39 thoughts on “In a world without God, rape can be moral.

  1. We call that “Situational Ethics”, don’t we? It’s based on Gen 3:3-4, intended to cause doubt of Truth, making way for belief in a lie.

  2. Not surprising, really, considering our current Teleprompter in Chief president thinks that any the act of stuffing a child in a trash can–if that child had the audacity to survive an attempt to murder him in the womb–should be legalized.

  3. mbaker says:

    I think this is interesting ,because it is telling about what we think of rape, and how easily how the definition can change to fit the times:

    Today my husband and I were walking out of a place. He was following to close, and stepped on the one of the heels of my shoes. It came off, and he said to me ” It’s a good thing you’re not from Oregon because I would have been accused of rape.” I thought he was kidding at first, but he told me that when he was growing up if a man over 18 was caught with an underage girl in his car, with no shoes on, he was considered guilty of rape, because the first thing rapists are said to do is remove a woman’s shoes so that they can’t run away.

    I was pretty stunned , but then I realized that the definition we have of rape, in our present culture, varies from place to place, and may be entirely different from what God would define it.

    So does make the act of rape ‘hypothetical’ or ‘situational”‘. Where do we do draw the line? I want to tell you truthfully, I couldn’t tell from this debate who was the man of God and who was the philosopher. It seemed more a debate of the sheer morality of it.

    Did I miss something?

  4. Chris says:

    Based on Deuteronomy 20:10-18 and some other passages, In a World with God rape can be moral when God commands/allows it. Rape seems to be allowed or otherwise commanded, which would make it “moral”, right? Or I am I misunderstanding “As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.” It seems 1) women and children are considered *plunder* not people, and 2) you are allowed to do whatever you want with them as plunder — now that would logically seem to allow you to rape the women, right? Or am I missing something?

  5. Hi Chris,

    Assuming for a moment that your interpretation is correct (it’s not), why would you have a problem with it? Why is rape immoral?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  6. Chris says:

    @Bill

    Thank you for telling me my interpretation is incorrect — could you tell me in what way the passage is not at least allowing for rape, and certainly considering women and children as property (i.e. “plunder”). I’m genuinely interested in knowing. (Incidentally I like you’re blog’s tagline, “On fire so that others won’t be” — very memorable).

    Isn’t the entire point of the above blog post that rape is immoral, but that “situational ethics” creates a situation where since there are no absolute rights and wrongs, it could be considered “moral”. I was merely pointing out that ethics according to the Bible are “situational” too — God gets to decide when and where they apply. For instance, “thou shalt not kill” and then he orders killing, etc.

    “Immoral” or “Moral” are, by definition, relative to a standard — what meets the standard is considered “moral”, what does not or perhaps only what goes completely counter to it is considered “immoral”. So whether an action is moral or immoral depends of course on our standard of ethics. My standard of ethics says owning other people as property (i.e. slavery), forcing a woman to have sex against her will (i.e. rape), slaughtering and killing vast amounts of people — indeed, causing any harm is immoral. That is just my standard of course, but it’s one that genuinely agreed upon worldwide, at least in general, hence global conventions on Human Rights, and the concept of inalienable, natural rights, etc. Even if it is necessary to cause harm (i.e. to defend another in a situation where their life is in eminent danger), that doesn’t make the inflicting of harm moral — perhaps n

    However I will freely admit that if every single law stated rape was moral, if the Bible explicitly stated rape was moral, if everyone else said rape was moral, I would still consider it not merely immoral, but completely abhorrent — as I hold some of the other commands of this God who is equated as being love. He commands slaughter, he commands the killing of a person for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, he drowns all the animals in the flood, etc. When the Spirit of the Lord comes upon someone in the OT, like Sampson, it usually means death to a lot of people. The Israelites were often commanded by God to kill all the people in the cities they conquered.

    So in short, I consider rape immoral and that’s my standard. Is that entirely subjective? Sure, it is. But I’d rather have a subjective standard that acknowledges such abhorrence as rape and slavery is unequivocally wrong, than an “absolute” standard that seems to allow both.

    Thanks,

    Chris
    _________________________________________________________________

    Oops, I pressed “Submit” a little to quick. I meant to write after “Even if it is necessary to cause harm (i.e. to defend another in a situation where their life is in eminent danger), that doesn’t make the inflicting of harm moral —” “it may make it necessary, but not moral”

  7. I worked at a large insurance company and was surprised when someone created a poster that was approved for distribution. It showed that every major world religion had a version of the “Golden Rule” scripture stating that we should all treat our neighbor as we want to be treated, therefore, at least at some point, they claimed some of the same morals as Christians.

    It leads me to believe that atheists are trying to hide the fact that they want to be their own god regardless of the evidence of the Creator and aftermath of the flood. When anyone reads the crowd lead by Pharisees in Matthew 27:25 say, “His blood be on us, and on our children.”, it should cause you thank God you are not in their shoes. Many Jews seem to be atheists, and I believe this is a step in the right direction, if they are smart enough to see through Rabbis creating their own law through the anti-Christian Talmud and the Zohar of the Kabbalah. I pray they keep seeking the Spirit of Truth until they find Him.

    Jesus attacked the Pharisees and physically attacked the temple money changers, because they are the root of our anti-Christian problems today. This idea of creating your own laws that not only run counter to morals, but western criminal law, still comes from the Pharisees combined with millions of eastern European (oriental) pagans who converted to Talmudic Judaism around 740 AD. They are at least part Asian who came to eastern Europe because they would not be accepted as Asian converts.

    I believe these oriental ideas (Art of War, etc.) of deception and ends justifies the means have penetrated false Christianity, Catholicism up through the Pope, and into all levels of government through the Freemasons and other secret societies based on the Kabbalah.

    I agree with Douglas Reed, author of “The Controversy of Zion” that the western world with our straight forward thinking, is not prepared for the more devious and aggressive oriental attacks on true Christianity from the inside, and at every weak undefended position like we continually see taking place.
    _________________________________________________________

    The video “cross examination” assumes that the “aliens” could be trusted to keep their end of the bargain. What are the odds of that happening?

    This is my point of the oriental idea of setting up any false and ridiculous assumptions or lies to make their point, but the western mind actually brought up the false assumptions from a previous discussion.

  8. Chris,

    You said, “So in short, I consider rape immoral and that’s my standard. Is that entirely subjective? Sure, it is. But I’d rather have a subjective standard that acknowledges such abhorrence as rape and slavery is unequivocally wrong, than an “absolute” standard that seems to allow both.”

    You reject an absolute standard of morality and at the same time appeal to an absolute standard of morality. Since you say morality is subjective, you can’t apply your standard to anyone but yourself. Every other person can have their own subjective morality. It is inconsistent to point out what you believe to be God’s immorality when you have no foundation for your own morality.

    Regardless of whether you accept or reject moral absolutes, and the One who has the power to establish absolutes, you will be judged by Him, and held to His perfect moral standard. Every lie you’ve ever told will be dealt with, and you will be tormented in hell for eternity. Your torment glorifies God as all of creation will see His wrath poured out on you.

    While that is what you deserve, God offers forgiveness, which also glorifies Him. Please tell me you’re concerned about your eternity.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  9. Chris says:

    @Bill

    I was slightly disappointed that you didn’t inform me how I was misinterpreting Deuteronomy 20:10-18 — but I hope you’ll do that in the next comment.

    It seems we both agree that what’s real is real whether I believe it or not — and conversely what’s not real is not real whether you believe it is or not.

    Morality is, as I said, always subjective — it is whether some action is in accord with some standard. My foundation for my morality is pretty simple: causing harm to others is a bad thing, even in the extremely rare cases where it is necessary. “Do unto others” is neither Christian-specific nor even all that innovative: I treat others in the way I want to be treated. Do I need some book to tell me that I should treat people kindly, help them, etc.? — No.

    So what is my “foundation” for morality — it is that hurting others is wrong. Likely this stems from thinking “I wouldn’t want to be treated that way” and then deciding therefore that I don’t want to treat others that way. Hume would point out we can’t go from an “is” to an “ought”. If I don’t believe God exists then there can be no law-giver and thus no authority to back up the morality. If God does exist and he commands awful things, then I really don’t care if those actions are moral or not according to God, because they’re still wrong. My standard of ethics doesn’t rest upon authority like yours — it rests on the actions themselves and whether they do harm others. It’s also a logical derivative that I would presume anyone could come to.

    You could certainly say my moral conscience of what is right and wrong comes from God (if he exists) — which seems perfectly reasonable, but then why does that same conscience tell me that when he orders such abhorrence, those orders are wrong. If my morality does not come from God, where does it come from?

    Of course all morality is relative, as I explained. However if we slightly tweak the requirement for relative so that the action must depend on some factor of the circumstances or on the one giving the order, then we can still make a distinction between absolute and relative morality. I was going to say your morality and my morality are both relative (in the redefined sense) and absolute, but I can’t see how mine is. Your’s is absolute in that whatever God says is moral, relative in that God decides when an action is moral or immoral. My morality is absolute in that rape is always wrong, murder is always wrong, etc. (However if you can explain how my morality is relative — i.e. in that what I would consider moral and immoral is based on external factors other than the act itself, let me know).

    Oh and of course I’m concerned about the possibility that I might be eternally tormented — but to act in accords with fear? Besides I thought that “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:18). Or are you agreeing with Nicolo Machiavelli that It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared? (“The Prince”, Chapter 17).

    For what is noble about that? What is noble about acting “morally” only because otherwise I will be tormented? Oh, that’s right, this God of “love” will actually be glorified by my torment , as you say — sounds like how a tyrant would act: creating an example of all dissenters to discourage any opposition or even criticism — you’d probably be much happier in a kingdom than a democracy.

    What kind of person actually needs such motivation (i.e. fear of eternal torment) just to do the decent thing. See, you and I both likely agree what’s decent — at least in large part: loving others, helping others, doing no harm, etc. Or maybe not, since you can actually call God’s morality “perfect” when it includes such abhorrence as condoning slavery, etc.

    Not that the bible is not also, in part, a great standard of ethics. Indeed, your bible has a lot of decent morality in it — I especially love 1 Corinthians 13, and a lot of the New Testament — the beatitudes, etc. But in the same vein that I commend this wonderful passages, I must condemn those atrocious ones. Are you honestly telling me that without the bible telling you to be nice and kind to others, you wouldn’t be?

    I guess my entire point is do we as people really need to have some sort of absolute authority behind obviously decent actions such as loving others, helping others, etc. — just so we will do them? Isn’t it all the more noble to act without needing anyone telling you ought to? Isn’t it all the more noble to oppose atrocious actions whether commanded by Hitler, by the government, by your parents, even by God himself.

    What’s right is right and largely obvious at least in the generals — in fact doesn’t even the bible inform us that we know what is right entirely apart from the bible when it says:

    “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15).

  10. Chris,

    I appreciate your honesty, and I also have questions about Deuteronomy and the Old Testament, and I am doing research now trying to gain more understanding of the difficult scriptures.

    Regardless of what I find, GOD has shown us His love through His Son in the New Testament, by providing the Way to become acceptable to Him who demands perfection under conditions that we cannot hope to meet on our own.

    It seems that you have sense of right and wrong that agrees with one of the commandments Jesus taught. Of course, that is admirable and requires humility and empathy, but not enough, because self centered morals can change at any time. How do we know what you will believe next week under some new stress?

    Not everyone agrees with the Golden Rule and fewer follow it as the moral guide, as proven by the Jewish Talmud that creates limitless oral and written laws based originally on the whims of the Pharisees. Rape of children of specific ages, and lying cheating, murder of Gentiles is lawful based on these subjective moral standards. This one source of the trouble we have today.

    Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
    26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
    27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
    28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

    29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

  11. Chris says:

    @evidentlytrue

    Is it possible my idea of right and wrong could change? Sure. It hasn’t yet — and I don’t think it’s likely. I can certainly understand that without appeal to an “absolute” morality, my morality seems subject to change. However is authority-based morality any different? It is claimed God does not change, but he certainly seems to command general precepts (don’t kill, no graven images [graven means engraved]) and then give specific counter-commands (commands to kill, command to build the Ark of the Covenant). Based on the Bible I can both find support in favor of destroying unbelievers as well as enslaving others. I can also find support in favor of loving others and doing all I can to be kind to others.

    I certainly agree we should love our neighbor as ourselves, and I would like to love God — but I find it hard to love someone who commands awful things. Not that there is not a lot of good, even the majority of the Law is good (don’t lie, don’t steal, etc.) — and if God didn’t call Himself perfect and perfectly good, I wouldn’t perhaps have such a problem — but to command such things and consider oneself good in commanding them? Such a God I find quite difficult to love. (Plus, I can’t really love a God I don’t know, and I don’t know God — reading the Bible is not at all the same as a “personal relationship”)

    You do realize the Talmud was written as a further extrapolation from the Old Testament. While it’s certainly possible that in doing so it completely fabricated rules, the ones you indicate — Rape of children of specific ages, and lying cheating, murder of Gentiles (any individuals following any other religious activities are commanded to be killed according to the Law) — seem supported by the OT. (Perhaps not the rape of children nor lying nor cheating, but I would need to see the Talmud passage and which passages it is seeking to explain, and understand the Hebrew well enough to see if their case based upon the Scripture was weak or strong.)

  12. Chris,

    God is sovereign and our concept of good is not His. We must submit to God and not our own wisdom. When God commanded the destruction of certain people, it was for the purpose of making His people distinct and separate. His over-arching goal in creation is to bring glory to Himself, not the well-being of creatures.

    He will have mercy on those He chooses and He will harden those He chooses. Who are you, oh man, to question God?

    The Talmud is interesting, but no more than any commentary by any other humans.

  13. Chris says:

    @Manfred

    Isn’t this the very definition of a tyrant:

    “His over-arching goal in creation is to bring glory to Himself, not the well-being of creatures.”

    What you are describing is Might Makes Right. I am fully aware of the passage in Romans you quote (Romans 9:20). I really don’t care if God can by command make something atrocious like rape “right” — it is still wrong. And if God himself says it’s right, it’s still wrong. A God who does not care about His creatures is nothing more than a tyrant — just as a King who does not care about the wellbeing of his subjects, but his own personal glory and power is a tyrant.

    It seems like God is exactly the kind of ruler Machiavelli advocates in “The Prince”. Even if opposing the atrocities of God ends me up in a burning Hell, I still oppose them — rape, slavery, genocide are wrong, and God being omnipotent could certainly have come up with a different method to have the Israelites claim the “Promised Land” If having to accept that rape can be right, that slavery can be right, etc. is necessary to go to Heaven, and if failing to do so ends me in Hell — then I choose Hell. It’s completely counter-survival to choose torment, but I cannot commend awful acts — I will not. Not to some human tyrant, and not to God. Certain acts are wrong and they cannot be made right. If I act just to escape torment how much of a selfish coward am I? There is nothing noble in acting just to escape pain.

  14. Chris,

    You will be continually frustrated if you try to evaluate God in human terms.

    His thoughts are beyond yours (and mine) as are His ways. Man always tries to bring God down to a human level and judge Him accordingly. This is dangerous.

    All men sin and born sinners – brining a legitimate charge of guilt before Holy God.

    Romans 9 indeed demonstrates the doctrine election – God chooses some to grant righteousness to, by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ.

    The question is not, How could a loving God allow bad things to happen to good people. The question is, since God knows what I did and said and thought yesterday – why didn’t He kill me in my sleep last night? First video on this page: http://menofhonorministry.org

    Argue against Scripture and you are putting yourself in the place of God. This is not well advised.

  15. Well said, Manfred.

    To place God on trial in the court of our own human reason is to make ourselves judge and jury over Him. In other words this action clearly reveals who sits upon the throne of such a heart; self. Sinful fallen man is a usurper and an idolater in his heart. God made us to be very good worshippers, unfortunately due to his radically depraved nature fallen man always and everywhere chooses very bad gods to worship. And apart from God’s merciful divine intervention men will run away from Him screaming with their ears plugged and their eyes squeezed shut, straight into the pit of hell.

    Praise and glory be unto the Lord for the brands He’s plucked from the fire!

    And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” – Zechariah 3:2

    In Christ,
    CD

  16. Chris says:

    @Manfred

    I wish God would do something to me — then I’d at least know He existed. Heck I kinda even wish he’d just kill me and send me to Hell — if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen — especially if I’m not one of the “elect”, why the wait? I would hope before I am cast into eternal fire I would at least get some sort of response by God to his awful actions or why He never answered me all the times I called out to Him. I’ve called out in anger, I’ve called out in resignation, I’ve said “I can’t do this — I need help.” I’ve said “I don’t care anymore about anything else — I just want to know what’s real”. I’ve said “Show yourself to me in love or in wrath — but do something!” Never an answer, not once.

    In any case God doesn’t need you to defend Him.

    Scripture has been shown as wrong in many important ways — the moon is not a light, the sun does not rise — the geocentric bible view is wrong, and the heliocentric view, while not quite right either, a lot more right, etc. The earth is not thousands of years old as the bible would indicate, but much more older.

  17. Chris says:

    Oh and Genesis 1 and 2 hopelessly contradict. Was man created after or before creatures? Genesis 1 says after, Genesis 2 says before — they can’t both be right.

  18. Chris says:

    In any case, this conversation is going nowhere fast. I was merely pointing out by my original comment that pointing out that relative standards might allow rape without also pointing out that the bible itself may allow rape is very misleading and intellectually dishonest — or its based on a lack of study of the bible — so I pointed it out to prevent a more truthful assessment of the situation. Then the conversation got sidelined because I refuse to accept that rape is right — and if God kills me or does something else bad to me, or I burn eternally for it — I don’t care: rape is wrong, and God if he allows it is wrong; slavery is wrong and God if he allows it is wrong. Period. I will not be motivated by fear to say something that is horrible is not.

  19. Chris,

    You demonstrate a fundamental inability to comprehend even simple things of Scripture.

    God does not consume all of His enemies at their pleasure. He gives some light to all men, that those not chosen to salvation may respond to the light of General Revelation and lessen their punishment. But Romans 1 – 3 tell us the tale of men who refuse to do so and follow their own willful ways to shake their fists at Him. Judgment Day will come and there will be no place to hide, though all whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will be terrified and looking for a way of escape. They will find none.

    Regarding the creation account – chapter 1 is a chronological account, as it presents itself. Chapter two does not present itself as a chronological account, but as a functional account, emphasizing priorities of creation. This does not contradict chapter 1 any more than a recap of the stats of a football game contradict the play-by-play.

    Instead of demanding God kill you or prove Himself to you, cry out to Him for mercy and grace to believe on Christ.

    As Acts 8:22 puts it – “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.”

  20. Chris says:

    @Manfred

    I have called out to God exactly as you say — before coming to learn by study and research of some of the things in the back, older chapters of the “Good Book”

    I am genuinely interested though — what causes you to think Genesis 2 is non-chronological, except by beginning with the assumption that Genesis 2 must NOT be allowed to contradict Genesis 1 and then force-fitting some explanation to prevent it from being considered that way. Do you have any linguistic basis for your assertion? I am not being facetious — I’m genuinely interest (just as I’m genuinely interested in why Bill thinks the passage in Deutoronomy does not consider people as objects or allow rape).

    Are you saying God did not command the killing of all men, women, and children in the towns the Israelites conquered? I can provide specific Scriptural passages indicating otherwise.

  21. Chris,

    The Bible is the Word of God, His revelation to man. God cannot lie – so says His Word. Therefore, He cannot say A = B. This means that what appears to be contradictions must have an explanation. In this case, it’s easy to see that chapter 2 makes no claims nor give any evidence that it is a chronological report. What in chapter 2 gives you the impression that it is?

    You may not be elect. In which case no amount of tears will do any good. For nothing a man can do can have any effect on his being elect. God chooses. Man is hell-bound and will reach that destination – unless Someone intervenes. Man needs a Savior. Being dead in sin, he cannot even reach out of his own accord.

    God did indeed command the killing of people – men, women, and children – and livestock. It’s in the Book! This was a temporal demonstration of God’s judgment and doctrine of election. Such records in Scripture are disturbing to men, whose god is self. For the one who rightly recognizes God as God, this is merely one example of Him exercising His sovereignty.

    He will gain glory from His creation. Even those who rebel against Him.

  22. Chris says:

    @Manfred

    “The Bible is the Word of God, His revelation to man. God cannot lie – so says His Word. Therefore, He cannot say A = B. This means that what appears to be contradictions must have an explanation. ” — or in other words you start with the assumption that it’s true — and ignore anything that would indicate otherwise — which is exactly what I said.

    It is not disturbing to me because “Such records in Scripture are disturbing to men, whose god is self.” — its disturbing to me because it is the destruction and infliction of harm, awful harm and pain, on women and children!

    I don’t care enough about my own wellbeing to commend the atrocities of rape, slavery, etc. — if I was a sniveling, selfish coward I would say “Do whatever you want to everyone else — just don’t harm me!” Anyone who follows the will of God, becomes saved, etc. just to escape Hell — or even as the primary reason, ought to be sent directly to Hell for being such a selfish coward.

  23. Chris says:

    Oh and another thing: if I am not the elect, I have nothing to lose from opposing God’s awfulness — and even if by not opposing it, I would be granted Heaven, or if by opposing it I am guaranteed Hell — I am NOT going to commend rape, murder, slavery as right — it’s wrong. And in saying so I will oppose God himself if he commands such awfulness.

  24. Chris,

    The Holy Spirit of God gives understanding to those who are born again by faith in Christ. One of the elders at my church has a great explanation of this, here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=530914253

    You repeatedly demonstrate your perspective that God is to be judged according to your standard of right and wrong. You are free to do so, but you are wrong to do so. People don’t believe in Christ to escape hell – that’s a manipulative reason given by some preachers to entice people to “believe”. People who are born again believe in Jesus – not an escape from Hell card.

    But you cannot understand these things because they are spiritual.

  25. Chris says:

    Oh I forgot to indicate why I thought Genesis 2 was chronological — because it reads like Genesis 1, using “and” and “then” and because it gives every indication it is a narrative — the Bible is a narrative except where obviously otherwise evident. Besides it actually would work better for your case if Genesis 1 was non-chronological. The context of Genesis 2 clearly indicates the creatures were creates as help-mates for Adam, but none worked so He made Eve. If you indicated that Genesis 1 was non-chronological it would only mean that the different statements of creation are not in order — nothing in context forces them to follow a certain order (granted it seems obvious that certain events are within certain days, but within those days perhaps the Genesis 1 passages could be seen as non-chronological).

  26. Chris says:

    I stand corrected: Genesis 2 doesn’t seem to use “and”, but it does seem obviously chronological — how is ”
    When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ” non-chronological?

  27. Chris,

    Chapter 2 does not connect events with “then”, as does chapter 1. Chapter 2 begins by telling us it is a recount of the story of creation – “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”. It tells us, “and the Lord did” but does not say, “then the Lord did.”

    But, these are spiritual things and you cannot comprehend them.

  28. Chris says:

    @Manfred

    You seem to contradict yourself — you provide a logical-based reasoning for why Genesis 2 is non-chronological, and then you state “But, these are spiritual things and you cannot comprehend them.” — can I not understand them because my logic is faulty or because I am not spiritual? Is this the same reason I think murder of children and women is wrong?

  29. Chris,

    I am not contradicting myself, merely pointing out reasons I do not agee with your charges against the Word of God.

    He says, in 1 Cor 2:14 – “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

    This seems to describe you.

  30. Chris says:

    @Manfred

    No — you specifically state a logic-based refutation (appealing to grammer, linguistics, etc.) — but then state these are “spiritual” things and so I can’t understand them — is the creation account understandable according to pure logic or does it require spiritual revelation — at least according to the order of events?

    If Genesis 2 is non-chronological, is Genesis 3? And if I remember correctly the chapter divisions are arbitrary — they don’t exist in the original. Chapter 1 ends more obviously at verse 4. Genesis 2 provides a separate account — not a full account as it indicates itself, but a chronological account nonetheless — man is created, trees (including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), creatures are created, Eve is created — it’s all chronological — or are you indicating that Eve and Adam were created together as Genesis 1 indicates — or that Eve was created before Adam. It seems the only statement where the chronological nature of Genesis is being contended is because it is problematic — if Genesis 2 didn’t contradict Genesis 1 wouldn’t you think it was chronological. It seems an obvious case of trying to force-fit an explanation, of confirmation bias.

  31. Chris,

    You can rage against the Lord until your teeth fall out. Gen 3 is a narrative – but that does not require it to be chronological. It is, generally, chronological and there is no reason to think otherwise. Contrary to chapter 2.

    Your position requires the Word of God submit to you, same as with God. This He will not do nor will His Word do.

    While there are things in the Bible that lost people can understand, such cannot comprehend many things in the Bible. It’s obvious you have your limitations, although this it not your fault.

  32. Chris,

    If you’re interested in genuine dialogue with Manfred, as you state, then please exchange e-mail addresses. He can be contacted at his website, which you can reach by clicking his hyperlinked name.

    In Christ,
    CD

  33. Chris says:

    @Coram Deo

    Thank you. Of course — you are completely right. I do apologize for monopolizing the comment board — to the admin: feel free to delete the comments I made (well I would wish the admin would at least leave the first — but I do realize this is not a general discussion forum (and the topic has certainly deviated).

  34. Brian of the Hill People says:

    Chris:

    Hello. I see no contradiction in Genesis 1 and 2. Chapter 1 indicates animals made before man. Chapter 2 refers to God bringing the creatures He made to the man, specifically stating:

    (verse 19) ” Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.”

    The phrase “had formed” indicates the tense. The word ‘now’ is a establishes the place in time of the predicate in the narrative. Sort of like a story saying, “Now the wicked witch had heated up her cauldron and invited the children to come for a swim.” In that sentence, ‘now’ indicates the next step in the story but the heating up of the cauldron had previously occured.

    Personally, I think the ‘better’ argument would be to refer to the plants, if I were going to insinuate a contradiction but alas, the phrase “In the land” refers to a specific area, the one in which God intends to plant a ‘garden’. Reread those two chapters and you’ll see what I mean by both plants being a slightly stronger argument and how specific place reference combats it handily, if logic is followed.

    The moon not being a generating source of light is not a good argument for the Bible being contradictory. The moon is a light like a oil of olay makes the skin radiate. We know what is meant even if it is not a literal, moons don’t generate light and oil of olay doesn’t irradiate. The moon reflects light. Therefore it appears as a light, even though it does not generate photons in and of itself.

    The earth is not all that old. Unfossilized trees, uprooted and buried upside down, in deep geologic strata that does allow for fossilization to occur due to chemical composition. should not be found if the dating methods for those strata are anywhere near correct. The trees should be nothing more than perhaps some decomposed organic residue if ‘old earth’ advocates are correct. There are many other examples that contradict popular opinion by those kooky ID science guys with actual, verifiable, falsifiable science. It’s truly sad that science in general has left it roots of rationality to be swayed by opinion.

    But all that is whoopdee-doo. The real issue is whether one believes God’s account of things, whether we could verify them or not. It’s always been the issue, sice the Fall. I am not going to contend with a mind that designed all creation, in all its order and splendor and variety. as though I am on equal intellectual footing. There would be a more even exchange intellectually if a cricket were to want me to explain why I drive a car.

    I have never had God speak to me in a direct, audible fashion and I see no reason why He would, as though I was special. And the few accounts of those who have in the Word certainly picture it as a generally terrifying and overwhelming experience, usually involving a task that wuld cause them to suffer. I have only His Spirit to speak to me through His Word. If I disbelieve it, I have really don’t have anything at all.

    God is good. It is His character, His nature. He is not bound by any thing or concept outside Himself, otherwise, there would be something superior to God. His character is already supremely perfect. He does not have to answer to anyone. I mean, that’s what being God is. It is also why the Word refers to Satan and wicked men as wanting to be God. They want no one above them, no one to answer to.

    It may be, that if you call out in humility, instead angst, instead of arrogance, instead of defiance, He will hear. God is also merciful, slow to anger, quick to forgive. Remember when you pray that no one can force God to do anything and you’ll begin to address Him in the right manner. There s no board He answers to. There isn’t a judge above Him. How great is the mercy of One Who gives it when He can just as easily refuse to give it.

    Your issue is you still think highly of yourself and your deductions and very little of God and His Word. It is evident in your demands that He answer you or be as a circus chimp and do a trick to satisfy your requirements. But you are the one held to requirements, just as I am, and just like me, you fall well short of what God requires. Call out to Him in that humble and contrite spirit. The Words says that God will not despise a contrite heart. The bottom line: is your heart actually contrite?

    You remind me of how I once was and I do not mean that patronizingly but in empathy and sympathy. I pray your heart is made alive to Him, to repent and believe Him and the Gospel. He broke me hard before I reached that humble place where I finally crumbled. Maybe you’ll be shown wiser than me.

  35. Chris says:

    @Brian of the Hill People

    I’d send you a direct message — but your name is not hyperlinked, and I’d post my email — but that’d likely be considered spam. I am full aware that the NIV translates “had formed” but I looked up the passage in the BlueLetterBible.org and the word the KJV translates as “formed” (not “had formed”) — has the same tense as used in Genesis 1 when referring to the making of animals — so I fail to see how that works as a reconciliation. Do you think it is good that God treats people as property and condones slavery, allows rape? I certainly hope not. What about the geocentric (sun rotates around earth) that the bible supports — Galileo was forced to recant about his (more) correct theory of heliocentricity because it contradicted infallible, Holy Scripture!

    And I’m as contrite as I can be — I want to know the truth — I refuse to act just to escape torment though. I’ve called out to God — what more does He want? He doesn’t seem to exist — if He does, He sure put some things in place to make it seem He doesn’t. If I’m going to burn in Hell, then it’s going to happen — what good does it do me to worry about it? I’m more concerned with the truth — not my own well-being.

  36. Chris,

    I am not a Calvinist, although I respect Christians with that belief, and usually agree in most other areas. I have no problem with your questioning the Bible honestly, as a Christian, an atheist, or someone struggling with the Truth. Keep working on it, and don’t give up.

    I am not wise enough or far enough along with my own research to answer your questions, but believe there was more going on in the Old Testament period than we can understand from the scripture based on the Textus Receptus and King James Version alone. I could be wrong, and there are many defending every word as accurate. What I am saying is that I would not limit my belief in God, who was willing to die for you, and who does want the best for His friends, on having to have your every question about the Old Testament answered first. What we know about the new covenant with Jesus is far more important in my opinion.

    Here is a Christian volunteer site that I have used and found to be very helpful, and usually recommends further resources for study. The site is http://www.GotQuestions.org., and I will pray that you find the answers that you need.

  37. Chris says:

    In any case, I’m still monopolizing on this (admittedly non-recent) blog post, and that’s not suitable so I won’t post any more comment responses. Thank you all for your views — it was most enlightening. I do hope God, if He in fact exists, blesses you all, and even if he doesn’t exist that you do well.

    Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s