biblical knowledge that you claim to be qualified to teach and tutor others  in.

 Besides  I can't see how these words have caused you do feel "humiliated" they are after all, only words and words can't cause anything can they? 
"words are just words"#45 


I had forgotten about the verse. 

Stop lying. That verse would have jumped into your mind right away. The story concerns saving the righteous. Lot was saved and called righteous . You even expanded on what you believed:  

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so [righteous]  

From the beginning - he was in it for himself.  Selfish and loyal only to himself. #4



You hadn't forgot and that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ above proves you hadn't forgot.  WHY?  because you have given your own very vivid opinion not just of Lot but of the whole story. If you had known Lot was righteous then you would have blurted that out before anything else;  but what did you call him and say about him instead "he was in it for himself.  Selfish and loyal only to himself and he wasn't a model for Jews or for Christians"



There are many verses in the bible and I have not memorized them.
Same here  But when we take into account what the story is about - the righteous-  and add to that your years tutorage and your clerical titles- Pastor & Chaplin and your religious qualifications to teach others then I  do not believe it possible for you to say those things about Lot yet not know that he was called Righteous.
This story MUST have come up in your time teaching   in a discussion . It MUST have been discussed by you and those scholars and academics #91 and it MUST have come up  before I created this thread. 



Once you reminded me - I recalled and then I knew that you would try and lie about me.

I haven't lied about you. I have simply pointed out your failures and absolutely incredible lack of biblical knowledge that you claim to be qualified in to pass on to others. 


I don't care what lies you say. Why would I need to raise it? 
I haven't lied and I  didn't ask you to come to this thread an make a fool of yourself.  You did that all on your own trying to be clever . 


You seem to think that everyone is like you - with hours of free time able to pour over every passage and ask every question.  Some people actually have jobs. They work. They have families. They need to spend time with. They have a life.   

 Incredible!!!!!!!!  Yes they do have jobs, and You are TRAINED in this particular field.  You spent years getting qualifications in religious studies.  You teach others in universities. You studied under  and was taught by "academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".  how much time did all of this take of your life!? You teach this stuff  at universities so to say you have no fkn time is another clue that tells me you are lying about yourself.


I also come to the bible quite differently than you do. I ask questions from my position and you ask from yours. Yours is to find as many ways to prove God is evil and the bible is inconsistent.   Mine is not. 
 Wrong.  I keep telling you; my concern are the scriptures. I have studied and scrutinised and I question the scriptures. I don't care about what god is or isn't. 


As for rewriting the story. Go and read it yourself. The city men rejected Lot' proposal. Yes.
That's right, they did it and  wasn't the messengers as you tried yo tell us it was .


We are in agreement there.
 We are now. after I pointed the facts out to you and you couldn't deny them.


 Yes they wanted to have sex with the angels and pushed past Lot. Yes we are in agreement there.
 We are now. after I pointed the facts out to you and you couldn't deny them.


The angels then pulled Lot in and blinded the city men.  We agree with this as well. The difference is that you say or imply without any evidence that the angels were happy to let the girls get exploited. 

 No I am saying they didn't bat a fkn eyelid and neither did the mother of these girls either. Not a single peep saying wtf do you think your doing with our daughters Lot you horrid  but righteous bastard!!!  Or maybe they simply didn't hear Lots vile proposition at all, from behind the door. And none of this explains how cheap these girls lives were to Lot at least does it, Reverend?


And I say the angels were not in agreement with Lot's proposal and did something about it. 

 Yes after the towns folk had charged Lots door to get at them. I haven't denied that. 


You say - the angels did not do anything until their lives were put on the line.
I said what the bible said  at Genesis19 - 9 -10 nothing more nothing less. It is you that has a serious habit of inserting  text into the scripture Reverend, not me .


I say - the girls and the angels were inside the building SAFE and protected from the city folk.
So do I . I have followed the scripture and I haven't said different to the scripture. 


I say the angels never had any intention of letting the girls be harmed.
You could be right. and probably are. its not the point.


Lot's proposal was wrong. 
It was wasn't it. It was not just wrong it was vile and disgusting, but Lot was righteous, wasn't he Reverend? Or have you "forgotten" again already  2 Peter 2:7?


You just make stuff up.

What have I made up?

  As I said previously.  Lot and his daughters escaped unharmed. The city was judged. 
so. 


Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks. 
How?  I don't know you. I have never spoken to you face to face or even on a telephone. So how am I attacking you. What is causing to you feel  that I am attacking you?


You perhaps think you are just being critically helpful or constructive.

 No. I am simply questioning the bible and defending my stance and my claims to the best of my ability while I deconstruct your claims and the claims made in the scriptures

 

Words are words - and causes are causes. 

Indeed and  words cause things . My words  "that are just words" seem to be causing you to feel uncomfortable. But you haven't explained how or why.


The Bible is the bible which is full of flawed people.
And flawed stories and comments and statements.
 


  And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
But righteous Reverend, he was also righteous in the eyes of god.2 Peter 2:7



And still you try you complain.

Is that what you think I am doing? Complaining? No I am scrutinising these scriptures Reverend.  I am doing what you fail to do.


Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
 Why is that after many requests for you to create a thread showing  your god in a more better and positive light, you never do so?











#13
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Hey, i thought Lots story was Job for a second, so i had a question that is off topic bc i thought of that. If god is Omniscient, why would he put Job through everything he did since he would already know what happens? I was wondering this... isn't that a contradiction to god's power? What do Christians answer to this paradox? 
#14
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen -

I did not lie. 

And I have no reason to lie. 

I never put my credentials on the table to be exploited or abused by yourself. 

I put them only in a response to your question. And only to explain a point you were asking me. About counseling - in relation to the example I gave. 

That was it. If you have never asked the question - and if I thought you were not asking in good faith - then I would never have responded to you. You are the one making a bigger thing of it than I. 

As for experts knowing everything - about everything - what nonsense. You just continue to demonstrate that you are an ignorant and uneducated person. Experts - never pretend to know everything. I have never pretended to know everything. Have I read the bible? Yes. Stop telling lies. 


#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest  at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped  to save their  skin ?   And where was god to reprimand Lot?
The angels did not accept Lot's proposal.  They reached out and pulled Lot in and then blinded the men in the street.  Then they destroyed the entire city. 

To say they did not bat an eyelid is incorrect. They prevented it from happening. Lot was looking out for no 1. The angels prevented needless abuse. 

in relation to God reprimanding Lot, can you read or not? HE lost his home, his wife, and his dignity. God has not left a lovely record of Lot.  Eventually his children and descendants will be judged to be annihilated for ever. 

Do you actually realise Stephen that what you have said here?  You are telling us that in all your years of study and with all of your claimed qualifications that this question has never once been raised neither by  your own peers? You didn't know that to say these two men of god did not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest  at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped is a lie?

How well we see the errors of others when we are blind to our own!

What does the bible say? We strain at a gnat but swallow a camel!

Topic's author
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
As for experts knowing everything - about everything - what nonsense.

I didn't say that.  Stop putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I am not stupid enough to make such a claim. But you are.

It is YOU that believes that by spouting your titles and qualifications all over the forum somehow makes you better qualified than me to speak about the scriptures. I have simply said that I read, study , scrutinise and question the scriptures. Just like I do your comments.

I have simply pointed out that the Bible  IS your business. Religion IS your business.  You are both a qualified Pastor and Chaplin.

  I'll tell you what you are forgetting shall I?  You didn't need to remember the verse, is all you needed to remember was that Lot was said to be righteous. That is how stupid you have been , Reverend.

But you didn't. You gave us  a vivid and pretty deep  almost a psychological profile of  Lot as a person, especially his nature. Look at the  detail that you put into describing Lot for us>>>>>


(a)From the beginning - he was in it for himself.  Selfish and loyal only to himself. 
and you drive home your point (a) with this adage

I would suggest that what he does in this story - is exactly making that point. 

You then go on to suggest his indifferent feeling towards his two young girls, telling us;

He had no loyalty to his daughters. 

 But you can't leave it at that, you then push home your point of how UN-righteous Lot is by giving us qualified and expert  opinion of Lot:


I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral.  

And this was odd, you actually mention that ; well read for yourself:

Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness. 
So there ^^^^^ you make a point of telling he Lot wasn't righteous!!!!!  Amazing!!!!


And then you think that you are being really, really smart and  by sarcastically asking me:

 
Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians
Well YES  I  CAN and I DID!!!!!! and  you couldn't.     Yet you  can described Lot , his selfish nature and  his indifferent feelings towards his own daughters.  You tell that he wasn't a "paragon of virtue "and ALSO tell us  "Lot wasn't righteous"  #4 <<<< yet you  managed to leave out the most important part about Lot's character;  - that Lot was righteous in the eyes of god!!!!   how the fk did you manged that! Reverend?

How can you say Lot wasn't righteous  AND also say you  "forgot"  the bible says he was righteous !!!!!????  How would this look to a jury my lawyer friend?


Now who has "a dilemma" Reverend!?  

How can God see (and Peter confirms)Lot in a righteous light  when in your  religiously qualified eyes and all of your biblical training you have told us ( and no doubt your students)  that in your experienced  and religiously qualified opinion:  " I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral" .    

You just continue to demonstrate that you are an ignorant and uneducated person.
Not where these unreliable scriptures are concerned , Reverend. I knew Lot was called righteous in the bible and in the eyes of god. You simply didn't when you should have.


Experts - never pretend to know everything.

I agree. A real expert learns from other peoples mistakes too and not just their own.  You should keep that in mind before you post on a forum that you cannot edit after ten minutes, Reverend


I have never pretended to know everything.
And I didn't say you have.  But just look how cock sure and sarcastic you were with your first two replies to me on this thread.  Not nice being knocked down is it. But you ask for it in my opinion. 


Have I read the bible? Yes.
Very poorly.  And you are out of your depth when it comes to -  detail -  in these scripture, Reverend.  and that is  poor praise for one that ALSO claims to ALSO be a lawyer.  

 But don't go away, will you. I  have the rest of your comments concerning this story  to scrutinize.










#17
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


Stephen,

Regarding the totally Bible inept Tradesecret, we can see "him/her" not accepting that Lot was a true SOB, whereas the Bible passages in question that you have shown explicitly show this to be true!  We can also see that Tradesecret is real edgy since the return of the equally Bible inept, and "spanked by the moderators again" with his 6 month vacation, ethang5. This is obviously because Tradesecret's days of being the #1 Bible fool upon DEBATEART Religion Forum are numbered, where ethang5 will once again take over this #1 position again.

I am still trying to help out Tradesecret in removing their ungodly SEXUAL DEVIANT modus operandi, in the following link, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters, but "he/she" fails to respond to my posts relative to my help in this manner.  Therefore, Tradesecret still becomes the #1 pseudo-christian HYPOCRITE going against the word of Jesus the Christ with "his/her" disgusting Sexual behavior as I have shown in links relative to Tradesecrets Satanic morals!  BLASPHEME!


Like I have said, we need the dumbfounded of the Bible Tradesecret and ethang5 within this forum to easily Bible Slap them Silly®️ to show what real pseudo-christians look and act like, praise Jesus!


.

#18
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
Hey, i thought Lots story was Job for a second, so i had a question that is off topic bc i thought of that. If god is Omniscient, why would he put Job through everything he did since he would already know what happens? I was wondering this... isn't that a contradiction to god's power? What do Christians answer to this paradox? 

Well I'm not a Bible literalist in the sense that everything in the Bible has to be taken so literal rather than the scriptures using stories and illustrations to portray deeper meanings or lessons. In fact, spiritual literature is very much like that in general not just the Bible....And I'm not just making excuses the Bible weaves in and out of literal and figurative throughout the whole book, in other words it doesn't have to be just one or the other it is both. It uses a lot of symbolic writing styles as well, metaphors, analogies and things alike. Anyone who doesn't know that just simply doesn't know the Bible. I've been reading it since I was a kid so I just happen to get its style.
I'm also not a model of fundamentalist religious systems either so I'm considered a heretic anyways lol. (Not that I particularly care).

Not that this has anything to do with what you asked really, other than I believe the focus of such accounts should be more on the principles involved rather than focused on the objects, people and settings. This is where people get tripped up, the meaning behind such accounts seems to simply evade them.

Anyways two things I wish to point out for you, keeping in mind we're just looking for what makes sense about the story. Number one, people seem to forget that the God of the Bible can be surprised, disappointed, have regrets and even change His mind. I only point this out because when God tests individuals...- although God may have an idea of what someone may choose - God can be joyed or displeased with an outcome. So it seems to me this idea that the God of the Bible knows everything is somewhat of a blurred concept. The Noah's Ark tale just as an example says that God regretted He made man and His heart was deeply troubled. If it was so that everything was known how could that be true? there are also examples of the Bible God changing His mind according to mans choices. So it seems to me God was more an Observer rather than a Puppet Master in relation to created beings. 

Now this is going to sound contradictory to what I just wrote somewhat but let me say this, I do think God probably knew what Job would do because the challenge was set for Satan that Job would remain faithful to God. The challenge wasn't that God would see Jobs faithfulness but that Satan would observe it by testing Jobs resolve. So in this particular event God was definitely familiar with Jobs faith, otherwise the test would have been worthless.
Why did God do this? because supposedly Satan challenged God and mocked his servants faith in the midst of a counsel lol. Sounds like a silly reason but again, we are just focusing on principles here. And so it wasn't God that did cruel acts to Job it was Satan, God just observed it.

So getting to the moral of the story since that is what I believe the focus should be on. It's basically the same theme throughout the entire Bible really, which is to trust God and put God above all things no matter what goes on around us. Now in the end Job would also learn no matter what we could lose in this life God would always be there and God could always restore the worst case scenarios no matter the loss.
It is a change in perspective, to see how fleeting and temporary the possessions and material gains of this life can be and that any minute they could be lost. To me, it's an exaggerated example meant to make our personal trials look smaller, seeing that Job was able to not only maintain his loyalty to God but that he could also make it through something so terrible and gain back what he lost. Most of us will never have to face such a terrible story, at least not on the scale Job did. But, even if we did it gives us a sense of hope.
When I was young at the time, it helped me because I had a shaky childhood and a poor upbringing. My family was broken, they were all hurt people so I never really had a solid foundation so I learned pretty early I was not going to be able to rely much on any of it. At an early age I had already made up my mind I wasn't going to put any emphasis of hope or faith in people or material possessions. I was going to make God my rock and my fortress and maintain my faith and passion for the Creator no matter what I went through. And I did, I've had to build my own life out of nothing and I've kept my faith and unwavering passion for God all these years.
I know this may come across as funny, but I'm just giving you an idea what a story like this can inspire. There's a lot of strange tales in the Bible, but they have a powerful beating heart beneath them of spiritual principles and meaning which is why I tend not to focus too much on the surface of them. That came naturally to me as a kid anyways, which is why I'm always scratching my head when people debate these topics. It's like atheists have zero perception of what the underlying principles are.

But to answer your initial question, it wasn't about what God knew would happen, it wasn't a test for God but the other two parties involved. To me though, it's just a story about hope meant to inspire. Sorry about rambling, I was just showing you another way of looking at a story like this. It often comes up in question, why would God gamble with someone's life in that way, that it seems rather petty the way it started. I agree, that's why I tend to think it's probably more of a figurative tale than how God would deal with people. Either way, whether it be literal or figurative what I wrote about the underlying meaning maintains its conclusion. 
What do you think, would you tend to think this is something that literally happened or rather writers using metaphorical styles to convey messages?


#19
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi Dee dee,

...with his 6 month vacation, ethang5.
I was gone only 3. But its nice to know that it felt like 6 months to you. You missed me didn't you ya big lug?

Lol!
#20
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5



.
ethang5, 

ethang5 has been banned for 90 days, following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment and disregarding both moderation intervention and polite requests from the target to cease.

As Jesus and I see it, you should have been banned for 10 years at the least!  

Upon your uneventful and miserable return, and if the truth were known, your equally Bible ignorant Tradesecret is probably upset because you will now start to take away "his/her" position of being the number 1 Bible Ignorant Fool within this forum!  Whereas, Tradesecret has held this embarrassing position subsequent to you being spanked by our astute moderator in giving you a "time out" in the name of Satan!   LOL! 

Don't worry, I will easily help you along in taking your rightful position back again in being the #1 Bible Ignorant Fool  within this prestigious forum, in the name of Jesus the Christ, praise!  


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS MORE DUMBFOUNDED OF THE BIBLE THAN ETHANG5 AND TRADESECRET WILL BE ....?



.




Topic's author
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Go and read it yourself.
 I did, and before you had the common sense to do so  for yourself..  And it caused you great embarrassment when  I posted 2 Peter 2:7  in response to  you giving us  your vivid and pretty deep  almost a psychological profile of  Lot as a person, especially his nature. #16


Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks. 
 So you keep saying on almost every thread (especially my own threads) just lately, but when I ask you how I am "attacking" you or "humiliating" or "mocking"  you,  you can never say why or how my words cause you to feel  your being  "attacked"  or "humiliated" or "mocked" .  So  that leaves me only to believe they these are things that  only exist in your own mind. But how they got their, even I don't know? 


  And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
Backpaddling at its best!

Do you EVER think before you post, Reverend? That is most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever  read. I notice that  your  pathetic defence of Lot comes only now  and  comes ONLY  AFTER it was pointed out to you that Lot was  "righteous" : 2 Peter 2:7


Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
[A] I could maybe accept  your point  if you can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy  some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of  two adults and just the two  of their  daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???
 


If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past #9 Tradesecret


And there it is.  Clear evidence confirming  my own beliefs concerning the practice of religious teachers including Ministers and Pastors  that they indeed do "gloss over" these problematic verses and  do steer their students and parishioners away from them because of the difficulty in explaining them away. 



How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example 

I'll take that in two parts, Reverend. 

Example of what? 

 See now again Reverend, you are using the same old bullshit as ALL Christians do when caught on the backfoot. Would you like a recent example of you  (as do other Christians) driving home the fact according to you and the bible that  "NO ONE is innocent"?

 You are saying  here in one breath that god was  " protecting & saving  Lot &  his  innocent family"   yet in the many, many breaths before today you cannot wait to tell us that we are all sinners and  "even children die because they are sinners"  and that "no one is innocent",  when it  suits your narrative.  You do love your dilemmas don't you, Reverend.

Again, 
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent and yet here is an example - {.................._ and rather than saying - Well done God,

Yet you, only NOW are holding up this story of Lot as a shining example of gods love and generosity for  rescuing and saving the lives of  "the innocent"



You still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil[.......................] rather than saying - Well done God,

See [A]..  I will say well done god depending on your response at [A] above.



You still stick your finger up and say even its righteous people are evil

 I am,   AS DID YOU until it was revealed out to you BY ME, that Lot was "righteous" >>>>2 Peter 2:7 .  OR have you so soon, forgotten your own psychological profile of LOT that you meticulously put together for us and BEFORE my revelation ?  Here it is , written forever and  I have broken it down for all our readers #16,  But I am sure you would rather forget this embarrassment  now and have your friends bury it under plies of their bullshit to save your sorry arse



Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
 Why is that YOU,after many requests for you to create a thread showing  your god in a more better and positive light, never do so?



I am not sure if you read the story or not? 
But I have and did. 







#22
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Getting back to the initial question, if I happen not to accept the authority of 2 Peters (or even 1 of them) then is your initial concern dealt with -- that Lot wasn't especially righteous so his behavior, culturally acceptable though morally reprehensible, need not be defended? Thanks.
Topic's author
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
Getting back to the initial question, if I happen not to accept the authority of 2 Peters (or even 1 of them) then is your initial concern dealt with -- that Lot wasn't especially righteous so his behavior, culturally acceptable though morally reprehensible, need not be defended? Thanks.

Well Rosi, the question was posed to the Christian audience here that do  have to accept 2 Peter 2:7 and  for obvious reasons.  This is why we can witness above the actions of Reverend Tradesecret's sudden  change of stance and opinion concerning Lot and his "righteousness"... for what good S/he thinks it has done.. 

The question:

Stephen asked: One simply has to ask , why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest  at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped  to save their  skin ?   And where was god to reprimand Lot?

Under any other circumstances I would simply have put this episode down to the  ` acceptable ' cultural ancient practices of the age and regardless of which god  one was supposed to be loyal to. I say this because as I mention above,  it comes across as  casual -  "the norm"    and there was no protest or outcry from the two men or from the girls mother. This is what I wrote:

"It is as if this was the normal practice for a father  to offer his little girls when he or his god sent guests are in danger."#1


I  intentionally suggested  this above myself knowing that the Reverend would try to incorporate it  in trying to excuse  the behaviour of those involved and explain it away,  and sweet as nut ,  lo & behold, once I pointed out that Lot was indeed "righteous" .   I got this  _ "Perhaps as a middle eastern culture - it was more shameful for guests in the house to be violated than for one's own family?" #9 .          Well  I don't have to ask you to view both quote side by side do I, Rosi.? 

But to address your point.  Remove  Lots "righteousness" according to the Christian NT 2 Peter 2:7 , then I  can put it down to  fact that Lot was the head of  this ancient household and could do what ever he believed to be right.  So if the story has any truth to it at all,  then the  proposal  must have been acceptable  not only to Lot, but the two men, the mother and to their God as some kind of payment for safe passage.    And maybe had those towns folk at the door  had been heterosexual, all would have passed uneventful and been accepted without incident. 

In my honest opinion, this  biblical episode is a religious tale wrapped in a real natural disaster. I have read about the aftermath of Sodom  Gomorrah and I can tell you,  to me  it reads like the aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  And no  loving god would do this intentionally for any reason. But still, that is only my open and honest opinion Rosi. 






 
 









   

#24
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen



.
Stephen,

YOUR QUOTE REGARDING THE #1 BIBLE IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN ON DEBATEART, TRADESECRET: " So you keep saying on almost every thread (especially my own threads) just lately, but when I ask you how I am "attacking" you or "humiliating" or "mocking"  you,  you can never say why or how my words cause you to feel  your being  "attacked"  or "humiliated" or "mocked" . "

I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but Tradesecret accusing you of said accusations shown above is the blatant FACT that "he/she" cannot discuss the topic with you anymore because they have been logically proved wrong by you, therefore to take the light of this fact off of them, they accuse you of wrongdoing as shown.  It's an old pseudo-christian ruse to try and save what face Tradesecret has left within this forum, especially after "he/she" has been proven a SEXUAL DEVIANT and had Gender Reassignment Surgery while being a Christian which is totally against the teachings of Jesus the Christ! Can you imagine in what Tradesecrets alleged flock that she preaches too would think if they knew these facts?!  BLASPHEME!

I tried to help Tradesecret out of their ungodly and embarrassing situation in asking "him/her" if they were the Atheist, at the time, in her totally disgusting accounting of admitting they were a SEXUAL DEVIANT in said link below, but to no avail, TS did not respond, therefore "he/she" REMAINS GUILTY OF THIS UNGODLY ACT AS A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN! 2+2=4.


.


#25
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7



.
ETRNLVW,


YOUR COMPLETE BIBLE IGNORANT SATANNIC QUOTES BELOW IN YOUR LONG-WINDED POST #18 WHERE YOU SLAP JESUS IN THE FACE!:

1.  ".... although God may have an idea of what someone may choose ...."
2.  " ... there are also examples of the Bible God changing His mind according to mans choices ..."

First thing, you can NEVER say that our serial killing Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, "may have an idea of what someone will choose," where with absolute Biblical axioms, He knows beforehand in what someone will choose, get it Bible fool?!

“O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” (Psalm 139:1-4).
 

Furthermore, Jesus as God DOES NOT go around and change His mind like you embarrassingly said in His behalf, understood?!  “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 2:19  "I will not violate My covenant or alter the utterance of My lips." (Psalm 89:34)

EtrnlVw, you are once again GUILTY of the following inspired words of Jesus the Christ!   “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3)


Furthermore, can you give us a break regarding your sad childhood because we don't need to hear about it because it was Jesus that set it into motion in the first place, therefore keep the tears to yourself and blame Jesus since He was the impetus of your pathetic upbringing (Jeremiah 29:11), do you understand? Thank you.

EtrnlVw, you don’t even qualify in being called a pseudo-christian because of your brainless biblical accountings going against Jesus’ word!  Don’t your realize that Jesus is watching you Satanically REWRITE His direct words within the Scriptures? (Hebrews 4:13) You will pay dearly upon Judgment Day, praise Jesus’ ever loving and forgiving revenge!


You are excused in total biblical embarrassment again for now, that is, until you remove one foot to insert the other again relating to the Bible, understood?




.



#26
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
And it caused you great embarrassment when  I posted 2 Peter 2:7  in response to  you giving us  your vivid and pretty deep  almost a psychological profile of  Lot as a person, especially his nature. #16

I was not deeply embarrassed.  I recall thanking you for reminding me of this verse.  I have no reason to be embarrassed.  When someone is able to correct me, it is a good thing, it helps to improve my thinking. I, unlike you, do not take correction as a negative thing. 


  And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
Backpaddling at its best!

Do you EVER think before you post, Reverend? That is most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever  read. I notice that  your  pathetic defence of Lot comes only now  and  comes ONLY  AFTER it was pointed out to you that Lot was  "righteous" : 2 Peter 2:7
It is not backpedaling. I made my points in my first post.  I asked a question - which you were able to answer.  I do take the view that Lot is not a very good role model. There is very little in his life portrayed that is commendable. Yet Peter calls him righteous. I do think of Lot as selfish. I have not changed my mind. Stop making assumptions. 

Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
[A] I could maybe accept  your point  if you can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy  some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of  two adults and just the two  of their  daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???
 Answering a question with another question. Why don't you just answer the question? Oh because there is one rule for you and another for everyone else. 


If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past #9 Tradesecret


And there it is.  Clear evidence confirming  my own beliefs concerning the practice of religious teachers including Ministers and Pastors  that they indeed do "gloss over" these problematic verses and  do steer their students and parishioners away from them because of the difficulty in explaining them away. 
It is only evidence that I had glossed over Lot. Not evidence for anyone else.  Another clear example of misrepresentation by Stephen. 


How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example 

I'll take that in two parts, Reverend. 

Example of what? 

 See now again Reverend, you are using the same old bullshit as ALL Christians do when caught on the backfoot. Would you like a recent example of you  (as do other Christians) driving home the fact according to you and the bible that  "NO ONE is innocent"?

 You are saying  here in one breath that god was  " protecting & saving  Lot &  his  innocent family"   yet in the many, many breaths before today you cannot wait to tell us that we are all sinners and  "even children die because they are sinners"  and that "no one is innocent",  when it  suits your narrative.  You do love your dilemmas don't you, Reverend.

Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up. I seem to recall that I called Lot selfish and self interested. Hardly innocent. God judged Sodom - he judged pure and unadulterated evil - and still you try and throw it back in his face.  Wow!  Do you even understand the concept of grace? No - well let me explain to you again. Grace  means "UNDESERVED GIFT".  When God saves any person it is not because they deserve it.  It is precisely because they do not deserve it. And when God judges someone it is because they do deserve it. Precisely because they do deserve it. No one is innocent. God redeems sinners. Jesus said he came for the sinners not the righteous. And the righteous he was talking about was not the righteous in practice but those who thought they deserved to be saved because they in their own mind are good people.  

Your insipid response above just reveals you do not understand grace and mercy.  You have a false view of how good you are and of how good people are in general because you have not figured out what sin is.   And just for the record because I know you will attempt to say I did use the term innocent. Here is what I said in context:

Words are words - and causes are causes.  The Bible is the bible which is full of flawed people.  Even the righteous make mistakes - since they too are sinners.  And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul. And still you try you complain. Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil?  How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example - and rather than saying - Well done God, you still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil. 

I have underlined the sentence within context. The context of the passage is that the bible is full of flawed people  AND even righteous MAKE MISTAKES - since they TOO are sinners.  Can you read this? So with the premise that Lot and his family are flawed - make mistakes, and are sinners, I then ask you the question about why you complain that God never does something about the evil. And then ask my underlined question - which is not actually my question - but yours.  And then I say "Here is an example".  So within the context where I have said Lot and his family are flawed and sinners, what might the term "innocent" mean? It obviously here in this context is not meaning "pure as the driven snow". It obviously is not saying "sinless".  God could have let them die in Sodom and it would have been perfectly just. Innocence in this context is talking about people who are being exploited and abused without good cause by evil people.  


Again, 
How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent and yet here is an example - {.................._ and rather than saying - Well done God,

Yet you, only NOW are holding up this story of Lot as a shining example of gods love and generosity for  rescuing and saving the lives of  "the innocent"

Answered above. 

You still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil[.......................] rather than saying - Well done God,


You still stick your finger up and say even its righteous people are evil

 I am,   AS DID YOU until it was revealed out to you BY ME, that Lot was "righteous" >>>>2 Peter 2:7 .  OR have you so soon, forgotten your own psychological profile of LOT that you meticulously put together for us and BEFORE my revelation ?  Here it is , written forever and  I have broken it down for all our readers #16,  But I am sure you would rather forget this embarrassment  now and have your friends bury it under plies of their bullshit to save your sorry arse
I have indicated that I don't have a high opinion of Lot. He is a terrible role model. He is a sinner and selfish. Yes, Peter called him righteous. In my mind that means he is a believer - but it does not mean he is perfect.  God redeemed him - not because he deserved it. But because he showed grace and mercy. 


Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
 Why is that YOU,after many requests for you to create a thread showing  your god in a more better and positive light, never do so?
I think I show God in good light on every occasion. I can't think of any part where you have tarnished his goodness.  In fact it would surprise me if you could. 




#27
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As Jesus and I see it, you should have been banned for 10 years at the least!  
But unlike you, Jesus knows that 90 days is 3 months not 6 months.
#28
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
So while you harangue TS for not remembering an obscure verse in another book, you either lied or completely missed your own story!

To say they did not bat an eyelid is incorrect. They prevented it from happening. Lot was looking out for no 1. The angels prevented needless abuse. 

in relation to God reprimanding Lot, can you read or not? HE lost his home, his wife, and his dignity. God has not left a lovely record of Lot.  Eventually his children and descendants will be judged to be annihilated for ever. 

So did you lie with the "bat an eyelid" comment or are you just not good with detail? I think your error was far worse than TS forgetting one verse. Did you not know that the angels did do something?

You will dodge and run of course. But it pretty hypocritical to be on TS for that tiny overlook when your error/lie is like an elephant in the room.
Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
And it caused you great embarrassment when  I posted 2 Peter 2:7  in response to  you giving us  your vivid and pretty deep  almost a psychological profile of  Lot as a person, especially his nature. #16
I was not deeply embarrassed.  
Oh good. I should have said you are an embarrassment to those "academics,scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church, not to mention your own students.  OK. So you just feel  "attacked"  or "humiliated" or "mocked", but cannot explain why after may request for you  to explain yourself. 



  And here we see God judges an evil city which makes a man who is prepared to give his two daughters to it - to be exploited - sick in his soul.
Backpaddling at its best!

Do you EVER think before you post, Reverend? That is most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever  read. I notice that  your  pathetic defence of Lot comes only now  and  comes ONLY  AFTER it was pointed out to you that Lot was  "righteous" : 2 Peter 2:7
It is not backpedaling. I made my points in my first post. 

Your detailed psychological profile of Lot didn't included a single word of praise, indeed you say Lot wasn't even "righteous". That word alone would have jogged  the memory of any GOOD  fully trained and qualified lawyer, I'm sure. .  and I  picked it  apart and scrutinised it  here: #16. It wasn't until (according to you) that I "humiliated you"  when I showed you : 2 Peter 2:7  that you scrambled to recover with the  most vile attempt at defending the indefeasible that I have ever read. Do you remember your detailed psychological profile?  

 #4 & #5 Reverend Tradesecrete wrote:
 I can't seem to recall anywhere in the Bible  where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  
Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so. 
From the beginning - he was in it for himself.  Selfish and loyal only to himself.  I would suggest that what he does in this story - is exactly making that point.
He wanted to live - in his own way and would do anything to get there.
He had no loyalty to his daughters. 
I take the view that he was incestuous, depraved, immoral. 
I am not sure if you read the story or not? 
I am not sure if you read the story or not? 
can you read or not?  
So  above ^^^  is your qualified and professional  detailed psychological profile of LOT;  a man that you have only  ever read about in a short story.  You even went so far as to tell  us that in your qualified opinion as a Pastor and a Chaplin  that  Lot wasn't "righteous", see your 1st line above in your quote.


 I recall thanking you

Yes you did, and  that was AFTER your two know-it-all  sarcastic posts where you thought you was being so so fkn clever.  here #4 & #5 asking me if I could read and If I had actually read the story ( you was mocking & patronising  me in your attempt you recover from your "humiliation" )  from your Pastor's pedestal. And I loved it.  I have met many like you before Reverend. Your type hate being shown up to be the bible ignorant fools that you are.... especially in public. You lot just never expect to be challenged and your words scrutinized and tested.  Indeedit was much more simpler  in past times of ignorance and fear,when Chaplains, Pastors Priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control apersons daily life not to mention to enable them to extort ones hardearned earthly goods.


Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
[A] I could maybe accept  your point  if you can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy  some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of  two adults and just the two  of their  daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???
 Answering a question with another question.
Not nice I know. In fact it is probably the most ignorant way to conduct a discussion. Did I mention I learned that terrible habit from you?  No? Well I did. 



If Peter is prepared to call Lot righteous, and to further elaborate on his emotional state in Sodom as to being tortured in his soul day and night - then it provides me with a new and profound respect for Lot that I had glossed over in the past #9 Tradesecret


And there it is.  Clear evidence confirming  my own beliefs concerning the practice of religious teachers including Ministers and Pastors  that they indeed do "gloss over" these problematic verses and  do steer their students and parishioners away from them because of the difficulty in explaining them away. 
It is only evidence that I had glossed over Lot. Not evidence for anyone else.  Another clear example of misrepresentation by Stephen. 
See post #7


How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example 

I'll take that in two parts, Reverend. 

Example of what? 

 See now again Reverend, you are using the same old bullshit as ALL Christians do when caught on the backfoot. Would you like a recent example of you  (as do other Christians) driving home the fact according to you and the bible that  "NO ONE is innocent"?

 You are saying  here in one breath that god was  " protecting & saving  Lot &  his  innocent family"   yet in the many, many breaths before today you cannot wait to tell us that we are all sinners and  "even children die because they are sinners"  and that "no one is innocent",  when it  suits your narrative.  You do love your dilemmas don't you, Reverend.

Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up.

Yes!!!!!You really cannot remember your own shite. And you, a lawyer too, with your own words on the screen right in front of you. LOOOOOK here AGAIN!!!!>>>> second from bottom line;
 [A] Tradesecret wrote:   "How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example -#11
 So here YOU are holding up for me a example of god protecting  Lot and his family. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND CALLING THEM INNOCENT!!!!



[B] So can you now can explain to me, why it was necessary to destroy  some One & half million inhabitants of four or five cities that must have included thousands of innocent babies and children under the age of 10 to save this incestuous family of  two adults and just the two  of their  daughters what had his other girls done to be burned to death with fire and brimstone, you cannot say can you!???


I seem to recall that I called Lot selfish and self interested. Hardly innocent.


I agree but innocent you did call them,  and held them up as an example of god protecting the "innocent". See [A] above.   What a glaring contradiction, Reverend.



Your insipid response above just reveals you do not understand grace and mercy. 

 Maybe you can help me with that by explaining [B] above for me, Reverend? 


 How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example - and rather than saying - Well done God, you still stick your finger up and say - the bible is evil and even its righteous people are evil. 
Look again,^^^^^^^^^^^^ you have repeated your shining example of God  protecting the " innocent".  I did warn you Reverend, to be careful what you write on a public forum that leaves you less than ten minutes to edit. 


You still stick your finger up and say even its righteous people are evil

 I am,   AS DID YOU until it was revealed out to you BY ME, that Lot was "righteous" >>>>2 Peter 2:7 .  OR have you so soon, forgotten your own psychological profile of LOT that you meticulously put together for us and BEFORE my revelation ?  Here it is , written forever and  I have broken it down for all our readers #16,  But I am sure you would rather forget this embarrassment  now and have your friends bury it under plies of their bullshit to save your sorry arse
I have indicated that I don't have a high opinion of Lot.

You did, and before I even had the chance to tell you that St Peter and God tells us that Lot was "righteous".  And  you went further  Reverend. You really went to town on this "innocent" and "righteous man" Lot  here> #4 & #5 and   I have broken  down your psychological profile of the man that you have only read about in a short story,  for all our readers here #16,


He [Lot]  is a terrible role model. He is a sinner and selfish.
 Why?  What had he done that was sinful? Before this terrible day. 



 God redeemed him [lot]  - not because he deserved it. But because he showed grace and mercy. 
 This was while he was sentencing 1500000 citizens to their deaths was it? Where thousands had to have been innocent children under the age of 10?



Why is it that you never accept that God does something about the evil? 
 Why is that YOU,after many requests for you to create a thread showing  your god in a more better and positive light, never do so?
I think I show God in good light on every occasion.

 Not that I have noticed. And just because you think that will not make it true. So stop being cowardly Reverend, and create your thread highlighting of what you believes shows god in a better and positive light

Your continual attacks on me - and my character are attacks. 
 So you keep saying on almost every thread (especially my own threads) just lately, but when I ask you how I am "attacking" you or "humiliating" or "mocking"  you,  you can never say why or how my words cause you to feel  your being  "attacked"  or "humiliated" or "mocked" .  So  that leaves me only to believe they these are things that  only exist in your own mind. But how they got there, even I don't know? 



I can't think of any part where you have tarnished his goodness.  In fact it would surprise me if you could. 

I agree. That's because God does a very good job than I ever could at tarnishing his own reputation.

just a few examples  here? 



Topic's author
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but Tradesecret accusing you of said accusations shown above is the blatant FACT that "he/she" cannot discuss the topic with you anymore because they have been logically proved wrong by you, therefore to take the light of this fact off of them, they accuse you of wrongdoing as shown.  It's an old pseudo-christian ruse to try and save what face Tradesecret has left within this forum.

Well Brother.  I suppose it hasn't gone un-noticed by you that other  great clanger dropped above by the Reverend Tradesecrete because I know no much gets past you.


Tradesecret wrote:  Did I call Lot and his family innocent? You just make stuff up.#26

Yes!!!!!You really cannot remember your own shite. And you, a lawyer too, with your own words on the screen right in front of you. LOOOOOK here AGAIN!!!!>>>> second from bottom line;

  Tradesecret wrote:   "How many times have you said that God does not protect the innocent -and yet here is an example -#11
So here S/he is Brother,  holding up for me an example of god protecting  Lot and his family. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND CALLING THEM INNOCENT!!!! Not to mention holding up for me her/his own glaring balls up while telling me that I   "just make stuff up"!       

 "Just make stuff up"? 

Would you call that a legal term , Brother?  Doesn't sound very lawyerly law school to me I must say.  Invented or concocted, fabricate or contrived would be the language I would use if I were a fully trained & qualified lawyer but "just make stuff up" ?