Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-29-2004, 09:20 PM | #161 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
03-29-2004, 09:39 PM | #162 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,242
|
Quote:
|
|
03-30-2004, 01:50 AM | #163 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
|
Ed:
Quote:
Leviticus 27:28-29: "Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death". You couldn't BE more wrong. Quote:
It does not. Therefore God accepted it. Quote:
...Usually trotted out by non-creationist Christians: both the six-day creation and the Noah's Flood story were "clearly allegorical" because of the "literary style" used. Followed by more babble about "context" which is not worthy of a response. |
|||
03-30-2004, 01:57 AM | #164 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,875
|
Perhaps a moderator could split the literary style topic to a separate thread where Ed can respond specifically? I'd like to know how much familiarity he has with Ugaritic texts before he reached his conclusion.
Joel |
03-30-2004, 06:15 AM | #165 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
I agree. I'd like to see Ed make some actual arguments for his claims rather than asserting them as if they were self-evident truth.
Talking animals are a characteristic of fairy tales, therefore the second Genesis creation story has a characteristic of fairy tales. |
03-30-2004, 01:11 PM | #166 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
No question this is should be the number one argument regarding human sacrifice. While NOGO simply makes reference to Hebrew 9, let me blatantly point it out: “It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience-concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:9-14) The demonstration of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice actually works against the claim that Mosaic law demanded Jewish children for sacrifice. A review of Leviticus chapters 1 – 6 give very specific instructions regarding sacrifice. Most importantly the sacrifice must be male, and “without blemish.� (Note, the claim that the “first-born� was sacrificed would not necessarily meet these two requirements) These sacrifices were a symbol or demonstration of what Christ was going to do. (Hebrews 10) To sacrifice a human under Mosaic Law would have made Christ’s merely “ho-hum� another human sacrifice. Simply put, the animals sacrificed would lead up to the “ultimate� sacrifice of a human. HOWEVER, as pointed out, the underlying problem—God demanding human sacrifice, not only remains, but is accentuated!! In fact, it is unarguable! If God’s Plan (Plan A) was that Adam/Eve would not sin, but live happily ever after, then as soon as they did, He knew that the ONLY way to rectify the situation was the human sacrifice of Jesus (Plan B) OR, if God knew that Adam/Eve would blow it, Plan A was ALWAYS to have Jesus be a human sacrifice. As NOGO points out, while we may debate the Mosaic Law issue, the underlying statement, “God demands human sacrifice,� by Jesus alone, becomes unassailable. So (I would claim) at that point the debate on Mosaic Law, while interesting, at its base level becomes “to-may-to� “toe-ma-to.� |
|
03-30-2004, 09:31 PM | #167 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
|
Quote:
Also read Deut. 21:14 in the NASB: "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. " New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again. As far the possibility that she would desire to stay married you need to learn more about ancient history. In ancient times single women without families were pretty much under a death sentence or an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution. IOW having a husband in ancient times was the main source of security for women. So they did not have the option to be as choosy as a 21st century western woman that lives in a society with a decent police force. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
03-30-2004, 11:29 PM | #168 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,373
|
Quote:
|
|
03-31-2004, 01:08 AM | #169 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
|
Quote:
You cannot apply modern moral codes to the ancient Hebrews. Try again. Quote:
YOU need to learn more about WOMEN, Ed. Before you get yourself into deep, deep trouble. Quote:
Insults to Women in the Bible |
|||
03-31-2004, 01:08 AM | #170 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, we are supposedly evil sinners -- is Mr. G. capable of committing sins? Traditional Xtian doctrine often resembles Bipolar Disorder, and apologists like Ed find this split convenient. They can quote whichever polarity is convenient, and play dumb about the other polarity. Quote:
And there are plenty of non-theological ethical theories that Ed seems unaware of. And the divine-command theory does not really tell us anything, as Plato recognized long ago in Euthyphro. Quote:
And I wonder if Ed is simply projecting his manner of ethical reasoning on evolutionary biology. Quote:
I find it depressing that Ed is so willing to defend genocide. Including killing whole populations of babies. I wonder if he has seriously thought through his positions, as opposed to taking an attitude of "I am chust followink orders." |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|