British and Christian and Proud

[thetank]

If there was a god, surely he'd do a better job than that?

This brings the question, if there is a God, what is his job description?

Perhaps you can enlighten me, as this would suggest that you not only know what the job description is, but also of criteria from which to guage how well he (or she or whatevah) is getting along.



I find faith an admirable trait, but it is hard to explain why. It is getting late for me (working stiff now innit).

[The Baron]

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.

In the Qur'an the tale is a little different.

The daughters are offered to the men for marriage and the incestuous impregnation of both of his daughters doesn't happen.

Not quite as bad now eh?

Also, in the Christian version the men outside aren't always interpreted to want to rape the angel although I admit this is the case in the majority of translations. Finally Lot's daughters are nearly always interpreted as evil, (overfed, lazy, vain etc etc) and their offering to the men outside I'm pretty sure is meant to be a metaphor for Lot's kindness towards the angel which Tank has already mentioned.

[bolt pp]

That donkey sticking up in the air is funny

[madasahatstand]

That donkey sticking up in the air is funny

Yes and even s/he knows religion is tosh and faith is what matters:)

[CelticGeezeer]

So the difference between christians and atheists is that christians think only some of the bible is made up nonsense ?

[bolt pp]

I hope the next time the pope is googling "the bible" (he might look at porn now and then but he usually looks at religious stuff) he gets a link to this thread because all the ambiguity about the literal translation of the contained stories of the bible have been resolved, hundreds and hundreds of years the formost pre-eminet theologians have failed to achieve concensus but they were too thick to realise this stuff only gets sorted out on a poker forum.

I mean i can understand the first 19 pages, modern day religion and morality ect, but in the last 3-4 pages debating the interpretation of gospel specifics is about as sick and futile as you can get.

you lot really lost it in the last few pages

[happybhoy]

I think you could test religion experimentally.

If you were to drop a load of kids on an island secluded from outside influence and left them to their own devices, 1 of 3 things should happen.

1. They spontaneously develop a major religion proving that there is a god
2. They don't develop any religion proving that there isn't a god
3. They develop their own religion proving that the development of religion is a basic factor in the human condition.

I think 3 is the most likely to happen, it's in human nature to attribute the unknown to some malevolent entity as a way to get some sort of mental handle on it. When cavemen worshiped the sun and the moon and the stars and things that went bump in the night it gave them a framework to turn the unknown into the known, as nature abhors a vacuum the brain can't handle the unknown and will do what it can to rationalise it's experiences, it's basically a delusion generator.

On a different note I thought this was quite funny



 

[Jon MW]

...

On a different note I thought this was quite funny

It's even funnier how much government policy is created after using this logic.

I've only read the bible a couple of times and my memory isn't that good, but my sister was very good at passing on some of the juicy bits when she was doing bible studies.

My general impression was that with some good editing the Old Testament would make a cracking story, but the New Testament goes a bit flat. But that's what you'd expect really, sequels are rarely as good as the original.

The Greeks had the best stories though where religion was concerned, if I was forced to choose a religion I'd go for the ancient Hellenic ones.

[fearisthekey]

I look away for one minute and this turns back into a God thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRaQoLqvDLE&mode=related&search=

[CelticGeezeer]

No end to the mumbo jumbo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6979292.stm

 

[kinboshi]

No end to the mumbo jumbo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6979292.stm

 

You're kidding?

(I'll get my goat..I mean coat)

[CelticGeezeer]

What about all the good things religion brings to the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6980439.stm

[kinboshi]

Why, oh why is this being censored for god's sake???

http://www.voanews.com/english/Entertainment/2007-09-12-voa13.cfm

[fearisthekey]

I hope the next time the pope is googling "the bible" (he might look at porn now and then but he usually looks at religious stuff) he gets a link to this thread because all the ambiguity about the literal translation of the contained stories of the bible have been resolved, hundreds and hundreds of years the formost pre-eminet theologians have failed to achieve concensus but they were too thick to realise this stuff only gets sorted out on a poker forum.

I mean i can understand the first 19 pages, modern day religion and morality ect, but in the last 3-4 pages debating the interpretation of gospel specifics is about as sick and futile as you can get.

you lot really lost it in the last few pages

Ratzinger is already on blonde.

Pope John Paul II was a pretty sharp guy, an excellent poker player (not so good at dodging bullets ) and was an excellent theologian, philosopher and poet. I reckon he knew that modern evolutionary theory was correct, that Adam/Eve etc were allegorical, and that the gospels were not an historical account of the life of Jesus. He just didn't want to give up the day job.
The majority of catholic bible scholars, for example, do not accept the bible esp the NT as any kind of accurate historical record.
In the days when I did go to church, sometimes the priest during the sermon would perform an 'exegesis' or examination of the meaning of the greek, to find the true meaning of the Lord's words. Will never forget what I heard from one old guy at the back of the church following one such service: " Uf english were goood enuf fir Jesus it's good enuf fir me!", shaking his head in disgust.

[AndrewT]

Latest news from the War on Reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6994415.stm

There is a chain of limestone shoals between India and Sri Lanka which, legend has it has a religious explanation (built by either Rama, a Hindu god, and his army of monkeys, or Adam, if you're Christian or Muslim). This geological feature makes the strait too shallow for ships to pass through, so the Indian government has come up with a plan to clear a way through and build a canal. The report outlining the proposal states that the story is just a myth and there's no evidence to support it.

Whoa, not so fast, says religious groups. Hindu groups blocked roads and railways across the country in protest. The government has now withdrawn the report.