British and Christian and Proud

[thetank]

Gotta stick up for steeley here.

The Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of tales and parables that can be interpreted in multiple ways. At no point have I seen steeley post that he takes everything as a literally as a skimming atheist would have him.
He is a man of admirable faith.


FWIW My interpreatation of the story in question is somewhat different to AndrewT's.

God does not save Lot from Sodom's destruction just coz Lot offered up his daughters to the mob. As this implies....

And God was so impressed by this that Lot was the only guy that God saw fit to spare the destruction of the city.

The visitors to his house were angels there to take him and his family away from Sodom anyway, and they did not really need protection from the men outside. This is made reasonably clear.

Lot is a good man, and acted as he felt he must, with the ultimate act of sacrifice.
It would still have been noble for him to offer the men outside something else to protect the visitors. Either with his own body (fight me instead) or some sort of monetary arrangement. He instead chose to offer up his daughters.

This could be interpreted as an act of selfishness/cowardice but I don't think it was. God would have seen through this with the old omniscience thing, he can see what is in Lot's heart.
His daughters honor and safety was the dearest thing in the world to him, more than his own safety, honour or possessions, or that of his wife. He offered the greatest thing that he could have lost.

It is this that surprised God I think, I believe that the concept of omniscience is misunderstood. God knows everything that has ever happened, but perhaps not everything that is going to happen. He can know sometimes what will as he knows what everyone is thinking (and so therefore what they are planning to do.)
The human being was granted freewill basically, we can do with it what we please.

This is what I take from the story, this part of the bible is full of examples of this freewill being "misused", letting god down as it were. Lot proves that the opposite is possible too. I think perhaps God expected Lot to defend his angels, but not with such an ultimate act of sacrifice.

I don't consider myself "Christian" but do believe in God. The above is only my interpretation.

I certainly don't think the Bible is telling me to "send out your daughter to be gang-raped to protect a male visitor to your house"
The commands to Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek are kind of a little more explicit, and both come from the New Testament. not really comparable, and I can see how steeley became offended.

[kinboshi]

I suggest you read Genesis Chapter 19.

A couple of angels come to Sodom. Lot let them stay in his house overnight. The men of Sodom surround the house and demand Lot give them the angels to 'know them' (literally, biblically). Lot has a much better idea though.

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.

And God was so impressed by this that Lot was the only guy that God saw fit to spare the destruction of the city.

Old Testament God was a right arsehole.

Mind you, those two daughters did turn out to be a right pair as they both got their father drunk and shagged him in order to get pregnant.

Well, it's meant to be the same fella in the New Testament.  There are still plenty of indications of his vengeful nature and dubious morality:

Try:

2 Thessalonians 1:7–9
2 Thessalonians 2:8
Hebrews 10:28–29
2 Peter 3:7

oh, and whole of Revelations of course.

Even during the well known sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:18–19) the punishment that is going to be handed out to non-believers is not entirely congruous with this image of an all-forgiving god.

[kinboshi]

Gotta stick up for steeley here.

The Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of tales and parables that can be interpreted in multiple ways. At no point have I seen steeley post that he takes everything as a literally as a skimming atheist would have him.
He is a man of admirable faith.


FWIW My interpreatation of the story in question is somewhat different to AndrewT's.

God does not save Lot from Sodom's destruction just coz Lot offered up his daughters to the mob. As this implies....

And God was so impressed by this that Lot was the only guy that God saw fit to spare the destruction of the city.

The visitors to his house were angels there to take him and his family away from Sodom anyway, and they did not really need protection from the men outside. This is made reasonably clear.

Lot is a good man, and acted as he felt he must, with the ultimate act of sacrifice.
It would still have been noble for him to offer the men outside something else to protect the visitors. Either with his own body (fight me instead) or some sort of monetary arrangement. He instead chose to offer up his daughters.

This could be interpreted as an act of selfishness/cowardice but I don't think it was. God would have seen through this with the old omniscience thing, he can see what is in Lot's heart.
His daughters honor and safety was the dearest thing in the world to him, more than his own safety, honour or possessions, or that of his wife. He offered the greatest thing that he could have lost.

It is this that surprised God I think, I believe that the concept of omniscience is misunderstood. God knows everything that has ever happened, but perhaps not everything that is going to happen. He can know sometimes what will as he knows what everyone is thinking (and so therefore what they are planning to do.)
The human being was granted freewill basically, we can do with it what we please.

This is what I take from the story, this part of the bible is full of examples of this freewill being "misused", letting god down as it were. Lot proves that the opposite is possible too. I think perhaps God expected Lot to defend his angels, but not with such an ultimate act of sacrifice.

I don't consider myself "Christian" but do believe in God. The above is only my interpretation.

I certainly don't think the Bible is telling me to "send out your daughter to be gang-raped to protect a male visitor to your house"
The commands to Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek are kind of a little more explicit, and both come from the New Testament. not really comparable, and I can see how steeley became offended.

I'm sorry, but he did offer up his daughters to be gang-raped.

"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."

You might be able to read another interpretation into that - I can't.

It's also interesting what happens after that.  The destruction of the city by god, the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, and then the incestuous impregnation of both of his daughters.  Not really a fantastic moral example for me.

[thetank]

Well, it's meant to be the same fella in the New Testament.  There are still plenty of indications of his vengeful nature and dubious morality:

Try:

2 Thessalonians 1:7–9
2 Thessalonians 2:8
Hebrews 10:28–29
2 Peter 3:7

oh, and whole of Revelations of course.

Even during the well known sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:18–19) the punishment that is going to be handed out to non-believers is not entirely congruous with this image of an all-forgiving god.

I'm torn between two possible interpretations of the fire and brimstone stuff/how can god be loving/forgiving is he's also capable of such bloody revenge.

#1. It's analogous to small print.

Here you go guys, I've made this world place for you to live, you can do what you like. Be a shit, don't be a shit, you don't even have to believe in me if you don't want to.

Matthew 5:18–19 All rights reserved.


#2. Not everyone can be a person of unwavering faith in a world where everyone is free to do as they please (and the resultant shittiness).
Some need a disincentive from wavering from the path.
The fear of hell etc can help some good people stay true, rather than say "bollox to this, I'm off to be shitty to people."

As to whether or not he'll go ahead with it or not, we don't know. Saying it isn't the same as doing it. This could be a big God bluff.

When you die there could be heaven for the faithful, and instead of Hell, just a big void for the sinners.

I'm not sure about any of this, they are just ideas.

[kinboshi]

Well, it's meant to be the same fella in the New Testament.  There are still plenty of indications of his vengeful nature and dubious morality:

Try:

2 Thessalonians 1:7–9
2 Thessalonians 2:8
Hebrews 10:28–29
2 Peter 3:7

oh, and whole of Revelations of course.

Even during the well known sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:18–19) the punishment that is going to be handed out to non-believers is not entirely congruous with this image of an all-forgiving god.

I'm torn between two possible interpretations of the fire and brimstone stuff/how can god be loving/forgiving is he's also capable of such bloody revenge.

#1. It's analogous to small print.

Here you go guys, I've made this world place for you to live, you can do what you like. Be a shit, don't be a shit, you don't even have to believe in me if you don't want to.

Matthew 5:18–19 All rights reserved.


#2. Not everyone can be a person of unwavering faith in a world where everyone is free to do as they please (and the resultant shittiness).
Some need a disincentive from wavering from the path.
The fear of hell etc can help some good people stay true, rather than say "bollox to this, I'm off to be shitty to people."

As to whether or not he'll go ahead with it or not, we don't know. Saying it isn't the same as doing it. This could be a big God bluff.

When you die there could be heaven for the faithful, and instead of Hell, just a big void for the sinners.

I'm not sure about any of this, they are just ideas.

A big void for the 'non-believers' would make sense for a forgiving god - I agree.  Even if he doesn't find the compassion to forgive those who lead good and generous lives - dare I say 'christian' lives, but without the faith that seems to be required, he surely doesn't need to punish them?

However, the bible (new testament this time) says that he does, you only have to read Revelations to see this.  Non-believers will be given no rest but will be tormented (in what I guess is hell?) for eternity, whilst those who believe will enjoy heaven.

[AndrewT]

However, the bible (new testament this time) says that he does, you only have to read Revelations to see this.  Non-believers will be given no rest but will be tormented (in what I guess is hell?) for eternity, whilst those who believe will enjoy heaven.

God's just running a protection racket.

'Gee, Looks like a pretty sweet afterlife you've got there. It'd be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.'

[thetank]

I'm sorry, but he did offer up his daughters to be gang-raped.

"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."

You might be able to read another interpretation into that - I can't.

I wish I could see everything in as black and white terms as that. I would save myself a lot of time.



Gotta say though, even if I was a devout atheist, with some sort of assurance that there is no supreme being, I would still be impressed by the bible.

Literature that is thousands of years old, yet still contains stories from which you can find relevance in todays society.

As an example....

the incestuous impregnation of both of his daughters.

That even the best of men are capable of the worst things after a few Mickey Finn's.
Or, if you prefer, that so called good men act out their base carnal perverted desires and blame it on the drink.

 

[The_nun]

Here's something that will suprise you...I never used to sleep without saying prayers, I still do have a ritual I have to go through before i can rest, and no Kin it's not sex. But then I decided what sort of God would make a child that can not possibly have done harm to anyone , suffer , and so I stopped believing. Then this time we were in Birmingham I went into the church oppo the ward and thanked him. Now,  am i cracking up or what, was it divine intervention or Reece being the battler he is that has turned this around. I still left my thanks on the tree as I'm soft like that you know. But please any experts out there feel free to let me know how this God works.

[kinboshi]

Literature that is thousands of years old, yet still contains stories from which you can find relevance in todays society.

It is a great piece of literature, I'll give you that.

As are the writings of Confucius, Aesop's Fables, and also the stories of Tolkien's middle earth.

But I can't see the bible as a good guidebook of morals or instruction manual as to how to live my life.  If there was a god, surely he'd do a better job than that?

As for an assurance that there is no supreme being - I wouldn't say I was 100% certain of that.  99.99% possibly.  I just see no evidence to even suggest why I should even start to think that he might exist.  I don't mean to offend anyone with my views on religion, although I also don't see why faith should be an 'admirable' thing either. 

[thetank]

A big void for the 'non-believers' would make sense for a forgiving god - I agree.  Even if he doesn't find the compassion to forgive those who lead good and generous lives - dare I say 'christian' lives, but without the faith that seems to be required, he surely doesn't need to punish them?

However, the bible (new testament this time) says that he does, you only have to read Revelations to see this.  Non-believers will be given no rest but will be tormented (in what I guess is hell?) for eternity, whilst those who believe will enjoy heaven.

Perhaps the bluff is on a bigger scale.

Everyone is going to get into heaven, regardless of what they have done with their lifes and regardless of their religion or creed.

That the Bible says that they aren't is to get man, fallible sausage that he is, to go along with all the love thy neighbour stuff, because it's kind of groovy that way.



But does religion make people act better?
I've heard it said that without religion there would be no war? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

Perhaps without religion there would be no war only because there would be no countries with which to wage war. Constant warfare by nomadic tribes killing each other to survive the winter instead, intermixed with the odd brutal dictatorship masquerading as a civilisation.

I know people don't need religion to be generally good people and I'm not suggesting for a moment that those of the major faiths have a monopoly on loving neighbours, doing unto others etc.
We'd like to imagine that we'd do all behave in a world where there was never religion, but would that be a world where it is possible to do that, and survive at the same time?

Perhaps religion is just the advent of man to subjicate and control large amounts of people, but considering where we are now as a society, is that such a bad thing?

[kinboshi]

Here's something that will suprise you...I never used to sleep without saying prayers, I still do have a ritual I have to go through before i can rest, and no Kin it's not sex. But then I decided what sort of God would make a child that can not possibly have done harm to anyone , suffer , and so I stopped believing.

I understand what you're saying there.  I was brought up as a Catholic.  I have actually read the bible (the lot), and not just 'skimmed through' some selected parts as was suggested earlier.  As a child I knew no better, but something about the way that children are indoctrinated and 'brainwashed' for want of a better word frightens me (especially when I look back and remember some of the things I was told to believe and accept).

Then this time we were in Birmingham I went into the church oppo the ward and thanked him. Now,  am i cracking up or what, was it divine intervention or Reece being the battler he is that has turned this around. I still left my thanks on the tree as I'm soft like that you know. But please any experts out there feel free to let me know how this God works.

The reason Reece will get through all of this is because he's a battler, because he has you and the rest of the family with him, because he has the doctors and the knowledge that has been built up through medical science - not through divine intervention.

However, a kind word, some time and sympathy from a friendly priest or whoever won't do any harm.  If putting a note on the tree made you feel more relaxed or if it helped in any way - then it's not a bad thing.  But I know you're not going to 'put your faith' in some sort of miraculous supernatural intervention.  Between Reece, you and the others around him, and the doctors doing what they do, he'll get through it.

[AndrewT]

One argument is that society needs religion because people can't be trusted not to act like selfish arseholes if they think no one's watching. And who better to keep an eye on people than an invisible, omnipotent being who will act as judge, jury and executioner on how you've lived your life.

[The_nun]

I think I ommitted that I put the note on the tree AFTER the results were given. This does make me soft.

[kinboshi]

I think I ommitted that I put the note on the tree AFTER the results were given. This does make me soft.

We all know you're a big softy. 

[thetank]

As are the writings of Confucius, Aesop's Fables, and also the stories of Tolkien's middle earth.

Speaking as impartially as I can, looking at the bible for interesting literary content only....


Confucious needs to sex up his stuff a bit if it is to be readable beyond all the philospohy.

Aesop too has the longevity, but his tales don't work on anything nearly as many levels and inspire as much cross-millenial debate as the bible.
They get a bit samey after a while, and are for kids are they not?

Tolkein can give us a shout in the year 3000 if he's still on the shelves.