Catastrophism and explaining the Bible

[Photizo]

The bible is inerrant.
Lot is described as behaving reprehensibly.
Lot is favored by the Christian god.
Thus, the Christian god favors reprehensible people.

You ought to thank Him that He in fact does favor reprehensible people, as the inerrant Bible includes you in that catagory...you left out some important information germane to any discussion involving Lot--or any reprehensible person...

The inerrant Bible declares: Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Lot is described by the inerrant Bible as a man of faith in God, so despite the fact he's reprehensible--as all are in God's sight--because of his faith he nevertheless is declared righteous (like Abraham) by the inerrant Bible. The fact that we are all reprehensible each in his own way and, that the Christian God favors reprehensible people is demonstrated by Christ on the Cross...the fact that God is no respecter of persons is obvious by the inerrant Bible's command for all people everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel.

 

[Adstar]

You ought to thank Him that He in fact does favor reprehensible people, as the inerrant Bible includes you in that catagory...you left out some important information germane to any discussion involving Lot--or any reprehensible person...

The inerrant Bible declares: Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Lot is described by the inerrant Bible as a man of faith in God, so despite the fact he's reprehensible--as all are in God's sight--because of his faith he nevertheless is declared righteous (like Abraham) by the inerrant Bible. The fact that we are all reprehensible each in his own way and, that the Christian God favors reprehensible people is demonstrated by Christ on the Cross...the fact that God is no respecter of persons is obvious by the inerrant Bible's command for all people everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel.

Well done. I like it

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[SkinWalker]

You ought to thank Him that He in fact does favor reprehensible people, as the inerrant Bible includes you in that catagory...you left out some important information germane to any discussion involving Lot--or any reprehensible person...

The inerrant Bible declares: Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Lot is described by the inerrant Bible as a man of faith in God, so despite the fact he's reprehensible--as all are in God's sight--because of his faith he nevertheless is declared righteous (like Abraham) by the inerrant Bible. The fact that we are all reprehensible each in his own way and, that the Christian God favors reprehensible people is demonstrated by Christ on the Cross...the fact that God is no respecter of persons is obvious by the inerrant Bible's command for all people everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel.

Your interpretation just makes your god out to be an asshole rather than a loving god. As the father of a daughter, I find anyone who would offer their daughter up for gang-rape to satisfy his faith to be an asshole as is the god -mythical or not- that views this as a righteous person. The act is *not* righteous and is *not* the act of a righteous man. Nor is any god that would view this as a righteous man. Therefore: either your god doesn't exist, and is that confabulation of mankind or your god is an asshole.

 

[Photizo]

Your interpretation just makes your god out to be an asshole rather than a loving god. As the father of a daughter, I find anyone who would offer their daughter up for gang-rape to satisfy his faith to be an asshole as is the god -mythical or not- that views this as a righteous person. The act is *not* righteous and is *not* the act of a righteous man. Nor is any god that would view this as a righteous man. Therefore: either your god doesn't exist, and is that confabulation of mankind or your god is an asshole.

You missed the point entirely. "Expected, however."

The reason Lot is viewed by God as righteous is because of his faith. No one is perfect, and all in one form or another behave reprehensibly/are reprehensible. You, for example, as the father of a daughter, find anyone who would offer their daughter up for gang rape to be an asshole...well, I'm the father of seven--five of whom are daughters--and I agree with you...but Lot's reason for doing that was not "to satisfy his faith"...such is mere speculation/pretense on your part to somehow justify your unbelief, disobedience, and hatred of God.

Regardless, the inerrant Bible declares it is not ones actions that ultimately render a person righteous before God. If that were the case, no one would be declared righteous, again, it is soley by reason of Lot's faith (in God) that he is declared righteous.

Lot's manner of being reprehensible was offering his daughters to be gang raped...yours is to call God an asshole...despite Lots reprehensible behavior God declares him righteous on account of his faith in God, as God will do for you:

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

...No distrust made him (in this case, Abraham) waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness.

But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

 

[nova900]

Lot's manner of being reprehensible was offering his daughters to be gang raped...yours is to call God an asshole...despite Lots reprehensible behavior God declares him righteous on account of his faith in God, as God will do for you:

So despite it being a reprehensible and disgusting act,it was impressive to God because it demonstrated Lots' faith.
Did Yahweh God not find rape a vile act? How about murder? ..I suppose not
as demonstrated by all the God sanctioned atrocities in the OT.


Jesus was God in the flesh,correct?
In Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."
If Yahweh does not change his nature, why is it Jesus never approved of murder or gang-rape in the NT. I just cannot see Jesus approving of such an action as was taken by Lot.

Jesus ,rather, demonstrated that he was impressed by the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13: who asked Jesus to heal his servant boy and Jesus was impressed by the way he demonstrated his faith. Did the compassionate action of the Centurion not also factor into Jesus being impressed? I would think very much so considering the overall nature of Jesus teachings of love and peace.

 

[Photizo]

So despite it being a reprehensible and disgusting act,it was impressive to God because it demonstrated Lots' faith.

No. How do you arrive at that? "That" being the notion the "reprehensible and disgusting act...was impressive to God because it demonstrated Lot's faith"... How were you able to wrest that from the text?

 

[nova900]

No. How do you arrive at that? "That" being the notion the "reprehensible and disgusting act...was impressive to God because it demonstrated Lot's faith"... How were you able to wrest that from the text?

In your words:

despite Lots reprehensible behavior God declares him righteous on account of his faith in God.


So, the act itself did not retract from Lot being viewed as "righteous"?

 

[Adstar]

No. How do you arrive at that? "That" being the notion the "reprehensible and disgusting act...was impressive to God because it demonstrated Lot's faith"... How were you able to wrest that from the text?

They are able to wrest anything they like because that’s what they want to wrest. Just as SkinWalker missed the point completely, Both are either wilfully disregarding what has been revealed to them or they have been blinded. God knows.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

In your words:

despite Lots reprehensible behavior God declares him righteous on account of his faith in God.


So, the act itself did not retract from Lot being viewed as "righteous"?

Lot showed trust in God to get up and leave his home town when God called upon Him to do so. Nothing in the account nor in Photizo's explanation suggests that God approved of the actions of lot in regard to his daughter and the mob. It is you who is injecting this approval into the account and into Photizo's explanation.

Lot trusted God and it was accounted to Him as righteousness. Just as Abraham trusted in God and it was accounted to Him as righteousness.

Romans 4
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
David Celebrates the Same Truth

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[SkinWalker]

You missed the point entirely.

Nope. I see the point clearly. The point is the religious expectations of your god are absurd. Your god either doesn't exist or is absurd.

The reason Lot is viewed by God as righteous is because of his faith. [...] but Lot's reason for doing that was not "to satisfy his faith"...such is mere speculation/pretense on your part to somehow justify your unbelief, disobedience, and hatred of God.

Hatred? None. I can't hate that for which there is no good reason to believe exists.

Disobedience? Again, there doesn't appear to be anything to disobey except biblical mythology, for which there is no logical or reason for me to make exception to obey. Even christians don't "obey" the bible or they would stone adulterers; etc.

Unbelief? If that's the same as a lack of belief in that which there is no good reason to believe -then yes.

But Lot was satisfying his faith, as clearly indicated in biblical mythology. His faith placed more value on a man than on a woman -even if that woman was his own daughter. That's called misogyny and your mythical text is rife with it -mostly directed from the mythical being that is referred to as Yahweh. By offering his daughter's innocence for a gang of rapists, Lot was acting in accordance with his faith.

Lot's manner of being reprehensible was offering his daughters to be gang raped...yours is to call God an asshole...

If the story of Lot is based on an actual event, it is that father of that daughter that is reprehensible. My reference to the assholeness of a fictional entity offers reprehensibility only to those deluded that this entity exists.

 

[nova900]

Lot showed trust in God to get up and leave his home town when God called upon Him to do so. Nothing in the account nor in Photizo's explanation suggests that God approved of the actions of lot in regard to his daughter and the mob. It is you who is injecting this approval into the account and into Photizo's explanation.

I will concede the point you are making Adstar. I did 'initially' interpret it that way.
I just find it disturbing that Yahweh would view implicit trust in him as being so much more important than his followers actually performing righteous acts.
Righteous acts that Jesus would no doubt approve of...as in "feed the poor", "care for your fellow man and the world around you", "NOT offering your daughter up for gang-rape",etc.

But the question remains: So, the act itself did not retract from Lot being viewed as "righteous"?

 

[Roman]

That comment made no sense at all. Expected, however.




The bible is inerrant.
Lot is described as behaving reprehensibly.
Lot is favored by the Christian god.
Thus, the Christian god favors reprehensible people.

I think that was the point he was trying to make.

On the other hand, if we accept that the mythical story of Lot's willingness to have his daughter gang-raped is a confabulation, then we can likewise say the same about the "pillar of salt," which is completely devoid of any scientific basis. And since magic hasn't been shown to exist outside the minds of the deluded, we needn't bother with applying it to the myth as an explanation.

Actually, God favors Israelites, and he favors reprehensible Israelites.
It wasn't until God impregnated a mortal with Himself so that He could die to save us from His wrath.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Actually, God favors Israelites, and he favors reprehensible Israelites.
It wasn't until God impregnated a mortal with Himself so that He could die to save us from His wrath.

*************
M*W: Lot wasn't an Israelite. Lot was a polytheist just as Abraham was as well as his father. OTOH, Lot may have been a fictional character (as was Abraham), but neither one of them were Israelites.

The whole idea (confabulation) that the Israelites are god's chosen people is erroneous. The correct thoughts on this are that the Israelites were the ones who CHOSE their monotheistic god which they worshipped as the sun. Their 'god' chose no one as its 'chosen people.'

 

[Photizo]

Nope. I see the point clearly.

Hmmm...You do, eh? God has seen fit to use your eagle eye as an example for others:

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth...For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not, might see; and that they which see, might be made blind.

 

[Adstar]

I will concede the point you are making Adstar. I did 'initially' interpret it that way.
I just find it disturbing that Yahweh would view implicit trust in him as being so much more important than his followers actually performing righteous acts.
Righteous acts that Jesus would no doubt approve of...as in "feed the poor", "care for your fellow man and the world around you", "NOT offering your daughter up for gang-rape",etc.

But the question remains: So, the act itself did not retract from Lot being viewed as "righteous"?

Lot was considered righteous in faith just as Abraham was considered righteous in faith. These men where not considered righteous in the flesh. Although some religious people seem to think that guys like Abraham and Moses where, they are mistaken.

And yes God wants us to love our fellow man and part of that love is to feed the poor and to care for ones fellow man around us, But we know that our righteousness in the end is as filthy rags compared to the righteousness of God, this does not make our love for other people all in vain. But it does not justify us to God. The main thing, the most important thing is our trusting in His leading us to where we need to go. Why because He has perfect wisdom and we (as demonstrated by the story of Lot) do not have perfect wisdom.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Roman]

*************
M*W: Lot wasn't an Israelite. Lot was a polytheist just as Abraham was as well as his father. OTOH, Lot may have been a fictional character (as was Abraham), but neither one of them were Israelites.

The whole idea (confabulation) that the Israelites are god's chosen people is erroneous. The correct thoughts on this are that the Israelites were the ones who CHOSE their monotheistic god which they worshipped as the sun. Their 'god' chose no one as its 'chosen people.'

I'm sure you've covered this in prior discussion; would you mind linking me to where you've gone over this on these boards? I've always been told/learned/read that the Israelites had a special relationship with God. You can see in Genesis where the Israelites are defined and those who are related, but aren't Israelites, are also defined. For instance, Abrahamn's son Asau (the one he got from knocking his slave girl up), while related to Jacob, isn't from Sarah and Abraham, and thus his descendants aren't Israelite.

Basically, that whole bit of the bible, fabricated or totally fabricated, is a genealogical history that both explains the Israelites relationship with their god as well as their ancestry and that of their neighbors. It's their history, written by them.

And, since it was written by Israelites, for Israelites, you can see what they value (sons, bloodshed, pwning noob idolists) and what they don't value (women, fertility deities, women, human rights).

And if you take it further, and say that their stories are TOTAL fabrications, not based on their past ancestors actually doing those things, whom you assert to be polytheists, then it becomes clear that the Israelites were truly a morally depraved people, who made up totally depraved stories to justify their morally bankrupt actions.

 

[Photizo]

Lot was considered righteous in faith just as Abraham was considered righteous in faith. These men where not considered righteous in the flesh. Although some religious people seem to think that guys like Abraham and Moses where, they are mistaken.

Amen. The Bible presents all these personages warts and all. What sets them apart (i.e. holiness) from their peers essentially is their faith and trust in God--and His Word.

The main thing, the most important thing is our trusting in His leading us to where we need to go. Why because He has perfect wisdom and we (as demonstrated by the story of Lot) do not have perfect wisdom.

Yes. Hence the need for all human beings to TRUST and obey God's Word:

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

[Photizo]

In your words:

despite Lots reprehensible behavior God declares him righteous on account of his faith in God.


So, the act itself did not retract from Lot being viewed as "righteous"?

Correct. Just as our righteous acts are not the grounds of justification, so too our unrighteous acts do not have to be the grounds of condemnation.

 

[stretched]

"so too our unrighteous acts do not have to be the grounds of condemnation."

A get out of jail free card. And TOTAL bollocks. Remove thy pyjamas, and wake up.

 

[Photizo]

"so too our unrighteous acts do not have to be the grounds of condemnation."

A get out of jail free card.

Correct. Use it or lose it.