The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

Mark Hamill: We've all read Genesis 19. If you are making an accusation, it might be useful to point out if God's approval is shown in that chapter. If not, one is making an assumption. From this we can only tell that Lot felt that this was the right thing to do, yet we know that Lot was a man very much stuck in his sin.

Why should we assume that approval is there from reading that passage? I think if you are making an accusation against Judaism (and Christianity by extension because it is based on Judaism) and it's texts you should be willing to back it up.

Given what other passages have to say about rape, I think it is safe to say that it is discouraged in the Jewish and Christian faith.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark Hamill: We've all read Genesis 19. If you are making an accusation, it might be useful to point out if God's approval is shown in that chapter. If not, one is making an assumption. From this we can only tell that Lot felt that this was the right thing to do, yet we know that Lot was a man very much stuck in his sin.

Why should we assume that approval is there from reading that passage? I think if you are making an accusation against Judaism (and Christianity by extension because it is based on Judaism) and it's texts you should be willing to back it up.

Given what other passages have to say about rape, I think it is safe to say that it is discouraged in the Jewish and Christian faith.

Throughout the old testament God makes his disapproval very apparent (plagues, pestilence, destruction of cities etc). A lack of this leads one to assume that he did not disapprove of it

philologos

In this case, nobody was actually raped. Therefore a sin wasn't committed. Remembering that God is omniscient, God would feel no need to interfere if God already knew the outcome. I.E lead people to positive decisions, and lead people to change in their lives. In some cases it appears that things that are evil are let happen as they are a means for developing human character, and ultimately end up as a means to what is good. I don't hold the simplex view that we know why God does absolutely everything. I do hold the view that God has given this world a purpose, and that there is a reason for everything.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

I can't remember the guy's name. He told God that if he gave him victory in the coming battle he would sacrifice the first person who came out of his house when he came back (how could it be anyone but his daughter ). He won, he came back, he saw his daughter come out of the house, he allowed her to go up to the mountains for a while (to lose her virginity I think it was) and then he stabbed her to death.

I can't wait to hear the interpretation that says that it's not at all what it appears.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't hold the simplex view that we know why God does absolutely everything.

No, you hold with the contradictory view that you know why he does good but why he allows bad to happen is "a mystery".

edit: and how do we know this story isn't an allegory or a metaphor? Is there a "this is to be taken literally" footnote in that chapter that others don't have?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can't remember the guy's name. He told God that if he gave him victory in the coming battle he would sacrifice the first person who came out of his house when he came back (how could it be anyone but his daughter ). He won, he came back, he saw his daughter come out of the house, he allowed her to go up to the mountains for a while (to lose her virginity I think it was) and then he stabbed her to death.

I can't wait to hear the interpretation that says that it's not at all what it appears.

Yes, Jephthah in Judges 11, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I would consider it down to the guys foolishness for making such a horrific vow in the first place. Not as an argument against the divine. There are other interpretations on it on the internet, but there is nothing that considers this praiseworthy in any shape or form.

Indeed, it was regarded as a sad and lamentable incident for the Israelites:

Judges 11:39 wrote:

At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made. She had never slept with a man. So there arose an Israelite custom that for four days every year the daughters of Israel would go out to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite

Although Sam, I must admit, I'm disappointed that you don't know the chapter and verse of what you are talking about before bringing it into a discussion. If we want to go through a list of verses on skeptics websites we can. However, it would be a royal waste of both of our time.

The question that matters is, do you really want to know about God, is God's existence a real possibility for you?

Edit: As for the losing virginity thing, no that didn't happen:

Judges 11:37 wrote:

And she said to her father, ‘Let this thing be done for me: Grant me two months, so that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, my companions and I.’

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Nowhere do we see God's approval of said act.

Why is Lot called a "righteous man" if offering his daughters to be raped was immoral?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, Jephthah in Judges 11, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I would consider it down to the guys foolishness for making such a horrific vow in the first place. Not as an argument against the divine. There are other interpretations on it on the internet, but there is nothing that considers this praiseworthy in any shape or form.

Indeed, it was regarded as a sad and lamentable incident for the Israelites:

I would argue that the reason you don't see it as an argument against the divine is that you don't think anything can possibly be an argument against the divine. That's the whole point of exegesis, that if something appears immoral it must be us at fault so we should try to find its true meaning :rolleyes:

God made a deal with someone which would more commonly be thought of as a deal with the devil. He intervened in a battle to help someone kill people in return for him killing yet another person. That is immoral...unless you are unwilling to consider the possibility that God was involved in something immoral

Jakkass wrote: »

Although Sam, I must admit, I'm disappointed that you don't know the chapter and verse of what you are talking about before bringing it into a discussion. If we want to go through a list of verses on skeptics websites we can. However, it would be a royal waste of both of our time.

:rolleyes: Whether the story is Leviticus 25:17 or Numbers 34:1 or Exodus 56:66 doesn't make a blind bit of difference. What matters is the story. I could have looked up the passage in two seconds but it doesn't make any difference

Jakkass wrote: »

The question that matters is, do you really want to know about God, is God's existence a real possibility for you?

God's existence is a real possibility to me. I just don't find it convincing when people define black as white because they want it to be so, as has been done with this story

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would argue that the reason you don't see it as an argument against the divine is that you don't think anything can possibly be an argument against the divine. That's the whole point of exegesis, that if something appears immoral it must be us at fault so we should try to find its true meaning :rolleyes:

The narrative, is basically this:
1. Jephthah makes a vow to kill whatever is first seen after battle if they are victorious.
2. His daughter is the first thing seen.
3. Jephthah realises that his vow was stupid.

The point of the narrative to me would be to say, do not make vows unless you are necessarily sure that you actually want to fulfil them. Indeed, it may be the motivation why Jesus says do not make any vow at all before God, but let your Yes be Yes and your No be No.

So yes, for me the responsibility lies with Jephthah not with God. This explanation makes sense in both Jewish and Christian tradition.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

God made a deal with someone which would more commonly be thought of as a deal with the devil. He intervened in a battle to help someone kill people in return for him killing yet another person. That is immoral...unless you are unwilling to consider the possibility that God was involved in something immoral

Where does the passage say this?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

:rolleyes: Whether the story is Leviticus 25:17 or Numbers 34:1 or Exodus 56:66 doesn't make a blind bit of difference. What matters is the story. I could have looked up the passage in two seconds but it doesn't make any difference

It's evidence that you haven't read the Biblical text for yourself, and that you look at the auld skeptics sites because you can't form an argument of your own. I have no interest in such a discussion with anyone. I'm sure with Google I can find a number of different sites with a defence of this passage.

Edit: PS - Exodus has 40 chapters :pac:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

God's existence is a real possibility to me. I just don't find it convincing when people define black as white because they want it to be so, as has been done with this story

We don't. I've read the passage as the passage stands. It is when people add assumptions that we have to be a bit wary. I have yet to see how this is in any form against God, but rather showing Jephthah's personal mistake and failing.

Edit: This type of narrative isn't unusual, infact it's a large part of Jewish tradition. To a lesser extent this is what Jesus did in His parables. Gave a narrative that people could relate to, and use as a note for how to lead ones life.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

TBH, you can choose to hold an interpretation of 'God approves' if you wish. It doesn't remove the fact that it is an assumption though. All I can see happen is that those who wish for it to be approved of, will take that assumption. Oh well, I suppose. One mans interpretation is idiocy to another man.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's evidence that you haven't read the Biblical text for yourself, and that you look at the auld skeptics sites because you can't form an argument of your own. I have no interest in such a discussion with anyone. I'm sure with Google I can find a number of different sites with a defence of this passage.

There is no point in me reading the passages for myself because, as we have just seen, I will read the passage as it is written but I will come up against 2000 years of people convincing themselves that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Every single thing that appears to be immoral has been interpreted and interpreted and interpreted until the sky is green and Moses smells of roses. And they never, never have anything to back up what they're saying other than that's what the passage must mean if you begin with the assumption that the bible is perfectly moral.

And I have nothing to back up what I'm saying except the text that's written in front of me and if the person I'm talking to refuses to accept it, there's nothing I can do to prove my case.

This is exactly why the scribblings in such a book cannot be considered evidence in any way, shape or form. It will always come down to the interpretation that either of us wants to take based on our own personal biases

gaynorvader

There's very little point in trying to argue any passage in the bible, after thousands of years of translating and mistranslating and embellishing, only the very general message could be said to hold any validity; the men who wrote it believed god did all the vengeful things he did in the old testament, different men believed Jesus was the son of god, died and was resurrected, the writers believed god wanted us to live our lives trying to do good in spite of our natural impulses and that we should all believe in one god.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no point in me reading the passages for myself because, as we have just seen, I will read the passage as it is written but I will come up against 2000 years of people convincing themselves that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Every single thing that appears to be immoral has been interpreted and interpreted and interpreted until the sky is green and Moses smells of roses. And they never, never have anything to back up what they're saying other than that's what the passage must mean if you begin with the assumption that the bible is perfectly moral.

Or could it be the truth of the situation? I have a feeling that you reject Christian explanation because you do not like the answer. You prefer to keep to the skeptics interpretation because it does not demand involvement of you in any way.

It's rather clear. The ESV Bible link I gave you for Judges 11 even refers to it as "Jephthah's Tragic Vow". As it was tragic, and Israel regarded it as a tragedy. I think that line alone shows us that this story set a precadent in Israel and a perpetual reminder for those not to commit the same mistake ever again.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I have nothing to back up what I'm saying except the text that's written in front of me and if the person I'm talking to refuses to accept it, there's nothing I can do to prove my case.

I have yet to see how this marks God as guilty. Again that seems to be an assumption on your part. The passage leads us to the understanding that Jephthah made a huge mistake.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is exactly why the scribblings in a 2000 year old book of magic stories cannot be considered evidence in any way, shape or form. It will always come down to the interpretation that either of us wants to take based on our own personal biases

I never said they were to be considered "evidence". You know well that I regard the Biblical text as a "hypothesis". However, when one strawmans them for their own benefit, that's when we ought to be concerned. I think it is more your personal bias that is being reflected here than mine.

I find this a lot when people review the Jewish Scriptures. I make no apology in saying that I find various moral lessons in the Jewish Scriptures that we can learn from as human beings.

gaynorvader: Biblical scholars are trained in both Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, our translations are more accurate than they ever have been before in any language due to the array of manuscripts we now have and technology used.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Or could it be the truth of the situation?

Yes, it could be the truth of the situation but I say it means X and you say it means Y. Neither of us can prove what we're saying unless we raise the original authors from the dead and ask them

Jakkass wrote: »

I have yet to see how this marks God as guilty. Again that seems to be an assumption on your part. The passage leads us to the understanding that Jephthah made a huge mistake.

As it is an assumption on your part. God apparently has and does intervene in the world but he more often than not chooses not to. You assume it's because he has some unknown plan where I assume that it's because he's either not as moral as you think or not there at all.

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said they were to be considered "evidence". You know well that I regard the Biblical text as a "hypothesis". However, when one strawmans them for their own benefit, that's when we ought to be concerned. I think it is more your personal bias that is being reflected here than mine.

Reasons 1, 2 and 7 of your 7 reasons for christianity are only valid if you assume the bible to be true and take it as evidence.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, it could be the truth of the situation but I say it means X and you say it means Y. Neither of us can prove what we're saying unless we raise the original authors from the dead and ask them

The passage clearly shows the act as something that is tragic, something that was at the fault of Jephthah for even making. You add assumptions concerning God to the actual passage. That's your choice, but that is merely your bias.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As it is an assumption on your part. God apparently has and does intervene in the world but he more often than not chooses not to. You assume it's because he has some unknown plan where I assume that it's because he's either not as moral as you think or not there at all.

How? The Biblical text says that God hands people over to their sinfulness in numerous passages in the Jewish prophets, and in the New Testament. There could be a purpose for evil, I'm not willing to deny that and neither are most philosophers of religion who have dealt with the Problem of Evil.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Reasons 1, 2 and 7 of your 7 reasons for christianity are only valid if you assume the bible to be true and take it as evidence.

I'm not going to go through these again here.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The passage clearly shows the act as something that is tragic, something that was at the fault of Jephthah for even making. You add assumptions concerning God to the actual passage. That's your choice, but that is merely your bias.

We both add assumptions

Jakkass wrote: »

How? The Biblical text says that God hands people over to their sinfulness in numerous passages in the Jewish prophets, and in the New Testament. There could be a purpose for evil, I'm not willing to deny that and neither are most philosophers of religion who have dealt with the Problem of Evil.

The part in bold is the assumption you add. The existence of evil doesn't fit with the idea of an all powerful and loving god so you assume there must be a moral reason for it

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not going to go through these again here.

Grand. As long as you acknowledge that they only work if the bible is evidence and not "a hypothesis"

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

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?

Assume God exists for one second, then assume that He gave this command to these people for another second, that means the carrying out of this command was a moral obligation on the part of the people to whom He commanded it. And interestingly enough they never actually carried out this command. This command was directed at a people who were chosen by God to be His oracle people, that through them the Messiah would come and provide the door of salvation for the world. The people of Edom who were to be destroyed were the Israelites enemies. They were descended from Amaleck who was descended from Esau the brother of Jacob. Going out the gate they stood against the people of God and would have wiped them out only for the protection of God. It was this people who wouldn't allow the Israelites to pass through their land as a shortcut to safety from other enemies, and it was from this people that Herod the baby killer was from descended and it is this people who right up to the end will be against God. God will wipe them out Himself then. But if God doesn't exist then I agree the acts you outline are wrong but again that is just my subjective opinion. And in the absence of a divine command from God (assuming He exists) then again the acts would be considered wrong. You just have to remember that God was protecting the people through whom He promised to bless the whole world and as others have pointed out there are times when killing is necessary. This was one of those times. And sure even if God doesn't exist then by the standards of some just in here would have allowed these Israelites to wipe out this people just on self defense grounds alone. Why isn't God allowed to this? After all as the giver of life it is His prerogative to take life again no?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Assume God exists for one second, then assume that He gave this command to these people for another second, that means the carrying out of this command was a moral obligation on the part of the people to whom He commanded it. And interestingly enough they never actually carried out this command. This command was directed at a people who were chosen by God to be His oracle people, that through them the Messiah would come and provide the door of salvation for the world. The people of Edom who were to be destroyed were the Israelites enemies. They were descended from Amaleck who was descended from Esau the brother of Jacob. Going out the gate they stood against the people of God and would have wiped them out only for the protection of God. It was this people who wouldn't allow the Israelites to pass through their land as a shortcut to safety from other enemies, and it was from this people that Herod the baby killer was from descended and it is this people who right up to the end will be against God. God will wipe them out Himself then. But if God doesn't exist then I agree the acts you outline are wrong but again that is just my subjective opinion.

And this is the problem with religious morality. Things that any rational person would say are wrong become right if God says it. That's why the world trade centre no longer exists

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And this is the problem with religious morality. Things that any rational person would say are wrong become right if God says it. That's why the world trade centre no longer exists

Well under your system there is no real right or wrong anyway. Which is the point WB was making and one which you and many other atheists seem to have serious problems comprehending. This is not a competition of who has the best morals, it is a frame of reference argument. For you to kill is wrong in certain circumstances but if there are no objective moral values then it’s not really wrong. Get the point? If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong only subjective opinions based on our evolutionary development as a surviving species. Under that idea there is nothing really wrong with doing anything, but we all know that there is something wrong with doing many acts, hence the existence of objective moral values.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Assume God exists for one second, then assume that He gave this command to these people for another second, that means the carrying out of this command was a moral obligation on the part of the people to whom He commanded it. And interestingly enough they never actually carried out this command. This command was directed at a people who were chosen by God to be His oracle people, that through them the Messiah would come and provide the door of salvation for the world. The people of Edom who were to be destroyed were the Israelites enemies. They were descended from Amaleck who was descended from Esau the brother of Jacob. Going out the gate they stood against the people of God and would have wiped them out only for the protection of God. It was this people who wouldn't allow the Israelites to pass through their land as a shortcut to safety from other enemies, and it was from this people that Herod the baby killer was from descended and it is this people who right up to the end will be against God. God will wipe them out Himself then. But if God doesn't exist then I agree the acts you outline are wrong but again that is just my subjective opinion. And in the absence of a divine command from God (assuming He exists) then again the acts would be considered wrong. You just have to remember that God was protecting the people through whom He promised to bless the whole world and as others have pointed out there are times when killing is necessary. This was one of those times. And sure even if God doesn't exist then by the standards of some just in here would have allowed these Israelites to wipe out this people just on self defense grounds alone. Why isn't God allowed to this? After all as the giver of life it is His prerogative to take life again no?

Let's move away from "right and wrong" for a moment. The idea of murdering non-virgins (and keeping the virgins as posessions) is vindictive and cruel. Whether or not you think it is right or wrong, it is rutheless and void of all compassion. I cannot reconcile such a lack of compassion with the God of the New Testament.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well under your system there is no real right or wrong anyway. Which is the point WB was making and one which you and many other atheists seem to have serious problems comprehending.

I'm afraid it's you who's having problems comprehending. Remember that from our perspective the bible is entirely written by human beings with no divine involvement, that this wonderfully perfect morality you lot keep going on about was written by primitives using the instinctive morality that evolution led them to have. They wrote down their own subjective morality and claimed that God inspired them in an attempt to make people think that it was objective and unquestionable

Soul Winner wrote: »

This is not a competition of who has the best morals, it is a frame of reference argument. For you to kill is wrong in certain circumstances but if there are no objective moral values then it’s not really wrong. Get the point? If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong only subjective opinions based on our evolutionary development as a surviving species. Under that idea there is nothing really wrong with doing anything, but we all know that there is something wrong with doing many acts, hence the existence of objective moral values.

I can acknowledge and have acknowledged that objective unquestionable morality would be superior, assuming the morality being called unquestionable is good. But that does not mean that subjective morality arrived at through societal consensus is completely useless. What believers don't seem to grasp is that a desire for your morality to be objective does not make it so. Your morality is not objective until the day the existence of your God is proven. Until that day it can only be assumed to be the subjective morality of primitive Israelites masquerading as objective. And since you acknowledge that parts of the bible would be immoral if they were not commanded by God and especially if you've been to New York in the past 8 years and noticed something missing in the skyline, you can see the dangers of subjective morality masquerading as objective

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Remember that from our perspective the bible is entirely written by human beings with no divine involvement, that this wonderfully perfect morality you lot keep going on about was written by primitives using the instinctive morality that evolution led them to have. They wrote down their own subjective morality and claimed that God inspired them in an attempt to make people think that it was objective and unquestionable

Who said we believed the Biblical authors to have no divine involvement? Or is this something that Soul Winner explicitly stated?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Who said we believed the Biblical authors to have no divine involvement? Or is this something that Soul Winner explicitly stated?

I said we (not christians) believe the biblical authors to have no divine involvement to show that we don't accept that there is no right and wrong without God because this wonderful perfect morality you shout to the rooftops about was entirely the product of a few Israeli brains

philologos

It's fine that you have that view, but all that means is that we are at an impasse. Soul Winner is entirely correct that morality is relegated to the subjective for you guys, one mans acceptable is another mans unacceptable. For us, there is right and there is wrong, and God is the standard that we discern this right and wrong from. That's the impasse we are at. Both philosophically and in mind of my faith, I cannot accept morality as being entirely subjective.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Let's move away from "right and wrong" for a moment. The idea of murdering non-virgins (and keeping the virgins as posessions) is vindictive and cruel. Whether or not you think it is right or wrong, it is rutheless and void of all compassion. I cannot reconcile such a lack of compassion with the God of the New Testament.

If they had not killed them then they would have been brought into slavery by another tribe of people who might have done much worse to them. Remember God was primarily focused on the survival of His own people so that through them the promised Seed would come. Now you mightn't like that idea but if God exists then why should He be bothered with what you think of His doings? If He doesn't exist then the Israelites were just doing what every other tribe has done through out history, protecting their own. Why is it that the Israelites cannot do what some atheists in here think it is ok for anyone else to do to in any other circumstance?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's fine that you have that view, but all that means is that we are at an impasse. Soul Winner is entirely correct that morality is relegated to the subjective for you guys, one mans acceptable is another mans unacceptable. For us, there is right and there is wrong, and God is the standard that we discern this right and wrong from. That's the impasse we are at. Both philosophically and in mind of my faith, I cannot accept morality as being entirely subjective.

But you see Jakkass, until your God's existence is proven your morality is not objective. It might be considered binding by christians but I don't accept it to be binding on me, the 66% of the world who aren't Christian don't accept it any more than they would accept anyone else's morality and something that is not binding on all is not objective. I don't get to decide if the world is round because it's shape is objective but I can decide if I want to be a Christian. If your God exists the morality is objective; if his existence was proven then being anything but a christian would be provably wrong but the question of your God's existence is subjective and so the validity of anything he supposedly gave us is subjective.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they had not killed them then they would have been brought into slavery by another tribe of people who might have done much worse to them. Remember God was primarily focused on the survival of His own people so that through them the promised Seed would come. Now you mightn't like that idea but if God exists then why should He be bothered with what you think of His doings? If He doesn't exist then the Israelites were just doing what every other tribe has done through out history, protecting their own. Why is it that the Israelites cannot do what some atheists in here think it is ok for anyone else to do to in any other circumstance?

Because we see morality as subjective but you don't

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And since you acknowledge that parts of the bible would be immoral if they were not commanded by God and especially if you've been to New York in the past 8 years and noticed something missing in the skyline, you can see the dangers of subjective morality masquerading as objective

Isn't it strange though that this story is even included in the Bible? They never carried out this command. Why would these people add a story about their God commanding them to do something which they never carried out? Something it seems which goes against their own law. At least if they had actually carried it out then they (assuming they are making up the rules and not God) could point to God and say He told us to do it, but they never did it, so why include it in the record? It's included because God does exist and He did command them to do it and they did fail to carry it out. Now if God is immoral in your view then that means that He exists and atheism is false or if He doesn't exist then atheism is true and this story is made up by humans. But why would humans make up such a story when they never carried out the alleged command contained in the story in the first place?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, you can choose to hold an interpretation of 'God approves' if you wish. It doesn't remove the fact that it is an assumption though. All I can see happen is that those who wish for it to be approved of, will take that assumption. Oh well, I suppose. One mans interpretation is idiocy to another man.

I think it is the other way around. You are rejecting that interpretation because it conflicts with what you think a modern concept of God would approve off. Similar to how Christians seem to think the women taken from wars were happy to marry and sleep with the Israelites (it never says they were raped does it!?!)

But I don't see any explanation for the story otherwise, the angels saved Lot from the destruction of the city because he helped them. The fact that he helped them by throwing his daughters to the mob is not bad or immoral, it was in fact the righteous thing to do. Wasn't Lot great.

The idea that this was just something Lot did and the Bible is not coming down on the side of judging it as a good thing is frankly ridiculous. Throughout the entire story the Bible comments on the righteousness of Lot and the wickedness of the people of Sodom.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because we see morality as subjective but you don't

Which being translated into English means that under your view there is no such thing as real right or wrong. Correct?