Lot offers up daughters to be gang-raped - Genesis 19:8

[David]

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.One of my favorite examples of excellent moral standing in the bible.

Lot is entertaining guests, and the angry mob outside wants to have sex with the guest (who is male). Lot shows his morality by protecting the guest (that's good) by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped (that's bad).

What a nice father.

[Aspirin99]

Right. It's scary that, instead of pointing out the moral travesty, the author draws attention to how Lot was heroic in offering this as a solution.

[Aspirin99]

David, I think "gang-raped" is causing this thread to get hammered by spider bots. LOL.

[David]

David, I think "gang-raped" is causing this thread to get hammered by spider bots. LOL.
Actually, the traffic is from Stumbleupon :)

I keep pretty good traffic records via. Google analytics.

[rayven]

"Actually, the traffic is from Stumbleupon"

Yes, traffic from people such as myself -- from StumbleUpon. :)

Oh, and we should all take our morals from the Bible. So go ahead and commit mass murder, incest, rape, have some slaves, etc. if you want. It's all OK with God!!!

[BPS]

Perhaps this sort of thing has been discussed in other threads on this site; I honestly don't have time to find out, and since StumbleUpon is sending folks to this particular thread, it makes sense to respond where they can see it.

I grow weary of this petty heckling from both sides of the theist debate. Look: being an atheist doesn't make you smarter, it means that on one subject you had the good fortune to be able to see things as they are. It may mean you're a more critical thinker than the two blokes next to you, or it may just mean your parents were critical thinkers and didn't brainwash you as a child into fearing what would happen if you considered the possibility of a universe without a God in it.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the umpteenth written translation of a verbal history of a borrowed myth dating back more than two thousand years is silly, and proves nothing whatever. Of course it's inconsistent, it's the story of people and the God they worship told from scores of different points of view by people with as many different agendas, not to mention different social mores, such as thinking it honorable to offer one's family to a mob rather than allow guests in your home to fall to them.

Poking fun at the Christian Bible is, I'm sure, a wonderful way of bonding between strident atheists as well as new converts eager to demonstrate their knowledge, but it does nothing to advance the basic premise, which is to make people think. People don't think when you poke fun at them, they feel, and what they feel is anger.

Anger does not respond to reason any more than religious fervor does.

Take care,

B.

[Ximen Bao]

I say there is value to saying to Christians, "This is what you are defending. You are defending a history of rape, murder, and genocide and calling it moral."

Many Christians have never slogged through the Bible in it's entirety and probably don't know all that's in there. Yeah, points out the flaws in the Bible will probably make them angry.

But.

Atheist:What about this instance of obvious immorality promoted/praised in the Bible?

Christian:Anger and feeble argument

A:And this one?

C:Anger and feeble argument

A:How about that one?

C:Anger and feeble argument

A:And the other?

C:Anger and feeble argument



Eventually if the person you're dealing with is halfway honest they have to retreat from scripture to their own personal 'spiritual' experience. You'll never argue them out of that, but if you can get them to that point it's progress with benefits.

eta: That said, this didn't need a thread here AND a thread in Bible stories.

[one_lost_coin]

Everyone does understand that it is the citizens of the city that were evil and Lot had to make a very diffucult decision under crisis circumstances, either choice has bad consequences and neither would have had to been made apart from the evil the people insisted on commiting and forcing the situation. also utimately no one was raped no thanks to the people of the city. And has anyone overlooked that God destroyed the evil of that city, and who could blame Him, and that He saved the good.
Why would you be upset that God did away with that evil do they sound like neighbors you want to have living around you?

[David]

Lot had to make a very diffucult decision under crisis circumstances, either choice has bad consequences and neither would have had to been made apart from the evil the people insisted on commiting and forcing the situation. also utimately no one was raped no thanks to the people of the city.
Are you kidding? Let's look at your basic argument..
Lot had only two choices according to you:
Let the mob rape his guest
Let the mob rape his daughters
Lot weighed the two choices... He could:
Choose to traumatize his daughters for life by forcing them to be gang-raped by the men of the city.
Have a guest of his home gang-raped by the men of the city. Granted, both choices are bad.. But, was that really the only two choices Lot had available to him? If Lot was being really self-less, why not offer himself up! Thus saving his children *and* the guest?

But, I think the bigger issue here, and the thing you are missing, is that Lot is held up as a righteous man. Is Lot really righteous? He offered up his daughters to be molested by a gang of men. It would have traumatized his daughters forever, and... If I remember my biblical law, would have probably meant that the daughters should be stoned to death!

The bible views women as sub-human.. If the guest in Lot's home was a woman, you can bet your life Lot would be offering her up to the mob pretty damn quickly. But, since the guest was male, he offered up his sub-human daughters.

God destroyed the evil of that city, and who could blame Him, and that He saved the good.
Uh, are you sure? So, all the infants in the city were bad too? How about all the women who's only crime was being born as a woman? According to you, the magic man in the sky killed all the 'bad' people, and saved the 'good' people. All I want to know is this.. There was probably a little baby somewhere in that city--what crime did he commit that he deserved death? huh.. I guess the magic man didn't save EVERYONE who was good....

[one_lost_coin]

There is someone who did just that. That is, Jesus offered Himself to the murderous crowd to save others. Is that the perfect solution you were looking for, for what looks to be a seemingly impossible situation?
Turns out your answer was very good. Jesus Himself says "Greater love has no man than this to lay down his life for his friends." You may also find He is the righteous man you are looking for. thankyou for sharing your thoughts with me.
Peace,

[one_lost_coin]

As for where to put the blame I think the fire that destroyed the city demonstrates where that lies in Gods eyes. God had mercy on Lot even though he wasnt perfect. He will have mercy on us too. Take the deal, leave the crowd.

[David]

But, your argument pre-supposes that Jesus exists. Can you prove that he exists? That anything in the bible is more than just fairy-tales?

Also, I hate to tell you, but, Lot's leaving the city was thousands of years before Jesus supposedly was born (I dispute the fact that he ever existed actually). How could JESUS have protected Lot from the crowds if he didn't even exist yet?

[one_lost_coin]

This might help from John 8 -57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Abraham was alive when Lot was alive so Jesus was alive before them of course the obvious conclusion is Jesus is God and is always existant.
Although Jesus life, death and resurrection occured at a specific point in time He offered Himself once and for everyone in all of time.

[one_lost_coin]

And yes I can prove Jesus existed in time as a man the exact same way you can prove Ceaser existed.

[formerfundie]

And yes I can prove Jesus existed in time as a man the exact same way you can prove Ceaser existed.

The question regarding why god was justified in killing innocent women and children hasn't been answered. still waiting....

[David]

I'm guessing that there is NO answer to why God killed innocent babies, women and children. I don't think the babies were sodomizing each other.. Were they?

[stan2reason]

Perhaps this sort of thing has been discussed in other threads on this site; I honestly don't have time to find out, and since StumbleUpon is sending folks to this particular thread, it makes sense to respond where they can see it.

I grow weary of this petty heckling from both sides of the theist debate. Look: being an atheist doesn't make you smarter, it means that on one subject you had the good fortune to be able to see things as they are. It may mean you're a more critical thinker than the two blokes next to you, or it may just mean your parents were critical thinkers and didn't brainwash you as a child into fearing what would happen if you considered the possibility of a universe without a God in it.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the umpteenth written translation of a verbal history of a borrowed myth dating back more than two thousand years is silly, and proves nothing whatever. Of course it's inconsistent, it's the story of people and the God they worship told from scores of different points of view by people with as many different agendas, not to mention different social mores, such as thinking it honorable to offer one's family to a mob rather than allow guests in your home to fall to them.

Poking fun at the Christian Bible is, I'm sure, a wonderful way of bonding between strident atheists as well as new converts eager to demonstrate their knowledge, but it does nothing to advance the basic premise, which is to make people think. People don't think when you poke fun at them, they feel, and what they feel is anger.

Anger does not respond to reason any more than religious fervor does.

Take care,

B.

Hi B,

Not sure if you're ever coming back but for what it's worth I think you make some excellent points and I appreciate your comments. I guess the only thing that I take issue with is the sweeping generalization that the issues or the banter is petty--at least in its entirety.

I have a feeling, though I could be wrong, that you have the good fortune to live in a place where religion does not interfere too much with the workings of your government. I live in a country that routinely imposes religious belief on its citizens. I became vocal about these issues when my government effectively ended research into embryonic stem cells. I have an extremely close family member whose life is put in danger by this religious interference into government.

So do we sometimes talk about issues that don't really further the cause? Sure. Does it anger believers? Sure. Does it really matter? Not to me. You see, I don't think the great benefit of forums like gnawed.com is that we'll de-convert hoards of devout Christians. Most of us believe that there are significant numbers of atheists that are, for lack of a better word, closeted. If those people can be coaxed out of the closet then we gain the one thing that really counts--political power. This type of forum helped me come to grips with my atheism. I realized that there were others, plenty of em, who saw the world the same way I did.

Perhaps someday I'll have your sage-like wisdom. For the time being, however, I really do believe this is important. I hope you come back. I think you'll help keep us honest and I'd like very much to hear how you'd approach these issues. Who knows, maybe you'll even learn something from us, well, let's not get crazy. ;)

Respectfully,
Chris

[one_lost_coin]

God doesnt kill the innocent. God saves His people. John 3:16-18"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.
Jesus who is truly innocent was killed by mankind as I believe you will find all suffering is caused by man and evil but God is so powerful that He can take the suffering and evil and turn it into an even greater good. As I think you will find was the case in Jesus life death and ressurection through the work of Jesus God has made a way back to Him a way in which we will be able to see His face and worship in true joy from our hearts without the possibility of any suffering.
If you are refering to the various times in the Old Testament where God tells His people to destroy all the inhabitants of a Land. If you read before and after you will find that those people were evil and a kind of evil we dont encounter often in the world. I think in addition to a warning the story also points the hope that there will be a time when all evil will come to an end and time when pain and suffering will cease. As for the children their parents were going to transmit the evil of their lives to thier children. raising children in love is very important as God Himself requires in Dueteronomy as well as Proverbs and other places to raise children in the knowlegde of God as what we pass on to our children affects them greatly as we all know. These societies where even offering their children as sacrifices. I think it is somehow an act of mercy to end evil on this earth and the culture those children would have carried on and we can know that the lives of innocent children that die are in the loving presence of God and are living a better fate now.
When God judges it will be in such a pure way that even those convicted will agree of the perfect justice they have recieved.
And we are all guilty of sin all of us who is innocent but Jesus. As spoken of by St. Paul in Romans 21-24But in our time something new has been added. What Moses and the prophets witnessed to all those years has happened. The God-setting-things-right that we read about has become Jesus-setting-things-right for us. And not only for us, but for everyone who believes in him. For there is no difference between us and them in this. Since we've compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us and them) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us, God did it for us. Out of sheer generosity he put us in right standing with himself. A pure gift. He got us out of the mess we're in and restored us to where he always wanted us to be. And he did it by means of Jesus Christ.

[David]

I think it is somehow an act of mercy to end evil on this earth and the culture those children would have carried on and we can know that the lives of innocent children that die are in the loving presence of God and are living a better fate now.

Oh, really? It's a good thing that God killed babies and children? Well, how about the Nazi's--why didn't he kill them? Or, was it a good thing that the Nazi's were killing homosexuals, Jews, and other non-christians?

I guess the question is this. Which do you find more repugnant. The murder of 6 million Jews and Homosexuals, or the fact that the Nazi's didn't finish their job to "end evil on this earth and the culture those children would have carried on"? I think I know your answer...

[Hugh]

we can know that the lives of innocent children that die are in the loving presence of God and are living a better fate now.


Surely using that logic we should just kill babies as soon as they are born, before they have a chance to sin, because that way they'll go to heaven.

[one_lost_coin]

I also didnt answer your question on women and their role. It is taught men and women were both equally created in the image of God as illustrated in Genesis 1: 26-28 God spoke: "Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth."
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God's nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them:
"Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth." and also in Galatians 28-29 In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ. Also, since you are Christ's family, then you are Abraham's famous "descendant," heirs according to the covenant promises.
As for the honor God bestows on woman I offer the Blessed Virgin Mary whom all generations will called blessed because she is the new Eve who obeyed Gods will for Her to be the Mother of God. Also it was the women who were the first to see Jesus ressurected not to mention the women heroes as Deborah, Esther, Hannah, Rahab, St Therese, St Gertrude, St Theresa, St Bernadette, St Rafka, Mother Theresa I can go on and on. Women are heroes and loved. I had trouble understanding where your question was coming from to even answer the idea was so foriegn to me. I hope this helps but I may have misunderstood what you were asking.

[David]

wtf? You're not even answering the questions we're asking.

No one asked about the role of women. Besides, I thought the bible said the marriage should be a master/slave relationship. How is that a good thing?

Women were not treated equally. If a woman is raped, she should be stoned to death, because she didn't scream loud enough to be saved! That's just completely screwed up. And, yet you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god? For shame.

[one_lost_coin]

Hugh said: "Surely using that logic we should just kill babies as soon as they are born, before they have a chance to sin, because that way they'll go to heaven."
I think its best understood that using this logic we should raise our children in a way that glorifies God and to realize the great gift we have been given in being able to participate in the creative act and raise them to know and love God. That I think is a better way. We can ask God to help us do that. We can pray for His guidance and assistance and forgiveness of when we have failed and ask for Him to heal us and to give us the strength to do right.

[one_lost_coin]

David reread that entire section you are quoting both a chapter before and a chapter after. You will find your interpretation of Gods Law concerning rape (as well as marriage) is indeed very wrong. I would also offer that you humbly ask God before you read to teach you His word.
As for role and Gods view of womanhood. I think you will find if God hated woman He would not have prepared such marvelous things for them to do. If you would like I can provide you with sections of the bible and what God intends for us in marriage. I think its best to read the bible in larger sections than single verses as what comes before a verse and what comes after can help put it in context and help protect us from reading to much of ourselves into it.
This may be a helpfull start from Ephesians 5:21Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another. 22-24Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ. The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing. So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands.
25-28Husbands, go all out in your love for your wives, exactly as Christ did for the church—a love marked by giving, not getting. Christ's love makes the church whole. His words evoke her beauty. Everything he does and says is designed to bring the best out of her, dressing her in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness. And that is how husbands ought to love their wives. They're really doing themselves a favor—since they're already "one" in marriage. 29-33No one abuses his own body, does he? No, he feeds and pampers it. That's how Christ treats us, the church, since we are part of his body. And this is why a man leaves father and mother and cherishes his wife. No longer two, they become "one flesh." This is a huge mystery, and I don't pretend to understand it all. What is clearest to me is the way Christ treats the church. And this provides a good picture of how each husband is to treat his wife, loving himself in loving her, and how each wife is to honor her husband.

[Hugh]

one_lost_coin is actually right there David. If the woman is a virgin then she has to marry the rapist and if she isn't a virgin then she gets stoned to death. Also if she is raped inside the city walls then she should be stoned to death because she didn't scream loud enough. Outside the city walls is OK?

[David]

one_lost_coin is actually right there David. If the woman is a virgin then she has to marry the rapist and if she isn't a virgin then she gets stoned to death. Also if she is raped inside the city walls then she should be stoned to death because she didn't scream loud enough. Outside the city walls is OK?

I know; I was just typing too quickly, and didn't want to stop to get the exact wording.. My mistake/bad..

Given the above, would Lot's daughters have had to marry their rapists? And, which one of the rapists? or, if you think they were married (after all, Lot had Son-in-Laws), would they have been stoned to death because they were 1) not virgins and 2) were raped within the walls of the city.

[Hugh]

Since the story says they weren't virgins then I think that they would've probably had to marry one of the rapists. Maybe the ringleaders? But looking at a similar story I doubt that they would've survived the experience.

[one_lost_coin]

Well you did look it up I applaud you alot of people would not have taken the time. thankyou. Im going to paste the verses here so we can all refer to them.
Dueteronomy 22:13: "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her,
14: and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,'
15: then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate;
16: and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, `I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her;
17: and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, "I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity." And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18: Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him;
19: and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20: But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman,
21: then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
22: "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel.
23: "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
24: then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
25: "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
26: But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offense punishable by death, for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor;
27: because he came upon her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
28: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29: then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.
30: "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor shall he uncover her who is his father's.
Note the Law factors in false accusations both from a man and from a woman. Also note that 5,000 years ago this was the wisest set of laws ever provided and the fairest law system on earth. I think it would be helpful to establish that we all can accept verses 13-19 and 25-27 as fair? if so we can build from there. If not then why arent they fair?

[stan2reason]

Dear OLC

I appreciate that you've hung around to discuss this topic. It's not easy to enter hostile territory when you've no obligation to do so. I was raised a devout Christian and the issue of women in scripture was difficult for me. Certainly there are plenty of examples of strong courageous women documented in scripture--their stories were very inspiring to me as a young Christian. As I explored scripture more closely, however, I began to see contradicting points of view. In fact, the bible has many examples of women treated quite badly and there is a clear undercurrent of female subjugation. I was taught from a young age that the Bible, all of it, was the inerrant word of God. It became harder and harder for me to see which God was real. In order to maintain any semblance of a modern view of women I had to overlook large portions of my sacred text. The inevitable question then arose for me, how inerrant is the Word when so much of it is contradictory and in some cases appears evil toward groups of people.

The questions that I would pose to you is the same one I faced. How do we reconcile such disparate biblical views? If the answer to that question is that we must give more weight to portions of the bible that fit our modern ethics then is the Bible the best approach?

Best,
Chris

[one_lost_coin]

Stan2reason, very good questions that I will consider this evening and will reply tomorrow as I am getting ready to leave work now. I will prayerfully consider your questions and do my best to answer them. I have a simple faith and am no scholar or theologian I can only offer the best I have.

[one_lost_coin]

David asked: Oh, really? It's a good thing that God killed babies and children? Well, how about the Nazi's--why didn't he kill them? Or, was it a good thing that the Nazi's were killing homosexuals, Jews, and other non-christians?
You may remember they fought a war over that and the nazis lost. Evil is not the final word and its day is will have an end. The children that you are so desirous to grow up in a evil society I feel may represent a way of understanding that there will be complete end to evil in history that one day it will no longer be passed on.
You may also find these words helpful 2 peter 3: 8-9Don't overlook the obvious here, friends. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day. God isn't late with his promise as some measure lateness. He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn't want anyone lost. He's giving everyone space and time to change.
He loves you and is waiting for you what beautiful words to hear. He is mercyful and forgiving ask Him for new life. Its not good that any perish.

[stan2reason]

I will prayerfully consider your questions and do my best to answer them.

Sounds great! Looking forward to chatting with you.
C

[Ximen Bao]

As a response to "Hitler lost, so God's plan saved the day" what about the instances where the good guys lost? There are regimes in place all over the world that have been in place for decades where oppression and mistreatment of the citizens run rampant. Massive killings of civilians in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, and in Nazi controlled Europe when the day wan't saved fast enough.

In the face of all that, I'd fall back to the old chestnut where suffering is meaningless because after you die it's all happy.

[David]

As a response to "Hitler lost, so God's plan saved the day"
I could swear that while Hitler eventually lost... God's "Chosen People" were first exterminated to the tune of 6 million lost individuals.

By 1939, the world Jewish population was 16.7 million, with 9.5 million in Europe and 5 million in the United States. The best evidence still suggests that about 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II (the Holocaust). [Reference (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/jews.htm)]

Perhaps a good analogy is this: If I had 27 million comic books that I was supposed to guard, and I let 22% of them be destroyed, I'm not so sure I'd stand up and claim that I was a huge success as a guard... Didn't God drop the ball on that? 1/5 of all his "Chosen People" were killed. Odd.

[one_lost_coin]

david and hugh as to dueteronomy 22 and rape. note the comparrison equating rape to murder in verse 26. it should also be pointed out that verse 29 takes away the rights of the man it is he that is obligated to take her as his wife without the possibility of divorce. she is not under the same obligation and she may refuse marriage to him. as for the not crying out in the city that can be understood as a way of indicating consent that the act was consensual. It must also be understood this ancient law system provided a lot more authority to those who sat in judgement. If the woman had been prevented from crying out and had shown other signs of rape the man would I am sure been found guilty. rape is not condoned in this culture see genesis and the reaction to when a families sister was raped and it definitly is not condoned by God which is easily demonstrated by the fact that all Christians deplore the act as gravely sinful. even if you find the wisdom of these verses hard to understand the united teaching of all denominations should make it plan enough, God considers rape a sin ask any Christian.

[ionerice]

The story of Sodom is just another fairytale made-up by the Hebrew Scribes.

After fleeing the destruction of Sodom, according to the story Lot and his two virgin daughters end up living in a cave. The daughters worry that now they’ll never find husbands and have children. So they get their father drunk and have sex with him.

So much for family values that the sky-God refused to frown on.

[one_lost_coin]

david and ximen bao, as for "why does God allow suffering?" which is what both of your comments boils down to. it must be understood our best wisdom is foolishness to the wisdom of God. God can and does make a greater good out of suffering. Recall God on the cross dying for you and me that we can be free of death. recall His innocence and suffering. when those innocent jews suffered and died when the martyrs suffered and died they share in the sufferings of Christ and they do so for you. read 2 peter again 2 peter 3: 8-9Don't overlook the obvious here, friends. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day. God isn't late with his promise as some measure lateness. He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn't want anyone lost. He's giving everyone space and time to change.

They suffer for your soul and they suffered for mine. our souls are precious to God who doesnt promise disneyland in this world, how shallow a sacrifice that would have been, but life without any pain or sorrow with Him. He loves you ask Him to take you back.

[one_lost_coin]

stan2reason, I can only think to share this advice from a book by Peter Kreeft. 8 basic principles of biblical interpretation
1 use common standard methods and approaches
2 read for the authors intended meaning
3 seperate interpretation from belief
4 interpret a book according to its genre
5 know when to interpret the bible literally versus symbollically
6 know which stories are historical
7 dont seperate religous versus historical questions
8 historical proximaty increases historical reliability

I know of no stories of woman or anyone else a being treated unfairly by God as to the fact that the bible does not sugar coat its stories and that there are terrible events that occurred at the hands of man against man. well to portray anything else would be disingenuous to human experience. that the bible presents it heroes flaws and all is merely honest and an oportunity to teach others from their lives.
The bible is a whole and should be taken as a whole. to emphasis one part over another can only lead to trouble and sounds like something human beings would do.
My simple advice would be to start with matthew chapters 5-7 (Jesus sermon on the mount) where God teaches on His Law and how it is to be interpreted and understood. That is straight from God and you can know that somehow all those old testament laws do indeed sum up in Matthew 22 37-40Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.' This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: 'Love others as well as you love yourself.' These two commands are pegs; everything in God's Law and the Prophets hangs from them."

[Ximen Bao]

I could swear that while Hitler eventually lost... God's "Chosen People" were first exterminated to the tune of 6 million lost individuals.



I did mention that at the end when I mentioned the day wasn't saved fast enough.

[one_lost_coin]

God has all eternity to plan and only needs a blink of an eye to reach our hearts. No one knows what happens in the last moments of a persons life but God does because Hes there and He has plenty of time to save us. He is beyond our understanding of time and not limited by it. Today if you hear His voice.

[Hugh]

it should also be pointed out that verse 29 takes away the rights of the man it is he that is obligated to take her as his wife without the possibility of divorce. she is not under the same obligation and she may refuse marriage to him.

I've never noticed the verse that that says the woman doesn't have to marry the rapist, could you send me a reference?

Also, enforced marriage, whilst not very pleasurable, is nowhere near a sufficient punishment for rape. This 'law' could easily be abused so the rapist rapes and therefore marries the woman that he wants to. And if the woman does have the option to turn down enforced marriage what punishment would the man then get? Or would he just get away with it? Neither seem just options.

[stan2reason]

stan2reason, I can only think to share this advice from a book by Peter Kreeft. 8 basic principles of biblical interpretation
1 use common standard methods and approaches
2 read for the authors intended meaning
3 seperate interpretation from belief
4 interpret a book according to its genre
5 know when to interpret the bible literally versus symbollically
6 know which stories are historical
7 dont seperate religous versus historical questions
8 historical proximaty increases historical reliability

I know of no stories of woman or anyone else a being treated unfairly by God as to the fact that the bible does not sugar coat its stories and that there are terrible events that occurred at the hands of man against man. well to portray anything else would be disingenuous to human experience. that the bible presents it heroes flaws and all is merely honest and an oportunity to teach others from their lives.
The bible is a whole and should be taken as a whole. to emphasis one part over another can only lead to trouble and sounds like something human beings would do.
My simple advice would be to start with matthew chapters 5-7 (Jesus sermon on the mount) where God teaches on His Law and how it is to be interpreted and understood. That is straight from God and you can know that somehow all those old testament laws do indeed sum up in Matthew 22 37-40Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.' This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: 'Love others as well as you love yourself.' These two commands are pegs; everything in God's Law and the Prophets hangs from them."


Hi OLC,

Thanks for your post. I think those are sage words indeed and can actually be applied to almost any book. What troubled me as a young Christian and ultimately led to my heresy ;) was that the Bible didn't hold up to scrutiny when those rules were applied.

Perhaps I should say first that one of your statements illustrates why discussion between believer and non-believer can be very difficult. You said, "I know of no stories of woman or anyone else a being treated unfairly by God..." What I began to realize as I searched is that the argument is circular since God defines that which is fair. Were we to apply current societal standards to an example that I'll provide, I'm not sure we'd say that God was "fair." That being said, I'll try my best to recognize that difference in our paradigms.

Here is an example that, in my opinion, reveals an unjust God (admittedly I can't post large sections of the bible to provide flawless context. I hope you'll accept that these are areas that I have invested a great deal of time searching for context).

15:1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Samuel+15#f1) all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
4 So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Samuel+15#f2) and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.


1 Samuel 15:1-9



I think you're probably familiar with the rest of the story. God actually had Samuel remove Saul as King of Israel because Saul had taken some of the animals rather than destroying them. No matter how much I prayed, studied, or discussed this scripture I could not accept the directive from God as just. I am morally opposed to the destruction of innocent life whether in battle or in my hometown. Here God speaks to his people and expressly orders the complete annihilation of a people. No distinction is made between soldier and baby, mother and warrior. Destroy them all. Saul largely takes this to heart and kills all that was "despised and worthless."


Now it could be easily argued that this was both a moral and a fair act. Indeed, it has been argued so. To reach this conclusion, however, requires that fairness and morality be defined by the deity commanding the destruction. "It must have been fair and moral because God commanded it." Were current international law, or even public opinion of morality and fairness applied to this situation God and the soldiers who followed his orders would be found wanting.

I don't really have a question for you, rather, I point this story out as one (and there are many more) reason why I came to believe that either God was not benevolent or there was no God and man created the concept of a deity to allow for such horrible acts. If there is a question in there, it would still be to ask: is this sacred text the best we can do?

As for Jesus, he definitely spoke many wonderful words and were they followed we'd all be living in a happier world today. These words were not new, however, and had been spoken by countless philosophers before Christ even walked the earth. Why not be disciples of Confucius for instance?

"Do not unto another that you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest."
- Analects of Confucius, 500 BCE

You mention the sermon on the mount. In closing my ridiculously long response I'd like to point out Jesus' own words:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 5:17-20


It seemed to me then and now that Jesus held these rather horrible laws in fairly high esteem. I wish that he had rejected them outright.


Best,
Chris

[formerfundie]

....day-dreaming about a truly benevolent deity...

<dream-cloud>

The Story Of Lot and Sodom

(1) And it came to pass that Lot lived in a very progressive city called
Sodom. (2) Verily, the people of the city had moved beyond ancient
biases against people that were diverse. (3) Truly homosexuals, women,
and minorities were not stoned, beaten, ridiculed, or otherwise
treated poorly. Indeed they were simply understood and tolerated just like
any normal joe. (4) Nor did the people out of their ignorance
invent a maniacal wrathful ass-wipe deity which desired to destroy them.
(5) This greatly pleased the real diety. The real diety descended upon
Sodom and congratulated the progressive people of the progressive city.
(5) Hitherto, he said unto all the people of Sodom, "Let this city be an
example unto all cities of the earth". Let all that stand upright and just be called sodomites. and so it was.

</dream-cloud>

[one_lost_coin]

Hugh, here is the reference you requested its from exodus 22: 16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the marriage price and marry her. If her father absolutely refuses to give her away, the man must still pay the marriage price for virgins.

Although I realize this specifically says the father decides it is a recognition of his responsibility for her in that society but dont think for a moment that a father who loves his daughter isnt going to respect her wishes. I have come across something scholarly to that effect but cant recall where or I would have posted it. Im going to assume its unneccesary because mosts parents can identify with loving their daughters and the desire to protect their interests and can relize that love for them is natural and timeless.

[one_lost_coin]

stan2reason, exactly as you say the same approach to take to any book and is also what peter kreeft suggested (but i didnt include in previous post) to approach it with the openness and fairness you would read anything else. and yes as you say God defines what His intentions are for a well lived life and if it can be accepted that He is all loving and all knowing then He will be always be right. my honest thoughts I think its best that our guidelines for living come from a creator rather than my next door neighbor or myself and I would not want to listen to God if He wasnt smarter than myself. as best as it, I see that as more linear than circular arguement. I also see that living without people murdering or stealing and honoring their parents is desirable as anyone else so there is common ground there and that loving (note in loving God i mean to say that it is a relationship and that God is lovable and deserving of our love) the God that created us would be desirable and that its seems we are less free without Him in that when we deviate from His good will for us we become entangled. for instance to turn to drugs as a substitute for a loving relationship as we all know and most accept may be fun in the begining but ends in an emptiness inside unable to connect with others in a healthy way. So a freedom to use drugs would not actually be freedom. you see what i mean or am trying to convey. So I think obeying God isnt all that bad an idea and I do also agree that it is possible to set up a paradigm in opposition to what is healthy for all. that makes the paradigm flawed not the truth, as hitlers vision for mankind was flawed. now to apply that and the reading guidelines to the verses you provide and lets see what happens. This will be diffucult for me as I dont know alot about the book of Samuel and would like to make this more of us sharing.
So as I read over it like i would read any book. My first thought is to wonder what did amalek do that is being refered here (I will have to look that up tonight) I also note as you point out also that saul didnt do exactly what he was told.
Now let me run down the list since i put it up i guess i am obliged to follow it myself. as for 1-ok i will try 2-i will try to be open to hear the intended meaning 3-i am now suspending any interpretation from what i may want to believe so that i may learn. 4-i dont know this books genre and will need to look it up 5- ok 6- i will have to find out if this is meant to be historical or allegorical or both. 7 & 8- ok
To get the ball rolling. Do you know what amalek did and where we can find out?

[David]

Hugh, here is the reference you requested its from exodus 22: 16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the marriage price and marry her. If her father absolutely refuses to give her away, the man must still pay the marriage price for virgins.
Seduces implies that the sex act was consensual. Not a rape which is violent and is definitely not consensual.

[one_lost_coin]

Seduces implies that the sex act was consensual. Not a rape which is violent and is definitely not consensual.

David, of course rape isnt consensual and if a father has that kind of leeway for a seduction imagine how much more he would have to say about his daughter being raped. this verse among countless others of the torah clearly demonstrates their law system allows for the rights of the victim in a way that was way ahead of the rest of the law systems of ancient times. like any law system it must be be understood in conjunction with the rest of the laws in the system. if we human beings can understand the horror of rape imagine what God understands about it. He knows more not less than the people He created.

[David]

David, of course rape isnt consensual and if a father has that kind of leeway for a seduction imagine how much more he would have to say about his daughter being raped. this verse among countless others of the torah clearly demonstrates their law system allows for the rights of the victim in a way that was way ahead of the rest of the law systems of ancient times. like any law system it must be be understood in conjunction with the rest of the laws in the system. if we human beings can understand the horror of rape imagine what God understands about it. He knows more not less than the people He created.
I'm sorry OLC, but, I totally disagree with your reading.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=22&version=31#fen-NIV-5500c)] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I added some emphasis here; the word MUST stands out for me. MUST means that it must occur. If god meant for some latitude in the decision making process, it would be 'may' marry the girl, or 'must' marry the girl if the girl/father allow it, etc.. All of these laws include the word 'must' and 'shall'. It isn't, "maybe" or "if you want". The father DIDN'T have a choice; that's the problem...

[one_lost_coin]

Yes the man looses his rights and has no more say in the matter he is after all being punished. the victim maintains their rights they are not being punished. You seem to be approaching this from the point of view that they have to follow these laws like a american court system. They had far more flexibility and where guided by the wisdom of the law. I would offer that you consider how Solomon made his judgement about the baby and the two women who claimed to be the childs mother and I think you will get a much better perspective of how thier justice system operated. You may also not that a judge could never do that in an american justice system. God loves you enough to die for you.
Read all of deuteronomy with the same openness you would any other book and try to read it from the perspective of the culture of these people 5,000 years ago and not our modern western european perspective they are not the same. It might surprise you to find they are not as stupid as you suspect. You will find a law system that shows no partiality and is based not in obeying the law for the sake of following rules but based on an inward personal response to Gods sovereign deeds of kindness and benevolence. Find a good book on the history of the laws of ancient cultures of that time you will not find a law system even close to the justice fairness and wisdom of this one.

[David]

Yes the man looses his rights and has no more say in the matter he is after all being punished. the victim maintains their rights they are not being punished.
No, a women who is raped inside the city walls, who doesn't scream loud enough to be saved, is being punished too..
Deut.22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city

So, if you're a women, who is raped in a city, and you scream out, but, just like Kitty Genovese the 37 people who saw her being murdered, and all did nothing to save her, you aren't helped. You then get to be stoned to death because you were raped.... Yeah, that's justice for you.

[one_lost_coin]

it was already discussed in previous posts please try and keep up. but because i care enough here goes. the law presupposes someone will come to save her that is what is meant by the phrase if she doesnt scream out. It is assumed the women will scream out for help. if she cant scream out than there will be some other evidence to establish rape and the man will still be punished for rape. if noone comes to help then that city has a real big problem with its citizens because they are being exactly like the people of sodom and gomorah who also had those who would have stood by and watched. Yet you are upset when God punishes them. You cant have it both ways and you obviously didnt read the story of Solomon so I will put it here for you. This is how there law system worked.
1 Kings 3:16-21 The very next thing, two prostitutes showed up before the king. The one woman said, "My master, this woman and I live in the same house. While we were living together, I had a baby. Three days after I gave birth, this woman also had a baby. We were alone—there wasn't anyone else in the house except for the two of us. The infant son of this woman died one night when she rolled over on him in her sleep. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son—I was sound asleep, mind you!—and put him at her breast and put her dead son at my breast. When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, here was this dead baby! But when I looked at him in the morning light, I saw immediately that he wasn't my baby."

22 "Not so!" said the other woman. "The living one's mine; the dead one's yours."
The first woman countered, "No! Your son's the dead one; mine's the living one."
They went back and forth this way in front of the king.
23 The king said, "What are we to do? This woman says, 'The living son is mine and the dead one is yours,' and this woman says, 'No, the dead one's yours and the living one's mine.'"
24 After a moment the king said, "Bring me a sword." They brought the sword to the king.
25 Then he said, "Cut the living baby in two—give half to one and half to the other."
26 The real mother of the living baby was overcome with emotion for her son and said, "Oh no, master! Give her the whole baby alive; don't kill him!"
But the other one said, "If I can't have him, you can't have him—cut away!"
27 The king gave his decision: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Nobody is going to kill this baby. She is the real mother." 28 The word got around—everyone in Israel heard of the king's judgment. They were all in awe of the king, realizing that it was God's wisdom that enabled him to judge truly.

[one_lost_coin]

David, stop wasting your time trying to avoid it God is not evil and He is just, the world is going to be judged and nothing is going to stop that. God has provided a way out in the life, death and resurrection of His Son Jesus. tell Him you are sorry for the sins you have commited and that you want to follow Him. just like lot who also was imperfect like you and me but God had mercy on Him like He will for you and me. I left that doomed city you can too.

[David]

David, stop wasting your time trying to avoid it God is not evil and He is just, the world is going to be judged and nothing is going to stop that. God has provided a way out in the life, death and resurrection of His Son Jesus. tell Him you are sorry for the sins you have commited and that you want to follow Him. just like lot who also was imperfect like you and me but God had mercy on Him like He will for you and me. I left that doomed city you can too.
See, and you were doing better for a while. You were really less preachy for a few posts.

You'll never convert me. Seriously. There is nothing you could ever say to me to get me to agree with a magic man in the sky. And, the funny thing is that you completely avoided the question. You attacked ME instead of showing me where I was wrong. You obviously don't have a response to why god kills rape victims; I do. He's a mysogonistic invisible and non-existant pig. God needs to be killed for being such a mean, nasty, capricious and just utterly despicable character. Good thing it's just a fairy tale, or I'd get really annoyed.. :D

[one_lost_coin]

David, stop wasting your time trying to avoid it God is not evil and He is just, the world is going to be judged and nothing is going to stop that. God has provided a way out in the life, death and resurrection of His Son Jesus. tell Him you are sorry for the sins you have commited and that you want to follow Him. just like lot who also was imperfect like you and me but God had mercy on Him like He will for you and me. I left that doomed city you can too.

If someone telling you God is a God of love and justice who has provided a way to have a better life with Him (even if you think im delusioned) is what you consider a personal attack then you have had an incredibly easy life. (that also isnt an attack just an observation) :-)

[David]

If someone telling you God is a God of love and justice who has provided a way to have a better life with Him (even if you think im delusioned) is what you consider a personal attack then you have had an incredibly easy life. (that also isnt an attack just an observation) :-)
The Invisible Pink Unicorn loves you. As does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :) Why don't you follow their teachings?

I have a good life. I have a wife who loves me, adorable children, close family ties, etc.. I don't need God in my life to make life worthwhile. I've already made my life worthwhile myself. Perhaps your life isn't quite as happy? In which case might I suggest making some decisions to improve your happiness? Stop waiting for God to make it better and do it yourself.

[Hugh]

This is how there law system worked.
1 Kings 3:16-21 The very next thing, two prostitutes showed up before the king. The one woman said, "My master, this woman and I live in the same house. While we were living together, I had a baby. Three days after I gave birth, this woman also had a baby. We were alone—there wasn't anyone else in the house except for the two of us. The infant son of this woman died one night when she rolled over on him in her sleep. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son—I was sound asleep, mind you!—and put him at her breast and put her dead son at my breast. When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, here was this dead baby! But when I looked at him in the morning light, I saw immediately that he wasn't my baby."

22 "Not so!" said the other woman. "The living one's mine; the dead one's yours."
The first woman countered, "No! Your son's the dead one; mine's the living one."
They went back and forth this way in front of the king.
23 The king said, "What are we to do? This woman says, 'The living son is mine and the dead one is yours,' and this woman says, 'No, the dead one's yours and the living one's mine.'"
24 After a moment the king said, "Bring me a sword." They brought the sword to the king.
25 Then he said, "Cut the living baby in two—give half to one and half to the other."
26 The real mother of the living baby was overcome with emotion for her son and said, "Oh no, master! Give her the whole baby alive; don't kill him!"
But the other one said, "If I can't have him, you can't have him—cut away!"
27 The king gave his decision: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Nobody is going to kill this baby. She is the real mother." 28 The word got around—everyone in Israel heard of the king's judgment. They were all in awe of the king, realizing that it was God's wisdom that enabled him to judge truly.


I'm not sure how this is relevant to the punishment if a woman is raped. It seems to me that this is a completely different situation.

David, stop wasting your time trying to avoid it God is not evil and He is just, the world is going to be judged and nothing is going to stop that. God has provided a way out in the life, death and resurrection of His Son Jesus. tell Him you are sorry for the sins you have commited and that you want to follow Him. just like lot who also was imperfect like you and me but God had mercy on Him like He will for you and me. I left that doomed city you can too.

If God was just then he wouldn't have had mercy on Lot because if you sin then you would deserve to be punished for it. That would be just. Since Lot went unpunished, God's actions, whilst merciful, were not just.

Also I think that most people here don't believe because of the evidence pointing towards God not existing. Any issues with morality wouldn't affect whether or not I believe in God nor, I think, anybodyelse here.

[Hugh]

Stop waiting for God to make it better and do it yourself.

The only way people change if is they stop talking about it and do it. Nobody else will do it for them.

[stan2reason]

stan2reason, exactly as you say the same approach to take to any book and is also what peter kreeft suggested (but i didnt include in previous post) to approach it with the openness and fairness you would read anything else. and yes as you say God defines what His intentions are for a well lived life and if it can be accepted that He is all loving and all knowing then He will be always be right. my honest thoughts I think its best that our guidelines for living come from a creator rather than my next door neighbor or myself and I would not want to listen to God if He wasnt smarter than myself. as best as it, I see that as more linear than circular arguement. I also see that living without people murdering or stealing and honoring their parents is desirable as anyone else so there is common ground there and that loving (note in loving God i mean to say that it is a relationship and that God is lovable and deserving of our love) the God that created us would be desirable and that its seems we are less free without Him in that when we deviate from His good will for us we become entangled. for instance to turn to drugs as a substitute for a loving relationship as we all know and most accept may be fun in the begining but ends in an emptiness inside unable to connect with others in a healthy way. So a freedom to use drugs would not actually be freedom. you see what i mean or am trying to convey. So I think obeying God isnt all that bad an idea and I do also agree that it is possible to set up a paradigm in opposition to what is healthy for all. that makes the paradigm flawed not the truth, as hitlers vision for mankind was flawed. now to apply that and the reading guidelines to the verses you provide and lets see what happens. This will be diffucult for me as I dont know alot about the book of Samuel and would like to make this more of us sharing.
So as I read over it like i would read any book. My first thought is to wonder what did amalek do that is being refered here (I will have to look that up tonight) I also note as you point out also that saul didnt do exactly what he was told.
Now let me run down the list since i put it up i guess i am obliged to follow it myself. as for 1-ok i will try 2-i will try to be open to hear the intended meaning 3-i am now suspending any interpretation from what i may want to believe so that i may learn. 4-i dont know this books genre and will need to look it up 5- ok 6- i will have to find out if this is meant to be historical or allegorical or both. 7 & 8- ok
To get the ball rolling. Do you know what amalek did and where we can find out?

Hi OLC,

I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll start a new one for us to discuss this further. I'm at work now--I know, I'm gonna get in trouble--so I'll try to get to it this pm.

Best,
Chris

[Candor]

I wholeheartedly agree that the bible must be taken with a grain of salt, however, it seems that most atheists throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I'd say that the biggest baby tossed has been the display of the 10 commandments. Who can argue with the morality presented within that document? And if you look at like this, most of the questionable moral situations found within the bible are not approved in the commandments. But regardless, if everyone would listen to their God given conscious, instead of what a 2000+ year old book says, many of the worlds problems would be solved. Actually, I really must say if everyone could learn to think for themselves, instead of spewing age old rheteric (on BOTH SIDES) we probably wouldn't have this site, this discussion, or well many conficts. And all information we recieve from The Divine, has been translated through man, with man's ambition, taste, and ideals. Who says that God doesn't exist, or dictated the bible's writing (all 100 books, that you know, we never see...) and who also says that the writers LISTENED to that dictation?

You may get the impression I'm rambling; I am. It's loud here, I've been up since 5 in the morning, and my inner narrator is on his coffee break.

[Leto]

…I'd say that the biggest baby tossed has been the display of the 10 commandments. Who can argue with the morality presented within that document?
I think that the 10 commandments are held in too high regard today. While perhaps the commandments were a good moral code given the zeitgeist they were written in, I don’t think they hold up to modern standards.

Exodus 20:2-17

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

The first four commandments don’t really deal with morals, so I will skip them, noting that it is a bit curious that 40% of the *ultimate moral code doesn’t even deal with morality.

Commandment five seems okay at first, but closer scrutiny reveals that it is not airtight. What about abusive or negligent parents? Do they deserve respect? How about children? Do they not need the protection of the law even more than their parents? Surely a better commandment would have been either “Respect all you meet” (or depending on your disposition, “Give your respect to those who earn it”).

Commandments six through nine are the real meat of the text, and again, they seem fine at first. My real issue with them is that they are unwavering moral commandments, not guidelines. There are situations where violating these commandments may be justified. What do the ten commandments say about:
Killing in self defense?
Killing one to save many?
A starving man stealing food to live?
Taxation or confiscation (eminent domain) by the government?
White lies? (e.g. would you tell a murderer the truth if she asked for her prospective victims’ locations?)

The tenth commandment is a little interesting. First of all, it places women on the same level as cattle and a man’s other possessions (incidentally, in the original Hebrew, the grammar of the entire ten commandments uses the second-person masculine singular form, perhaps implying that women don’t have the faculties or at least the power to be making moral decisions). Additionally, coveting seems to be not too much of a crime to me. Just how bad is wishing that you had your neighbor’s new car, as long as you don’t actually act on this desire?

Another consideration with the ten commandments is the punishment appropriated to violators. With the possible exception of the eight and ninth commandments (and maybe the tenth, for which I could find no specific retribution), the punishments all seem a little extreme.

1. Deuteronomy 17:1-5 "And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

2. Deuteronomy 27: 1-5 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."

3. Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death."

4. Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

5. Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

6. All I will do here is point out the logical bind one is put in trying to follow this commandment and enforce the punishments for the others.

7. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."

8. Exodus 22:1-4 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
If the stolen animal is found alive in his possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—he must pay back double."

9. Deuteronomy 19:16-21 "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

However, my biggest issue is that the commandments as listed don’t prepare people for true dilemmas, and thus have only limited use as guiding moral principles (I will be happy to provide tough moral situations if you would like to see what I mean).

[formerfundie]

I wholeheartedly agree that the bible must be taken with a grain of salt, however, it seems that most atheists throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I'd say that the biggest baby tossed has been the display of the 10 commandments. Who can argue with the morality presented within that document? And if you look at like this, most of the questionable moral situations found within the bible are not approved in the commandments. But regardless, if everyone would listen to their God given conscious, instead of what a 2000+ year old book says, many of the worlds problems would be solved. Actually, I really must say if everyone could learn to think for themselves, instead of spewing age old rheteric (on BOTH SIDES) we probably wouldn't have this site, this discussion, or well many conficts. And all information we recieve from The Divine, has been translated through man, with man's ambition, taste, and ideals. Who says that God doesn't exist, or dictated the bible's writing (all 100 books, that you know, we never see...) and who also says that the writers LISTENED to that dictation?

You may get the impression I'm rambling; I am. It's loud here, I've been up since 5 in the morning, and my inner narrator is on his coffee break.

Candor,

If you believe that the bible should be taken with a grain of salt, why do you cherry pick the 10 commandments as something worth our thought? I think Leto has given an adequate treatment on the subject so i won't belabor the point anymore.

And all information we recieve from The Divine, has been translated through man, with man's ambition, taste, and ideals. Who says that God doesn't exist, or dictated the bible's writing (all 100 books, that you know, we never see...) and who also says that the writers LISTENED to that dictation?

So again, it sounds like you're saying that you don't think the bible is god's inspired word. As such I would think that you have to conclude that it doesn't represent a revelation of God or his character/attributes, because it's just a book written by a bunch of ancient fallible men. If so, you don't believe in the god of the bible any more than i do. we're both atheists with respect to that god.

So what god do you believe in and why? Sure there may be some divine being or force out there but...
he/she/it hasn't revealed him or herself
he/she/it hasn't bothered to correct the wack jobs that wrote the holy books of all the world's religions. would be nice for this being to step up and set the record straight.
hasn't aleviated the worlds suffering
hasn't demanded to be worshipped
etc etc etcSo, as far as i'm concerned, if this divine being and/or force exists, who cares? It's totally irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. But given the evidence (or rather lack thereof), i'm guessing no such being exists.

[one_lost_coin]

Leto, some interesting thoughts on the 10 commandments.
you wrote "Commandment five seems okay at first, but closer scrutiny reveals that it is not airtight. What about abusive or negligent parents? Do they deserve respect? How about children? Do they not need the protection of the law even more than their parents? Surely a better commandment would have been either “Respect all you meet” (or depending on your disposition, “Give your respect to those who earn it”)."

Your observations are very accurate and you may be surprised to find them included in both the Catholic Cathechism and the Lutheran Cathechism probably others also but I dont know for sure. Yes this commandment is an instruction also to parents to be worthy of honor and to care for their children in a loving way elsewise they will be guilty of breaking this commandment. You will also be pleased to know this commandment applies to all who are in authority and deserving of respect that is police officers senators mayors bosses teachers etc... and that they also within this law are to be worthy of honor to those they serve. it establishes that man woman and children form a family. from the Catholic Catechism sec 2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.
So you are very observant about some of the ramifications of the 5th commandment (4th commandment in the way catholics group them). Here is a link to the online Catholic Catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM I think you will be very pleased with its thoroughness of teaching on the 4th commandment which you will find toward the bottom of the page.
must go for now will address the other commandments you brought up tomorrow hopefully.
Peace,

[one_lost_coin]

stan2reason

Hi OLC,

I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll start a new one for us to discuss this further. I'm at work now--I know, I'm gonna get in trouble--so I'll try to get to it this pm.

Best,
Chris
I know the feeling and will be looking for the thread.

[one_lost_coin]

Concerining "Thou shalt not murder" you asked about killing in self defense? You should be pleased to know the Catholic Catechism addresses that in article 2265 it states
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
IN BRIEF from the Catholic Catechism
2318 "In [God's] hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind" (⇒ (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PEX.HTM#WISDB.JOB.12.10) Job 12:10).
2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.
2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 # 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. the Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.
2324 Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
2325 Suicide is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity. It is forbidden by the fifth commandment.
2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omission it deliberately leads others to sin.
2327 Because of the evils and injustices that all war brings with it, we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. the Church prays: "From famine, pestilence, and war, O Lord, deliver us."
2328 The Church and human reason assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflicts. Practices deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes.
2329 "The arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race and the harm it inflicts on the poor is more than can be endured" (GS 81 # 3).
2330 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (⇒ (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PVE.HTM#GOSP.MAT.5.9) Mt 5:9).

there is considerably more detail in the preceding sections of the Churchs teaching on this commandment and the other questions you asked on the other commandments. I can continue to cut and paste if it helps but expect it easier if you just go to the link in the post above or buy the catechism at amazon or barnes and nobles.

[OldChurchGuy]

One of my favorite examples of excellent moral standing in the bible.

Lot is entertaining guests, and the angry mob outside wants to have sex with the guest (who is male). Lot shows his morality by protecting the guest (that's good) by offering up his daughters to be gang-raped (that's bad).

What a nice father.

I know this was posted in another area, but decided to post it here also to continue the discussion.

Personally, I understand the story to be something like this:

There probably were cities called Sodom and Gomorrah and they probably were somewhere near the Dead Sea, probably on the east side. There is speculation, for instance, that the settlements were on a peninsula known as "the toungue" due to it's shape. With the Dead Sea drying up, the tongue may be ready for some archaelogical digs in the near future.

An earthquake comes along and destroys them. Now, people have no concept of plate techtonics so all they know is that there were a couple of towns yesterday and today they are gone. So, human nature being what it is, a need arises to explain why it happened. People speculate and conclude it MUST have been something terribly bad for some unseen force to destroy these two places.

The most despicable thing that can be imagined for the time is for someone to not be hospitable to strangers. And for an entire town to be destroyed must mean that there were a number of people who were not hospitable to the strangers. An extreme case of not being hospitable would be to want to perform some kind of gang rape.

Hospitatlity to strangers was and is a major social norm for people in the Mid East. Lot's time was no different. Therefore, offering up his daughters was a way of showing his priority was toward being a gracious host to the strangers. Understand, there was no way to dial 911 like we have now.

Over time, stories begin to gel and the above speculation becomes accepted fact.

Regarding the daughters and their pregnancies, there is a theory that the two tribes the daughters are said to have helped originate were ones that claimed an early ancestry to the twelve sons of Jacob. But, since there were already 12 tribes and no one wanted to make it 14 tribes they were included here. Some might say it is an appeasement and others might see it as a slap in the face since the tribes originated out of incest.

That, in a nutshell, (and I am just the nut to believe this) is how I understand the story at this point in time; subject to change without notice.

On the other hand, the whole story could be true and accurate just as it is recorded. There is no way to prove or disprove it one way or the other.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[GeoffBoulton]

Everyone does understand that it is the citizens of the city that were evil and Lot had to make a very diffucult decision under crisis circumstances, either choice has bad consequences and neither would have had to been made apart from the evil the people insisted on commiting and forcing the situation. also utimately no one was raped no thanks to the people of the city. And has anyone overlooked that God destroyed the evil of that city, and who could blame Him, and that He saved the good.
Why would you be upset that God did away with that evil do they sound like neighbors you want to have living around you?

Weren't the guys Lot was protecting angels? Why couldn't they get themselves out of the situation? Are angels really so powerless and useless?

[phrog]

Weren't the guys Lot was protecting angels? Why couldn't they get themselves out of the situation? Are angels really so powerless and useless?
They didn't want to blow their cover.