[Brakeman]

This is from memory, so please excuse my error if I have this wrong, but about the story in the bible where lot has two angels as guests and he's afraid they will be "Defiled" by the wicked perverts outside his home, why would lot ever need to protect angels? Were they weak? If they can be weak then wouldn't this mean they were weak in faith as well, as you know, the 'ol faith moves mountains thing? How could an angel be faithless?

[HereticZero]

I have often wondered the same thing and what of Lot? Remember, god said he would spare the region if one righteous person could be found in it. Well, who was Lot? He was supposed to be righteous in god's eye. The do-gooders have been murdering homosexuals for centuries over this chapter of the babble since xtianity got a foot hold! No one on the planet gave a crap until xtianity started stirring up trouble.

[quicksand]

Brakeman, on 03 December 2009 - 08:36 AM, said:

If they can be weak then wouldn't this mean they were weak in faith as well, as you know, the 'ol faith moves mountains thing? How could an angel be faithless?

Angels were created to serve. They needed haven't faith, which makes the Genesis story of fallen angels that much more unbelievable. How could a fallen angel even fall and go against their created nature? Makes no sense at all.

[mwc]

Brakeman, on 03 December 2009 - 08:36 AM, said:

This is from memory, so please excuse my error if I have this wrong, but about the story in the bible where lot has two angels as guests and he's afraid they will be "Defiled" by the wicked perverts outside his home, why would lot ever need to protect angels? Were they weak? If they can be weak then wouldn't this mean they were weak in faith as well, as you know, the 'ol faith moves mountains thing? How could an angel be faithless?

An angel is simply a messenger (and the actual meaning of the word) and not some magical powerful being. So the angels could simply be some guys (ie. servants of god) that came along to deliver the message to Lot. He needed to protect them since they were on a <cue Blues Brothers> "Mission from god." Essentially the story shows a virgin sacrifice being performed.

mwc

[Shyone]

mwc, on 03 December 2009 - 09:48 AM, said:

Brakeman, on 03 December 2009 - 08:36 AM, said:

This is from memory, so please excuse my error if I have this wrong, but about the story in the bible where lot has two angels as guests and he's afraid they will be "Defiled" by the wicked perverts outside his home, why would lot ever need to protect angels? Were they weak? If they can be weak then wouldn't this mean they were weak in faith as well, as you know, the 'ol faith moves mountains thing? How could an angel be faithless?

An angel is simply a messenger (and the actual meaning of the word) and not some magical powerful being. So the angels could simply be some guys (ie. servants of god) that came along to deliver the message to Lot. He needed to protect them since they were on a <cue Blues Brothers> "Mission from god." Essentially the story shows a virgin sacrifice being performed.

mwc

Messenger? Kind of like Mercury?

[Ouroboros]

I find it rather interesting that the Bible says Lot was a righteous person, but he offered up his daughters (children) to be molested and raped, and yet God spared him. I mean. Lot's decision was severely deprived of any sensibility and morality. How can he have been a moral person?

In another thread we've discussed morality with a Christian. And in another thread we talked about the website which brings up child molestation as an absolute immorality and trying to catch the reader hook-line-and-sinker, yet in the Bible Lot is offering his kids to be raped and God calls him moral. WTF?

[Shyone]

HanSolo, on 03 December 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

I find it rather interesting that the Bible says Lot was a righteous person, but he offered up his daughters (children) to be molested and raped, and yet God spared him. I mean. Lot's decision was severely deprived of any sensibility and morality. How can he have been a moral person?

In another thread we've discussed morality with a Christian. And in another thread we talked about the website which brings up child molestation as an absolute immorality and trying to catch the reader hook-line-and-sinker, yet in the Bible Lot is offering his kids to be raped and God calls him moral. WTF?

Note: One step worse is Jephthah sacrificing his virginal daughter.

Now, here's the interesting thing. In ethics, the goal is not to make the perfect choice, but the best choice of those available.

Choice A: Let God's messengers be abused.
Choice B: Let your daughters get screwed.

Now we can cheat and add other choices (Go out swinging, Lock the doors and ignore them, dig a passage out of the house, Bribe the guys outside with booze, money, or whatever), but if these were the only choices available, then the ethical choice would depend on whether there existed a god, whether he has angels, whether these "men" were actually angels and so forth.

I say fuck the daughters. Save the angels.

Besides (in true apologetic fashion), I don't think the daughters were really virgins, and I don't think they were that young. One was maybe about 30, and the other about 35.

[Japedo]

HanSolo, on 03 December 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

In another thread we've discussed morality with a Christian. And in another thread we talked about the website which brings up child molestation as an absolute immorality and trying to catch the reader hook-line-and-sinker, yet in the Bible Lot is offering his kids to be raped and God calls him moral. WTF?

Not only does he offer his daughters up to be raped, he screws his own kids in the cave after his wife was turned to a pillar of salt and planted his 'seed' in them. The story likes to blame the girls getting the father drunk, but honestly, who in their right mind would believe that in a court of law by today's standards?

God destroys two city's because of supposed sexual sin, but saves a guy who offers up his daughters to be sexual favors to an angry mob, then later has sex with the very same daughters. yeah real stand up guy, that Lot.

[thefriendlyghost]

HanSolo, on 03 December 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

I find it rather interesting that the Bible says Lot was a righteous person, but he offered up his daughters (children) to be molested and raped, and yet God spared him. I mean. Lot's decision was severely deprived of any sensibility and morality. How can he have been a moral person?

In another thread we've discussed morality with a Christian. And in another thread we talked about the website which brings up child molestation as an absolute immorality and trying to catch the reader hook-line-and-sinker, yet in the Bible Lot is offering his kids to be raped and God calls him moral. WTF?

This story was one of the reasons I left xtianity. Xtians never seem to react to it with disgust, and make excuses for it, and this always disturbed me, these calm reactions, and matter of fact answers from xtians on things that would make a normal human being cringe. I would read christian books on stories such as this one, and there would be no comments, or reaction, just silence, or a positive spin. WTF?

[Brakeman]

mwc, on 03 December 2009 - 09:48 AM, said:

Brakeman, on 03 December 2009 - 08:36 AM, said:

This is from memory, so please excuse my error if I have this wrong, but about the story in the bible where lot has two angels as guests and he's afraid they will be "Defiled" by the wicked perverts outside his home, why would lot ever need to protect angels? Were they weak? If they can be weak then wouldn't this mean they were weak in faith as well, as you know, the 'ol faith moves mountains thing? How could an angel be faithless?

An angel is simply a messenger (and the actual meaning of the word) and not some magical powerful being. So the angels could simply be some guys (ie. servants of god) that came along to deliver the message to Lot. He needed to protect them since they were on a <cue Blues Brothers> "Mission from god." Essentially the story shows a virgin sacrifice being performed.

mwc

So where did the "white wings" and crap come from? Aren't there instances in the bible where angels had inordinate power? And still did not their direct knowledge of god give them miraculous powers?

[Japedo]

Shyone, on 03 December 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

Besides (in true apologetic fashion), I don't think the daughters were really virgins, and I don't think they were that young. One was maybe about 30, and the other about 35.

How does a True apologetic get around this?

Genesis 19: 8 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.


Then down to verse 12, same chapter: 14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.


Girls were thought as mature around age 12 or whenever they got their periods in those time, There is nothing to indicate the daughters are in their 30s at all.


1) Where do you arrive at these ages

2) Why weren't the daughters burned in the city then with all the other sex crazed people, if you have evidence to show they were whores?

3) How do you absolve lot from having A ) incest sin B ) sex outside of marriage C ) adultery to start with. How is he any more "righteous" in anyway, shape or form then thoes burned alive for 'sex crimes'?

[Ouroboros]

Shyone, on 03 December 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

Note: One step worse is Jephthah sacrificing his virginal daughter.

Yeah. How the hell can the apologists keep on defending such crap?

Quote

Now, here's the interesting thing. In ethics, the goal is not to make the perfect choice, but the best choice of those available.

Choice A: Let God's messengers be abused.
Choice B: Let your daughters get screwed.

Now we can cheat and add other choices (Go out swinging, Lock the doors and ignore them, dig a passage out of the house, Bribe the guys outside with booze, money, or whatever), but if these were the only choices available, then the ethical choice would depend on whether there existed a god, whether he has angels, whether these "men" were actually angels and so forth.

I say fuck the daughters. Save the angels.

You, you religious relativist... there, now I said it... you're just a vulgar religious relativistic heretic. It will lead you to nihilism and a void of true emotions to Jesus.

A side track here... Talking about nihilism, when I was Christian I actually felt this life was unimportant and I wanted to go to Heaven as soon as possible. For a while, my life was miserable and I was contemplating ending it, but I wasn't sure if it was an unforgivable sin and would prevent me from going to Heaven. So I prayed to God to take my life... Isn't that a crappy meaning of life? Sorry for the diversion.

Quote

Besides (in true apologetic fashion), I don't think the daughters were really virgins, and I don't think they were that young. One was maybe about 30, and the other about 35.

Yeah, right. It makes it okay then.

[Ouroboros]

Japedo, on 03 December 2009 - 10:10 AM, said:

Not only does he offer his daughters up to be raped, he screws his own kids in the cave after his wife was turned to a pillar of salt and planted his 'seed' in them. The story likes to blame the girls getting the father drunk, but honestly, who in their right mind would believe that in a court of law by today's standards?

Yup. How sick is that?

Also consider that the children to some degree reflect the morality they have learned from their parents... so their behavior is an image of Lot's view on morality. Very loosey-goosey wasn't he? No smoke without a fire. Yada, yada... Christians love to blame the "evil" parents when they're not Christians, so why not here?

Quote

God destroys two city's because of supposed sexual sin, but saves a guy who offers up his daughters to be sexual favors to an angry mob, then later has sex with the very same daughters. yeah real stand up guy, that Lot.

Exactly. It's a twisted story. And the Bible calls him righteous.

Righteous definition: "(of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous : he is a good, righteous man, I am sure | feelings of righteous indignation about pay and conditions. See note at moral ."

[Shyone]

Japedo, on 03 December 2009 - 10:25 AM, said:

Shyone, on 03 December 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

Besides (in true apologetic fashion), I don't think the daughters were really virgins, and I don't think they were that young. One was maybe about 30, and the other about 35.

How does a True apologetic get around this?

Genesis 19: 8 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.


Then down to verse 12, same chapter: 14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.


Girls were thought as mature around age 12 or whenever they got their periods in those time, There is nothing to indicate the daughters are in their 30s at all.


1) Where do you arrive at these ages

2) Why weren't the daughters burned in the city then with all the other sex crazed people, if you have evidence to show they were whores?

3) How do you absolve lot from having A ) incest sin B ) sex outside of marriage C ) adultery to start with. How is he any more "righteous" in anyway, shape or form then thoes burned alive for 'sex crimes'?

Damn. It's a good thing I'm not a real apologist. The Christian religion would be screwed if they relied on me to wiggle out of this shit.

But, here we go:

1. Lot lied about his daughters being virgins. He had been screwing them.
2. The age is not specified, but assumed, deduced, and based on flimsy evidence. They could have been 30-35. Even if they were virgins.
3. Incest sin: He was drunk and unconcious.
4. Sex outside of marriage - same.
5. Adultery - same.
6. Daughters weren't whores. Just hot for daddy.

How'd I do?

[Japedo]

Shyone, on 03 December 2009 - 10:40 AM, said:

Damn. It's a good thing I'm not a real apologist. The Christian religion would be screwed if they relied on me to wiggle out of this shit.

But, here we go:

1. Lot lied about his daughters being virgins. He had been screwing them.
2. The age is not specified, but assumed, deduced, and based on flimsy evidence. They could have been 30-35. Even if they were virgins.
3. Incest sin: He was drunk and unconcious.
4. Sex outside of marriage - same.
5. Adultery - same.
6. Daughters weren't whores. Just hot for daddy.

How'd I do?

Well... You did about as good as any of them would do I guess. But on an intellectual level, the answers fail.

As far as the drunkenness goes, it wouldn't stand in a corrupt court like our court, why should it be able to stand in an all Just court like "Gods"? The guy was to drunk to know what he was doing but not drunk enough to be able to get it up two different times, still not buying it.

If the daughters were whores they should have been killed with all the other whores, if god is as just and as fair as people like to claim he is.

The girls could have been 12-17 as well, no ages are given. But the story goes that lot was pushing his innocent untouched daughters out the door to satisfy an angry mob who wanted the two guys, I wonder why he didn't offer himself in their place? He's both a coward and an unjust person.

If this is gods ideal vision of justice, God is an Epic Fail by even sinful mans standards.


The daughters are in a no-win situation, like all kids who are abused.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Could one even rape an angel? I mean, do they even have bits between their legs? I had heard that they do not. And what kind of angel lets 2 innocent girls get gang raped anyway? They could have used this as an opportunity to show god's power and love but just kind of sat on their asses (or watched...?).

And his daughters were trying to do the right thing. Their father left them in the middle of nowhere but they had the idea of reproducing so ingrained they had to do whatever it took.

Aren't the Palestinians supposedly decedents of Lot? This story being from a Jewish perspective the origins wouldn't be very complimentary.

[Ouroboros]

Midnight-mindwanderings, on 03 December 2009 - 10:54 AM, said:

Could one even rape an angel? I mean, do they even have bits between their legs? I had heard that they do not. And what kind of angel lets 2 innocent girls get gang raped anyway? They could have used this as an opportunity to show god's power and love but just kind of sat on their asses (or watched...?).

Good point. How do you rape a magical being who exists in multiple dimensions at once? The angels could have just phased out into the 11th dimension and walked through the rapists. Or sent an electric charge from their hands and stunned them all. Come on! Where's the imagination here? Do sci-fi writers know more about the abilities and capacities of the supernatural beings?

[Neon Genesis]

At 7:55, Julia Sweeney has the greatest critique of the story of Lot ever:

[mwc]

Midnight-mindwanderings, on 03 December 2009 - 10:54 AM, said:

Could one even rape an angel? I mean, do they even have bits between their legs? I had heard that they do not. And what kind of angel lets 2 innocent girls get gang raped anyway? They could have used this as an opportunity to show god's power and love but just kind of sat on their asses (or watched...?).

It depends on how you interpret things like Genesis 6:

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Quote

Aren't the Palestinians supposedly decedents of Lot? This story being from a Jewish perspective the origins wouldn't be very complimentary.

The story says:

37 And the older daughter had a son, and she gave him the name Moab: he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And the younger had a son and gave him the name Ben-ammi: from him come the children of Ammon to this day.

mwc

[mwc]

Brakeman, on 03 December 2009 - 10:14 AM, said:

So where did the "white wings" and crap come from? Aren't there instances in the bible where angels had inordinate power? And still did not their direct knowledge of god give them miraculous powers?

Well I went ahead and re-read the story so it would be fresh in my mind and I'd so I can (hopefully) better answer some of these questions.

I was mistaken on the nature of the angels in this story. They do exhibit supernatural powers in that they blind the enemy (the men that try to rape them) so that they cannot find the door. Still, ancient angels are "messengers" and this goes back to Sumerian times.

The angels we see portrayed (the little cherub looking guys) go back to Greek times.

Looking at the various stories with all the different angels in the OT (especially the older ones like those with Jacob) you'll see that one moment it is "god" and the next it is an "angel." The story evolves. As "god" is pushed further and further away from humans it is replaced with helpers. Eventually these helpers are all that really interact with humans directly while "god" remains distant. They have to take on "power" in order to act on behalf of the "god" that can no longer act directly for itself.

mwc