An Atheist Reads the Bible - 1 - Lot's Daughters

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00B3IqCvZdE

Very simple, yet effective. An audiobook of the Bible, with animation overlayed.

http://www.youtube.com/user/43alley

Galvasean

Who needs Last House On The Left when we have the Bible?

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJ0Qc10iV0

I like this, cause it slightly defecates the notion of the NT being a step-away from the OT.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw

Most important of all.

Very funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNz-FeWoVc8

CDfm

So God has a bit of a temper and there is collateral damage.

By the same token when the Allies bombed Germany in WWII there was collateral damage too.

We read the bible allegorically and the message to lot was to get out of the city and that it had affected his values in that he had offered the mob his daughters.The angels told him not to. Lots wife looked back which is a metaphor for not wanting to let go of the old way of life.

The daughters after the incest events gave birth to Moab and Ammon who founded the tribes that were the Israelites bitter enemies. So in that way you might say that they had free choice to leave the old ways behind them and didnt.

So I would say there is a lesson in there that is more realistic and contemporary on morals,mores and values if you want to see it.

One might almost say its an early theory of memetics.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

So God has a bit of a temper and there is collateral damage.

By the same token when the Allies bombed Germany in WWII there was collateral damage too.

We read the bible allegorically and the message to lot was to get out of the city and that it had affected his values in that he had offered the mob his daughters.The angels told him not to. Lots wife looked back which is a metaphor for not wanting to let go of the old way of life.

The daughters after the incest events gave birth to Moab and Ammon who founded the tribes that were the Israelites bitter enemies. So in that way you might say that they had free choice to leave the old ways behind them and didnt.

So I would say there is a lesson in there that is more realistic and contemporary on morals,mores and values if you want to see it.

One might almost say its an early theory of memetics.

Who is 'we'?

In either case, the message remains that God is a child killer.

Overblood

CDfm wrote: »

Lots wife looked back which is a metaphor for not wanting to let go of the old way of life.

Says who? Maybe she just looked back because she wanted to look back? People look back at things all the time. I looked back at a nice girls arse in town the other day. Is that a metaphor?

The Mad Hatter

CDfm wrote: »

So God has a bit of a temper and there is collateral damage.

By the same token when the Allies bombed Germany in WWII there was collateral damage too.

Yes, but God is - well, he's a god. He can do anything, apparently. He's not using bombs, he's using magic powers, so why not just magic it so that only the men die?

You also seem to be missing several of the other aspects of the despicable morality in these stories.

Flamed Diving

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You also seem to be missing several of the other aspects of the despicable morality in these stories.

Years of conditioning, Hatty.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Who is 'we'?

In either case, the message remains that God is a child killer.

You are free to read it however you wish.

Its the same as saying Churchill was a child killer.

Even if you dont believe in God it has a philosophical message that has relevence today and has influenced thought and cultural beliefs.

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

Says who? Maybe she just looked back because she wanted to look back? People look back at things all the time. I looked back at a nice girls arse in town the other day. Is that a metaphor?

No, but it is probably sin :P

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Even if you dont believe in God it has a philosophical message that has relevence today and has influenced thought and cultural beliefs.

Do as you are told or you will be executed? Obey without question? God loves you?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Do as you are told or you will be executed? Obey without question? God loves you?

Biblical Fundamentalism is alive and well in A+A:rolleyes:

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

So God has a bit of a temper and there is collateral damage.

By the same token when the Allies bombed Germany in WWII there was collateral damage too.

Really? That's the best you've got? An omnipotent being couldn't avoid collateral damage? You're terrible. Just awful. We need a much more crazy Christian to defend this shit because this isn't even fun anymore, it's just sad.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Really? That's the best you've got? An omnipotent being couldn't avoid collateral damage? You're terrible. Just awful. We need a much more crazy Christian to defend this shit because this isn't even fun anymore, it's just sad.

Well Zillah - you dont believe it either literally or metaphorically.

I even open the door for you to discuss memetic evolution and explain it for us all.

Zillah

I believe in it as a story.
I believe people read and believe these stories.
I believe that people adore and worship the God presented in these stories.

It scares the crap out of me.

I believe that people will use arguments like "Collateral damage is to be expected when you divinely annihilate a city", and believe it somehow justifies or excuses the event.

Those people scare the crap out of me.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Biblical Fundamentalism is alive and well in A+A:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, what do you think the message was?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Well Zillah - you dont believe it either literally or metaphorically.

I even open the door for you to discuss memetic evolution and explain it for us all.

The explanation is that it is a story that comes from a time when people were used and expected cruel and brutal rulers, and thus expected a cruel and brutal God.

The issue for modern Christians who have grown up in post-Enlightenment is that they don't do cruel and brutal, and thus they have to square the round hole of the Old Testament with modern standards of morality and ethics.

Which is where rather nonsensical explanations like "collateral damage" come from.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

The explanation is that it is a story that comes from a time when people were used and expected cruel and brutal rulers, and thus expected a cruel and brutal God.

The issue for modern Christians who have grown up in post-Enlightenment is that they don't do cruel and brutal, and thus they have to square the round hole of the Old Testament with modern standards of morality and ethics.

Which is where rather nonsensical explanations like "collateral damage" come from.

Or you could read it as a corrupt society/ideology allegory like the destruction of nazi Germany. If you took Hegels Triad Thesis,Antithesis and Synthesis and applied it.

I just took one element being the destruction of a city and applied it to say behaviour during wartime and the bombing of cities during WWII. I am not saying such things are desireable but in certain circumstances ethically they are inescapeable.

In this context you could have , Nazi Germany , its destruction and the growth of Neo Nazi right in Europe.In the same way you had Sodom, its destruction and the growth of the Moabites.

You could say that the daughters had the opportunity to leave their old ideologies behing them and didnt in the same way thne Neo Nazis in Germany dont and they are a problem that has to be dealt with/tolerated.

Thats a simple interpretation but Im sure you get the concept and you come accross Hegels Triad being applied in the writtings of Marx and Engels and it has many applications.

I read somewhere (probably on boards) that there is a book due out on memetic readings of the bible.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Or you could read it as a corrupt society/ideology allegory like the destruction of nazi Germany. If you took Hegels Triad Thesis,Antithesis and Synthesis and applied it.

I just took one element being the destruction of a city and applied it to say behaviour during wartime and the bombing of cities during WWII. I am not saying such things are desireable but in certain circumstances ethically they are inescapeable.

In this context you could have , Nazi Germany , its destruction and the growth of Neo Nazi right in Europe.In the same way you had Sodom, its destruction and the growth of the Moabites.

You could say that the daughters had the opportunity to leave their old ideologies behing them and didnt in the same way thne Neo Nazis in Germany dont and they are a problem that has to be dealt with/tolerated.

Thats a simple interpretation but Im sure you get the concept and you come accross Hegels Triad being applied in the writtings of Marx and Engels and it has many applications.

I read somewhere (probably on boards) that there is a book due out on memetic readings of the bible.

So God is a child killer, then.

Ergo, he isn't perfect.

Ergo, he isn't God.

Welcome.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So God is a child killer, then.

Ergo, he isn't perfect.

Ergo, he isn't God.

Welcome.

Lots of Ergos -but he does Vengence and retribution.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Lots of Ergos -but he does Vengence and retribution.

Yup, making him a petty child killer.

That isn't perfect.

So, he cannot be God.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yup, making him a petty child killer.

That isn't perfect.

So, he cannot be God.

Typical Flamed Logic and I expect no less

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Typical Flamed Logic and I expect no less

A child killer is not perfect. God is, by your definition, perfect.

God is not perfect. It is really that simple. It is the logic of bronze-age desert tribes which falls flat on its face.

Blackhorse Slim

I think I understand. Some parts of the Bible are metaphor, or allegory, and are not meant to be taken literally. Other parts of the Bible are literally true, and actually happened exactly as described. And all of this is the Word of God. And most importantly - exactly which parts are true and which parts are metaphor change over time.

What about this Jesus lad? Was he real at all, or just an allegory? And Hell, is it a real physical place? How do we know which bits are meant to be real, and which aren't?


The story of Genesis was literally true, and still is for some people, but for others is it a metaphor for God's Creation, rather than a historical description. Likewise, all that evil stuff God did was expected of him when rulers were expected to be cruel and harsh, but now that we are more enlightened it never really happened. Is that it? Can I be christian now?

Flamed Diving

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I think I understand. Some parts of the Bible are metaphor, or allegory, and are not meant to be taken literally. Other parts of the Bible are literally true, and actually happened exactly as described. And all of this is the Word of God. And most importantly - exactly which parts are true and which parts are metaphor change over time.

What about this Jesus lad? Was he real at all, or just an allegory? And Hell, is it a real physical place? How do we know which bits are meant to be real, and which aren't?


The story of Genesis was literally true, and still is for some people, but for others is it a metaphor for God's Creation, rather than a historical description. Likewise, all that evil stuff God did was expected of him when rulers were expected to be cruel and harsh, but now that we are more enlightened it never really happened. Is that it? Can I be christian now?

It makes 'perfect' sense to me, Blacky.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Or you could read it as a corrupt society/ideology allegory like the destruction of nazi Germany.

But no one would think the genocide of Nazi Germany would be a good thing CDfm, that is the point. Or that a leader who carried out such a brutal response would be worthy of follwoing. They might have 4,000 years ago.

CDfm wrote: »

I just took one element being the destruction of a city and applied it to say behaviour during wartime and the bombing of cities during WWII. I am not saying such things are desireable but in certain circumstances ethically they are inescapeable.

Not for an omnipotent deity :rolleyes:

We don't have collateral damage in war time on the basis that it is a war so heck we have to kill some civilians, it is because man kind is particularly bad a fighting and often, inadvertently , kills civilians.

It is not some requirement.

CDfm wrote: »

You could say that the daughters had the opportunity to leave their old ideologies behing them and didnt in the same way thne Neo Nazis in Germany dont and they are a problem that has to be dealt with/tolerated.

You could say that if you were desperately trying to find some way to excuse this

CDfm wrote: »

I read somewhere (probably on boards) that there is a book due out on memetic readings of the bible.

What are memetic readings of the Bible?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Not for an omnipotent deity :rolleyes:

It is not some requirement.

If you take a literalist reading of the bible you need to accept a bit of vengence and retribution with that interpretation. Im Catholic and we dont do a literalist reading.

You could say that if you were desperately trying to find some way to excuse this

Maybe - but if I was contemplating bombing a city during wartime Nazi Germany it would be an ethical argument/philosphical argument I could look at even if I was atheist.

What are memetic readings of the Bible?

I think it may have been Dades who posted on this -I cant remember - but its definately quite a cool idea. Its taking the evolution of cultural ideas in context I think.

Other than that I suppose we must wait for the book. Thats what you get with polarised arguments - you get a good idea or tool and the opposite side discount it.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe - but if I was contemplating bombing a city during wartime Nazi Germany it would be an ethical argument/philosphical argument I could look at even if I was atheist.

You keep missing the core reason that this is a pointless and irrelevant metaphor.

Scenario 1: Churchill orders that bombs be dropped on German cities so that their economy and industry be damaged so as to prevent the Nazis from continuing the war effort. (It sucks that innocent people died but the Nazis needed to be stopped.)

Scenario 2: Churchill has a magic bomb that can instantly remove any and all threats to democracy without harming a single innocent person. Instead he orders that Berlin be firebombed again. (Hey, what a child murdering jerk!)

God and Sodom is more like scenario 2. He is omnipotent. There's no such thing as collateral damage when once is omnipotent. Any damage he did was deliberate. So by Darwin's great bushy beard, will you stop with the meaningless Nazi comparison!

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

I think it may have been Dades who posted on this -I cant remember - but its definately quite a cool idea. Its taking the evolution of cultural ideas in context I think.

I doubt it. My knowledge of memetics is only what I get from skimming threads on the subject to make sure nobody's being naughty. Twas Robin I'd say.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

God and Sodom is more like scenario 2. He is omnipotent. There's no such thing as collateral damage when once is omnipotent. Any damage he did was deliberate. So by Darwin's great bushy beard, will you stop with the meaningless Nazi comparison!

Not really as you are taking a literalist reading of the bible as fundamentalists do and you should argue with someone who holds those beliefs.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Not really as you are taking a literalist reading of the bible as fundamentalists do and you should argue with someone who holds those beliefs.

But who are you to decide which parts are literal or not?

Galvasean

There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I doubt it. My knowledge of memetics is only what I get from skimming threads on the subject to make sure nobody's being naughty. Twas Robin I'd say.

It was a great idea - whoever it was - thats me burned as a heretic.:)

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But who are you to decide which parts are literal or not?

You seem to do a very good job of it:D

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

You seem to do a very good job of it:D

Well, here's what I think.

Either it is complete and utter bull****, or it is the word of God (perfect).

You exist in some hazy section inbetween those two points, where you pick the bits you like and ignore/allegorise the bits you hate.

thebouldwhacker

Galvasean wrote: »

There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.

Wicknight wrote: »

The explanation is that it is a story that comes from a time when people were used and expected cruel and brutal rulers, and thus expected a cruel and brutal God.

I hate that kinda thought process saying the bible was for the animals which lived 2000/1000 yrs ago and isnt to be followed word for word... That the bible was only for cruel societies and is less strict for our 'enlighted' societies. We have come from the 20th century which is probibly the bloodiest centruy in man kinds history. Which leaders where more cruel and brutal than the one we had over the last 100 yrs. We are only 9 years into this one and have a look at the political map!?!
look at the fool GW bush how many people was he cruel and brutal to.

Have thses people ever take a present day trip around somilia? How about a relaxing walk by yourself down the dark back alleyways of any city in Ireland after dark and see how enlightened we are.

People are people, today, 100 years ago, 10,000 years ago 100,000 years ago.

The stories in the bible are like that coz they're ment to scare the living crap outa people so they will join the JC church. Now we have education for the masses we can question such 'stories' and say 'hold on, this is crap. It makes no sence and I dont believe it'

However as soon as people started saying that suddenly, (after thousands of years of strict interpretation (flat earth anyone)) someone from the back of the room shouts, 'well actually the bible is more metaphorical'. Well I for one dont buy it.

A religion with rules laid down by your god can not change or be open to different understanding, human laws can but not laws laid down by an all seeing wise god. Why should the bible, which was written over many thousands of years, over thouands of years ago be any different for my great, great great, great, great grand father than it is for me? Has god changed his mind?????

No he hasnt, its stories are made up, people have realised it, the church doesnt have the power to burn us at the stake anymore, so its time for people to move on and put the book beside Santas autobiography and take control of their own decisions.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.

Thats a rather lazy deduction, if indeed it is a deduction rather than a flippant remark. The only sections that I can think of that have 'divided' (As in, its still literal to alot of folk) christian opinion, is the Genesis account and possibly the flood. All of the bible was 'never' taken literally. There has always been symbolic language in it, and such language known. So nothing has become anything. The bible says what it always has, and in a 'couple' of incidents, things that most thought were literal for years, are being questioned as possible metaphors.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.

It certainly has been around since the time of Christ and Philo of Alexandria was the most well known scholar.

The early Greek Christians looked at the question of reconciling their faith and fossils and bones they were digging up. Historically the questions are very old. Thats why its often refered to as a Judeo-Hellenic reading of the bible.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, here's what I think.

Either it is complete and utter bull****, or it is the word of God (perfect).

You exist in some hazy section inbetween those two points, where you pick the bits you like and ignore/allegorise the bits you hate.

Thats up to you. I'm not trying to change your mind.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Thats up to you. I'm not trying to change your mind.

Then why come to A&A?

Unless... you would like to change...

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Its the same as saying Churchill was a child killer.

It isn’t really though, is it? No one ever tried to tell us Churchill was infinity good, holy and perfect. No one ever tried to tell us he was all powerful and all knowing.

I love it when christians impose human like limitation on their all powerful all knowing god. Seriously, how can you liken your all powerful, all knowing, infinity good, infinity holy, infinity kind, infinity merciful god to a WWII prime minister that drank too much?

MrP

thebouldwhacker

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats a rather lazy deduction, if indeed it is a deduction rather than a flippant remark. The only sections that I can think of that have 'divided' (As in, its still literal to alot of folk) christian opinion, is the Genesis account and possibly the flood. All of the bible was 'never' taken literally. There has always been symbolic language in it, and such language known. So nothing has become anything. The bible says what it always has, and in a 'couple' of incidents, things that most thought were literal for years, are being questioned as possible metaphors.

Take a look at the first few posts esp the vid clips, that is where the argument starts, to say that its only those two books is not true...

I do believe there are a number of religions alive and thriving still today that have a strict word for word literal meaning. even on the very limited list supplied there are many there which would fall out of your statment that christian opinion is split only over two sections. I fear the lazyness was not with Galvasean...

Zombrex

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I hate that kinda thought process saying the bible was for the animals which lived 2000/1000 yrs ago and isnt to be followed word for word

Ok. That wasn't either of our arguments, but knock yourself out

thebouldwhacker

Its an argument I often come across, that we are a more socially advanced society and therefore are allowed to read between the lines of the bible and live it metaphoricaly.

Even on the thread one poster says that the Genesis account and possibly the flood are dividing areas of the bible. Sorry but who decided that?

" ok lads from now on the bible is the word of god except for this bit and a little over here"

Rubbish, If I believed in god (firstly I wouldnt be wasting my time 9 to 5ing it) I would obey and believe every word he gave to me.... So what is it, people not really believing in god or what???

Zombrex

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Its an argument I often come across, that we are a more socially advanced society and therefore are allowed to read between the lines of the bible and live it metaphoricaly.

that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the bible was written by people who would not have thought twice about a god who was prepared to genocide an enemy to let them get their land, or who would kill the children of their enslavers. this would all have seemed perfectly normal to these people who lived with war and hardship and were used to brutal rule from kings and tyrants.

the issue for christians today is that they do have a problem with a cruel and evil god because they are living in a time where modern ethics and morality (I would point out building upon greek and Roman notions), so they try and find some way to square the circle as it were because they don't want to believe in a cruel and evil god they want to believe in a loving and caring god (and a lot of them already believe before they come to look seriously at the Old Testament).

it is like someone who doesn't hate Jews and doesn't think Hitler would have hated Jews trying to find a way to make Mie Kamp fit with that frame work.

so you end up with some rather ridiculous explanations as to why all the horrific killing raping and genocide in the Old Testament was actually carried out by a loving a caring God (a concept that is pretty modern and fits with modern expectations of what a god should be like)

JimiTime

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Its an argument I often come across, that we are a more socially advanced society and therefore are allowed to read between the lines of the bible and live it metaphoricaly.

Even on the thread one poster says that the Genesis account and possibly the flood are dividing areas of the bible. Sorry but who decided that?

" ok lads from now on the bible is the word of god except for this bit and a little over here"

Rubbish, If I believed in god (firstly I wouldnt be wasting my time 9 to 5ing it) I would obey and believe every word he gave to me.... So what is it, people not really believing in god or what???

I think you are mixed up here. Something being literal or metaphorical does not make it more or less the word of someone. It means the person was writing either literally or metephorically. Also, I never said that the Genesis account and the flood were the only bones of contention in Christianity. I said, in the context of galvaseans post, that they are the only two incidents that I can think of, where they were once thought as literal but have since had some call for a metephorical reading.

thebouldwhacker

Wick, while I agree with you 100%, I'm still going to wobble your jelly a bit.

I think that while yes many christians are good people, who wish no harm others many (and I have met a few) believe that AIDS was sent by god to rid the world of homosexuals. That famine in the third world is gods design to limit the numbers of people with dark skin, the middle east is a crusade we (christian we) must win cos 'they' will only invade Europe and make slaves of our sisters etc etc.... all with gods help. ffor example I was with a man of the cloth the day of the Iraqi invasion, shock & awe and all that. He was watching the tv saying 'why oh why are they bombing those poor innocent people, think of the suffering that they will go through, and through no fault of their own' good christian there I thought to myself until he followed it up with 'why dont they leave them alone and use the bombs in Israel instead':eek:... they deserve it'


So I think the 'loving god' is kinda like, 'well he loves me, but if I need him to he'll smite yo ass and all your lands'. god loves and forgives as long as I want him to, (Pat- god didnt make us, we made him)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the bible was written by people who would not have thought twice about a god who was prepared to genocide an enemy to let them get their land, or who would kill the children of their enslavers. this would all have seemed perfectly normal to these people who lived with war and hardship and were used to brutal rule from kings and tyrants.

the issue for christians today is that they do have a problem with a cruel and evil god because they are living in a time where modern ethics and morality (I would point out building upon greek and Roman notions), so they try and find some way to square the circle as it were because they don't want to believe in a cruel and evil god they want to believe in a loving and caring god (and a lot of them already believe before they come to look seriously at the Old Testament).

it is like someone who doesn't hate Jews and doesn't think Hitler would have hated Jews trying to find a way to make Mie Kamp fit with that frame work.

so you end up with some rather ridiculous explanations as to why all the horrific killing raping and genocide in the Old Testament was actually carried out by a loving a caring God (a concept that is pretty modern and fits with modern expectations of what a god should be like)

On the concept of inconsistancy between the new and old testament. The belief in Armageddon, is that not consistant with Gods Judgements of old? He will wipe out the majority of mankind, not just a people inhabiting a piece of land. He is a Vengeful God. Vengeance is his. I certainly don't deny it, or try dress it up. The issue really, is that you don't see his judgements as Just. You see him as evil, petty etc etc. You think that there are more just ways than his ways. Fair enough. This christian certainly doesn't back away from his judgements though. The old testament is a reminder of what he will do for his people, and what he will do to the enemies of him and his people. There is to be one more day of bloodshed, where once again he will take his people into his care and wipe his enemies out. This one will be final though.

thebouldwhacker

JimiTime wrote: »

He will wipe out the majority of mankind, not just a people inhabiting a piece of land. He is a Vengeful God. Vengeance is his.

And yet we are all perfect, made in his image, the ultimate life form in the entire universe, our everlasting souls were created by him and for him for all eternity and whats he gonna do? hold a grudge if we arnt good boys and girls? send our souls to the eternal fires of hell?

Get real. I prefer the turtle story, at least they can enjoy themselves all stacked up like that......