Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Aug 2005 04:09:22 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
Abraham had sexual relations with someone not his wife (Sarah). God
calls sexual relations outside of marriage adultery.
Nowhere does it say that Abraham was committing adultery. You made
that up.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
That came after Abraham.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His policies have
always been in effect. If God had NEVER informed anyone of these
commands, then they would not have sinned. If Abraham never knew, and
never had the opportunity to discover, that God condemned such
actions, then he would not have been sinning.
Then why don't we follow his policies concerning crime?
At least the Christian church should be strongly advocating for a return to
such laws.
NO PRISONS. They are not biblical and no law in the bible mentions being in
such a state.
Didn't that Jesus guy tell us we've got an obligation to go visit
prison inmates?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Aug 2005 01:19:07 PM |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2005 10:39:22 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1125077962.209257.128610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
....
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
That came after Abraham.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His policies have
always been in effect. If God had NEVER informed anyone of these
commands, then they would not have sinned. If Abraham never knew, and
never had the opportunity to discover, that God condemned such actions,
then he would not have been sinning.
How did Abraham know?
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
Idolotry is adultery? What?
In a sense, yes. Since the marriage of a man and woman is a picture of
the spiritual relationship between a person and God, worshipping a
false god is the equivalent of committing adultery.
Or, more appropriately, committing adultery is a physical and/or mental
version of idolotry.
I think that metaphor has been taken well beyond its ability to explain.
By the way, could you explain how it is just that Ishmael was treated
the way he was?
I assume that you're talking about the son of Abraham and Hagar, not
Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah. Ishmael was treated as Abraham's son
because he was Abraham's son. He had all the authority, blessings, and
priviledges therein. In fact, God blessed Ishmael fairly well. This
is mostly because of God's promise to Abraham (which was passed down as
a bonafide generational blessing from God) that he would be the father
of all nations.
21:14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water
and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her
off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of
Beersheba.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the
bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away,
for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there
nearby, she [c] began to sob.
He kicked his own son out of the house because his wife was jealous.
What an excellent way to treat your firstborn son.
Yeah. Certainly not Abraham's finest hour, was it? Then again, who am
I to criticize Abraham? I've wrongly did worse things in my life.
You will notice that Ishmael did not have all the "authority, blessings,
and priviledges [sic]" you said he had.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
28 Aug 2005 08:36:15 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 10:39:22 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1125077962.209257.128610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
...
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
That came after Abraham.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His policies have
always been in effect. If God had NEVER informed anyone of these
commands, then they would not have sinned. If Abraham never knew, and
never had the opportunity to discover, that God condemned such actions,
then he would not have been sinning.
How did Abraham know?
The short answer is yes. We know this because God positively refers to
Abraham in the following way:
"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws." - Genesis 26:5
I found this interesting webpage which has an insight into the
education of Abraham that I had never seen before:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/kass.html
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
Idolotry is adultery? What?
In a sense, yes. Since the marriage of a man and woman is a picture of
the spiritual relationship between a person and God, worshipping a
false god is the equivalent of committing adultery.
Or, more appropriately, committing adultery is a physical and/or mental
version of idolotry.
I think that metaphor has been taken well beyond its ability to explain.
By the way, could you explain how it is just that Ishmael was treated
the way he was?
I assume that you're talking about the son of Abraham and Hagar, not
Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah. Ishmael was treated as Abraham's son
because he was Abraham's son. He had all the authority, blessings, and
priviledges therein. In fact, God blessed Ishmael fairly well. This
is mostly because of God's promise to Abraham (which was passed down as
a bonafide generational blessing from God) that he would be the father
of all nations.
21:14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water
and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her
off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of
Beersheba.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the
bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away,
for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there
nearby, she [c] began to sob.
He kicked his own son out of the house because his wife was jealous.
What an excellent way to treat your firstborn son.
Yeah. Certainly not Abraham's finest hour, was it? Then again, who am
I to criticize Abraham? I've wrongly did worse things in my life.
You will notice that Ishmael did not have all the "authority, blessings,
and priviledges [sic]" you said he had.
Well, he certainly was not the "son of the blessing" (Isaac was)
through whom the nation of Israel would be created. But, Ishmael had
12 sons, and children are called a blessing from God. I believe that
Ishmael's sons all were princes and had castles or palaces. It seems
that Ishmael's authority, blessings, and priviledges were all earthly,
materially (not spiritually) based. Not as good as Isaac's, but not
that bad either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
28 Aug 2005 09:12:03 PM |
|
|
On 28 Aug 2005 18:36:15 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1125279375.006210.196050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 10:39:22 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1125077962.209257.128610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
...
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
That came after Abraham.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His policies have
always been in effect. If God had NEVER informed anyone of these
commands, then they would not have sinned. If Abraham never knew, and
never had the opportunity to discover, that God condemned such actions,
then he would not have been sinning.
How did Abraham know?
The short answer is yes. We know this because God positively refers to
Abraham in the following way:
"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws." - Genesis 26:5
I found this interesting webpage which has an insight into the
education of Abraham that I had never seen before:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/kass.html
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
Idolotry is adultery? What?
In a sense, yes. Since the marriage of a man and woman is a picture of
the spiritual relationship between a person and God, worshipping a
false god is the equivalent of committing adultery.
Or, more appropriately, committing adultery is a physical and/or mental
version of idolotry.
I think that metaphor has been taken well beyond its ability to explain.
By the way, could you explain how it is just that Ishmael was treated
the way he was?
I assume that you're talking about the son of Abraham and Hagar, not
Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah. Ishmael was treated as Abraham's son
because he was Abraham's son. He had all the authority, blessings, and
priviledges therein. In fact, God blessed Ishmael fairly well. This
is mostly because of God's promise to Abraham (which was passed down as
a bonafide generational blessing from God) that he would be the father
of all nations.
21:14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water
and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her
off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of
Beersheba.
15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the
bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away,
for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there
nearby, she [c] began to sob.
He kicked his own son out of the house because his wife was jealous.
What an excellent way to treat your firstborn son.
Yeah. Certainly not Abraham's finest hour, was it? Then again, who am
I to criticize Abraham? I've wrongly did worse things in my life.
You will notice that Ishmael did not have all the "authority, blessings,
and priviledges [sic]" you said he had.
Well, he certainly was not the "son of the blessing" (Isaac was)
through whom the nation of Israel would be created. But, Ishmael had
12 sons, and children are called a blessing from God. I believe that
Ishmael's sons all were princes and had castles or palaces. It seems
that Ishmael's authority, blessings, and priviledges were all earthly,
materially (not spiritually) based. Not as good as Isaac's, but not
that bad either.
Is it moral to kick your son out of your house because your wife is
jealous?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
24 Aug 2005 05:28:06 PM |
|
|
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 14:22:39 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124832159.708225.228970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
...
So adultery is OK, as long as your wife tells you to, because she's
infertile but wants children? I'm confused.
No, no. Adultery is never OK, even when your wife tells you it's a
good thing. The Bible is not written like a scientific white paper,
with humans doing something in one column and God's reaction in another
for comparison. Just because God didn't say anything doesn't mean that
Abraham's adultery with Hagar was condoned or commanded. It wasn't.
Could you tell me where this was identified as adultery?
Abraham had sexual relations with someone not his wife (Sarah). God
calls sexual relations outside of marriage adultery.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
So this is your Universal morality (though Exodus 20 is directed
specifically to Israel) says that is ok for a man to have sex outside
marriage, just not with a married woman.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Aug 2005 09:25:05 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 14:22:39 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124832159.708225.228970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
...
So adultery is OK, as long as your wife tells you to, because she's
infertile but wants children? I'm confused.
No, no. Adultery is never OK, even when your wife tells you it's a
good thing. The Bible is not written like a scientific white paper,
with humans doing something in one column and God's reaction in another
for comparison. Just because God didn't say anything doesn't mean that
Abraham's adultery with Hagar was condoned or commanded. It wasn't.
Could you tell me where this was identified as adultery?
Abraham had sexual relations with someone not his wife (Sarah). God
calls sexual relations outside of marriage adultery.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
So this is your Universal morality (though Exodus 20 is directed
specifically to Israel) says that is ok for a man to have sex outside
marriage, just not with a married woman.
About the earliest account we have of a trial is of a Sumerian official
accused of illicit sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife.
So long before Patriachs like Abraham, by several hundred years,
we see sexual misbehavior is considered immoral, especially by
goverment officials trading sex for favors. There is no sign in the bible
of god laying down laws like this, especially to Sumerians who
by then were long forgotten. They of course had other laws, against theft,
murder, assaulting others, and so on. Long predating gods giving
anybody any laws. In fact, it looks like Sumerian law was much more
civilized than the laws of Moses.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Conformist" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Aug 2005 01:42:36 AM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 14:22:39 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124832159.708225.228970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
...
So adultery is OK, as long as your wife tells you to, because she's
infertile but wants children? I'm confused.
No, no. Adultery is never OK, even when your wife tells you it's a
good thing. The Bible is not written like a scientific white paper,
with humans doing something in one column and God's reaction in another
for comparison. Just because God didn't say anything doesn't mean that
Abraham's adultery with Hagar was condoned or commanded. It wasn't.
Could you tell me where this was identified as adultery?
Abraham had sexual relations with someone not his wife (Sarah). God
calls sexual relations outside of marriage adultery.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
So this is your Universal morality (though Exodus 20 is directed
specifically to Israel) says that is ok for a man to have sex outside
marriage, just not with a married woman.
About the earliest account we have of a trial is of a Sumerian official
accused of illicit sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife.
So long before Patriachs like Abraham, by several hundred years,
we see sexual misbehavior is considered immoral, especially by
goverment officials trading sex for favors. There is no sign in the bible
of god laying down laws like this, especially to Sumerians who
by then were long forgotten. They of course had other laws, against theft,
murder, assaulting others, and so on. Long predating gods giving
anybody any laws. In fact, it looks like Sumerian law was much more
civilized than the laws of Moses.
Well, the Sumerians thought organized society itself, presumably
including legal codes, had divine origins. Also, the Sumerians weren't
forgotten by the Babylonians and Assyrians (Nebuchadnezzar and
Nabonidus proudly called themselves "King of Sumer and Akkad" on their
monuments); it's perfectly possible that at least some of the OT
authors knew of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Aug 2005 08:53:35 AM |
|
|
The Last Conformist wrote:
WCB wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 14:22:39 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124832159.708225.228970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
...
So adultery is OK, as long as your wife tells you to, because
she's
infertile but wants children? I'm confused.
No, no. Adultery is never OK, even when your wife tells you it's a
good thing. The Bible is not written like a scientific white paper,
with humans doing something in one column and God's reaction in
another
for comparison. Just because God didn't say anything doesn't mean
that
Abraham's adultery with Hagar was condoned or commanded. It wasn't.
Could you tell me where this was identified as adultery?
Abraham had sexual relations with someone not his wife (Sarah). God
calls sexual relations outside of marriage adultery.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
So this is your Universal morality (though Exodus 20 is directed
specifically to Israel) says that is ok for a man to have sex outside
marriage, just not with a married woman.
About the earliest account we have of a trial is of a Sumerian official
accused of illicit sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife.
So long before Patriachs like Abraham, by several hundred years,
we see sexual misbehavior is considered immoral, especially by
goverment officials trading sex for favors. There is no sign in the
bible of god laying down laws like this, especially to Sumerians who
by then were long forgotten. They of course had other laws, against
theft,
murder, assaulting others, and so on. Long predating gods giving
anybody any laws. In fact, it looks like Sumerian law was much more
civilized than the laws of Moses.
Well, the Sumerians thought organized society itself, presumably
including legal codes, had divine origins. Also, the Sumerians weren't
forgotten by the Babylonians and Assyrians (Nebuchadnezzar and
Nabonidus proudly called themselves "King of Sumer and Akkad" on their
monuments); it's perfectly possible that at least some of the OT
authors knew of them.
The point was, the bible assumes that god laid down real morality with god's
law. And today's more literalist religous types claim one cannot have
morality unless one follows these laws.
Which is false of course, mankind had better laws a millenium ealier than
when these crude myths were first written. The 'laws' of Moses
are pretty silly for the most part.
And awful.
To the point that despite the posturing of religous fools,
they are utterly unwilling to live by these godly laws of Moses.
And claim Christianity abandined them, despite Jesus telling them not a jot
nor tittle of these laws was to pass away as long as heaven or earth
endured.
Or even their own messiah jesus who added a few commands of his
own they don't want to follow, such as praying in private.
Sumer simply is not in their mythology.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Aug 2005 12:31:30 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1124918410.876746.136120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 14:22:39 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124832159.708225.228970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
...
So adultery is OK, as long as your wife tells you to, because she's
infertile but wants children? I'm confused.
No, no. Adultery is never OK, even when your wife tells you it's a
good thing. The Bible is not written like a scientific white paper,
with humans doing something in one column and God's reaction in another
for comparison. Just because God didn't say anything doesn't mean that
Abraham's adultery with Hagar was condoned or commanded. It wasn't.
Could you tell me where this was identified as adultery?
Abraham had sexual relations with someone not his wife (Sarah). God
calls sexual relations outside of marriage adultery.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14
The Hebrew word in use here is " na'aph " which means to commit
adultery, usually of man, always with wife of another, or idolatrous
worship.
So this is your Universal morality (though Exodus 20 is directed
specifically to Israel) says that is ok for a man to have sex outside
marriage, just not with a married woman.
No. It's not OK. Sex, when both are unmarried,is fornication. This
is condemned separately from adultery.
- Jim
* The opinions expressed herein are my own and not that of my company
(which is so worried about public opinion that they are making me post
this disclaimer when they should be worried about all the waste, fraud,
and abuse within their own offices).
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Aug 2005 09:41:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:13:48 -0400,
Lt. Kizhe Catson <lt.kizhe@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 10:53:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1123005233.458090.269630@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 20 Jul 2005 07:10:12 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
And what of attempts to take a few verses to prove
- a global flood?
Any attempt to show a truly global flood would center around the
meaning of the Hebrew language just to make sure that the Bible
translators got everything exactly correct.
- a young earth?
The only evidence that I see for Biblical proof of a young Earth is the
use of the Hebrew word "yom" for day. Young earth proponents see "yom"
as an actual 24-hour period. Others see it differently, especially due
to the fact that the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to
God.
- fixity of kinds?
This is one reason why I believe in genetic "islands" between which
evolution is impossible.
- falsehood of common descent?
Well, for everything to jive, there would have to be multiple common
ancestors, except for modern humans.
- evilness of witches?
The Bible warns against seeking power or knowledge from any
supernatural source (and there are some out there) other than God.
Thus, any practitioner of such is doing evil in God's eyes.
- desirability of corporal punishment for children?
Nothing wrong with spanking a child, when the situation warrants, to
correct his actions.
- virtue of slavery?
God only allowed slaves to be taken from evil, conquered nations for
temporary periods of time. All other use of slaves was forbidden.
- marriage = one man + one woman?
Anyone who ignores parts of the Bible and "interprets" the other parts
to show that God allows homosexual marriage is quite a literary
contortionist.
- evilness of homosexuality?
Having homosexual feelings is not evil. Acting on them is.
What puts any of the above in a different class from geocentrism?
Geocentrism is loosely based on one passage in the Bible. The above
mentioned issues are dealt with many, many times in various fashions
throughout the Bible.
In all of the above examples, people have read the Bible to say things
that are just plain false (global flood, young earth, fixed kinds) or
which are now morally repugnant (burn witches, beat children, keep
slavery legal, abuse homosexuals and don't allow them to marry). The
fact that the Bible refers to them a few times (not "many, many") only
makes your problem worse. The Bible, as a guide to science and as a
guide to morals, has been repeatedly demonstrated to be utter crap.
You'll understand if I humbly disagree.
Have you even noticed that the Bible has been frequently cited to
prove things even when it says the opposite, too? And that it is
still used that way?
Please cite some examples.
Several of them are above. Contrary to what the right-wing ideologues
are saying today, marriage is not one man + one woman; the Bible says
polygamy is also a valid form of marriage.
This verse says otherwise: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh." - Genesis 2:24
Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual
relations with her while your wife is living. Leviticus 18:18
Polygamy is never a valid form of marriage and is forbidden in the
Bible. Just because many people (including kings of Israel) disobeyed
God is not a rationale for saying the Bible allows it. Maybe I am
wrong. Please cite some Biblical accounts where God condoned polygamy.
Have you actually read the Bible? See if you can remember a rather
well known story of a man having two wives. This is one of the guys
that God spoke directly to, btw.
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
Are you referring to Abraham being married to Sarah while having sexual
relations with Hagar because Sarah didn't feel like waiting on God's
promise?
Abraham never married Hagar. He just had sexual relations with Hagar
to get a child for Sarah.
So adultery is OK, as long as your wife tells you to, because she's
infertile but wants children? I'm confused.
Did Margaret Atwood just enter the room?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
11 Aug 2005 03:03:53 PM |
|
|
On 11 Aug 2005 12:48:50 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123789730.338860.152870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
....
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
Are you referring to Abraham being married to Sarah while having sexual
relations with Hagar because Sarah didn't feel like waiting on God's
promise?
Abraham never married Hagar. He just had sexual relations with Hagar
to get a child for Sarah.
What were the rules of marriage for Abraham?
Did he go to the county courthouse to get a marriage certificate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
23 Aug 2005 09:16:09 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 12:48:50 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123789730.338860.152870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
...
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
Are you referring to Abraham being married to Sarah while having sexual
relations with Hagar because Sarah didn't feel like waiting on God's
promise?
Abraham never married Hagar. He just had sexual relations with Hagar
to get a child for Sarah.
What were the rules of marriage for Abraham?
One wife, be faithful to her, take care of her, and treat her the same
way that God loves His creation.
Did he go to the county courthouse to get a marriage certificate?
No courthouses per se in that time. No marriage certificates from a
secular government at that time. Besides, marriage is between a man
and a woman and God; no government is needed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
23 Aug 2005 10:31:02 AM |
|
|
On 23 Aug 2005 07:16:09 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124806569.752858.117200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 12:48:50 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123789730.338860.152870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
...
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
Are you referring to Abraham being married to Sarah while having sexual
relations with Hagar because Sarah didn't feel like waiting on God's
promise?
Abraham never married Hagar. He just had sexual relations with Hagar
to get a child for Sarah.
What were the rules of marriage for Abraham?
One wife, be faithful to her, take care of her, and treat her the same
way that God loves His creation.
Where?
Did he go to the county courthouse to get a marriage certificate?
No courthouses per se in that time. No marriage certificates from a
secular government at that time. Besides, marriage is between a man
and a woman and God; no government is needed.
And two wives in the story.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
24 Aug 2005 03:40:53 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 07:16:09 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124806569.752858.117200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 12:48:50 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123789730.338860.152870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
...
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
Are you referring to Abraham being married to Sarah while having sexual
relations with Hagar because Sarah didn't feel like waiting on God's
promise?
Abraham never married Hagar. He just had sexual relations with Hagar
to get a child for Sarah.
What were the rules of marriage for Abraham?
One wife, be faithful to her, take care of her, and treat her the same
way that God loves His creation.
Where?
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24
"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh" - Matthew
19:5
"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge,
giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous:" - 1 Peter 3:7-8
Did he go to the county courthouse to get a marriage certificate?
No courthouses per se in that time. No marriage certificates from a
secular government at that time. Besides, marriage is between a man
and a woman and God; no government is needed.
And two wives in the story.
Sarah (Sarai) may have given Hagar to be Abraham's "wife", but Abraham
never took Hagar as a wife, per se. He just procreated a child with
Hagar. We know this because Hagar is never referred to as Abraham's
wife, just a mistress. Also, there was no ceremony, no treatment of
Hagar as a wife, and none of the legalities that went with a marriage
such as legal standing and protection.
"And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that
she had conceived, her *mistress* was despised in her eyes." - Genesis
16:4
After Hagar fled, an angel appeared to Hagar and referred to Hagar by
her real status, not a Abraham's actual wife. If there had been a
marriage, then this new wife status would have trumped any servant
status with Sarah. Accordingly, the angel spoke to Hagar as "Sarai's
maid" not "Abraham's wife".
"And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt
thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai." -
Genesis 16:8
In the Hebrew language and culture, the English translation of "gave
her to her husband Abram to be his wife" does not necessarily mean an
actual marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
24 Aug 2005 04:20:10 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 07:16:09 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124806569.752858.117200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 12:48:50 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123789730.338860.152870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
...
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
Are you referring to Abraham being married to Sarah while having sexual
relations with Hagar because Sarah didn't feel like waiting on God's
promise?
Abraham never married Hagar. He just had sexual relations with Hagar
to get a child for Sarah.
What were the rules of marriage for Abraham?
One wife, be faithful to her, take care of her, and treat her the same
way that God loves His creation.
Where?
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24
"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh" - Matthew
19:5
"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge,
giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous:" - 1 Peter 3:7-8
Did he go to the county courthouse to get a marriage certificate?
No courthouses per se in that time. No marriage certificates from a
secular government at that time. Besides, marriage is between a man
and a woman and God; no government is needed.
And two wives in the story.
Sarah (Sarai) may have given Hagar to be Abraham's "wife", but Abraham
never took Hagar as a wife, per se. He just procreated a child with
Hagar. We know this because Hagar is never referred to as Abraham's
wife, just a mistress. Also, there was no ceremony, no treatment of
Hagar as a wife, and none of the legalities that went with a marriage
such as legal standing and protection.
"And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that
she had conceived, her *mistress* was despised in her eyes." - Genesis
16:4
No, you've miscontrued the application of the term here -- it refers to
Sarah, being the mistress (fem. of "master") of Hagar. Hagar despised
Sarah, because she'd gotten one better on her by getting pregnant. See
also your citation of Gen 16:8 below .
After Hagar fled, an angel appeared to Hagar and referred to Hagar by
her real status, not a Abraham's actual wife. If there had been a
marriage, then this new wife status would have trumped any servant
status with Sarah. Accordingly, the angel spoke to Hagar as "Sarai's
maid" not "Abraham's wife".
"And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt
thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai." -
Genesis 16:8
In the Hebrew language and culture, the English translation of "gave
her to her husband Abram to be his wife" does not necessarily mean an
actual marriage.
Either way (concubine or wife) it doesn't matter:
- One generation later, Jacob does the same thing, only double -- two
wives (unless you're going to insist that one of those marriages wasn't
really -- which one?), and they *both* give their handmaids to their
husband, in an effort to win the Baby Race.
- God seems to have been pretty quiet about both situations -- if it was
so all-fired important, you'd think he might say something.
The most obvious explanation is that the text simply takes for granted a
cultural practice common at the time (and at many others) -- powerful
men could have multiple women. Claiming that these guys were all wrong
to be behaving this way, that the Bible consistently teaches monogamy,
requires special pleading.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
26 Aug 2005 11:44:32 AM |
|
|
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 23 Aug 2005 07:16:09 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124806569.752858.117200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 11 Aug 2005 12:48:50 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123789730.338860.152870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
...
Yes, I have studied the Bible.
| | | | | | |
