Raf

I continue to be embarrassed that this guy ever impressed me.

Bump

"I'm not even supposed to be here today!"

Genesis 4 I am not going to jump on the “who was Cain’s wife?” bandwagon in the sense of there being no other women around. I agree that Genesis 4 says Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel, but it does not rule out their having other children, including daughters. I would have to argue that it is implied they had no other sons until Seth was born, after Abel’s murder. So, going strictly by what the Bible says and doesn’t rule out, Cain’s wife was his sister. And I guess God was OK with that. Miscellaneous question: Why don’t we know the names of ANY of Adam and Eve’s daughters? I mean, what’s a girl gotta do to get her name in the Bible? So far, get fooled by a talking snake with feet and instigate the fall of the human race qualifies for a mention. Let’s put a marker there and wait until the author of Genesis finally finds a woman worth mentioning by name again, shall we? Not that it’s an actual error, but it’s just fun. By itself, Genesis says absolutely nothing about why God looked with favor on Abel’s offering of fat portions from the firstborn of his flock, but He did not look with favor on the fruit of Cain’s soil. Ever notice that? If you lived in a time when the first book of the Bible was the ONLY book of the Bible, you would have no way of knowing why God accepted Abel’s offering but dissed Cain’s. Is it fair to argue that, according to the Bible at least, Adam, Eve and their progeny were the only human beings on earth? I mean, the notion that Cain married his sister is predicated on the idea that there were no other women available (ruling out his mom, of course. But why of course? I would have ruled out his sister “of course.” Where did the topic go? Oh, yes, there it is…). If there WERE other women available, then Cain’s wife was not his sister. Must have been some soulless woman-looking-thing that was not human in the same way Adam and Eve were human. If she was not Cain's sister, but she was fully human in every way that Adam, Eve and Cain were human, where did she come from? She wasn't descended from Adam and Eve. Was she fallen? WHY? HER parents didn't eat from the "don't eat from that" tree that God ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from before leaving them alone with it. So either Cain married his sister, or he married something similar to but not quite the same as a human woman. An animal, in other words. No? Well, what would YOU call it? . The notion of Cain building a city was covered in an earlier thread. It’s a fascinating thread in its own right. You can find it here.

I wanted to clarify this earlier post: The discussion of whether there are errors in Genesis covers a LOT of ground. A whole lot of ground. You could stick with Genesis 1 alone and spend the rest of your life exploring the implications of whether this verse is true, whether it conforms to our understanding of the world through science, whether our understanding of the world through science is true, etc. All of those questions and discussions would be ON TOPIC for a thread called "Actual Errors in Genesis." The only problem is, we'd never get past chapter 1. At some point, we have to agree to move on, not because the discussion is off-topic, but because it stops the progress of the conversation. In THAT light, I would ask that further discussion of evolution be moved to another thread. I did not mean to imply that evolution was off-topic for this thread. It is not. *** Secondly, I want to thank T-Bone for a vigorous debate on the Flood. If I understand our arguments correctly, we are leaving that discussion with neither of us having persuaded the other. Fair enough. And with that, we move on to Genesis 4...

I think Malachi 3:8-12 provides some Biblical justification for the notion that 9/10 goes farther with God's blessing on it than 10/10 does without. Whether it is correct for Christian believers to appropriate that particular Old Testament promise is a larger issue that we will not settle in a message board, but just because an idea is not phrased a certain way in the Bible doesn't mean there's nothing in the Bible to support the idea. For what it's worth, my belief is that the verse in Malachi is not talking about money at all. But who cares what I think. :)

Yes

Do NOT copy and paste whole sections of text from books. A line, a paragraph, even several paragraphs can be okay, IF you are commenting on the subtance of those paragraphs. You can’t just post all these things for our reading pleasure. Do not quote an entire chapter of a copyrighted work unless you have the written permission of that work’s author. Just a reminder. Missed a couple of glaring infractions.

David B. Actuslly.

Any updates?

A brief clip from The Courtship of Eddie's Father, a few notes from The Lonely Man, a package addressed to a pseudonym, a security guard, and a mangled catchphrase connect this 2008 movie to a 1970s tv show inspired by the same source material.

If we are going to discuss whether Yahweh is moral, the Old Testament law is important BECAUSE HE AUTHORED IT. Noting the role of Jesus Christ as "suspending" the law is all well and good, but it does not address the fact that God wrote the Old Testament law in the first place. Saying that Israel received the law because Israel wanted a king ignores two facts. One: that the Old Testament law was commanded by Yahweh CENTURIES before there was a king in Israel. Two: Any barbaric laws that WERE put in place by men are not factors in this discussion. The only question this thread is concerned with is God's morality. Is anyone trying to say that God did not write the Old Testament law? I would agree with you COMPLETELY! But that's not what the Bible says. The Bible gives God the credit for commanding some laws that we recognize today as being completely immoral. This thread is not about laws that are not attributed to God's command. Such laws are off topic. This thread is not about people who followed the law to the letter, nor is it about people who failed to follow the law. Those subjects are off topic. If you want to discuss them, start another thread. But don't bury THIS thread in a mountain of irrelevant information. This thread isn't even about good laws. We would expect good laws now and then from any man made set of laws. So what? A good law here and a good law there does nothing, not one thing, to detract from the fact that God imposed the death penalty for petty reasons, making you more moral than God. God regulated rather than abolished slavery. That makes you more moral than God. God's Laws on rape were utterly unfair to women. That makes you more moral than God. Many of you reading this are unaware that you really are more moral than God. And it's not just the Old Testament law. The New Testament refers to the law as holy just and good. The new testament does nothing to correct the old testament's most basic error on slavery. This thread is about God's morality. If you want to start a thread that's a survey of the Old Testament, have at it. Somewhere else. Not on this thread. I don't know how to be more clear.

At least Yahweh tells slave masters to be nice to their slaves. Hey, you know what would be really nice? Not owning people. Not owning people would be really nice. Old Testament morality: it's okay to beat your slaves, as long as you don't kill them. New Testament: try to be a little nicer to your Christian slaves. Moral people: what's say we just don't own people? You are more moral than Yahweh. Before and after Jesus. He just never got around to saying slavery was inherently immoral. We all know that today, but not from Yahweh. We know it because we are more moral than Yahweh. Even New Testament Yahweh. Even EPHESIANS Yahweh.

That word "servants"? Doulos. Bondslave. Not an employee. A slave. Yahweh never banned slavery. Not even in the New Testament. You are more moral than Yahweh, thank goodness.

Remember the time Paul returned a runaway slave to his master, and he told the master that it's just wrong to own a human being, and he should free the slave because it's ungodly for one human being to straight up own another? Me neither. I remember the part where Paul tells the master to be super nice to the slave because they're both Christians now. But nothing about freeing the slave. Nothing about freeing any slaves, Christian or non Christian. There is therefore then no condemnation of slavery for those who are in Christ Jesus. Say, that's New Testament, isn't it? Slavery was not abolished in the New Testament either? Wow. That Yahweh is something else. BBans people with crushed testicles from his presence, but slave owners are good to go. Thank goodness Jesus brought an end to the New Testament! Wait, what?

Whether I am correct about the interpolated verses or not (news flash: I am correct), its relevance to the fact that God supposedly authored the barbaric laws of the Old Testament remains nil. In other words, Mark's continued effort to derail this thread remains noted. If I were observing this conversation rather than participating... but I'm not. Whatever.

From earlier in this thread: Do you realize that by using this ABSURD logic, the tallest building in New York City would have to be the New York Public Library? Because it has more stories than any other building in the city. If you think Jesus was talking about suspending the Old Testament law, that position is scripturally indefensible.

The story of the woman taken in adultery is an interpolation into the Bible and was not an original part of the gospel of John. Using it to prove a theological point reflects a lack of knowledge of Biblical scholarship. Further, it needs to be said that the issue we are discussing is God's morality. Shifting the blame for the barbarism inherent in the Old Testament law to Israel does not negate the fact that, according to the Bible, Yahweh was the author of that law. The notion that Jesus saw they were not applying the Old Testament death penalty with justice is laughably irrelevant to this thread, because if they WERE dispensing Old Testament law with justice, we would correctly see them as bloodthirsty savages. That is because our morality today is greater than the morality of the author of the Old Testament law. And if the author of the Old Testament law was Yahweh, then you are more moral than Yahweh.

I missed a few posts. Sorry. Yes, you were right.

"I take it back. I hope you're doing fine."

Under the Rainbow Jerry Marren The Wizard of Oz

Pea FAL.

If someone else thinks of something first, go ahead.

"Whatcha gonn' do to get into another one of these here rock 'n' roll songs?"

Ok, so let's bring it home: If it's immoral today to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night, then it was always immoral to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night. Therefore, it was immoral to decree a law that says a man who picks up sticks on a Friday night is to be executed. But that law WAS decreed, by Yahweh. And it was decreed by Yahweh centuries before Israel asked for a king. It was also decreed by Yahweh centuries before the invention of the printing press, the moon landing, and the Bush v. Gore election fiasco. It was decreed by Yahweh centuries before an uncountable number of irrelevant events. Israel asking for a king had no more effect on Yahweh's decree than the moon landing had. They were completely unrelated events. The decree that a man who picked up sticks on a Friday night (to be fair, it could have been Saturday morning, which would make a world of difference... to flippin no one) should be executed for his crime was immoral by today's standards. It was not immoral by Yahweh's standards. (How do we know this? Because it was HIS law, not Israel's, not the surrounding nations' and not Neil Armstrong's). But wait! There was another law that said if you stole something, you should have to repay it. That was moral, right? In my humble opinion, yes, that was pretty moral. So we can agree that some of Yahweh's laws were quite moral. Now, getting back to the laws that were NOT moral, the ones that were barbaric, bloodthirsty, cruel, misogynistic and tolerant of intolerable institutions like slavery... No! I want to talk about the moral laws! But the moral laws are not in question or dispute. No one is arguing that ALL of Yahweh's laws are immoral. One would expect SOME laws to be moral. The issue is whether ALL of Yahweh's laws are moral. If Yahweh's laws are not moral, then by what standard to we credit Him with being moral? And please don't tell me the answer is by New Testament standards, because by New Testament standards, the Old Testament law was "holy, just and good." Except it was not holy, just and good. It was cruel, barbaric and inhumane (among other things). If, by today's standards, we can see that some of Yahweh's law is moral and some of it is really, REALLY not, are we not by definition operating on a higher moral standard than Yahweh's? Incidentally, I don't believe in Yahweh, so if you substitute "ancient Israel" for "Yahweh" in the preceding sentences, you will see that nothing I am saying is even remotely controversial. It is only controversial if you think ancient Israel's laws were decreed by Yahweh. I don't believe Yahweh is a moral monster, because I don't believe he exists. I believe ancient Israel had some monstrous laws, but in that, they were no different from any other nation, culture or religion -- exactly the result one would expect if their laws were man-made and not the decrees of an Author of Morality.