[frookenhauer]

Right! Its about time I did some real work, seeing as I'm here! Its been too long since I did a Genesis interpretation, I think I stretched 24 hours into a week (Sorry Tehol )

So here it is in all its glory....Chapter 19.

Quote

1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them; and he fell down on his face to the earth; 2 and he said: 'Behold now, my lords, turn aside, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your way.' And they said: 'Nay; but we will abide in the broad place all night.' 3 And he urged them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.' 6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. 7 And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that 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; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.' 9 And they said: 'Stand back.' And they said: 'This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs play the judge; now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.' And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and brought Lot into the house to them, and the door they shut. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door. 12 And the men said unto Lot: 'Hast thou here any besides? son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whomsoever thou hast in the city; bring them out of the place; 13 for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxed great before the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.' 14 And Lot went out, and spoke unto his sons-in-law, who married his daughters, and said: 'Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy the city.' But he seemed unto his sons-in-law as one that jested. 15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying: 'Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters that are here; lest thou be swept away in the iniquity of the city.' 16 But he lingered; and the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him. And they brought him forth, and set him without the city. 17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said: 'Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the Plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be swept away.' 18 And Lot said unto them: 'Oh, not so, my lord; 19 behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shown unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest the evil overtake me, and I die. 20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one; oh, let me escape thither--is it not a little one?--and my soul shall live.' 21 And he said unto him: 'See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which thou hast spoken. 22 Hasten thou, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.'--Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.-- 23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar. 24 Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25 and He overthrow those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. 27 And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 And he looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the Plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace. 29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt. 30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' 33 And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger: 'Behold, I lay yesternight with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37 And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab--the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38 And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi--the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. {S}

In a word..Wow! So those two guys who were having dinner with god and Abe were angels? So angels can eat? But do they need sustenance? Interesting no? Anyway The angels have come to Sodom to check the place out and with their beauty have bewitched all who see them and men had come to the house of Lot and demanded to get to know the Angels. Which in bible parlance is to get jiggy with them. What does Lot do? He offers the baying mob outside his door, his own daughters to do with as they please...What? What a despicable toad. Can anyone defend this particular crime? Will all the real Christians please stand up and explain...I'm just not getting it. It seems that its not just the god that does terrible things his people are pretty perverted too, they deserve each other...

Anyway the angels blind all and sundry outside the door just for being randy and carry on being pretty and terrible and they let Lot know that Sodom is doomed...But fail to tell him that all he needs to do is find ten decent people, which should be fairly easy cos all you got to do is grab ten kids and the tally is covered, they being without sin and all, but those vicious angels keep quiet. It seems god only likes playing by his own rules...Anyway that prat Lot blunders about in his nepotistic way and looks up his relatives who don't really believe him, who would he's a colossal idiot "Here, have my daughters instead!"

Anyway God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, which I always tend to associate with the devil, but his wife turns around and gets turned into a pillar of salt. Why could they not watch the spectacle? It'd be better than the best fireworks displays...More oddity from the authors of the fantasy epic filled with deplorable pillocks who God loves, makes me wonder about Jesus, was he really that nice? But more shocks await...

Incest! Of the worst kind, but its really twisted, his daughters have decided that they must preserve his seed. Just how old are they? Maybe god was prodding them in the right...wrong direction. Or did Lot put the idea into their heads. Whatever it is its disgusting and should have been edited out of the final cut. Reminds me of the whole thing with the holy ghost, it is so unnecessary, all God (being omnipotent) has to do is click his fingers and Mary will be preggers, the holy ghost is a sham.

I thought Abraham was a bit of an idiot, but he's been soundly beaten by Lot, who in one chapter offers his daughters up to appease a baying mob and fails to save a city and follows it up by incest. Worst person in the bible so far. How many people are surprised by all this? Please put up hands, thank you!

[Epiph]

I'm not sure how much energy I have left for this...

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 19 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

No, certainly different conclusions can be drawn from the same data set, but it's not going to vary drastically. You're looking at the same observations and there's generally only a few logical ways you can interpret them.

Hmm. This sounds very nice, admittedly. But science is very versatile, and 'drastically' as a concept becomes useless when suddenly a slice of the scientific world shifts. Almost every scientific concept has been considered illogical or not possible until someone actually dares to think differently. You argument doesn't hold water.

Not exactly. Yes, old concepts are discarded for new, but only as new information becomes available. I'm sure there are some moments in scientific history that involve someone staring at the same data sets as everyone else and having a eureka moment, but then they go out and prove their epiphany with new data. The thinking differently and the versatility of science come from the ability to collect and analyze new data sets.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Ok, clearly we're just not going to agree here. But I'll say one last thing: you are misrepresenting the majority of the scientific community. While there are some people who undertake scientific research to prove their particular point of view, most scientist become scientists because, from an early age, they are fascinated by the hows and whys of the world. As they grow up and grow into more complex knowledge, they undertake their own search for answers. But just as you don't (often) see Christian scientists being motivated in their research by their faith, skeptical scientists aren't being motivated by their lack of faith. In both cases, they are operating from their curiosity about the world. Most scientists will tell you that they do what they do because they wish to be objective observers.

As far as that goes, I agree with what you're saying. However you misunderstood my point. Let me explain. Every scientist has a motivation. It can contain a number of things, based on education, lifestyle, personality etc. And as a whole the scientific community thrives for truth. It's what I like about it. However, the objectivity that you talk about derives from a certain ideology. Science as we know it has not always existed in it's current form. It has but barely existed a couple of hundred years at most, depending on how you count. Scientists existed before that, but with a different ideology as a basis. That didn't stop the inherent nature of science or the inventions and discoveries it nurtured. But just as scientists back then were coloured by their view of themselves and the world around them, so is the scientists of today. To say that science is uncolored, without influence, is not only naive, it's completely non-intellectual. There are very strong ideals and notions of what an "objective data" is and what conclusions that are "acceptable". It's the very reason for the existence of pseudo science. I'm not saying pseudo science is all of it, and I am not trying to say that pseudo science should be more incorporated into 'real' science (not sure what I think about that subject actually), I am just viewing this from a historian of ideas' perspective.

I see your point and I don't think I've denied the existence of bias (if I have, I don't know where it came from), I'm just saying that in the blanket assignment of bias to the scientific community, you are doing the scientific community an injustice. But your right about the existence of bias, and that is why it is so important to look closely at controversial studies and separate fact from bias.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I merely asked why you held that opinion: have you looked into the data and used it to draw a different conclusion, or have you rejected the majority conclusion because it doesn't jive with your faith, or is there some other reason that you hold that opinion? I resent being attacked when I'm just asking for clarification; how about responding to the question instead of throwing an ad hominem at me?

You're welcome to ask for clairfication, and I wasn't trying to attack you. As for your question, I really don't feel comfortable using the term "majority of the scientific community" in any sentence, especially in this context. I have been generalizing, which I hate doing. What I am discussing though is hard to explain without using general terms and specific examples. Although I am really using the theory of evolution as an example for my 'theory' or whatever you want to call it. I wonder how you got the idea that I am discarding data because I don't like them? First I don't discard any data at all. It's the conclusions drawn from them that I discard. And that's not because I don't like them (even if I actually do dislike them). I discard the conslusions because they don't make sense. They're illogical. Any logical conclusions I perfectly accept.

I got the sense that you were discarding conclusions you didn't like by the way you responded to earlier arguments for evolution, because when one looks closely at the evidence for evolution, it makes a whole lot of sense that this is the mechanism through which biodiversity occurs.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but "this fanatical insanity can't go on for long"? Have you taken a look at the history of religion lately? I'm not taking at dig at your faith, but you are assuredly calling the kettle black here. Also, where did you pull this 10 years number? Is it just a number you're throwing out, or is there some evidence that people are flocking away from evolutionary theory? As far as I know, less that 1% of scientists doubt that evolutionary theory explains the complexity of life, which is a concern that, coupled with a belief in God, can simply be explained by God's guiding hand on the tiller of evolution.

Hmm, why would you think I would even feel inclined to defend religious fanaticism? And that is taking a dig at my faith, in my humble opinion. But hey, I'm used to it. As for numbers, I have heard quite the contrary, that todays scientific giants are discarding the theory evolution as nonsense. Doesn't have any sources for you though. Yet. I think our different views on this might need us to dig deeper and get some numbers, do you think? I am honestly curious what's the correct data.

I am not taking a dig at your faith. Assuming that support of evolution is "fanatical insanity," one need only look at the history of religion to show that, yes, "fanatical insanity" can go on for a looooong time. And whether you defend or condemn it, your religion has a lot of baggage: I'm not taking a dig at YOUR faith when I take a dig at the sordid history of your religion. As for the numbers, I looked into it a bit as I was responding to your previous post and decided finding the correct numbers was going to require way more work than I was willing to put in, since the most recent numbers I saw were from like a decade ago. But what I did find that it is not so much that some scientists doubt that evolution occurs so much as they don't see how it works in isolation (which is a problem solved by the belief of some theist scientists that evolution is the means by which God created the world). As far as I have found though, the number of biologists who have doubts about evolution is MUCH lower than the rest of the scientific community.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Dec 11 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Gem said:

Ah, I guess your definition of "literal interpretation" gets in the way again. I do look at the bible in an historical context, too. I try to look at it from every possible angle.

It is not my definition...it's the definition that I understand to be common among people who DO interpret the Bible literally. Like my grandmother's pastor.

Fair enough, but I doesn't have much to do with me.

No, it doesn't. I just wanted to be clear that when I say "literal translation," I am using a commonly accepted definition and not just pulling something out of my ass. You've made it clear that you don't interpret the Bible literally.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 23 December 2008 - 05:38 PM

[Terez]

Epiph said:

I'm not sure how much energy I have left for this...

Almost assuredly not enough.

[Epiph]

Terez, on Dec 23 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

Epiph said:

I'm not sure how much energy I have left for this...

Almost assuredly not enough.

That is becoming more and more clear.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 23 December 2008 - 05:39 PM

[Terez]

Jesus said:

Come to me, all of you who are weary and loaded down with burdens, and I will give you rest.

[Epiph]

IT'S ALL SO CLEAR! How could I have missed it?

My grandmother will be so thrilled.

[Terez]

Is she the one that tried to teach you how to crochet?

[Epiph]

No, I have only the internet to blame for that.

Edit:
I am now addicted to unnecessary quoting...

This post has been edited by Epiph: 23 December 2008 - 06:55 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Dec 23 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

I'm not sure how much energy I have left for this...

Likewise actually. I've had fun, but it seems like we're talking two different languages. I knew this would happen, but I always get my hopes up anyway. I'm kind of sad right now, because you're an intelligent person with posts that makes sense. I respect your point of view.

Anyway, my last attempt at an explanation; I'm very tired right now from doing too much stuff today, so if I don't come across as intelligible, please bear with me.

Epiph, on Dec 23 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 19 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

Hmm. This sounds very nice, admittedly. But science is very versatile, and 'drastically' as a concept becomes useless when suddenly a slice of the scientific world shifts. Almost every scientific concept has been considered illogical or not possible until someone actually dares to think differently. You argument doesn't hold water.

Not exactly. Yes, old concepts are discarded for new, but only as new information becomes available. I'm sure there are some moments in scientific history that involve someone staring at the same data sets as everyone else and having a eureka moment, but then they go out and prove their epiphany with new data. The thinking differently and the versatility of science come from the ability to collect and analyze new data sets.

Granted, this is obvious, but it also requires new thinking, which you already agreed. Also, you're missing the point of changing scientific paradigms - you discard old theories for the new improved ones. As a historian of ideas I can see the shifting paradigms throughout the history. I know it's a peculiar way of looking at history, but it makes sense from a cross-scientific perspective. Again, I have never questioned the actual data, I have questioned the conclusions drawn from them - because conclusions include perspectives and ways of thinking that change with scientific paradigms. It's how the mind of the scientist influence science, the tool. You seem to think I am claiming some sort of controversial argument here - I am not. I am simply making an observation. The story of objectivity versus subjectivity is an old debate, and should not be discarded that easily because it's more convenient to claim that science is completely objective. Science as a tool might be objective, but the scientist is not. Yes, scientists strive for objectivity, but that's not the same as succeeding. I am of the opinion that nobody can ever be truly objective, ever. You're welcome to disagree of course.

Epiph, on Dec 23 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

I see your point and I don't think I've denied the existence of bias (if I have, I don't know where it came from), I'm just saying that in the blanket assignment of bias to the scientific community, you are doing the scientific community an injustice. But your right about the existence of bias, and that is why it is so important to look closely at controversial studies and separate fact from bias.

I agree with you here. All I really want is for people to look closely at studies and separate fact from bias, as you say. I might seem aggressively anti-science at times, but I am actually quite the opposite. I know that if science really have good arguments, it will stand the test of rough criticism.

Epiph, on Dec 23 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

I got the sense that you were discarding conclusions you didn't like by the way you responded to earlier arguments for evolution, because when one looks closely at the evidence for evolution, it makes a whole lot of sense that this is the mechanism through which biodiversity occurs.

Oh, I agree that it can make sense if you are of that mind. But since I have a strong incentive to look at it from a different perspective, I tend to spot the weaknesses. People tend to hold that against me, although all I really am doing is severely criticizing. But I recognize that some people might have a strong incentive to look at it from the other perspective, which is an essential part of my point. I am fine with people saying that I have a strong incentive to look at it from a certain perspective, and I agree that I am, but then I just want people that have a strong incentive to look at it from another perspective to admit that they do. Just that, really.

Epiph, on Dec 23 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

I am not taking a dig at your faith. Assuming that support of evolution is "fanatical insanity," one need only look at the history of religion to show that, yes, "fanatical insanity" can go on for a looooong time. And whether you defend or condemn it, your religion has a lot of baggage: I'm not taking a dig at YOUR faith when I take a dig at the sordid history of your religion. As for the numbers, I looked into it a bit as I was responding to your previous post and decided finding the correct numbers was going to require way more work than I was willing to put in, since the most recent numbers I saw were from like a decade ago. But what I did find that it is not so much that some scientists doubt that evolution occurs so much as they don't see how it works in isolation (which is a problem solved by the belief of some theist scientists that evolution is the means by which God created the world). As far as I have found though, the number of biologists who have doubts about evolution is MUCH lower than the rest of the scientific community.

I am not denying the history of religion, I just think it doesn't belong in this discussion. But hey, I am open for new thoughts.

I also want to get more info in this area. As soon as I have some sort of data, I'll tell you.

Epiph, on Dec 23 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

No, it doesn't. I just wanted to be clear that when I say "literal translation," I am using a commonly accepted definition and not just pulling something out of my ass. You've made it clear that you don't interpret the Bible literally.

Well, I am still a bit confused about the concept of "literal translation". I think I mostly do consider myself interpreting the bible literally, but clearly, as this coversation has shown, I sometimes do not, for different reasons. I don't know what to make of that, or even where it will lead. All I know is that the bible is very vague at times, and that "literal interpretation" sometimes doesn't give you much answers. I find myself being critical of how the christian tradition have handled scripture. Much of the "literal interpretation" have come from small group of powerful men. I think one has to, and is in fact needs to, ask oneself "what does this piece of scripture actually say?" I find myself not being satisfied with simply taking every word as "clear cut", because they're not. I don't think God approves of blind faith, I think he wants us to search for answers. Yes, he wants us to trust him, but that doesn't mean giving up intellectual thinking, quite the opposite. Yes, my faith continually spins my world off its axes, changing what's important, but at the same time, God encourages us, through the bible, to explore Gods plan for our lives, and that doesn't happen if you don't question things.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer how I think.

[Epiph]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 23 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Likewise actually. I've had fun, but it seems like we're talking two different languages. I knew this would happen, but I always get my hopes up anyway. I'm kind of sad right now, because you're an intelligent person with posts that makes sense. I respect your point of view.

It had seemed like we were talking different languages, although this last post of yours is more relatable. I've also enjoyed this; I don't often stretch these muscles, and it's led to conversations with my friends that I haven't bothered having in years.

Gem said:

Granted, this is obvious, but it also requires new thinking, which you already agreed. Also, you're missing the point of changing scientific paradigms - you discard old theories for the new improved ones. As a historian of ideas I can see the shifting paradigms throughout the history. I know it's a peculiar way of looking at history, but it makes sense from a cross-scientific perspective. Again, I have never questioned the actual data, I have questioned the conclusions drawn from them - because conclusions include perspectives and ways of thinking that change with scientific paradigms. It's how the mind of the scientist influence science, the tool. You seem to think I am claiming some sort of controversial argument here - I am not. I am simply making an observation. The story of objectivity versus subjectivity is an old debate, and should not be discarded that easily because it's more convenient to claim that science is completely objective. Science as a tool might be objective, but the scientist is not. Yes, scientists strive for objectivity, but that's not the same as succeeding. I am of the opinion that nobody can ever be truly objective, ever. You're welcome to disagree of course.

I agree, more or less. It's easy to see shifting scientific paradigms throughout history, but I can't think of many examples of a shift back towards religious dogma.

Gem said:

I am fine with people saying that I have a strong incentive to look at it from a certain perspective, and I agree that I am, but then I just want people that have a strong incentive to look at it from another perspective to admit that they do. Just that, really.

While I will own that a scientist cannot completely separate his or her subjective bias from his or her objective findings, ultimately, when a bulk of scientists are working in similar areas, these subjective biases even out. Thus, commonly accepted scientific theories end up unbiased. I just don't think that atheists/agnostics/non-believers/whatever have as strong an incentive to look at science from any perspective other than, "this is how the world works," as a religious or spiritual person has to look at science from their religious or spiritual perspective.

Gem said:

I am not denying the history of religion, I just think it doesn't belong in this discussion. But hey, I am open for new thoughts.

If the history of scientific paradigms has a place in this discussion, then the history of religion also does. History always informs the present.

Gem said:

Well, I am still a bit confused about the concept of "literal translation". I think I mostly do consider myself interpreting the bible literally, but clearly, as this coversation has shown, I sometimes do not, for different reasons. I don't know what to make of that, or even where it will lead. All I know is that the bible is very vague at times, and that "literal interpretation" sometimes doesn't give you much answers.

Clearly, you value the Bible as a holy text and as something you can live your life by, but you seem to demonstrate a willingness to stretch biblical stories to fit modern scientific findings in a way that is absent from a literal interpretation. This doesn't mean that you don't take the New Testament literally, which you probably do. It just means that you recognize that the Bible as it is laid out and has been influenced by a small group of powerful men and so sometimes you need to dig a little deeper or read between the lines or whatever. But this is not literal interpretation.

Gem said:

I find myself being critical of how the christian tradition have handled scripture. Much of the "literal interpretation" have come from small group of powerful men. I think one has to, and is in fact needs to, ask oneself "what does this piece of scripture actually say?" I find myself not being satisfied with simply taking every word as "clear cut", because they're not. I don't think God approves of blind faith, I think he wants us to search for answers. Yes, he wants us to trust him, but that doesn't mean giving up intellectual thinking, quite the opposite. Yes, my faith continually spins my world off its axes, changing what's important, but at the same time, God encourages us, through the bible, to explore Gods plan for our lives, and that doesn't happen if you don't question things.

Which is, ultimately, a point of view that I can respect. I think I've said before that I greatly admire faith as something ephemeral and beautiful and sometimes, I even envy the faithful. Believing God has a plan for you is certainly easier and less stressful than the existentialism that atheists and agnostics battle with.

[frookenhauer]

Soon my precious....SOON!

[Aleksandrov]

My computer has been dead for the last 6 weeks (the closest contact to technology was was braving the furious furballs to use the computer at Silencer's house) but that's behind me now.
I've missed all the discussions.

I missed one of my favourite parts of the Bible too:

Quote

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.' 6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. 7 And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that 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; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

I don't even have to say anything about that part.

[frookenhauer]

Right, so i was thinking that this needs to be revived, cos it was very funny (to me at least) and actually made me look at the bible in a whole new light...sort of. But I read this article in BBC focus about how if you read about conspiracy theories regularly, you actually start to believe them. Its the power of the written word, amazing stuff, and it got me thinking about how Ia m doing the same thing really to what, in many ways, can be considered a work of fiction. I'm barely...19 chapters in and Ive been able to pick holes into it quite severely and there have been some right clangers and some really distasteful stuff too, but if that article is correct and I may come to beleive in the bible irregardless of whether I believe it to be factual just by reading it then I would be a fool to continue...But I have a plan and it is thus:

I will read dawkins' books on the god delusion as well and make myself a evolution teddy to sleep with and all will be well and so I may just restart this thread in the not too distant future, maybe tomorrow, or the next day...Its called procrastination darling and its something I'm bloody good at.

Stay tuned folks

[Gem Windcaster]

I'm glad you're having fun.

You know what? I'll be here waiting for you. I am turning over a new leaf, as per my signature is pointing out.


Here's a link to get you started - it's about hermeneutics: http://www.religious...rg/chr_inte.htm I think it gives a better picture of how most bible interpreter thinks.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 09 July 2009 - 01:41 AM

[councilor]

i know, i know, thread necro, but someone should check out the sceptics annotated bible. comes in Koran and Mormon flavours too.

[cauthon]

councilor, on Aug 18 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

i know, i know, thread necro, but someone should check out the sceptics annotated bible. comes in Koran and Mormon flavours too.

Or the LOLcat version ;-)

[cauthon]

frookenhauer, on Dec 23 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

Anyway God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, which I always tend to associate with the devil, but his wife turns around and gets turned into a pillar of salt. Why could they not watch the spectacle? It'd be better than the best fireworks displays...

Well, the issue is not so much her looking, but the reason she was looking. She could not let go of the material stuff she had, even though she lived in a city that was just ... well ... sinful. If you look at the description of the way the Sodomites acted (from youngster to old men), it was high time to wipe the slate clean there.

frookenhauer, on Dec 23 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

Incest! Of the worst kind, but its really twisted, his daughters have decided that they must preserve his seed. Just how old are they? Maybe god was prodding them in the right...wrong direction. Or did Lot put the idea into their heads. Whatever it is its disgusting and should have been edited out of the final cut.

So, you'd essentially cover up the faults people have? Then people would say, look, it's clearly been edited, and people are made to look good, so it cannot be true. Cannot do that, if you want to tell a tale. If you read this part, you should take the time into account. A man without sons would have no means of having his name (and line) continued. And this was extremely important to those people. So, yes the daughters did something wrong, but Lot was too drunk to care at that point. Another warning against using too much booze ;-)