Anyone else struggling with Bible stories?? (CC)

[Saddlemomma]

ISBN, please? I'd love to look this up.

 

• ISBN-10: 1586404954
• ISBN-13: 978-1586404956

This would be a great Bible for your teens.  I plan to purchase another one for my youngest dd when she's old enough.

 

[Saddlemomma]

Adding this article about OT genocide into the mix because I read it today and found it helpful.  http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

 

I think that Christians will always--and should always--struggle and wrestle with these issues because 1) others want to try to understand it, too, (1 Peter 3:15) and 2) they inform our view of God and His nature.  Sometimes I don't care for what I (think) I see in Him, but I press on and continue to try to gain the biggest, most complete picture of God while I live here in the imperfect before I finally see the perfect.

 

I completely sympathize with you.  However, I again have to keep God's whole plan in the forefront of my mind when I read these portions of the Bible and then analyze how they fit the theme.

 

Where churches fail, is to give the historical background in these instances.  Why would a good God destroy the Canaanites unprovoked?  Well, for the same reason he destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah. 

 

The Canaanites weren't innocents.  They practiced child sacrifice, beastialty, and other egregious immoral acts. It has been argued by historians that even the children would have been so indoctrinated into this morally corrupt society that they could not have functioned any other way.  Since God cannot, as a righteous God, cannot tolerate sin much less look at it, He was bound by His divine nature to purge it, just as he purged S&G.  God knew the Canaanites were a depraved society and that, left on their own, would corrupt His people.  And, since the Hebrews didn't do as God asked and annihilate the Canaanites, the Hebrews did, in fact, become corrupted.

 

When it came to his people, Israel, God sent judges, kings (at their request), and prophet after prophet to warn His people what would happen for their refusal to obey His laws and redeem themselves from their corruption.  They didn't listen, so God was forced, by His righteousness to punish them as well via Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Romans.

 

In the end, the only way to, once and for all, redeem man constantly ensnared by sin was to lovingly sacrifice himself to provide a way for those who choose Him to have fellowship with Him and redemption.  I'd say that's a supremely loving Father.

[JenniferB]

My Godmother recommended this book for an Orthodox Christian understanding of the Old Testament.  I might just include this in our homeschooling next year.  :D

http://store.ancientfaith.com/products/The-Christian-Old-Testament.html

 

Here it is for Kindle:  http://www.amazon.com/The-Christian-Old-Testament-ebook/dp/B008SHIDT2/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-2&qid=1376332800

 

 

[TracyP]

I completely sympathize with you.  However, I again have to keep God's whole plan in the forefront of my mind when I read these portions of the Bible and then analyze how they fit the theme.

 

Where churches fail, is to give the historical background in these instances.  Why would a good God destroy the Canaanites unprovoked?  Well, for the same reason he destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah. 

 

 

So what was the reason he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? He spared Lot who offered up his daughters to be raped. Lot said, "See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish." (Gen. 19:8) Lot, who would go on to have sex with and impregnate both his daughters, is saved. :confused:

 

You don't have to answer, I know very well how God feels about rape according to the OT. :(

[ajfries]

So what was the reason he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? He spared Lot who offered up his daughters to be raped. Lot said, "See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish." (Gen. 19:8) Lot, who would go on to have sex with and impregnate both his daughters, is saved. :confused:

 

You don't have to answer, I know very well how God feels about rape according to the OT. :(

 

Sodom & Gomorrah were well known for their homosexual tendancies.  Whether you think the practice is right or wrong, God's view is clear.

 

Sodom, however, persisted in a course in defiance of Jehovah, becoming known for such immoral practices as homosexuality. “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah,†Jehovah declared, “yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.†God therefore sent his angels to destroy Sodom, with the assurance to Abraham that if ten righteous persons could be found in the place, the whole city would be spared.—Ge 18:16, 20-33.

The city showed it deserved destruction, for a vile mob of residents of Sodom, including boys and old men, surrounded Lot’s house, attempting to rape his angelic guests. The next day, after Lot, along with his wife and two daughters, left the city, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by sulfur and fire. (Ge 19:1-29; Lu 17:28, 29) Thereafter Sodom and Gomorrah became a proverbial figure of utter destruction from God Almighty (De 29:23; Isa 1:9; 13:19; Jer 49:18; 50:40; La 4:6; Am 4:11; Zep 2:9; Ro 9:29) and of extreme wickedness.—De 32:32; Isa 1:10; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Eze 16:46-56; see GOMORRAH.

 

 

 

And as for offering up his daughters:

 

While some persons have charged that Lot acted improperly, we really are not in position today to condemn him. The Bible shows that God, who reads hearts, did not judge Lot adversely.

When God sent two materialized angels to Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot hospitably insisted that they stay in his home. That evening a mob of Sodomites surrounded the house, crying: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.â€â€”Gen. 18:20, 21; 19:1-5.

Stepping outside, Lot tried to dissuade the men. Then he pleaded: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof.†The angered mob pressed in on Lot, almost breaking in the door. Then the angels intervened and struck the mob with blindness.—Gen. 19:6-11.

This account has puzzled or disturbed many, particularly women. Some persons have even charged that Lot acted in a cowardly way, that he should not have offered to pay for his guests’ safety with his daughters’ virtue or that he should have given himself to the mob.

But it should be noted that, according to the Oriental code, it was a host’s responsibility to protect guests in his home, defending them even to the point of death if necessary. Lot’s words (“that is why [the two men] have come under the shadow of my roofâ€) show that he felt an obligation to protect his houseguests. Also, how can anyone charge Lot with cowardice? He bravely went out to the mob, even closing the door behind him and facing them alone.

But what about Lot’s offer to the mob? While some have said that Lot should have offered himself, it is unlikely that the perverted mob would have been satisfied with an old married man. Yet the offer of two virgins might have been somewhat confusing to the mob: Here were two young virgins, and the chance to soil their purity might have had some appeal to the mob. But on the other hand these were females and engaged to two men of the city. So that offer could have the effect of distracting or dividing the perverted mob.

Furthermore, although Lot had at first entertained angels unawares, by now he well may have realized these to be messengers from God. (Heb. 13:2) Hence, Lot could have felt that, as deeply attached to his daughters as he was, he would be willing to sacrifice them if necessary. (Compare Genesis 22:1-14; 2 Samuel 12:3.) In offering his daughters to the mob, Lot could have been confident that, if it was Jehovah’s will, God would protect his daughters even as God had already protected Sarah in Egypt. (Gen. 12:17-19) And Jehovah did direct matters so that Lot and his daughters were kept safe, not only from the homosexual mob, but also from the fiery destruction that came on the cities.—Gen. 19:15-29.

The angels did not say that by making the offer Lot had spoiled his righteousness. Instead, they aided Lot and his family to escape when God brought to ruin those cities that did not contain 10 righteous persons. (Gen. 18:26-32) More significantly, God did not criticize Lot, who was tormented at even observing lawless deeds. On the contrary, Jehovah, who can read hearts, pronounced Lot to be a “righteous man.â€â€”Prov. 15:11; 2 Pet. 2:8, 9.

This account is a valuable part of the Bible. It serves to accentuate Sodom and Gomorrah’s badness, it stirs up indignation in righteous ones who read it, and it manifests God’s disapproval of homosexuality. Also, this account helps us to appreciate the Bible’s assurance that God is righteous and just—he does not countenance wickedness. (Deut. 32:4) And we can trust that God is equally perfect and just in his judgment that Lot was a “righteous man.â€

 

 

[livetoread]

Once you have to justify genocide, especially by blaming the victims, it's all over IMO. Terrible things happen when we justify atrocities because it is the "good" guys doing them. It is only human nature to believe you are always the good guy.

 

I've been more partial to some of the Hindu stories where the hero was ordered by the gods to do something immoral and refused, fully expecting to be punished for it. Instead, the gods would reward him. Awesome!

[TracyP]

While some persons have charged that Lot acted improperly, we really are not in position today to condemn him. The Bible shows that God, who reads hearts, did not judge Lot adversely.

 

Yeah, I know that God had no problem with what Lot did. That's my point.

 

When God sent two materialized angels to Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot hospitably insisted that they stay in his home. That evening a mob of Sodomites surrounded the house, crying: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.â€â€”Gen. 18:20, 21; 19:1-5.

Stepping outside, Lot tried to dissuade the men. Then he pleaded: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof.†The angered mob pressed in on Lot, almost breaking in the door. Then the angels intervened and struck the mob with blindness.—Gen. 19:6-11.

This account has puzzled or disturbed many, particularly women.

 

This account is disturbing? Yes. Mostly to women? I sure hope that isn't the case. Those silly women, getting their panties in a twist over a little rape. WHAT?!?!

 

 

Some persons have even charged that Lot acted in a cowardly way, that he should not have offered to pay for his guests’ safety with his daughters’ virtue or that he should have given himself to the mob.

But it should be noted that, according to the Oriental code, it was a host’s responsibility to protect guests in his home, defending them even to the point of death if necessary. Lot’s words (“that is why [the two men] have come under the shadow of my roofâ€) show that he felt an obligation to protect his houseguests. Also, how can anyone charge Lot with cowardice? He bravely went out to the mob, even closing the door behind him and facing them alone.

 

Oh, that brave Lot. My new hero.

 

 

But what about Lot’s offer to the mob? While some have said that Lot should have offered himself, it is unlikely that the perverted mob would have been satisfied with an old married man. Yet the offer of two virgins might have been somewhat confusing to the mob: Here were two young virgins, and the chance to soil their purity might have had some appeal to the mob. But on the other hand these were females and engaged to two men of the city. So that offer could have the effect of distracting or dividing the perverted mob.

 

Ah, yes. Offer daughters up for rape to distract the angry mob.

 

 

Furthermore, although Lot had at first entertained angels unawares, by now he well may have realized these to be messengers from God. (Heb. 13:2) Hence, Lot could have felt that, as deeply attached to his daughters as he was, he would be willing to sacrifice them if necessary. (Compare Genesis 22:1-14; 2 Samuel 12:3.) In offering his daughters to the mob, Lot could have been confident that, if it was Jehovah’s will, God would protect his daughters even as God had already protected Sarah in Egypt. (Gen. 12:17-19) And Jehovah did direct matters so that Lot and his daughters were kept safe, not only from the homosexual mob, but also from the fiery destruction that came on the cities.—Gen. 19:15-29.

 

Sacrifice the daughters to save the angels. Because the angels need protection?

 

 

The angels did not say that by making the offer Lot had spoiled his righteousness. Instead, they aided Lot and his family to escape when God brought to ruin those cities that did not contain 10 righteous persons. (Gen. 18:26-32) More significantly, God did not criticize Lot, who was tormented at even observing lawless deeds. On the contrary, Jehovah, who can read hearts, pronounced Lot to be a “righteous man.â€â€”Prov. 15:11; 2 Pet. 2:8, 9.

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the angels didn't think this offer "spoiled his righteousness". Maybe they were some of the same angels that used to come to earth and impregnate the women with giants.

 

This account is a valuable part of the Bible. It serves to accentuate Sodom and Gomorrah’s badness, it stirs up indignation in righteous ones who read it, and it manifests God’s disapproval of homosexuality. Also, this account helps us to appreciate the Bible’s assurance that God is righteous and just—he does not countenance wickedness. (Deut. 32:4) And we can trust that God is equally perfect and just in his judgment that Lot was a “righteous man.â€

 

Yes, that is exactly the message you get from this bible story. And this is exactly why I struggle so much with the Bible, especially the OT.

 

Ajfries, I'm curious. Where on earth did you pull that from?

 

[Ipsey]

Sodom & Gomorrah were well known for their homosexual tendancies.  Whether you think the practice is right or wrong, God's view is clear.

 

 

 

And as for offering up his daughters:

 

Pah.

 

So, basically, Lot believes that God can save his daughters if he throws them out to a rapacious mob. How 'bout he just trust God to save his daughters, and his guests, and himself--AND KEEP THEM INSIDE rather than promising to send them out?

 

Nope. Far too important to excuse the grotesque behavior/offer of God's "righteous" man.

 

 

 

 

Also, there are scholars who believe that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was not so much practicing homosexuality, but "Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50

 

Funny how it's always pegged on homosexuals, but no one ever says "Help the poor and needy, or God will destroy you!" Much easier to point fingers at gay people than at our own selfishness (whether we're gay or straight, of course).

 

God's righteous man intends to kick his daughters out to be gang raped.  But we can spin it all better!

[Joanne]

Sodom & Gomorrah were well known for their homosexual tendancies.  Whether you think the practice is right or wrong, God's view is clear.

 

 

 

 

The practice of men taking young men as lovers was common throughout the culture at the time. It was expected that an adult male, married or not, would have sexual access to women, men, and young boys/men.

 

"Homosexuality" is not a "tendency." Sex does not make one straight, gay or bi.

[Joanne]

I completely sympathize with you.  However, I again have to keep God's whole plan in the forefront of my mind when I read these portions of the Bible and then analyze how they fit the theme.

 

Where churches fail, is to give the historical background in these instances.  Why would a good God destroy the Canaanites unprovoked?  Well, for the same reason he destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah. 

 

The Canaanites weren't innocents.  They practiced child sacrifice, beastialty, and other egregious immoral acts. It has been argued by historians that even the children would have been so indoctrinated into this morally corrupt society that they could not have functioned any other way.  Since God cannot, as a righteous God, cannot tolerate sin much less look at it, He was bound by His divine nature to purge it, just as he purged S&G.  God knew the Canaanites were a depraved society and that, left on their own, would corrupt His people.  And, since the Hebrews didn't do as God asked and annihilate the Canaanites, the Hebrews did, in fact, become corrupted.

 

When it came to his people, Israel, God sent judges, kings (at their request), and prophet after prophet to warn His people what would happen for their refusal to obey His laws and redeem themselves from their corruption.  They didn't listen, so God was forced, by His righteousness to punish them as well via Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Romans.

 

In the end, the only way to, once and for all, redeem man constantly ensnared by sin was to lovingly sacrifice himself to provide a way for those who choose Him to have fellowship with Him and redemption.  I'd say that's a supremely loving Father.

 

A rigtheous, loving God could also have changed the hearts and behaviors, and healed the sick and the victims.

[Ipsey]

Yeah, I know that God had no problem with what Lot did. That's my point.

 

This account is disturbing? Yes. Mostly to women? I sure hope that isn't the case. Those silly women, getting their panties in a twist over a little rape. WHAT?!?!

 

 

Oh, that brave Lot. My new hero.

 

 

Ah, yes. Offer daughters up for rape to distract the angry mob.

 

 

Sacrifice the daughters to save the angels. Because the angels need protection?

 

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the angels didn't think this offer "spoiled his righteousness". Maybe they were some of the same angels that used to come to earth and impregnate the women with giants.

 

Yes, that is exactly the message you get from this bible story. And this is exactly why I struggle so much with the Bible, especially the OT.

 

Ajfries, I'm curious. Where on earth did you pull that from?

 

Sacrifice the daughters to save the angels. Because the angels need protection?

 

BINGO! 

 

*sigh* 

 

I can't think of a single, darned thing that could make me feel that telling a mob of wild people that I'd throw out my daughters to them for their sexual pleasure. NOT A SINGLE THING. But then I'm not "righteous". And proud of it :)

 

And if my husband were, you can bet he wouldn't be my husband for one moment longer. If he ever offered my daughters to rapists for any reason, the excuse of "please, I was just being righteous" would be the last words he'd say. 

 

 

[laughing lioness]

A rigtheous, loving God could also have changed the hearts and behaviors, and healed the sick and the victims.

 

Whatever god changes hearts and behaviors FOR people, despite their choices, has automatons for followers.

[Saddlemomma]

So what was the reason he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? He spared Lot who offered up his daughters to be raped. Lot said, "See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish." (Gen. 19:8) Lot, who would go on to have sex with and impregnate both his daughters, is saved. :confused:

 

You don't have to answer, I know very well how God feels about rape according to the OT. :(

I have no problem answering your questions.  It's always heathy to ask and to gain understanding, howevermuch we may dislike the answer.  Before I explain this and get massive flames and indignation, let me preface it by the fact that I don't define sin.  It's not my place.  God defines sin.

 

So, let's see what God's word says is the reason for the destruction of S&G: "....The outcry against S&G is immense, and their sin is extremely serious.  I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to Me." Gen. 18:20-21a

 

Notice that their sin is potentially "extremely serious", but God is still waiting to see for Himself if the outcry justifies further action from Him.  Apparently, God found their sin to be serious enough to warrant destruction.

 

So why spare Lot, who offered up his daughters to be "raped".  Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so?  I believe this offering of Lot was a parallel to God offering His Son for us.  The spilling of innocent blood to redeem a people.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  Lot, in sacrificing his daughters to prevent an even more egregious sin, was found righteous in God's sight.  Hence, he and his family were spared.

 

Regarding Lot sleeping with his daughters.  Here is a perfect example of why we need to read the word of God very carefully.  I admit, I missed this also.  It wasn't until I heard Gregory Koukl from http://str.org speak on this in a podcast that I realized how carelessly I read sometimes.

 

Let's carefully read Gen 19:30.  It states that the firstborn told the younger they should sleep with their father to preserve their father's line.  So we have the daughters plotting this thing - not Lot.  Secondly, they decide to get Lot drunk in order to do this.  Why?  I believe it's because they know Lot would not participate otherwise.  Now let's read verse 33: "...he (meaning Lot) did not know when she lay down or when she got up."  This same, exact line is repeated when the younger daughter sleeps with Lot in verse 35.

 

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe this could happen, this is what God's word states.  Lot did not know what happened either time.  He was blameless in God's sight and therefore still righteous. 

 

I pondered this after having never actually picked up on these statements before.  I asked myself, could this really happen.  Then I remembered getting really hammered one night in my youth.  My brother told me I came home so drunk I didn't know where my bedroom was or the bathroom.  He had to escort me to both.  I don't remember that.  All I remember is the fact that I talked to Ralph all morning until 10AM the next day!  I never got that drunk again because I didn't like not remembering my actions.

[Joanne]

Whatever god changes hearts and behaviors FOR people, despite their choices, has automatons for followers.

 

And less victims.

 

I'm sorry; I just can't reconcile an omnipotent God who allows suffering in that way: rape, molestation, murder, etc.

 

It relates exactly to the OP - and it's why I left the faith. Otherwise, I try hard to not engage on this topic.

 

(ETA: Furthermore, I am a woman of considerable energy, focus and force. Yet I was unable to stop drinking without the intervention of a higher power. Granted, I was willing, and asked for the intervention. I consider that "he" changed me, for me, despite my past)

[Ipsey]

Whatever god changes hearts and behaviors FOR people, despite their choices, has automatons for followers.

 

 

Much better for children to be slaughtered than for God to nudge a person's heart toward decency (even toward the desire to want to change) and toward a position that would spare an infant from murder. 

 

Have it fall on the innocents. Perfect.

 

I honestly fail to believe such would be the case of a truly benevolent deity.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find these "apologetics" posts even more disturbing than the OT stories?! 

[Joanne]

I have no problem answering your questions.  It's always heathy to ask and to gain understanding, howevermuch we may dislike the answer.  Before I explain this and get massive flames and indignation, let me preface it by the fact that I don't define sin.  It's not my place.  God defines sin.

 

So, let's see what God's word says is the reason for the destruction of S&G: "....The outcry against S&G is immense, and their sin is extremely serious.  I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to Me." Gen. 18:20-21a

 

Notice that their sin is potentially "extremely serious", but God is still waiting to see for Himself if the outcry justifies further action from Him.  Apparently, God found their sin to be serious enough to warrant destruction.

 

So why spare Lot, who offered up his daughters to be "raped".  Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so?  I believe this offering of Lot was a parallel to God offering His Son for us.  The spilling of innocent blood to redeem a people.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  Lot, in sacrificing his daughters to prevent an even more egregious sin, was found righteous in God's sight.  Hence, he and his family were spared.

 

Regarding Lot sleeping with his daughters.  Here is a perfect example of why we need to read the word of God very carefully.  I admit, I missed this also.  It wasn't until I heard Gregory Koukl from http://str.org speak on this in a podcast that I realized how carelessly I read sometimes.

 

Let's carefully read Gen 19:30.  It states that the firstborn told the younger they should sleep with their father to preserve their father's line.  So we have the daughters plotting this thing - not Lot.  Secondly, they decide to get Lot drunk in order to do this.  Why?  I believe it's because they know Lot would not participate otherwise.  Now let's read verse 33: "...he (meaning Lot) did not know when she lay down or when she got up."  This same, exact line is repeated when the younger daughter sleeps with Lot in verse 35.

 

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe this could happen, this is what God's word states.  Lot did not know what happened either time.  He was blameless in God's sight and therefore still righteous. 

 

I pondered this after having never actually picked up on these statements before.  I asked myself, could this really happen.  Then I remembered getting really hammered one night in my youth.  My brother told me I came home so drunk I didn't know where my bedroom was or the bathroom.  He had to escort me to both.  I don't remember that.  All I remember is the fact that I talked to Ralph all morning until 10AM the next day!  I never got that drunk again because I didn't like not remembering my actions.

 

Saddlemomma,

 

Please know that some of us, in fact several of us, participating in this thread have read "carefully", have studied and pondered.

 

And many of THEM (myself included) have in fact emerged from that study less, not more, convinced that the typical Christian framing of God is a fail.

 

Your "let's read carefully" suggestions and scripture analysis is not new to us. We KNOW this stuff; we've concluded differently.

[Ipsey]

 

 

So why spare Lot, who offered up his daughters to be "raped".  Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so?  I believe this offering of Lot was a parallel to God offering His Son for us.  The spilling of innocent blood to redeem a people.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  Lot, in sacrificing his daughters to prevent an even more egregious sin, was found righteous in God's sight.  Hence, he and his family were spared.

 

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but this does for me the exact opposite of what you intend.

 

I honestly can't imagine needing to protect an all-powerful deity from flesh and blood. If Jesus were in my house, and he some how expected me to have my own daughters raped to protect him--the Almighty and All Powerful Creator of the Universe who could easily avert all of this, I would find him as guilty of my daughters' rapes as if he had violated them himself.

 

Honestly, the fact that Jesus is supposed to be able to control these situations (even to have angels bear him up on their wings, had he thrown himself off the temple), would make this situation that much more disgusting to me.

 

However, if you can image tossing your daughters out to be violated for Jesus, I can see we're at an impasse.

[TracyP]

I have no problem answering your questions.  It's always heathy to ask and to gain understanding, howevermuch we may dislike the answer.  Before I explain this and get massive flames and indignation, let me preface it by the fact that I don't define sin.  It's not my place.  God defines sin.

 

So, let's see what God's word says is the reason for the destruction of S&G: "....The outcry against S&G is immense, and their sin is extremely serious.  I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to Me." Gen. 18:20-21a

 

Notice that their sin is potentially "extremely serious", but God is still waiting to see for Himself if the outcry justifies further action from Him.  Apparently, God found their sin to be serious enough to warrant destruction.

 

So why spare Lot, who offered up his daughters to be "raped".  Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so?  I believe this offering of Lot was a parallel to God offering His Son for us.  The spilling of innocent blood to redeem a people.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  Lot, in sacrificing his daughters to prevent an even more egregious sin, was found righteous in God's sight.  Hence, he and his family were spared.

 

Regarding Lot sleeping with his daughters.  Here is a perfect example of why we need to read the word of God very carefully.  I admit, I missed this also.  It wasn't until I heard Gregory Koukl from http://str.org speak on this in a podcast that I realized how carelessly I read sometimes.

 

Let's carefully read Gen 19:30.  It states that the firstborn told the younger they should sleep with their father to preserve their father's line.  So we have the daughters plotting this thing - not Lot.  Secondly, they decide to get Lot drunk in order to do this.  Why?  I believe it's because they know Lot would not participate otherwise.  Now let's read verse 33: "...he (meaning Lot) did not know when she lay down or when she got up."  This same, exact line is repeated when the younger daughter sleeps with Lot in verse 35.

 

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe this could happen, this is what God's word states.  Lot did not know what happened either time.  He was blameless in God's sight and therefore still righteous. 

 

I pondered this after having never actually picked up on these statements before.  I asked myself, could this really happen.  Then I remembered getting really hammered one night in my youth.  My brother told me I came home so drunk I didn't know where my bedroom was or the bathroom.  He had to escort me to both.  I don't remember that.  All I remember is the fact that I talked to Ralph all morning until 10AM the next day!  I never got that drunk again because I didn't like not remembering my actions.

 

Raped in quotes? The more egregious sin? This is seriously messed up.

 

*I* didn't read carelessly. I am fully aware that the blame for the incest was placed upon the young women. The idea that a man could be sober enough to perform, yet drunk enough to have sex with his daughters is impossible to reconcile in my mind.

 

[unfrumpable.]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find these "apologetics" posts even more disturbing than the OT stories?! 

 

It is not just you.

[Saddlemomma]

Once you have to justify genocide, especially by blaming the victims, it's all over IMO. Terrible things happen when we justify atrocities because it is the "good" guys doing them. It is only human nature to believe you are always the good guy.

 

I've been more partial to some of the Hindu stories where the hero was ordered by the gods to do something immoral and refused, fully expecting to be punished for it. Instead, the gods would reward him. Awesome!

 

But you see, this is where the error lie -- I'm not the good guy.  I'm not justifying anything regarding morality.  I can't because I'm a sinner and not righteous.  God is the only righteous one, and He is the only one who can justify what He chooses or does not choose to do.  I choose to follow Christ and therefore I try to live my life accordingly...and I slip up quite a bit because, even though I'm redeemed, I'm still sinful.  We may not like it, but that's the way it is.

 

Look at it this way.  How can you say they are the victims?  If there is no moral law giver such as God, how do you know the difference between a victim or a perpetrator?  Without a moral law giver there is no rationale for moral objectivity.  Does the lion feel sorry for killing its prey?  Do they leave the young, feeble or handcapped gazelles alone because they feel sorry for them?  No.  They do not distinguish between the good, the bad, the poor, the rich or anything because they don't have morality. Only humans do because they are made in the image of God with a moral compass passed on by Him.  Because of this inherent morality, we can have empathy, but we can't see the total picture or outcomes that God sees.  You only get 1/2 the story and sometimes not even that.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

 

Regarding Lot sleeping with his daughters.  Here is a perfect example of why we need to read the word of God very carefully.  I admit, I missed this also.  It wasn't until I heard Gregory Koukl from http://str.org speak on this in a podcast that I realized how carelessly I read sometimes.

 

Let's carefully read Gen 19:30.  It states that the firstborn told the younger they should sleep with their father to preserve their father's line.  So we have the daughters plotting this thing - not Lot.  Secondly, they decide to get Lot drunk in order to do this.  Why?  I believe it's because they know Lot would not participate otherwise.  Now let's read verse 33: "...he (meaning Lot) did not know when she lay down or when she got up."  This same, exact line is repeated when the younger daughter sleeps with Lot in verse 35.

 

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe this could happen, this is what God's word states.  Lot did not know what happened either time.  He was blameless in God's sight and therefore still righteous. 

 

I pondered this after having never actually picked up on these statements before.  I asked myself, could this really happen.  Then I remembered getting really hammered one night in my youth.  My brother told me I came home so drunk I didn't know where my bedroom was or the bathroom.  He had to escort me to both.  I don't remember that.  All I remember is the fact that I talked to Ralph all morning until 10AM the next day!  I never got that drunk again because I didn't like not remembering my actions."

 

 

 

"

 

Ummmm, my experience has been that if a man is drunk to the point he is completely incapacitated, then he is *completely* incapacitated, IYKWIM. More than likely, Lot was a good deal buzzed, had always thought his daughters were pretty hot, and went for it. What the hell, he could always blame it on the alcohol! After all, he was willing to let the whole mob have a piece of his girls, why shouldn't he get a little action? Besides, his god obviously approved! Win-win!

 

Seriously, though, these apologetic justifications and spins on these stories are completely disturbing, probably more so than the stories themselves.

[livetoread]

If someone comes to you and says God is telling her to kill her oldest son, what is your response? Do you think it is quite possible that God is actually doing this and she needs to obey? After all there is precedence that God does this. We learn from the Bible that God expects us to at least try and kill our kids when he tells us to.

 

I know most Christians would call her an ambulance thankfully, and it's because they believe God is good and doesn't do evil things. Regardless of this "God-given morality" they define God as good according to principles separate from but sometimes overlapping with what is found in the Bible.

 

Asking someone to kill their kid is evil. If you think it isn't when God asks it, you have no way of knowing whether that Mom should do it or not.

[laughing lioness]

Much better for children to be slaughtered than for God to nudge a person's heart toward decency (even toward the desire to want to change) and toward a position that would spare an infant from murder. 

 

Have it fall on the innocents. Perfect.

 

I honestly fail to believe such would be the case of a truly benevolent deity.

Changing and nudging are two different things. The God I know is constantly wooing those who ignore Him. And what of the people slaughtering their own children? Common practice among many of the people groups being discussed. Yep. Sin almost always falls on the less powerful.

God's character is more complex than simple benevolence. Thinking of Him as loving no matter what is the heresy of antinomianism.

[WishboneDawn]

Pah.

 

So, basically, Lot believes that God can save his daughters if he throws them out to a rapacious mob. How 'bout he just trust God to save his daughters, and his guests, and himself--AND KEEP THEM INSIDE rather than promising to send them out?

 

Nope. Far too important to excuse the grotesque behavior/offer of God's "righteous" man.

 

 

 

 

Also, there are scholars who believe that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was not so much practicing homosexuality, but "Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50

 

Funny how it's always pegged on homosexuals, but no one ever says "Help the poor and needy, or God will destroy you!" Much easier to point fingers at gay people than at our own selfishness (whether we're gay or straight, of course).

 

God's righteous man intends to kick his daughters out to be gang raped. But we can spin it all better!

Also to be considered is the importance of hospitality. The big threat isn't homosexual behavior, it's that Lot's GUESTS will be raped. That's the biggest sin in the story. If homosexual behavior was the prime focus one would think the story would have an angel being politely propositions in a gay bar in downtown Sodom. Instead we have rapists threatening a man's guests in his home. Those extra layers should not be ignored.

 

The test is to ask what the take away would be if the angels were female. Would it be a story condemning heterosexuality?

 

I got nothing on the treatment of the daughters though. It was a very patriarchal society that didn't see women as equals, or anything close to equals. Lot was being an arse, no way around that.

[JenniferB]

I haven't found any great answers yet to these disturbing and puzzling Old Testament passages.  I think I will read the book I linked above.  I have a feeling it will open up a whole new understanding of the Old Testament for me, which I admit I haven't studied much.  These apologetics are disturbing to me too as an Orthodox Christian.  I don't think I'll be reading any of those recommendations if the explanations in them are on par with what I read above.  What I know of Jesus doesn't jive with most of those explanations, and He came to reveal God to us:  Immanuel - God with us.  If I want to know what God is like and how He relates to me, I look to Jesus.  If it doesn't jive, then there's got to be something more.  If I never understand the Old Testament, that's OK.  I can understand and relate to Jesus.  And no, I don't understand or comprehend the whole story about God taking out the wrath He has for mankind on Jesus.  I don't think that's what the cross means.  But, I'm still trying to understand it.  Clearly I live this life and walk this Christian journey without all the answers.  Mercy.

[justamouse]

There are Christians denominations that don't take those stories literally. 

The Catholic church and The EO, for starters. 

It was very eye opening to 'listen' to some of the Orthodox Jewish WTM mommas who were patient enough to explain how they saw the old testament. And it really helped me ( at the time) to walk back to the RCC (with a pit stop with the EO for a while. :D) 

Once you can drop the need to understand those stories literally, you find that you can keep your faith. 

Now I sit in church and am constantly amazed at the difference in how those stories of the bible are taught, how it's with a historical context and a Jewish understanding. 

[Ipsey]

Changing and nudging are two different things. The God I know is constantly wooing those who ignore Him. And what of the people slaughtering their own children? Common practice among many of the people groups being discussed. Yep. Sin almost always falls on the less powerful.

God's character is more complex than simple benevolence. Thinking of Him as loving no matter what is the heresy of antinomianism.

 

*snort*

 

Originally, you wrote "I didn't say God was benevolent. I said God is just."

 

Now that's more honest. But the "just" part is still off.

 

God commands the slaughter of innocent babes for the sins of their parents. 

 

He commands the slaughter of babies--the same thing He says He's condemning.  That's rich.

 

And, if God wanted to slaughter ever single baby on earth as they cried in fear and pain, have every woman brutally raped, and have every man suffer endless exquisite torture (as opposed to _almost_ all of them that have ever lived on the planet), He would be equally just in your eyes. After all, if it can be excused for even one, and still come from a righteous and just God, surely a matter of degrees wouldn't make it any less holy. Behold, murder and rape, rendered holy by the will of the almighty deity. It's a wonder people need to believe in a devil.

 

Honestly, I have to bow out of this one. I'm so completely sickened.

[Guest]

As someone who has read the Bible cover to cover multiple times and is still a Christian I would have to respectfully disagree with your little joke.

And your logic is confusing. If I said, "if God intended children to be a blessing, why would they ever cause us heartache?" and they did- would you then kick your children out of the house?

My dh is a true scholar, knows original languages and studies like you wouldn't believe (Biblical scholarship is not his day job) and he understands connections and things that I would never understand no matter how long I looked at them. I don'thave the answer to your question. I do know that when I ask God for wisdom and seek Him for help, it does come. Often not when or how I want it to and frequently not in church- i.e. most of the preaching out there now days is pretty milk-toast.

 

Christianity is a religion. More than that it is a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. His Lordship is a paradox. As Creator of the universe, He made himself man and dwelt among us, willingly laid down upon the cross and poured his blood out for us. Makes no sense. A real god would have ruined the Romans and put his people up in positions of Power- or brought peace to earth, or something completely different that made sense to us. Jesus is the great paradox and following him- really seeking who HE is has turned my life, and the lives of millions of others upside down.

 

I'm sure I'll be bashed for writing this. My reality- the one I will claim until the day I die is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Creator of the Universe, the Living God. I can't transmit my belief to you. I can't explain the paradoxes or the pain. All I know is that He is Truth. It's easy to belive in a god that gives us all good things, what we want and a life of ease. The God I know is truly just, which does not equal fair. That is difficult to wrap my brain around. All I know is that there are principals in place that transcend our undersanding - "the deep magic" - and there is a priori to man and a priori to our mortal understanding (which Lewis gives a great apologetic for in his Space Trilogy). I get somethings and am baffled/ lost/confused by others. But Jesus is still God, still Savior, even in my confusion. Whatever my strugggles, it does not diminish who He is (Yes, I'm using masculine pronouns--and yes, I believe that God has truly feminine qualities, but that is a different discussion).

 

and fwiw: I wasn't raised in a Christian home. I was raised in a very religious pagan home. I became a Christian on a dare- a dare to God. I didn't come to Him in some nice, pretty church becasue it was expected. I became a Christian because I saw no good thing in the world and the despair was literally killing me. My "accepting of anyone, wherever they are at" pagan family, btw was furious with me for becoming a Christian and acted that out in ways big and small= they were petty and mean for decades- to me, my husband and my children.

 

Honor, Patronage and Kinship and Purity by David De Silva

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosario Butterfield:

My Train Wreck Conversion interview with Rosario

The Screwtape Letters

Perelandra, C.S.Lewis

 

Laughinglioness, please do understand, that is truly a joke. I know there are very intelligent people who know the Bible backwards and forwards and in original languages, including history and geography, yet are devout Christians. My father is one. It's baffling to me, though.  FWIW, I have seen this account over and over again from people who were once Christians and no longer claim to be - they knew the Bible well. They understood it well. They studied it thoroughly. They sought to find answers to the baffling parts. And it drove them away. That is what happened to me, too. 

 

I would never bash you or anybody else who believes Christian doctrine from the depths of their being. I'm jealous, frankly. It would be much simpler to believe it all and fit right in. It would be great if I could sing the songs at church and have them resonate with me, rather than feel like I'm mouthing meaningless words. I had that once and I liked it. I still go to church. I still live in a Christian framework. I want to keep that stability for my children and I selfishly want to remain liked. I don't want to add misery to my parents who are not in good health; let them believe I'm still a Christian. What does it hurt? 

[Kari C in SC]

I would never bash you or anybody else who believes Christian doctrine from the depths of their being. I'm jealous, frankly. It would be much simpler to believe it all and fit right in. It would be great if I could sing the songs at church and have them resonate with me, rather than feel like I'm mouthing meaningless words. I had that once and I liked it. I still go to church. I still live in a Christian framework. I want to keep that stability for my children and I selfishly want to remain liked. I don't want to add misery to my parents who are not in good health; let them believe I'm still a Christian. What does it hurt?

Wow! I think you might be inside my head. Seriously, you said what I think. I am always looking around in church thinking I can't be the ony person in here thinking this way. I, also, have often thought that my life would b easier if I didn't have to question absolutely everything.

[creekmom]

Does anyone know if Peter Enns has ever addressed the disparity between the God of the OT and the God of the NT?  I would be very interested to hear what he thinks.   

[Lady Florida.]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find these "apologetics" posts even more disturbing than the OT stories?! 

 

I find both pretty disturbing really.

 

 Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so?  I believe this offering of Lot was a parallel to God offering His Son for us.  The spilling of innocent blood to redeem a people.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  Lot, in sacrificing his daughters to prevent an even more egregious sin, was found righteous in God's sight.  Hence, he and his family were spared.

 

 

No actually, I wouldn't. Jesus is supposedly divine and therefore could save himself My (theoretical) daughters can't. As for the whole human sacrifice thing, I find it bizarre. Spilling of innocent blood is neither righteous nor redemptive.

 

 

If there is no moral law giver such as God, how do you know the difference between a victim or a perpetrator?  Without a moral law giver there is no rationale for moral objectivity. 

 

Ah yes. The "How can you be good without God?" argument. That argument however, doesn't hold up when you look at human evolution.

[JenniferB]

Does anyone know if Peter Enns has ever addressed the disparity between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? I would be very interested to hear what he thinks.

Have you seen this? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0801027306/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0801027306&linkCode=as2&redirect=true&ref_=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl&tag=inspirandinca-20

[creekmom]

Have you seen this? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0801027306/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0801027306&linkCode=as2&redirect=true&ref_=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl&tag=inspirandinca-20

 

Thank you!!  Have you read it? 

[Erin]

There are Christians denominations that don't take those stories literally. 

 

The Catholic church and The EO, for starters. 

 

It was very eye opening to 'listen' to some of the Orthodox Jewish WTM mommas who were patient enough to explain how they saw the old testament. And it really helped me ( at the time) to walk back to the RCC (with a pit stop with the EO for a while. :D) 

 

Once you can drop the need to understand those stories literally, you find that you can keep your faith. 

 

I get the distinct impression that most in this thread who are "having trouble" aren't really having trouble.  They're looking for an excuse to dismiss God and believers, and this was just a handy one.  

[*Lulu*]

I get the distinct impression that most in this thread who are "having trouble" aren't really having trouble. They're looking for an excuse to dismiss God and believers, and this was just a handy one.

I don't know that this is a fair assesment.

 

Some who have posted are struggling to reconcile what appear as massive gaps between the God of the OT and the God of the modern evangelical movement.

 

Some have posted who are not struggling because they have reconciled these gaps for themselves.

 

Some have posted who are not struggling because they decided the gap was irreconcilable.

 

If only those who are struggling should be posting on this thread there are quite a few posters who should back out now.

 

As a believer I did not find any post to this thread to be bashing or rude. I only read people who have struggled and made peace, one way or another, sharing thier experience.

[HRAAB]

 

So why spare Lot, who offered up his daughters to be "raped".  Ask yourself this question: If you knew Jesus Christ was with you and men came to your residence to violate Him in what God calls and "unnatural and sinful" way, yet you have the means to potentially avert such an act, by sacrificing someone dear to you (the way God sacrificed his only begotten son for us) would you choose to do so?  I believe this offering of Lot was a parallel to God offering His Son for us.  The spilling of innocent blood to redeem a people.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  Lot, in sacrificing his daughters to prevent an even more egregious sin, was found righteous in God's sight.  Hence, he and his family were spared.

 

 

No.  Because that would say to me that it was a false god.  A loving, merciful, compassionate god would not ask of a parent.  

 

Jesus willingly and freely gave his own life.  I don't recall Lot asking his daughters if they consented.

[HRAAB]

I get the distinct impression that most in this thread who are "having trouble" aren't really having trouble.  They're looking for an excuse to dismiss God and believers, and this was just a handy one.  

 

That is extremely offensive.  Unless you have been in my head, lived through the sorrow, depression and grief I have felt over this, you have absolutely no right to make such an arrogant statement.  I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has spent years struggling and fighting trying to hold on to their faith.  This attitude does nothing to help those who are struggling. 

 

I don't know what struggles you've had, and you have no idea what struggles the posters on this thread have had.

[Erin]

Attitude?  Offensive?
I don't have any doubt that some genuinely are struggling.

 

 There's a reason I chose my words carefully.   Perhaps you should re-read my post.

[laughing lioness]

*snort*

 

Originally, you wrote "I didn't say God was benevolent. I said God is just."

 

Now that's more honest. But the "just" part is still off.

 

It's not a matter of "honesty" as being more specific. I wasn't the one who brought benevelence up, my original point was about Justice and how it wasn't always fair.

 

Laughinglioness, please do understand, that is truly a joke. I know there are very intelligent people who know the Bible backwards and forwards and in original languages, including history and geography, yet are devout Christians. My father is one. It's baffling to me, though.  FWIW, I have seen this account over and over again from people who were once Christians and no longer claim to be - they knew the Bible well. They understood it well. They studied it thoroughly. They sought to find answers to the baffling parts. And it drove them away. That is what happened to me, too. 

 

I would never bash you or anybody else who believes Christian doctrine from the depths of their being. I'm jealous, frankly. It would be much simpler to believe it all and fit right in. It would be great if I could sing the songs at church and have them resonate with me, rather than feel like I'm mouthing meaningless words. I had that once and I liked it. I still go to church. I still live in a Christian framework. I want to keep that stability for my children and I selfishly want to remain liked. I don't want to add misery to my parents who are not in good health; let them believe I'm still a Christian. What does it hurt? 

Quill, Thank-you for clarifying this. And let me be clear. The last 4 years of my life have been full of loss,turmoil and pain- especially the past 5 months. We do not go to a "traditional" church anymore- I can't stand it. Christian radio-same thing. I am so sorry you are hurting. I hope for peace and answers for you!!

 

Wow! I think you might be inside my head. Seriously, you said what I think. I am always looking around in church thinking I can't be the ony person in here thinking this way. I, also, have often thought that my life would b easier if I didn't have to question absolutely everything.

I question a lot. If I conveyed that eveyrthing is wrapped up in my life - well, ,hahaha. But I do know Jesus. There are benchmarks I can point to in my life that say, "yes, He's the real deal." Everything else, esp the past couple years, months, has been on the table. And honestly, I'm waiting to see if some of my presuppositions are true - the lack of fairness in this life sucks.

[JenniferB]

Thank you!! Have you read it?

No, but it looks good. I'm reading the free ebook sample if this now, to see if I want to buy it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008SHIDT2/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1376359390&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

[HRAAB]

Attitude?  Offensive?

I don't have any doubt that some genuinely are struggling.

 

 There's a reason I chose my words carefully.   Perhaps you should re-read my post.

I did read your post carefully.  It is still offensive, even the second time around.

[*Lulu*]

Have you seen this? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0801027306/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0801027306&linkCode=as2&redirect=true&ref_=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl&tag=inspirandinca-20

  

Thank you!!  Have you read it?

 

I am almost done with this book, (it has taken me well over a year to read because I have to keep walking away to digest what he is saying), and it has been very good. I don't know that it exactly speaks to all the issues raised in this thread, but it has been a very enlightening experience in my personal faith journey.

[mamakven]

Following

[*Lulu*]

The Spam, while disappointingly un-poetical, has been reported.

[Mergath]

Look at it this way.  How can you say they are the victims?  If there is no moral law giver such as God, how do you know the difference between a victim or a perpetrator?  Without a moral law giver there is no rationale for moral objectivity.  Does the lion feel sorry for killing its prey?  Do they leave the young, feeble or handcapped gazelles alone because they feel sorry for them?  No.  They do not distinguish between the good, the bad, the poor, the rich or anything because they don't have morality. Only humans do because they are made in the image of God with a moral compass passed on by Him.  Because of this inherent morality, we can have empathy, but we can't see the total picture or outcomes that God sees.  You only get 1/2 the story and sometimes not even that.

 

Actually, there are many, many examples of altruism among animals:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

I think the people who make statements like this about animals having no sense of morality, morality being something given by God to only humans, blah blah blah, must not have pets.  Anyone who has seen a cat or a dog try to comfort a sad or scared child knows that many animals are just as moral and good as humans.  If not more so.

 

So sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

[KarenNC]

Highly recommend Dr. Amy Jill Levine's Great Courses lectures, "The Old Testament" and "Great Figures of the New Testament." We've recently finished the first and are partially through the second. Excellent insight and excellent lecturer with impressive credentials, not as confrontational as I find Bart Ehrman, for instance. You can see a sample of her style in her Burke Lecture at UC San Diego "Reassessing Jewish and Christian Relations"  (it's on Youtube along with other material of hers). She's also recently released "The Jewish Annotated New Testament," which I skimmed---looks very interesting and like a good resource.

 

 

[Cricket]

With regards to Lot, nowhere in Scripture do I see where he was asked by God to sacrifice his daughters. I think he did that to save his own skin. The only "righteous" thing I can see he did was to hear the word of the Lord spoken by the angels and he believed it. 2 Peter says Lot was distressed by the sin he saw but nowhere are his actions that night called righteous. Being righteous doesn't mean a person is morally perfect. (King David, anyone? that has been a hard one for me!) But that is the whole message of Christianity. You don't have to be perfect, you can't be perfect. What you can be is presented to the Father as perfect because of the work of the Son. We are made righteous through the work of another. That same message is also what is so offensive. We humans all think we are wonderful. Well, at least we are better than the neighbor. Heck, we're even morally superior to God.

[Cricket]

Actually, there are many, many examples of altruism among animals:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

I think the people who make statements like this about animals having no sense of morality, morality being something given by God to only humans, blah blah blah, must not have pets. Anyone who has seen a cat or a dog try to comfort a sad or scared child knows that many animals are just as moral and good as humans. If not more so.

 

So sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

I don't think animals are capable of being moral because I don't think they have the capacity to choose between right and wrong and I don't believe God gave them a Law to keep. But I have seen our cat comfort my daughters when they cry and it is so sweet!!

[SunnyDays]

I don't think animals are capable of being moral because I don't think they have the capacity to choose between right and wrong and I don't believe God gave them a Law to keep. But I have seen our cat comfort my daughters when they cry and it is so sweet!!

I'd disagree with that. No, they don't have the same capacity for deep rational thought as do humans. And I don't think anyone said anything about animals being given instruction from God. But our dog knows very well when he takes something that doesn't belong to him. When he accidentally hurts one of us (like when he stomps on my foot as he's tearing across the room for a toy, scratching the heck out of me... Just as an example!), he is remorseful, comes and tries to make up and help us. They feel obligations toward their loved ones and have a code of right and wrong, albeit, again, more instinctual than rational.

 

The opinions on this thread have been interesting. I'm just trying to process everything.