In reply to silveroak (msg #207):

Genesis 15:9 8
Lot was clearly a dickhead. Even pastors say so.



1 Corinthians 11:5:
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just
as though her head were shaved

This is ritualistic.

What else could have been misunderstood by you when you quoted scripture like that?

Lot was the one good man, and offering up his daughters in place of strangers was the act which defined him as such.
besides which, as I said even if the text did not agree with Lot's attitude 9which it clearly does) that is  afar cry from saying that attitude is not included in the text.

So it's ritualistic, why does it only apply to women?

And how do you even begin to explain Timothy as anything but Mysogynistic?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:06, Sun 06 Feb 2011.

I'm not sure about Timothy, but I stand by my original interperatations of Genesis and Corinthians.

Lot may have been a "good man" but he nonetheless committed an extreme sin when he stupidly did that.

King David, for instance, was a murderer. The Bible clearly condemns him for that, although he repented later.

So the Bible may have said Lot was righteous, but he was clearly a dickhead in that one act of offering his daughter over to the rapists.

The difference is the angels went in to see if there were enough good men in Sodom, and Lot was judged to be a good man *because* he offered up his daughters to keep his guests safe from intercourse. Now while this certainly fits with ancient models of the importance of hospitality, it is also certainly misogynistic.

and even with your understanding of cointhians it is *still* mysogynistic- so it is a  ritual understanding, but it applies to women and not men and that's just that? Yes, that is my understanding as well- women had additional ritual requirement because they were considered inferior beings under Judeao-christian law and therefore held to different standards.

In reply to silveroak (msg #211):

Prove that the Bible says that Lot was judged righteous BECAUSE he offered his daughter.

I'm going to disagree completely with Kathulos.

Yes, there is mysogyny in the bible. Some of it is actually institutionalized mysogyny as well. There is also a lot of very destructive behavior which is mandated by God as the law.

However, the Bible is a letter written to the people of the time. It doesn't prescribe perfect behavior (or perfect knowledge). It prescribes the knowledge and behavior required of the time. For example, the Bible says eye for an eye - seek petty revenge. This is terrible advice. As the saying goes, 'eye for an eye leaves the world blind'. But it is a true improvement over the previous law, two eyes for an eye, which was the cultural norm. The new law was merciful, but could still be accepted. Jesus created a new law - turn the other cheek. This is a great improvement. But why didn't God tell us this from the getgo?

Clearly, God is releasing information in stages, as we are ready to digest it. Before the basic law, codified, 'just'. Then a more difficult one, based on abstract concepts like love and far more merciful. We're getting better.

Just as the relations with humans in general are getting more fair and more difficult, so should the relations with women in particular. This is normal. It shouldn't be shunned, it's a natural progression. Attacking mysogyny in the bible is like claiming we're a stupid species based on our forebears spending hundreds of thousands of years sitting in trees picking their noses. Well - that may be true - but the situation is changing. We're pushing the envelope.

It dies not state it directly but it is certainly the implication of the text.

If you're going to state that the implication is there, without saying that it says so directly, then I'm going to say that this debate can't go anywhere.

The two men/angels went to town to see if there were any good men. Lot takes them in and protects them, offering up his two daughters to the crowd in their place. In response the two men/angels pull him in the house, protect him, and tell him to get his familly out of town before it is destroyed. No admonition or indication he went to far, just a pat on the head, save the familly 'that a boy' response.
But if you feel that literary implications are beyond discusion... Well I wouldn't have gotten far in college with that approach.

The bible does specifically describe Lot as "just". He does also indeed offer his two daughters, specified as virgins, for the mob to 'do as they please' with them.

However, Sodom and Gommorah is one of the strangest passages in the old testament. We don't know why the men are after the angel. We don't know if Lot seriously expected the mob to take the daughters. Maybe Lot recognized the angel as an angel and figured giving up his daughters in service to God is alright, the same way as Abraham thinking killing Isaac is okay if that's what God asks. But frankly, as a reader, I don't know enough to make heads or tails of it, and I don't see any scholars to offer a definitive explanation for it either. The story is too contradictory for the surface reading to make sense, though.

Not really. the two angels are offered up as the archetypal 'mysterious strangers' and appear to be human when they arrive at the city. As well it is stated explicitely that the men of the city wanted to have sex with them, and the entire story is written in the form found throughout multiple mythologies where a mysterious tranger is treated with kindness then rewarded for their generosity- except in this version the hospitality goes as far as offering up their own daughters (who incidently were not decribed as virgins, only that they hadn't had sex *with a man*) to be raped in order to protect the strangers, and the reward is not being killed. a rather brutal prtrayal of the divine compared to other cultures.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you are too biased, Silver Oak.

The Angels did what they came to Lot's house to do.

How do we know the Angels themselves liked what he did? In the military, I mean, you do what you are told to do, even if you don't like it.

As a close mythic parallel: http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/...Favour.html#Philemon

it is about pointing out expectations of hospitality.

also prior to the angels going it was stated they would go and look for good men in Sodom and Gomorrah.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:54, Mon 07 Feb 2011.

I'd have to side with silveroak on this one.  If anything, it seems like you're the one being biased here, Kathulos, in that you seem to be assuming that the angles must not have liked it, because if they did then the bible would have an incident of misogyny in it.  You haven't offered any evidence that the angles in the story (or God) disapproved of Lot's actions.  Silveroak has, and the basic reading of the story does seem to imply that Lot was in the right for protecting the strangers (at the potential expense of his daughters).  There doesn't seem to be anything in the text to tell the reader that this action was wrong, and what is in the text could easily be interpreted as implying that it was right.  It seems that because you feel act was wrong (and we seem to agree that far), that the bible must also portray it as wrong.  But again, that doesn't seem to be what the text says or implies.  I think to make your case you need to show something in the story that indicates that what Lot did was viewed as wrong by the author.

I suspect there is additional material that should be read along with this story. Anyone care to dive into the Talmud?

Careful. That is true enough by modern definition, but you are analyzing a value system based on your own modern values, which only makes sense if you believe your values are "better", which is quite a claim.
(To save some ink: I do believe your values ARE indeed better. But I think you're taking some very big and not self-explanatory steps here.)



Because we could not understand this. Same reason why imposing democracy on a country ravaged by tribal feuds and civil war will not work: system's too complex for the population to understand.



Exactly. Though I do not believe God reveals those concepts to us. I believe they reveal themselves as part of our deep nature at the appropriate time. Notice that this is not God speaking when he talks about turning the other cheek, but Jesus. Jesus was, very probably, an actual person, and he was a prophet, meaning a spiritually highly enlightened individual (There are a few once in a while. Plato was such a person, and Siddharta Gautama, Plotinus, Augustus of Hippo, Aristotle, Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Schelling...). Thus, he had access to a very profound understanding of humanity and showed a way through which it could progress, namely, compassion. But at the time where he taught it, it was still a very remote idea, merely something to ponder upon while trying to solve the more pressing matters. It was the lighthouse in the middle of the storm.

How we interpret the source of this intuition is another matter entirely. The Christians will tell you this inspiration is God. An Atheist may tell you it is the manifestation of a natural human potential.



Exactly. This raises very interesting issues about the legitimacy of feminism as well. Maybe those are better approached in another topic.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:51, Tue 15 Mar 2011.

Hrmm... I don't know. I feel like we can describe a behavior accurately as 'mysogynistic' even if, at the time, it was extremely liberal and kind in comparison. Yes, a dictatorship may be better than tribal feuds, but that doesn't mean it isn't autocratic.




If you're interested, I'm happy to create a thread for it (or find the old thread...)

Didn't want to start a new thread so figured I'd post it here.

When I ask 'Who created God?' I typically get the response, 'No one, God created time, so the idea of God needing to be created is faulty.'

Fair enough.

But then doesn't that exact same answer work for the creation of the Universe?  Could not the very existence of time just 'start' one day, thus kicking this whole ball of wax off?  And before that everything was in a state of non-time-ness?  If it's good enough for who created god then it must be good enough for what created the universe?

Does that even make sense?

Yes. This is a huge issue with the First Cause argument (beyond the logical fallacy that something must have a 'first cause' at all!)

This is also one of the reasons why I "Kant" stand a particular philosopher (haha!)

More seriously though, we don't understand why time exists at all, or where it comes from. The First Cause question is a good one, but the answer is, frankly, childish, and assumes a particular, simple model of the multi-verse which we have no evidence to suspect is true.

Okay so I'm not crazy then.  At least not here.  Good to know.

I wouldn't go that far! But at least you're not alone ;)

My objection to divinity is primarily along two lines.

1) It is rarely defined very clearly, and no two people agree on definitions. This kind of entity is very hard to check for and prove or disprove, if you don't put down any solid requirements.

2) The assumption that divinity is 'outside' the laws of physics. I don't object to the possibility of lifeforms that have developed capabilities that might seem like magic or miracles to us. I object to the assumption that it doesn't even play by the rules of the multiverse.

-Example, even if there were a god, that did perform miracles on occasion, you should theoretically be able to track where things suddenly start acting in ways not dictated by their own properties and the physical laws of the universe. (where something else kicks in). Like say you are sick, and you pray to god to heal you, and some entity that thinks of itself as god and has the power to heal you decides to intervene. Assuming that you were placed under a sophisticated medical scanner that was able to track your disease and the cells of your body perfectly, at some point, your cells would start producing something they weren't 'supposed' to or the disease would start behaving in ways it wasn't supposed to, it's cells disintegrating without a a reason dictated by the circumstances or something.


To me, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to believe in any sort of active god. And the assumptions in the beginning of the threat seem to assume to much.

I agree with your first point. However, on the second, the problem is that we too are limited. In 1600, we had no real concept of germs, and so would not even know to look. In 1900, our concept of blood chemistry was so primitive that, again, we couldn't know to look. In 19540, we had no concept of DNA, or how genetic manipulation would influence things. Yes, if we had a god-level medical scanner we should be able to detect divine interference. But we are not even close to that level.

Would it not be, then, a natural rather than supernatural thing?  Then we would not need to use the word 'divine' to describe it.

And if it is not natural but supernatural, that is, above nature, why shouldn't it stand apart from natural law?

Just started reading 'A Universe From Nothing'  I watched the youtube video that the book is based on and it's fascinating!