The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

5uspect

ISAW wrote:

One reply is:
animals are not considered to have a soul. they act callously without "violence" We can no more blame a lion for being "violent" than we can a "violent" storm for knocking down a wall. animals dont kill each other for envy or fun or greed. Humans may do it by choice.

But this reply assumes animals are simple preprogramed robots. In a sense we are all preprogramed robots, however we know that this is too simplistic a view. Humans, as animals exhibit a wide range of emotions as do animals in response to their enviroment. Harlow's "monkey love" experiments showed that animals are capable of complex ranges of emotional behaviour. Animals can and do kill for more reasons than a desire to eat although this the primary reason.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

But this reply assumes animals are simple preprogramed robots. In a sense we are all preprogramed robots, however we know that this is too simplistic a view. Humans, as animals exhibit a wide range of emotions as do animals in response to their enviroment. Harlow's "monkey love" experiments showed that animals are capable of complex ranges of emotional behaviour. Animals can and do kill for more reasons than a desire to eat although this the primary reason.

As with many such things, this view of animals as automatons has been superseded within science, but lingers in the popular consciousness. There is a substantial body of work showing thought, rational thought, moral understanding, forethought, and almost everything else we fondly consider "human" within the animal kingdom.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

5uspect wrote:

But this reply assumes animals are simple preprogramed robots. In a sense we are all preprogramed robots, however we know that this is too simplistic a view. Humans, as animals exhibit a wide range of emotions as do animals in response to their enviroment. Harlow's "monkey love" experiments showed that animals are capable of complex ranges of emotional behaviour. Animals can and do kill for more reasons than a desire to eat although this the primary reason.

According to many genetic theorists , lingustic theorists, biologists and philosophers we ARE pre programmed robots! The programming happened by accident or chance and is dependent on "laws" of the universe. The proposition is entirely areligious. The difference with believers is that they believe that some benign force had a hand in humanity in particular. there are also those who may not believe in god but do believe in the spirit or soul which gives us choice.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Faith usually.

That doesn't answer the question. I'm asking why do they have faith in a book?

ISAW wrote:

first of all it was Bishop Usher who stared the 4004 BCE date. Like in the Koran a month or year or age can be considered " a long time".

You might want to explain that to some of the creationists around here ...

ISAW wrote:

the bible isnt a science text. People sometimes even dis the Mosaic law but that in itself was a vast sociological improvemnt.

So you as a Christian accept that the Bible is not the word of God, and as such it can be wrong or incorrect.

Thats great if you do, its how a lot of my friends view the Bible. But it ain't how most posters on this forum do.

ISAW wrote:

You really must think that Christians are Biblical fundamentalists.

No I think that Chrisitians on this forum believe that the Bible is the voice of God and as such cannot be incorrect or mistaken about what it describes or what God wishes

ISAW wrote:

Indeed the VAST MAJORITY of christians believe this. And it is also the dogma of the Catholic church.

Not quite up on the Catholic church dogma but does it really teach that the Bible is simply a book written by men and could be mistaken, in part or as a whole about the wishes of God?

ISAW wrote:

I conmtest that the Bible says homosexuals are all sinners. Indeed some Anglican clergy are homosexual.

Great, if you can just explain that to those on this forum who say homosexual sex is a sinful act. I'm assuming you are a Christian so you can probably explain it better than me.

After two weeks I return to see JC still won't list any credentials.
I suppose we must all assume he has none and is claiming only to be a "creation scientist" trained in some religious establishment, perhaps.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Now can you give me a valid example of how exactly evolutionists distort science?

JC would be more familiar with the subject than me, but how about this? http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=45

My point is that if we could see fairys and angels flying about Tescos or fossilised in the ground they would be documented as part of the natural world just like dinosaurs and earthworms. The problem is they only exist in the minds of those who choose to believe in them through blind faith alone.
They exist outside what we can observe. I'm sure you have no problems realising that the flying spaghetti monster, a supernatural being, is pure fantasy.

You are ruling out the existence of spiritual beings on the basis that (1) you have not seen them (2) they have not been visually recorded. That could be explained by there not being any such thing as a spiritual being; but also by you or the cameras just not being there at the time or their nature as spiritual not lending itself to electronic recording. In support of their existence, you have the testimonies of many people throughout history - and not just crazies. Seems to me rather presumptuous to dismiss it all.

How do you know the authors style wasn't to use a make believe god to inforce his point by saying that he was inspired by god? You almost seem to support this yourself:

Yes, indeed. Some of the religions are just that, figments of man's imagination. Others may be the result of demonic delusions. How can Christians be sure the Bible is not part of that? As I said, primarily by the inward enlightening by God the Holy Spirit. As Christ put it,
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Can you give an example of a fulfilled prophecy please? Hows do these prove reliably that the bible is the word of god and not fabricated stories loosly attached to some actual historical truth?

Two prime examples are the predictions of the coming of the Messiah (first coming) and of the history of the Jewish nation.

Prophecy 1:
Daniel 9:24 “ Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
25 “ Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.
26 “ And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

These prophetic 'weeks', or 'sevens' are years, based on the prophetic day for a year principle. There is some dispute as to the actual start date, when the decree went out to restore and build Jerusalem. But in any event, it took the nation up to the time of Christ's time on earth. Those who knew their Bible back then were living in expectance of the Messiah, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%203%20:15;&version=50;

Christ came preaching the Word at the end of the 69 'weeks' or 483 years. He was cut off, not for His own sin, and that generation experienced the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans under their prince, Titus.

It could be objected that these things just so happened to co-incide with the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, and that the Christians fitted Him into the missing Messiah that was expected. A bit of a stretch, in light of the supporting prophecy regarding the future of the nation:

Prophecy 2:
Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Israel's captivity has lasted nearly 1900 years. It appears as a nation again at a time that even unbelievers admit has great potential for the extinction of man, if God does not intervene.

Prophecy 3:
Luke 13:28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. 29 They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And indeed there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last.”

Christ here spoke of the ingathering of the Gentiles, whilst most Israelites were to continue in unbelief. Exactly as has occurred, despite Christianity being exclusively Jewish to begin with.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

The problem with this work is that it is not effectively peer reviewed. The psuedo science here is "reviewed" by those who hold similar minority beliefs and not by scientists unbaised by such unfounded religous convictions.

The problem is compounded when you realize that evolutionists can just as well be biased against any results that would support those religious convictions. Scientists are not some devout band of lovers of truth. They are subject to presuppositions and prejudices like the rest of us. The best we can expect is for some to realize their weaknesses and try for impartiality. But peer-review may well involve peer-pressure also, and both present and former evolutionists testify to the pressure to down-play anything that supports a non-evolutionary model.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

That doesn't answer the question, why believe the biblical account over any other account.

See my response to 5uspect, etc. on the inward enlightening of the Spirit of God.

Look the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago (its actually 6,000 BCE, so that would be 10,000 years ago btw). Humans have been on the earth for at least 150,000 years, since we evolved from other primates. We have evidence for this. Lots and lots and lots of evidence.

Er, that is the subject being debated here.

Violence and death were not necessary for the human species to continue to survive. Sex (outside of marriage) was.

Faithful married couples would not have produced enough happy well-adjusted off-spring, so multiple partners and absent Dads was a better idea?

How?

Damage to the rectum, diseases passed by anal sex. Not to speak of the psychological damage done by practising what your deepest conscience knows to be perverse.

No, the Bible says so. The same Bible which says the earth is 10,000 years old, that the sun goes around the Earth and that Pi is 3.

1. It actually gives a 6000yr. approximation, by genealogy.
2. Our weather-forecasters must also be in profound ignorance when they speak of 'sunrise' and sunset'. One would have thought they knew the truth, that this is only the apparent reality. Hmmm, I wonder when mankind first started using apparent reality in their descriptions?
3. What is the value of Pi? WARNING, approximations are not acceptable, and will be regarded as errors.

It is perfectly possible to believe (know) there is a God but to not accept that the Bible is the literal word of God. Lots of people do that all the time, in fact most of my Christian friends believe the Bible was simply the result of men, like themselves, attempting to explain something they didn't really understand (ie God).

That is true - one can believe in a god without believing the Bible is his word. It is just that one cannot believe in the God declared by the Bible and at the same time hold the Bible as man-made. Your 'Christian' friends are therefore flying under a false flag. If they were honest they would describe themselves as an eclectic mix of their own ideas and some from the Bible and elsewhere.

Is it then not a little presumptuious of you to assume you know what he was planning when he made homosexuality part of nature? How do you know it is sinful except for the description in the Bible?

Again, He did not make it part of nature. Sin by man caused the unnatural behaviour we witness around us, whether in greed, violence or lust.

So God was forced to encode homosexuality into people because of what Adam did, even though it would displease him? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense?

Sin brought God's judgement on the world. Death, suffering and degradation are part of that.

Marriage is also found all over the rest of the Old Testement and it is very much to do with fiance and property.

I'm telling you how marriage originated. What man changed it to is another matter.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

nit picking time
If god make all the animals and God didn't make violence or death how did god imagine the animals would eat?

No, a sensible question. Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

2. It is logical to believe God condemns it, because He says so.

Since Leviticus was done away with with the coming of Jesus and Romans was talking about paedophelia... not really.

Not to speak of the psychological damage done by practising what your deepest conscience knows to be perverse.

YOUR conscience. Projecting your beliefs onto others doesn't mean they feel the same way.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

5uspect said:
The problem is compounded when you realize that evolutionists can just as well be biased against any results that would support those religious convictions. Scientists are not some devout band of lovers of truth. They are subject to presuppositions and prejudices like the rest of us. The best we can expect is for some to realize their weaknesses and try for impartiality. But peer-review may well involve peer-pressure also, and both present and former evolutionists testify to the pressure to down-play anything that supports a non-evolutionary model.

Hmm. I don't dispute the existence of peer pressure, or of potential bias, but it's very very rare for even systemic bias to produce the 99.9%/0.1% result we see for evolutionist models versus creationist models. Aside from anything else, that figure covers all scientists, from academia to industry, across the entire planet, every known religion and culture that does science - wherever you look, basically.

In addition, peer review is not a mechanism that is designed to suppress papers that the reviewers disagree with - it is almost entirely a methodological review, to check for flaws and errors in the methodology of the research, not the conclusions.

If the implications of what you say above are what you believe them to be (ie, that Creationist models are suppressed by mainstream science, systemically), we would expect to find more variation.

In particular, if Creationist geology worked, it would be used in the oil and mining industries - as long as it made more money, they wouldn't care, believe me. If Creationist biology worked better than evolutionist biology, it would be used in the pharmaceutical industry. Neither of these are the case.

The people at the top of the oil and other major industries whose profitability would be impacted by the suppression of better Creationist models don't care what scientists think, and if they found Creationist models better than evolutionist models, they would use them immediately. They don't.

The argument that unconscious and conscious bias in the sciences suppresses Creationist research is not supported, either, by the rate of submissions and rejections of Creationist papers. Creationist papers are not submitted to peer-reviewed journals in the first place - a fact that has been shown several times.

So, overall, a plausible-sounding argument that doesn't really hold up in the face of facts - virtually the Creationist trademark!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

God only decided to extend his "love" to the rest of the world after the coming of Jesus. Up until that point God really didn't give a sh*t about the non-Hewbrews

Paul, surely? There's no evidence that Jesus intended preaching to the Gentiles at all - Peter, as far as I know, argued strongly for keeping Jesus' message entirely within the Jewish faith, Paul argued for the extension of preaching to the Gentiles.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> 3. What is the value of Pi?

π = 4*(4*arccot(5) - arccot(239))

> WARNING, approximations are not acceptable, and will be regarded as errors.

hmm... from which I take it that you view god's poor approximation as a divine error?

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

No, a sensible question. Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

So why are some plants poisonous? How come some animals can eat these and others can't? Does god has his favourites and will only allow certain animals to eat certain berries? What about insect eating plants? What about viruses? Why would god create something that is "designed" to cause death? According to your bible passage god gave us all the fruit bearing plants for food so are the plants acting against god when I get poisoned by those nice berries that I found in the garden? Also didn't Jesus eat fish? Was he comitting sin by doiing this? Surely he also tucked into some passover lamb?

robindch

> Aside from anything else, that figure covers all scientists, from academia to
> industry, across the entire planet, every known religion and culture that does
> science - wherever you look, basically.

...just to back up this point, the Interacademy Panel, a co-ordinating group for scientific academies worldwide, has just released a joint statement on the validity of evolution. Unfortunately, this will probably become yet another hopeless attempt by the scientific community to hold back the tide of coarse lies being spread on the back of religion by the whooping chimpanzees who lead the money-spinning creationist movement:

http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf

This are Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austrian, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazilian, Bulgarian, Canada, Chile, Chinese, Taiwan, Colombia, Croatia, Cuban, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigerian, Pakistan, Palestine, Peru, The Philippines, Poland, Sénégal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, USA, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe as well as The Caribbean and African Academies of Sciences.

I mean, look, they even managed Palestine and Israel, and Serbia and Bosnia to agree to something, and Zimbabwe to agree to anything... incredible! Mind you, North Korea isn't listed, so creationists may have some support there.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

You are ruling out the existence of spiritual beings on the basis that (1) you have not seen them (2) they have not been visually recorded. That could be explained by there not being any such thing as a spiritual being; but also by you or the cameras just not being there at the time or their nature as spiritual not lending itself to electronic recording. In support of their existence, you have the testimonies of many people throughout history - and not just crazies. Seems to me rather presumptuous to dismiss it all.

You are assuming the existence of supernatural beings as are others. I am assuming nothing about supernatural beings only observing the facts we have.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, indeed. Some of the religions are just that, figments of man's imagination. Others may be the result of demonic delusions. How can Christians be sure the Bible is not part of that? As I said, primarily by the inward enlightening by God the Holy Spirit. As Christ put it,
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

All this says is that if you "come to me" its because of god and then you'll be saved on the last day. I can go into easons and find a book that says that if I follow these 12 steps I'll be a millionare. This is just a carrot on a stick and in no way offers any enlightenment.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

5uspect said:

Two prime examples are the predictions of the coming of the Messiah (first coming) and of the history of the Jewish nation.

Unfortunately these are this that man can easily make come true or are likely to happen anyway, much like the ramblings of nostrodamus. Predicting the fall of a "great" nation or kingdom is like predicting morning follows night. I'm looking for a prophecy that says something like everyone will sprout wings and fly about picking insects from their teeth (anyone ever have to clean a helicopter in the summer?! :eek: ) Can you give an example of something that is outside the influence of people?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

The stats referred to do not make any assumptions about whether a society is religious - they directly asked about faith ("do you believe..") and church attendance, rather than taking census records or deciding which societies were religious in advance. This effectively disposes of point 1.

Did they find out the answers to these questions from the convicted criminals? I live in a relatively religious community. But the crime is not commited evenly by the religious and non-religious elements. It is almost exclusively by the non-religious. I suspect that is true throughout the world.

What then can account for the figures you quote? Maybe they are skewed by the good socio-economic conditions of modern secular societies as compared to the poorer ones of the rest of the world, which includes many of the religious societies? Even in one nation, the crime is mostly located in the poorer sections. America is a prime example. So if Sweden we a lot poorer, or the economic make-up were very unbalanced, there would be a greater incidence of crime.

Point 2 is a stronger criticism. It would be possible to argue, however, that overall numbers professing a faith are likely to be a good measure of non-nominal believers in modern democratic societies, where there is no repression of religion.

That certainly is a mitigating factor, but peer-pressure is a significant thing in societies that profess religion but are no longer really commited to it. I remember well the Catholic friends of my youth here in Northern Ireland - attended Mass every Sunday, but were almost to a man very godless. Drink and sex were a big part of their lives, yet they would have been mortified at the idea of stopping Mass attendance, lest they disappointed their families and brought wider disapproval. My Protestant friends were at a more advanced stage of unbelief, under no pressure from their families and openly agnostic or even atheistic.

So, before syphilis arrived from the New World, unprotected sex was more in tune with the Manufacturer's instructions?

I can't see how you think I was saying that. Unprotected sex is no problem within faithful marriage - unless one is family-planning. God is pleased with protected or unprotected sex within marriage.

Do you believe that living past 60 (which is where most cancers etc kick in) is somehow against the "instructions"?

Not at all. The abuse of our bodies is what counts. It is God who determines our days.

It seems to work - indeed, I am arguing that it works better. Who will forgive the atheist if he falls off the pedestal he has put himself on?

I have no problem with it working, just with the hypocrisy of those who insist it is not a purely artificial device.

Well, it requires me to admit that either:

(a) all morality, including yours, is a delusional comfort blanket. Yours has an extra fluffy layer of Godliness, that's all...

(b) all morality is based on a combination of in-built moral perception (ie that we have an evolved morality) plus a certain amount of social contract.

Personally, I go with the latter - we are moral beings as much as we are sexual ones, and it doesn't make sense to require a level of "meaning" in morality that we don't require in sex. Admittedly, morality is rarely as much fun - although I am enjoying this discussion, I'd probably prefer sex.

Yes, that is a logical position for an atheist. It does not claim its morality is anything other than instinctive behavioural traits. It does validate the moralities of everyone, however, no matter how evil others find them to be. One cannot then say, for example, that rape is morally wrong, only that it is morally wrong for some.

Alas, this is an assumption - a step of faith. Once you've made it, you can pull the ladder up behind you, but until you make it, the ladder is always visible.

Not so, at least for the Biblical Christian. Ours is not a leap in the dark, but an embracing of a truth that we have come to know before we accept it.

I have never required that morality be logically supportable. I only require that it works. This is the difference, I daresay, between the empirical scientist and the rational philosopher...

I'm glad once again for your honesty in admitting this. Many in your position hold on to right and wrong being universal standards, outside of what an individual believes.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

After two weeks I return to see JC still won't list any credentials.
I suppose we must all assume he has none and is claiming only to be a "creation scientist" trained in some religious establishment, perhaps.

Maybe JC might be reluctant to reveal enough that would personally identify him?

Whatever, I'm puzzled why you are so interested, since you are unwilling to respect the credentials of all the Creationists scientists that are publically listed, eg.,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

On the other hand, the difference between science and dinner-table theorising is large. I can come up with postulated mechanisms for solar system formation sitting here, but unless they offer a testable prediction, and that prediction is tested, it isn't science

Sure. But are not the various theories concerning evolution in the same boat as the creationist ones - a patch-work of theories that we try to fit the observable and testable facts into?

We cannot re-run the whole thing, so it is not repeatable in the lab. We look at various layers of rock, and we speculate as to how they got there, by catastrophe or long-term deposition. We suggest what mechanism might account for the real features we see before us.

Operational science deals with the facts; origins (historical) science uses that knowledge to speculate as to how things came about. Both Creationist and Evolutionist scientists use the same procedure.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

Maybe JC might be reluctant to reveal enough that would personally identify him?

There are enough science graduates in this country that it's hardly identifying.

Whatever, I'm puzzled why you are so interested, since you are unwilling to respect the credentials of all the Creationists scientists that are publically listed, eg.,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

What do you base that assumption on?


He expects us to believe a lot of what he says based on his claim to be a scientist and refers to his science training now and then. So, we're asking what type. It's not that difficult a question. Particularly since he also won't even check over Son Goku's maths calculations to point out the errors JC claims are there without even having looked at them. If he's as well trained as he claims, then it shouldn't be a problem. He has time enough to post here; it wouldn't be any more time consuming.

a patch-work of theories that we try to fit the observable and testable facts into?

No, we try to fit the theories into and around the facts.

We cannot re-run the whole thing, so it is not repeatable in the lab.

I think Scofflaw or wicknight have given examples of relevant successful experiments that have been re-created in the lab...

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Sure. But are not the various theories concerning evolution in the same boat as the creationist ones - a patch-work of theories that we try to fit the observable and testable facts into?

We cannot re-run the whole thing, so it is not repeatable in the lab. We look at various layers of rock, and we speculate as to how they got there, by catastrophe or long-term deposition. We suggest what mechanism might account for the real features we see before us.

Operational science deals with the facts; origins (historical) science uses that knowledge to speculate as to how things came about. Both Creationist and Evolutionist scientists use the same procedure.

No scientists look at the facts and draw a conclusion, creationists warp the facts to fit their divine predefined conclusion from the bible.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Oops - good point, although it doesn't change the substance of my issue, merely the details. The survivors throughout the world retained absolutely nothing of their Middle Eastern heritage - none of the agricultural practices, for example.

The Middle Eastern heritage came a long time after Noah. Whatever Noah's generation had as a heritage soon passed away as the tribes and nations developed, no longer united by a common language. The descendants of Shem (the Semites) would develop somewhat differently from the descendants of Japheth or Ham. But even within these basic groups wide varieties developed.

Weak - that's an exemption from slavery, not a prohibition - and where does Jesus extend it to all mankind? However, I see that others have taken up the cudgels here.

As I said, what was tolerated was not the same as what was fundamentally right - divorce being a prime example. Jesus did away with national considerations, including the temporary features of the Law of Moses, in his inaugeration of the New Covenant:
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”
26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

Matthew 19 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who madethem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

Since Leviticus was done away with with the coming of Jesus and Romans was talking about paedophelia... not really.

Romans talking about paedophilia? Have you read it?

Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

The "homosexual offenders" was referring to paedophelia, I'd forgotten about that section.
I'll do some reading on that one. Though IIRC it was Paul giving some advice(which doesn't seem to have been echoed by anyone else), not "god says this is wrong".

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Paul, surely? There's no evidence that Jesus intended preaching to the Gentiles at all - Peter, as far as I know, argued strongly for keeping Jesus' message entirely within the Jewish faith, Paul argued for the extension of preaching to the Gentiles.

Nope. The disciples did have to be shown that the gospel was for all, but that was not a victory for Paul over Peter. In fact, it was Peter who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles.
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

Acts11: 1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: ......18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

wolfsbane

robindch said:

hmm... from which I take it that you view god's poor approximation as a divine error?

Nah, I was only pulling Wicknight's chain, to show him how ridiculous it was to demand a mathematic formula from an historical record. I could have referred him to a fuller article instead, but just wanted him to think about it.
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Romans talking about paedophilia? Have you read it?

I think Judges 19 has it all, paedophilia, rape, homosexuality, abuse of women.
It even suggests that paedophilia is not as bad as homosexuality as the master of the house offers his daughter to the mob to be raped rather than the man suffer at the hands of the mob.

5uspect

5uspect wrote:

I think Judges 19 has it all, paedophilia, rape, homosexuality, abuse of women.
It even suggests that paedophilia is not as bad as homosexuality as the master of the house offers his daughter to the mob to be raped rather than the man suffer at the hands of the mob.

Suffer being the operative word, it was rape either way...
but yeah