Well there's the natural world we live in where what you say applies. But my example was to show the spiritual view.

I also think for the natural world we need a degree sense if only for common sense safety reasons.

But from a divine viewpoint it says if we commit one sin we committed them all. A tough standard I know but that's why we have grace when we fall short after a serious effort.

She keeps saying that she won't respond to the nasty atheists anymore...yet she keeps on doing it in thread after thread.

Splendour, if you post things that people disagree with, they're going to respond to you. Either stop posting, or start ignoring. Repeatedly telling people that you're not going to respond to them is not going to get them to stop replying to your posts. It might even have the exact opposite effect.

If you want to have a one-way conversation, get a blog.

Spiritual view? That is pretty presumptions to claim that is the spirtual view. Divine view point? So what is point of jesus claim that each person is going to be judged according to his deeds. Why bother going through all a persons deeds if it doesn't even matter.

Your "divine view" has no biblical basis whatsoever.

What does the fall have to do with incest?

After creation, God said "Be fruitful and multiply", right? IIRC, he never said "Be fruitful and multiply, but be sure to stop after the first generation, otherwise it will be considered incest". And this was before the fall of man. If there was no fall, there had to be either no incest or no humans, so I don't understand how you can argue that the fall created incest.

most of what splendour says has no biblical basis whatsoever (which is why i always say shes a bigger hinderence to christianity than atheists). most of her beliefs are a combination of things she reads online/books/etc (which she believes fully unless some "expert" tells her otherwise), and fitting the bible to match her own personality.

i think we should just ignore her and hope she goes away. it would be a big win for atheists and theists alike.

Don't worry. No one thought you capable of answering a straight question with a straightforward question.

By the way, there is no "false question." I posed a very simple scenario with very easy straightforward questions. It is typical for you to flee when you're pushed into a corner. We've all seen it dozens of times.

tee hee. I actually started to write in my earlier post that when pressed to answer something you would either lose interest, refuse to answer or start one of your dramatic persecution complex posts but decided to leave it out to give you a fair chance. Needless to say my prediction would have been correct.

take care.

I want to state for the record that I tried to tone down my chat with splendour and address her seriously. She responded to my serious post with a rathar lengthy non sequitor. When I restated the question again she called them "false questions" and refused to talk. (not addressing that the essay she wrote previously didn't address my first post at all.)

The difference between when you try to respond to her seriously or just outright lampoon is neglible.

A lot of church groups would disagree with you. We're a lot laxer in our outlooks today than we used to be.

Yes there is a judgment but that doesn't exclude us from recognizing God calls us to a higher standard of conduct or tries to do a redemptive work in us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification

Most of the cases of incest were a result of man's fallen nature. There were other people in the Garden of Eden besides the children of Adam and Eve.

I believe the Johnson family had rented a campsite at the time. For some reason my pastor always failed to mention all the other people in the garden besides adam and eve.

She believes that there were "nephilim" that existed in biblical times. They were evil giants who reproduced with the children of Adam and Eve.

I feel stupid just typing that.

Yes, lets not forget all those children adam and eve had before the fall. i knew my pastor was hiding something from me!

Those were probably the non-fictional humans who came about through evolution.

Francis Collins in his book The Language of God was the one that pointed out to me that there were others in the world beside Adam and Eve. He said Cain got a wife in Nod after being expelled by God so that indicated other people. Plus how do you explain this passage:

Genesis 3 speaking to the Serpent:

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;

Also in Genesis 4 if you notice that none of the wives are also noted as the sister of.....Abel is specifically mentioned as the brother of Cain but none of the women that Cain or his descendants (Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, and Lamech) marry are noted as being sisters. If they were sisters or other relatives that relationship would have been mentioned. The bible always mentions the relationships.

If you're asking for a logical explanation, the MOST likely one is that the writers of the Bible messed up. But that's not an option with you, is it?

So instead, you'll go with the lesser likely scenario that God created extra people that weren't mentioned anywhere...and I'm supposed to shrug my shoulders and say you're right.

The unfalsifiability game is a tough one to play.

I think its deliberate. Genesis is the story of God doing a new work in an old corrupt Earth. The OT is explaining about how God established his chosen people and traces out their history. There were dozens of times he tried to keep his chosen ones pure to do his work of redemption but they kept mixing with the impure/unchosen people in violation of what he had ordered.

Isn't it obvious he was trying to separate them from the prevailing false worship throughout the world?

Now I'm not going to pass judgment on God's acts as atheists are wont to do because I think God knows just how impure and corrupt the rest of the world was at that time. God is God and no human is good enough to judge him. Anybody thinking he can judge God is flat out wrong.

To me atheism is an illogical state of being so any arguments you make to support of it are inherently illogical because its an illogical state. A state in which you have rejected God's natural authority from the outset in favor of your own illogical perceptions, opinions and arguments.

Maybe you could purchase this book Our House: Enmity Between the Seeds.

Specifically God instructed the children of Israel not to "sow your field with mingled seed" (Lev 19:19).

https://store.voe.org/p-28-enmity-be...ill-cloud.aspx

God also said this:

Leviticus 19
Various Laws
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.


Or this passage:

1 Corinthians 15:46

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

Now that's not exactly what I said.

I give plenty of direct answers. But much of the time there is no direct answer that can be given. I have said many times that I do not think the world is black and white when it comes to individual decisions. I have also said many times that I am very careful about making any hard and fast rules about things. I am not going to pretend to have all of the answer, or that my answer for something is guaranteed to be the only or best answer. So I am very careful about what I write. I think that you would agree that is fair.

I did feel that you did not understand. Maybe I am wrong. But your response did not seem to correspond with what I was saying, that is why I got that impression. I am also not placing the blame on you. I have a habit of not making myself clear all the time. So I am sorry for the confusion.

I would wildly disagree. I would like to see one of these examples that you think it is obvious that he is dodging the question.

I don't think hes talking about his people mixing with others (although there are other places he does and they are often used to justify racism). If you look at the whole passage he is talking about actual seeding of fields.

K.J.V.
19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

R.S.V.
19:19 "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.

Hope you dont have two kinds of cloth in any of your garments, luckily his people can pick and choose what they like and dislike from the Bible or just change is meaning to suit them.

Really then why does Jesus speak of the children of God and the children of Satan?

Maybe that's why Jesus had to come because the children of God couldn't help but mix with the children of Satan. (Good and evil always exist side by side in this world and sometimes they cross like a double helix.)

Fortunately for us God is good and through Jesus alone the goats of this world are offered a chance to transform into sheep.

Jesus didn't come to save the righteous he came to give the condemned a second chance.

Never said god didn't say to keep um separated, he just didn't say it there.

Are you saying that god does not believe that different races should interbreed?

Well I believe the bible waxes allegorical at times. Stone could probably explain this better if you pick up his book. Jesus' word is confirmation enough for me.

The bible is suppose to be a book that inspires hope unfortunately when you approach it with skepticism and overanalyze it you lose hope and faith. That's why the thought that we are both the children of God and of Satan which is a downer is obscured. We're suppose to be focusing on Jesus and be inspired to do right. Probably why applying science too rigorously to the bible is wrong. Personally I'm never going to apply a methodology that destroys my shot at eternal life. I never have to no matter how much an atheist pounds me.

Oh. Wow. Seriously? You accuse US of overanalyzing? Pot/Kettle??

Critics of the Bible are most often accused of taking the Bible too literally. And it's a valid accusation. I mean, God forbid it means what it says. It IS the word of God isn't it? There's no reason for God to be cryptic unless you want him to be (because science showed scripture to be wrong, or because there's a contradiction in some other part of the Bible, etc.).

Ironically, it is YOU who overanalyzes the Bible; twisting words, translations, and interpretations to manufacture rebuttals out of thin air.