So, do we reckon we will have a revolution ?

Kirkstaller mentioned Godwin's Law recently, I reckon we need an extension of that law, whereby as soon as thread changes from its original topic to the same-old-same-old "God exists, no he doesn't" argument, the thread is over.
But with the caveat that you can't deliberately end a thread by tossing-in a religious bit.

No. It's not "about" gang rape. But that does not mean that the offer of two young women, to be used sexually, without their consent, is not a major part of the story. And that their being offered to strangers to be used sexually does not stop God regarding their father as the only person (man) in the two towns who is worth saving.

Ergo, God does not regard offering young women to be gang raped as a bad thing.

In other words, the story provides an illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god.

Similarly with the story of Job, the story is 'about' faith. But in the process of being 'about' faith, it also reveals another illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god – in that case, as a god who is prepared to see people killed or allow them to suffer in order to satisfy a bet. Job's family and slaves become the 'collateral damage' in God's gamble with Lucifer (who was, of course, created by God).

And there are many more such illustrations of the nature of the God of the [iBible[/i.



Collin Burrow (a senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford) recently wrote, in an rlarticle about Milton for the [iLRB[/irl views on salvation were more or less Arminian. Where Calvin believed that God predestined the damned and the saved to hell or to heaven from the beginning of time through no merit of their own, Arminius held that God offered the opportunity of faith in him to all, and foreknew who would accept and who would reject that offer ..."

Kirkstaller's approach fits with the latter.

I wouldn't argue with that as a philosophy ...



... but therein lies the problem.

Hmm.

What about a person who adopts the Christian faith, but finds that they are one of those people who God has already predetermined for rejection and eternal hellfire, whatever they do? How 'releasing' would they find that?

Or is there no way of an individual actually finding out in advance? (Audiences with Jesus and a rabbit excepted, of course - I imagine those are not the norm)

I've long been a fan of rlMike Harding's take on Sodom & Gomorrahrl

Yeah I know.
How about if it's only considered to be thread-drift if someone replies in kind to the off-topic religion bit?

Better

I don't know. What would Jesus say?

'Get these bloody nails out of my hands'?

That's so 33 AD, technology has moved on

Well, finished it.

It's very short; it's exceptionally well written.

It's not a diatribe, but much more an investigation, couched largely in quiet and considered tones. There are barbs, but they are subtle and elegant.

I think it's excellent. And the subject isn't actually as limited as it might seem: Hitchens saw Mother Teresa as being someone who very much reflected and preached the Vatican's core ideology. Indeed, as he points out, it was extraordinary that she did preach, given Catholic teaching on women doing that.

There are some fascinating things. And, without him specifically saying so, it does raise the great question of why, when faced with – let's call it religion in general – there is so much uncritical acceptance; more, that there's an attitude of respect, approval ... however you want to describe it.

No, I'd recommend it – and particularly this new edition, as the new forward takes on board things Hitchens never knew because at that time he had no access to her private letters, which have been released now and reveal a great deal.

Cheers for the heads up, duly down loaded.

Sorry for the derailment, any good challenging journalism that anyone would like to recommend I'd be grateful for. On the book thread of course.

Two things there. Firstly, the Bible like any other book is set within its cultural context and like any other person you are interpreting the story within your own cultural context. Secondly, that God sees something worth saving in the man who allows this could be interpreted in two waysErgo, God does not regard offering young women to be gang raped as a bad thing. In other words, the story provides an illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god.'"

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.