# Beyond Angry



## OrneryOldBat (Feb 10, 2017)

I'm usually a fairly even-tempered and pragmatic person, however, this has me so angry that only RAGE describes how I'm feeling - that and sick to my stomach. 

How degenerate do you have to be to think that sexual entertainment specifically for gay men is something you should expose your children to? But that's not what has me absolutely livid - the "transboy" beaver has double mastectomy scars!! 

*Blue's Clues hosts pride parade targeting children with sing-along drag queen*


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Satan won't be happy until he's corrupted every mind down to the most innocent child. This is to be expected from a society bent on denying God. It will be presented as "open minded", and "caring", but will quickly devolve into debauchery and hedonism that the current supporters will feel entrapped into defending, even though it will be indefensible.
Sodom and Gomorrah, my friend.
A reckoning is coming.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Hard to believe the rate at which society in devolving.
It makes my head spin.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Sodom and Gomorrah, my friend.
> A reckoning is coming.


Lot offered his virgin daughters up for a gang rape, disgusting. 

Genesis 19:1–11
19 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords, rplease turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night sand wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, t“No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 uAnd they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? vBring them out to us, that we wmay know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 xBehold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow ycame to sojourn, and zhe has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with ablindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I my day, sin used to sneak down the back alleys.
Now it struts proudly down main street.

And I truly believe we are well past the point of no return.
I don’t care who gets elected, it’s simply too late.


----------



## allen530 (May 6, 2018)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I my day, sin used to sneak down the back alleys.
> Now it struts proudly down main street.
> 
> And I truly believe we are well past the point of no return.
> I don’t care who gets elected, it’s simply too late.


I agree!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daduate (May 13, 2021)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I my day, sin used to sneak down the back alleys.
> Now it struts proudly down main street.
> 
> And I truly believe we are well past the point of no return.
> I don’t care who gets elected, it’s simply too late.


I agree 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

My dad used to watch Red Skelton, and every night he used to loudly laugh, "No one will be as funny as Red!"

Of course, the Smothers Brothers hit the screen and took over just about every show and some in Las Vegas. 

The Green Bay Packers had several guys who weighed over +200 pounds. Then another team found their own quarter-back killer, and it was a guy over 300 pounds. 

Our walk on the wild side is to either hunt down or join a new group of marauders. I think the plan is going to be very fast lived--either you kill their leader or he kills you.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

My kids used to watch this show. Wow, how it's changed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> Lot offered his virgin daughters up for a gang rape, disgusting.
> 
> Genesis 19:1–11
> 19 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords, rplease turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night sand wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, t“No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
> 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 uAnd they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? vBring them out to us, that we wmay know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 xBehold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow ycame to sojourn, and zhe has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with ablindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.


Do you know why?


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Do you know why?


He was willing to sacrifice them to the crowd to keep the angels from getting screwed in the butt.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> He was willing to sacrifice them to the crowd to keep the angels from getting screwed in the butt.


Indeed.
His alternative was likely certain death for him and his family. The daughters were going to be raped one way or another.
He was ignorant to the abilities of the visitors to defend themselves.
Was it a good plan? No. Did God step in and take care of them anyways? Yep.
Sulfur fire from heaven that scorched both towns and the entire plain surrounding them.
A reckoning if there ever was one.
Sounds kinda like an a-bomb, doesn't it?


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)




----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

It makes me mad too, @OrneryOldBat. For a long time their agenda was hidden. Now they've gotten so bold. Maybe that's good in as much as we can't fight--i.e. speak out against--what we're unaware of and don't see.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Indeed.
> His alternative was likely certain death for him and his family. The daughters were going to be raped one way or another.
> He was ignorant to the abilities of the visitors to defend themselves.
> Was it a good plan? No. Did God step in and take care of them anyways? Yep.
> ...


Would you have offered your two virgin daughters to the crowd to do as they please, or would you have send the men out instead?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> Would you have offered your two virgin daughters to the crowd to do as they please, or would you have send the men out instead?


I don't think I can answer that question.
These were God's messengers. God expects that we will put him above ALL others, for all things came from God and all things will return to God.
So your question is, would I put the well-being of my daughters above the well-being of the voice of God.
A good father would say yes. A devout Christian would say no. Which one am I?
Sir, it pains me to say I don't know, and pray I NEVER have to find out.

I supposed that's another good reason for why I keep my home stocked with sufficient firepower to wipe out an entire mob trying to break down my door. Lot had no such option.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> I don't think I can answer that question.
> These were God's messengers. God expects that we will put him above ALL others, for all things came from God and all things will return to God.
> So your question is, would I put the well-being of my daughters above the well-being of the voice of God.


God has no problem defending himself or Angels he sends out. 
Under no circumstances would I offer my daughters to any crowd. They would have to kill me to get to them.

If I had Angels with me, I would expect them to intervene in that type of situation.

I find it disgusting when Christians defend wicked things in the name of God. Sending your daughters to a rapist crowd is wicked. I can’t imagine God expecting someone to do that for him.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> God has no problem defending himself or Angels he sends out.
> Under no circumstances would I offer my daughters to any crowd. They would have to kill me to get to them.
> 
> If I had Angels with me, I would expect them to intervene in that type of situation.
> ...


He wasn't clearly aware they were angels. He had no understanding of their capabilities. Had he known, he wouldn't have bothered begging them to stay with him.
In the situation as described, Lot would have been killed and his daughters raped anyways. What a sense of despair he must have been in. It's easy to second-guess his choice from our perspective. But put yourself there.
The city's entire male population has arrived at your door. Your attempts to defend your home and family are literally futile. You would be trampled underfoot and torn to pieces within seconds. Your daughters would then be ravaged beside your corpse. You really think you'd be doing anything good by dying in this situation? Your conscience might be clear, but the result is the same. In the end, you still offered your daughters to the mob. Dying doesn't change it.
Now, instead of being there for them in the aftermath, you're gone. Would they consider your sacrifice noble or cowardly? You faced an insurmountable opposition. You committed yourself to fruitless suicide with no hope of changing the outcome. You're dead. How you feel about it is irrelevant. Now you've just left them alone to deal with it.
It's a lose-lose situation I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Lot's optimal response would have been to call on God for protection. Sometimes it's all we have left.

I'm not defending his choice, mind you. I'm pointing out the fact that you're missing the larger picture. When a man is faced with futility, sacrificing his life is simply suicide, which is also wicked.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> He wasn't clearly aware they were angels. He had no understanding of their capabilities. Had he known, he wouldn't have bothered begging them to stay with him.


That makes his decision to send his daughters out even worse. I would have sent the men out. 



> In the situation as described, Lot would have been killed and his daughters raped anyways.


How do you conclude that? The crowd was specifically asking for the men, not the women.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

KUSA said:


> Would you have offered your two virgin daughters to the crowd to do as they please, or would you have send the men out instead?


_No freaking way!!! _I'd have pulled out my shotgun and told them, "Make my day, you dang fudge packers." Both girls would have loaded handguns to back me up. 

Lot and his family were a mess. I think the only reason God cut him a break was because of Abraham.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> That makes his decision to send his daughters out even worse. I would have sent the men out.
> 
> How do you conclude that? The crowd was specifically asking for the men, not the women.


Ah, I see your position now. You meant you would deliver up the strangers instead of your daughters. Not that you would prefer death to sending your daughters. My misunderstanding...
I must ask, how is that not just as wicked? Giving over innocent lives to the mob is wicked. I thought that was your standard. Is it only wicked to give up one's daughters? Is it less so if you can justify that the men were strangers and you owe them nothing?
I contend it was bad either way, neither being worse than the other.

As to how I conclude that the daughters would be raped anyways, it's simply numbers my friend.
The entirety of the male population was there, and expecting to get their rocks off. Two men made available for their pleasure would be insufficient. I don't think I have to explain how it would have played out, had the men not been angles and been given up by Lot. The scene would have been horrific and short-lived, and their eyes would have fixated on the next available option.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Ah, I see your position now. You meant you would deliver up the strangers instead of your daughters. Not that you would prefer death to sending your daughters. My misunderstanding...
> I must ask, how is that not just as wicked? Giving over innocent lives to the mob is wicked. I thought that was your standard. Is it only wicked to give up one's daughters? Is it less so if you can justify that the men were strangers and you owe them nothing?
> I contend it was bad either way, neither being worse than the other.
> 
> ...


No, one should fight to the death to protect their daughters, or die trying.


----------



## 7515 (Aug 31, 2014)

Lots daughters were quite a pair also. 
read on and see that they have sex with their father after S and G are destroyed. Do they think this has happened everywhere and they must birth heirs to keep his line alive?


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Ah, I see your position now. You meant you would deliver up the strangers instead of your daughters. Not that you would prefer death to sending your daughters. My misunderstanding...
> I must ask, how is that not just as wicked? Giving over innocent lives to the mob is wicked. I thought that was your standard. Is it only wicked to give up one's daughters? Is it less so if you can justify that the men were strangers and you owe them nothing?
> I contend it was bad either way, neither being worse than the other.


It would not have been wicked to send the two strange men out in the crowd. As you pointed out, they were coming in to get them anyway. 



> As to how I conclude that the daughters would be raped anyways, it's simply numbers my friend.
> The entirety of the male population was there, and expecting to get their rocks off. Two men made available for their pleasure would be insufficient. I don't think I have to explain how it would have played out, had the men not been angles and been given up by Lot. The scene would have been horrific and short-lived, and their eyes would have fixated on the next available option.


Lot certainly did not agree with your assumption here. He believed that sacrificing his two virgin daughters would have kept the crowd happy enough to leave everyone else alone.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Annie said:


> No, one should fight to the death to protect their daughters, or die trying.


I understand your sentiment, and believe me, I would likely die in such an effort to protect my family.
However, to question why he chose to give up his daughters for the sake of men he thought to be messengers from God is a tough place to put ourselves.
It wouldn't matter the efforts he expended to protect them. The result would be, he would be dead and his daughters would be raped anyways. A miserable and futile outcome intended to show the true depravity of the situation.
Like many characters in the Bible, Lot is a flawed human being who makes terrible choices. But I find it hard to fault him here. He didn't know how to resolve this situation. Give up his daughters who _might_ survive, or give up holy men sent directly from God. What form of damnation would one suffer if they gave up God's holy messengers to the mob to save their own skin?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> It would not have been wicked to send the two strange men out in the crowd. As you pointed out, they were coming in to get them anyway.
> Lot certainly did not agree with your assumption here. He believed that sacrificing his two virgin daughters would have kept the crowd happy enough to leave everyone else alone.


It would NOT have been wicked to send them out to be raped?
But it would be wicked to send his daughters?
My friend, that is not consistent. It is irrelevant who the mob was there for. It was wrong to give up innocent people to the hands of a mob.

Lot doesn't have to agree with my assumption. I will openly disagree with Lot's assumption that giving ANYONE over to the mob would appease them.
It might appease a few, but the rest of the horde will be satiated or commit unspeakable atrocities in their efforts to do so.
He had no good answer, no means to fix the situation. He offered up what he thought made sense. Perhaps that is the greater message of the story. When we find ourselves in complete despair, and have no clear path to render a resolution, turn to God and he will provide safety.

Is it safe to assume you fault Abraham with telling his wife to present herself as his sister in order for him to avoid being killed?
Becoming the wife of Pharaoh, she surely had to perform "wifely duties"(essentially rape), which we would consider abhorrent.
Should the father of all nations instead have chosen to be killed, and his wife taken anyways?


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> It would NOT have been wicked to send them out to be raped?
> But it would be wicked to send his daughters?
> My friend, that is not consistent. It is irrelevant who the mob was there for. It was wrong to give up innocent people to the hands of a mob.


It was wrong of Lot to offer his own family to the crowd. A man that doesn’t protect his own family isn’t much of a man. 



> Lot doesn't have to agree with my assumption. I will openly disagree with Lot's assumption that giving ANYONE over to the mob would appease them.
> It might appease a few, but the rest of the horde will be satiated or commit unspeakable atrocities in their efforts to do so.
> He had no good answer, no means to fix the situation. He offered up what he thought made sense. Perhaps that is the greater message of the story. When we find ourselves in complete despair, and have no clear path to render a resolution, turn to God and he will provide safety.


You can disagree with Lot all you want. He was wrong and you weren’t there to gauge the crowd. It appears they were homosexuals as they specifically asked for the men so they could get to know them. 



> Is it safe to assume you fault Abraham with telling his wife to present herself as his sister in order for him to avoid being killed?
> Becoming the wife of Pharaoh, she surely had to perform "wifely duties"(essentially rape), which we would consider abhorrent.
> Should the father of all nations instead have chosen to be killed, and his wife taken anyways?


I totally agree with Abraham on this. He did what he had to to protect his family.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Is it safe to assume you fault Abraham with telling his wife to present herself as his sister in order for him to avoid being killed?
> Becoming the wife of Pharaoh, she surely had to perform "wifely duties"(essentially rape), which we would consider abhorrent.
> Should the father of all nations instead have chosen to be killed, and his wife taken anyways?


Straw man. We're not talking about Abraham's faults here.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Box of frogs said:


> Lots daughters were quite a pair also.
> read on and see that they have sex with their father after S and G are destroyed. Do they think this has happened everywhere and they must birth heirs to keep his line alive?


A woman without children was considered cursed.

ETA: this is an interesting tangent, but if it goes further, let's split the thread as we've gone off topic. What do you say @Kauboy and @KUSA?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> It was wrong of Lot to offer his own family to the crowd. A man that doesn’t protect his own family isn’t much of a man.
> 
> 
> You can disagree with Lot all you want. He was wrong and you weren’t there to gauge the crowd. It appears they were homosexuals as they specifically asked for the men so they could get to know them.
> ...


If a sin is a sin, then it doesn't matter if he gave up his own family or the two men. It's wrong either way.
I don't have to be there to gauge the crowd. The description was given. "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old"
It was clear they were open to homosexual acts, but their description in Jude was that of sexual immorality and perversion. Basically an unnatural lust. Since the city was "functional", albeit depraved, it is safe to assume they had kids and were thus not a 100% homosexual population. Their lust brought them there, and their lust was going to be satisfied one way or another.

You feel that it was acceptable for Abraham to give up his wife to spare his own life, completely for selfish reasons... but not for Lot to give up his daughters for the sake of God's messengers?
Again, I fail to see the consistency of your position.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Annie said:


> Straw man. We're not talking about Abraham's faults here.


No, we aren't... but I'm pointing out the inconsistent application of what is "right" and "wrong".
It cannot be "wrong" for Lot to give up his daughters for the sake of God's messengers, but "right" for Abraham to give up his wife to save his own life.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> You feel that it was acceptable for Abraham to give up his wife to spare his own life, completely for selfish reasons... but not for Lot to give up his daughters for the sake of God's messengers?
> Again, I fail to see the consistency of your position.


His wife was going to be screwed by pharaoh anyway. Why not save his life so they can be together again one day? 

Lot was wrong by offering his daughters. This is plain and simple. You don’t agree with this which makes me wonder about your personal character.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> His wife was going to be screwed by pharaoh anyway. Why not save his life so they can be together again one day?
> 
> Lot was wrong by offering his daughters. This is plain and simple. You don’t agree with this which makes me wonder about your personal character.


Lot's daughters were going to be screwed by the mob either way. Why not keep God's messenger's safe if possible?
If Lot was wrong for offering his daughters, then Abraham was wrong for lying and offering his wife.
If Abraham was not wrong for lying and offering his wife, then Lot was not wrong for offering his daughters.
The story similarities are plainly obvious. You can't have it both ways.

And keep the personal attacks out of it. Judging my character based on my interpretation of what a biblical figure did is pointless.

In any case, we are due for a reckoning. I have little hope we'll be able to offer anything to appease the wrath we have called upon ourselves.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Lot's daughters were going to be screwed by the mob either way.


No self respecting father throws his daughters at a mob of sex crazed men. I don't understand why you seem to think Lot gets a pass.



> Why not keep God's messenger's safe if possible?


Wait, as you mentioned previously, Lot wasn't clear they were God's angels. But if he did know they were angels, then he needn't be concerned with protecting them since they're sufficiently capable of protecting themselves. 



> If Lot was wrong for offering his daughters, then Abraham was wrong for lying and offering his wife.
> If Abraham was not wrong for lying and offering his wife, then Lot was not wrong for offering his daughters.
> The story similarities are plainly obvious. You can't have it both ways.


Hmmm, choices:

1. Being thrown at an angry mob of sex crazed men by your father.
or
2. Being made part of the king's harem with hubby's permission?

Granted both are wrong, but if I had my druthers, I'd choose number two!



> In any case, we are due for a reckoning. I have little hope we'll be able to offer anything to appease the wrath we have called upon ourselves.


No one can predict the future, but it's good to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> And keep the personal attacks out of it. Judging my character based on my interpretation of what a biblical figure did is pointless.


I said that your position on this makes me question your character. That isn’t an insult. I can question your character without insulting you.

Now if you feel insulted by that, please accept my deepest apologies.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Annie said:


> No self respecting father throws his daughters at a mob of sex crazed men. I don't understand why you seem to think Lot gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Wait, as you mentioned previously, Lot wasn't clear they were God's angels. But if he did know they were angels, then he needn't be concerned with protecting them since they're sufficiently capable of protecting themselves.
> ...


I didn't give Lot a pass. God did. If he was wicked, he'd have been included in the destruction. God also provided a solution to the dilemma that spared his daughters from a terrible situation. Again, perhaps this was the real lesson here. God can give us a solution when we see no good way out of our situation.

Lot knew the men were holy. There is no indication that he knew they were angels.
Again, put yourself in his place. Two holy men, whom you believe were literally sent by God to give you a message, are being demanded by a mob that will defile and likely kill them. Could you truly give over God's messengers to this mob?
My point isn't that Lot made a "good" choice, but his choices were to give over two women or give over two holy men sent from God. Rock, meet hard place, right?

I appreciate that you accept BOTH men were in the wrong for giving up their family member to wickedness. We must apply consistent principles. God uses flawed people to do great things, and we should not ignore their flaws. It helps us to connect with them and realize we too can be used, regardless of our mistakes.
Marriage is not an agreement that can be negotiated in times of convenience. It was not acceptable for Sarah to give herself to any other man for any reason, even with "permission", as she swore before God to be Abraham's, and his alone. For this reason, if you were also married under a promise with God, I'd hope you wouldn't actually choose what Sarah did, if you were ever in such a situation. (heaven forbid)


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Again, put yourself in his place. Two holy men, whom you believe were literally sent by God to give you a message, are being demanded by a mob that will defile and likely kill them. Could you truly give over God's messengers to this mob?


I would tell the messengers they had about five seconds to give me the message because they were about to go out the door. Under no circumstances would I ever consider sending my daughters out there.

I realize that it isn’t very nice to send the messengers out there but I’m going to side with my children in every situation.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> I would tell the messengers they had about five seconds to give me the message because they were about to go out the door. Under no circumstances would I ever consider sending my daughters out there.
> 
> I realize that it isn’t very nice to send the messengers out there but I’m going to side with my children in every situation.


How do you square that with Christ's words recorded in Matthew 10:37?
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

This is what I fall back to in all situations. My family is not mine. They are a gift to me from God, but should NEVER be placed higher than God or his purpose.
I will do everything I can to keep them safe, as I was chosen to be their protector and caregiver on this earth. But when anything within my family conflicts with God's purpose, choosing them over God makes me unworthy of his grace and salvation.
Without knowing the man's heart, this is what I believe Lot felt as well. He was going to choose to protect God's messengers over his own family.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> How do you square that with Christ's words recorded in Matthew 10:37?
> “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."


I would tell the messengers how much I loved them as my boot shoved their ass out the door.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> I didn't give Lot a pass. God did. If he was wicked, he'd have been included in the destruction. God also provided a solution to the dilemma that spared his daughters from a terrible situation. Again, perhaps this was the real lesson here. God can give us a solution when we see no good way out of our situation.


I still think Lot was wicked, but Abraham interceded for him. Abraham loved God, God loved Abraham, Abraham loved his nephew, so God spared Lot for his uncle's sake. Lot wasn't a very Godly man, and I doubt very much that he made it to "the Limbo of the Patriarchs", father of the Moabites and Ammonites? Hmm, don't think so but who knows? Maybe.

Gen 19: [29] Now when God destroyed the cities of that country, _remembering Abraham_, he delivered Lot out of the destruction of the cities wherein he had dwelt.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Abraham stopped his count down of how many righteous people it would take to save Lot at 10. I think he did that because he wasn't sure who in the family was righteous and who was not. God delivered Lot and his family at Abraham's request. And Lot still lost his wife.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Annie said:


> I still think Lot was wicked, but Abraham interceded for him. Abraham loved God, God loved Abraham, Abraham loved his nephew, so God spared Lot for his uncle's sake. Lot wasn't a very Godly man, and I doubt very much that he made it to "the Limbo of the Patriarchs", father of the Moabites and Ammonites? Hmm, don't think so but who knows? Maybe.
> 
> Gen 19: [29] Now when God destroyed the cities of that country, _remembering Abraham_, he delivered Lot out of the destruction of the cities wherein he had dwelt.


That's a fair point.
I agree he wasn't a good guy.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> I would tell the messengers how much I loved them as my boot shoved their ass out the door.


I won't press the matter further.
I just hope you understand that putting anyone before God is a violation of Christ's words.
Each man will have to give account for his own decisions.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

After reading everything *once again* I am still bewildered by if the story is a factual rendition or just a parable. 

For example, there is another similar story where the owner of the house had numerous visitors knock on his door, and he turned each one aside assuming more wealthy individuals would come.

Then again, my entire family had to invade my Aunt Minnie's summer home when no additional hotels were available. I was a very young kid, but my dad showed me how we could easily fold a blanket just by having each of us hold two corners. I was amazed. 

Oh, my mom was a Catholic, but my dad never chose the faith. He did openly encourage my patronage of Catholicism, where he decided that 16 year old boys should drive their own mother to church. My beliefs actually grew and took root.

In going to the 1964 World's Fair I actually got to see the original "Sitting Pieta." If the church ever brings it back to the states, please go. I might have been very young, but I remember.


----------



## Daduate (May 13, 2021)

Kauboy said:


> How do you square that with Christ's words recorded in Matthew 10:37?
> “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
> 
> This is what I fall back to in all situations. My family is not mine. They are a gift to me from God, but should NEVER be placed higher than God or his purpose.
> ...


You speak with biblical knowledge bro sometimes Gods word isn’t easy 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

