athiest this is for you! (page 3)

unstopableravens

holy crogmagum man thats a long dowmload, what page do you want to discuss?

unstopableravens

ok page 54 righteous, im read through this, here what i want than we stick to this topic and not jump around, fair?

cantleave

OK, Good chapter, So Fred starts with an examination of David's righteouness. So give us your rebuttal of this chapter....

cantleave

To make it easier I have cut and pasted the chapter..........

RIGHTEOUSNESS

Throughout history, people have tried to live up to God’s righteous standards, so as to gain his approval. The Bible holds up many shining examples of persons who pleased God. We would do well to imitate them as closely as we are able.

This chapter will answer the question that is on the lips of every person aspiring to God’s approval:

“How many murders can you commit and still be considered a righteous man?”

Or, for those who are differently inclined:

“How many drunken orgies can you have with your children and still be considered faithful?”

The short answers to these questions are:

a) forty two, and

b) two.

The long answers will take a little more time. Consider the following examples:

David

David was a righteous man. God personally chose him to be the King of Israel. He was blessed to guide the nation to its largest dominion in history. The promised Messiah was foretold to come from his line. A thousand years later, in Hebrews 11:32,

he was listed along with the other great men of old. There was no doubt that God approved of David, but what was he really like? Was he more obedient, moral, or upright than anyone else? Let’s take a look.

To start with, David won the hand of his first wife in a rather unusual way. David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. - 1 Samuel 18:27

This conjures up a disquieting mental image. Picture David, or one of his attendants slicing the foreskins off of 200 dead bodies. Better yet, imagine yourself as the person assigned by David to do this job. All of a sudden, cleaning tables at Burger King doesn’t look like such a bad job.

David’s new wife must have been a little bit of a disappointment to him, because, before long she was marked down:

Then David sent messengers to Ish-bo'sheth Saul's son, saying, "Give me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed at the price of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." - 2 Samuel 3:14

Ahh, the Good old days, when even the king’s daughter could be obtained for only a handful of foreskins. With inflation rates today, you practically need a wheelbarrow full to get anyone decent. My wife wouldn’t even look at foreskins. I had to buy a Firebird to get her.

For those of you who are keeping count, notice that the first version stated that the foreskins of 200 Philistines were involved. The second version mentions only 100 foreskins. Now any good Biblical appologist worth his salt can dispose of this error very easily. All one has to do is argue that the Philistines had only one penis for every two men.

Now, I think we should pause for a moment, and picture the scene as David presents the foreskins to Saul. David would enter into the presence of King Saul and set a couple buckets of foreskins in front of him. They would be bloody, slimey, and probably smelly. Would Saul count them? After all, maybe David loaded a bucket with fingers and toes, putting only a thin layer of foreskins on top. And what if there were only 195 foreskins? Would Saul have withheld his daughter? To tell you the truth, I think the sight of all those foreskins would make me think twice about giving my daughter to this guy.

Seriously, although this story is gruesome, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a warrior killing his enemies. I merely slipped it in because it’s one hell of a story, and I wanted to highlight the foreskin discrepancy.

Now, let’s get back to David’s misdeeds. We have already made the point that God approved of David and considered him to be a righteous man. Was he really righteous?

Well, 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12 tell the story of David and Bath Sheba. Apparently, David saw this married woman bathing (does her name seem a little too coincidental?) and became enraptured with her. He sent for her and got her pregnant. When he was unable to cover up the pregnancy, he arranged for her husband to be killed, and David took her for his own wife. God then penalized David by killing the son that was born to Bath Sheba. So, David committed adultery and murder.

Then, in 2 Chronicles chapter 21, we are told the story of David and the census. In this tale, David commits the terrible sin of counting the Israelites. This doesn’t seem too bad to me, but God didn’t see it that way. He was so incensed at David that he murdered 70,000 innocent Israelites as punishment. That must have been a pretty bad sin.

Still, despite these flaws, God saw fit to declare David righteous.

Lot

Now, if there ever was a righteous, upright man, it was Lot. In fact, he was so noticeably righteous that of all the people living in Sodom, he was the only one that was not worthy of the death penalty. God singled him out as deserving of recognition, and sent two angels to visit him with a warning.

Our story is recorded in Genesis 19: Two angels drop in on Lot, and he prevails upon them to spend the night in his house. After Lot and his guests enjoy a good meal, the local men of the city come calling. They would like to have a little slap and tickle with the visitors. Here is the opening account:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." - Genesis 19:4,5

For a book that is filled to the brim with murder, mayhem, and misconduct, told in intricate detail, every now and then it seems to become shy about certain sensitive subjects. When the the above-quoted scripture uses the word “know”, it is not referring to a verbal bonding session. Just so that there is no doubt about what is intended, here is the subtle wording as found in the New World Translation:

And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” - Genesis 19:5

You’ll have to admit that it’s not very often you hear that phrase upon answering a knock at the door.

Now, I’m having a little trouble with the credibility of this story. First of all, it seems a little odd to me that every male in the city, both young and old, would be 1) homosexual, and 2) rapists. I mean, where did the children come from if there were no straight males (the scripture says there were young ones), and why would they need to rape strangers, when there were plenty of willing males in their midst?

Also, this must have been a pretty small city if half of the population could knock on Lot’s door. Here’s another question: if all of the males were gay, what about the females? Were they all lesbian, or just frustrated?

Undoubtedly, this account goes a long way toward explaining the general intollerance, stereotyping, and homophobia found among fundamentalists today. So, what’s righteous Lot to do? Well, he does what any courageous role model would do. He offers his virgin daughters to the crowd.

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." - Genesis 19:6-8

Lot had several options in this case. He could stand stand up to them, like a man; he could allow these superhuman, powerful angels to defend themselves (which they eventually did); or, he could selflessly offer himself in place of his daughters. Instead, he offered his daughters to the mob for them to rape.

What kind of a sick father would do something like this? Well, he was the kind of person who would do the following:

Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."

So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. - Genesis 19:30-36

Let’s move this story into the twentieth century: imagine explaining to your wife that you have just had sex with, and impregnated, your daughter. Assuming that she doesn’t leave, injure, or kill you and/or press criminal charges, the following day you go back and tell her that you did it again with your other daughter - but it’s OK, because you were totally stone drunk at the time.

For a righteous man, Lot appeared to have a few bad qualities. None of this seemed to affect God’s opinion of him, though. In 2 Peter 2:7, the Bible refers to “righteous Lot” who was “greatly distressed at the licentiousness of the wicked”.

God probably should have let him go with the rest of Sodom. On the other hand, Lot did possess the remarkable ability to perform sexually while totally inebriated. So, he wasn’t all bad.

Elisha

I would like to take you to a hypothetical situation.

Imagine that a substitute teacher is responsible for a fifth grade class. During the course of the morning, he finds it necessary to visit the office. On his way back, he hears noise coming from his classroom. Without his presence, the students have started misbehaving. When he gets to the class, he sees that students are walking around the room, talking and laughing with each other, and throwing paper airplanes. When they notice that he has returned, some of the bolder ones start to insult him. They call him names and everyone has a laugh at his expense.

Obviously, the teacher has lost control of the class. So, to set matters right, he calmly closes the door, locks it, and goes to his desk. He opens the drawer and takes out a hunting knife. Reaching for the student in the first row, he cleanly slits her throat and flops her back into her seat. The next student doubles over in pain after being stabbed in the stomach. A boy running for the door is caught and stabbed several times in the back. Eventually, the teacher catches them all and leaves the room filled with blood and carnage. He then walks out, cleans up, and reports back to the office for his next assignment. The following day, the local newspaper describes the scene in the classroom and publishes an editorial defending and justifying the teacher’s actions. I’m sure you will agree that this story is not only sick and depraved, but it is also unfathomable that society would condone the actions of this psycho.

Now, let’s tell another story.

Elisha was an early prophet of God. He was used by God on several occasions, and was the natural successor to the prophet Elijah. He was an authority figure appointed by God himself. One day, some small boys began to heckle him. Here is what he did:

He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore fortytwo of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and thence he returned to Sama'ria. - 2 Kings 2:23-25

Forty two young children were savagely murdered because they insulted a bald man. The story is recorded in our moral guidebook, the Bible. Elisha was a righteous man, one that we would do well to imitate. Could someone please explain the difference between a criminally insane mass murderer and a prophet of God? I can’t seem to see any difference.

The next time that I read about a child being mauled by a pit bull, I will assume that the child had it coming.

Samson

Another man that found favor in God’s eyes was Samson. First, let’s consider the evidence of God’s approval:

Samson was the Judge of Israel for 20 years. (Judges 15:20) His rule was successful, so based on the ancient tradition of assuming that successful rulership meant God’s approval, Samson was favored by God.

Samson’s birth was announced by an angel prior to his conception. This is surely an indication that God was sending Samson to Israel for a special purpose. In fact, the Angel specified that Samson would “deliver Israel”, almost like an early version of the Messiah. (Judges 13:5) The angel who announced Samson’s birth also said that he would be a Nazarite. A Nazarite was a particular classification of Israelite that had special religious privileges. (Judges 13:7) He was famous for his spectacular strength. It is implied that this strength was miraculously provided by God himself, giving further evidence of God’s approval.

So, Samson was approved by God. But, was he a good guy? Take a look.

Judges chapter 14 tells a rather disturbing story. Samson enters into a bet with some local men. He bets them that they cannot give the correct answer to a riddle. The stakes are 30 changes of clothing. So, Samson asks the riddle and the men are stumped. They use his wife to pressure Samson into revealing the answer. Like a moron, he tells her the answer, and the men win the bet. To pay his debt, he goes into town, kills 30 innocent men, and steals their clothing. Now, you can call Samson a murderer and a thief, but at least he never reneges on a bet.

Later on, he goes to Gaza and spends the night with a prostitute. (Judges 16:1,2) He also appears to have boinked Delilah, although the Bible is not totally clear on this. So, you can now add fornication to the list. His marital status is unclear at this point, so he may have also committed adultery.

He killed 1,000 Phillistines with the jawbone of an ass, and, towards the end of his life, he killed another 3,000 Phillistine men and women who were having a celebration.

Since these were his enemies, I’m not sure if these 4,000 killings are considered a bad thing.

Finally, in Judges, chapter 15, the story of Samson and the foxes is related. In this story, Samson gets revenge on the Phillistines by igniting 300 live foxes and settingthem loose in the Phillistine’s crops. You can now add animal cruelty to his character sketch.

Throughout the story of Samson, numerous indications of his stupidity are recorded. He was repeatedly tricked by people who used the most transparent of ruses on him, and his method of lighting fires was ridiculous in the extreme. Yet, despite his limited mental capacity, and his commission of murder, theft, fornication, and cruelty to animals, God still approved of him.

A Final Word

The Bible abounds with persons held up as examples of righteousness. If these men made the cut, it makes you wonder about those whom the Bible classifies as wicked.

By these standards, most of the persons inhabiting our penal system could be prophets.

unstopableravens

ok i just read on the dowmload, first let me say this he said just about what i thought he would, first lets define who is rightoues and who is not according to the bible: romans 3 :10 : there is not a righteous man not even one. psalms 53:2,3 : says in a nutshell god looks down and see man, and noone has insight all are corrept. not even one that is good. paul understood this ,paul being a man who was used by god to write more books of the bible, said of himself at romans7:18 that in his flesh there dwells nothing good. a person is "declared" righteous not on what we do,because if that were the case than nobody can be righteous isahiah 64:6 shows that our acts of righteousness are a filthy rag to god,we can not make ourselves righteous, this includeds david, lot, etc. in his book he mentions heb 11:32 look at verse 32 throught "faith" . yeas these men did not earn gods favor through works but faith like abrham romans 4:3-5. i agree that i dont know why god dealt so kindly with lot or david because of there sexual sins. and yes i can not wrap my mind around offering my kids to a mob. but they all had faith in god,it is faith in god that allows jesus righteousness to allow us to be counted as righteous. i hope this answer your question.

Deputy Dog

There is none righteous Romans 3:10. The others sited have only Christ's righteousness as a covering by faith.

I seek God's aproval only through what Christ has done, not what I can or will do.

unstopableravens

dog :the thing is we are all born children of wrath, its only by faith that gods wrath is removed from us.

cantleave

You haven't responded to the challenge. I didn't set the challnge on what you thought the book was about, but on what it actually says. You told me you talke the whole bible as true, yet this book is showing that righteous people approved by God, would by today's standards be locked up as psychopaths.

So does God have no morals, apparently not.

athiest this is for you!

Share this