ASK A CHRISTIAN (respectful debate and questions welcomed)
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I hate when people say that.
Aaaand Bingo! he just did it!
We don't know God BECAUSE of faith. We have faith in God because we know He is real. Knowledge comes first, But its God that gives the saving knowledge of who He is.
"We have faith in God because we know He is real. "
No you don't, Hitchens's razor applied.
This is getting circular, Spurgeon claims, produces nothing new as evidence and then reclaim using a collection of old myths and tales of dubious origin.
Whats with the guy that's willing to sell his daughters, so the angels don't get butt fucked.
@Basileus Re: Angels needing protection
Ya know, my wife and I have often wondered about that ourselves. Why in the world would angels (sent by God) need to be protected from mere mortals? Did they forget to charge the batteries in their force-field power packs, or maybe they were in a hurry and forgot the power packs altogether? Then that begs the question, does the force-field batteries also supply power for the flight abilities, or is it a separate power system? Because, otherwise, how are they to get back up into heaven and report to God for the debrief? Is there a technical manual out there for that stuff?
U should ask the child mo, I mean Catholics. They know this kind of stuff.
I’ll try to answer the angels needing protection. Short answer. They didn’t. But if Lot had handed them over, then he would’ve shown that he doesn’t have respect for angels. Lot did hand over his daughters and the same logic follows. It actually shows he doesn’t have respect for his daughters. This isn’t one of Lot’s better judgements.
@Joc: "This isn’t one of Lot’s better judgements."
It's a horror story. First he offers his young daughters to be raped. Later he has sex with them.
It's an appalling precedent of disrespect for women and children. I wonder why it's in the book. What lesson are we supposed to learn from this supposedly righteous man?
All of the biblical stories illustrate one or more of the Ten Commandments. The Lot story seems to illustrate the 10th Commandment, about not boiling a young goat in its mother's milk. Lot and his daughters sacrificed their future for a short-term gain.
You mean Lot sacrificed his daughters for Lot's short term gain?
They all sacrificed their futures for short-time gains.
The daughters wanted to have children so that their father's lineage wouldn't die out. They could have searched for other male relatives to knock them up but they decided to go with daddy.
The older daughter's son was Moab and his tribe the Moabites worshiped the god Chemosh. All of the other locals were always beating the crap out of them.
The younger daughter's son was Ammi and his tribe was the Ammonites. Even though Yahweh helped the Ammonites he barred them and the Moabites from becoming part of Israel for ten generations.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/racial%20tolerance/dt23_03a.html 5 pictures.
Lot had sort of been deemed to have been a righteous person, which is why he was saved from the Sodom disaster. But after he knocked up his daughters he was never mentioned again in the fairy tale. In essence, he had lost his salvation.
So the story illustrates several points.
1. Even if you have been saved you can lose your salvation by doing bad deeds.
2. The story illustrates the First Commandment about not worshiping other Gods. Freedom of religion isn't allowed.
3. Children bear the sins of their fathers.
4. The story also reinforces the idea expressed in Sirach 16:1 (CEB) = "Don’t wish for a multitude of worthless children, and don’t be glad about sons and daughters if they are ungodly."
5. The story also highlights the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus chapter 20 and the punishment for violating them.
Never does the book actually say that these acts are righteous. It’s actually pretty clear that these aren’t righteous acts.
If you read the text carefully, you actually get that Lot doesn’t have sex with his daughters. His daughters actually rape him. This ia actually a form of punishment for when Lot offers his daughters to be raped. Poetic justice, if you ask me.
True the same Bible calls Lot a righteous man but never does it say that all righteous men in the Bible haven’t done bad things. The exact opposite is actually true. Almost all men in the Bible are shown to be sinful. And almost always, their sins come back to bite them in the future.
Whether they repent or not is what determines their “righteousness”
JoC "If you read the text carefully, you actually get that Lot doesn’t have sex with his daughters."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept 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 slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep 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 in and slept 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. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[a]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[b]; he is the father of the Ammonites[c] of today.
I'm highly dubious, you're clutching at straws here. Do you think it is ok to have sex when you're so drunk you have trouble remembering it?
Actually, you just put it into words. Did Lot have sex with his daughters? Or was he raped by his daughters when his daughters got him drunk?
JoC "Whether they repent or not is what determines their “righteousness”"
So as a Catholic Hitler could be righteous if he'd repented and shown genuine contrition at the end? That's one hell of a system.
JoC you missed my question here....
"Mon, 01/01/2018 - 07:01 (Reply to #41)Permalink
JoC "Whether they repent or not is what determines their “righteousness”"
So as a Catholic Hitler could be righteous if he'd repented and shown genuine contrition at the end? That's one hell of a system."
Well, Hitler’s actions don’t really say any of that. A genuine act of contrition would involve reparation for the wrong he did. If he did do that, then I’d say yes. As he did a lot of evil, he’d need to a lot of reparation for his wrongs.
Not one of his better judgements, offering his own daughters to be gang raped? I'd say that was something of an understatement, it is a truly evil act by any standard. Now how did God punish Lot for such an evil act of depravity? Isn't Lot offered up in the bible as an example of a righteous man? Singled out even from an entire city.
Didn't he (Lot) also have an incestuous relationship with his daughters and father a son that was also his grandson? This doesn't ring true does it.
As Lot offers his daughters to be raped, he himself is raped by his daughters in a later chapter.
I fail to see how this makes him righteous? Nor does the bible mention rape, that is your subjective interpretation, and getting drunk and having an incestuous relationship with your daughters is hardly comparable to being offered up by your own father to be gang raped. This is one hell of a system though, where evil and barbarically depraved acts can be expunged by a single act of contrition and credulity. but a lifetime of good and moral acts will be punished by an eternity of torture if you fail to choose the right version of the right deity, or any at all because it refuses to offer me any evidence it even exists.
That act doesn’t dictate his righteousness. It’s what follows that makes him righteous. Again, look at the whole text.
@Tin-man: "Why in the world would angels (sent by God) need to be protected from mere mortals?"
John Travolta would have kicked those Sodomites' asses.
His name was Lot
Context: Abraham was told by God that He would destroy Sodom and Ghamora. Abraham thought that was too much and asked if he could find 10 righteous men would God spare the city. God agreed, even though He knew Lot would be the only one.
When the story of Lot come around, he is being Tested by God to display his righteousness or bring it to fruition if you will. The crowd comes for the men, Lot offers them, women, knowing they are interested in men and wouldnt want his daughters, which only made them angry.
This has nothing to do with his daughters getting him drunk and raping him. That, no matter how we look at it, is a good thing. And a seperate issue all together.
US, you wrote, “Lot offers them, women, knowing they are interested in men and wouldnt want his daughters,”
Where does it say this?
1) Why on earth did you come here?
2) Can you provide any legitimate proof of a god? What I mean is, can you actually prove a god without gaps? I don't want any nonsense about "cause and effect" or the "world seems organized" or personal testimony, or biblical quotes, or anything like that. I want tangible facts.
3) And for cryin' out loud don't call atheism a faith, it isn't!
A fact is an abstraction and cannot be tangible.
@Matt Slick .....
"A fact is an abstraction and cannot be tangible"....
I'm afraid that's not a fact .....
its Absolute Nonesense .....
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation:
a thing that is known or proved to be true:
information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
used to refer to a particular situation under discussion:
Please don't try to misuse / redefine the language..... it's a bit of a give away really ......
it shows you know your in the wrong.
Really Matt Slick? You are saying that facts are abstract? That's absurd. Facts are tangible. They are verified, substantiated. That is what a fact is. You are making an excuse before the fact to downplay facts because you KNOW that faith can't stand up to real scrutiny.