Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[AV1611VET]

And we come neatly back to Euthyphro's dilemma. Are these things immoral because God legislated against them, or did God legislate against them because they are immoral?

Ask me if I care.

It's taboo --- that's good enough for me.

I say the latter. You say the former, which is utterly sickening IMO, but hey, do what you have to to make your interpretations fit.

You can get as sick as you want --- there are some who don't really mind engaging in this activity, and the law applies just as much to them as it does you or I.

I don't think you uniformitarianists realize just how different it was back then; but that's your problem.

 

[theFijian]

The former --- the Creation Story.

And, by implication, the whole Bible.

The Bible contains allegory --- but this does not mean the Bible is allegory.

It's amazing how quickly some people can contradict themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's amazing how quickly some people can contradict themselves.

That's a quote from a book by J Dwight Pentecost --- and there's a difference between the two statements.

 

[Soul Searcher]

No, incest is not a word which means to have sexual relations with a close family member --- incest is the crime of having sexual relations with a close family member.

I really do not care about the exact legal defintion of the word. The point is that it means to have sex with someone who is closely related, Mans laws is what defines it as a crime or not depending on where you are in the world.

Of course you completely avoided the point of the post. Does so called absolute morality change based on how God feels about it on any given day?

 

[AV1611VET]

I really do not care about the exact legal defintion of the word.

You'd better care, if you're gonna accuse God of sanctioning incest in one dispensation, then calling it a crime in another.

The point is that it means to have sex with someone who is closely related...

No it doesn't, Soul Searcher.

It no more means that than drinking a beer does during the non-prohibition years.

If they changed the speed limit downtown from 25 to 15, does that mean that someone clocked yesterday going 22 was speeding?

Mans laws is what defines it as a crime or not depending on where you are in the world.

Then they'd better define it right, if they want to avoid sinning.

Of course you completely avoided the point of the post. Does so called absolute morality change based on how God feels about it on any given day?

I won't discuss the difference between 'morality' and 'ethics' with non-believers.

I tried that once here and got nowhere.

Just like the difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic' --- you guys prefer to take very precise, rigid definitions and blend them together to the point that it's confusing beyond repair --- then accuse someone who comes along and uses the old definitions of 'making stuff up'.

 

[theFijian]

That's a quote from a book by J Dwight Pentecost --- and there's a difference between the two statements.

I know there's a difference, the first one is bogus the other one isn't

 

[Eeplord]

The only case of incest in the Bible that I found was where Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. There are a few cases of implied incest like "Cain must have slept with Eve because there was no other women", but the Bible can get pretty ambiguous when trying to determine jumps in time. Although, it is inevitable that somebody will have to commit the first act of incest.

I don't think you uniformitarianists realize just how different it was back then; but that's your problem.

It wasn't really that different back then. In Genesis 20:11-12, Abraham mentions that he and his wife will be persecuted because they are half-siblings. So according to man's laws it was illegal at the time, although it might have still been acceptable with God.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only case of incest in the Bible that I found was where Abraham married his half-sister Sarah.

Without looking it up, the only other instance I can think of is Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar.

Neither of which constituted incest.

There are a few cases of implied incest like "Cain must have slept with Eve because there was no other women", but the Bible can get pretty ambiguous when trying to determine jumps in time.

Now that's just wrong on so many levels.

I'll agree that science's version of Eve (mtDNA Eve) would have had to commit beastiality (and this conversation is starting to go south), but not the real Eve.

Although, it is inevitable that somebody will have to commit the first act of incest.

No, it's not.

No one ever had to commit incest for any reason.

Until it was outlawed, it was "holy matrimony".

It wasn't really that different back then. In Genesis 20:11-12, Abraham mentions that he and his wife will be persecuted because they are half-siblings. So according to man's laws it was illegal at the time, although it might have still been acceptable with God.

Abraham was afraid that Abimelech would kill him and take his wife, so he presented her as his sister.

When Abimelech went to marry her, God intervened with these strong words:

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

Notice too that God demands he restore Abraham his wife - (not 'sister'):

Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

God clearly recognized Sarah as Abraham's wife. After all, He joined them together as 'one' in holy matrimony.

 

[Eeplord]

I wasn't aware of any interpretation that led to Eve having incest. Assuming Adam was created first, which the Bible says he is, Eve would have no reason to "do" an animal.

So in the quotation I gave: "Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife", Abraham is worried that Abimilech will kill him to take his wife, not because he is married to his half-sister?

I'm not trying to argue that the Bible promotes incest, but was trying to do the opposite but appears I messed up a bit (lol), so I will try again with a simple reference: Leviticus 18:6-18. Every one of those lines is the author expressing in several different ways not to have incest. These laws are also presented after the reported cases of incest in the Bible, so I believe that this supports AV's argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't aware of any interpretation that led to Eve having incest. Assuming Adam was created first, which the Bible says he is, Eve would have no reason to "do" an animal.

Like I said, this conversation is starting to get hairy (literally), so I'll make one more reply along this line.

As I understand it, mtDNA Eve, who is not to be confused with the Eve of Genesis, was the first (actually the oldest one found) --- but, so far, was the first woman on the planet --- born of what I suppose you'd call a 'proto-glorified ape', or whatever nonsense you want to call it.

Since y-Adam didn't come along for millions of years (or hundreds of thousands, or whatever) later, Eve would have had to have mated with another, let's call it, Protoman, or Homo sapiens sapiens* will go extinct as soon as mtDNA Eve dies.

To counter this, I think they say something about evolution not talking about one person, but evolution deals with whole communities --- or some such rhetoric.

In any case, mytochondriac Eve is not the same as Garden of Eden Eve.

And now I'm finished on this subject --- science is gross.

* I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.

 

[Eeplord]

Well if Evolution is correct, which for the sake of this statement I am going to assume it is, mtDNA Eve wouldn't really be committing beastiality. It would be the same as a dog "doing" a dog or an ape "doing" an ape, neither of which is considered beastiality. But as you said this is getting a little of topic, so if you want to respond go ahead, but I'm done with this little tangent.

Lol, "hairy"...

 

[Hespera]

Li

e.

And now I'm finished on this subject --- science is gross.

* I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.

This is an interesting statement...."science is gross".

It goes along with ideas like that "nature is god's enemy"

This seems a key to understanding the theocreo mind.

Science isnt "gross", neither is anything about nature. People react to it according to their personalities, not according to how nature "is".

I can see how some people just cant handle, dont know how to appreciate reality as it is. They want it to be nicer, by their standards. They want it to make sense, in their minds.

Start assuming there is a god, and he is on your side. How do you explain disease and maggots and pain....surely a nice god wont do that to you. AHH... must be OUR fault. Yes.

And THAT means all this stuff about nature being gross is well, its our fault but its just temporary.

A person who can just see and appreciate as it is, instead of just seeing a reflection of his own personality and inadequacies wont think nature is gross or disgusting or an enemy.

I do feel kind of sorry for people who suffer under these delusions, but the, then do bring it on themselves.



I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature QUOTE///////////


what you HAVE and what you ARE aint the same!

 

[Split Rock]

Since y-Adam didn't come along for millions of years (or hundreds of thousands, or whatever) later, Eve would have had to have mated with another, let's call it, Protoman, or Homo sapiens sapiens* will go extinct as soon as mtDNA Eve dies.

To counter this, I think they say something about evolution not talking about one person, but evolution deals with whole communities --- or some such rhetoric.

It is not rhetoric. Populations evolve, not individuals. Sorry if our science is too hard and "icky" for you to understand.

And now I'm finished on this subject ---

Thank goodness!

Can we get back to addressing the O.P. now?

Lets deal with the second point... nobody is inerrant, therefore nobody's interpretation of scripture is inerrant. Some creationists seem to think their interpretation is inerrant, at least sometimes. Can we get some clarification on that?

 

[atomweaver]

Like I said, this conversation is starting to get hairy (literally), so I'll make one more reply along this line.

As I understand it, mtDNA Eve, who is not to be confused with the Eve of Genesis, was the first (actually the oldest one found) --- but, so far, was the first woman on the planet

You'd be wrong, but hten this has been explained to you before...

Mitocvhondrial Eve would be the woman that all current living people can trace their mitochondrial genetic lineage back to. There almost certainly were other families of humans, but their lineages have since died out. The name "Eve" was co-opted in reference to "mother of all" rather than "first woman", even though in the Christian mythos that is one and the same.


Here's a rough time line to illustrate (edit - foolish editor culls deliberate spaces... try this)

Humans
|
More humans
|
mtEve and mt"Jane" and mt"Sarah"
|
more humans (but all of mt"Sarah"'s descendants die in a plague)
|
more humans (but all of mt"Jane"'s descendants die in a drought)
|
more humans
|
Modern humans

 

[Soul Searcher]

You'd better care, if you're gonna accuse God of sanctioning incest in one dispensation, then calling it a crime in another.No it doesn't, Soul Searcher.

You seem to miss the big picture. The act is the act and if it is wrong it is wrong it is not right one day and wrong the next simply because a law was written. Yes it is a crime in the eyes of the law but that does not actually make it right or wrong morally. Some laws are morally wrong and some are morally sound but never confuse laws with morals as they are seperate things.

 

[atomweaver]

You'd better care, if you're gonna....

Says the guy who couldn't care less about whether he understands evolution, entropy, mtEve, radioisotopes, etc etc etc. You're awfully uppity for someone who's had their own favorite attitude (ignorance) turned around on them, AV... If you don't care, why should we?

 

[Hespera]

You seem to miss the big picture. The act is the act and if it is wrong it is wrong it is not right one day and wrong the next simply because a law was written. Yes it is a crime in the eyes of the law but that does not actually make it right or wrong morally. Some laws are morally wrong and some are morally sound but never confuse laws with morals as they are seperate things.

We had quite a discussion in a philosophy class about morality and the law.

My particular summary would be that there is a loose, indirect relationship between them.

So here goes the atheist telling the theist that there is morality that does not change.

It just does not come from god.

You can change the law, you can play with definitions but it wont change right and wrong, it wont change the act.

Saying that god can make and change morality, and then "interpreting" what "he said", that is exactly the slippery slope to, yes, witch burning.

Someone grounded in right and wrong would know that was never going to be right. Those with a weak sense that they get from preachers and books can be led---as they so often have been---into the most terrible acts.


Theists believe that "gods law" is not a LEGAL thing but a matter of SIN.

We probably need different words for traffic "laws" and god "laws". Might help the confusable keep things straight.

 

[Eeplord]

I agree with Soul Searcher. Christians, in my understanding, are opposed to moral relativism, meaning that morals are different in different situations. This would make it hypocritical to say that the status of the morality of incest changes throughout the Bible. According to Christians, if something is wrong it is always wrong and vice versa, so incest cannot be "acceptable" in one case and "unacceptable" in another.

 

[Cabal]

Ask me if I care.

It's taboo --- that's good enough for me.

You should care. It says a lot about you.

You can get as sick as you want --- there are some who don't really mind engaging in this activity, and the law applies just as much to them as it does you or I.

I don't think you uniformitarianists realize just how different it was back then; but that's your problem.

Right, things were so different it was ok to bang your sister? This is utter nonsense, something is wrong regardless of whether a written legislation exists.

But of course, God was totally right to punish Cain for murder. No written legislation existing there to outlaw it of course.

Yup, totally consistent.

You'd better care, if you're gonna accuse God of sanctioning incest in one dispensation, then calling it a crime in another.

WE'RE doing it?

It was your suggestion in the first place! Nice word change to "accuse", though, very emotive.

No it doesn't, Soul Searcher.

It no more means that than drinking a beer does during the non-prohibition years.

Yup, and there were no laws made outlawing paedophilia. Let's say paedophilia wasn't legislated against now. Ok to rape a child before the law came along?

If they changed the speed limit downtown from 25 to 15, does that mean that someone clocked yesterday going 22 was speeding?

Or that the laws are merely representative of the enforcement required to realise an overarching good idea, which is that EXCESSIVE SPEED IS BAD.

I won't discuss the difference between 'morality' and 'ethics' with non-believers.

I tried that once here and got nowhere.

They seem to have a better grasp of it, perhaps...

Just like the difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic' --- you guys prefer to take very precise, rigid definitions and blend them together to the point that it's confusing beyond repair --- then accuse someone who comes along and uses the old definitions of 'making stuff up'.

"Very good" means "perfect", right, AV? That's what YOU said?

Now that's just wrong on so many levels.

I'll agree that science's version of Eve (mtDNA Eve) would have had to commit beastiality (and this conversation is starting to go south), but not the real Eve.

No, just the "real Eve" 's kids would have had to commit incest.

I agree, it's a sickening concept, I can understand the strong urge for the transference.

No, it's not.

No one ever had to commit incest for any reason.

Until it was outlawed, it was "holy matrimony".

And paedophilia before legislation is "a legitimate relationship"?

Abraham was afraid that Abimelech would kill him and take his wife, so he presented her as his sister.

When Abimelech went to marry her, God intervened with these strong words:Notice too that God demands he restore Abraham his wife - (not 'sister'):God clearly recognized Sarah as Abraham's wife. After all, He joined them together as 'one' in holy matrimony.

Yes, and how funny is it that this is WAAAAAAY before any such legislation appeared that even mentions incest as a crime?

Like I said, this conversation is starting to get hairy (literally), so I'll make one more reply along this line.

As I understand it, mtDNA Eve, who is not to be confused with the Eve of Genesis, was the first (actually the oldest one found) --- but, so far, was the first woman on the planet --- born of what I suppose you'd call a 'proto-glorified ape', or whatever nonsense you want to call it.

Since y-Adam didn't come along for millions of years (or hundreds of thousands, or whatever) later, Eve would have had to have mated with another, let's call it, Protoman, or Homo sapiens sapiens* will go extinct as soon as mtDNA Eve dies.

To counter this, I think they say something about evolution not talking about one person, but evolution deals with whole communities --- or some such rhetoric.

In any case, mytochondriac Eve is not the same as Garden of Eden Eve.

And now I'm finished on this subject --- science is gross.

Wrong, and doesn't even support the conclusion you make.

* I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.

Let us know when they synthesise the first sinless woman. Then we'll see what God has to say about your "theory."

 

[AV1611VET]

We probably need different words for traffic "laws"...

"Ethics"?

... and god "laws".

"Morals"?