Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Take My Kids Instead
Salon's Louis Bayard poses the question of the day: When a biblical literalist cites the book of Genesis in a protest against sodomy, is he or she in turn advocating parent-sponsored pedophilia?
Genesis 19...is also the source of all the trouble. Lot's house has been surrounded by the men of Sodom, "both old and young," crying: "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Lot, rather alarmingly from modern perspectives, tries to appease the mob by offering his own daughters. The mob refuses. Whereupon Lot's male guests, angels in disguise, strike their would-be ravagers blind. Fire and brimstone follow; Sodom is no more.
Blasts from the past: Managing Editor Jesse Walker's response to the landmark civil liberties case, Lawrence v. Texas; Jacob Sullum on the anti-agists at the Yearning for Zion Ranch; and the legal team that forgot to include scriptural references in its defense.
Fluffy|6.12.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Actually, it is my understanding that this story is supposed to
illustrate the Middle Eastern virtue of hospitality.
The angels-in-disguise were previously offered hospitality by Lot.
Lot's offering of his daughters to appease the crowd is supposed to
demonstrate that Lot is so virtuous in his hospitality that he
would rather the crowd take his daughters than his guests.
I know, it's still kind of silly.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Actually, it is my understanding that this story is supposed
to illustrate the Middle Eastern virtue of hospitality.
That's definitely the key, and it also helps to understand a very
similar story later in Judges (19-21).
Otherwise one is lead inexorably to the notion that rape is morally
preferable to sodomy in the Biblical paradigm...which it isn't.
|6.12.08 @ 1:55PM|#
I don't know what makes you think you can reference this tale
and not link to Brad Neely's Bible History #1. It's criminal
negligence:
http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BB77D6A0E55069BD0A9B3A52CB005FA7D7
|6.12.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Yeah, we're going to need to get that "World's Greatest Dad" mug
back from you now.
(Joke totally stolen from a cartoon I can't remember the author
of.)
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Actually, it is my understanding that this story is supposed
to illustrate the Middle Eastern virtue of hospitality.
As did I, but it's a sick hospitality which ignores a girl's
presumed right to not be gang-raped.
Just goes to prove my theory that those who claim to take the Bible
literally never actually read it.
Nephilium|6.12.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Lot's Daughters:
I think this is
where you pilfered the joke from...
I much prefer pointing out the "God sends bears to eat children for
making fun of a bald guy" story...
Nephilium
|6.12.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Lot's daughters were probably adults, you know. Indeed, later in
that chapter, two of them copulate with Lot and conceive the
ancestors of the Moabites and Amorites, as the story goes, a
serious dig at two of Israel's rival neighboring nations in later
centuries.
Also, just because Lot does something does not mean the writer
thinks it's right. He's not the star of that part of Genesis, his
uncle Abraham is.
jj|6.12.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Excellent! Atheists turned armchair theologians. Much of the
Bible is history (or legend, if you are so inclined.)
The fact that a historian chronicles an event does not mean that he
endorses the actions of the protagonists.
reason, stick to libertarianism. You have no idea what you are
talking about.
lunchstealer|6.12.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Seriously, Genesis has lots of people behaving badly (pun actually unintended). Those same daughters are used in a hillbilly-incest joke aimed at the Moabites and the Ammonites.
|6.12.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Otherwise one is lead inexorably to the notion that rape is
morally preferable to sodomy in the Biblical paradigm...which it
isn't.
Uh, if they had sodomized the two guys in his house, that would
have been rape also, right? Again, the portrayal of Lot in Genesis
is that of a well-intentioned idiot whose messes his uncle is
constantly having to clean up.
|6.12.08 @ 2:06PM|#
I think later on Lot's daughter get him drunk and fuck him. One can only assume that god approves. Who knew that god was such pedophilic, incestuous pervert or that allowing a gang bang of your daughters was considered hospitality.
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Lot's daughters were probably adults, you know. Indeed,
later in that chapter, two of them copulate with Lot and conceive
the ancestors of the Moabites and Amorites, as the story goes, a
serious dig at two of Israel's rival neighboring nations in later
centuries. Also, just because Lot does something does not mean the
writer thinks it's right. He's not the star of that part of
Genesis, his uncle Abraham is.
And yet Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the immorality of
their inhabitants. However, the man who offered to let his
daughters be gang-raped was the ONE man considered virtuous enough
to be saved. The writer might not have approved of Lot's actions,
but God apparently did.
However, if the daughters had voluntarily had sex with a man, they
probably would've been killed for sexual immorality.
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:07PM|#
One of the themes of the bible is that God often uses horribly
flawed people to do his deeds.
Moses
David
Peter
to pick a big 3 right off the top.
|6.12.08 @ 2:07PM|#
lunchstealer, that's all right -- apparently I was confusing the Amorites and Ammonites, anyway. They all look alike to me... ;-)
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:10PM|#
CP,
The Amorites are in the list of peoples that the Jews were supposed
to wipe out completely. Confusing them and The Ammonites could have
got them in a heap of trouble. :)
|6.12.08 @ 2:12PM|#
And yet Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the immorality
of their inhabitants. However, the man who offered to let his
daughters be gang-raped was the ONE man considered virtuous enough
to be saved. The writer might not have approved of Lot's actions,
but God apparently did.
Absolutely. God was taking time out of his busy day to personally
intervene on Lot's behalf because he was virtuous. Also, don't
forget the god is omniscient. So he had to know what was, or would,
go on and, therefore, approves of it. So yeah, god is a pedophilic
incestuous pervert.
|6.12.08 @ 2:12PM|#
As did I, but it's a sick hospitality which ignores a girl's
presumed right to not be gang-raped.
I think that the setup of the story was that Lot was faced with a
choice of either the gang rape of the "young men" vising him or the
gang rape of his daughters. I think we're supposed to think of
neither choice as very good, but of heterosexual gang rape as
slightly preferable to homosexual gang rape.
Or were you under the impression that the "young men" visiting Lot
would voluntarily submit to the advances of the mob outside the
door?
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:13PM|#
For those who like pointing our odd distinctions in the bible,
Duteronomy 20 contains the list of peoples that are supposed to be
completely destroyed. When their cities are taken, everything that
breathes that they own is to be killed. Men, women, children,
animals. Everything.
The next few verses talk about how during seiges they shouldnt cut
down fruit trees.
Trees >>> Canaanites
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Seamus,
More that hetero vs homo, I think it was Lot was willing to take on
the shame of having his daughters raped as a sacrifice in order to
protect his guests.
As you said, neither was a good choice.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Excellent! Atheists turned armchair theologians. Much of the
Bible is history...[blah, blah, blah]...reason, stick to
libertarianism. You have no idea what you are talking
about.
jj, Notwithstanding the fact that there are a metric fuck-ton of
theists that hang out around here, you have not one whit of a
notion of the backgrounds or areas of expertise of anyone here, and
as such you should take your prefab dismissal of opinions unlike
yours and shove them into a tight, warm out-hole.
The next few verses talk about how during seiges they shouldnt
cut down fruit trees.
Trees >>> Canaanites
Well, you can eat a piece of fruit, but God damn you if you eat a
Canaanite!
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Well, you can eat a piece of fruit, but God damn you if you
eat a Canaanite!
I think that is almost word for word what Deut 20 says. :)
The fruit trees will sustain you during the seige is the reason for
their protection.
|6.12.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Excellent! Atheists turned armchair theologians
Oh wow, here is me thinking that ALL theologians would be of the
'armchair' variety considering none of us were around the time of
the events in the bible. But, no, Im wrong, here we got ourselves
JJ, the only remaining contributor to the bible and a non-armchair
theologian. Geebusbepraised.
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 2:29PM|#
I think that the setup of the story was that Lot was faced
with a choice of either the gang rape of the "young men" vising him
or the gang rape of his daughters. I think we're supposed to think
of neither choice as very good, but of heterosexual gang rape as
slightly preferable to homosexual gang rape.
If Lot wanted to make a sacrifice, he should've offered himself to
the mob rather than hide behind his daughters and pretend that
offering to have them hurt somehow means he's making some noble
sacrifice.
And God help anyone who worships a God who'd say that offering your
kids to be gang-raped makes you the ONE person worthy of salvation
in a city of sinners.
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Jennifer,
The act didnt make him worthy. It just didnt push him over the
line. For Sodom, God was grading on a curve.
First Little Pig|6.12.08 @ 2:32PM|#
I can't imagine that Sodom was a very popular tourist destination given the proclivities of its citizens to gang rape visitors.
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 2:35PM|#
The act didnt make him worthy. It just didnt push him over
the line. For Sodom, God was grading on a curve.
True, but it's a sick curve which finds heterosexual gang-rape
preferable to consensual sodomy.
Of course, such stories are why I lost my childhood Christian faith
in the first place. Even as a dumb teenager, I knew better than to
worship anyone who spent more time obsessing over my genitalia than
I do.
I was a teenager trapped in a body filled with raging hormones.
That's my excuse for why I thought about sex so much. What was
God's excuse?
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:37PM|#
1st Little Pig,
Or maybe it WAS a popular tourist attraction, for that very
reason.
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Jennifer,
As a percent of the whole, sex related topics are a fairly minor
bit of the bible. Heck, the only thing that made the 10
commandments was adultery. And that is more about contract
violation than sex.
|6.12.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Fundies who take Biblican stories way too literally and ignore
the background, and thereby miss the point have the excuse that
their belief system requires them to.
Atheists who do so are just being dicks.
robc|6.12.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Re: 10 commandments
Also coveting your neighbors wife. But that might not be sexual,
maybe she is just a good cook. :)
TallDave|6.12.08 @ 2:50PM|#
I can't imagine that Sodom was a very popular tourist
destination given the proclivities of its citizens to gang rape
visitors.
They just got the bleedover traffic from the Gomorran felching
festivals.
|6.12.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Atheists who do so are just being dicks.
Ok, so which passages should we take literally and which should we
take metaphorically when discussing the Bible?
If a fundie takes passages literally and I'm having a discussion
with said fundie, how does interpreting the passage in question
literally (for argument's sake) make me a dick?
Either way, some passages, like this one, are horrible whether
taken literally or metaphorically.
As an atheist I'm perfectly willing to take my opponent's word
whether a passage is literal or metaphorical. Note, I don't believe
in either interpretation (literal or metaphorical). But in order to
have a meaningful discussion we have to agree on which route to
take. Chosing one over the other doesn't necessarily make one a
dick.
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Fundies who take Biblican stories way too literally and
ignore the background, and thereby miss the point have the excuse
that their belief system requires them to. Atheists who do so are
just being dicks.
Joe, I don't have to literally believe Aesop's tale of the boy who
cried wolf to comment on his point about lying and why it's bad to
do so. And I don't have to literally believe the story of Lot in
Sodom to find that value system utterly appalling.
Seriously, folks: if you find yourself compelled to make excuses
for why offering one's daughters up for gang-rape isn't such a bad
thing, really, if you'd just look at the context ... maybe you're
wasting mental energy on the wrong fight.
|6.12.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Even if the Bible were against sodomy (and 7 years into academic
study of theology, I still am not sure what it thinks), why should
it be illegal? I guess the whole idea of letting people make
decisions for themselves only has to do with whether they accept
Jesus or not.
Yay for Western Fundamentalist Christianity, removed from all
historical understandings of Christianity since its inception!
|6.12.08 @ 2:58PM|#
I'm perfectly willing to take my opponent's word whether a
passage is literal or metaphorical.
That should have read:
"I'm perfectly willing to take my debating opponent at their word
whether a passage is literal or metaphorical."
Not very elegant grammar I know, but hopefully I'm making myself
clear.
Naga Sadow|6.12.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Well, I've understood the Lot theme a bit differently. Long
sieges were expensive and prone to failure, siege weapons had not
really been invented, which leaves clandestine operations the most
succesful means to take a city. Lot snuck in the angels(aka spies)
and when the citizens found out, suspected them as spies. A mob
goes to Lot's house, but he attempts to placate the mob by using
his daughters as whores(possibly were though no mention is rendered
in bible, prostitution being a major source of income). Works until
of course the angels/spies accomplish their mission and throw open
the gates to the Israelites.
*I was raised deep woods baptist but still view the bible as an
interesting historical record*
|6.12.08 @ 3:02PM|#
which should we take metaphorically when discussing the Bible?
Definitely take most of the Book of Revelation as a metaphor.
|6.12.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Joe, I don't have to literally believe Aesop's tale of the
boy who cried wolf to comment on his point about lying and why it's
bad to do so.
No, you don't. You don't even have to believe that it is good for
little boys who lie to be devoured live by predators in order to
comment on the point about lying - ie, the message of the fable, as
opposed to the particulars of the story and the context in which it
was written in order to convey that message.
Nor do you have to believe that the moral code in Sodom is
appropriate in order to figure out that the story is about
hospitality.
My God, Aesop wants young children to be ripped limb from limb for
lying! What an appalling value system!
|6.12.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Soda,
Pretty much everything that is physically impossible - people
turning into salt, for example - shouldn't be read as if it was the
minutes of a board meeting.
Mac|6.12.08 @ 3:10PM|#
You know, females didn't exactly have a lot of value to society
other than for sexual purposes 3000 years ago. Not even one's on
female children. Female children were commonly used for bartering
by their fathers. That's not exactly a newly discovered fact of
history.
So I can't believe that anyone with any type of legitimate
education would try to apply the old testament to today's society.
Even the Baptist church I grew up in taught us that the old
testament was just that....ancient stories that tell us about the
people of the time, but not how we are to live our lives now.
|6.12.08 @ 3:10PM|#
joe,
I'm an ex-fundy... do I get to make fun of the Bible? I studied the
stupid thing for years, and was raised to believe that every word
of it was the Literally True Word of God.
Obviously, I no longer hold to that position.
I will say that I don't think the Biblical God is obsessed with
sex, but with semen. Who it comes from, where it
should be put, what the penalties are for using it wrong... God is
hugely... umm... semenocentric. I figure there's a reason
God won't let a man with an "injury to the stones" enter the
Temple, and it's closely related to the reason Onan had to die for
failing to impregnate his brother's wife.
For God, it's all about the man-seed.
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 3:11PM|#
You don't even have to believe that it is good for little
boys who lie to be devoured live by predators in order to comment
on the point about lying - ie, the message of the fable, as opposed
to the particulars of the story and the context in which it was
written in order to convey that message.
Nor need you believe that virgin girls with asshole fathers deserve
to be gang-raped to comment on the point about sexual morality --
i.e., heterosexual rape is better than consensual
homosexuality.
As a percent of the whole, sex related topics are a fairly
minor bit of the bible. Heck, the only thing that made the 10
commandments was adultery. And that is more about contract
violation than sex.
Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all its sexual freakouts. If a
virgin is raped, she must marry her rapist, if a non-virgin is
raped, she must be put to death ... the sex of the Bible makes Ayn
Rand's sex scenes look downright healthy.
|6.12.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Uh, before the reign of universal contraception, semen's source and final destination was viewed as vitally important to the survival of human societies. Don't impose our modern viewpoints on what was written by people in former times.
|6.12.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Nor need you believe that virgin girls with asshole fathers
deserve to be gang-raped to comment on the point about sexual
morality -- i.e., heterosexual rape is better than consensual
homosexuality. That wasn't the point, and the would-be sodomy
wasn't consensual.
Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all its sexual
freakouts.
I like the bit about "Thou shall not boil a young goat in its
mother's milk." If you were to take that literally, the Bible is a
freaking cookbook. If you make an honest effort to find out what
tell heck that was all about, you find out that such a practice was
a religious ritual carried out by a group in the area; ie, it's a
prohibition against taking part in a non-Jewish religious
ritual.
I suppose you could make a point of not knowing that, for the
purpose of talking about the crazy ideas the Jews had about cooking
goats, if you're point wasn't to understand the Bible, but to make
it easier to sneer.
|6.12.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Jennifer,
My Deuteronomy is a little rusty, but I believe the rule was that
the death penalty was applicable only if the woman was raped in an
inhabited area and didn't call for help. Presumably this was meant
to prevent women from engaging in consensual sex and then claiming
it was rape to avoid the penalties for the former.
Of course, I don't agree with such a legal system, but it's not
like it was totally arbitrary.
Jennifer|6.12.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I like the bit about "Thou shall not boil a young goat in
its mother's milk." If you were to take that literally, the Bible
is a freaking cookbook.
But the implication of your comment at 3:10 is that this SHOULD be
taken literally; there's nothing supernatural about this.
My Deuteronomy is a little rusty, but I believe the rule was
that the death penalty was applicable only if the woman was raped
in an inhabited area and didn't call for help. Presumably this was
meant to prevent women from engaging in consensual sex and then
claiming it was rape to avoid the penalties for the
former.
That was indeed the case. See, in those primitive times, man had
not yet learned how to put his hand over a woman's mouth, nor to
hold a knife against her throat and say "One sound and you're
dead." And perhaps the old Biblical writers hadn't got around to
noticing yet that the average man is much stronger than the average
woman.
And there's still the whole thing about a God so squicked out by
sex that he considers it a death-penalty offense. Doesn't matter to
me if those words are from God or Man; they're vile all the
same.
|6.12.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Don't impose our modern viewpoints on what was written by
people in former times.
Oh, I'm not. As an example (well, actually, a collection of
examples) of ancient literature, the Bible can be highly
educational; I don't deny that.
Of course, if someone in the 21st Century seriously wants modern
laws and mores to be based around the Bronze Age sensibilities of
said ancient literature... well, I think it's fair comment to point
out that the beloved Bearded Sky Fairy depicted therein loves him
some man-seed.
PR|6.12.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Did you ever consider that it was a stalling tactic that worked? "Oh, hey Village People, instead of assraping these guys, rape my daughters" knowing that's not their scene while the angels are powering up their Frylock beams. Occam's Razor.
|6.12.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Anybody who believe tnat the Bilble is literally true is an
idiot. Anybody who uncritically takes morality lessons from the OT
has serious issues as well.
Most Xians are smarter than that. We libertarians don't like to be
tarred with the Dondero brush, do we?
|6.12.08 @ 3:33PM|#
I seem to recall that two thousand years later Jesus showed and offered a new way. In fact, I can't recall any place in the New Testament that says we're supposed to emulate Lot and the rest of the blundering sinful patriarchs.
|6.12.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Pretty much everything that is physically impossible -
people turning into salt, for example - shouldn't be read as if it
was the minutes of a board meeting.
I didn't make myself clear. Obviously I agree that
anything that is physically impossible shouldn't be taken
literally. Hell, even a lot of what is physically possible in The
Bible is unreliable.
The question is this. How I can know what a religious person takes
literally or metaphorically other than asking and getting different
answers from different people?
Presumably the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus are physically
impossible. But even non-fundies believe in that stuff literally.
Am I an asshole if for the purposes of discussion I start with the
assumption that my religious debater believes in the literal truth
of the Resurrection? If not, what makes the Resurrection any more
crazy than parting seas?
And note, volunteering your daughters to be gang-raped is
physically possible. So that doesn't fit joe's literal vs.
metaphorical rule of thumb.
|6.12.08 @ 3:37PM|#
and it's closely related to the reason Onan had to die for
failing to impregnate his brother's wife.
Catholic revisionism! Onan died because God told him to knock her
up and he pulled out rather than doing it. It had nothing to do
with wasting semen; that was just invented to justify prohibitions
against masturbation.
|6.12.08 @ 3:44PM|#
It's impossible to have an argument in good faith with people
who want to define the same set of words as literal when it suits
them and metaphorical when it suits them. The same goes for people
who want to impose archaic values, but defend them as being above
examination because they are archaic.
Either the Bible says something to the modern world and is
therefore open to critique emanating from the modern world, or it
doesn't and it isn't. Cake, having it too, all that jazz.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 3:50PM|#
So I can't believe that anyone with any type of legitimate
education would try to apply the old testament to today's society.
Even the Baptist church I grew up in taught us that the old
testament was just that....ancient stories that tell us about the
people of the time, but not how we are to live our lives
now.
Except, apparently, certain rules interspersed sporadically
throughout the text that religious leaders really have a boner
for...
It would be one thing if Christians were to simply claim that the
OT is passe and done with (which the text does not support), but
they do not. They like to pick fairly arbitrary rules from that
barbaric time and claim that they apply now.
And how many of *them* wear cloth of two different fibers, eh?
|6.12.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Uh, it was Onan's father, not God, who told Onan to put a bun in her oven, and this was before the law of the levirate was given by God in the Book of Exodus. Jews and early Christians took the passage to be about coitus interruptus rather than masturbation, anyway.
robc|6.12.08 @ 3:55PM|#
heterosexual rape is better than consensual
homosexuality.
47000 people (okay, maybe 3) have already posted in thist thread
that there is no consensual homosexuality in the Sodom passage
being discussed and yet you keep bringing it up.
Are you being an ass on purpose?
|6.12.08 @ 3:56PM|#
SugarFree,
I'm OK with simply saying that Lot is hardly portrayed as a role
model in the Bible, so just because he does something doesn't mean
it's supposed to be a good idea. There's no need to invoke
"different times, different places" for that.
Also, I'd note that the few values I would wish to impose on other
people without their consent (protection of life, liberty, and
justly acquired property) I would defend based on nonreligious
principles rather than on the Bible.
|6.12.08 @ 4:00PM|#
It would be one thing if Christians were to simply claim
that the OT is passe and done with (which the text does not
support), but they do not. They like to pick fairly arbitrary rules
from that barbaric time and claim that they apply now.
Such as?
I don't see many fundies stoning women caught in adultery, do you?
If you're talking about homosexual behavior, there are
condemnations of that in the New Testament as well.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I don't see many fundies stoning women caught in adultery,
do you?
You're saying they don't want to? Listen to a fundie sermon or two;
you'll find many pining for the good old days when virtue was
enforced by bludgeoning people to shit with big fucking
rocks.
But if one doesn't want to go there, then just settle on enforced
patriarchy, war as a means to justice (read the infamous Land
letter), children should be seen and not heard, rejection of
evolution, justification for oppression of non-Christians, and on
and on.
And on the point of homosexuality in the NT, the translation for
the Koine Greek arsenokoitai as "homosexual" is at best
debatable, and given that the term appears literally nowhere else
in contemporary texts, and also that Koine Greek already had a term
for homosexuality, paiderasste, I find it very unlikely
that the term was meant to be translated as such; there is a nuance
of meaning that is undoubtedly lost in the translation (of which
many scholars have opined diversely).
|6.12.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Pretty much everything that is physically impossible -
people turning into salt, for example - shouldn't be read as if it
was the minutes of a board meeting.
That hardly worlks, the whole idea of god could be construed as
physically impossible. As such, if the idea of god is a metaphor,
then the whole bible falls apart. On the other hand, if one takes
the concept of god and omnipotence literally then nothing is
physically impossible and eveything in the bible could be read
literally.
So we continue to have people in funny hats, and prety much
everyone else, picking and choosing 'literal' and 'metaphorical'
stories, flip-flopping them and reintrepreting them to fit their
current argument.
|6.12.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Don't impose our modern viewpoints on what was written by
people in former times.
I would ask the same courtesy of those quoting people of former
times to impose their viewpoints on us.
Elemenope|6.12.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Are you pulling our legs?
No! Seriously, fucking Google it if you don't believe me.
|6.12.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Elemenope,
Thank you. The more I learn about the bible, the more I'm convinced
it was written by the ancient versions of "political strategists"
and "press secretaries"
|6.12.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Elemenope,
Sorry, was just pulling your leg to make a joke... It's still funny
though.
|6.12.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Interesting discussion. I have nothing to add, other than
that.
Oh and Naga Shadow, interesting idea that the Angels were really
Isreali spies, who came to destroy the town.
Anyone have anything to add about the Angels making it with humans
making half breeds and that being the reason why God caused the
flood in Noah's era?
|6.12.08 @ 5:33PM|#
the whole idea of god could be construed as physically
impossible. As such, if the idea of god is a metaphor, then the
whole bible falls apart.
Really? You think so?
Because the way I see it God is inevitably a metaphor. Even if
there really is a God, it is for then, and still for now, a little
out of our reach to explain.
|6.12.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Also, does anybody have any theories about Noah living for
700 years?
Do you want to start listing every crazy claim in the Bible?
|6.12.08 @ 6:34PM|#
I can't imagine that Sodom was a very popular tourist
destination given the proclivities of its citizens to gang rape
visitors.
That's why they needed a publicity campaign:
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_elsmeremusicnbc.html
|6.12.08 @ 6:49PM|#
this is retarded. the author of a book doesn't necessarily endorse all its characters' actions! I don't think Lot is ever portrayed as being virtuous or a role model
|6.12.08 @ 7:18PM|#
the author of a book doesn't necessarily endorse all its
characters' actions!
Please go back in time and tell that to my fellow students in our
Freshman Creative Writing class.
Oh, and you're a retard.
robc|6.12.08 @ 7:59PM|#
the author of a book doesn't necessarily endorse all its
characters' actions!
The author of a nonfiction essay doesnt necessarily endorse all its
points, either. Otherwise, that "Necessity of Terrorism" essay I
wrote as a senior in high school (fortunately this was 86-87, I
dont think it would go so well today) would have landed me in
Gitmo. Or at least kept me from every being elected to public
office (not that I would want that).
|6.12.08 @ 9:01PM|#
All I have to say is that we all know what we believe and we
don't care what others believe unless they try to impose it on us,
so what the hell does it matter how a fundamentalist interprets
scripture? or if you agree with the God that they worship. I am a
Christian but if you want to worship a God who runs around killing
babies and eating them, I don't care, just don't make me follow the
rules he creates.
Surely that something any reasonable person can agree with.
|6.12.08 @ 9:38PM|#
joe | June 12, 2008, 3:20pm | #
I like the bit about "Thou shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk." If you were to take that literally, the Bible is a freaking cookbook. If you make an honest effort to find out what tell heck that was all about, you find out that such a practice was a religious ritual carried out by a group in the area; ie, it's a prohibition against taking part in a non-Jewish religious ritual.
I suppose you could make a point of not knowing that, for the purpose of talking about the crazy ideas the Jews had about cooking goats, if you're point wasn't to understand the Bible, but to make it easier to sneer.
You realize of course that this is still
the passage upon which Kosher Jews base the law of not mixing dairy
and meat products together right? This is not a past tense
thing, it is still very much a part of being Kashrut today. Most
Jews I have spoken with don't know why the custom exists, so do
they too sneer at themselves or do they just not want to understand
the bible, eh?
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 1:31AM|#
Most Jews I have spoken with don't know why the custom
exists, so do they too sneer at themselves or do they just not want
to understand the bible, eh?
Really? It has not been my experience that many (non-Reform) Jews
were so ill-informed about the nature of and reasoning behind their
laws and customs. Then again, America is fucking lousy with Reform
Jews (they're like Kosher Unitarians, I swear), so YMMV.
And, just for the record, my sophomore roommate, who is a
(non-Reform) Jew, did a whole lot of half-serious sneering at
Jewish customs and law (he had a great bit about "dreaming of
cheeseburgers")...he just followed it, too.
Sugarfree --
Good to know. Most people make fun of the
paiderasste, so I should have known something was
up. ;)
Elemenope|6.13.08 @ 1:34AM|#
All I have to say is that we all know what we believe and we
don't care what others believe unless they try to impose it on us,
so what the hell does it matter how a fundamentalist interprets
scripture?
Because what fundies seem to read in the Bible fills them with a
holy desire to cram this shit into law, down my throat, and into
every other uncomfortable orifice, and that. makes. them. fucking.
dangerous!
It's always helpful to know the doctrines of one's enemies.
|6.13.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Soda, Jennifer,
"Literal vs. Parable" and "In context vs. isolation" are two
different issues, and you're conflating them.
|6.13.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Kwix,
Yes, I realize that. And since they expand that section into a much
larger set of obligations, they're obviously NOT taking it
literally.
Jews in 2008 keep kosher because it is a tradition that unites them
as Jews, and reminds them to keep faith with God at every meal. Do
you think Catholics still ring bells because they think it scares
away the demons?
|6.13.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Joe,
Many catholic churches have done away with the bells. Most
traditions remain simply because people don't how to function
without them. Traditions remind them of the well remembered comfort
of the past, regardless of whether it was comfortable or not. The
meaning behind the tradition has little to do with unity with
others, just a comfotable complacency.
|6.13.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Most have not.
Anyway, congratulations on your impressive mind-reading abilities.
Do they come automatically when you are of the superior breed of
human being that stops going to church?
|6.13.08 @ 12:41PM|#
yes joe, you do...
since we're both trying to explain things neither of us are
qualified to do, why bother arguing about it? I speak from my
experience, you speak from yours and I doubt we'll agree. Perhaps
semantically, we should have said something like "in my experience,
I believe", but since we're both busy men, we didn't.
Congratulations on the snark btw, we'll convert you to a
libertarian yet.
|6.13.08 @ 2:17PM|#
"Literal vs. Parable" and "In context vs. isolation" are two different issues, and you're conflating them.
If I am conflating I'm not doing it on purpose as I don't know
exactly what you mean. Even if I didn't conflate (like you
presumably don't) I'm not sure how your original statement
Atheists who do so are just being dicks.
makes sense.
Did you mean that atheists taking a literal interpretation out of a
Bible passage just for kicks is a dick move? Sure, I guess. But
it's my experience than when an atheist takes a literal view of a
passage is for purposes of discussion. Which is certainly the case
of the original comment by the Salon author.
If I'm conflating those 4 variables, by all means let's uncouple
them. Let's say now we have 4 possible combinations:
Literal in context
Literal in isolation
Parable in context
Parable in isolation
As an atheist I still have the same problem I had before. Which set
does the believer choose as a basis for discussion and on what
basis does the choice get made?
For myself I let the believer take a stand and we take it from
there. The fundies of this article took their stand. They stand or
fall on literal interpretation of the Bible. Based on that, the
atheist reads the Bible as the fundies choose to read it and the
argument begins.
And sorry, I still don't get how I can assume a physically
impossible Bible claim is automatically labeled as a "parable in
context" or as you snarkily put it:
shouldn't be read as if it was the minutes of a board meeting.
if fundies and non-fundies alike believe that miracles by God are
fair game. That they may disagree on which miracles are real and
which are not is one thing. But the mere fact that miracles are now
"in-play" makes your rule of thumb not that useful in
practice.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245