Oh Alaska, you do make me chuckle.
Here is an opinion piece from the Frontiersman of Wasilla, Alaska. The writer brings up the story of Lot to explain the bibles position on homosexuality but just breezes over the fact that Lot offers up his Virgin daughters up to be raped like it is fine and dandy.
Watch out for the guy in white loafers, he just might be the Antichrist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You do well at finding some of the greatest difficulties in the Bible Stirling.
ReplyDeleteJohn Calvin taught that every man in the Bible that was considered a righteous man also has their unexcusable faults described in the same text. This was to keep the people from worshipping men who seemed more righteous than the common man. For example: Lot, who was described as the only righteous man in Sodom, offered his daughters to be raped. King David, considered one of the greatest kings of ancient Israel, danced naked in the streets and killed a man simply to sleep with his wife. Samson was a great leader of Israel before the formation of the monarchy, but he too had a major fault that ended up killing him.
No man in the Bible has been described as a perfect man without sin or fault, except Jesus. This was done purposefully as mentioned.
As an interesting note, Lot's sin ended up with great consequences for Israel years later. These two daughters of Lot, having lost all respect for the dad, having no husbands to care for them or to provide them with children, got their father drunk and slept with him. The children of this were Moab and Ammon. Two of the greatest enemies of Israel were the Moabites and Ammonites.
Yes Lot sinned, and that sin was included in the Bible for a reason. Remember that the people who wrote the Bible and the original audiences were no more stupid than you or me. If it is in the Bible, there is a good reason why it is there and an explanation to go with it.
The author of that article probably just skimmed over it because that is what most teachers do. It is a difficult verse to deal with. There is no way to justify that action. Today most teachers will simply say that the response by the crowd to the offer only exemplifies the sin of the city.
Also, I do not know if you know this, but it was a part of the culture in the Ancient Near East (and still is in some parts) to defend your guests with your life. This is why Lot exposed himself outside and did not allow his guests out. The crowd did not want him (my guess is becase he as an elder or 'judge' of the city) so he offered his daughters.
At some point though, the attempt to predict some sort of anti-christ becomes really laughable. Every American president, pope, powerful celebrity (Oprah is a good example) is pointed at for possibly being the anti-christ. To date none have been true, even truly evil people(Hitler, Suddam Hussien, Jim Jones, etc) The concept of anti-christ is really just another tool to gather fear and focus it at a group that is out of favour by another group.
ReplyDeleteTo use an example where the alternative to rape was, well, rape I don't see there being a difference in morality from Lot to the Soddomites. Now if Lot had offered up his own ass to the crowd versus hiding behind his daughters then maybe an argument can be made as to honour for his guests. It's a crude way to put it but a neccisary one. He cannot therefore be the only rightous man in soddom if his actions are judged by todays standards and therefore begins to negate the argument of a homosexual anti-christ.