Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Critique of Newsweek's...William Cole's Questions to Heinz

Expand Messages
  • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
    Heinz, You wrote:
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 19, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Heinz,

      You wrote:

      << I don't believe in angels either...and I have no idea how we came
      to be here. It would be great to know all these answers, but positing
      a supernatural explanation is not the best answer. >>

      What exactly is it about a supernatural explanation that makes
      it "not the best"?

      You wrote:

      << A person of faith demands of me the facts, but needs none for
      himself :) >>

      Actually, we have facts aplenty, but you have just ruled that they
      cannot be used to support a supernatural explanation -- and now you
      claim that we believers need no facts. You're basically arguing in a
      tight little circle of a priori rejection of the supernatural.

      You wrote:

      << Well, evolution is an undeniable fact - there is much to support
      it. >>

      It depends how one defines "evolution." If one defines it as change
      in biological systems over time, then yes, there is undeniable
      evidence for evolution. If one defines it as the chance emergence and
      diversification of living things from inanimate matter, evolution is
      far from undeniable.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman
    • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
      Heinz, I think we have both now stated our positions and presented our arguments on this issue, and I m ready to move on to other things. In Christ s service,
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Heinz,

        I think we have both now stated our positions and presented our
        arguments on this issue, and I'm ready to move on to other things.

        In Christ's service,
        Rob Bowman



        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Heinz Schmitz"
        <christian_skeptic@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
        > <faithhasitsreasons@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Heinz,
        > >
        > > I had written that "the New Testament everywhere assumes that a
        > > believer should be monogamous (e.g., Matt. 19:1-10; 22:23-28;
        Luke
        > > 14:26; 1 Cor. 7:2-4; Eph. 5:23-33; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6)."
        > >
        > > You replied:
        > >
        > > << Even personally looking at the Scriptures you quote, I am
        still
        > > left with the fact that there is not a single verse from the New
        > > Testament that prohibits polygamy. Jesus referred to the OT which
        > > allowed for polygamy. Simply because one man and one woman and
        being
        > > single may have been preferred, this does not in itself mean
        polygamy
        > > was condemned. >>
        > >
        > > In the Pastoral Epistles, monogamy is one item in the lists of
        > > characteristics exemplifying general good character that is
        expected
        > > of church leaders. These are not extraordinary qualifications but
        > > rather the expected behavior of solid Christian persons (e.g.,
        not a
        > > drunkard, not violent, hospitable). The Jews by this time were
        almost
        > > entirely monogamous (there were isolated exceptions), which was
        > > widely and generally understood to be the norm, which is why
        Jesus
        > > always assumes monogamy in his comments on marriage. Paul found
        it
        > > necessary to mention monogamy in reference to church leaders
        because
        > > Timothy and Titus were pastoring churches with large contingents
        of
        > > converts from paganism, where polygamy was more significant--but
        even
        > > here, monogamy was the norm in the Greco-Roman, Hellenistic
        culture.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, the early Christians adopted the pagan practice of monogamy.
        The
        > ancient pagans generally disapproved of polygamy, although they did
        > not actually consider it illegal, and it was unscriptural only for
        > church leaders.
        >
        > > You had written:
        > >
        > > << I am only arguing in favor of gay marriage. >>
        > >
        > > Okay, I'm going to give in and ask: Is there some reason why
        you're
        > > so concerned about arguing in favor of gay marriage?
        > >
        >
        > Reply: I suppose in the past Christians would ask what possible
        reason
        > anyone would argue in favor of equal rights for women, Jews and
        blacks
        > as well. Denying marital rights for gays diminishes everyone and
        makes
        > a mockery of the statement "with liberty and justice for all."
        >
        > > So I replied:
        > >
        > > "Fine and dandy. Please proceed, using only arguments that will
        show
        > > support for gay marriage while not being equally useful for
        > > supporting incestuous marriage."
        > >
        > > You now reply:
        > >
        > > << I am not and will never argue in favor of incest, and it is my
        > > mistake to have allowed your use of the slippery slope fallacy
        for
        > > this long. >>
        > >
        > > Huh? I never said that you were arguing in favor of incest. You
        > > agreed, however, that your libertarian principle implies that the
        > > government should not prohibit incest.
        > >
        >
        > Rob, I am thru allowing you to use the slippery slope fallacy.
        >
        > >
        > > I wrote: The fact is that Paul was no misogynist, and I dare say,
        > > since you used to study the Bible, you know it (Gal. 3:28; cf.
        Rom.
        > > 16:1-3, 6-7; Eph. 5:25-33). You replied:
        > >
        > > << Take the immediate verses in Ephesians and you have several
        verses
        > > that have been a bane in the side of women for millenia.
        > > "The goal in Paul's exegesis appears to be, without I hope being
        > > unduly harsh, greater conformity with the Jewish (or Palestinian)
        view
        > > of subordination of women (1 Tim 2:11ff; 1 Cor 11:7ff, especially
        vv.
        > > 10,12 {1 Cor 11})." Peter Richardson, "Paul Today: Jews, Slaves,
        and
        > > Women," Crux 8 (1970): 37. >>
        > >
        > > The Internet is wonderful, isn't it? I'll bet you got this quote
        from
        > > an article by Wayne House, in which House actually debunks
        > > Richardson's assessment:
        > >
        > > http://hwhouse.com/Current%20Articles%
        20Downloads/Theology/paul.htm
        > >
        > > If you didn't, you should read it.
        > >
        >
        > The internet is great Rob, and the Bible is still a misogynistic
        book
        > (see http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/womenbible.htm ) and why
        not,
        > it was written by primitive savages and clearly reflects their
        > worldview. Yes, you can point to cutesy scriptures about women, but
        > none of this does away with the bad ones.
        >
        > > It is therefore a complete misnomer to refer to polygamy as
        > > a "different form of marriage." It is not. It is a different form
        of
        > > household, but not a different form of marriage. The concept of
        > > marriage is the same: a union between a man and a woman.
        > >
        >
        > You're just arguing semantics here.
        >
        > << In Tibet prior to the Chinese occupation, about a quarter of
        > marriages involved brothers sharing one wife. >>
        >
        > >Everyone seems to agree that polyandry is extremely rare in the
        > >history of the human species and that Tibetan polyandry is notable
        > >precisely because it is so exceptional.
        >
        > Reply: Yes, Rob, you have an explanation for any different form of
        > unions in the past so as to brush them all away, but the Ozzie and
        > Harriet "traditional" marriage is really only a late invention in
        > human history. My point stands that marriage has been an evolving
        > institution. Again, we are at a point in history where people can
        > actually marry for love and I say let them.
        >
        > >
        > > << Stop the hate, let love in and make this a better world for
        > > EVERYONE. >>
        > >
        > > I fail to see how it is "hate" to dispute the validity of gay
        > > marriage.
        > >
        >
        > Reply: And many bigots of the past felt they were even acting
        > altruistically. Those who committed cruel acts in the past in the
        name
        > of religion probably felt they were working for the greater good.
        > Christianity has always been the enemy of social and moral progress
        > and when someone like you perpetuates the idea that others should
        not
        > have the same rights as you, then you also create the notion that
        > others are inferior to you, making criminal acts against such ones
        easier.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.