Sodom and Gomorrah

[Dragon]

Well, just because you don't agree with the severity of it or understand the need for it, that doesn't make it wrong in God's eyes.

It does however call into question the claim that God does see it that way, and the religious tradition that makes this claim.

To put it simply, the God of traditional Christian theology comes across as a monstrous, insane tyrant:

1) He created humans with free will, and then imposed on them a set of expectations that were impossible to fulfill.
2) When they predictably failed to fulfill them, he condemned all of humanity to excruciating torture without end -- a penalty worse than any human tyrant has ever inflicted on anyone, applied to a much longer list of victims.
3) After inflicting this penalty on a huge number of people, he sent his own son to earth to be tortured and killed and then spend three days being tortured some more, and this supposedly satisfied his bloodlust and he is willing to let everyone off the hook on that tortured-forever-and-ever thing.
4) However, the fine print of this agreement says it only applies to those who are willing to bow down and worship said sacrificial offering, and even then not to all of them. For everyone else, it's still torture forever.

Now, when I criticize this idea, as my soul demands that I do, I am not criticizing God. I am criticizing the idea that God is like that -- and hence, I am criticizing traditional Christianity. If my criticism is accurate, then God is NOT like that, and so the being who supposedly commits these horrendous, abominable crimes is not God (and so does not exist).

 

[Sky Dancer]

If death isn't a horrible thing, why the commandment against murder? An excellent question, and I can tell you how I see it from my perspective. Again, you need to suppose that there is a God and there is a life after existence here on Earth. If you operate from that perspective, and you are God, then you know a person dying is not the end of their existence, but is the beginning of a better existence. You wouldn't see death in and of itself as a bad thing for a human being. However, that is completely separate from murder. Murder is the act of one human being taking something that we has humans find as precious from another human being. From our perspective, it is the worst thing you can do to another person. So, the heart/soul that can willingly do that to another person out of anger, revenge, greed, whatever, is not a good heart. So, the 'do not murder' has to do with the heart of the person committing the act, not necessarily with the object or person the act is against. All of the commandments are about making yourself a better person, they are centered on the self. To commit those acts against others harms you, as well as harming others obviously. But, the focus is on the person committing the acts. So, they are not sins solely because they harm other people, they are sins because the heart/soul is willing to commit those acts knowing that harm comes to others through them. And if you are capable of doing these things knowing that they harm others, what kind of a person are you then?

The other point that you seem hung up on is the 'loving God', and I go back to my question about consequences. So, what you're trying to infer here is that a 'loving God' would not punish, and if He does, then he's not 'loving'?

I appreciate the explanation but still doesn't make sense. Let's say you painlessly murder someone, wouldn't you be doing them a favor by sending them to heaven? Wouldn't the murderer be doing a kind thing?

And no a loving god would punish. I just don't agree with his reasons for punishment and/or severity of punishment in many cases in the old testament.

That's not the definition of murder though, murder is due to hate, antipathy, jealousy, revenge, etc... on the part of the murderer towards the victim.

Well, just because you don't agree with the severity of it or understand the need for it, that doesn't make it wrong in God's eyes.

All "sins" are equally condemning in God's eyes. That said, I don't think God has "eyes".

Since I'm going to hell anyway, I may as well enjoy myself now.

 

[Newby]

Well, just because you don't agree with the severity of it or understand the need for it, that doesn't make it wrong in God's eyes.

It does however call into question the claim that God does see it that way, and the religious tradition that makes this claim.

To put it simply, the God of traditional Christian theology comes across as a monstrous, insane tyrant:

1) He created humans with free will, and then imposed on them a set of expectations that were impossible to fulfill.
2) When they predictably failed to fulfill them, he condemned all of humanity to excruciating torture without end -- a penalty worse than any human tyrant has ever inflicted on anyone, applied to a much longer list of victims.
3) After inflicting this penalty on a huge number of people, he sent his own son to earth to be tortured and killed and then spend three days being tortured some more, and this supposedly satisfied his bloodlust and he is willing to let everyone off the hook on that tortured-forever-and-ever thing.
4) However, the fine print of this agreement says it only applies to those who are willing to bow down and worship said sacrificial offering, and even then not to all of them. For everyone else, it's still torture forever.

Now, when I criticize this idea, as my soul demands that I do, I am not criticizing God. I am criticizing the idea that God is like that -- and hence, I am criticizing traditional Christianity. If my criticism is accurate, then God is NOT like that, and so the being who supposedly commits these horrendous, abominable crimes is not God (and so does not exist).

And you certainly have the freedom to believe and live as you wish, I only question why you feel the need to ridicule those who chose a different path than you have? Are you such a mean spirited, full of bitter hatefulness individual that you just can't leave those who believe differently than you alone? Why do you feel compelled to attempt to belittle and condemn their beliefs? Perhaps those should be more important questions that you should be focusing on instead of questioning the actions of a God that you don't even think exists.

We get it, you think the Bible is a farse, and you've stated your reasoning behind your belief. Good for you! Why you're frustrated that some of us won't validate that belief is what is interesting. Why do you care what I believe or what anyone else on here believes? Yet you do.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well, just because you don't agree with the severity of it or understand the need for it, that doesn't make it wrong in God's eyes.

It does however call into question the claim that God does see it that way, and the religious tradition that makes this claim.

To put it simply, the God of traditional Christian theology comes across as a monstrous, insane tyrant:

1) He created humans with free will, and then imposed on them a set of expectations that were impossible to fulfill.
2) When they predictably failed to fulfill them, he condemned all of humanity to excruciating torture without end -- a penalty worse than any human tyrant has ever inflicted on anyone, applied to a much longer list of victims.
3) After inflicting this penalty on a huge number of people, he sent his own son to earth to be tortured and killed and then spend three days being tortured some more, and this supposedly satisfied his bloodlust and he is willing to let everyone off the hook on that tortured-forever-and-ever thing.
4) However, the fine print of this agreement says it only applies to those who are willing to bow down and worship said sacrificial offering, and even then not to all of them. For everyone else, it's still torture forever.

Now, when I criticize this idea, as my soul demands that I do, I am not criticizing God. I am criticizing the idea that God is like that -- and hence, I am criticizing traditional Christianity. If my criticism is accurate, then God is NOT like that, and so the being who supposedly commits these horrendous, abominable crimes is not God (and so does not exist).

And you certainly have the freedom to believe and live as you wish, I only question why you feel the need to ridicule those who chose a different path than you have? Are you such a mean spirited, full of bitter hatefulness individual that you just can't leave those who believe differently than you alone? Why do you feel compelled to attempt to belittle and condemn their beliefs? Perhaps those should be more important questions that you should be focusing on instead of questioning the actions of a God that you don't even think exists.

We get it, you think the Bible is a farse, and you've stated your reasoning behind your belief. Good for you! Why you're frustrated that some of us won't validate that belief is what is interesting. Why do you care what I believe or what anyone else on here believes? Yet you do.

I didn't see Dragon bash christians in his post. Christians have a different view of how the Bible tells the story of God than he does, that's what I got from his post.

Being an open forum about religion, it's going to be pretty clear you're going to have people with different opinions (including negative ones) about a religion you think highly of. Same goes with every religious view on this board, there's gonna be negative opinions about all of them.

 

[Newby]

It does however call into question the claim that God does see it that way, and the religious tradition that makes this claim.

To put it simply, the God of traditional Christian theology comes across as a monstrous, insane tyrant:

1) He created humans with free will, and then imposed on them a set of expectations that were impossible to fulfill.
2) When they predictably failed to fulfill them, he condemned all of humanity to excruciating torture without end -- a penalty worse than any human tyrant has ever inflicted on anyone, applied to a much longer list of victims.
3) After inflicting this penalty on a huge number of people, he sent his own son to earth to be tortured and killed and then spend three days being tortured some more, and this supposedly satisfied his bloodlust and he is willing to let everyone off the hook on that tortured-forever-and-ever thing.
4) However, the fine print of this agreement says it only applies to those who are willing to bow down and worship said sacrificial offering, and even then not to all of them. For everyone else, it's still torture forever.

Now, when I criticize this idea, as my soul demands that I do, I am not criticizing God. I am criticizing the idea that God is like that -- and hence, I am criticizing traditional Christianity. If my criticism is accurate, then God is NOT like that, and so the being who supposedly commits these horrendous, abominable crimes is not God (and so does not exist).

And you certainly have the freedom to believe and live as you wish, I only question why you feel the need to ridicule those who chose a different path than you have? Are you such a mean spirited, full of bitter hatefulness individual that you just can't leave those who believe differently than you alone? Why do you feel compelled to attempt to belittle and condemn their beliefs? Perhaps those should be more important questions that you should be focusing on instead of questioning the actions of a God that you don't even think exists.

We get it, you think the Bible is a farse, and you've stated your reasoning behind your belief. Good for you! Why you're frustrated that some of us won't validate that belief is what is interesting. Why do you care what I believe or what anyone else on here believes? Yet you do.

I didn't see Dragon bash christians in his post. Christians have a different view of how the Bible tells the story of God than he does, that's what I got from his post.

Being an open forum about religion, it's going to be pretty clear you're going to have people with different opinions (including negative ones) about a religion you think highly of. Same goes with every religious view on this board, there's gonna be negative opinions about all of them.

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And you certainly have the freedom to believe and live as you wish, I only question why you feel the need to ridicule those who chose a different path than you have? Are you such a mean spirited, full of bitter hatefulness individual that you just can't leave those who believe differently than you alone? Why do you feel compelled to attempt to belittle and condemn their beliefs? Perhaps those should be more important questions that you should be focusing on instead of questioning the actions of a God that you don't even think exists.

We get it, you think the Bible is a farse, and you've stated your reasoning behind your belief. Good for you! Why you're frustrated that some of us won't validate that belief is what is interesting. Why do you care what I believe or what anyone else on here believes? Yet you do.

I didn't see Dragon bash christians in his post. Christians have a different view of how the Bible tells the story of God than he does, that's what I got from his post.

Being an open forum about religion, it's going to be pretty clear you're going to have people with different opinions (including negative ones) about a religion you think highly of. Same goes with every religious view on this board, there's gonna be negative opinions about all of them.

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

Depends how you look at it.

In your opinion, if you bash things Allah does and calls for muslims to do accroding to the Quran, are you bashing muslims? If your answer is yes than I can see how you'd find Dragon's post to be bashing christians, but i respectfully disagree.

 

[Sky Dancer]

And you certainly have the freedom to believe and live as you wish, I only question why you feel the need to ridicule those who chose a different path than you have? Are you such a mean spirited, full of bitter hatefulness individual that you just can't leave those who believe differently than you alone? Why do you feel compelled to attempt to belittle and condemn their beliefs? Perhaps those should be more important questions that you should be focusing on instead of questioning the actions of a God that you don't even think exists.

We get it, you think the Bible is a farse, and you've stated your reasoning behind your belief. Good for you! Why you're frustrated that some of us won't validate that belief is what is interesting. Why do you care what I believe or what anyone else on here believes? Yet you do.

I didn't see Dragon bash christians in his post. Christians have a different view of how the Bible tells the story of God than he does, that's what I got from his post.

Being an open forum about religion, it's going to be pretty clear you're going to have people with different opinions (including negative ones) about a religion you think highly of. Same goes with every religious view on this board, there's gonna be negative opinions about all of them.

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

Why is it you think your view should be universally respected? Do non-christians have any rights to comment on their view of christian tenets?

Dragon, a non-christian, has his own view of the bible and christianity. He is NOT personally putting YOU down.

I think it's possible you see bashing everywhere it doesn't exist. I'm sure you thnk my opinion, different from yours about Dragon, is a "bash" of you.

It's not.

 

[Newby]

I didn't see Dragon bash christians in his post. Christians have a different view of how the Bible tells the story of God than he does, that's what I got from his post.

Being an open forum about religion, it's going to be pretty clear you're going to have people with different opinions (including negative ones) about a religion you think highly of. Same goes with every religious view on this board, there's gonna be negative opinions about all of them.

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

Depends how you look at it.

In your opinion, if you bash things Allah does and calls for muslims to do accroding to the Quran, are you bashing muslims? If your answer is yes than I can see how you'd find Dragon's post to be bashing christians, but i respectfully disagree.

Of course it depends on how you look at it. If you agree with him, then you're not going to see disrespect. One of Dragon's earlier posts, and I'll agree that he's not as bad as others have been in this thread, is shown below. Insinuating that it 'shouldn't be hard to explain', i.e. you're a complete fool and idiot if you don't understand the story of Lot the same way that he interprets it.

I have a mind and a good understanding of the English language and logical arguments.

It's really quite simple. Offer an interpretation of that passage of Genesis that doesn't make it look as if a barbarous standard of morality is being advocated, one in which a man may be "righteous" who first offers his virgin daughters for gang-rape to a gang of thugs, and second impregnates those same daughters himself while intoxicated. I don't know about you, but I don't consider either of those actions particularly "righteous."

It should not be hard to explain this, if there IS an explanation. Be my guest.

 

[Newby]

I didn't see Dragon bash christians in his post. Christians have a different view of how the Bible tells the story of God than he does, that's what I got from his post.

Being an open forum about religion, it's going to be pretty clear you're going to have people with different opinions (including negative ones) about a religion you think highly of. Same goes with every religious view on this board, there's gonna be negative opinions about all of them.

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

Why is it you think your view should be universally respected? Do non-christians have any rights to comment on their view of christian tenets?

Dragon, a non-christian, has his own view of the bible and christianity. He is NOT personally putting YOU down.

I think it's possible you see bashing everywhere it doesn't exist. I'm sure you thnk my opinion, different from yours about Dragon, is a "bash" of you.

It's not.

You don't expect respect for your beliefs and opinions Sky?? If not, since when? It's called common courtesy and human decency to offer respect unless you have good reason not too. And a mature adult will not play silly games with the text and demean and insinuate that others are fools for seeing it differently than they do. And I've been falsely accused of one too many things by you, I know how you operate, so you're the last person that should be dishing out advice on the subject.

 

[Dr.Drock]

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

Depends how you look at it.

In your opinion, if you bash things Allah does and calls for muslims to do accroding to the Quran, are you bashing muslims? If your answer is yes than I can see how you'd find Dragon's post to be bashing christians, but i respectfully disagree.

Of course it depends on how you look at it. If you agree with him, then you're not going to see disrespect. One of Dragon's earlier posts, and I'll agree that he's not as bad as others have been in this thread, is shown below. Insinuating that it 'shouldn't be hard to explain', i.e. you're a complete fool and idiot if you don't understand the story of Lot the same way that he interprets it.

I have a mind and a good understanding of the English language and logical arguments.

It's really quite simple. Offer an interpretation of that passage of Genesis that doesn't make it look as if a barbarous standard of morality is being advocated, one in which a man may be "righteous" who first offers his virgin daughters for gang-rape to a gang of thugs, and second impregnates those same daughters himself while intoxicated. I don't know about you, but I don't consider either of those actions particularly "righteous."

It should not be hard to explain this, if there IS an explanation. Be my guest.

I still didn't see where he bashed christians in that post either.

If i provide a story in the Quran that you find immoral, and you say it's immoral, does that constitute you bashing all muslims?

 

[Newby]

Depends how you look at it.

In your opinion, if you bash things Allah does and calls for muslims to do accroding to the Quran, are you bashing muslims? If your answer is yes than I can see how you'd find Dragon's post to be bashing christians, but i respectfully disagree.

Of course it depends on how you look at it. If you agree with him, then you're not going to see disrespect. One of Dragon's earlier posts, and I'll agree that he's not as bad as others have been in this thread, is shown below. Insinuating that it 'shouldn't be hard to explain', i.e. you're a complete fool and idiot if you don't understand the story of Lot the same way that he interprets it.

I have a mind and a good understanding of the English language and logical arguments.

It's really quite simple. Offer an interpretation of that passage of Genesis that doesn't make it look as if a barbarous standard of morality is being advocated, one in which a man may be "righteous" who first offers his virgin daughters for gang-rape to a gang of thugs, and second impregnates those same daughters himself while intoxicated. I don't know about you, but I don't consider either of those actions particularly "righteous."

It should not be hard to explain this, if there IS an explanation. Be my guest.

I still didn't see where he bashed christians in that post either.

If i provide a story in the Quran that you find immoral, and you say it's immoral, does that constitute you bashing all muslims?

I'm not surprised that you don't see it. Offering up your opinion that something is immoral in your opinion versus calling/insinuating someone who doesn't see it as immoral as stupid, are two different things.

 

[Sky Dancer]

He's completely disrespectful, if you can't see that, then you're blind. I have negative opinions about other things discussed, but I've never bashed anyone, disrespected anyone, or inferred that they were stupid for the beliefs that they held.

Why is it you think your view should be universally respected? Do non-christians have any rights to comment on their view of christian tenets?

Dragon, a non-christian, has his own view of the bible and christianity. He is NOT personally putting YOU down.

I think it's possible you see bashing everywhere it doesn't exist. I'm sure you thnk my opinion, different from yours about Dragon, is a "bash" of you.

It's not.

You don't expect respect for your beliefs and opinions Sky?? If not, since when? It's called common courtesy and human decency to offer respect unless you have good reason not too. And a mature adult will not play silly games with the text and demean and insinuate that others are fools for seeing it differently than they do. And I've been falsely accused of one too many things by you, I know how you operate, so you're the last person that should be dishing out advice on the subject.

No, I don't expect respect for my beliefs and opinions. Respect is earned. I haven't earned yours. You can't get over the past.

No one is playing games with the text of the bible. It has plenty of seemingly, "silly" to non-christian, passages. Non-christians are allowed to discuss these whether you like it or not.

The only one that seems hostile in this conversation, so far, is you. You're the one holding the grudge.

 

[Newby]

Why is it you think your view should be universally respected? Do non-christians have any rights to comment on their view of christian tenets?

Dragon, a non-christian, has his own view of the bible and christianity. He is NOT personally putting YOU down.

I think it's possible you see bashing everywhere it doesn't exist. I'm sure you thnk my opinion, different from yours about Dragon, is a "bash" of you.

It's not.

You don't expect respect for your beliefs and opinions Sky?? If not, since when? It's called common courtesy and human decency to offer respect unless you have good reason not too. And a mature adult will not play silly games with the text and demean and insinuate that others are fools for seeing it differently than they do. And I've been falsely accused of one too many things by you, I know how you operate, so you're the last person that should be dishing out advice on the subject.

No, I don't expect respect for my beliefs and opinions. Respect is earned. I haven't earned yours. You can't get over the past.

No one is playing games with the text of the bible. It has plenty of seemingly, "silly" to non-christian, passages. Non-christians are allowed to discuss these whether you like it or not.

The only one that seems hostile in this conversation, so far, is you.

Right on cue.... now I'm 'hostile'...

Do you really want me to go back into the thread and copy and paste what the text in the story of Lot has been turned into by some people in this thread in order to give their interpretation of the story the most sordid picture they could come up with? Lot was a drunk and banged his two daughters? Is that someone that is out for serious discussion of the subject? Really?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Of course it depends on how you look at it. If you agree with him, then you're not going to see disrespect. One of Dragon's earlier posts, and I'll agree that he's not as bad as others have been in this thread, is shown below. Insinuating that it 'shouldn't be hard to explain', i.e. you're a complete fool and idiot if you don't understand the story of Lot the same way that he interprets it.

I still didn't see where he bashed christians in that post either.

If i provide a story in the Quran that you find immoral, and you say it's immoral, does that constitute you bashing all muslims?

I'm not surprised that you don't see it. Offering up your opinion that something is immoral in your opinion versus calling/insinuating someone who doesn't see it as immoral as stupid, are two different things.

Still don't see where he insinuated christians were stupid, and i've read the post a few times. Maybe he has in other posts, i dunno, but not in the 2 you've taken issue with. Sounds like you're being overly defensive, which is common with the human species when it comes to their religious views.

But to me if you bashed something in the Quran about Allah that is immoral, I would view you as doing the same thing that Dragon is doing, and I don't think either of you are in the wrong.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You don't expect respect for your beliefs and opinions Sky?? If not, since when? It's called common courtesy and human decency to offer respect unless you have good reason not too. And a mature adult will not play silly games with the text and demean and insinuate that others are fools for seeing it differently than they do. And I've been falsely accused of one too many things by you, I know how you operate, so you're the last person that should be dishing out advice on the subject.

No, I don't expect respect for my beliefs and opinions. Respect is earned. I haven't earned yours. You can't get over the past.

No one is playing games with the text of the bible. It has plenty of seemingly, "silly" to non-christian, passages. Non-christians are allowed to discuss these whether you like it or not.

The only one that seems hostile in this conversation, so far, is you.

Right on cue.... now I'm 'hostile'...

Do you really want me to go back into the thread and copy and paste what the text in the story of Lot has been turned into by some people in this thread in order to give their interpretation of the story the most sordid picture they could come up with? Lot was a drunk and banged his two daughters? Is that someone that is out for serious discussion of the subject? Really?

You must admit there are many and varied stories about Sodom and Gommorah. I don't doubt that someone was able to find one that seemed"sordid". Isn't the whole point of the story that the place and people were evil?

There are differences in what way the people were evil.

Some people use this passage to condemn gays and lesbians. I consider THAT to be evil.

We all have different ideas about the bible and how it is used and misused.

Yes, your posts do sound hostile.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know what church you were in, but I've been a Baptist for decades and have attended many, MANY churches of different denominations and I've never seen one where anything in the bible was "hidden".

I certainly know the story of Lot quite well. I think many of those who dabble may not be super familiar with all the ins and outs of the bible, but you need to get over your obsession about the "church" being this big bad thing that's out to get you. It's stupid and evidence of your stunted psychological growth. I don't know what damage your family did to you in the name of God and the bible, but it's time to recognize they did it, and not God, or the Bible.

If you're even capable of making those distinctions.

YOu know how I can always tell when I've won an argument with a Funditard?

It's when they start randomly speculating about me (having never met me in their life, didn't your Sky Pixie tell you something about not bearing False Witness?) rather than address the points I bring up.

The only thing the Churches do by hiding Jephthah and Lot and Elisha is prevent more people from walking away... because they know damned well they don't want people drawing their own interpretations.

That's why the Bible was restricted to the clergy all the way up until the modern era. Most families did not have bibles in the home until relatively recently.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know what church you were in, but I've been a Baptist for decades and have attended many, MANY churches of different denominations and I've never seen one where anything in the bible was "hidden".

I certainly know the story of Lot quite well. I think many of those who dabble may not be super familiar with all the ins and outs of the bible, but you need to get over your obsession about the "church" being this big bad thing that's out to get you. It's stupid and evidence of your stunted psychological growth. I don't know what damage your family did to you in the name of God and the bible, but it's time to recognize they did it, and not God, or the Bible.

If you're even capable of making those distinctions.

YOu know how I can always tell when I've won an argument with a Funditard?

It's when they start randomly speculating about me (having never met me in their life, didn't your Sky Pixie tell you something about not bearing False Witness?) rather than address the points I bring up.

The only thing the Churches do by hiding Jephthah and Lot and Elisha is prevent more people from walking away... because they know damned well they don't want people drawing their own interpretations.

That's why the Bible was restricted to the clergy all the way up until the modern era. Most families did not have bibles in the home until relatively recently.

Like KG, due to circumstances more complicated than I care to explain here, I have been blessed with attending, traveling with, working with, worshipping with a broad variety of Christian disciplines from the most Episcopal/Anglican High and Low Church to Roman Catholic high and low church as well as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, CC Disciplies, Unitarian, Unity, UCC, charismatic and other. There are certainly different understandings and interpretations of the various passages of the Bible among all these, but in not a single one has anything been "hidden" or brushed aside or restricted in any form.

Up through the Medieval period, the Scriptures were not commonly distributed among the peasantry, but that was due to books being rare, expensive, and not easily accessible and/or due to widespread illiteracy, not because the scriptures were forbidden. With the invention of the printing press, by the Reformation and Rennaisance the Bible was definitely the best seller among all books and has remained so ever since.

The only Christian churches I have found that dismiss certain passages as irrelevant are the most liberal, but these still weren't hiding anything.

 

[JoeB131]

Conceding the point on the rareness of bibles before printing presses (which came about in 1444, and the Protestant Reformation happened within a century, imagine that.)

However, explain if you would, how it could be I could get through 12 years of Catholic Education and never have heard of Jephthah? In fact, the only character in the Book of Judges (which is one of the most fun books in the Bible, really) that we got a bowlderized version of was Samson and how he brought down a temple after his hair grew back.

As for Genesis 19, there was a solid discussion of that book in my Freshman year, not in religion class, but in literature class. This Christian Brother (who wasn't just gay, he was FLAMING) had a textbook that ends with Mrs. Lot getting turned into Salt. (They leave out the drunken Hillbilly Sex.) Teenage boys being what we were, needled him on whether it was the gay stuff that made God kill them all. We really didn't have a in depth discussion about how Lot could be a "righteous" man offering his daughters up for gang rape.

 

[Newby]

I don't know what church you were in, but I've been a Baptist for decades and have attended many, MANY churches of different denominations and I've never seen one where anything in the bible was "hidden".

I certainly know the story of Lot quite well. I think many of those who dabble may not be super familiar with all the ins and outs of the bible, but you need to get over your obsession about the "church" being this big bad thing that's out to get you. It's stupid and evidence of your stunted psychological growth. I don't know what damage your family did to you in the name of God and the bible, but it's time to recognize they did it, and not God, or the Bible.

If you're even capable of making those distinctions.

YOu know how I can always tell when I've won an argument with a Funditard?

It's when they start randomly speculating about me (having never met me in their life, didn't your Sky Pixie tell you something about not bearing False Witness?) rather than address the points I bring up.

The only thing the Churches do by hiding Jephthah and Lot and Elisha is prevent more people from walking away... because they know damned well they don't want people drawing their own interpretations.

That's why the Bible was restricted to the clergy all the way up until the modern era. Most families did not have bibles in the home until relatively recently.

What's 'relatively recently'? Several hundred years? And just because the church that you attended hid parts of the Bible (which I'm frankly not believing), I've never attended a church that hid any part of the Bible and I've attended three different denominations on a regular basis over my life so far.

 

[Newby]

Conceding the point on the rareness of bibles before printing presses (which came about in 1444, and the Protestant Reformation happened within a century, imagine that.)

However, explain if you would, how it could be I could get through 12 years of Catholic Education and never have heard of Jephthah? In fact, the only character in the Book of Judges (which is one of the most fun books in the Bible, really) that we got a bowlderized version of was Samson and how he brought down a temple after his hair grew back.

As for Genesis 19, there was a solid discussion of that book in my Freshman year, not in religion class, but in literature class. This Christian Brother (who wasn't just gay, he was FLAMING) had a textbook that ends with Mrs. Lot getting turned into Salt. (They leave out the drunken Hillbilly Sex.) Teenage boys being what we were, needled him on whether it was the gay stuff that made God kill them all. We really didn't have a in depth discussion about how Lot could be a "righteous" man offering his daughters up for gang rape.

There you go Dr. Drock, disrespect. If you want to discuss the matter in a mature and relevent way, then you don't say things to disrespect those who hold the text sacred. It's really that simple, there's no need for that unless your goal is to harass and belittle those who take it seriously.