Vagon said: "Today's Christian Memory Verse"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 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." (Gen. 19:4-8)
This seems very interesting to me. What is God saying here?"
Ray responds: "Vagon...good question. God is showing us the some people are stupid (as Lot was in this case). It's a good lesson. Thanks for bringing it up."
So, just to check the meaning of this, it's perfectly acceptable to do something that a child would know was unconscionably wrong, as long as you're being stupid. There will be no negative comeback, and you will not be held accountable for your actions.
Like to see that in a court of law:
'Your honour, I realise that committing genocide is wrong, but at the time I wanted to know if shooting people would result in their tears being made of pewter.'
'No problem; dismissed.'
Incidentally, acccording to Biblical law that if the two daughters are, as he says, virgins, then they're obliged to marry their rapist. One wonders how this is worked out in a gang rape situation? Does the first rapist become the husband and thus all the subsequent rapes become adulterous? And are they subject to the law that says that if a woman is raped within the city walls she should be stoned to death because she clearly didn't shout loudly enough? The viciousness and illogicallity of these immoral 'laws' rapidly becomes too heavy to manage.
Not a newsflash, but 'The Bible; a crock of rancid shit'.
Posts
BSH said-
ReplyDelete"So,... it's perfectly acceptable to do something that a child would know was unconscionably wrong, as long as you're being stupid."
That would explain a lot about Ray Comfort and other evangelical fundamentalists.
word ver - turfun
Ray's response reiterates the notion that he's full of shit, and that he knows this.
ReplyDeleteword ver = proved (ha!)
I don't know about the bible being "a crock of rancid shit," though in the hands of people like Ray Comfort it does seem like that is true.
ReplyDeleteI do find it interesting in what it says about human nature. Look at the Israelites: they see the various plagues being visited upon their Egyptian overlords, they see the parting of the Red Sea, and as soon as Moses takes off for a minute, they're back to worshipping the golden calf. That point, I think, is that it is simply impossible to overestimate human stupidity.
Mind you, now that there is Ray Comfort, perhaps we no longer need the bible to make that point.
Cheers.
But hang on, Alex; for the Bible to tell us anything really profound, it would need to be true, and that's (at best) by no means certain!
ReplyDeleteThat the Bible manadates a code of behaviour which we are supposed to believe comes from an all powerful creator, and yet which is so patantly a product of small minded ignorance, leads me to have no qualms about damning its value.
If we could prove its authenticity or substantiate the existence of the God it postulates, then it might tell us something interesting (and depressing) about human nature, but as long as those things are in doubt, then I do not see it illuminates anything.
I do find it interesting in what it says about human nature. Look at the Israelites: they see the various plagues being visited upon their Egyptian overlords, they see the parting of the Red Sea, and as soon as Moses takes off for a minute, they're back to worshipping the golden calf. That point, I think, is that it is simply impossible to overestimate human stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI think it says more about the nature of God than about human nature. If God were really God and did the things the bible says he did then why do humans constantly fail to acknowledge this fact?
Take Judas for example. Unless he was a devil incarnate (and if he was, Jesus certainly would know about it) how could he have lived and worked with GOD in human flesh and then turned around and betrayed him? He was an intimate companion of God and still did not see it. That says to me that Jesus, if he existed, was an ordinary man who did not perform extraordinary miracles. If I saw a preacher today raise people from the dead, heal cripples & lepers, walk on water, change water to wine, feeds thousands, etc. I would think twice about double crossing him.
The bible is full of people acting as if God is not all powerful and all knowing and ignoring the most amazing miracles. My guess is that the people are right. There is no all powerful all knowing God and amazing miracles do not occur.
I don't disagree with BaldySlaphead or Milo. I think in part I just wanted to point out that meaning and truth should not be conflated: a novel or a poem can say meaningful things about the human condition without being true.
ReplyDeleteAnd Milo, what struck me when I first heard those stories as a wee lad was exactly what you allude to, i.e. how can those people see what they have seen and yet not believe?
Anybody ask Ray lately how that Russian invasion of Israel is going?
ReplyDelete[That point, I think, is that it is simply impossible to overestimate human stupidity.]
ReplyDeleteYou never know Alex. There are some people who ling to their feeble beliefs no matter how much they see everything that contradicts their worldview.(Some people are really that stubborn and stupid.)And we know from the long history of dead Gods Clos pointed out recently that mankind has a tendency to invent false Gods to avoid accounting to the real God. Humans can make excuses and rationalise for a lot of things.
Mr. Freethinker:
ReplyDeleteI don't get your point about people inventing false gods to avoid having to believe in the real one. All of the "dead" gods were considered to be the "real one(s) by their followers, so i assume that this discussion is predicated on the assumption that all god(s) are fictions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMrFree wrote:
ReplyDelete"And we know from the long history of dead Gods Clos pointed out recently that mankind has a tendency to invent false Gods to avoid accounting to the real God."
MFT: 99.9% of them had never heard about your 'real' god. They invented supernatural beings because they needed to have an easily comprehensible reason for lightning, spring, and every other thing they didn't understand and couldn't explain.
Just like presuppositionalists do with the rules of logic.
Edited for typo's. Twice, because I suck.
BaldySlaphead said...
ReplyDeleteBut hang on, Alex; for the Bible to tell us anything really profound, it would need to be true...
I gotta disagree. A lot of fables act as good frameworks and I think the bible is useful in this regard.
Its also an interesting read in parts and serves as a another indication of the power and influence of religion.
The best bit about Lot's story is when his daughters get him pissed and have sex with him in a cave:
ReplyDeleteGenesis 19.
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.
32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father."
35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.
You (almost) couldn't make it up.
"Whoever made this post should read the bible though."
ReplyDeleteI have thanks. It's because I've read it that I reject it.
"Lot was comparatively righteous(as Sodom was filled with gangs of lecherous homosexuals who raped men)."
'Comparatively righteous'? This is a bit like arguing "Jeffrey Dahmer was comparatively innocent compared to Stalin" and thinking there's any profudity to what you've said.
"What Lot did was still wrong and stupid, though it was to protect his guests."
Durr. There's no question that it was wrong and stupid. It was palpably immoral. If he was really a decent man and seriously considered the only way to save his daughters and his guests was to offer someone to the crowd, he would have offered himself. The point is that the same God who apparently thinks that looking at a woman lustfully is the same as screwing her, yet does not hold Lot responsible for his thoughts, and according to Raymundo, Lot's get out clause is that he was being stupid.
Er... Enter the Inconsistancy Police...
"And the Mosaic Law regulations concerning rape and marriage weren't instituted until long after Lot's time."
That's a fair point, though hopefully you recognise I was just being out and out facetious by that stage.
Additionally, if you're going to go down this road, perhaps you could explain, since the Bible does not condemn homosexuality until Leviticus 18:12, what basis do you have for condemning the inhabitants of Soddom and Gomorrah for their sexual proclivities..?
Vagon said: "I gotta disagree. A lot of fables act as good frameworks and I think the bible is useful in this regard.
ReplyDelete"Its also an interesting read in parts and serves as a another indication of the power and influence of religion."
OK, I can accept that; on that basis it has the same value as any literature, and yes, that can be instructive. However, if you read Farenheit 451 (for example) any insights into human nature that one may glean are as a consequence of it illuminating real world behaviour.
Where's the great insight into human behaviour as a consequence of the Israelite's return to pagan idols? Since we have no reason to believe God actually exists, what should we take from this? What real world experiences should be illuminated by this?
Sorry, Ray said "mistake", you said "wrong and stupid". Those words still don't cover one tenth of the atrocity.
ReplyDelete