Friday, January 06, 2006
Behe on Astrology
For those of you who want to know more information about what Behe actually said about astrology, Daniel Morgan has posted the relevant passage from the trial transcripts.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 6:57 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
About one point of your response at my blog to inerrancy arguments, you said:
What are the "stupid grievances" that are commanded to kill? I skimmed over them, and I didn't see anything in particular that could be classified as a "stupid grievance".
How about this?
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Is the absence of evidence = evidence of absence? Is this just?
Or this?
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Is it right to stone a woman for being raped? What if her mouth was covered? Note in the following two references, the word "rape" is used, so it seems clear that "sleep with" here = rapes
Or this?
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
So being a stubborn drunk teenager is a sin worthy of death? I'm glad I don't believe in any god, and I am particularly glad this one.
What are the "stupid grievances" that are commanded to kill? I skimmed over them, and I didn't see anything in particular that could be classified as a "stupid grievance".
How about this?
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Is the absence of evidence = evidence of absence? Is this just?
Or this?
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Is it right to stone a woman for being raped? What if her mouth was covered? Note in the following two references, the word "rape" is used, so it seems clear that "sleep with" here = rapes
Or this?
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
So being a stubborn drunk teenager is a sin worthy of death? I'm glad I don't believe in any god, and I am particularly glad this one.
"Is the absence of evidence = evidence of absence? Is this just?""
If you are required to keep the evidence, I don't see why this would be such a problem. If the law says "keep this in your defence" and you don't, then I don't see how it is by necessity unjust. Of course, I don't honestly know enough about how all that works to give a definitive answer.
"Is it right to stone a woman for being raped? What if her mouth was covered? Note in the following two references, the word "rape" is used, so it seems clear that "sleep with" here = rapes"
You are assuming again a logical positivistic view of scripture that is inappropriate. I.e. that there are no exceptions. All of this goes through priests or counsels of elders, so exceptional situations can be dealt with exceptionally. However, in the absence of evidence such as fingerprints, bruises, etc., I would say it is a pretty good method of determination -- if they were in town, and she didn't scream, then it was probably consensual. If she did, then it was rape. If they are outside of town, there is noone to hear, so the law does not demand stoning because there is no way to differentiate the cases.
"So being a stubborn drunk teenager is a sin worthy of death?"
Apparently it is. The standard of justice is not modern morality, but God.
Thanks be to God that He has provided a savior that even though our sins are worthy of death, Jesus died in our place!
Post a Comment
If you are required to keep the evidence, I don't see why this would be such a problem. If the law says "keep this in your defence" and you don't, then I don't see how it is by necessity unjust. Of course, I don't honestly know enough about how all that works to give a definitive answer.
"Is it right to stone a woman for being raped? What if her mouth was covered? Note in the following two references, the word "rape" is used, so it seems clear that "sleep with" here = rapes"
You are assuming again a logical positivistic view of scripture that is inappropriate. I.e. that there are no exceptions. All of this goes through priests or counsels of elders, so exceptional situations can be dealt with exceptionally. However, in the absence of evidence such as fingerprints, bruises, etc., I would say it is a pretty good method of determination -- if they were in town, and she didn't scream, then it was probably consensual. If she did, then it was rape. If they are outside of town, there is noone to hear, so the law does not demand stoning because there is no way to differentiate the cases.
"So being a stubborn drunk teenager is a sin worthy of death?"
Apparently it is. The standard of justice is not modern morality, but God.
Thanks be to God that He has provided a savior that even though our sins are worthy of death, Jesus died in our place!
<< Home
