Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Lot, his wife and their daughters( Was Re: I AM DISGUSTED!) Message-ID: Date: 4 Jun 91 03:57:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 32 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) writes: + +Why can one assume that? God can cause a man to be born blind in order that +the grace of God might be shown. God can send his son (who was without sin) +to die a violent, painful death on a cross to serve his purposes. Why can't +a just non-sinner be struck dead? (Were Job's family all sinners?) Was it the Diety or the Adversary who caused the death of the sons and daughters? +So, basically it seems that if Lot or his family had stayed in Sodom, >they would During the barganing session between the Diety and Abraham, why wasn't Lot considered as a 'resident' of Sodom? It would seem that if Lot lived there then at least one 'righteous' person who lived there and hence would fufil the bargan. But Lot is not considered so Lot is not righteous or Lot did not live there. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu [The bargaining ended with 10. The people saved were Lot, his wife, and their two daughters. This is fewer than 10, and so not enough to justify saving the city under the terms of the bargain. In fact there's no reference to this bargaining in the account of Lot or the actual destruction. Those who believe in such things may well believe that there are two different sources involved. But there's no real contradiction. --clh]