Wednesday, October 27, 2010

FacePalm of the Day #23 - Responding to Edward T. Babinski

Edward T Babinski sent a list of 16 ways to get a wife according to the Bible to John Lofus which he posted on his blog. I responded to this list back on July 31, 2010. Just few hours ago Babinski posted a rebuttal on my blog and on Loftus. I will only respond here and not on Loftus blog because I promised not post there anymore since GearHedEd admitted to being pig and that I should not "cast my pearls before swine." You can read my original response here. What follows is Babinsky's response in black and mine in italics. Babinky's comments get the FacePalm of the Day. It is truly an epic failure. He doesn't really respond to any point I made but instead tries to raise more problems to try to make the Bible look evil and immoral.
 
Marcus, Your responses amount to saying, "These were great laws for their day and age." So you have acknowledged ethical relativism, and that it can be found in the Bible.
No. I have acknowledged no such thing. Rape is wrong. Adultery is wrong. The Fundamental principles of the laws have not changed.
Neither did you consider the woman's point of view. Forced to marry her rapist? Really?

Did you consider how other nations did things. A woman who was raped was considered "damaged" and most men would not marry her. What would would happen to such a woman? She would never be a wife and never have the protection of a husband. The law was meant to protect her and make men take responsibility of not just shaming her but potentially destroying the rest of her life. It was also mandated that the man could never divorce her or abuse her. The alternative for the woman? Destitution. Ostracized. Today woman have options that were not available to ancient woman. In no way does the condone or proscribe raping a woman as good thing.

Forced to marry the men who slaughtered her husband and/or whole family, village?
Again this was to protect the woman from being treated as nothing but property and a slave.She could be integrated into society. And she would be married to only one man not men. And where does Edward get that the woman was forced against her will? The Bible does not say that. Again without being married, a woman in those days could look forward to destitution, starvation, and death.
Face Palm Pictures, Images and Photos
And in neither case is a wedding ceremony mentioned. It was an exchange of property.
Does it take explicitly stating and describing a marriage ceremony to understand that it was really a marriage and not just people living together and having sex? The Bible never uses the term "marriage" loosely. It's supposed to be a sacred covenant relationship between a man and woman; co-equal - because no where does the Bible say a man is superior to or more important than women.
And if the woman failed to please the soldier who slaughtered her people, she was let go. But if she did please him, only then was he obliged to take care of her.
I wonder if Babinski really ever looked at how the other nations treated prisoners of war at the same time, or even today. They used to kill the women if they weren't pleased with them. This was to protect the women. You couldn't just take a woman, use her for sex, and then toss her out without penalty.
And in fact a Hebrew male could have as many wives as he could feed and clothe. And also keep concubines and female slaves.
No where is such practice condoned in the Bible. Israelite kings  were even commanded to not have multiple wives but they didn't listen.  If it was not God's will for the kings, why would you think it was something that God thinks its a good idea for everyone else? 
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."  He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. - Deuteronomy 17:16-18
As for the Book of Esther, read chapter 2. "Beauty pageant" is a euphemism. The king was raping every virgin in that pageant, including the Jewish virgin, Esther. God was not incensed though. He allowed the raping, so that the king could discover just how "good" Esther was in the sack. . . for the good of her people. Esther was found to be so "good" that the king made her queen, and the Jews got to take revenge on their enemies, killing 75,000 of them according to the story, all because a virginal Jewish girl was raped by a king and was so good in bed. Is the story true? Who knows? God isn't even mentioned once in that book.
I don't think Babinski has even read the book of Esther. Xerxes did not even know or care that Esther was a Jew. The Jews killing 75,000 of their enemies had nothing to do with Esther. It was not even widely known that Esther was Jewish until she revealed it to show the treacherous Holocaust Haman had in mind for her people. The Jews were defending themselves because on a certain day they were all supposed to be slaughtered and Persian kings could not change a law once it was passed so Xerxes gave the Jews the authority to defend themselves. It had nothing to do with Ester being taken against her will. Re-read Esther.  
Ruth of course uncovers Boaz's feet, which is another euphemism for sleeping with him.
Not everyone agrees with that interpretation and even if it's true, Ruth initiated the scene not Boaz. She was in control.  
As for Paul, the most he said about marriage was that it was honorable, and it was "better to marry than to burn." "Better to marry than to burn?" They should SING that kind of praise of marriage at weddings. So all Paul admits is that marriage is "honorable" and "better than burning with lust" constantly. Not a word of actual praise.
Um...how is "honorable" not praise? And how does this advance Babinski's argument? It doesn't.  More failure.
All that Paul praises is the "spiritual marriage" of Christians to their bridegroom, the Lord. Therefore, Paul made clear that he thought celibacy was definitely a superior choice than marriage.
So what? Paul was saying that he recognizes than not everyone can live without being married. He said that nothing was wrong with remaining single or getting married. If the point is that Paul is saying that it's better not be married because you can focus more on God, then that's true. However he never condemned anyone getting married..
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. -1 Corinthians 7: 36-38
As for Cain marrying his sister, and in fact all of the children of Adam and Even marrying their brothers and sisters. Nice. More ethical relativism. I guess when they chose who was sleeping in whose beds while still kids, that was quite a serious choice indeed. But of course God being omnipotent could have created a second couple so such a thing need not have occurred. But I guess God just slapped his thigh and said, let 'em all sleep with each other!
I'm always amazed by this. According the theory of evolution, brothers and sister must have had to procreate together to pass on the traits that make us human when we evolved from lower lifeforms right? At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens and I would wager that they were closely related unless you want to argue that a man and a woman independently evolved from lower primates? I don't think so. Close relatives would have had to gotten together in order for things like large brains and opposable thumbs  be propagated to further generations. So what is the problem? Even throwing out evolution and just assuming that it was only Adam and Eve, who else would their children marry when there was no other human beings? Me thinks, Edward Babinski is just trying to introduce an argument that has no merit because he has nothing else. God allowed them to do that until He deemed it no longer needed according to His purpose.  Any biologist can tell you that now its no longer a good idea and very dangerous for the children. This is how we get very bad mutations and sicknesses. Before the flood, this was not the case because of the genetic purity and closeness to the source.
Enhanced by Zemanta

27 comments:

  1. Marcus; you really can’t see the forest for the trees. You claim to have not acknowledged ethical relativism and then with each of your responses, you do just that…

    Bid (sic) you consider how other nations did things….[]…Today woman have options that were not available to ancient woman.

    Again without being married, a woman in those days could look forward to destitution, starvation, and death.

    I wonder if Babinky. (sic) really ever looked at how the other nations treated prisoners of war at the same time….

    And fully displaying your gross misunderstanding of evolution, you said “At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens.

    Of the face palms you’ve given, this truly deserves one. Population evolve, not individuals. Wow, simply wow...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ryan, first said that I did not uphold ethical relativism because God has a standard. I have not denied that the way people have applied those principles have not changed. Seems like you are one who is missing the forest for all the trees.

    And you cannot have an evolving population unless the individuals in that population are different than previous generations. I never said that individuals evolve. I think you need you go back and read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What you said, which was hilareous, by the way, was "At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens."

    No, there wouldn't have been.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So there aren't two homo sapiens now? And at some point there would not have been two homo sapiens that gave rise to all others? Funny considering all of our mitachondrial DNA had been traced to a single female. I think it's you who do not understand evolution or DNA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh sweet jebus. Please read an actual book on evolution, not something from your church book store. You completely misunderstand what "mitochondrial Eve" was. She definitely was not the only human woman alive at the time. In that population, there were as many other women as you'd expect and they all have descendants living today, but for those women, at some point in the last 200,000 years, their offspring each had at least one generation with no females, since men don't pass on their mom's mitochondrial DNA, so that's how we get back to "Eve".

    No more biology lessons for you. As terrible as "Answers In Genesis" is, they actually have a pretty good feature of "arguments christians shouldn't use". You need to check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm already familiar with the argument for side-stepping that fact that all living human beings seem to have the same mother. What amazes me is that you actually bought that explanation? Where is your skepticism? Do you really think that out of a whole generation only one woman had female offspring? Or somehow all other females died before producing female children, save one? That's a whole lot harder to believe than the Resurrection. At least we have an empty tomb for that one and just godless speculation for the other.

    I blog on this and the counter arguments at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/04/nova-online-neanderthals-on-trial.html

    As for the Answers in Genesis article you referred to I agree with it.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/v/recent/k/arguments-christians-should-not-use-series

    Funny thing is I would never use these arguments and haven't.

    I would add this article.

    http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you really think that out of a whole generation only one woman had female offspring?

    No idiot, because then there wouldn't be a species. Let me try again, for all the other women besides "Eve", at some point in the last 200,000 years, their offspring each had at least one generation with no females.

    For example, I'm an only child. My mother produced a generation with no females. My mothers mitochondrial DNA is not passed on to my daughter. My wife's mother's is though.

    Seriously.

    Get a book.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This has been instructive in how an apparently intelligent person who is capable of at least superficially understanding physics, etc..., can choose to not understand other subject based on personal biases.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Think of it this way, in a quarter of a million years, future geneticist could point back to a woman alive today as their mitochondrial Eve, but it wouldn't be my mom, but could be my wife since we have a daughter.

    That's not to say my mom wasn't alive during this time or that no one descended from her.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ryan, in a quarter of a million years future geneticists would point back to the same woman we point back to. If evolution were true and that there was a population of people when humanity had not yet evolved into it's present form, wouldn't you expect to find more than one kind of Mitachondrial DNA present in people toady?

    And read over what you wrote?

    for all the other women besides "Eve", at some point in the last 200,000 years, their offspring each had at least one generation with no females.

    Do you seriously think you can prove that? Does it make sense in a large gene pool, robust enough to support a population there can be a generation with no females (at all)? I can see that in a single family, but not in a population. Do you really think that all geneticists and biologists accept this hogwash? Don't be naive. You need to read one of their books.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "wouldn't you expect to find more than one kind of Mitachondrial DNA present in people toady?

    No, 200,000 years ago and then later when we left Africa, the population of homo sapiens was MUCH smaller than it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Um, that's what the Bible says. Exactly my point. How small would it have been for such a thing to happen? I mean people would have to marry their siblings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, what the bible says is there were two people who somehow managed to produced the entire world's population, which all wound up dying except for 8 people.

    Again, displaying a gross misunderstanding of what evolution says, you said "At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens."

    You seem to think that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam actually knew each other.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You seem to think that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam actually knew each other.

    Prove they didn't. Also while you are at it, can you say just how many people there were who first became homo sapiens? Was it just one person who became a homo sapiens? Or did just a few people evolve independently simultaneously? Last I checked no one could answer these questions. If you'd like to suggest a book that you think either answers these questions or explains why it's not necessary...go ahead. You might also wanna explain why none of this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There was no first homo sapiens (and actually, m-Eve was the first homo sapiens sapiens). This is why biologist say populations evolve, not individuals. People that were more like Homo Erectus were indistinguishable from people who were more like Homo Sapiens and they were indistinguishable from people who were more like Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Then throw Neanderthal in the mix!

    m-Eve is simply the last common ancestor with whom we all share our mitochondrial DNA. Homo Sapiens Sapiens lived before her. Homo Sapiens lived before and after her. She's not the mother to us all.

    As for your "prove it", the genetic record shows that Eve lived about 200,000 years ago and Adam lived about 80,000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Um that's not proof. That's an assertion. You said

    "People that were more like Homo Erectus were indistinguishable from people who were more like Homo Sapiens and they were indistinguishable from people who were more like Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Then throw Neanderthal in the mix!"

    Do you mean indistinguishable genetically or physically? What? If true what about all the so-called "fossil evidence"? What about "Lucy"? If this is true then how do you believe in evolution? When did the the first "humanlike" ancestors appear? Your statement undermines your whole argument. If your statement is true, then it would support what I would expect from the Bible. There is a theory that the Neanderthals and the Nephilim (Genesis 6) were the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Physically, roughly. If you saw a Homo Erectus or Neanderthal in modern dress walking the street, you might not think twice about it.

    The point is there were many, many generations that straddled the species line.

    Lucy was an Australopithecus you dip.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The dip is you. Because if what you are saying is true than making a distinction is meaningless. Like your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  19. OK. Read a book on the subject. It'll do you good.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You might also wanna explain why none of this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    The earth is not a closed system. It get energy from the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The universe is a closed system. Neither matter nor energy is being created or destroyed. Everything is connected. Given that the earth is an open system doesn't help. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  22. OK. Read a book on the subject. It'll do you good.

    Translation: No one has figured out the answer to all of those, but given enough time scientist will.

    My Take: That sure is a lot of faith (as you define it).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Translation: No one has figured out the answer to all of those, but given enough time scientist will.

    I'm not aware of anything you've asked that hasn't been answered. Any failure to understand lies in your willful ignorance or my inability to explain given I'm not a biologist.

    Putting that aside, why do you think the above is not a better and more honest position than simply ascribing a deity to anything we don't understand?

    I would change the last word from "will" to "might" given that there are probably some things we might never be able to fully explain. So don't worry, you'll always have a gap for your god, no matter how small.

    ReplyDelete

  24. I'm not aware of anything you've asked that hasn't been answered. Any failure to understand lies in your willful ignorance or my inability to explain given I'm not a biologist.


    Then maybe you need to suggest where they have been answered because I'm unaware of anyone who has answered them.

    Putting that aside, why do you think the above is not a better and more honest position than simply ascribing a deity to anything we don't understand?

    Admitting ignorance is fine. But that is not what you and other atheists do. You claim to know that the Bible is wrong but offer no proof of how you know that. Or what gives your interpretations and interpolations of the facts true standing. That is merely feigning ignorance and not being honest.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I've previously recommended a book, go back an look it up.

    ReplyDelete
  26. what book? I don't remember you recommending a book.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Geeze, you can't be bothered to search your own blog? Any biology text will do, but specifically I recommended Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". You can disagree with the conclusion, but you can't pretend that the science doesn't present an answers to your questions.

    ReplyDelete