sex slavery???? that's a fine reach in what the Bible teaches.... I probably know exactly which website you've read to have come up with that idea.

I love how people of a non-christian faith look at the bible and decide that if a Christian doesn't practice absolutely everything written in it that we're wrong. Sure the Bible taught a lot of things in the Old Testament that Christians no longer follow. The law of Moses contained a lot of things that are no longer practiced by Christians.

as for incest... I already explained why I think it was okay and now is not... but you seem to have skipped over my explanation.

I got it from Bible.cc, for your information.
And I might have immediately interpreted as sex slavery, from the wording. Looking at it again, it doesn't seem like that. ;/
But it still reads to me as selling a daughter into slavery.

And I actually used to be a Christian. I sort of drifted to agnosticism, however.

Furthermore, I heard somewhere that the Bible was the "word of god."
If it's the word of god, why don't you follow all of what god says? Why follow certain things only? That's saying, in my book, that you are free to pick and choose laws to follow/not to follow. Kind of as if god didn't write it after all...

That would be my argument.

Also, as much as it seems that I'm flaming Christianity and the Bible, I'm not.
I'm just flaming it's scientific value.

"It's bad?
But the Bible disagrees, specifically in Exodus and Leviticus, describes and tells you how to properly take care of your slave. it doesn't condone it at all. I'd even go out on a limb to say it supports it.

It even tells you about the practice of sex slavery and selling your daughter.

So, incest is okay then.
Because it doesn't matter how far out you go, we're all still born from the same 2 parents: Adam and Eve.
So any sexual relationship between anyone is still incest-orientated.
Thus, we're just continuing the race."


Slavery is bad most of the time, but if you treat your slaves with respect, like the Bible says, it isn't always the same.

It tells about the practice of sex slavery and selling your daughter? Give me a verse so that I can give a valid arguement.

You seemed to have neglected the concept of "inner family." It is considered incest to have sex within your inner family(your mother/father, siblings, cousin, etc.) but those who are not considered to be part of your 'family crest' do not count.

Very well then, it's fine to have sex with your cousins/uncles/etc but everything else is off-limits.

"If you treat your slave with Respect" you say..
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
-Exodus 21:20-21
...
Right.
So almost-death is fine.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how to cite the bible properly, is it something like:
"If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do."
-Exodus 21:7
And that's what I found.

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I think god disagrees with ALL forms of incest. Can you give me a verse that says "unless it's to continue the race, then it's fine"?

Yuor right the bible is scientific but also not all of the bible is scientific but I still agree with you that it is scientific.

Sorry if I'm going a little far back, but I need to respond to this.
"The law of Moses contained a lot of things that are no longer practiced by Christians."
Is that to assume that only Christians stopped those practices? Judaism changes with the times quite well, considering that it is widely acceptable to believe in evolution and the big bang theory. And all that bad stuff, we changed when all of it stopped being socially acceptable. And might I remind you that Christians WERE Jews?

Anyway, the argument taking place here seems to only be showing how the bible isn't scientific, as seen with the mentioning of Adam and Eve and creationism (none of which agrees with science)

I only point that out because Christians are no longer bound by the law of Moses... that's all. I don't care what Jews do or don't do as part of their religious beliefs. I'm not Jewish.

The earliest Christians were Jews sure... but I'm not quite seeing what your point is....


and you assume that creationism disagrees with science because only the extreme view of a literal 6 day creation is ever presented as the Christian view. The idea of this world coming into existence 6000 years ago (or 13000 as some believe, depending on how you interperet a day in the bible) is silly. There is so much scientific evidence that proves otherwise. I don't believe the earth was created in 6 literal earth days, or in 1,000 year days as some people assume but over a much longer period. I believe that the evolution of species on this planet was not a random chance but was directed by a God. I think people who ignorantly reject either religion or science in their view of how the world came into being are missing part of the truth. There is an idea that only 1 is correct but it should more accurately be.... how can we reconsile our assumptions of how the world was created by God to fit with the evidence we see in the scientific world and not be so scared of tweaking our view of how the world came into existence.

I believe that science explains how god does things. For example, the big bang theory and theory of evolution completely coincide with genisis, if you read clearly. You may wonder how evolution which takes billions of years coincides with genisis which took 6 days. This is because a day to us is many years to God.

If you read 2peter 3:8 states that one day in gods eyes are 1000 years and a 1000yrs are as 1 day. Now what is difficult with the bible, causing so much dispute is that we do not know the idiums of the culture during the time the books were written. This makes it difficult to take statements as literal or figurative. I believe the statement above is figurative statement meaning that one day to god is many many years, not exactly 1000yrs.

I don't get on as much so i may not get back to you, but that is the gap theory.

the world will exist for 7000 years right? I'm pretty sure that is clearly laid out in the bible. What if those 7000 years are not human years but "God's" years?

7000 years * 365 days in a year = 2,555,000 days. 2,555,000 days times the 1000 years to 1 day from 2nd Peter and you get 2.555 billion years.

I think that would follow pretty well that the earth could very well be 2.5 billion years old or close to that.

That is just a theory of mine... not much to back it up, but I've made it a goal to make science and religion make sense together and I think that interpretation of biblical scriptures could make sense.

I believe the earth is about 6-10,000 years old. And geeogree, are you implying that we would have evolved during those 2,555,000,000 years?

Well that's confusing when the Earth is believed to be, by scientists and what they gather from the moon and meteors and such, that our solar system is aged to be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.

the evidence for an old earth (somewhere in the billions of years old) is much stronger than the evidence for a young earth.

And no I'm not suggesting we evolved in that time period. I believe that Adam and Eve were put on the earth about 6000 years ago. I don't believe we evolved from other animals.

Well, think about this.
There is supposed evidence for an old earth. I question its accuracy, but let's just say that the evidence is accurate. God created humans mature, obviously, read Genesis. He also created animals mature. If they had no adult animals to nurture them, they wouldn't have survived, unless God kept them alive, but why wouldnt He just make them adults so that they can begin to multiply? So humans and animals were made mature according to the Bible. So what about the earth and the rest of the universe? Most stars are over billions of light years away, so how could they see a large number of stars in the Bible? Because God made the universe with the appearance of age, Just like He created man and woman that way, and animals as well. So when evolutionists or scientists date something, then it has the APPEARENCE of billions of years of age, when it was actually created only thousands of years ago, or at least it's ancestors were.

while I understand where you're coming from.... I think your theory is pretty weak. Everything was made to look old but it's actually new?

Your theory has no evidence to back it up.... sorry.

Who are these Christian noobs who seem to think that Cain made out with his mother? Or that incest happened at ALL in Adam's immediate family?

Drop these zeros and hear the story from a true Christian Gnostic.

The book of Genesis does not say that Adam and Eve were the ONLY people created by the ALEIM. Just the first. In fact, modern Genetics shows that our lineage is traceable back to a few different families. It's quite possible that there was enough genetic differentiation in these few families alone for any nearby relatives to not be at all genetically similar. (not similar enough to cause Genetic backlash).

"People started making their own families"... Right, that happened in the last two hundred years, yo. Before the 19th century, 99% of marriages were arranged.

Geeogree, every theory starts somewhere, from an idea to a theory. I just think that it's quite rediculous to see so many people accept the big bang, when there is no proof and no hard evidence. It's just a weak theory. But explain to me why you think the theory is weak. Because there isn't hard evidence?

your theory has no evidence...

your argument is this: "The earth is made to look old.... but it's not." You have no evidence. You've come up with a theory that doesn't require any evidence to back it up at all. Anything that is used to "disprove" your theory can't be used because it's just "God testing our faith".... stupid.

I guess I'll stand out from the crowd and say this.

2dnoodleman, you can do whatever you want, you don't have to listen to geeogree or anyone else who contradicts you. Just work on your 'theory' and IF you EVER get to a dead end in it then make sure you blame yourself and not us.

I'm not saying this to put anyone here down and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong; I don't choose sides. I respect the fact that big things start out small and they really need to be worked on despite the criticisms. But whenever there is hard proof throwing away any theory then you should ditch it like a dog chasing a squirrel carrying a bag of beef jerky. Its called quitting while you're ahead.

Well geeogree, I do not have much evidence yet, like I said. It takes time to build a theory up. I just don't believe that you should throw away a theory with such potential just because there isn't evidence yet. And I'm working on getting evidence.
And RSD, I respect what you said, and I to try to respect people's opinions and beliefs. Thanks