Quote:
Originally Posted by sean  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." |
Hyenas and wolves are not created in the image of God, were not given the cultural mandate, were not assigned to be priests and kings and stewards of God's creation, ec.
Quote:
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  |
The celibate person probably isn't suffering.
This looks more like "he doesn't really like God's law." Ok, if it is a matter of likes and dislikes, so what? He needs to show that it is *wrong* of God to do so, but that implies an absolute moral standard whereby to make assignations of right and wrong.
Quote:
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."
|
Cf. the
responses to Euthyphro's dilemma. God's law is a reflection of his holy character. He "answers" to his holy character. There is a third option for precisely this reason.
Quote:
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?"
|
It stopped being "cool" with Yahweh after wife number 1. Just because God didn't condemn it (actually, he implicitly did) doesn't make it right--he is using a form of the argument from silence fallacy.
Quote:
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.
|
I deny that it has anything to do with the Church and I don't see how a sensible reading of it challenges monogamy.
Quote:
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.
|
He keeps saying stuff like this is *wrong* or *bad*, but what justifies him saying something is wrong or bad apart from an absolute moral standard. And even if he does posit an absolute moral standard, what justifies him positing an absolute moral standard apart from an absolute personal God who has revealed himself?
Quote:
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 will let more capable men than I address this question, suffice to say that no theologian says that sin is in the *brain* (call him on that point. Ask for sources). We do say it is in the heart (and we are speaking metaphorically). And then call him on the distinction between brain and mind.