[Fwd: "GOD said it/ that settles IT!"]
Jeff Magill (jmagill@sm1.gte.net)
Tue, 18 Mar 1997 20:51:59 -0800
Jeff Magill wrote:
>
> Farrell Till wrote:
> >
> > YOEL
> > The Christian faith contains within it an entire set of "absolutes" (read:
> > the Old Testament Law) which, according to Christian faith, is now defunct,
> > and thereby, NO LONGER ABSOLUTE. Except for the few obvious laws required
> > for social stability (Thou shalt not kill...) and a few "juicy",
> > titillating prohibitions (usually sexual in nature), like- the prohibition
> > against homosexuality-- most Christians couldn't give a $%#@ about the
> > "absolutes" given in the Old Testament. So, pardon the universe if what
> > Christians consider to be absolute is seen as pompous, fickle, dubious and
> > is held in deep mistrust.
> >
> > TILL
>
> Magill- Mr. Till argues from ignorance....
> Excuse Me Mr. Till but when was the Leviticus Law given? Was it before
> or after Adam and Eve/Sarah and Abraham......doesn't Moses give the Law
> as recorded in Exodus after the Nation of Israel has been in Egypt for
> 400 or so years.......When the Law was given- then it was implemented.
> As far as homosexulity is concerned Genesis 18 and 19 are very clear...
>
> Mr. Till - you know little of genetics. The flaws that would develop
> over time which cause all sorts of mutations would not be a problem in a
> purer gene pool. It is only over time that negative genetic traits
> become dominant because of the smaller gene pool availability. Which is
> what causes problems between brothers and sisters. Their similar genetic
> flaws would greatly enhance the possibility of mutations whereas
> somebody from a different gene pool would be less likely to have the
> same dominant genetic flaws one would encounter in a brother and sister.
> This is demonsrtated today in humans and animals such as dogs. We know
> that a mutt is mcuh less likely to be insane for example than a
> purebreed.
>
> Magill- Dr. Yoel needs to report to brain and heart surgery as do you
> Till. The Great physician is JESUS CHRIST!
>
> Magill- Till concurs with Yoel through use of a question begging
> definition. It really does seem that these two could be the same guy.
> > Yoel has identified a serious flaw in the claim of biblicists that morality
> > is absolute, because if morality is absolute, then it is absolute and would
> > never change.
>
> Morality has never changed since the absolute implementation of the law.
> It's as Paul stated, where there was no law, sin was not counted
> against, nevertheless, death reigned from the Time of Adam to Moses...
>
> Magill- What is immoral and moral is absolute today Till. What ever God
> says is good is good and whatever God says is evil is evil..........
>
> What is moral or immoral today would be moral or immoral
> > tomorrow and forever and would have been moral or immoral yesterday, a
> > century ago, 10 centuries ago, etc. Yet we read in the Bible things that are
> > inconsistent with absolute morality. Leviticus 18:11 prohibited sexual
> > relations between a male and his "father's wife's daughter," because "she is
> > your sister."
>
> Yet we read that Abram had married Sarah, who was his
> > father's daughter (Gen. 20:12).
>
> Magill- Neglect of relevant evidence. Mr. Till is way out of context
> here.
>
> Likewise, the creation story in Genesis and
> > the subsequent population of the earth would have required sexual relations
> > between Adam and Eve's sons and daughters.
>
> Magill- this is exactly what happened but again Till is not taking into
> consideration that the law had not yet been given here. What we see is
> the classic example of how the Mercy of God triumphs over judgement.
>
> Other examples like this could
> > be cited, but this is sufficient to show that the Christian god often
> > changed moral precepts.
>
> Magill- Till chooses the word "often" here = Question begging
> definition.
>
> God did not change His Moral precepts. He implemented them at a time
> when it became necessary in order to protect us from ourselves and the
> genetic flaws we inherited due to sin in the system.....If Mr. Till
> recalls there were no laws in the garden of Eden except "Thou shall not
> eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil........Things changed
> when the fall took place. God's nature did not change Mr. Till - Man's
> nature changed and God implemented laws such as these to protect us from
> the consequences of the fall..........If there was no fall into sin, Mr.
> Till, marrying brothers and sisters would still be perfectly acceptable
> today. God didn't change His moral character, God changed what he
> allowed human beings to experience for their own protection. And by the
> way Mr. Till, once God speaks something it is ABSOLUTE. You've got a
> real attitude problem here Mr. Till.............You are a creation of
> THE CREATOR not the other way around!
>
> How could he have done that if morality is absolute?
>
> Magill- How could God have said let there be light and there was....?
>
> Magill- Before the fall, there was no need for absolute morality. There
> was no knowledge of evil....................Morality was simply the
> state of existence. Adam and Eve didn't have to say gee, let's be moral
> today. There very nature was moral and in perfect synchronicity with
> God's nature....
>
> The law was given when it was given, by the Wisdom of God and was
> implemented to protect us from our sin nature which is tainted and
> marred by disease etc.. The farther out you get from the purity of the
> gene pool experienced by Adam and Eve, the more necessary it became to
> implement the Law. Even though the law wasn't in place, nevertheless,
> death ruled..............
>
> IN HIS GRIP,
>
> JM