Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 11 May 91 03:35:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Lines: 57 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes: > >In reference to this post and the recent posting about God's "Bad Laws" >may I point out that certain notorious passages in the Old Testament >refer to concubinage, bigamy, incest, and slavery as natural in the eyes >of God (in that he does nothing or says nothing to stop these practices). >Yet our modern culture completely rejects them. We have consciously or >unconsciously revised standard biblical practices already. If the entirety >of the Bible is God's Word, why have we given ourselves this privilege? I wish to interject here, that though Abraham and Sarah were cousins it is not accurate to say that God approves of incest. These two were married before the law was given. If you will read in the law, you will see that any brother or sister that married were cut off from the people. Most other forms of incest were punishable by death. Though in western culture it is taboo to marry one's first cousin, or even second or third cousin, in Biblical tradition, this is not considered incest. I could not marry my 1st cousin in good consciense. It is only a sin of conscience. Paul says in romans 5 that sin is not imputed when there si no law. Jesus made it clear that two were to be one flesh. Now we know that monogamy in marriage is the way to go. We have the words to obey now. People in the past did not always have them. In the past, God also overlooked the idolatry of the Greeks, but now the truth is manifested. >Even more notoriously, why does our modern society reject the Biblical >"Mark of Cain" argument for segregrating and debasing African Americans. I would like to point out that it is impossible for this mark to refer to blacks. or at least very unlikely. Cain perished in the flood. Eight people came out of the flood. They were, by patriarchial lineage, of course, descendents of Seth. I assume that this "mark of Cain" being used for blacks is a much later invention. It is not used for Nubians or any other darked skinned people in any later references. > >Oh, and yes, one other VERY SIGNIFICANT way that the Bible has already >been altered is the obliteration of any reference to homosexual marriages >which were once legally sanctioned in the Roman Catholic Church, until >influences/threats. > I don't see how this can support the idea that the Bible has been altered, not that I agree with the premise that the RCC ever performed such an immoral cerimony (and this is a protestant speaking.) The term "Roman Catholic Church" was not even used untill the 3 or 4 hundreds as I remember. The books of the New Testament were finished proabably before the end of the 1st century. The New Testament has more copies than any other document from its time. It is incredible how well supported it is. I hate to type it, but God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. When he said, "two shall be one flesh" he was refering to man and woman, husband and wife. Not husband and husband or wife and wife. Homosexuality cannot be supported by Christianity. Either accept one or the other.