Changes

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped.  [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped.  [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

i think it's only fair to point out that the ten commandments were only intended to apply to other jews (judaism being the religion of moses tribe) therefore Thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not kill other jews (or christians) and so on. what the bible basically says is that you can do anything to someone who is not of your religion, and that there is nothing morally wrong with that. in todays multicultural society that is obviously not an accebtable source of morals. {{unsigned|Bolly Ottihw}}

i think it's only fair to point out that the ten commandments were only intended to apply to other jews (judaism being the religion of moses tribe) therefore Thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not kill other jews (or christians) and so on. what the bible basically says is that you can do anything to someone who is not of your religion, and that there is nothing morally wrong with that. in todays multicultural society that is obviously not an accebtable source of morals. {{unsigned|Bolly Ottihw}}

I am reminded of a novel by Irving Wallace, ''Seven Minutes'' where a book publisher is being prosecuted for selling a pornographic novel.  His attorney, reads several passages from novels/books and asks a ''community person'' as to whether or not she thought the passages were ''pornographic'' - and in the novel, she concludes three of the four passages as fine, while the fourth passage, she declares as ''pornographic'' - the three passages she claimed were NOT, were from books that were BANNED, while the fourth passage was selected from the Bible.  The author goes onto say that ofcourse he was not implying anything about the Bible being pornographic - but that when passages are taken out of context, any conclusions can be drawn.  The Bible includes stories that describe good and evil - and so can be taken out of context.  Peter McWilliams had, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Bible in a book titled 'Aint Nobody's Business if you do" [[User:Seekcommon]]

I am reminded of a novel by Irving Wallace, ''Seven Minutes'' where a book publisher is being prosecuted for selling a pornographic novel.  His attorney, reads several passages from novels/books and asks a ''community person'' as to whether or not she thought the passages were ''pornographic'' - and in the novel, she concludes three of the four passages as fine, while the fourth passage, she declares as ''pornographic'' - the three passages she claimed were NOT, were from books that were BANNED, while the fourth passage was selected from the Bible.  The author goes onto say that ofcourse he was not implying anything about the Bible being pornographic - but that when passages are taken out of context, any conclusions can be drawn.  The Bible includes stories that describe good and evil - and so can be taken out of context.  Peter McWilliams had, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Bible in a book titled 'Aint Nobody's Business if you do" [[User:Seekcommon]]

== No ==

== No ==