Sarah was half-sister of Abraham?

[Tonus]

Is this what the Bible teaches? I almost threw up when I heard this. How can people believe in incest?

Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him in order to "preserve the family line." I suppose that they can be excused for such warped thinking-- not long before that, their father had offered them up to an unruly mob, explaining to them that the girls were virgins so that we don't misunderstand what he meant when he told them that they could "do what you like with them."

Or as others would say, times were different back then. Offer your virgin daughters up for some gang rape? Date rape your own father in return? As Lot would no doubt have said, "that's just how we roll!"

[Anomalocaris]

Is this what the Bible teaches? I almost threw up when I heard this. How can people believe in incest?

Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him in order to "preserve the family line." I suppose that they can be excused for such warped thinking-- not long before that, their father had offered them up to an unruly mob, explaining to them that the girls were virgins so that we don't misunderstand what he meant when he told them that they could "do what you like with them."

Or as others would say, times were different back then. Offer your virgin daughters up for some gang rape? Date rape your own father in return? As Lot would no doubt have said, "that's just how we roll!"

It's not certain what happened. Lot's recollection is confused by the pillars of salt he licked.

[Drich]

I thought Christians believed in absolute and objective morals, set in place by an unchanging god.

Are morals objective and absolute or are they not?

Noope.

Morals are the ever changing standard of Man.

God's 'brand of Morality' Is refered to in the bible as Righteousness. God's righteousness is whatever He says it is. When ever He says it. The acts themselves mean nothing. For in just about every case where we have a 'thou shalt not,' there is an exception to the rule. (A Time or place where what God would normally considered to be a sin is either commanded or permitted.)

You've confused the fact that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow with the idea that man's everychanging morality is somehow linked or God is bound to a standard of 'morality' of your own making. Ironically if He were then He would not be God.

[Anomalocaris]

I thought Christians believed in absolute and objective morals, set in place by an unchanging god.

Are morals objective and absolute or are they not?

Noope.

Morals are the ever changing standard of Man.

God's 'brand of Morality' Is refered to in the bible as Righteousness. God's righteousness is whatever He says it is. When ever He says it. The acts themselves mean nothing. For in just about every case where we have a 'thou shalt not,' there is an exception to the rule. (A Time or place where what God would normally considered to be a sin is either commanded or permitted.)

You've confused the fact that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow with the idea that man's everychanging morality is somehow linked or God is bound to a standard of 'morality' of your own making. Ironically if He were then He would not be God.

I am right because I said god said so and I said god is right because I said right is what god does. Really? So the incestuously begotten resorts to his one and only trick of argument by flippant and yet convoluted redefinition? Who would have thunk?

[Tonus]

God's 'brand of Morality' Is refered to in the bible as Righteousness. God's righteousness is whatever He says it is. When ever He says it. The acts themselves mean nothing. For in just about every case where we have a 'thou shalt not,' there is an exception to the rule. (A Time or place where what God would normally considered to be a sin is either commanded or permitted.)

It's refreshing to find a Christian who admits that god is above morals and that, as the rule maker is within his rights to break the rules, and even command his followers to do so. Too many Christians claim that morals are absolute, but cannot reconcile that claim with the arbitrary and repulsive things that god does in the Bible, or that he commands others to do in his name.

God, particularly in the OT, is very clear that he's the boss and that it's his way or the highway. And if he orders an action that is otherwise horrifying or immoral in the extreme, there is no punishment for carrying those actions out. Personally, it makes more sense to see this as the work of men who want moral cover for otherwise shameful or vile actions. It wasn't us, they write, it was god. And he cannot be judged, so it must have been the moral thing to do.

[DeistPaladin]

It's refreshing to find a Christian who admits that god is above morals and that, as the rule maker is within his rights to break the rules, and even command his followers to do so.

This.

Above all, I value honesty and I actually find Drich's honest expression of the moral bankruptcy of Christianity and their god to be preferable to the stream of bullshit you get from more sophisticated apologists.

[Drich]

Noope.

Morals are the ever changing standard of Man.

God's 'brand of Morality' Is refered to in the bible as Righteousness. God's righteousness is whatever He says it is. When ever He says it. The acts themselves mean nothing. For in just about every case where we have a 'thou shalt not,' there is an exception to the rule. (A Time or place where what God would normally considered to be a sin is either commanded or permitted.)

You've confused the fact that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow with the idea that man's everychanging morality is somehow linked or God is bound to a standard of 'morality' of your own making. Ironically if He were then He would not be God.

I am right because I said god said so and I said god is right because I said right is what god does. Really?

Yuuup. It is as simple as that.

---

It's refreshing to find a Christian who admits that god is above morals and that, as the rule maker is within his rights to break the rules, and even command his followers to do so.

It's not about the rules. It is about doing what the 'rule maker' says do. All of the 'rules' start out with You shall or You shall not. If it were about the rules them selves, then the 'rule' would not need to begin with a clause to limit the rules authority to you.

Too many Christians claim that morals are absolute, but cannot reconcile that claim with the arbitrary and repulsive things that god does in the Bible, or that he commands others to do in his name.

Because they do not understand the relationship with absolute righteousness and man's morality. The brothers who have difficulty trying to discern God's expressed will with any 'moral standard' credits that brand of morality for more than what it is worth. That is why God deals in absolute righteousness, as it sides with God each and every time. Absolute Righteousness makes the unchanging God the authority/standard and not whatever pop culture deems is right and wrong.

God, particularly in the OT, is very clear that he's the boss and that it's his way or the highway. And if he orders an action that is otherwise horrifying or immoral in the extreme, there is no punishment for carrying those actions out. Personally, it makes more sense to see this as the work of men who want moral cover for otherwise shameful or vile actions. It wasn't us, they write, it was god. And he cannot be judged, so it must have been the moral thing to do.

Again, no. For that is what this life is all about. The judgement of God. In that do you want to spend an eternity with Him or eternally seperated from Him?

---

This.

Above all, I value honesty and I actually find Drich's honest expression of the moral bankruptcy of Christianity and their god to be preferable to the stream of bullshit you get from more sophisticated apologists.

Morality is a standard man uses to seperate himself from God. as i do not see anything scripturally tying God or any of us, to your standard other than a weak attempt to try and maintain 'morality' as some supream standard, I just broke from your standard and allowed you to have it. As God is not a respector of our self appointed titles or gimickey sense of self righteousness, there is no need for any of us to pander these standards either. You want to Judge God and Christianity then by all means move the goal posts where ever you like. For if God see fit to allow you this freedom then who am I to tell you otherwise?

[Cinjin]

It's refreshing to find a Christian who admits that god is above morals and that, as the rule maker is within his rights to break the rules, and even command his followers to do so.

This.

Above all, I value honesty and I actually find Drich's honest expression of the moral bankruptcy of Christianity and their god to be preferable to the stream of bullshit you get from more sophisticated apologists.

I've had this discussion with Drich several times, and although honesty is an exemplary thing, it's only a mechanism to take any action he wishes and commit any moral atrocity that floats upon his whimsy. True, maybe he'll never rape a slave girl, but this ability to make anything horrible into a moral and ethical action allows him to be a prick to every person he meets throughout his life.

It's gotta be nice to know that god will justify ANYTHING you say or do. After all, the rules of the Old Testament don't apply anymore .... well, that is ... until they do.

[DeistPaladin]

You want to Judge God and Christianity then by all means move the goal posts where ever you like. For if God see fit to allow you this freedom then who am I to tell you otherwise?

Christians like to bandy around these logical fallacy terms apparently without any understanding of what they mean. There is no movement of the goalposts here.

"Might Makes Right" = Morally Bankrupt.

I have and continue to hold this equation true regardless of whether the "mighty" being setting arbitrary rules is a god or a mortal. There's no movement in those goalposts. They're thoroughly anchored to the ground.

Saying that "might makes right" is a bad moral system (or, perhaps more accurately, an amoral system) when it describes human institutions (which I assume you do but you can correct me if I'm wrong) and yet hold your god to a lower standard is a classic case of special pleading.

I keep asking Christians who think as you do this question and none of them have ever even tried to answer it:

If you won't judge the morality of the god you worship, how can you be sure you aren't unwittingly serving the devil?

[John V]

"Might Makes Right" = Morally Bankrupt.

Sorry sport, but you lost that debate. We do what we like with other species just because we can.