Ask an Atheist anything!

[Exiledoomsayer]

The context here is Christians justifying it. I don't see anyone touting this as a good thing, which is rather the point of the story.

Do you understand what described in Judges 19-21 is a story of great sin? No Christian can justify it. It is certainly not justified by God.

I seem to recall that " Lot, a righteous man " 2peter2:7 preformed the exact same act in Gen19:8 (though what he did not do was cut the woman up into pieces afterward, must have been the great crime.)

So it could be argued that offering ones child or concubine is a righteous act if it is to prevent harm from befalling your guest.

After all god himself declared this man righteous.

 

[razeontherock]

I seem to recall that " Lot, a righteous man " 2peter2:7 preformed the exact same act in Gen19:8

So it could be argued that offering ones child or concubine is a righteous act if it is to prevent harm from befalling your guest.

Do you know the rest of the story? Lot's indecent proposal was never acted upon, so your argument falls flat.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Do you know the rest of the story? Lot's indecent proposal was never acted upon, so your argument falls flat.

The point is that he made the proposal at all.
The intention is every bit as imporant here as it was for when Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac.

 

[razeontherock]

Actually no, the intention is not nearly as significant. Abe's intention got counted to him for righteousness. Lot's didn't. Both actions were prevented by Angels, because they were horrible things.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Actually no, the intention is not nearly as significant. Abe's intention got counted to him for righteousness. Lot's didn't. Both actions were prevented by Angels, because they were horrible things.

What you just declare this without backing it up?
If thats what you tell yourself to sleep at night okay I wont persue it any further.

 

[razeontherock]

Perjorative comment duly noted. What I said is still true, and I shouldn't have to "back it up." If you think otherwise you might advance your case. You might want to back up from your flames though

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Perjorative comment duly noted. What I said is still true, and I shouldn't have to "back it up." If you think otherwise you might advance your case. You might want to back up from your flames though

No that is not how it works. I've provided chapter and verse for each claim I made.
You dismissed my case by simply declaring by your own decree that its different.

I'm not going to have this arguement if you are simply allowed to speak for god.

Edit:
I should perhaps clarify, that I am sure that you have rationalized this in your mind. I have no interest in contesting that rationalization.
I am only interested in contesting what scriptural claims you can make.

 

[razeontherock]

If you contest that Abraham's Faith was counted to him as righteousness, you have 0 familiarity with the Bible. I really need to establish that?

If you contest that Lot's offer of his virgin daughters wasn't consummated due to Angelic intervention, you merely need to read Genesis.

This is basic stuff: your flaming and goading me really isn't appropriate.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If you contest that Abraham's Faith was counted to him as righteousness, you have 0 familiarity with the Bible. I really need to establish that?

If you contest that Lot's offer of his virgin daughters wasn't consummated due to Angelic intervention, you merely need to read Genesis.

No that is not what I contested.
Where does it say, that lot's intent was not counted to him as righteousness?

This is basic stuff: your flaming and goading me really isn't appropriate.

Very well I apologize for suggesting your rationalization helps you sleep at night. But I feel that was the only instance that could be considered even approaching of flaming or goading.

 

[razeontherock]

Very well I apologize for suggesting your rationalization helps you sleep at night. But I feel that was the only instance that could be considered even approaching of flaming or goading.

The "speaking for God" but would kinda be in the same category, eh? I merely relayed very well-established, basic info, that you seemed to be overlooking.

Where does it say, that lot's intent was not counted to him as righteousness?

The same place it tells me to finally get rid of my Nissan P/U w/ nearly 400,000 miles on it, that I can't get the speedo to work reliably. It doesn't. It doesn't say a lot of things! But if you want to establish something like the righteousness of God being transferred to an individual, that's not good enough.

You would need to find a reason that Lot WAS imputed righteousness for this act, and it's just not there. (It's not the only stupid thing Lot ever did)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

The "speaking for God" but would kinda be in the same category, eh? I merely relayed very well-established, basic info, that you seemed to be overlooking.

It would have been had you shown me were you got it from, as opposed to simply declare it was true.

The same place it tells me to finally get rid of my Nissan P/U w/ nearly 400,000 miles on it, that I can't get the speedo to work reliably. It doesn't. It doesn't say a lot of things! But if you want to establish something like the righteousness of God being transferred to an individual, that's not good enough.

So then the bible does not say that lot was wrong to do so? Is that correct?

You would need to find a reason that Lot WAS imputed righteousness for this act, and it's just not there. (It's not the only stupid thing Lot ever did)

From what I've seen, everything Lot does is horrible.
But he's still counted as a righteous man. So perhaps in the eyes of god his acts were not so horrible after all.

 

[razeontherock]

From what I've seen, everything Lot does is horrible.
But he's still counted as a righteous man. So perhaps in the eyes of god his acts were not so horrible after all.

You're speculating. We aren't told what would make Lot righteous, and I agree it doesn't make sense. I have no idea if the Talmud might have any insight here; I've never spoken with a Rabbi about this. None of that means that his indecent proposal was a righteous act! And we can see it demonstrated that it was not, because Holy Angels put a stop to it. Simple enough?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You're speculating. We aren't told what would make Lot righteous, and I agree it doesn't make sense. I have no idea if the Talmud might have any insight here; I've never spoken with a Rabbi about this. None of that means that his indecent proposal was a righteous act! And we can see it demonstrated that it was not, because Holy Angels put a stop to it. Simple enough?

Interestingly in judges the mob turns down the offer of the daughters and only are succesfully distracted when the concubine is offered insteady.
So I think it is quite possible the daughters were turned down again and the angels stopped their own violation.

But you're right we're speculating.

I'm going to bow out and get some sleep, was a fun exchange though have a good day

 

[razeontherock]

Interestingly in judges the mob turns down the offer of the daughters and only are succesfully distracted when the concubine is offered insteady.
So I think it is quite possible the daughters were turned down again and the angels stopped their own violation.

But you're right we're speculating.

Actually you're relaying the text well, not speculating at all! G'night

 

[juvenissun]

Moral decisions were a lot easier for me when I was Christian, but I suppose the decisions you need to make in life become a lot more difficult as you age.

No. My experience is on the opposite. Any decision making is becoming easier and easier as I aged.

 

[juvenissun]

I seem to recall that " Lot, a righteous man " 2peter2:7 preformed the exact same act in Gen19:8 (though what he did not do was cut the woman up into pieces afterward, must have been the great crime.)

So it could be argued that offering ones child or concubine is a righteous act if it is to prevent harm from befalling your guest.

After all god himself declared this man righteous.

According to Christian, it is absolutely a sinful act.
According to Atheism, it could be justified.

 

[razeontherock]

According to Christian, it is absolutely a sinful act.

To a Jew, too. Here we have the situation where people are expecting every detail to be spelled out in the text. It's not. It doesn't take place in a vacuum, but in a community, where every detail is discussed at length, once a year, at a minimum.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no "according to atheism".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

According to Christian, it is absolutely a sinful act.

So why, then, does the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have the righteous Lot turn over his virginal daughters to the lustful mob to protect his guests?

According to Atheism, it could be justified.

There's no overarching body called 'Atheism', just as there's no overarching body for the hobby called 'not-stamp-collecting' or 'not-train-watching'. Some atheists may well contend that it may be justified - perhaps in the situation where turning two girls over to get raped will prevent 1000 girls from getting raped. It's an impossibly difficult situation, but one could argue that, from a utilitarian point of view, when forced to choose between two and 1000 girls getting raped, the former is less evil than the latter, and could, in that view, be justified.

And I daresay the sensible Christian would agree.

 

[sandwiches]

There is no "according to atheism".

To be fair, he did say "could be." However the same could be said about Christians. There "could be" a Christian who finds it justifiable. And yes, I know I'll get the "No True Scotsman" routine.