An inability to seperate god from religion is the root of many issues. god is not religious, god just is (for those that whatever). man has attached labels to their beliefs to perpetuate their own ideology (power and control). god didn't say this or that, man did. no one speaks for god and god doesn't speak to anyone, why should god do so. if god wished to intervene, god would but since we have free will, there's no reason. that which is, is.

much easier to say this or that is from god. that way when one questions those edicts they are convicted of heresy and put to death.

You are talking about the god of Abraham. Sodom and Gomorrah, in the Bible, have their own gods. Gods fought each other just like their cities did. The Semitic pantheon was similar to the Indo-European pantheons that way.

The story of Sodom and Gamorrah is very old, much older than most of the rest of the Bible. It tells the story of two truly ancient cities that existed before Exodus, before the nation of Israel was even founded.

In the story, Abraham's god reveals himself to be the one true and only god, the entity we now spell with an upper-case "G" because in that sense the word is a name. (In fact, "the name", in Hebrew "hashem", is the term Jews usually use to refer to the entity.)

So why did G-d agree to spare the cities if ten righteous people can be found? That's an ancient question, one of the mysteries of Hebrew legend. It's not something that just missing and that was only now noticed (by you first, perhaps). It has been argued over for (literally and in every sense of the word) millenia.

The rabbis (in this context the term means "the sages that wrote the Talmud") stated that next to the written Torah (books of Moses), an oral Torah existed, containing details never written down until Talmudic times. Among that oral legend you can find the millenia-old discussion about this subject and Talmudic texts also discuss the matter. It is far from easily solved.

My own stance is that perhaps, while G-d can kill whomever He wants in the world He created, G-d wanted to do Abraham a favour to show Abraham that He is indeed capable of not only creating and destroying but also of mercy. Creation, destruction and mercy are three key components that need to be taught to the founder of a nation. (In fact Abraham founded several nations, but that is besides the point.)

The part I don't understand is why people thousands of miles from Israel who are not of the people of Israel show such great interest in our legends. Do I discuss native American Indian stories all day long trying to find something I could consider an inconsistency? I don't. Their legends serve them well, and ours do serve us well. I think all people on the planet have ancient stories about gods that behaved funny.

Think of the Greek legends. Heracles was driven mad by Hera, wife (and sister!) of the god Zeus. Heracles then proceeded to kill his own six children. (Abraham nearly killed one of his, but G-d told him that it was only a test and that children must never be sacrificed.)

The god of Abraham also originally had a wife. Her name was Asherath and she was still being worshipped in Israel 2200 years ago, archaeology shows. As far as I know she is at least not also his sister.

Either way, the story of Sodom and Gamorrah was one of several stories explaining the new concept of having only one god who can do everything rather than several gods that fight each other. That's the purpose the story serves and that's why it was written down and kept intact over the millenia. What actually happened (I assume the cities really did exist and where destroyed by a natural disaster) isn't the point any more. But the missing information is either part of the oral legends or lost or never existed. But the fact that the information is missing doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the story.

I took that from this. your words, your thoughts.

It doesn't?

It's not fair towards his daughters, but he is trying to protect the guests. While he can grudgingly accept that his family takes a hit, he cannot accept that two complete strangers are treated that way.

Today, perhaps, people tend to protect their own family rather than strangers, but in some cultures, notably in the middle-east, treating guests well is more important than one's own life or the lives of one's daughters.

That part of the story to me sounded very logical. Whatever happened to the cities also happened to whomever didn't run away quickly enough. Generally, when running away from anything that can destroy an entire city, it is not a good idea to stop and look back. Run first, ask questions later.

Then take from that but don't rephrase it.

"a fetus is _potential_ human life and as such more important than the whims of the parents"

Yes, my words.

"choosing an abortion was a whim, sort of like deciding to wear the blue tie instead of the red one"

No, not the same statement.

I didn't say choosing an abortion is a whim, I said it mustn't become one but that it looks like it is. I also said that a fetus is more important than a whim.

1 != 2 and 3 > 2 does not imply that 1 == 2.

I.e. if the decision to abort is not a whim, the fact that a whim is worth less than a fetus doesn't mean that the decision to abort is a whim.

Despite the fact that the fetus is more important than both. (I.e. 3 > 1 and 3 > 2.)

So anyway, I would just ask you that if you want to establish something like "your words, your thoughts", make sure you are actually using my words, and not your own, to describe what I think.

I didn't misquote you, possibly you could choose your choice of words a bit more carefully.

I didn't say you misquoted me, I said you rephrased what I said.

But I am sick and tired of arguing semantics with you. You obviously don't want to discuss the actual subject but rather whether or not you have the right to rephrase my words and claim that they are still my thoughts. You don't have that right. But if you want to continue playing that game, I'll stick to the Sodom and Gamorrah discussion from now on.

Well, this has been an interesting diversion in futility. I apologize for allowing myself to drawn into a discussion(?) regarding one of the three taboo subjects (politics-religion-sex).

I know from personal experience that my attitudes on these subjects have changed over the years. I would like to think of that as evolving to a more caring and understanding human being.

I would like to see this thread removed from the WC forums, it serves no real purpose other than make the forums seem a little more lively. Kind of like throwing a mongoose into the cobra cage.

Leauki, you're a zealot and that's just an observation and not a dig. I almost think you may enjoy being called that, a badge of honor so to speak. If you take offense at this, I apologize, no slight intended.

Well, first of all I would like to say one thing: forget about the word "God". In my opinion it's better, for many reasons, to use such alternative words, such as for example "Transcendent" (or anyone you like). 

That said, there is a very old saying: "It's useless to talk to the bird that flies in the sky of the fish that swims in the abysses ". Well, the same is for Science and Transcendent. They are definitely 2 different worlds: they can meet each other of course,  sometimes in harmony sometimes in conflict...Mostly usually depends from the people ideologies...

For example, all the great and amazing discoveries of Albert Einstein about the nature of energy and the nature of Universe itself made always and always stronger his faith in the existence of the Trascendent... 

Main problem is : we want to talk about Trascendent, but our mind exists in time, not out of it..That means that is impossible for us, in an ordinary condition, to REALLY UNDERSTAND that the Eternal has no beginning or end. Our body, rightly, lives only this life.

Well, no matter how scientific research will go ahead : the edges of the Universe, inside Black Holes (though this is obviously one of the most difficult hing to imagine right now) , deep inside the secrets of DNA and many other things...Science will discover a lot of new things, but each of them, for sure, will bring new problems and new questions...always and always...

Why? The answer is very simple: because this is the NATURE OF SCIENCE: to search for scientific truth. So, everything Science will ever find are only scientific truths...

1 Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

And people wonder how I've come to believe that the god of the Bible is schizophrenic.   If Christ and the Father are one, why does it please God that Lot offers up VIRGIN DAUGHTERS to an angry mob, but then in 1st Timothy, claims that not taking care of his own family makes him worse than an infidel.

It doesn't cost me anything to believe in my fairy godmother, either--it's just not possible for my rational mind to do.  You can't MAKE yourself believe something you don't believe in.  Try it!  Doesn't cost you a thing -- make yourself believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He's out there--guiding you throughout your day, watching everything you do, and touching you with his noodly appendage.

Okay, let's address YOUR words.  I, k10w3 (Karen), say the decision to abort is NEVER a whim.  The cost of the procedure alone necessitates that the parents put some thought into the procedure.  Actually, even BEFORE seeking out providers or approaching the idea of aborting, the very idea of the possibility of being pregnant is so all mind-consuming, that the idea of abortion as a whim is ridiculous.  The basic biology of "something is growing inside of me" (*whether that be a person, a potential person, cancer, a benign cyst or a false alarm) is so heavy of an idea, that I'm going to say that the ONLY thing about abortion that could be done on a whim is the act of becoming pregnant itself...that's the ONLY thing that can be done thoughtlessly, carelessly or on a whim.

*I use those examples not to mean that I believe all embryos/fetuses are cancer or a benign cyst, but to make the point that the idea of anything unusual growing inside a person's body will occupy the majority that person's thoughts during all waking hours.

Karen....you DO realise you're debating one of the 'avoid-at-all-costs topics' on yet another of the 'avoid-at-all-costs threads'?

Abortion, Religion....where's the Politics to have the complete set? ...

Like the days in the '70's when there were just so many "causes" the popular bumper-sticker was "Land rights for handicapped gay whales" ...

I'll vote for that.