Maybe, but many manage it.

To be honest, thats the standard get-out clause for all christians together with "he moves in mysterious ways, etc", the undisputed fact of the matter is that the bible that you read from today is a mish-mash of opinion and camp fire tales and was not hand written by a God as a sort of Haynes Manual for you to follow implicitly.

Its an interesting book in parts though.

I have no issue with anyone who follows a religion of any description and in a way I actually admire them for their faith-without-question attitude, its not something I could do, but I do seriously question anyone who tries to endorse their blind faith with random examples picked deliberately to suit their agenda whilst ignoring the other tales which completely contradict what they are trying to sell - "Let the buyer beware" is never truer than when discussing religion, you get what the seller wants to sell you.

Ah. So God was alright with the idea of a pair of girls handed over for gang rape by their father in [ithose[/i days, but it's okay, the old boy's changed now.

Which leaves us with a few tiny matters.

If God is so brilliant and perfect, what made him decide he was wrong about gang rape in the past so that he's changed his opinion now – in a whole different context? After all, you'd kind of expect an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being to get it right to start with, wouldn't you – after all, he's god, so by the very nature of god, what he creates is as it should be, yes? And anyway, if the times have been a changin', that's because the same god had created them to change in the first place, and with that, his own attitude.

Or is it us that, in changing our attitudes of what is acceptable for the context of our times, we have moved away from god, who still believes that, just as in those times, gang rape is actually okay, and God is just really annoyed that we don't understand this any more, but he can't be d to do anything about it?



Actually, there's masses in the [iBible[/i that indicates that women can be treated in such a way or worse, including quite a few nasty little 'laws'. After all, the victim of rape can be murdered simply for being the victim of rape (well, assuming people who weren't there judge that she didn't protest enough).

And anyway, God decided to get Mary up the duff without telling her until after the deed was done – which in the civilised world is rape. That she didn't complain? Perhaps because, contexturally, she might have been killed for not having squealed a bit at least.

With the exception of one or two examples in the gospels, the attitude of the [iBible[/i toward women is absolutely of its time and of its geographic location; you can find something very similar in fundamentalist Islamic societies/communities today.

Paul was not as violent in his attitudes, but he was still a misogynist fanatic (typical convert).

Simple piece of logic: if God has changed his tune about something that he created (and he created everything), then God cannot be perfect.

And that still takes us back to the earlier point: wtf do you think the rest of S&G were doing that Lot – even after trying to hand over his own daughters to be raped – was better than them? Why were the rest of them 'beyond hope'? What had they done that was so, so much worse than offering their daughters to be gang raped?

It keeps coming back to this question – can you actually answer it?

Under what circumstances can you imagine that offering your daughters to be gang raped made you better than anyone else in a whole two towns – or at least stopped you being as bad as anyone else?



Oh my, oh my! Teacher's told me off! Because Miss knows exactly what percentage of the [iBible[/i I've read and because Miss herself has read it all, cover to cover, every single word, every single translation!



If he's a Calvinist, there's no point in his calling on people to give themselves to Jesus, is there?

If he believes, by some contortion, that people still have some sort of a choice, then there's a point to calling on people to give themselves to Jesus, isn't there?

You would think it was rocket science.

I didn't mention God in my reply at all. I mentioned cultural context. I also referred to there being no commentary upon the story, just the story. There are commentaries upon other stories.


There are also many examples of women being treated very well. If you want to look only for examples of women being treated poorly then that is all you will find, and you do seem determined to point only to those instances. However, even by raising such instances without the counterbalance of the good, does not automatically mean that God approved of those instances, just as there will be much in today's world (including our little 'corner' of it) that God does not approve of yet it still goes on (assuming God exists, of course, for the sake of discussion).


Well yes. That is what I was saying in the bit of my previous post you quoted earlier.


I agree. There has always been debate about Paul within church circles. He divides opinion.


How does that logic work? Since when is changing your mind a sign of imperfection?


You aren't actually asking a question though. You are having a rant.


And here your defensiveness makes you look extremely silly.


I thought you knew about Calvanism?

But the context of this particular part of this thread is the nature of god.



I don't think we need to assume God exists or doesn't in the context of this discussion – it doesn't affect the 'nature' of God any more than if we were discussing any other incarnation of god, from Zeus to Odin.

The [iBible[/i is obviously a mix of things – but there are a number of things, from laws in, say, [iLeviticus[/i (which as religious laws one might expect to reflect God's will) to stories such as those mentioned, where God is directly involved and his approval or otherwise is central to the 'moral' of the tale. And these include a great deal of cruelty and treatment that we would consider to be barbaric.

A process of basic literary analysis shows us that the god of the [iBible[/i is actually an uncivilised, cruel, murderous, jealous, vindictive figure. Now one could make the argument that, in terms of the whole of the [iBible[/i, there is some progress ('growth') by that character. But if we see God as human (and we are made in his image), then he cannot be God.



And in which case, that is how God created it.



Because if one were perfect then one would not need to change one's mind. One would have reached the correct decision to start with – perfection allows no room for fallibility, and changing one's mind is, in the context of godhood, an indicator of fallibility.



Nothing to do with "defensiveness" – just irritation at the patronising tone of someone who suggested something that they cannot know in order to pretend that they are better qualified to comment. Very few people have read the [iBible[/i[ cover to cover (apart from you, obviously). It would, for instance, involve all the endless 'begats'.



I thought you were a teacher.

If so, you'd know that there is no such thing. I was referring to Calvinism.

Calvinists believe in salvation by faith alone – something that is generally widespread among more evangelical denominations and groups and was directly inherited from Luther.

However, one of the five key tenets of Calvinism is predestination or 'unconditional election,' which asserts that God has chosen, from the beginning of time, those that he intends to save, and this is not based on virtue, merit or faith in those people.

So within the logic of Calvinism, there is no point in calling on people to give themselves to Christ.

Further, in Calvinism, human will is characterised as 'total depravity' (pure Kirkstaller) but [uwithout free will[/u, due to divine power. On the other hand, in Arminianism, that 'depravity' does [unot[/u prevent free will.

Kirkstaller routinely asserts that we have free will. Now I suspect that Kirkstaller is a mish mash of assorted theologies. But he isn't a Calvinist.

I didn't get that impression but if you want it to be then so be it.


You are mixing things up here. You quote from Leviticus, which is an Old Testament writing, but then speak of God as human, which is a New Testament theme in the person of Jesus. God is always removed from the ordinary people in the Old Testament, with particular individuals given the role of mediator between YAHWEH and the people. That changes entirely in the New Testament once Jesus is up and about preaching as Jesus claims to be God himself, rather than simply to be mediator between God and the people. Of course Christians believe that the Old Testament was leading towards the New, and so your comment about progress is relevant but not the whole story. The people's perception of God grew as Old Testament time passed and/or God revealed more of himself during that period but if a person is a Christian then they believe they have seen the fulfilment of God's nature in Jesus himself, including the willingness to accept the ultimate sacrifice in hanging from the cross (a tough call by God there I would think).

Oh, and I completely agree that there is a lot in the Old Testament that is barbaric. There is a lot in today's world that is barbaric. Humanity doesn't change en masse, alas.


Who said anything about need?


I'm not patronising anyone. That you feel patronised maybe something to do with how you view yourself, or me, or the subject, or a million other things. I'm just typing on a keyboard.

And I have actually read the Bible from cover to cover but it was a fairly meaningless exercise really, done when I was young as part of a competition. What it did do though was show me what an amazing book it is, even just from a literary and linguistic standpoint. Incidentally, I read the NIV Inclusive version as I wanted to know which bits were referring to just men and which to everyone. Quite an illuminating exercise in itself that was. (There are no begats in that translation either, which is a mercy in itself) However, it is now a long time since I have read the Bible at all really and so this conversation has prompted me to dig out my dusty NIV Inclusive and dip into it again, which has been an interesting excercise (interesting for me, I mean).







Calvin shared Luther's belief in faith alone as the means to salvation - in that neither believed works had any influence upon whether a person was saved (salvation by works was of course a popular theology with the dominant Roman Catholic church of the time) - but Luther's theology was more subjective than Calvin's. Calvin took matters to another level entirely by proposing, as you stated, the existence of predestination (in fact double predestination).


I agree, and the theology falls down in this regard IMO. However, Calvin does allow for the subjective by suggesting that the individual believer has to continually resubmit his or her will to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as they follow their predestined journey.