Fuddam, A Few Moments Of Your Time Please.

[mediaboy]

um....not getting you. God punishes those that forgive? That doesn't make sense.

In case you haven't noticed, whenever God has brought punishment on humankind, whether it be in Eden (fig. or lit.) or in Egypt with the Pharoah or in Sodom & Gomorrah, or threatened in Ninevah (etc etc), it was always after copious warnings to turn around. As a loving FATHER, he warns his children not to be disobedient. If they continue to misbehave, after all patience has been exhausted, he punishes them. Even more to the point, the people bring about their own punishment.

My apologies, my own post was a little unclear there. It's the problem of writing so many words... checking it still leaves some mistakes

God doesn't punish those that forgive, although in the Old Testaments in some places God doesn't give them a chance to forgive, but just smashes them apart.

For instance, in Sodom and Gommorah - your own examples - he does not tell them to repent, but rather instructs one man to find some good familes amongst them. That isn't forgiving them, that's trying to find the people that aren't bad. As it is, those families that are good are told to leave the city then the rest of the city is eradicated like vermin. Is that forgiveness?

In Eden, God tells them not to eat the apple and in doing so Eve creates the concept of original sin and Adam, in doing so, seals mankinds fate to be thrown out of paradise for ever more... till they die and absolved of all sins however. However, God also creates the snake, who convinces Eve into eating the apple and then tricking Adam into doing the same. Did not, therefore, God see that evil would be created by the snake and through it's actions, and in his omniscience (not sure if that is spelt right) decided to let evil be created, in theory creating evil. Does this image of God creating Evil fit in with the benevolent image of God?

The more obvious answer would be no. However, as someone who appreciates the Christian point of view, I can appreciate that God left it to allow humankind to choose between good and evil and to let them have freewill, and that God also created evil to allow good to exist as a counterbalance. All of them are convincing arguments, and ones that would take too long (And too many words) to argue against. And as I don't want to get a reputation for posts longer than Saracen's I'll avoid that topic.

As for Egypt, God tells Moses - who was a murderer at the time God spoke to him - to go back to Egypt, where the pharoh is still seeking vengence in return for the murder of his overseer to save an Israelite and tell the pharoh to release the rest of the Israelites or bad things will happen. As a living God (for that is how the Egyptian Pharohs were percieved), the Pharoh must refuse to bow down to the wishes of the Israelite Moses. Afterall, Moses is threatening the Pharoh with the actions of a God that Egypt would not recognise, and that would not be considered superior to Horus, whom the Pharoh would embodiment (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh)

So God punishes Egypt. However, the Pharoh refuses to do anything and so God carries on killing off Egypt. And so on. In this story God DOES give the Egyptians the chance to repent, and when they don't he kills them, firstborn, and the entirity of the Egyptian army (including Pharoh) that chases after the Israelites. A little overreacting for a God that knows what a Pharoh would have to do.

Once again, I draw upon the definition of Deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) which includes immortality and great power, to point out that God would follow the line of reasoning that the Pharoh would have to take and could have possibly manipulated the Pharoh into acting as he did, or losing his country - which he does anyway (At death), but that is a point which is beside the point.

And the people bringing about their own punishment? You mean other people punish the criminals according to the laws that God has set down to be followed, and that if aren't followed mean that those people are followed? Isn't this just another example of God manipulating the situation, although - of course - it could also be seen as poeple failing to exercise their free will.

The other thing about this, naturally, is the debate about the extent of power that God actually has. Is this mentioned in the bible anywhere (I have a feeling it is, but cannot remember it offhand) and if so, what powers does God have? I think the answer is in Pslams?

Let's take the 10 Commandments: why did He give them to us? To make Himself feel better? NO.
To HELP us. To guide US. He knows, as Creator, what does us good, and what will lead to ruin. I do the same thing with my children. If I just let them run wild, do whatever they want, I know they will eventually end up broken, lost, drug-addicted, dead. I discipline them, I teach them, I caution them, and I love them.

And people who turn from God, who reject Him, are walking dead. No offense intended.
In a harsh world, all those years ago, building a nation from a stubborn, wilful people required harsh measures.

Something I can nearly totally agree with. Without morals and rules I'm sure that any children I have in the future, or myself, would have or will end up broken, lost, drug-addicted and dead. I was disciplined, I was taught and I was cautioned and I was loved. However... is love necessary? Once again, it's a tangent and I won't go into it (too many words again.. I think it's a 4000 word essay I've got somewhere where I had to do it for one of last years essays

However, I'm not sure that I agree that people who turn from God, who reject him, are walking dead. I have turned from God, I have rejected him, and I'm pretty sure I'm not dead. It may be, if God exists and if he cares about one life amongst 6 billion, that in later life I will suffer - I know I'm suffering now, with a few family problems going on, but ones that I will pull through, as always - but I will use the suffering, as an non-worshipper (particulary important to clarify the difference between worship and belief), to make myself a better person. As indeed, many people do. However, if God retaliates against everyone that has turned from him, what will happen? He will be lowered to the status of human, something or someone that has to strike back.

If you turn from God, God may despair, but you are not walking dead because of salvation and love that God supposedly has for everyone everywhere. Is this right?

The kingdom is within you, when you become a Christian. Christ dwells within.

He corrected me anyway. *sighs*

Not at all. Salvation is right through the entire Bible. Just as JESUS is throughout the bible. He is mentioned in *every* book. But you do not see him, because you do not know where to look. That might sound patronising, but that is not my intent. I am simply calling it how I see it. - - http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/jesus66books.htm

It's pretty clear to me that you have read the Bible but not spent time studying it. Seriously. The objections you are raising appear to be ad hoc, not the result of enquiry from indepth reading / study.
Again, no insult intended in any way. If you really want your questions answered, and certainly there are much better people to ask than me, you need to spend time, eg on

http://www.bethinking.org/
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
http://www.bibletruths.net/
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

I must congratulate you on your long posts, but I fear if I reply in my own way to each question, they will become the longest posts on hexus.

Ooh.. I get study materials. I will browse through these and make another 20000 character post later. Raise a few questions sort of thing.

Jesus is mentioned in Genesis? Strange. I'll have a more indepth read through the Bible at some point. Yes, I mostly just read it, but I have gone into some detail in some parts of the bible (mostly because they were the ones that I had the most trouble understanding at the tender age of 11/12 when I first read it.) If you have no objections, I might ask you some questions that I asked some other Christians. So far I've not had a consistent answer for any of them.

As for sounding patronising, you need to meet my local clergy. I detest them, no offence meant to them, as one of them is totally patronising, another one doesn't care and the last one is uncomfortable to speak with (mostly because her and some other people that I know within the church have had their differences repeatedly.) It causes problems.

I can raise more indepth questions, but hesitated to do so out of fear of hitting three posts in one post.... Which, with the amount of questions I can raise in genesis alone I can probably do.

As for becoming the longest poster... Well.. it'll get me SOME recognition on the forum

I just reread through the rest of your post. Lots of points to answer, but just want to pick Solomon's bigamy: where did it lead him? To destruction. Was his bigamy inspired by God? Desired by God? Applauded by God? Nope x 3.

But his bigamy WASN'T the feature in his destruction. His bigamy was taken for granted, and was normal for the time. And as for inspired by God - isn't God the one that says that if I die my brother should marry my wife? And as far as I know, it doesn't even mention things like whether or not my brother is already married. So yes, it's inspired by God, and desired by God and possibly applauded by God.

I'll repeat it again. At the time, bigamy was taken for granted. It was acceptable, especially amongst the great kings and emporers of the time - which Solomon undoubtedly would have been considered as. Other famous characters in the bible had plenty of wives, but they are only mentioned in passing. I have a feeling Adam had lots of wives, although Eve was most favoured amongst them, but this might be wrong. It might be some of his descendants.

oh, and as before, the NT Bible is NOT edited to be full of errors. those london floods? for Christians only

I didn't say it was edited to be full of errors. I said it was edited to remove things. There is a difference between errors and eradication. One I'm sure you'll appreciate.

my point too - I was not talking about education.

I'm the result of three stages of education. Panic.

[mediaboy]

yes, not to add or delete from the Bible, but that is different from saying how one approaches the text itself. Objection dismissed.



you're going to come unstuck here:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is one God who has revealed Himself in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons make up the one true God. These three persons are of the same substance, equal in power and glory. It is important we understand this doctrine because the wrong Jesus or the wrong God cannot save us from eternal death. Paul makes a clear warning of this in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

The Bible clearly states that there is only one God. Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Isaiah 44:6 states, "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides me." Clearly, these verses reveal that there is only one God. Yet, there are three separate persons in the Bible who are called God and have the characteristics only God can have. The Trinity is a difficult concept to grasp, because we are finite beings trying to explain an infinite God who is beyond our understanding.

Just out of sheer curiousity, what would you say to the quotation of Exodus 20|3 "Worship no god but me." Which, to me, implies that there are more Gods than just God.... of course - this is up to debate.

Let's take a look at some verses that back up our doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is obviously called God as seen throughout the Bible. No one will argue that point. So there is one member of the Trinity, the Father. Jesus the Son, is a separate person but He is also called God. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Titus 2:13 says, "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." So here we see clearly, the Son is also called God.

The full text from Titus 2|13 is: as we wait for the blessed day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ will appear. To me, this can be read one of two ways. One, "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" showing that Jesus Christ is both God and Saviour, or however, read as "our Great God, and Saviour Jesus Christ" which would tie in with the Prophets (cannot find the numbers quickly) as it is said "The Saviour is Coming." Of course, it's open to interpretation.

The Holy Spirit is also a separate person, and He is also called God. First, let us understand, the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force. He is a person and has the characteristics of a person. He can be grieved (Eph. 4:30), He speaks (Acts 13:2), and He can be lied to (Act 5:3-4). In Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is called God, "But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?...You have not lied to men, but to God.'"

So there are three persons in the Bible, and all three are called God. Yet there is only one God according to Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah 44:6. Therefore, the Trinity is made up of three separate persons who are the one true God.

I'll concede here. I don't have the knowledge or evidence to support my own personal views so will

I assume you're referring to John 14:28: "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."

however, the word 'greater' does not mean 'better'. Greater refers to position, not nature. In Philippians 2:6-8, Christ though He was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself and submitted Himself to the Father and took on the form of a servant. Though Jesus emptied Himself, He was always in nature God and equal to the Father in nature. If Jesus wanted to say He was inferior to God in nature, He would have said, "The Father is better than I."


Same logic applies to 1 Corinthians 11:3.

Someone that knows the chapter's and numbers that I can't just reel off like this! Are you actually remembering these or are these coming off of a website?

However it's besides the point. Greater at the time in position rather than nature? Similar to heaven meaning sky and paradise meaning a good place. God was, at the time, a sky dwelling being, that looked down on earth. Thus originating the theory that heaven is somehow above us and hell beneath us (it's actually very impressive this... as hell is percieved as fiery and beneath us is a giant furnace...) If you are going to use the language of the time in one part of the bible, use it in another as well. It's at times like this that I wish I had the time and patience to learn hebrew, latin and greek and read the original (or as original as you can get) transcriptions of the bible. But I don't have that luxury and so am making do with a slightly lesser version translated into English for school children ()

Apart from my small regrets however, this is good logic and certainly could be considered proof.

The deity of Christ: John 20:28, where Thomas, after seeing the resurrected Lord, proclaims to Jesus," My Lord and My God." Here, Thomas calls Jesus God. One might have two responses to this. One, you may say, "Well, Thomas was so surprised at seeing Jesus that he shouted, 'My Lord and My God,' in surprise just as we shout, 'Oh, my God,' when we're surprised." There's a problem with that. Thomas was a devout Jew and never would have shouted "my God" in surprise for that would be blasphemy for a Jew. A second response could be, Thomas looked at Jesus and said, "My Lord," then looked to heaven and said, "My God." There's a problem with that too because the context does not say that. Thomas says, "My Lord and My God" to Jesus. So Thomas saw clearly that Jesus was God.

also:
Revelation 1:8. "I am the Alpha and the Omega"
Revelation 22:12-13. "Look I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me....I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Revelation 22: 16. "I Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." It is Jesus speaking in verse twelve. If there is any doubt go to verse 20 which says, "He that bears witness of these things says, 'Yes; I am coming quickly' Amen come Lord Jesus." So it is clear that the Alpha and the Omega in verse twelve is Jesus. This illustrates that Jesus is God because both Jehovah and Jesus are called the Alpha and the Omega.

also: Isaiah 44:6. "This is what Jehovah has said, 'The king of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, I am the first and I am the last.'"

and then Revelation 1:17-18 which says, "Do not be fearful; I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead but look! I am living forever." Who is speaking here? Obviously, it is Jesus for He died but is now alive, and He is called the First and the Last. Here again we see Jesus IS God.

The end of a very long list of impressive and relevant quotations. In everyone you see the triplicity (is this a word) of Father, Son and Spirit. However, we're talking about Jesus after ressurection. Is it not posisble that, if Jesus of Nazareth - who yes existed, with conclusive proof that he did exist - was ever ressurected it was through the power of a God, who possibly exists. If this power brought him back from the dead, would not part of the spirit of that power then lie upon the person, or alternatively, through death the spirits of father and son combining into one, create that duplicity that Thomas saw, and later, with Jesus having ascended then become a triplicate causing the memories and spirit (or soul) of all three beings to be combined, resulting in the words that come in Revelation (which is well worth reading for those that haven't already.)

However, it's a long and wordy explanatoin for oppose what Christian's believe through faith.

To say EVERY POV is nonsensical. How would one know whether one has considered every POV or not? Wouldn't each person have a new POV?

Yes, once again, my poor checking and rechecking. It would have been better to say from as many POVs as possible... to allow things to be seen to you, from new points, to test your faith and to help strengthen your belief.

Faith is there to be tested, and belief there to be strengthened.

Have you ever gone through the bible purely objevtively, questioning anything that doesn't fit in with your view? This is what happened to me... only no one knew the answers to the questions I asked. They told me to take it on faith that God had a meaning in there that supported their view. Hence why I'm a non-worshipper.

Yes, anyone can read it, anyone can read (eg) the 10 Commandments and get good guidance from them. But there is mystery in certain parables, words, explanations that Christ uses, that are only accessible with His help. In order to get to HIS meaning on certain verses, to be able to put oneself to the side, to get beyond one's ego and context and agenda, requires His help. There are absolutely certain meanings one can only understand once one becomes a Christian. There are others that will lead one to become a Christian etc.

You can read the Bible as a dry document. That does not mean you will get His intention from it.

I can read the Bible how I want. And that means I'll get whatever my intention at the time was. As you pointed out, earlier in the thread, people use the bible to argue, which I used to do.

It's a long time since I read it for belief terms, and you should feel gratified that tonight I'm going to sit down with pen and paper and diligently write down every question that I want answering about the bible, including relevant Chapters/Verses... Should take me a week or so, but I'm on school holidays so have the spare time.

hehehe. looked at that one. You're quoting a source that lists UFOs in the Bible? Lol.

Erm... yep... I can use sources that list UFOs in the bible. It doesn't mean that I have to believe that that bit of the bible is true. It's like communism. Some parts of that are acceptable, but as an entirity it's not. Besides, they were quick sources, not exactly ones I'd call reliable. I've got some books on this somewhere, but have too many books total to dig 'em out and post titles.... The problems of being a biblioholic.

you're mixing things up here. By textual accuracy, I meant corroboration that the original *content* is the same now as it ever has been. There are 45 verses which have been 'added' in some translations, but they are clearly marked as such, and left in for they in no way contradict the existing content. Views change but the content has not.

And the more OT texts that come to light show the same, though it is a much harder project, since papyrus disintegrates, as do clay tablets etc. But more is coming to light all the time.

But the original content may not have been accurate is MY point. I'm not arguing about the original content, as the bible was convened by Nicea. I'm arguing about what happened BEFORE Nicea made the bible.

[fuddam]

My apologies, my own post was a little unclear there. It's the problem of writing so many words... checking it still leaves some mistakes

me too

God doesn't punish those that forgive, although in the Old Testaments in some places God doesn't give them a chance to forgive, but just smashes them apart.

He doesn't punish those that ASK FOR FORGIVENESS, repent, and turn to Him.

For instance, in Sodom and Gommorah - your own examples - he does not tell them to repent, but rather instructs one man to find some good familes amongst them. That isn't forgiving them, that's trying to find the people that aren't bad. As it is, those families that are good are told to leave the city then the rest of the city is eradicated like vermin. Is that forgiveness?

he doesn't forgive unless they ASK for forgiveness, from Him. It would be pointless if God simply forgave people for anything they did, any time. That would relieve one of any responsibility for one's actions.

Creating evil: God did not. And it existed before the earth was created. etc etc. Agreed that we can discuss this at length, but exactly how and why sin was allowed into Eden is another subject, and one we might not find a conclusion for here and now.

And the people bringing about their own punishment? You mean other people punish the criminals according to the laws that God has set down to be followed, and that if aren't followed mean that those people are followed?

I meant, like a disobedient child brings ruin on him/herself, by their very disobedience.

...and I was loved. However... is love necessary?

absolutely. without love, a child will become dysfunctional in the extreme, no matter how well its other needs are met (food, shelter etc)

However, I'm not sure that I agree that people who turn from God, who reject him, are walking dead. I have turned from God, I have rejected him, and I'm pretty sure I'm not dead. It may be, if God exists and if he cares about one life amongst 6 billion, that in later life I will suffer - I know I'm suffering now, with a few family problems going on, but ones that I will pull through, as always - but I will use the suffering, as an non-worshipper (particulary important to clarify the difference between worship and belief), to make myself a better person. As indeed, many people do. However, if God retaliates against everyone that has turned from him, what will happen?

hehehe. When I wrote 'walking dead', I knew it would be a troublesome term. It's not something I've used before, but let me explain more fully. My meaning is that unless a person accepts salvation from Christ, they have no future. They cannot be cleansed of sin by any other means, and as such, cannot stand in the presence of God after they die. They therefore will be eternally separated from God. so, in a sense, their future holds only death, albeit they are still physically alive.

If you turn from God, God may despair, but you are not walking dead because of salvation and love that God supposedly has for everyone everywhere. Is this right?

Well, ONLY if you accept that love and salvation. That is the power each individual has - the freedom to make that choice.

But his bigamy WASN'T the feature in his destruction. His bigamy was taken for granted, and was normal for the time. And as for inspired by God - isn't God the one that says that if I die my brother should marry my wife? And as far as I know, it doesn't even mention things like whether or not my brother is already married. So yes, it's inspired by God, and desired by God and possibly applauded by God.

very succinct explanation of bigamy and Solomon: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...m-solomon.html

The bigamy was a symptom of his disobedience.

brother marrying wife: that was an injunction to protect the widow. In that time, without any welfare system, it was very dangerous for a woman to be on her own. This law was a means of protecting that woman, providing her with food, shelter, protection etc. The brother was assumed to be single NOT married.

I didn't say it was edited to be full of errors. I said it was edited to remove things. There is a difference between errors and eradication. One I'm sure you'll appreciate.

understood. but it was not edited to remove errors. Can prove that conclusively, if needs be.

[Zak33]

My go:

This thread is amazing, in the extreme. OK, it started out a little messy, but Moby cleaned it up (good work bud) and Stewart, who I feel is properly interested, as am I, and I suspect Saracen in the debate, asked god questions. He also writes like a god himself (no pun intended) and should be in a job where he is allowed to do so 100% of the time, because no one else makes me laugh so much in an opening post.

Fuddam rocks... mate, you are amazing. It's not a religious fervour that makes you reply so well, nor even I suspect, simply a need to defend your faith, but a genuine interest in teaching and explaining.

When I did O level English Lit I became angry at why the teachers (and later, examiners) insisted on disecting each book and making their own judgements of what the author "meant" or was "expressing". It wound me up that I couldnt simply read the book and simply enjoy it as a story.

I feel the same about the Bible. It was read, by millions, and different thingsd were believed from it. I may, one day, read it, or a part of it. But I am scared that I'll find that people read into it in a different way to my understanding, and I'll be drawn into that /this debate.

And I'm afraid of what people will think of me for reading it. and I dont normally care WHAT people think of me for other stuff.
How awful is that? I'd rather be seen reading a badly drawn comic, or a copy of "Take a Break" than the Bible.
Religion needs a PR job doing.

[fuddam]

Just out of sheer curiousity, what would you say to the quotation of Exodus 20|3 "Worship no god but me." Which, to me, implies that there are more Gods than just God.... of course - this is up to debate.

we can make a god out of anything. It does not have to be a sentient being. It could be power, money, fame, another person, materialism, any idol. Your point appreciated though.

It's at times like this that I wish I had the time and patience to learn hebrew, latin and greek and read the original (or as original as you can get) transcriptions of the bible.

agreed - I wish I did, though I have many friends who do. And we always have to return to such, or trust those who translate for us, since it can be so easy to misunderstand the meaning / context.

But the original content may not have been accurate is MY point. I'm not arguing about the original content, as the bible was convened by Nicea. I'm arguing about what happened BEFORE Nicea made the bible.

oh, have more than enough info on exactly that, if you want

[mediaboy]

Anyway, I'm stealing Stewart's thread... maybe I should wait for him to post before I post more things. Just started reading through those links fuddam....

[TeePee]

Religion needs a PR job doing.

This is what I'm saying!

There are countless examples of 'Evil God Theory' in the OT, and non-christians read this stuff and take it as face value. Soddom and Gomorrah and Lot are a perfect example. Lot is the one good man in the city, chosen by god, but when the crowd comes banging on his door he offers up his virgin daughters to be raped to protect his guests. He later get's drunk and rapes them himself. Someone who isn't christian would see this as a horrible story of an evil man protected by an evil god.

This is why the bible should be revised, both for non-christians so that they too can understand the real messages that christians want to pass along, and for christians, so that they don't have to constantly defend the bible, when their religion is somethng very different.

It's a PR job!

There's no need to be so protective of it, there are so many different versions already, that it's impossible to claim it's original, or has no mistranslation and errors. If that were true, why would the be a 'New Improved Version'? You'd still have a Wycliffe bible! And of course, it's widely known that the 'virgin birth' is itself a mistranslation.

[mediaboy]

This is what I'm saying!

As much as I talk about stealing Stewart's thread... I can't let this post go by without commenting.. Say I'm playing Devil's Advocate, whatever, but I think this is a little extreme.

There are countless examples of 'Evil God Theory' in the OT, and non-christians read this stuff and take it as face value. Soddom and Gomorrah and Lot are a perfect example. Lot is the one good man in the city, chosen by god, but when the crowd comes banging on his door he offers up his virgin daughters to be raped to protect his guests. He later get's drunk and rapes them himself. Someone who isn't christian would see this as a horrible story of an evil man protected by an evil god.

I'm sorry? What are you talking about? Direct Quote:

Genesis 19|4-11.

Before the guests went to bed, the men of Sodom surrounded the house. All the men of the city, both young and old, were there. They called out to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us!" The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them.

Lot went outside and closed the door behind him. He said to them "Friends, I beg you, odn't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who are still virgins. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do whatever you want with them. But don't do anything to these men; they are guests in my house, and I must protect them."

But they said, "Get out of our way, you foreigner! Whoare you to tell us what to do? Out of our way, or we will treat you worse than them." They pushed Lot back and moved up to break down the door.

But the two men inside reached out, Pulled Lot back into the house, and shut the door. Then they struck all the men outside with blindness, so that they couldn't see.



So tell me.. where does it say that Lot raped his daughters? Maybe, yes, he gave them up to be raped, but no where does HE rape them. You're wrong. And how is this an evil God? God protects those women and those men inside of the house, those that are pure and clean of harm.

Yes later on, the WOMEN rape LOT... but Lot doesn't rape the women, and they only rape him to establish their survival and the continuance of the race. Like I said. You're wrong.

This is why the bible should be revised, both for non-christians so that they too can understand the real messages that christians want to pass along, and for christians, so that they don't have to constantly defend the bible, when their religion is somethng very different.

It's a PR job!

So we should edit the bible so that it doesn't offend people? Maybe we should do this to the Qu'ran and the Jewish books and the Hindu ones as well. Let's edit all the holy books to be consistent with this time.... and make it so that non-believers can understand the messages. So answer me this... who is going to revise it?

We'll go from a version of the bible which has, yes, been compiled by people over time, to one compiled by one person. In effect, the Bible will lose the majority of the message. One person can only establish one viewpoint, and most religions are about your own personal beliefs, and your own interpretations of that religion. (To the best of my knowledge anyway)

There's no need to be so protective of it, there are so many different versions already, that it's impossible to claim it's original, or has no mistranslation and errors. If that were true, why would the be a 'New Improved Version'? You'd still have a Wycliffe bible! And of course, it's widely known that the 'virgin birth' is itself a mistranslation.

Virgin birth is a mistranslation? I didn't know that.

Source please?

[Scientist]

So tell me.. where does it say that Lot raped his daughters? Maybe, yes, he gave them up to be raped, but no where does HE rape them. You're wrong. And how is this an evil God? God protects those women and those men inside of the house, those that are pure and clean of harm.

You see this kind of statement irritates me.

Did god protect his daughters while he was happily offering them up to gang rape?

[mediaboy]

From a purely Christian perspective, possibly.

However, God also has freewill... meaning that he gave Lot the choice to do as he wished.... and I said he protects those inside the house. As demonstrated by when Lot steps outside he is then grabbed and shoved aside.

However, when Lot is rescued by his compatroits, the abusers are then struck blind.... if indeed his daughter's would ever be raped indeed...

"The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them."
The men of Sodom are gay... was Lot simply trying to distract them? Or are you saying that they were all bisexual?

[schmunk]

Virgin birth is a mistranslation? I didn't know that.

Source please?

I've about 282,000 here.

I'm surprised that, for a man so well read, you're not aware of the widely accepted understanding that the 'virgin' birth is merely a poor translation from Hebrew to Greek.

Even Rowan Williams admits it's a mistranslation, and surely you've heard of him.

[TeePee]

Gen. 19:30-38.

Of course, the bible says they seduced him, but we all know how well that defense holds up in court!

In actuality, this is the product of a patriachial society seeking to make the victims responsible for their own abuse.

[Koolpc]

This is an interesting thread.

[mediaboy]

TeePee - that's what I was talking about. I only wrote out the earlier verses becaues that's what I thought you were talking about.. then I looked at the later verses and realised you meant a slightly later bit on as well.

And they didn't seduce him, they filled him so full of drink that "He was so drunk, that he didn't know it" (Gen 19|33)

I'm not so sure, but I get the feeling, as I said, that THEY raped HIM.. making him the abused and the victim.

And koolpc - isn't there a rule against that type of posting?

[TeePee]

Come on, the story has to be viewed within the context of the society of the time. We all damn the fundamentalist islamic society for placing the blame on the innocent victims of rape. Here the bible is doing exactly the same thing and we're supposed to approve of it?

[mediaboy]

Nope, but you should recognise that rape by a female towards a male is a possible thing, and that in this case it is entirely possible - if not fitting with the times - that the women raped the men.

And the innocent victims of rape? There's no mention of rape in those verses of the bible, and the bible don't exactly stint on mentioning stuff like that.

Of course, it's unlikely, but I have the uncommon decency to take the bible at it's word rather than try to dissect every other word (which I know some people do, and which I'm intending on doing over the next few weeks... just to get some questions to ask those good Christians on here...)

Of course, you can read the bible however you want. As it has been repeatedly pointed out on this topic, people use the bible, and their interpretation of it, to further their own points of view.