Farnaz2 writes:

"Sparrow4 You should reread my penultimate post. I answered your question, and what I said about Israeli Jews, including Askenazim, the majority, is very much the case. This is their view about American Askenzic Jews. If you don't like it, then take that up with the Israeli Askenzim.

Btw., How goes the DAR?"

Farnaz, however did you figure out you were dealing with the same A*hole?

Morals are a set of rules set down by a religion that tells you how you can behave. Ethics are how you choose to behave in relation to the world.

Morality is relative, anyway. For example: 200 years ago people thought nothing of owning other human beings as slaves. Based on the common principles of the Enlightenment, slavery is now considered to be immoral. Animal sacrifice (since we seem to be on the subject) is seen as immoral and inhumane by some faiths, but not by others. Charging interest on loans is seen as immoral by Moslems, but is one of the foundations of capitalism.

Is there a common Human morality? Sure. It's been stated by many faiths over time - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Treat others how you would like to be treated. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

PaganPlace wrote: "Swinging obliquely back to topic, sometimes it's not about what you remember, so much as who remembers you."

... or what you are remembered for.

Isn't this the underpinning of an atheist morality? The only thing that counts is how you act in the here and now, because the only thing that is left when you are gone is how you are remembered.

and farnaz2 - you should really reread your high handed posts. as I said- I don't compare Jews.

You seem to suffer from a lack of self-awareness or do you really not get what's offensive about this:"Israelis, Askenazic, Sfardic, Mizrahi, African, etc., have sympathy for American Askenazic Jews as they (Israelis) think they lack pride in themselves and, hence, the ability to defend themselves. Pace Anna Freud, they think these deficits come from oppression and its consequences.

I've seen less and less of this disability since I've been here. More and more I see a great deal of self-assertion by Askenazic Jews in the face of racism. I've seen this in conferences, at meetings, etc"

You may not think it's condescending, but it most definitely is. I'm not flaming you, I'm pointing out the you need to get your nose out of the air. If you don't like my response, then don't post on a public blog as the self-defined resident expert on Ashkenazic behavior. Sorry you just don't understand how elitist you sound. I guess that happens to those who think they are so morally and culturally superior to the rest of us. Your ego demands that I must be "hostile" because lord knows, you couldn't possibly be condescending or arrogant.

I'm sure you'll fire off some other snarky response. have at it- I'm done.

Sparrow4 You should reread my penultimate post. I answered your question, and what I said about Israeli Jews, including Askenazim, the majority, is very much the case. This is their view about American Askenzic Jews. If you don't like it, then take that up with the Israeli Askenzim.

Btw., How goes the DAR?

Sparrow4: I'm not going to get into a fight with you over Sephardi vs Ashkenazim - I can't think of a topic more ridiculous but if you feel the need to think your background superior to mine, well, whatever it takes to get you through the day. (You may want to look at what Freud says about that). But difficulty asserting themselves in the face of bigotry? You just blew off not only all the Jewish resistance fighters and those who persevered in the camps, but our whole contribution to the civil rights movement. And in fact, the Bnai Brith's ADL stance against slavery. And please remember it was the Ashkenazim who mounted a huge rescue of Moroccan Jews. Since neither you nor the Freuds grew up in a rather typical Ashkenazic home,I can hardly credit you with a real understanding of "us."

In fact,I find it self-defeating and rather repulsive to compare branches of Judaism- that's not the way I was raised.
*************************

HUH? I'm afraid I'm at a loss. I wasn't comparing and can find no way to account for your rant. You would do well to review your posts to me and try to figure out where your hostility is coming from.

Comparing Jewish ethnicities is absurd. Truly. We have enough problems without denigrating ourselves about guilt, attacking giants like Freud and Anna Freud for that which they are not guilt of, or "comparing."

I'm not getting into this silliness with you. Again, what one says self-denigratingly at home and with one's friends, one does not say in public. Check with your Askenazic friends. I don't have time for this.

If you want to flame, chose someone else to flame at.

farnaz2 I'm not going to get into a fight with you over Sephardi vs Ashkenazim - I can't think of a topic more ridiculous but if you feel the need to think your background superior to mine, well, whatever it takes to get you through the day. (You may want to look at what Freud says about that). But difficulty asserting themselves in the face of bigotry? You just blew off not only all the Jewish resistance fighters and those who persevered in the camps, but our whole contribution to the civil rights movement. And in fact, the Bnai Brith's ADL stance against slavery. And please remember it was the Ashkenazim who mounted a huge rescue of Moroccan Jews. Since neither you nor the Freuds grew up in a rather typical Ashkenazic home,I can hardly credit you with a real understanding of "us."

In fact,I find it self-defeating and rather repulsive to compare branches of Judaism- that's not the way I was raised.

Sparrow4: especially as there seems to be some attitude toward Ashkenazic Jews and I'd like to know the origin of that

There is no attitude I know of, except perhaps compassion, empathy, identification. The Shoah was a worldwide phenomenon you know. It hit both the Middle East and Africa, as well as Europe. Israelis, Askenazic, Sfardic, Mizrahi, African, etc., have sympathy for American Askenazic Jews as they (Israelis) think they lack pride in themselves and, hence, the ability to defend themselves. Pace Anna Freud, they think these deficits come from oppression and its consequences.

I've seen less and less of this disability since I've been here. More and more I see a great deal of self-assertion by Askenazic Jews in the face of racism. I've seen this in conferences, at meetings, etc.

It's good to see. And they respond quite aggressively, directly, in kind, directing their remarks at the identities of the aggressors, in kind. Very affective. One only needs to do this sort of thing once. The racists get it and keep still forever after.

This was a strategy during the Black Civil Rights movement. Worked well, but there is a ways to go.

Sparrow4:

Anna Freud, brilliant, good sense of humor. Father had as well: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." All this despite Holocause, pretty commendable, IMO

Self-denigration hasn't helped Askenazic Jews. Difficulty asserting themselves in the face of bigotry, which will always be with us. What one does with one's family and friends is different from what one does in public, IMO.

Paganplace,

"most of them have certain ethical ideas in common, which seems to be strong evidence for some kind of basic moral standard that is independent of human opinion"

Such a standard wouldn't necessarily require actual existence outside the human brain. It could be rooted in our brain structure separately from our conscious mind, like any other instinct.

Bartedson,

"A good man will do good, an evil man will do evil, but for a good man to do evil, it takes religion."

That's true of any authoritarian ideology. Some religions and believers are authoritarian and many are not. The religious varieties of authoritarianism simply have more motivational power than the secular varieties, because the former claim that their deities represent all goodness in the universe.

bartedson:
You wrote: A good man will do good, an evil man will do evil, but for a good man to do evil, it takes religion.

==> So you think religion is evil. How can you possibly support that statement? My religion, Roman Catholocism comes from Jesus Christ, who taught, love God, Love your Nieghbor, even love your enemy. How does that drive any evil? In fact, if there is evil, it is because people fail to follow those mandates. Therefore,so it is those that follow these religious tennets that are good, and those that do not that are evil. Keep in mind, that not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is one in practice.

You also wrote, " It says in the bible that if you marry a girl who is not a virgin, you are to stone her to death on her father's doorstep. Now, obviously most everyone today would agree that this is a heinous instruction. So where did we get our morality that allows us to see this Bible story as heinous."

==> You do of course, recognize that these laws were put out for a reason. The Hebrews were to be God's chosen people, a people set apart for thier holiness because in the fullness of time, the Savior of the world was to come from them. In addition, lineage was very important to the Hebrews, because it dictated the inheritance of thier lands and livelihoods. Therefore, laws were stringent to protect this facet of Hebrew life. Although you might not personally think so, extramarital sex definitely has societal impacts. I can't speak for why the jewish people became more lax on this over time but in the case of the New Testament, Jesus was confronted with exactly this issue. A women caught in adultery was brought to him for a ruling. He did not put aside the Mosaic law which required Stoning. Instead, he turned it back on the community and said, " He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Of course, no one was without sin, so she was saved. He did not leave her off the hook, however. He told her, " Go, but sin no more." So in this case, Jesus made the community recognize that everyone makes mistakes, putting aside the harsh penalty out of compassion. Note, however, that he didn't eliminate the penalty and required repetence from the women, who undoubtedly understood that if she sinned again, she might not be so lucky the next time. To sum it up, Compassion is good, repentence is required, but there continues to be ramifications for sin.

farnaz2- I must come from the Freud/schmoid group. My mother wasn't the "Jewish Mother" type but my whole family had a great sense of humor (as they like to phrase it, laughing instead of weeping). Having grown up as a first generation American, most of my family were still speaking Yiddish at home long after most Jews had forgotten it. (I wonder if Anna Freud understood what a sense of humor was. Her father sure didn't). Sometimes people make too much of the thing- there is much more to Ashkenazic identity than people think- and more to the humor than you think. If you didn't grow up in it, it would be difficult to explain what was wonderful and what wasn't. but I get the impression you've made up your mind negatively and I'll just say I don't think you understand.

I do know lots of Protestants - what is it about the Judeo-christian tradition that promotes guilt as a positive characteristic?- actually know no Sephardic Jews. Would be very interested in learning more about it, especially as there seems to be some attitude toward Ashkenazic Jews and I'd like to know the origin of that.

Sparrow4: "And we decided that Protestants have no guilt whatsoever (how come they're so lucky?)"

IMHO, you don't know many Protestants! I will say that it seems to vary with the P denomination. Also, I'm well aware of this brand of Askenazic humor, its unfortunate origins, and its consequences. They weren't good, but times have changed, and the self-denigration is waning. :-)

Being Sfardic, I had no share in this tradition. For Askenazic Jews, it is a sign of what Anna Freud called internalization of the aggressor. Askenazic J people have actually written about it, and it isn't "light." Jacques B. has lapses into this sort of thing, occasionally. Pity.

Must go. Goodnight.

Farnaz

farnaz2- lighten up! Jewish mom guilt is a classic joke. We kid around about it in my family, and with my friends. My Catholic friends say Jews have nothing on them when it comes to guilt. And we decided that Protestants have no guilt whatsoever (how come they're so lucky?)

A good man will do good, an evil man will do evil, but for a good man to do evil, it takes religion.

bartedson:

"It says in the bible that if you marry a girl who is not a virgin, you are to stone her to death on her father's doorstep.

Now, obviously most everyone today would agree that this is a heinous instruction.

So where did we get our morality that allows us to see this Bible story as heinous."

Hint: NOT in religious faith-
**************************
Hint: Don't know about you, but OURs got it in religious faith.

Another Bible says that if you believe in the "only begotten son" (sic) of God, you will be saved regardless of how you spent your life. (It says this) On the other hand, if you do not believe, regardless of the good you may have done, you will be damned for eternity.
Very nice.

Now, where did they get the instruction that allows them to see this as heinous xenophobic racism?

Hint: They didn't get that instruction.

It says in the bible that if you marry a girl who is not a virgin, you are to stone her to death on her father's doorstep.

Now, obviously most everyone today would agree that this is a heinous instruction.

So where did we get our morality that allows us to see this Bible story as heinous.

Hint: NOT in religious faith

Sparrow4 writes:

"I can't argue about the guilt trip but that really has been the bastion of Jewish moms"

Perhaps, of your mother? Certainly not of mine, nor of yours truly, nor of any other Jewish mother I know.

I will say that I've heard talk of a guilt component in Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, but it doesn't appear to be universal within the three religions.

I'm sorry- I'm still having a giggle over the whole guilt trip thing. ender- we haven't had "priests" in Judaism for lo, these 5000 years and sacrifice went out quite some time ago. We do take our rabbis to dinner on occasion but find that a doggie bag suffices in lieu of a hold now/kill later snack.

I can't argue about the guilt trip but that really has been the bastion of Jewish moms, not priests. We're not all that into blood sacrifices, actually. But how no sacrifices now relates to prayer, repentence and guilt I haven't quite figured out. In fact, were we still doing them, I can guarantee you we would get far more guilt from sacrificing a sad-faced little goat, than from sending him off to an animal sanctuary while he awaits his preordained future doom.The whole entrails and a sandwich thing- ewwwwww.

Hi, Arminius. :)

I'd go so far as to say that I've met so many *moral* people of all religious and non-religious stripes, as well as those who are at least effectively 'Immoral' of great vehemence about religious authority, ...that religion and morality just aren't the same thing. I think even more commonly, I've met people whose morality is *displaced* by religious belief to the extent that they are *afraid* to show 'moral courage' when situations come down.

Or when someone offers an easier way out.

Sometimes people who believe they're really all moral and strong cause of piety end up finding themselves frozen... And ashamed of it, you can see it in their eyes, when time comes to act. Or even speak up... when the people they are taught to safely call 'immoral' end up doing the very stuff they claim 'morality' is all about *for* them.

They aren't *bad* people, they just never had all the talk get real in that way, when it comes down to it. You can see it in their eyes.

Kert,

I don't think I have ever agreed with you before, but I do now. I know many moral Christians, and hope that I am one. I have also met many moral Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and, yes, non-believers. Mark E seems to be the flip side of those ultra-religious types who claim that nobody but Christians could be moral - Mark claims that Christians can't be moral because they are religious. Note well, I have also met many 'Christians' who are not moral, some of them on these blogs.

"“Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman”
“she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”"

Well, that's a pretty astoundingly-good linguistic analysis of Northern European language that wouldn't exist for another few thousand years, from people in a completely different part of the world besides.

Wif.

MARCEDWARD,

I am truly sad that you don't feel you have met any moral Christians. Not to sound cliched, but you should really read a book on Mother Teressa. Now there is a moral Christian who practiced what she believed.

In fact you can find many Christians that are moral. There are many. Just go to your local church and ask to see them at work. Or go see a missionary or soup kitchen. This is just a short list.

My guess is there are several reasons why you don't feel you've seen a moral Christian. First is that many people profess to be Christians and aren't and many Christians don't practice as much as they preach. Christianity is an open door and anyone can walk through it, but it doens't force you to do anything. I am constantly thankful to God that he requires nothing for forgiveness but there is a downside. You do have to wonder about these "Christians" who are not moral. I know I do.

The Second reason you don't see moral Christians is probably your definition of morality. I would guess it is your own and you set the rules. Probably is also kind of tough for Christians to both meet your standars and Gods. I imagine you don't like rules about sin. Churches always struggle with how to love a person but not their sin. But condoning an immoral practice is never loving since the immoral person is always the one who is hurt most. Keep in mind that the Churches main job is to teach God's morality, which is the greatest good we can do. How can some of these not be moral? I suggest you at least look at things through the Christian perspective, since we can't be asked to base our morality on your ideas.

I would really suggest you seek out at least one moral Christian. It would be a shame if you never met one. The greatest inspirations in my life are moral Christians that have put their words to actions.

Ender2:

You write:
So blood sacrifice has been replaced with prayer, repentance and a lifelong guilt trip.

HUH? What's up? I mean no offense, but are you taking medication or something? Using drugs?

If one does something s/he deems morally wrong, s/he of course repents and does everything possible to make amends. Then it's over. Maybe you could write about something you know something about.

I had forgotten all about that temple thing. Jews can't make blood sacrifices until the temple is rebuilt. So blood sacrifice has been replaced with prayer, repentance and a lifelong guilt trip.

BTW the christian god is not "mine". I think all of the Cults of Abraham are pretty much whacked out tribal foolishness that the world would be better off without.

Ender writes to

Observer12

"Judaism has forgiveness tied to the priesthood as tightly as Christianity. Forgiveness requires 1)a Priest 2)a sacrifice such as lamb, dove or chicken. At least something the priest can knosh on later. i.e you can't get blood out of a turnip because the Rabbi don't wanna be knoshing on turnips."

ARe you mad? Or are you writing some sort of science fiction book set in the year 3000. "Priesthood"? Animal sacrifice?

Maybe there is a Christian denomination that does this, perhaps while talking in tongues, but I assure you we do not. We have no Greek man-god who died for our sins, since we had no wrathful Zeus type that the Christians had. We do not have original sin. That is a Christian thing. The Garden of Eden has no association with sexuality. Also a Christian thing, origins Paul the Greek, refined later by Augustine.

NO. We have what we always had. Hashem the all knowing, the all merciful the all powerful. We don't have virgin births, Prometheus types, eating blood and flesh of man gods. I have to agree with Observer.

The big problem for the Christians is that they stole another peoples covenant, one not intended for them, and have and had no clue as to how to interpret it.

Simply put, you have a god who thinks sex is bad, who "incarnated" his "only begotten son" (sic) through a virgin birth, said son having walked on water. This Monster God the Father arranged for his son in the best scapegoat fashion to be tortured to death like an animal sacrifice for your sins.

This god of the Christians knows not Joseph and Joseph never knew him.

The Christians are now free to forgive themselves for whatever they do. Not so others. For instance, if a few maniacs bomb the WTC, your basic Christians kill tens of thousands of innocent people in one country and then move on to another. Your basic Christians are self-forgiving vengeance seekers.

Your Christian gods bear no resemblance to Hashem. None whatsoever.

paulc2 writes
"Marcedward: My statement, " Christians believe that you need to Love God and Love your Neighbor as yourself" is the correct one."

Well that belief is in the gospals certainly. My 'correction' was based upon the actions by Christians, because I judge people by their actions more than their words.

"It is what defines a Christian (in addition to the other statements in the Apostle's Creed. You and I would agree, I suspect, that some people who call themselves Christians, are truly Christians in name only, following none of the teachings of Christ."

I have met Christians who certainly reflect Christ's teachings, and I have met many more Christians who wear their religion like a cloak. Lets face it, if all the people who called themselves Christians reflected Christs words (for example, if a stranger asks for your coat, give him your cloak as well) the USA would be the best country on earth, period.

"This is truly unfortunate, but does not change the core message of Christianity"

I hope I did not come across as saying I disagreed with that core message. I was arguing the point that morality can come from religion or from outside religion. I certainly teach my kids some morality from the NT, as well as from other sources.
(snipped part of your post, denoting that I agree with you)

"As for the giving piece, if you check out all those websites, you will find that actively religious people donate significantly more time and money than the non-religious, even if you discard the money and time they donate to their own churches."

I've argued that point before, and I believe you are not correct. Let's agree to disagree rather than play deuling URLs.

"You seem to have a very negative view of Christians"

Call it a cynical view of humans. Once a man told Mark Twain "The USA is a Christian Nation!" to which Twain responded "So is Hell!"

"but this isn't supported by independent data. Perhaps you need to know more about us.."

I live in a very Christian part of the USA, was raised in a Christian neighborhood where all the kids went to Sunday School, and the first moral person I ever met was an athiest Jew. I've spent my life among Christians, married a Catholic, so I've got a pretty good idea about how "Christian" people are when it comes to a conflict between what they profess to believe and what they desire.

Morality is reflected in faith and religion but not driven by it.

MARCEDWARDS

As I have said before: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It seems that there just might be quite a few people that are in for quite a shock when they find out that God actually looks at the person rather than the "label" that someone applies to themself.

Question, does your "holier than thou" attitude actually make you a better person?

Just wondering.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Marcedward:

My statement, " Christians believe that you need to Love God and Love your Neighbor as yourself" is the correct one. It is what defines a Christian (in addition to the other statements in the Apostle's Creed. You and I would agree, I suspect, that some people who call themselves Christians, are truly Christians in name only, following none of the teachings of Christ. This is truly unfortunate, but does not change the core message of Christianity, nor should it reflect poorly on those Christians that do follow their faith. I know hundreds of very devout Catholics that follow the moral teachings of Jesus very well, albiet not perfectly (they are human).

As for the giving piece, if you check out all those websites, you will find that actively religious people donate significantly more time and money than the non-religious, even if you discard the money and time they donate to their own churches.

You seem to have a very negative view of Christians, but this isn't supported by independent data. Perhaps you need to know more about us..

PAULC2

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith but you do not speak for this Catholic.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

paulc2 writes
"You have a very cynical view of religion in general and Christianity in particular."

So did Mark Twain, and rightly so!

"Christians believe that you need to Love God and Love your Neighbor as yourself"

Your statement would be improved by adding "supposedly" between "Christians" and "believe". I tend to judge people more by their actions than their deeds, and if your assessment were correct we'd have very few problems in the USA.

"yet you insist that they care only about money and forgiving themselves. This to me is a very distorted and unsupported view"

Really? How many Christians do you know? If I was to make a list of unloving and/or evil acts by self professing Christians I'd jam up the Intertubes!

"In terms of how they use their money, look at charitable giving. Just google " charitable giving by religion" and you will see report after report showing that the religiously active donate far more per capita than the non-religious."

That's not terribly accurate. Giving money to your own church is not the same as charitable giving IMO.
Moreover, money a poor yardstick. I prefer to look at the behavior of Christians, and one gets a much more realistic answer.

My compliments MBECK1. That is some funny shiite right there!

Observer12

Judaism has forgiveness tied to the priesthood as tightly as Christianity. Forgiveness requires 1)a Priest 2)a sacrifice such as lamb, dove or chicken. At least something the priest can knosh on later. i.e you can't get blood out of a turnip because the Rabbi don't wanna be knoshing on turnips.

Islam's ticket is devotion devotion devotion as in prayer 5 times a day and enough ritual crap to ensure you've thoroughly brainwashed yourself into compliance with the priesthood.

1) The Soddom story isn't true in any way, so I don't see why it's important. The odds of a city being 100% evil are non existant. Moreover if "God" could remove evil people from the planet it hardly explains why he allows evil to the present day. It's clearly not true.
2) Behaving in a moral way because you are afraid of hell and want to enter heaven isn't moral, it's kissing up to God. Wouldn't "God" be more favorable to the moral athiest (one who is good without the threat of punishment) over the person who is only moral because they fear God? As well, I find that many Christians are very immoral, because (like our President) they believe that because they are 'good Christians' whatever actions they take must also be 'good'. When I was teaching adult classes in Charlotte I recall the 'class christian' talking about how after Sunday services the pastor and all the men went to Hooters, which pretty much confirmed what I believed about 'christians'

Some here think that our morality must have a divine source, because if our source is humanity than it is changable. Personally speaking I find the sources for my own morality stem from both Christianity (4 gospals, not the rest) and humanity. Relying on texts written by dessert goat herders to "answer all our questions" for near eternity seems like a bad idea. Look how screwed up Christians get over sexual matters (not to mention Muslims!) - our modern view of human sexuality is far superior to the biblical view of human sexuality.

Observer12:
You have a very cynical view of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christians believe that you need to Love God and Love your Neighbor as yourself, yet you insist that they care only about money and forgiving themselves. This to me is a very distorted and unsupported view In terms of how they use their money, look at charitable giving. Just google " charitable giving by religion" and you will see report after report showing that the religiously active donate far more per capita than the non-religious. As for forgiving themselves, I can't speak for the Protestants, but Catholics do believe that God forgives sins but only under the conditions of confession (admitting what have done), contrition (sorrow for sins), and pennance (reparation for sins), will sins be forgiven. In other words, you need to be truly repentant. Catholics do not take sinning lightly but recognize a forgiving God who wants us to reconcile with him. There is more joy in heaven for a repentant sinner than there is for 99 righteous people who have no need to repent....

"The Cults of Abraham must convince their constituents of their inability to be moral. None of these faiths would exist were it not that they make you immoral, then provide "forgiveness" for that immorality."

I think you're cribbing from the brilliant Farnaz regarding forgiveness. The Christians, of whom I was once a member, invented a man-god to forgive themselves for all the miserable things they've done and do. Not true of Judaism and from what I understand not true of Islam. Agree with Farnaz, Christians not Abrahamic. My own take: Christians departed from Abraham w/Greek man-god. Primitive. Christians bloody cannibal savages. Care only about money and forgiving themselves. Sell other people and kill them for oil.

IT IS A SIGN BETWEEN ME AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FOR EVER
I TOOK THE TWO TABLES, AND CAST THEM OUT OF MY TWO HANDS, AND BRAKE THEM BEFORE YOUR EYES.

THE MAGICIANS SAID UNTO PHARAOH, THIS IS THE FINGER OF GOD: AND PHARAOH'S HEART WAS HARDENED
TWO TABLES OF TESTIMONY, TABLES OF STONE, WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD.
THEY ARE QUICKLY TURNED ASIDE OUT OF THE WAY WHICH I COMMANDED THEM; THEY HAVE MADE THEM A MOLTEN IMAGE.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
Then THE MAGICIANS SAID UNTO PHARAOH, THIS IS THE FINGER OF GOD: AND PHARAOH'S HEART WAS HARDENED, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

IT IS A SIGN BETWEEN ME AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FOR EVER: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, TWO TABLES OF TESTIMONY, TABLES OF STONE, WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD.

When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
And THE LORD DELIVERED UNTO ME TWO TABLES OF STONE WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.
And the Lord said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; THEY ARE QUICKLY TURNED ASIDE OUT OF THE WAY WHICH I COMMANDED THEM; THEY HAVE MADE THEM A MOLTEN IMAGE.
Furthermore the Lord spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.
So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.
And I looked, and, behold, ye had sinned against the Lord your God, and had made you a molten calf: ye had turned aside quickly out of the way which the Lord had commanded you.
And I TOOK THE TWO TABLES, AND CAST THEM OUT OF MY TWO HANDS, AND BRAKE THEM BEFORE YOUR EYES.

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee.

Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.

Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate.

Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.

Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.

Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.

When one says it was the morality of the sodomites that the Lord rejected speak without knowledge. They rejected the word of the LORD. That is what a sinner is. They were wicked sinners. They were the creation of God. They were made in God’s image without the breath of life and a soul. They were soulless creatures. Look at what God creates, the face of the deep and the whale. As you can see the pit, hell, is also void of water. The pit is the home of beasts, hell. God creates male and female and the LORD FORMED MAN and took WOMAN out of MAN. Look you can see what God creates “THE EARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM, AND VOID” ”darkness was upon THE FACE OF THE DEEP” ”the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” “the gathering together of THE WATERS CALLED HE SEAS” “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the MOVING CREATURE THAT HATH LIFE” ”God created GREAT WHALES” ”and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly” “FILL THE WATERS IN THE SEAS” “LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR” “GOD CALLED THE DRY LAND EARTH” “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” “MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM.” “CAST HIM INTO SOME PIT” ” SOME EVIL BEAST HATH DEVOURED HIM” “And they took him, and cast him into a pit” “THE PIT WAS empty, there was NO WATER in it.” “it was well watered every where” “before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah” “as the garden of the Lord” “the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire” “from the Lord out of heaven;” “and that which grew upon the ground.”

Now look at what the LORD FORMS, out of the ground, Man and the Garden. Woman is taken out of Man. The river of water went out of Eden.

“the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created”
“in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,”
“for the LORD GOD HAD NOT CAUSED IT TO RAIN UPON THE EARTH”
“and there was not a man to till the ground.”
“But there went up a mist from the earth”
“WATERED THE WHOLE FACE OF THE GROUND”
“THE LORD GOD FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND”
“AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE”
“AND MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL”
“out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight”
“and good for food”
“THE TREE OF LIFE ALSO IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN”
“AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.”
“AND A RIVER WENT OUT OF EDEN TO WATER THE GARDEN”
“Lord God had taken FROM MAN, MADE HE A WOMAN”
“she shall be called WOMAN, BECAUSE SHE WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN”

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

“the earth was without form, and void”
”darkness was upon the face of the deep”
”the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”

And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

“let the dry land appear”
“God called the dry land Earth”
“the gathering together of the waters called he Seas”

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

“Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life”
“and fowl that may fly above the earth”
”God created great whales”
“and every winged fowl after his kind”
”and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly”
“fill the waters in the seas”
”and let fowl multiply in the earth”

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him”
“male and female created he them.”

Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.

“cast him into some pit”
” Some evil beast hath devoured him”

And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him;
And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.

“And they took him, and cast him into a pit”
“the pit was empty, there was no water in it.”

And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.

“it was well watered every where”
“before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah”
“as the garden of the Lord”

Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;
And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

“the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire”
“from the Lord out of heaven;”
“and that which grew upon the ground.”

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

“the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created”
“in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,”
“for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth”
“and there was not a man to till the ground.”
“But there went up a mist from the earth”
“watered the whole face of the ground”
“the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground”
“and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”
“and man became a living soul”
“out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight”
“and good for food”
“the tree of life also in the midst of the garden”
“and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
“And a river went out of Eden to water the garden”

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

“Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman”
“she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”

I have a slightly different take on Sodom and Gomorrah than Ms. Neiman.

Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah
“But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
-Genesis 19:5-8.

You have to wonder what Lot was doing in Sodom in the first place. After wandering around in the desert tending his flock, Lot was tired of having sex with goats. He also knew of Sodom’s reputation; well before Las Vegas, what happened in Sodom, stayed in your ass. Also, his wife, a toothless old hag at 32, was probably complaining about being treated like a beast of burden, and he figured at least in Sodom, both his wife and his virgin daughters were safe. Who cared if they went uncovered around a bunch of queers.

In fact, Lot’s wife and daughters loved Sodom. The gay residents quickly took to the beautiful young girls like all gay men take to young beauties, shopping for clothes and jewelry with them and talking about the latest fads. Although, Lot’s wife was a toothless old hag, Sodom’s residents were also as fond and protective of her as her daughters, for she reminded them of their own mothers, who were also toothless old hags or dead from childbirth or spousal abuse.

All in all, it was a good move. Lot found having gay sex was infinitely more pleasurable than having sex with goats, whom he could have sex with anytime. Like many middle-eastern men, as long as he was on top, he was considered a man and not gay. Meanwhile his wife found her niche; she opened up Sodom’s first beauty salon and spa, and although water was in short supply, it quickly became known for its exquisite sand baths, which eased the aches and pains of strenuous gay sex. Her daughters worked in the salon where they could suggest the latest treatments and talk endlessly with the customers about the newest baubles that arrived with the caravans. Also, Lot’s wife, reminding the customers of their mothers, was eagerly sought out for her timely advice, becoming known as the oracle of Sodom.

Then the angels showed up, supposedly to warn Lot of the coming wrath of God. However, it turns out they were actually randy gay angels, arriving in Sodom for some randy gay sex before the Lord put an end to all the fun in the Valley of Sodom and Gomorrah. He was such a killjoy.

Randy gay angels, like many gay men, are exquisitely beautiful, though unlike gay men they actually have sweet, freshly douched vaginas for tushies; much better than sodomites or goats. Lot wasn’t about to share them with the mob of sodomites at his door. Instead, Lot offered the gay mob his virgin teenage daughters (a substitute for the angels) to placate the gay mob. This really pissed the mob off because the mob knew that he knew that they didn’t want his nubile young daughters (who were also some of their dearest friends). They wanted the exquisitely beautiful randy gay angels so they could pull a randy gay train.

According to the bible, the angels weren’t gay and they smote the gay mob for their wickedness and sins. This was categorically untrue. The angels were gay and quite randy and after letting Lot eat out their tushies, they immediately set upon the gay mob with ferocious ardor. Unfortunately for the mob, having sex with very excited randy gay angels is lethal, hence the legend of being smoted.

After the angels had sated their fierce ardor and unintentionally wiped out the sodomites, they prodded Lot to make haste and flee Sodom with his family to avoid the coming destruction, while they decamped to Gomorrah.

According to Genesis 19:26, God turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for looking back toward Sodom. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt. She was again a beast of burden, most likely following behind him like any good dutiful wife, unless he sent her up ahead to clear the landmines. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too, yet he managed to escape her fate.

I think what actually happened was that when his wife complained outside of town about having to leave the cozy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt and then said God did it. Lot’s wife loved Sodom because all the men were into having gay sex, doting on her and her daughters, while she actualized her inner entrepreneur. Lot loved Sodom for the same reason and was very unhappy about having to go back to his goats. He stopped having sex and left her alone too, because she was an old hag.

After having clobbered his wife, he impregnates his daughters because they got him drunk and took advantage of him in a cave. In reality, Lot, even though he was a god-fearing man, now had two beautiful virgin teenage daughters instead of an ugly old wife. If his daughters did get him drunk, it was probably so that he would fall asleep and leave them alone. Instead he was probably one mean-ass drunk who self-medicated to keep the demons at bay that apparently afflicted the lineage of Abraham with mental illness. Not only was the lineage schizo, but their god was too. (e.g. Abraham almost filleted and barbequed his son because god told him to in order to test his love for god. Moses is plagued by a god who loves him and then tries to kill him, gives him visions of burning bushes, laws, a bad sense of direction, and finally discourses on what to do to non-believers).

Regardless, Lot was going to have his way and history is written by the victors; i.e. his daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. I’d like to see how that defense would fly in a modern court of law.

Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."

The Judge, looking incredulous, asks, "How old are your daughters, sir?"

Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and virgins, not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"

The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions.

Describing the dispute as between believers and atheists is misleading, because that falsely implies that humanism and moral reason are atheistic concepts. The real dispute is between authoritarians (a small but vocal minority of believers and nonbelievers) and humanistic moral reasoners (the majority of both believers and nonbelievers.) In my experience, most believers and nonbelievers recognize that morality is about actions that help or harm others, and not about simply following rules.

"And wiping Threepio's memory in Episode III was just plain mean! :)"

Only way to do it. :) So he re-learns a lesson or two. Swinging obliquely back to topic, sometimes it's not about what you remember, so much as who remembers you. :)

Paganplace --

Yeah, the first three movies put Obi-Wan's comment in Episode IV that he "can't recall having ever owned a droid" into some perspective. Would Artoo *ever* admit that he was owned by *anyone*?

And wiping Threepio's memory in Episode III was just plain mean! :)

Anyway, my apologies to the blog for the off-topic posts. We now return to your regularly scheduled bloodletting...

Haha. :) I have to say R2 is kind of a favorite, anyway. One character the prequels actually really enhanced: "Here's the little guy who's known what's going on all along." :)

Danger! Danger Paganplace! Danger! :)

I'm also glad that you've made the transition to the new user registration format. Sadly, CCNL has made it too, but I haven't seen any posts from J Jovenz lately...

Back to your mnemonic: have you ever gotten the feeling that R2-D2 swears like a sailor throughout all six *Star Wars* movies? Call me crazy, but I keep imagining Joe Pesci's character from *Goodfellas* underneath all those beeps and bloops...

Ender2:

"So yes, religion, at least the tribal mideastern ones, is more often the source of immorality than the cure."

"Desert religions" are of course going to tend to be biased toward seeing oneself as set against a pretty barren world where the group *has* to stay together under pretty strict discipline... where wandering off for an hour or two or disobeying a leader cause you're thirsty or hungry *could kill you, if not others.* That's how it can be in the desert. Translating that into other situations, like urbanization or more abundate climates with more complex-to-humans environments, can end up down the road with people obeying absolutely what doesn't really *fit,* unless they adapt.

Part of the reason a lot of mainstream religions can't cope with *excess* is because their narratives and laws tend to be designed for *scarcity.*

Hail and well-met, Robert-B1! I hadn't remembered you by your name at first. I had this little mnemonic about Star Wars droids and Robbie the Robot, but it didn't trigger. :)

"If that is the case, then we're still left with the problem of morality having its source in humanity."

I don't think that's a problem in a philosophical sense, ...we live in a nation of laws derived by the consent of the governed, and we actually do OK, till someone decides to try and claim it for a 'rival, higher' authority.

" This means (at least to me) that there is no standard by which we can judge the morality of others. After all, what man has created, man can alter as he sees fit..."

We should. The onus is on the 'seeing what's fit' part. We learn these things by experience. Skinned knees and blind alleys and all.

"You make an excellent point about natural law being conflated with religious doctrine. But if you look at the religions and philosophies of the world, you will see that most of them have certain ethical ideas in common, which seems to be strong evidence for some kind of basic moral standard that is independent of human opinion. In his *The Abolition of Man*, C.S. Lewis calls this the "Tao"."

Sure. Something apart from any one religious view must be functional. Great. Doesn't mean that it was all just dropped in our laps, complete and entire, by any one religion, or that some of the things in common aren't problems of 'civilization' itself that are still in progress... Homophobia's pretty common in the few religious systems that get big hegemonies, for instance, though by no means universal: is there something about these few systems which turns some instinct related to sexual dominance into *policy?* That doesn't seem to be functional or harmonious, though, outside certain agendas.

Is the 'morality' crafted to enlist these instincts toward certain ends 'Natural Law,' then, or is it something else?

Who's got the stuff to figure it out? A book?

Seems not.

How bout *us?*

The way I figure it is, no one real said the Gods established some 'Order' from which we must inevitably decay, unless we strictly obey a set of rules.

What if They, or some of em, are like our *Parents,* and not only expect, but *demand* we *grow? * If we haven't grown in the past few thousand years, I'm afraid we must have missed something.

The Cults of Abraham must convince their constituents of their inability to be moral. None of these faiths would exist were it not that they make you immoral, then provide "forgiveness" for that immorality. If you are a moral person that acts accordingly in all things, you are still sinful just because their creator myth created you that way and their religions don't seem to even do well in teaching morality.

So yes, religion, at least the tribal mideastern ones, is more often the source of immorality than the cure.

Chaotician:

"Frankly, our identity with fellow humans is the source of morality! "

On this bit, I agree. Humans are equipped with *empathy,* ..parts of our brains can't actually tell the difference between what happens to someone else and what happens to us, it's part of how we learn.

I personally don't see the Gods as some beings or a Being who came up with some absolutist-but-critical verbal 'rules' for us to puzzle out and try to follow, without which some horrible bestial nature would necessarily just take over: rather, I see Them as guides and parental-type helpers toward the end of enlightening that which we're all born with.

If a 'source' of morality, not one that's external to the world and communicated (Badly, I might add) just through interpreting some one of a small selection of old books. It goes deeper than that, whatever you believe, I'd say.

Chaotician:

"Frankly, our identity with fellow humans is the source of morality!"

OK, but seeing as much of human history can be read through the lens of tribal rivalry, it would seem that this is a poor basis for the development of moral ideas. Why is it that such diverse societies seem to have common ideas about what is right and what is wrong?

"Therefore, it can be claimed with some justification, that people are moral in spite of religion! Most religions have very little to do with morality."

To this comment, I will simply say that the evil done in the name of religion tends to make the front page, whereas the good it does is usually shunted back somewhere near the coupons...

Paganplace:

Hail and well met! As always, your views are always cogent and welcomed.

You wrote, "Atheists, in general, think morality is something we make between ourselves, each other, and our instincts, if I can characterize for them. They see themselves, in a way, as 'cutting out the middleman' in the persons of religious authoritarians."

If that is the case, then we're still left with the problem of morality having its source in humanity. This means (at least to me) that there is no standard by which we can judge the morality of others. After all, what man has created, man can alter as he sees fit...

You make an excellent point about natural law being conflated with religious doctrine. But if you look at the religions and philosophies of the world, you will see that most of them have certain ethical ideas in common, which seems to be strong evidence for some kind of basic moral standard that is independent of human opinion. In his *The Abolition of Man*, C.S. Lewis calls this the "Tao".

Frankly, our identity with fellow humans is the source of morality! Religion and nationalism are the principal means used by leaders and tyrants to break that bond creating "other" which can then be treated immorally.

Therefore, it can be claimed with some justification, that people are moral in spite of religion! Most religions have very little to do with morality.

On this, Robert:

"I agree with Ms. Neiman that it is certainly possible for an atheist to behave in a moral manner. However, I have to ask the atheist, "What the basis for your morality?" I've had discussions with people on these boards who claim that there is a biological (and hence Darwinian) basis for the concept of natural law. While this is a fascinating idea, I'm still waiting to be convinced of its validity.."

Well, you would have to understand that within an atheist's point of view, ....if religion is manufactured by humans, then so is the morality people associate with it. Which means it's clearly possible to them, they just differ on where it comes from.

When people start conflating an idea of 'Natural Law' with 'Scriptural Commands,' then what tends to happen is people start thinking whatever that scripture can be made to say *is* 'Natural Law.'

Prime example right there in that Sodom and Gomorrah story, ....'I think this is about how bad gay people are, therefore God knows gay people are horrible. It's 'Natural Law' to hate them.'

Atheists, in general, think morality is something we make between ourselves, each other, and our instincts, if I can characterize for them. They see themselves, in a way, as 'cutting out the middleman' in the persons of religious authoritarians.

Oh, yeah, and inevitably, someone'll bring up, 'Then why did he offer his daughters?' also making sexual assumptions. To that,I'd ask, 'Exactly what status do you think unmarried girls of a dishonored house would find in the world of the time?' Lot made the offer to try and shame the crowd out of violating that house's honor.

That's what makes sense to me.

Ms. Neiman wrote, "You can stand firm even without the belief that God's own voice is directing you - so long as you rely on principles of justice which have guided the better angels of our nature from ancient days to our own."

Ahhh, but who or what establishes these "principles of justice?" If there are indeed universal standards for moral behavior, then who or what set these up? If they were invented by man, then can't they be changed by man? If so, then they really aren't "standards of behavior" at all and we have to respect the "morals" of the Al-Quaeda suicide bomber, the concentration camp guard, and the abortion doctor slayer as being "not bad, just different."

The great advocate of the separation of Church and state, John Locke, had this to say about atheism in his work *A Letter Concerning Toleration*: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all..." Locke claims that denying the existence of a god (or gods, for that matter) is tantamount to a denial of morality, which is the basis of the "bonds of human society".

I agree with Ms. Neiman that it is certainly possible for an atheist to behave in a moral manner. However, I have to ask the atheist, "What the basis for your morality?" I've had discussions with people on these boards who claim that there is a biological (and hence Darwinian) basis for the concept of natural law. While this is a fascinating idea, I'm still waiting to be convinced of its validity...

Actually, the fact is that people added the homosexuality, and likely even the 'rape' to the Sodom story in later translation... Frankly, a city with roving gangs of angel-rapers just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, anyway. As one poster said, who *would* live there? Doesn't seem very plausible, does it?

I've heard from a number of teachers of this stuff not-in-a-hurry-to translate all badness into sexual depravity, that the 'sin of Sodom' is more familiar to our world:

They were paranoid. Suspicious of strangers. So suspicious of strangers and xenophobic that they were willing to try and force Lot to violate something well known about the cultures of the region, both in Pagan times and now: the utter sanctity of guests under one's roof. When someone takes you under their roof, they're supposed to be safe. Period.

To turn guests out so that a frightened townspeople might 'know' them doesn't *have* to be in the 'Biblical' sense. It'd be a violation of the sacred law of guest-right.

Of hospitality.

That, according to the culture of the time, would presumably be enough, without getting lurid about it. King-type Gods are usually the ones with a *real* thing about hospitality, ...as one might expect, because this is one of the primary duties of the chieftainship They once represented.

I think the author misses the point of the story. I don't think God is bargaining with Abraham. He simply acknowledges the fact he will restrain judgement on the wicked for the sake of the righteous. God is the divine judge and he is the only one that knows best ("Who has known the mind of the Lord"). There is a certain amount of reason that we can deduce from God's judgement, but in the end only God's judgement is just.

Let's just remember that God still destroyed the cities. He know there weren't 5 righteous people before the converstion and if you think about it, it would be an anomally. No righteous person would live in a city like Sodom. They would agreeing with the practice even if they didn't practice it. This conversation between God and Abraham is God allowing us to see some of his reasoning. God is being very personal but ultimately God's will is fullfilled.

We should also note that God hears Abrahams prayer. I don't honestly understand how God hears and answers our prayers. But here is more truth that our prayers can make a difference. God is listening and we may be able to give a wicked person another chance because of our prayers.

As for morality, God is the ulitimate source. He does not change his mind about what is right. He may have held his wrath a little longer but ultimately these people needed to be punished. And God does it with divine judgement, which is perfect.

If you believe in an all powerful God you must believe he knows what is moral. In fact he is the creator of morality. That is why most everyone of faith goes to God for guidance. Our minds can reason things out but they are so falliable. I am convinced that any practice, no matter how detestible, can be reasoned at some level. I look at the Nazi years of Germany. These are generally reasonable people but they practiced and allowed horrible genocide because at the time, it made sense. The country has since repented. My point is that I can't solely rely on my reason, which can change with circumstances. I need to rely on God's moral wisdom.

Google covenant morality for humanity to see how I justify the humanist ethic and contemn the relgious one.
We, using our refined evolved moral sense, discern conseguences for humans, other animals and the enviornment rather than what those mean-spirited men of old gleaned from their own whims and tastes as words of Yahweh, whom they invented out of their own imaginations!
I salute Susan!
Onward rationalist inquirers!