In a lengthy debate with an atheist (actually a zen buddhist), I was presented with the following arguments. I've talked with him about many subjects of theology, and he seems quite knowledgeable. I've just exhausted my course and don't want to answer him with anything less than Biblical truth and intelligent insight. So, I was just wondering how any of you would respond to the following (i apologize for the length):

On the subject of Adam and Eve's "marriage" (he claims that adam and eve were not married in the modern sense of the term because no official ceremony was performed and thus uses the example against Biblical support for marriage):
"the very WORD wife means a help-mate. Yahweh created the other animals and brought them before ha-adam AS MATES also but he did not choose any of them so Yahweh had to make a woman as his help-mate. tell me: are two wolves who mate and stay together automatically considered married? of course not. then why are you trying to sneak a ceremony into Genesis? you are trying to shoehorn a later doctrine -- marriage -- into Genesis! God made the male hyena for the female hyena but that does not make them married."

On the subject of the celibacy of those who choose not to get married (he asserts that he has no desire to wed and denies that fornication is wrong):
"so Yahweh PREFERS we suffer? this also puts the cart before the theological horse. you are saying, "if you cannot [control sexual urges], get yourself a wife so you can [copulate]." is that not a bit backwards? why would Yahweh put sex hormones -- the self-same hormones that causes EVERY OTHER animal in our family to mate -- if He would PREFER that we do not?"
*Edited at my discretion

On the subject of the Law being given to make guilty mankind:
"you cannot pretend that what goes for "god" now is what they thought way back then. in fact, the further back we go in any religion, the more anthropomorphic the gods are. Yahweh (actually, El) was more like a super-human in their imaginations than the 21st-century Christian flavour of god. look: there are two options. either He MADE the law up or He is merely a sounding board to tell us what these ultimate unchanging laws are. there can be no third option. the first means that God is arbitrarily deciding right and wrong -- SELF-righteous. the second means that God is not the highest authority and that this "ultimate unchanging morality" transcends even Him.
this is what puts theism and morality between the rock and the hard place."

On the subject of Old Testament concubines:
"as an aside, how many concubines did the righteous Solomon have and at what point was that "not cool" with Yahweh?"

On the subject of the Song of Solomon:
"the Song of Solomon is perceived by Christian scholars as a relationship between the church and Christ. period. there is nothing to do with monogamy among men and women in there."
*Of course I agree with this, but I also believe that it applies to the husband/wife relationship.

On the subject of God raising up and calling to Himself sinful men such as Lot, David and Solomon for His own Glory:
"uh, [let's just say, "Lotting"] your daughters for the GLORY of GOD!? that is PRETTY gross, d00d. playing patty-cake with a few HUNDRED random women for the GLORY of GOD?! i think not. these people got some pretty peculiar rewards in their lives. between Solomon getting a few hundred and Lot [ahem...] his daughters, i cannot possibly imagine how this sits well with you. if God said, "glorify me by [you can guess] your two daughters, " would that make it right? then why was Solomon praised by later prophets? why was Lot considered the ONLY noble moral man in Sodom and Gamorrah? why did David get such a lavish kingdom for conquering -- MURDERING -- these people? sorry, Charlie, but that does not make "common sense" to call these people sinners when Yahweh provided the very PROVIDENCE by which they succeeded in doing whatever it was they did!"
*Again, edited.

On the subject of sin being inherent in human nature:
"then point out in the brain where "sin" is so that we can remove it. if "sin" is a biological part of our make-up, then you can find it using even the simplest fMRI. help mankind out and tell us where it is! but no. it is not there, is it? we find nothing but NATURAL causes and effects in our brains. i wish it were not so, but your hypothesis is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

there are NO varying degrees of evil -- sin -- in His [God's] eyes."

I appreciate any insight you may have.