The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you. That's all I'm looking the materialist to admit - that morality is (for them) various self-contradictory beliefs held in any one age, and subject to change with age. A thing is only immoral if one thinks it is. If one thinks it is moral, then it is. Entirely subjective, though it may be shared by many at any one time.

If you say paedophilia is immoral and I say it is moral, both of us are right - if materialism is true.

No we are not both right.

Read back what you just wrote. We have thrown out the notion of universal standards, uniform morality. So how are we both right? "Right" according to which universal moral standard. Remember we don't have a universal standard any more.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So when atheist evolutionists talk about morality, we need to understand they may mean anything at any time. They cannot rightly insist their morality is any better than another's.

Yes they can. In the same way I can say your taste in movies sucks.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Christian - or any theist - can logically make the claim. If their God is real, their morality is the only true morality. They may be wrong about their god, but they are logically consistent.

No actually they aren't, because they are pretending their morality is something that it isn't.

Why is God's morality the "true" morality. It is simply God's opinion. It is subjective to God. By definition it doesn't exist independently of God, because they God would be forced to accept the true notion of right or wrong that just exists in nature, like a law of nature.

Which he doesn't do. He makes up his own morality. He is not subject to a moral standard as a force of nature. He is not logically bound to it. And therefore the morality only exists in the domain of God, it doesn't exist as a universal force of nature.

Contrast this with logic. God is bound by the laws of logic. He cannot make a rock he cannot move because such a thing would be illogical, it would be logical nonsense. Logic exists as a force of nature and even God is bound to it otherwise the universe would be nonsense.

But there is no equivilant for morality. There is not moral law that God is bound to, any more than there is one we are bound to. Such a concept does not exist in nature. Morality is just opinion, be it my opinion or God's opinion. None of us, God or myself, are constrained in this opinion.

Therefore God's morality is no more truer than anyone elses. They are all subjective opinions. You can say that God's morality is based on authority, we must follow it because God knows best, but that is a different thing all together. That is you agreeing to follow God's morality based on faith that it will produce the best out come. But I could do the same with my grandmother, it is still no more universally true than anyone else.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

What if the flaws came after the initial perfect design became operative?

Ever heard of the Fall?

Occams Razor.

• The universe looks designed.
• The universe's design is greatly flawed.
• Therefore the universe's designer was flawed.
• God is not flawed.
• God is not the universes designer.

Is that not the simplest, most logical, conclusion?

Why introduce unsupported complexity to reach a particularly conclusion.

Unless all this is because you are trying to reach a particularly conclusion

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No that's not what I said. Humans have a sense of morality built into them by evolution. Some higher levels things vary but the basics are the same across the whole of humanity and much of the animal kingdom too, the basics being the golden rule of morality, which is all you need to live a moral life

Morality is just another instinct, like the ability of birds to fly thousands of miles in a wind resistance reducing triangualar formation to the same pond they landed in the previous year

And if that instinct tells you to seduce your neighbour's wife/have sex with your mother/drink blood/drink no alcohol? One man's morals are another man's sins. Evolution produces all sorts - so how can you condemn any thing as being actually wrong, rather than just wrong to you?

But again, my argument is that, for the materialist, man knows he is a product of evolution and knows his 'conscience' is just a part of that. He is therefore free to act how he pleases and logically you are not able to condemn him. Who does he owe any account to? Are they not just the same as he?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

And if that instinct tells you to seduce your neighbour's wife/have sex with your mother/drink blood/drink no alcohol? One man's morals are another man's sins. Evolution produces all sorts - so how can you condemn any thing as being actually wrong, rather than just wrong to you?

Why would you not be able to condemn them as being wrong?

If you do not have a universal standard then you do not need to match the actions of the universal standard in order to say it is wrong.

Again, using the example above, your argument is like saying without a universal truth of what is or is not a bad movie I can't say "White Chicks" is a bad movie, or if I do I'm being logically inconsistent.

Think about this for a minute Wolfsbane. Why can I not say "White Chicks" is a bad movie?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

And so, if society did not condemn them - say where murder, rape and pillage of the next village is seen as a good thing? It is then good, not bad?

From the point of view of the society that does the attacking, yes. This is evidenced throughout history. Fortunately, over time (especially the last hundred or so years) we've been moving gradually towards a liberal society which generally sees these things as wrong when committed by any people, and sees people as one species rather than separate .

There is no society that could survive if murder was morally permissible.

But my point really is that the materialist cannot hold that there is any actual good or bad, whether society or individuals adopt such morals or not. Morality, if materialism is true, is purely invention - a belief held for a time by an individual or a collection of individuals; often opposed by the beliefs of other societies and individuals.

As others have pointed out, this is not true. It is an evolved social construct, not something made up by individuals.

So for you to say murder is wrong is merely to express your belief, a belief based on chemical reactions in your brain that result from biological structures inherited from your ancestors. Someone else's chemical reactions may give an different belief, so the materialist has to admit all such beliefs are of no more significance than another.

Well it's also my belief that a minor second sounds disharmonious, and that blue and green look atrocious when worn together. These are things which most people would agree on - hence they are social constructs. The minor second is a disharmonious sound in many cultures, blue and green generally look bad in western societies, and murder is considered wrong in every society, because if it's not the society breaks.

OK, let's assume most Germans loved the Jews. What about the Hutus and the Tutsis circa 1994? Was it good for the majority of the Hutus to hate the Tutsis?

I don't know enough about the Rwandan genocide to respond to that. As to your first sentence, however, I never implied that the Germans loved the Jews - rather that they would not willingly have participated in the mass extermination of an entire race of people if they had not been told to do so by a figure of authority.

Yes, many people in the Bible choose to ignore their morals in deference to those in authority. It took courage to defy the rulers and do right. Daniel in the lion's den and all that.

I was more precisely referring to the people in the old testament who were quite willing to kill their own children because god told them to. This is seen as a morally acceptable act in the Bible which, frankly, is worrying.

Same today. The Establishment shuts the mouths of many scientists who would question evolution but fear for their jobs.

Utterly false conspiracy theory, but this has been explained to you so many times by now that I'm not going to go into it.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

And if that instinct tells you to seduce your neighbour's wife/have sex with your mother/drink blood/drink no alcohol? One man's morals are another man's sins. Evolution produces all sorts - so how can you condemn any thing as being actually wrong, rather than just wrong to you?

Through societal consensus, we call it the law round these here parts

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

And if that instinct tells you to seduce your neighbour's wife/have sex with your mother/drink blood/drink no alcohol? One man's morals are another man's sins. Evolution produces all sorts - so how can you condemn any thing as being actually wrong, rather than just wrong to you?

But again, my argument is that, for the materialist, man knows he is a product of evolution and knows his 'conscience' is just a part of that. He is therefore free to act how he pleases and logically you are not able to condemn him. Who does he owe any account to? Are they not just the same as he?

The materialist man is NOT free! Evolution has determined that we have a conscience therefore it is our primary instinct to look out for one another. However, because this isn't always optimal for survival we have evolved so that we can choose to ignore it at times (though it can be verryyyyyyy difficult for some ).
Empathy is one of the first instincts a newborn gets
Ignoring that primary urge is difficult, even when the rational minds says it is better to do so.

Sam Vimes

Wolfsbane, I can acknowledge that objective morality passed down from a God can be superior to morality that is arrived at through instinct and consensus (depending on the God of course. There are lots of religions out there whose rules I'd hate to live under)

But, and it's a very important but, the fact that morality might be better if it was objective, binding and unquestionable does not mean that it is objective, binding and unquestionable. You can spend all day telling us how superior objective morality is to all other forms but that brings you no closer to proving that it actually exists. It's like me saying "flying cars are better than normal cars", to which the obvious response is "I agree but flying cars don't exist so what's your point?".

Human beings have to make do with the morality we have. It's not perfect but it's imperfection does not entitle us to make stuff up to try to compensate for it

lugha

wolfsbane wrote: »

But again, my argument is that, for the materialist, man knows he is a product of evolution and knows his 'conscience' is just a part of that. He is therefore free to act how he pleases and logically you are not able to condemn him. Who does he owe any account to? Are they not just the same as he?

You could point to a similar failing in morality derived from Christianity. Almost no sin if any at all (?) is unforgivable so an individual can do wrong and if his contrition is genuine then he can seek redemption. No doubt you will say genuine is the important word here. Maybe so. But is it hard not to suspect that an “everything is forgivable” moral framework will not lead to less than moral society. In the extreme case you might even get those who believe (wrongly perhaps, but believe nonetheless) that they can lead as an immoral life as they please and seek redemption on their death beds.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would you not be able to condemn them as being wrong?

If you do not have a universal standard then you do not need to match the actions of the universal standard in order to say it is wrong.

Again, using the example above, your argument is like saying without a universal truth of what is or is not a bad movie I can't say "White Chicks" is a bad movie, or if I do I'm being logically inconsistent.

Think about this for a minute Wolfsbane. Why can I not say "White Chicks" is a bad movie?

I think the point WB is trying to make is that you cannot define anything as being wrong without some predefined criteria of wrongness. You can adjudge something as being wrong but how do you define what is wrong in order to make that judgment without a predefined criteria of wrongness? What standard do you measure it by? If you judge it by your own internal standard then it is only subjectively wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is in fact wrong. You can judge White Chicks as being a bad movie but that doesn't mean that it is in actual fact a bad movie. For it to be a bad movie one must define badness in relation to movies first, and if White Chicks fits all the previously agreed criteria of badness for movies only then can it be adjudged as being a bad movie, even if after all that judging there are people who still think it is a good movie. Can rape be really wrong for people who don’t think it is wrong? If so then why should it? That is what WB is trying to point out. Why are somethings really wrong no matter what? It is because objective moral values exists. And that is why the moral argument for the existence of God is a good one. Because if God doesn’t exist then objective moral values do not exist, but as we have just seen, objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists and atheism is false. :pac:

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because if God doesn’t exist then objective moral values do not exist, but as we have just seen, objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists and atheism is false. :pac:

Great thats settled so. Just to completley clear everything up nicely could you post all of the absolute moral values? (We can even make them a sticky perhaps)

Soul Winner

lugha wrote: »

You could point to a similar failing in morality derived from Christianity. Almost no sin if any at all (?) is unforgivable so an individual can do wrong and if his contrition is genuine then he can seek redemption. No doubt you will say genuine is the important word here. Maybe so. But is it hard not to suspect that an “everything is forgivable” moral framework will not lead to less than moral society. In the extreme case you might even get those who believe (wrongly perhaps, but believe nonetheless) that they can lead as an immoral life as they please and seek redemption on their death beds.

To repent of something that you have done which YOU think is wrong is to live a life of not doing such things anymore, which totally unravels your assumption that someone can pay lip service to God and just keep doing what they like regardless. To truly seek forgiveness of your wrong acts is to have a deep heartfelt regret for you actions and a true turning to God out of remorse and to ask His forgiveness. When the heart of a sinner is truly fixed on the forgiveness of God for their bad actions in that moment that soul is not intent on the pursuit of doing such things anymore.

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

Great thats settled so. Just to completley clear everything up nicely could you post all of the absolute moral values? (We can even make them a sticky perhaps)

OK: Things that are wrong no matter what: If you disagree on any of them then please let us know:

Murder
Rape
Theft
Lies
Torture
Greed


Just to mention a few. Is anyone in disagreement that the above are wrong or bad? If they are wrong or bad then why are they wrong or bad? Are they just wrong or bad because of an internal viewpoint you have or are they wrong or bad no matter what? If they are wrong or bad no matter what then you have just stated that objective moral values exist. And I agree with you, they do exist, but without God how could they exist? They couldn't! Therefore God exists. If they can exist without God then please tell me how. And if you think they don't exist then the above are not really wrong as far as your concerned, they are just subjectively wrong, or if you’re humanist, they are actions which are just not advantageous for the survival and benefit of our species. But is that what you'd really say to someone who raped and murdered your kids because they were in the way of them robbing your house in order that they could steal your identity so that they could lie about who they were so that they could position themselves to be able to do whatever they wanted while pretending to be you? Would somebody who did something like that be just socially unacceptable to you or something else?

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK: Things that are wrong no matter what: If you disagree on any of them then please let us know:

Murder
Rape
Theft
Lies
Torture
Greed


Just to mention a few. Is anyone in disagreement that the above are wrong or bad? If they are wrong or bad then why are they wrong or bad? Are they just wrong or bad because of an internal viewpoint you have or are they wrong or bad no matter what? If they are wrong or bad no matter what then you have just stated that objective moral values exist. And I agree with you, they do exist, but without God how could they exist? They couldn't! Therefore God exists. If they can exist without God then please tell me how. And if you think they don't exist then the above are not really wrong as far as your concerned, they are just subjectively wrong, or if you’re humanist, they are actions which are just not advantageous for the survival and benefit of our species. But is that what you'd really say to someone who raped and murdered your kids because they were in the way of them robbing your house in order that they could steal your identity so that they could lie about who they were so that they could position themselves to be able to do whatever they wanted while pretending to be you? Would somebody who did something like that be just socially unacceptable to you or something else?

And if all of these are absolute moral values then it stands to reason that I should not be able to come up with any moral dilemas for anything on that list correct?

marco_polo

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now I am presuming that since the release New Testament it is no longer ok to kill all the male children and keep the females one. You would agree however that it was not always wrong to do this since at the time God said it was ok?

And hypothetically speaking if this was reintroduced a New New Testment, this would be morally ok to partake in such activity?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are somethings really wrong no matter what? It is because objective moral values exists. And that is why the moral argument for the existence of God is a good one. Because if God doesn’t exist then objective moral values do not exist, but as we have just seen, objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists and atheism is false. :pac:

Seriously mate this argument will not get any less wrong the more you repeat it. It makes exactly as much sense, and for exactly the same reasons, as:

"Why do we all have eyes? It is because we all have the ability to see. And that is why the argument for the existence of God is a good one. Because if God doesn’t exist then eyes do not exist, but as we have just seen, eyes do exist, therefore God exists and atheism is false. :pac:"

This simply stems from your and wolfsbanes misunderstanding of evolution. Just like our physical bodies evolved, our minds also evolved. Producing through evolution a similar thought process with regard to how to treat other people is no more miraculous than producing an eye. Human beings are not as free as you lot think. We are by and large controlled by our instincts. Our "conscious mind" is only a thin layer sitting on top of millions of years of primitive instinct, instinct that developed that allowed our species to survive
. And it's shared across the species because we have a common ancestor

Morality evolved because pre-humans lived in social groups. They didn't always but the ones that didn't died out. Because they lived in these groups their behaviour had to adapt, just like wolves had to adapt not to kill each other and to work together to hunt

If morality comes from God, how do you explain the moral behaviour that has been demonstrated by animals in experiments and in normal life. An example would be when birds migrate. They fly in a triangular formation to reduce wind resistance and each bird takes a turn at the front so that one bird does not get too tired. But if they have no morals why do they do this? I would argue they evolved this instinct because if they don't do it they won't make it the whole way. It's better for everyone if they behave morally.

So how does that fit into your god hypothesis?

Sam Vimes

About your list of sins soul winner. I didn't even have to think about those and I didn't make a conscious decision that they're wrong, I just know they're wrong (note I know they're wrong despite not being a christian). And that's because I have an instinct that developed over millions of years that if I helped my pack and didn't kill them indiscriminately, I survived. That, again, wasn't a conscious choice, it was that the ones who developed this instinct were welcomed by the group and the ones who didn't were killed or shunned by the group, leaving them alone and very soon dead

When you hear someone say "I know in my heart", that's instinct, the chemicals in their brain telling them what to think. The way a mother can overlook all the wrongdoings of her children and still love them, that's instinct. And the way people feel a compulsion to help those around them, that's also instinct. I'm sure you'll agree that moral or immoral acts have a physical effect on the body. You will physically feel a lift if you do a good deed and feel awful if you've hurt someone. Guilt is a chemically controlled emotion just like fear or excitement. Our brains evolved to release chemicals making us feel good when we do good. We evolved it because our brethren who didn't were incapable of living in groups without murdering each other and living in a group was conducive to survival. There is nothing supernatural involved. Something you won't like to hear but which is nevertheless true is that this unshakeable belief that you all have in god, this ability to take it as fact and believe that anything that suggests it's not fact is wrong, that's an instinct too. At some point in history a belief in a higher power became conducive to survival and so was selected by natural selection. The most likely reason is to plug the very gap we're talking about now, that you instinctively think there's no right and wrong without it

The reason that atheists have so much trouble convincing you, the reason that no level of evidence against god is good enough for you, is that the chemicals in your brain are telling you there is a god and human beings find it extremely difficult to ignore their instincts, be it the "love your children" one, the "darkness is scary" one, the "treat your pack well" one or the "there is a god" one. We like to think that we're on a higher level of being but really we're almost as much a slave to our our instincts as all the other animals

Also you listed some bad things and pointed to the fact that we all automatically know they're wrong as evidence of God. If morality was truly objective there would be no differences across the whole human race but in reality only the basics are species wide. A major example of a difference would be the differing views on homosexuality. All across the world and all through time different cultures have had moral standards that are very different to ours and some of which appear horrific to us but which seemed perfectly moral to them because it was the done thing. That does not fit into a theory of objective morality but it's exactly what you'd expect if it evolved from a common ancestor and branched out. The same way that all humans have eyes, ears, noses and feet but we have differing skin colour, eye shape, muscle mass etc, we all share the same basic moral standards but the higher level things differ

btw, the way you pointed to all the similarities in our morality as evidence of God but ignored all the differences which are evidence against, that's called confirmation bias

gaynorvader

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK: Things that are wrong no matter what: If you disagree on any of them then please let us know:

Murder
Rape
Theft
Lies
Torture
Greed


Just to mention a few. Is anyone in disagreement that the above are wrong or bad? If they are wrong or bad then why are they wrong or bad? Are they just wrong or bad because of an internal viewpoint you have or are they wrong or bad no matter what? If they are wrong or bad no matter what then you have just stated that objective moral values exist. And I agree with you, they do exist, but without God how could they exist? They couldn't! Therefore God exists. If they can exist without God then please tell me how. And if you think they don't exist then the above are not really wrong as far as your concerned, they are just subjectively wrong, or if you’re humanist, they are actions which are just not advantageous for the survival and benefit of our species. But is that what you'd really say to someone who raped and murdered your kids because they were in the way of them robbing your house in order that they could steal your identity so that they could lie about who they were so that they could position themselves to be able to do whatever they wanted while pretending to be you? Would somebody who did something like that be just socially unacceptable to you or something else?

Actually, I think torture is an acceptable form of punishment. Better than murder anyway, and certainly better than turning a blind eye to rape.

Sam Vimes

gaynorvader wrote: »

Actually, I think torture is an acceptable form of punishment. Better than murder anyway, and certainly better than turning a blind eye to rape.

In fact I can think of scenarios where all of them except rape and greed could serve a greater purpose.

Someone is trying to kill your family and can't be stopped unless you murder him
Steal a gun from someone who is going to use it to kill someone
Lie to someone to comfort them
Torture someone to tell you the bomb disarming code

So it's not as objective as all that

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

Murder

Agreed, more or less - but what about in self-defence, or in the defence of one's loved ones?

Rape

I guess Saudi Arabia didn't get the memo, then...

Theft

Again, there are circumstances where theft would be acceptable, no? To avoid starvation, etc.?

Lies

You're right that this does seem to be generally condemned. Some people (not including myself) would prefer comforting lies over harsh truth, though.

Torture

...is in fact a very good example of moral relativism - a couple of hundred years ago it would have been laughed off your list; a couple of thousand years ago it was considered the only viable way to get a true confession (as, if they weren't tortured, they could 'just lie'.)

Greed

Can you expand on this?

gaynorvader

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact I can think of scenarios where all of them except rape and greed could serve a greater purpose.

Someone is trying to kill your family and can't be stopped unless you murder him
Steal a gun from someone who is going to use it to kill someone
Lie to someone to comfort them
Torture someone to tell you the bomb disarming code

So it's not as objective as all that

Killing someone to protect others isn't a murder in my mind, though you are correct in referring to it as such. Capital punishment is murder though.

Stealing is acceptable in extreme circumstances, but your example isn't what I'd call stealing unless you intend to keep the gun!

I am against lying, I don't think it is ever justified. Using lies as a crutch is not a good foundation to build self esteem on.

Torture could and should be used in many situations. What a lot of people don't realise is that it's commonly used today in the form of emotional blackmail, more often by women, to make people feel bad.

Sam Vimes

gaynorvader wrote: »

Killing someone to protect others isn't a murder in my mind, though you are correct in referring to it as such. Capital punishment is murder though.

Stealing is acceptable in extreme circumstances, but your example isn't what I'd call stealing unless you intend to keep the gun!

I am against lying, I don't think it is ever justified. Using lies as a crutch is not a good foundation to build self esteem on.

Torture could and should be used in many situations. What a lot of people don't realise is that it's commonly used today in the form of emotional blackmail, more often by women, to make people feel bad.

So much for objective morality :rolleyes:

gaynorvader

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So much for objective morality :rolleyes:

Objective morality?! Morality is definitely subjective! Even amongst religions, people hold different morals. If the world was black and white, maybe then we could have objective morals.

Mark Hamill

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact I can think of scenarios where all of them except rape and greed could serve a greater purpose.

Just look at the bible for rape, didn't Lot offer his daughters up to a mob in order to save some angels? That would be rape for the greater "good" in a gods eyes, wouldn't it?

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

To repent of something that you have done which YOU think is wrong is to live a life of not doing such things anymore, which totally unravels your assumption that someone can pay lip service to God and just keep doing what they like regardless. To truly seek forgiveness of your wrong acts is to have a deep heartfelt regret for you actions and a true turning to God out of remorse and to ask His forgiveness. When the heart of a sinner is truly fixed on the forgiveness of God for their bad actions in that moment that soul is not intent on the pursuit of doing such things anymore.

Yes but this is not unique to morality based on religion. If I reflect on some deed and decide that I was morally wrong then my aspiration at that time would be to desist from repeating this wrong doing. In practice of course, sometimes temptation overcomes our moral instinct and in this battle, what in truth are critical aspects of our moral framework (i.e. Christians cannot exploit the fact that redemption is always available) might be glossed over almost subconsciously. I suggest that a moral framework where all wrongs can be forgiven might not be the most difficult hurdle for temptation to overcome even for someone who in clear thinking mode, understands Christian morality correctly. (BTW, surely someone who deliberately misunderstands is just committing another sin, which is also forgivable?) Any wrong I have done in the past stays done. The slate is never wiped clean and I would suggest that this helps prevent me from doing wrong again.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just look at the bible for rape, didn't Lot offer his daughters up to a mob in order to save some angels? That would be rape for the greater "good" in a gods eyes, wouldn't it?

Nope, not at all.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Nope, not at all.

What was the point of the story?


And did God not trade military victory for human sacrifice?

philologos

Nowhere do we see God's approval of said act. The Bible also shows David's son raping one his daughters (2 Samuel 13:1-22) as a means of showing the sinful lives of others so we can learn from it. Likewise the Bible also depicts rape as the cause for a war between the tribes of Israel and Benjamin in the book of Judges 19-20. Again, rape is also prohibited in detail in the Jewish Torah (Deuteronomy 22).

Sam Vimes: I assume that you are referring to Jephthah in Judges chapter 11? If so I'd be glad to review the chapter with you. I've been on enough skeptics websites to know what the common objections to the Jewish texts are.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Nope, not at all.

Really? Genesis 19 disagrees:

Genesis 19 wrote:

1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, 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 ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

3And he pressed upon 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.

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8Behold 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.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Nowhere do we see God's approval of said act. The Bible also shows David's son raping one his daughters (2 Samuel 13:1-22) as a means of showing the sinful lives of others so we can learn from it. Likewise the Bible also depicts rape as the cause for a war between the tribes of Israel and Benjamin in the book of Judges 19-20. Again, rape is also prohibited in detail in the Jewish Torah (Deuteronomy 22).

Not only do we see no disaproval of said act either, the only reason the girls weren't raped was because the mob ignored them because they were more interested in the angels.