This article is disgusting. You tried to justify raping action in bible. First, you miss these verses:
Isaiah 13: 15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.
Do read you bible.
God stirred up the people to kill babies and rape women. You shamelessly tried to shake off his responsibility by saying "the actions of the ancient Middle East".
By the way, if you seriously think that god is right no matter what he did, why do you feel uncomfortable with the atheist attacks? You should be happy about raping commanded by god!!
Anonymous; Thanks for your comment. I do not know if you are an atheist but if you are I can understand why you make an argument from outrage: because you have no basis upon which to condemn any actions whatsoever except your impotent personal preferences.
You have provided further reinforcement to my point that atheist presuppose rape where none is in view—please justify your view by quotations in context and not mere assertions of atheist mythology.
You are confusing prescription with description—Isaiah 13 describes what the Medes will do to the Babylonians. aDios, Mariano
I understand that you are trying to defend your God. Although he is in fact talking about judgement of Babylon, He makes it more than clear that HE IS the one who will orchestrate this day of wrath. Many times he says I WILL in the passage...
Even so, God is describing what people will choose to do. Please be aware that this blog is no longer being posted to and that a fuller consideration of rape and the Bible has been posted at this link to Atheism is Dead.
It's extremely silly to try and justify verses in the Bible that show that men were to "allow women to mourn", etc., without any mention of the woman's point of view. No wonder the woman is described as "booty". It's as if you miss the entire misogynistic point of the bronze-age writers who lived in a primitive time.
It is no wonder you don't understand Dawkins or Hitchens.
Both of your views are flawed. While it is true that, under atheism, morality is useless(for we humans are lower than the fecal matter of god...if he were to produce it , anyway) god himself is equally low when compared to DOROS. Without DOROS, king of Bilthem and creator of god, it would be impossible for god's virtue to hold any substance. Without DOROS, genocide/infanticide/slavery would always be acceptable(as opposed to only sometimes being acceptable)
Anon, Thank you for your comment. People die during war. I would also like peace on Earth but it does not seem to be happening. A much more thorough refutation of erroneous assertions such as your various is found here.
This article is absurd, insulting and offensive, if only because, first of all, there is at least one incident that I can recall without looking into a Bible that in fact DOES justify rape (in Genesis, the incident with Lot's two daughters in Sodom when the Sodomites are trying to sodomise the two 'angels'). Within this dreadful little story Lot supposedly says to the men at the door, 'Look, I'll give you my two daughters and you can do to them whatever you like, just don't hurt these two strangers'. Absolutely incredible, and this sicko was supposedly a holy man, an exemplar of good character!
Secondly, what you say about atheists (your list of their seven evasive tactics) is insulting to me personally even though I am not strictly-speaking an atheist, because I have known a few atheists and they are not all like this. Generalisations are always misleading, and you therefore should not resort to them. It's wrong.
If it will make you feel any better, I will not disappear (no. 1) or paraphrase the Bible (no. 4). Whilst it is true that God himself does not explicitly command anyone to commit rape, there are a number of incidents, like the one I have mentioned, that makes one wonder. By the way, the God of the Bible DOES command the Israelites to commit other atrocities (like wiping out the Amalekites), so don't get on your high horse about atheists being devious and slippery. It doesn't work, it just makes you look foolish.
One last thing: “keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately” (Numbers 31:18).
'Let me state that as disturbing as the atheists find the cherry-picked-Bible-pull-quotes, I find it very disturbing that they read these texts and infer rape.'
I ask you; what do you infer from this passage, if not rape? Why else would your psychopathic God command the Israelites to keep alive all the young girls who have not known a man intimately? To play chess with them? I find it very disturbing that anyone would actually try to justify such bad behaviour, and justify it by saying 'oh, but it can't be wrong if God allows it', which so many so-called Christian apologists do.
Post Script to the above: You've accused atheists of cherry-picking and taking out of context, and yet I've noticed that you have done this very thing with the quote from Deuteronomy 20:10. I have just finished reading Deuteronomy and that specific example of offering peace to a city only applies to those people who are not within the Israelite sphere of influence, so to speak (i.e. not the 'Promised Land'). For all those who are unlucky enough to be within those boundaries (mainly the Canaanites, but other 'ites' as well) the message is clear: genocide. Offer NO peace, just wipe them out. You devious liar, you slippery snake! Shame on you!
Let us start on the first point as perhaps your memory serves you while mine betrays me; please provide book, chapter, verse and quotation as to where the Bible justifies rape in the case of Lot’s daughters.
"so to speak" makes me a liar? I think that you may not understand what a lie is.
1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.” 3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.” 9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.
Note number 7: "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, AND YOU MAY DO TO THEM AS YOU WISH; (emphasis added).
Is you memory serving you now? By the way, I do know what a liar is, and it is someone who deliberately decieves others in regards to the facts surrounding a situation in order to gain some advantageous outcome. "Let us start on the first point as perhaps your memory serves you while mine betrays me" is a good example that you give (see above). Convenient forgetfulness; it serves politicians well.
Now please don't make an excuse for this like saying, for example, "...but the New King James Version is not authoritative", or that "you have taken this out of context", or "it's purely symbolic", or "an error was made in translation". You won't do this will you? That's just lame.
10 “When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. 11 And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. 12 Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the LORD your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. 14 But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the LORD your God gives you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.
Note number 16: "let nothing that breathes remain alive" - the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites are to be completely wiped out. No survivors. An "offer of peace" can only be made to those cities that do NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the land promised to the Israelites by their (false) God. I posted this to counter-balance your (equally false) claim about Deuteronomy 20:10. You took Deuteronomy 20:10 out of its' proper context. Why? To deceive? Now, is there anything else you wish me to address? Any other claims about anything within the Bible that you wish to discuss?
The point about lying is that you do not know if I am doing it unless you could read my mind or motivations. Some could just be wrong and not be a liar. You should reconsider how harshly you judge people.
Now to the point about Lot, which I think you are missing.
Your claim was that “Bible that in fact DOES justify rape” and you referenced “Lot's two daughters.”
I asked “please provide book, chapter, verse and quotation as to where the Bible justifies rape in the case of Lot’s daughters.”
I think that you are confusing the reporting of an occurrence with justifying the actions that are being reported. For example, if the newspaper reports a rape, do you claim that the newspaper justified it?
You know that the rape is not being justified because it is at that precise moment that the angels interfere, take over the situation and do not allow Lot to do any such thing. Thus, the Bible is very, very cleary condemning his actions.
Firstly, yes, you are correct in stating that in order to determine if a person is lying you would need to also determine if they are being deliberately deceptive. The reason as to why I accused you of lying was simply because I have come across 'I do not recall' so many times before, from people who really were, or are, dishonest (like politicians - they use it all the time, like I said) that I just assumed you were as well. An ad hominem, my mistake - sorry.
Secondly, you are also right about the incident being an example of the reporting of an event that supposedly took place without comment, moralistic or otherwise. However, the person in question who is alleged to have done this was someone (Lot, the son of Abraham's dead brother, if I recall correctly) who was supposedly favoured by God (i.e. a good person). After all, he was saved by the 'angels', with his two daughters but not his wife who was changed into 'a pillar of salt' - always mystified by this; why did she have to die for simply turning around? And why salt? Why not ice-cream? Such a capricious god.
Was Lot a good person in your opinion? I don't, and for this reason alone. Regardless of whether or not such actions ever were condoned by 'God', it is still wrong, and regardless of the context. You don't deliberately sacrifice someone else in order to protect your own life, and this incident proves, if nothing else, that those claiming to be on the side of God can be just as rotten as the rest of us who are not so conceited. It also shows that one doesn't need to be religious in order to be moral; religion is simply not needed in order to do what is right.
I wrote 'you don't deliberately sacrifice someone else in order to protect your own life' but Lot was actually trying to defend the 'angels' - Why? Surely angels can defend themselves (and they do, by making the Sodomites blind) - and not his own hide, but the mob at the door did promise to "deal worse with you (Lot) than with them", so he himself was at risk here.
It all seems a bit strange. How could Lot (and Abraham shortly before him) not recognise an angel when they came across one? If he had recognised them as such he wouldn't have had any 'reason' to offer his daughters to the men at the door, would he? It doesn't really make much sense, from any angle, but especially when taken literally.
I thank you for understanding about the issue of lying. I may be wrong but I am not out to deceive. I agree about the “I do not recall” stuff. I was merely seeing if you would write back with relevant info. Sometimes I get drive-bys and it is just not worth it to prepare a whole response for someone who does not bother reading it.
You may reconsider concluding that favored by God means “a good person.” That Lot was referred to as “righteous” does not mean “perfect” and may be meant to make the point that if he was righteous, you can just imagine what the rest of Sodom and Gomorrah where like—yikes! Another point may be to consider what living there did to an, otherwise, righteous man. I once had an Air Force Major tell me that she has seen people do very odd things in highly stressed situations—things that they would normally never do. In any regard, it is convenient to read a text in a book and forget to envision the actual scenario: angels in your home, a brutish mob all battering down your door, shouting, threatening, etc., etc. Good old fashioned scary, life threatening stuff.
You may also reconsider referring to the issue of Lot’s daughters as a taking place without comment. The story is the comment and the comment is clear: Lot was so very dead wrong that the angels step in at that particular point.
I do not know why the wife turned into one substance over another but the issues is not surface level, “Hey, she turned her head” but 1) she disobeyed and sometimes, in any area of life, consequences are instant and severe and 2) she may have been looking back at that condemned city longingly. But with 2) I am just speculating. We do not have much info and so I do not have much to say. Keep in mind that capricious refer to “impulsive” and “unpredictable” but presumably, God directed the angels as to what they should tell the group, she heard and disregarded it.
Was Lot a good person in your opinion? This brings us to the definition of “good”; you offer one relating to “You don't deliberately sacrifice someone else in order to protect your own life.” But if someone disagrees with you, then what? Why that? Why do you get to say so for everyone? Etc.
How could Lot (and Abraham shortly before him) not recognise an angel… Well, angels do not have bodies as we understand them so they seem to manifest them when need be and they do not go around looking like little babies with wings :o)
Note that the Bible give you the insight that “two angels came to Sodom” but tells you that when “Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom” which was the place of business and greeting newcomers, “Lot saw…he said, ‘Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house…’” Thus, he did not seem to recognize them as angels. Also, note that the men of Sodom stated, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?”
Likewise with Abraham in Genesis 18, he saw “men.”
Now, as to contextual versus un-contextual: I quoted Deuteronomy 20:14 and Numbers 31:18 and elucidated them by referencing Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Deuteronomy 20:14 and Numbers 31:18 are both offer peace and if they refuse… situations which is why it is within context to elucidate the rest of the process by referencing Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Upon this much, we can agree: “religion,” strictly speaking, is venomous and the greatest barrier between God and man (see my essay The Most Anti-Religion Book Ever Published).
12 Then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho. 13 And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went to meet them outside the camp. 14 But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. 15 And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately. 19 And as for you, remain outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. 20 Purify every garment, everything made of leather, everything woven of goats’ hair, and everything made of wood.” 21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to the battle, “This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses: 22 Only the gold, the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin, and the lead, 23 everything that can endure fire, you shall put through the fire, and it shall be clean; and it shall be purified with the water of purification. But all that cannot endure fire you shall put through water. 24 And you shall wash your clothes on the seventh day and be clean, and afterward you may come into the camp.”
Note 14 to 17: But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle. 15 And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately.
Is this the kind of 'peace' that you would accept? I wouldn't. Moses was actually UPSET that the Israelites hadn't killed ALL of the women, as God had commanded! "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately." I suppose that this was meant as a compromise solution in order to placate the Israelite god, in order to avert his wrath. Absolutely incredible.
By the way, unless I have missed it, you STILL have not answered my question, which was: Why did you take Deuteronomy 20:10 out of its proper context? I rightly pointed out that this offer of peace was conditional upon the recipient of the offer not being a native inhabitant of the Promised Land (i.e. not a Canaanite, Jebusite, Hivite etc.).
Let's face it. The books of the Bible are not at all pleasant to read, and there are just too many faults, omissions (ex. Did Noah save the kangaroos as well on his ark?), contradictions, absurdities, obscenities, and errors of fact for it to be other than a collection of incoherent ravings from a group of extremely primitive people.
It has often been said by those who call themselves Christians that there actually is no proof (or even evidence) that the Bible is NOT the supposed 'Word of God'. Well, actually, there is. Mathematical proof (and it doesn't get much better than that).
It's the passage in 1 Kings, 7 point something. I'm having a bit of trouble accessing my USB stick, it's about pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). I'll be back.
23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
Completely round, so it was not elliptical. Thirty divided by ten is, of course, three. An unmistakable statement to the effect that pi equals 3. If the assumption that these people were somehow 'inspired by God' is correct, wouldn't they have been told that pi does not equal precisely 3?
I have a feeling you will say something to the effect that, 'oh well, it's close enough', or that 'approximately it is in fact 3', but that would be missing the all-important fact that pi does not have a precise figure, God should have known this (of all people, surely), and that this could quite easily have been mentioned, or at least hinted at, in God's autobiography. I'm guessing that it is not mentioned because the Israelites did not know about this, and they didn't know because they were not inspired by God, but that's just my opinion.
Judges 21:10-24 NLT Numbers 31:7-18 NLT Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (forced labour too!) Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (God's "penalty" for Hebrew-on-Hebrew rape) Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB (girl raped? STONE HER) 2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB (God gives man's wives to another man to be raped while he watches. Then kills a baby!) Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB (give her a month of grieving time before the rape) Judges 5:30 NAB And the nail in the coffin Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB
Anon., I hate to do this but I am preparing for a debate and am utterly swamped. I will have to put off responding, at least for a while. I am really sorry about that.
Nick, You are very, very mistaken. If you really want to delve into these texts please read the following post: at this link
I believe that you will find that your selective citations and mistaken notions need some revision.
Mariano, it is now the 14th of March. Judging by your failure to respond to my questions about Deuteronomy 20:10 and 1 Kings 7:23, can I assume that you have given up, 'thrown in the towel' so to speak? Can you not answer, my very simple and straightforward, questions? Are they too hard, too challenging? I accept your surrender.
Anon, Please read the comment that I addressed to you just above you most recent triumphant one.
Please re-read the post, please re-read my statements, please re-read Deut 20 and 1 Kings 7 and please, please understand what I stated to you the utter necessity of preparing for a debate.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
This article is disgusting. You tried to justify raping action in bible. First, you miss these verses:
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 13:
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.
Do read you bible.
God stirred up the people to kill babies and rape women. You shamelessly tried to shake off his responsibility by saying "the actions of the ancient Middle East".
By the way, if you seriously think that god is right no matter what he did, why do you feel uncomfortable with the atheist attacks? You should be happy about raping commanded by god!!
Anonymous;
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
I do not know if you are an atheist but if you are I can understand why you make an argument from outrage: because you have no basis upon which to condemn any actions whatsoever except your impotent personal preferences.
You have provided further reinforcement to my point that atheist presuppose rape where none is in view—please justify your view by quotations in context and not mere assertions of atheist mythology.
You are confusing prescription with description—Isaiah 13 describes what the Medes will do to the Babylonians.
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano. I love you. May God continually sustain you.
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are trying to defend your God. Although he is in fact talking about judgement of Babylon, He makes it more than clear that HE IS the one who will orchestrate this day of wrath. Many times he says I WILL in the passage...
ReplyDeleteEven so, God is describing what people will choose to do.
ReplyDeletePlease be aware that this blog is no longer being posted to and that a fuller consideration of rape and the Bible has been posted at this link to Atheism is Dead.
aDios,
Mariano
Pardon, I provided a generic link to Atheism is Dead, the post in question is at this link.
ReplyDeleteIt's extremely silly to try and justify verses in the Bible that show that men were to "allow women to mourn", etc., without any mention of the woman's point of view. No wonder the woman is described as "booty". It's as if you miss the entire misogynistic point of the bronze-age writers who lived in a primitive time.
ReplyDeleteIt is no wonder you don't understand Dawkins or Hitchens.
Both of your views are flawed. While it is true that, under atheism, morality is useless(for we humans are lower than the fecal matter of god...if he were to produce it , anyway) god himself is equally low when compared to DOROS. Without DOROS, king of Bilthem and creator of god, it would be impossible for god's virtue to hold any substance.
ReplyDeleteWithout DOROS, genocide/infanticide/slavery would always be acceptable(as opposed to only sometimes being acceptable)
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
People die during war.
I would also like peace on Earth but it does not seem to be happening.
A much more thorough refutation of erroneous assertions such as your various is found here.
This article is absurd, insulting and offensive, if only because, first of all, there is at least one incident that I can recall without looking into a Bible that in fact DOES justify rape (in Genesis, the incident with Lot's two daughters in Sodom when the Sodomites are trying to sodomise the two 'angels'). Within this dreadful little story Lot supposedly says to the men at the door, 'Look, I'll give you my two daughters and you can do to them whatever you like, just don't hurt these two strangers'. Absolutely incredible, and this sicko was supposedly a holy man, an exemplar of good character!
ReplyDeleteSecondly, what you say about atheists (your list of their seven evasive tactics) is insulting to me personally even though I am not strictly-speaking an atheist, because I have known a few atheists and they are not all like this. Generalisations are always misleading, and you therefore should not resort to them. It's wrong.
If it will make you feel any better, I will not disappear (no. 1) or paraphrase the Bible (no. 4). Whilst it is true that God himself does not explicitly command anyone to commit rape, there are a number of incidents, like the one I have mentioned, that makes one wonder. By the way, the God of the Bible DOES command the Israelites to commit other atrocities (like wiping out the Amalekites), so don't get on your high horse about atheists being devious and slippery. It doesn't work, it just makes you look foolish.
One last thing:
“keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately” (Numbers 31:18).
'Let me state that as disturbing as the atheists find the cherry-picked-Bible-pull-quotes, I find it very disturbing that they read these texts and infer rape.'
I ask you; what do you infer from this passage, if not rape? Why else would your psychopathic God command the Israelites to keep alive all the young girls who have not known a man intimately? To play chess with them? I find it very disturbing that anyone would actually try to justify such bad behaviour, and justify it by saying 'oh, but it can't be wrong if God allows it', which so many so-called Christian apologists do.
Post Script to the above:
ReplyDeleteYou've accused atheists of cherry-picking and taking out of context, and yet I've noticed that you have done this very thing with the quote from Deuteronomy 20:10.
I have just finished reading Deuteronomy and that specific example of offering peace to a city only applies to those people who are not within the Israelite sphere of influence, so to speak (i.e. not the 'Promised Land'). For all those who are unlucky enough to be within those boundaries (mainly the Canaanites, but other 'ites' as well) the message is clear: genocide. Offer NO peace, just wipe them out.
You devious liar, you slippery snake! Shame on you!
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts.
Let us start on the first point as perhaps your memory serves you while mine betrays me; please provide book, chapter, verse and quotation as to where the Bible justifies rape in the case of Lot’s daughters.
"so to speak" makes me a liar? I think that you may not understand what a lie is.
aDios,
Mariano
Genesis 19:1-11 (NKJV) states:
ReplyDelete1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.”
And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”
3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.
Note number 7: "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, AND YOU MAY DO TO THEM AS YOU WISH; (emphasis added).
Is you memory serving you now? By the way, I do know what a liar is, and it is someone who deliberately decieves others in regards to the facts surrounding a situation in order to gain some advantageous outcome. "Let us start on the first point as perhaps your memory serves you while mine betrays me" is a good example that you give (see above). Convenient forgetfulness; it serves politicians well.
Now please don't make an excuse for this like saying, for example, "...but the New King James Version is not authoritative", or that "you have taken this out of context", or "it's purely symbolic", or "an error was made in translation". You won't do this will you? That's just lame.
Another Post by Anonymous (a.k.a. Peter):
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy states the following:
10 “When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. 11 And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you. 12 Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the LORD your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. 14 But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the LORD your God gives you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.
Note number 16: "let nothing that breathes remain alive" - the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites are to be completely wiped out. No survivors. An "offer of peace" can only be made to those cities that do NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the land promised to the Israelites by their (false) God. I posted this to counter-balance your (equally false) claim about Deuteronomy 20:10.
You took Deuteronomy 20:10 out of its' proper context. Why? To deceive?
Now, is there anything else you wish me to address? Any other claims about anything within the Bible that you wish to discuss?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking back.
The point about lying is that you do not know if I am doing it unless you could read my mind or motivations. Some could just be wrong and not be a liar. You should reconsider how harshly you judge people.
Now to the point about Lot, which I think you are missing.
Your claim was that “Bible that in fact DOES justify rape” and you referenced “Lot's two daughters.”
I asked “please provide book, chapter, verse and quotation as to where the Bible justifies rape in the case of Lot’s daughters.”
I think that you are confusing the reporting of an occurrence with justifying the actions that are being reported. For example, if the newspaper reports a rape, do you claim that the newspaper justified it?
You know that the rape is not being justified because it is at that precise moment that the angels interfere, take over the situation and do not allow Lot to do any such thing. Thus, the Bible is very, very cleary condemning his actions.
Two points to make:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, yes, you are correct in stating that in order to determine if a person is lying you would need to also determine if they are being deliberately deceptive. The reason as to why I accused you of lying was simply because I have come across 'I do not recall' so many times before, from people who really were, or are, dishonest (like politicians - they use it all the time, like I said) that I just assumed you were as well. An ad hominem, my mistake - sorry.
Secondly, you are also right about the incident being an example of the reporting of an event that supposedly took place without comment, moralistic or otherwise. However, the person in question who is alleged to have done this was someone (Lot, the son of Abraham's dead brother, if I recall correctly) who was supposedly favoured by God (i.e. a good person). After all, he was saved by the 'angels', with his two daughters but not his wife who was changed into 'a pillar of salt' - always mystified by this; why did she have to die for simply turning around? And why salt? Why not ice-cream? Such a capricious god.
Was Lot a good person in your opinion? I don't, and for this reason alone. Regardless of whether or not such actions ever were condoned by 'God', it is still wrong, and regardless of the context. You don't deliberately sacrifice someone else in order to protect your own life, and this incident proves, if nothing else, that those claiming to be on the side of God can be just as rotten as the rest of us who are not so conceited. It also shows that one doesn't need to be religious in order to be moral; religion is simply not needed in order to do what is right.
Anyway, I hope this clears things up.
Clarification:
ReplyDeleteI wrote 'you don't deliberately sacrifice someone else in order to protect your own life' but Lot was actually trying to defend the 'angels' - Why? Surely angels can defend themselves (and they do, by making the Sodomites blind) - and not his own hide, but the mob at the door did promise to "deal worse with you (Lot) than with them", so he himself was at risk here.
It all seems a bit strange. How could Lot (and Abraham shortly before him) not recognise an angel when they came across one? If he had recognised them as such he wouldn't have had any 'reason' to offer his daughters to the men at the door, would he? It doesn't really make much sense, from any angle, but especially when taken literally.
Pardon my dealy.
ReplyDeleteI will get back to you in a couple of days.
aDios,
Mariano
I thank you for understanding about the issue of lying. I may be wrong but I am not out to deceive.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the “I do not recall” stuff. I was merely seeing if you would write back with relevant info. Sometimes I get drive-bys and it is just not worth it to prepare a whole response for someone who does not bother reading it.
You may reconsider concluding that favored by God means “a good person.” That Lot was referred to as “righteous” does not mean “perfect” and may be meant to make the point that if he was righteous, you can just imagine what the rest of Sodom and Gomorrah where like—yikes! Another point may be to consider what living there did to an, otherwise, righteous man.
I once had an Air Force Major tell me that she has seen people do very odd things in highly stressed situations—things that they would normally never do.
In any regard, it is convenient to read a text in a book and forget to envision the actual scenario: angels in your home, a brutish mob all battering down your door, shouting, threatening, etc., etc. Good old fashioned scary, life threatening stuff.
You may also reconsider referring to the issue of Lot’s daughters as a taking place without comment. The story is the comment and the comment is clear: Lot was so very dead wrong that the angels step in at that particular point.
I do not know why the wife turned into one substance over another but the issues is not surface level, “Hey, she turned her head” but 1) she disobeyed and sometimes, in any area of life, consequences are instant and severe and 2) she may have been looking back at that condemned city longingly. But with 2) I am just speculating. We do not have much info and so I do not have much to say.
Keep in mind that capricious refer to “impulsive” and “unpredictable” but presumably, God directed the angels as to what they should tell the group, she heard and disregarded it.
Was Lot a good person in your opinion?
This brings us to the definition of “good”; you offer one relating to “You don't deliberately sacrifice someone else in order to protect your own life.”
But if someone disagrees with you, then what?
Why that?
Why do you get to say so for everyone?
Etc.
How could Lot (and Abraham shortly before him) not recognise an angel…
Well, angels do not have bodies as we understand them so they seem to manifest them when need be and they do not go around looking like little babies with wings :o)
Note that the Bible give you the insight that “two angels came to Sodom” but tells you that when “Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom” which was the place of business and greeting newcomers, “Lot saw…he said, ‘Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house…’” Thus, he did not seem to recognize them as angels. Also, note that the men of Sodom stated, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?”
Likewise with Abraham in Genesis 18, he saw “men.”
Now, as to contextual versus un-contextual:
I quoted Deuteronomy 20:14 and Numbers 31:18 and elucidated them by referencing Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Deuteronomy 20:14 and Numbers 31:18 are both offer peace and if they refuse… situations which is why it is within context to elucidate the rest of the process by referencing Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Upon this much, we can agree: “religion,” strictly speaking, is venomous and the greatest barrier between God and man (see my essay The Most Anti-Religion Book Ever Published).
aDios,
Mariano
Quote from Numbers:
ReplyDelete12 Then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho. 13 And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went to meet them outside the camp. 14 But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle.
15 And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately. 19 And as for you, remain outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. 20 Purify every garment, everything made of leather, everything woven of goats’ hair, and everything made of wood.”
21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to the battle, “This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses: 22 Only the gold, the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin, and the lead, 23 everything that can endure fire, you shall put through the fire, and it shall be clean; and it shall be purified with the water of purification. But all that cannot endure fire you shall put through water. 24 And you shall wash your clothes on the seventh day and be clean, and afterward you may come into the camp.”
Note 14 to 17:
But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle.
15 And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in
the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately.
Is this the kind of 'peace' that you would accept? I wouldn't. Moses was actually UPSET that the Israelites hadn't killed ALL of the women, as God had commanded! "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately." I suppose that this was meant as a compromise solution in order to placate the Israelite god, in order to avert his wrath. Absolutely incredible.
By the way, unless I have missed it, you STILL have not answered my question, which was: Why did you take Deuteronomy 20:10 out of its proper context? I rightly pointed out that this offer of peace was conditional upon the recipient of the offer not being a native inhabitant of the Promised Land (i.e. not a Canaanite, Jebusite, Hivite etc.).
Let's face it. The books of the Bible are not at all pleasant to read, and there are just too many faults, omissions (ex. Did Noah save the kangaroos as well on his ark?), contradictions, absurdities, obscenities, and errors of fact for it to be other than a collection of incoherent ravings from a group of extremely primitive people.
It has often been said by those who call themselves Christians that there actually is no proof (or even evidence) that the Bible is NOT the supposed 'Word of God'. Well, actually, there is. Mathematical proof (and it doesn't get much better than that).
It's the passage in 1 Kings, 7 point something. I'm having a bit of trouble accessing my USB stick, it's about pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter). I'll be back.
Here it is: 1 Kings 7:23
ReplyDelete23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
Completely round, so it was not elliptical. Thirty divided by ten is, of course, three. An unmistakable statement to the effect that pi equals 3. If the assumption that these people were somehow 'inspired by God' is correct, wouldn't they have been told that pi does not equal precisely 3?
I have a feeling you will say something to the effect that, 'oh well, it's close enough', or that 'approximately it is in fact 3', but that would be missing the all-important fact that pi does not have a precise figure, God should have known this (of all people, surely), and that this could quite easily have been mentioned, or at least hinted at, in God's autobiography. I'm guessing that it is not mentioned because the Israelites did not know about this, and they didn't know because they were not inspired by God, but that's just my opinion.
Judges 21:10-24 NLT
ReplyDeleteNumbers 31:7-18 NLT
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (forced labour too!)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (God's "penalty" for Hebrew-on-Hebrew rape)
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB (girl raped? STONE HER)
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB (God gives man's wives to another man to be raped while he watches. Then kills a baby!)
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB (give her a month of grieving time before the rape)
Judges 5:30 NAB
And the nail in the coffin Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB
There ya go! Some light reading for everyone!
Anon.,
ReplyDeleteI hate to do this but I am preparing for a debate and am utterly swamped.
I will have to put off responding, at least for a while.
I am really sorry about that.
Nick,
You are very, very mistaken. If you really want to delve into these texts please read the following post:
at this link
I believe that you will find that your selective citations and mistaken notions need some revision.
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano, it is now the 14th of March. Judging by your failure to respond to my questions about Deuteronomy 20:10 and 1 Kings 7:23, can I assume that you have given up, 'thrown in the towel' so to speak? Can you not answer, my very simple and straightforward, questions? Are they too hard, too challenging?
ReplyDeleteI accept your surrender.
Anon,
ReplyDeletePlease read the comment that I addressed to you just above you most recent triumphant one.
Please re-read the post, please re-read my statements, please re-read Deut 20 and 1 Kings 7 and please, please understand what I stated to you the utter necessity of preparing for a debate.
aDios,
Mariano
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think that, that is just about enough ridicule.
ReplyDeleteaDios,
Mariano