Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The god of the Bible Endorses Offered Rape and Actual Genocide

Editor’s Note: The purpose of this piece is not to make a moral case against Christianity. It is not to declare that the biblical god character is immoral. It is not to insinuate that, by inculcating Christian theology into one’s children, one will produce immoral adults. On issues related to morality, I am a nihilist; that is, I do not believe objective “right” and “wrong,” or “good” and “evil,” or “moral” and “immoral” exist. Thus, I am quite possibly the worst conceivable individual to make a moral case against any belief system’s truth. This is why my present purposes relate much more to academics and scholarship than to passion or righteous outrage. I aim simply to explain what the god of the Bible endorses, without standing in judgment of what he endorses.

On any Bible-centered Christian worldview, it is quite easy to apprehend what is right and what is wrong...what good and what evil. To a Christian, such as my frequent interlocutor Rhology, that which is good is consonant with god’s nature and that which is evil is counter to it. A key point must be made clear: On Christianity, it is not that god’s will conforms to that which is good; rather, on this view, god’s nature defines what is good. To a Christian, anything god does, commands or affirms is necessarily good, and could not be otherwise. Turning to the Bible, then, any behavior god exhibits therein, and any action he commands or endorses, is necessarily righteous on the Christian view.

To live up to this post’s title, then, I first must prove that god endorses—approves of—“offered rape.” To do this, I shall cite Lot, the well-known biblical character whose unfortunate wife was turned into a pillar of salt. When two angels came to Sodom, which god had marked for destruction for its unbridled wickedness, the kind and righteous Lot would not accept their intention to spend the night in the square and, instead, took them into his house. No sooner had they eaten a feast than the plot thickened….

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Genesis 19:4-8

I selected a Bible translation in easily understood English to ensure the gist was clear: The men of Sodom were surrounding the house because they wanted to fuck the two angels. But Lot, being a good host, intervened in an effort to forestall such an unpleasant experience. His suggestion to the libidinous troop was to rape his two virgin daughters instead, whom he offered to bring out for them. This was the suggestion of Lot, the most righteous man in the entire city.

How do we know Lot was considered righteous? We do not even have to cite the simple fact the angels moved to save him and his family. It is spelled out very clearly:

and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),

2 Peter 2:7-8

The Bible, on Christianity, is the word of god. On the Christian view, god’s nature is the definition of what is right, or good. The Bible describes Lot as righteous, and god’s own angels move to deliver Lot from Sodom’s imminent destruction. At the same time, in his efforts to bargain with a lascivious mob of would-be angel sodomites, Lot offers his virginal daughters up for rape. Thus, in at least some circumstances, offered rape, on the Christian view, is consonant with upstanding morality.

The Bible also expresses, in the clearest of terms, the moral righteousness of genocide in some cases. Let us first define genocide so no later confusion is possible: Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group, whether racial, political, cultural or religious. To demonstrate god’s endorsement, the challenge is not so much finding applicable passages to select as avoiding the potential pitfall of illustrating the point gratuitously. Here are a few prime examples:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,
and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.
"But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.

Deuteronomy 7:1-5

"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.
"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

Now Joshua captured Makkedah on that day, and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it He left no survivor Thus he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho.
Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah, and fought against Libnah.
The LORD gave it also with its king into the hands of Israel, and he struck it and every person who was in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor in it. Thus he did to its king just as he had done to the king of Jericho.
And Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Libnah to Lachish, and they camped by it and fought against it.
The LORD gave Lachish into the hands of Israel; and he captured it on the second day, and struck it and every person who was in it with the edge of the sword, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish, and Joshua defeated him and his people until he had left him no survivor.
And Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Lachish to Eglon, and they camped by it and fought against it.
They captured it on that day and struck it with the edge of the sword; and he utterly destroyed that day every person who was in it, according to all that he had done to Lachish.
Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron, and they fought against it.
They captured it and struck it and its king and all its cities and all the persons who were in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor, according to all that he had done to Eglon. And he utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it.
Then Joshua and all Israel with him returned to Debir, and they fought against it.
He captured it and its king and all its cities, and they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person who was in it. He left no survivor. Just as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and its king, as he had also done to Libnah and its king.
Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Joshua 10:28-40

Working from our definition that genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group, whether racial, political, cultural or religious, there can be little—nay, absolutely no—doubt that the god of the Bible has commanded genocide. This is not to say that any genocide is consonant with godly righteousness; not in the least. It is not even to say that one in 1000 genocides is consonant with godliness. It is merely to prove that, on the Christian view, in principle, genocide can be consistent with righteousness before god. It proves that, if god condescended to humanity again tomorrow, and he commanded genocide, it would be consistent with some previous commands and, on the Christian view, to perform genocide would be moral.

I believe it has been established sufficiently that the god of the Bible—in circumstances however limited—endorses offered rape and actual genocide. In those circumstances—again, however limited—offered rape and actual genocide, on Christianity, are consonant with god’s necessarily righteous nature.


Blogger Lvka said...

God is glad for every small step we make towards the good; even if it's not towards the good per se, but only from a bigger evil to a lesser one. (Though in the example in question, God did not allow for any kind of rape to take place).

3:58 PM EST  
Blogger The Jolly Nihilist said...

Correct, he did not allow it.

However, that conceded, do you agree with my point?

That is, do you agree that, in some circumstances, whether or not those circumstances are replicable today, it is morally righteous--that is, consonant with god's necessarily righteous nature--to offer your daughters to a libidinous mob for them to rape?

1:26 PM EST  
Blogger Lvka said...

It is neither righteous, nor sane, let alone God-pleasing. Lot (who was obviously physically powerless against the raging mob) had two choices: do nothing and let them mock-rape innocent [and male] strangers; or intervene to make them commit a lesser sin, as opposed to a greater one.

For instance, when evacuating a sinking ship, women and children take priority, even if this might mean inevitable death to many or all or almost all male passengers: BUT this does NOT mean that "in some circumstances, whether or not those circumstances are replicable today, it is morally righteous--that is, consonant with god's necessarily righteous nature--to offer your men to a ragingly stormy sea for them to be drowned to death"... or whatever...

6:58 PM EST  

I agree with the last comment. The rule of lesser of two evils applies to desperate circumstances when Lot must have foolishly under pressure thought offering his daughters who he thought were compliant as never having sex-assuming they wanted to, but we're unmarried, and this would be sin, though not til Moses wrote the law later on as God dictated to him (after he smashed the ones God wrote), that Lot had no sense of wisdom and ethics in this scenario. He feared that the guests, under his hospitality and protection, not knowing they were angels, would be raped and being men, this was a far greater crime, than allowing his daughters to experience sex, though in a non married non godly, non decent and non loving way, and that they wouldn't kill her or abuse her, (either), as he wrongly or rightly assumed they would agree or consent, for some reason. We don't know the full story with Lots daughters, but it cannot be denied, this is a horrid and traumatic thought. Today, and even after Moses, offering daughters to be raped is a terrible thing. Yet this occurs later on with the Benjamite men who abused a poor women to death, but then revenge was taken on these benjamanites and so the morality of the day seems very ambiguous. It has nothing to do with God. Lot acted on his own to decide, under pressure, how to avoid the abominable act of male rape. Satanists do this act, as an act of worship to Lucifer, as do Masons and other Pagan demon worshipping cults. This may be the reason, it is a far worse crime. Due to the occult satanic association with sodomy and male rape, as well as other acts like beastiality. In contrast, note the morality of rape in Leviticus. If a woman is raped but does not cry for help, she is judged. If she does, the man is put to death. If the man agrees to marry her and pay a dowry he may, on her parents discretion, avoid the death penalty of being stoned. So Leviticus gives us a clearer idea of God's Law and feelings on rape. He says it's a capital crime. So Lot was not acting or speaking God's Law, but rather the text emphasises, how Lot was thinking under extreme fear stress. And pressure. Did he love his daughters? We don't know. Maybe not. Interestingly later, they get him drunk and rape him! They have sex with their father to produce children. This is obviously wrong and not God's idea. Just because the Bible tells a story of what people do, does not mean God endorses it. Its only after the deed or sin do we find out if God judged them or punished them somehow. Lots so called righteousness was compared to the Sodomites as a contrast. It does not mean Lot was wise clever or thinking straight at the time. So you cannot assume Lot was acting in line with God's Laws on rape, as Leviticus proves, rape is a capital crime. Lot chose what he thought was Lesser of Two Evils. In his view,not under God's. Truth be told, God says homosexuality especially rape is a capital crime and an abomination. Usually that word denotes a spiritual implication. As said, a satanic act of worship. So with this added defiling debasement of extreme sin, it could be argued, that Lot made the choice based on what he knew of the angels who fell with satan raping men women and animals or seducing them in disguise (see book of Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees) .

2:30 PM EST  

As for the genocide issue, the Bible clearly states, as the above poster said, the Israelites were under contracted covenant with God NOT to worship the demon gods of the Nephilim nations around them. God warned He would destroy them if they did. Yet He Marked all the Righteous people so they would not be killed. Like the Lambs blood on the doorposts of the Passover tenth plague in Egypt, God does NOT kill righteous people or the innocent. The question remains, did women children and old people worship the demon gods? If so, they would be killed. How young? Obviously babies toddlers and infants would be excluded as they have no say or cannot worship demons, so they would escape the killing. Older people who know better and women would be killed. Jezebel didn't escape Elijah throwing her out the window for killing God's prophets and making Israel worship baal (satan/head demon) the sun god. So why discriminate just coz she is a woman? If she is evil, possessed, unrepentant, and murders and corrupts people, she has to go. So imagine thousands of women like Jezebel. Is it wrong now to kill them? Worshipping demon gods, nephilim, etc makes people evil as they become possessed with demons, so God brings judgement on evil people either directly or via his servants. Israel knew the deal. They ignored repeated warnings. Ezekiel 9 is the best example of God's Grace. He Marked the Righteous which included old men women and children who were not demon possessed. So God would not kill young toddlers. However things changed when Christ came. Demons could be cast out from Christ's time onwards, so killing the possessed was no longer necessary. Jesus came to save the world from demonic possession. Christians are to continue his ministry as Mark 16:17 states. But the devil tries to thwart every Christian from doing his work. So that's my humble opinion. God's ways are higher than ours. Look to Leviticus for answers on God's Law and feelings about certain crimes. Not speculative interpretation based on today's culture law and social zeitgeist. Remember in Greek times they were pedophiles and rapists that ruled society. This is evil in God's Law and in ours today. Why don't people point to those pagan philophers and critise them. Plato Socrates and Aristotle were all pedophiles yet the West praises them as some heroic thinker pioneers. No. The Bible shows us God's Law. Some of its characters didn't do what God said or were ignorant, or culture was ambiguous about an issue before God gave us Moses Laws. So use Leviticus and the New Testament as Christ never took anything away from the Law, but fulfilled it. Yet his death atones for our sins, as we follow God's Laws on morality, ethics, justice and leniency. What is a crime? God's Law tells us. God never said killing was a crime. He said murder was. Sex is not a crime, but fornication, adultery and rape are. Also homosexuality beastiality and pedophilia are 1000 times worse. The latter being abominations, deserving death. So perspective and context is needed to assess these issues. Witchcraft sorcery mediums and occultic practices were also punishable by death or exile. These people in Ezekiel did all these and assuredly the sexual crimes also. As idolatry leads to demonic possession, deviancy and perversion. Before Christ, to cleanse the land of evil, if the people didn't repent, they were killed, as they knew the covenant with God would bring that on their heads. Thank God for Jesus! Shalom.

2:35 PM EST  

Post a Comment

<< Home