A couple of thoughts from two different commentaries:

-Apostolic authority has declared Lot was "a righteous man" ( 2 Peter 2:8 ), at bottom good, though he contented himself with lamenting the sins  that he saw, instead of acting on his own convictions, and withdrawing  himself and family from such a sink of corruption. But favor was shown  him: and even his bad relatives had, for his sake, an offer of  deliverance, which was ridiculed and spurned ( 2 Peter 3:4 )

Nothing but that sacred light in which the rights of hospitality were  regarded among the eastern nations, could either justify or palliate  this proposal of Lot. A man who had taken a stranger under his care and  protection, was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life.  In this light the rights of hospitality are still regarded in Asiatic  countries; and on these high notions only, the influence of which an  Asiatic mind alone can properly appreciate, Lot's conduct on this  occasion can be at all excused: but even then, it was not only the  language of anxious solicitude, but of unwarrantable haste.

Indeed! His wife was a real pillar in her community. 

Good Bright Week to you, Razz.

Good to see you again, Razz. It would appear that Christ is not the only one back from the dead.