Sunday, September 24, 2006

Today's Bible reading on family values

It's Sunday, so here's today's Bible reading:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. The Seduction of Lot
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Try and make a sermon out of that one, folks.

LINKS: Genesis 19 - Skeptics Annotated Bible
Lot, the just and righteous - Dwindlng in Unbelief
Did Lot's daughters think God had killed every man except Lot? - Skeptics Annotated Bible
Family values in The Bible - Skeptics Annotated Bible

RELATED: Religion, Nonsense

8 Comments:

Anonymous Erik Hogan said...

'Genesis' is a book that Christians and Jews believe to be a historical account of the beginning of the world. The word Genesis itself is greek for 'origin', and this is a direct translation of the Hebrew title for the book.

Merely recording an historic act does not imply that the author endorses that historical act. For instance, if an historian wrote a book which details the actions done by say, Hitler, Stalin, Mao or any other criminal, it does not mean that the author approves of their actions.

These verses do not even imply that committing incest is an allowable act under Hebrew law. Hebrew law was believed to have been created a long time after this act (during the time of Moses), and incest itself was outlawed under Hebrew law. This is referred to in Leviticus 18:6 ("None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD")

The Bible is not sugar coated, because life itself is not sugar coated. Leaving out the negative side of anything in life would create an incomplete perspective.

I will make the observation that although incest is not allowable under Hebrew law, marriage between people already related is allowable under Libertarianz policy.


- Erik

9/24/2006 07:36:00 pm  
Blogger Nigel Kearney said...

According to the bible, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and saved only Lot and his family.

The verses do therefore imply that a man impregnating both of his teenage daughters is less blameworthy than adult males having consensual sex with one another.

9/24/2006 08:09:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can understand if you don't like the Bible. But surely you can be more intelligent han to take verese out of context in an attempt to force the Bible to condone an act whcih in fact is clearrly and consistently portrayed as wrong?

Nigel I believe this episode took place after the destruction of S & G, and Lot gave no consent, that is this was "date rape".

Why not criticise Christianity or Judaism and its main text on a philosphical basis. It will lead to a much more intelligent conversation.

9/24/2006 08:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Erik Hogan said...

Nigel,

I believe that if a person is intoxicated, either by their own actions or the actions of another, and as a result is seduced or raped by another, it is not the fault of the person who was intoxicated and it is not consensual.

I also believe that, when every male of a city demands that a visitor to the city come out of the place where he is staying so that they may have sex with him (Genesis 19:4-5) eventually breaking into the place where he is staying place to seize him (Genesis 19:9) that their intent is probably not consensual sex.



- Erik

9/24/2006 09:35:00 pm  
Blogger Blair said...

I find it strange that skeptics use this straw man argument to discredit the Bible. While most evangelicals believe the Bible is the literal Word of God, I know of no Christian group that believes the whole Bible should be interpreted literally as an example to live by. So assuming that such people exist, then debunking the nonexistent claim by quoting verses like these serves no purpose in any theological or metaphysical debate.

If you are going to pick holes in the evangelical argument, the best one (and the one that convinced me) is in how the New Testament treats food offered to idols. The eating of such food is banned by the Apostles in the book of Acts, yet given the A-OK by Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, only to be sharply criticised by none other than Jesus Himself in the book of Revelation.

Inspired Word of God? Well take your pick!

9/24/2006 11:29:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

"I can understand if you don't like the Bible. But surely you can be more intelligent han to take verese out of context in an attempt to force the Bible to condone an act whcih in fact is clearly and consistently portrayed as wrong?"

Crikey, I thought religionists wanted people to read the Good Book?

9/25/2006 09:02:00 am  
Blogger leelion said...

After this incestuous episode, Lot is favoured by the Lord. Yet, the Midianites, who looked after the Egypt fleeing Moses for forty odd years, and who gave him his wife, Zippora, were thanked by Moses and God by being brutally murdered.... men, women and children put to the sword, except the virgin girls, who Moses offered to his religious warriors as war booty, many of whom would be his relatives by marriage. (Numbers 31). Never ceases to amaze me the gymnastics that bible believers will go to support their verion of the bible. And, I'm a supporter of Jesus, a secular Jesus, an amazing man.

9/25/2006 10:19:00 pm  
Anonymous Erik Hogan said...

Blair,

You have an extremely interesting point, thank you for bringing it to my attention. It is one that I have not considered before, and one that has, and still is, challenging me.

It actually made me think of a contemporary similarity. Most New Zealand beef is slaughtered according to Islamic rules, with the Cow, facing Mecca, slaughtered by a Muslim, who recites an Islamic phrase while doing so. This, perhaps, could be seen as being similar to food sacrificed to an Idol. Most of this is only for export, but some of this is for the local market, and I think that I have more then likely consumed 'Halal' meat during my lifetime.

If I believe that Allah is not a real god, then I feel that this is meat slaughtered according to the rules supposedly set by an entity I don’t believe in (therefore the ritual slaughter itself means absolutely nothing) and I feel that by eating the meat simply to nourish myself I am not being inconsistent with my own beliefs, and I am not adhering to the Islamic religion.

However, if I consume the meat primarily because it is Halal, or encourage others to eat it because it is Halal, then I would be adhering to the Islamic religion.

Therefore, I then interpret the messages of Acts, Corinthians and Revelation to mean that while eating sacrificed meat for religious purposes is wrong, or encouraging others to do so is wrong, eating sacrificed meat simply for nourishment is not wrong.

I will have to think about this further.

9/25/2006 11:07:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home