A sovereign social network
powered by Bitcoin

And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their beloved, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?

—Plato, Symposium[3]

23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

> God disobeyed his own commandment

This is a common misconception. The commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' is not the same as Thou shalt not kill. The idea of murder in self-defense is implicit, as is murder in protection, murder in war, etc. It is mindless killing that is condemned.

> Lot offers his daughters to the mob

This story demonstrates the evil that was present in the two cities. The mob that appears only desires to violate the men who arrived, breaking both the guest right (an ancient tradition of the hearth) and their bodily autonomy, as well they say they will treat Lot worse. Lot's offer should not be taken as 'The bible is glorifying this act as generosity' but rather that the mob was so evil, they could not even be tempted by what was considered to be something so valuable.

Genesis 9:

21 The Lordsmelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

It is worth pointing out that the book of Genesis was compiled over time, with likely many different authors and collections before our canonical book. For example, the creation story of Genesis 1 is different than the creation story of Genesis 2. After the flood, God promises Noah that He will never smite the earth again. And yet, a few chapters later, He destroys the two cities for their wickedness.

We must ask, What is the true story being told? The answer is that it is a story of humanity falling further away from the Law, from doing Good.

The Israelites could not follow the Law, the Judaeans could not, nor could David or Saul, nor the Judges, the Canaanites, the Hebronites, etc. The Old Testament is just a series of stories of people continually sinning and falling further away from the laws God set for them, always disobeying the God they claim to worship. That is why, for example, the modern Talmudic code that Orthodox Jews follow is so arcane and specific, filled with thousands of random, esoteric laws.

But I, as a Christian, believe that Christ came to fulfill the Law. He overturned this previous order, and brought about the common Era and the beginning of modern civilization.

Can one logically deduce the source of logic? Please explain, using rationale, the root, or First Cause, of axiomatic logic. If you attempt with any sort of rigor, you will see that I am giving the only answer that makes sense - it either 'just is' or was designed that way to give order to the universe.

Here is an essay discussing Wittgenstein's critique of necessary conditions for cognition: https://journals.openedition.org/phenomenology/1074

The above poster seems content to dismiss elements of science, theology, and philosophy as 'bronze-age fairytales', but I would bet they have no issue believing in or supporting other institutions that are thousands of years old, such as marriage or economics. And if they reject such things, they are relativistic - fine for a debate, but hardly timeless.

If one seeks the truth, they should strive to understand humanity in its fullest expression across time. Theology, which is the root of all modern philosophy and science, is a science of the truth, and it has been debated and argued for thousands of years by men of great integrity.

I would assume that this poster was raised in some garbage demonic cult or was exposed to the fallacies of institutional religions and is triggered by the idea of something more, and I cannot blame them. But I was not raised in such an environment and came to my own conclusions through my own intellectual journey.

You mention Sodom and Gomorrah. Have you read that story?

> The character called "God," a mysterious sky ghost, violates his ethical law not to murder, by murdering entire cities.

> Two angels, appearing as men, are sent to Lot in Sodom. A mob wants to rape them, but Lot, who is so righteous that God sent angels to save him and his family before destroying the cities, offers the mob his daughters to rape instead.

What a "righteous" guy!

> Then the "angels" strike the mob blind.

Okay, sure, that's a thing that happens.

> The angels tell Lot to quickly evacuate the city and not look back. As they flee the destruction, Lot's wife looks back upon the city and is turned into a pillar of salt.

Okay, sure.

The only way this continues to be a revered text for instructing people on morality is that they completely ignore it and don't actually read it and instead ascribe their own generous interpretations to it ex-post-facto.

It reads exactly like what you would expect of an easily duped pre-scientific culture, and it doesn't even teach good morality since Lot offers his daughters to the mob to be raped. Who could defend that?