Well concerning him being willing to give the aggressive men his daughters to assault instead of his male guest we have to understand the custom at the time. In that culture it was a custom that you do not allow a stranger in your home to come to harm. You would protect them at all cost. In fact i believe that it would make no difference even if he had two sons instead of two daughters. He still would have have offered them instead. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of the custom.
I am not saying its a practice I approve of, but its some one trying to do the right thing the wrong way.
As far as him being a righteous man we have to understand that the biblical view of a righteous man is not the same as how we would view some one now being righteous. This is justification by faith. Lot like Abraham is justified by his faith not his perfect behavior.
The true sin of Sodom was not sexual depravity, but hostility to guests, who were protected as you say. But the story also clearly shows the status of women when the Bible was written. The writers of the Bible (and editors) took their culture as a given, and no doubt thought Lot was righteous. A lot of sexual “sins” that get the panties of Christians in a twist were not that important. Look at Onan. Abraham,when he went to Egypt, told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister to avoid possible trouble.
The real problem is that those thinking there is objective morality often get it from the Bible, but the morality found there would only be followed in the 21st century by a sociopath.
There seems to be a few version of what is that sin, and this is only one such possibility.
-Arrogance, did not help the poor, indulgence Ez 16:49-50
-Depraved conduct and lawlessness 2 Peter 6-7
-Adultery, lies and strengthing the hand of the evildoer. Jer 23:14
-Rebellion: Is 1:9-10
-Apocrypha : 1 Enoch, sex with angels 1 Enoch 10:13 108:6-7, child corruption 2 Enoch 10:4
All of them. The funny thing is many people who read up on Sodom only read the initial mention of the original story, but its mentioned multiple times in the bible. Further information is given on the behavior of the people there.
The further information comes from the bible itself not a separate book Its not a ton of extra information. Sodom is mentioned in the bible later on and other things that they were doing is also mentioned.
Besides the sexual stuff people bring up there was extortion, torture, adultery lying oppressing the poor. That’s all I can remember off the top of my head. I think there was some other stuff going on with the legal system screwing over people as well, but I would have to go back and read up on it again. There a lot of corruption there, but people only seem to mention the sexual stuff when talking about it.
You are aware that the Christian Bible(s) (Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ in scope) is a collection of several separate books written over a span of centuries and only compiled hundreds of years after the latest books had been written, aren’t you?
Thank you…
How one could have never heard a part of the Bible referred to as ‘The Book of’ and still think they can think themselves knowledgeable about the Bible is beyond me…
Of course, I assumed perhaps mistakenly that he was asking if the information was coming from some other source other than the bible not that he was asking for the specific biblical books within the bible.
I believe I also have those catholic books your speaking of as well. I found the book of Tobit interesting.
Umm, why would I be asking that when the written text you mention that contains “Further information is given on the behavior of the people there.” has to be the Bible? As constructed I can’t not read that “there” as other than ‘in the Bible’, not ‘in Sodom’.
I didn’t look at the specifics, but prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel), had to speak the words given to them by God. They really didn’t have much it terms of free will in this, and if it indicates something like ’ the word of the Lord came to me’ would place it in that category as theologically accurate.