Lawrence Krauss states incest isn't always wrong.

[Grafted In]

Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister.

 

[TheDag]

That's not related to incest though and nothing magically becomes true just because you claim something is true.

If you haven't researched this to know what you are talking about don't accuse me of making stuff up. That is medical fact. Feel free to research. I really don't care.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Atheist Professor Lawrence Krauss Gets HUMILIATED and Says Incest is OK - YouTube

Well, I guess Krauss isn't going to admit that incest is "objectively wrong" but I didn't think he would say that a brother/sister that really loved each other and the sex was "only one time" that he would have to "think about it" when it comes to incest being "wrong".

What say you?

I would wonder about his relationship with his female siblings growing up. And I'd worry that he's a father of both boys and girls.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister.

Keyword there would be 'half'.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Sacred scripture says otherwise.

True. For me congregation specific ethics as a topic and a factor in the Christian doctrine precludes an, anything goes between consenting adults, ideology.
Scriptures, just a few, concerning incest.

 

[Wgw]

True. For me congregation specific ethics as a topic and a factor in the Christian doctrine precludes an, anything goes between consenting adults, ideology.
Scriptures, just a few, concerning incest.

If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I think we can do that, obviously there was a time in which incest was neccessary, and that time has passed.

 

[Tiny Bible]

If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I think we can do that, obviously there was a time in which incest was necessary, and that time has passed.

I don't believe the world was populated by just Adam and Eve.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't believe the world was populated by just Adam and Eve.

Agreed.

 

[Armoured]

Atheist Professor Lawrence Krauss Gets HUMILIATED and Says Incest is OK - YouTube

Well, I guess Krauss isn't going to admit that incest is "objectively wrong" but I didn't think he would say that a brother/sister that really loved each other and the sex was "only one time" that he would have to "think about it" when it comes to incest being "wrong".

What say you?

Without relying on indignation, can you explain why it's "wrong"?

 

[Tnmusicman]

Without relying on indignation, can you explain why it's "wrong"?

The fact I need to explain that is rather telling. Besides being dangerous it's rather sick. I mean, do you French kiss your father or mother ?? If no, then why not ??

 

[Tnmusicman]

Incest is wrong because long ago someone read a scripture and said "no sex with your sibilings, because I don't like it" then it was programed in our head and here we are today

Okay......sort of valid response. What about the fact that it is medically dangerous?? Don't have a theory on why it's not dangerous medically, do you?? Not gonna grip about the scriptures on THAT point, are you?
Just out of idle curiosity--What drew you to your trust in God??

Perhaps on of those "christian" Christians??

 

[Armoured]

The fact I need to explain that is rather telling. Besides being dangerous it's rather sick. I mean, do you French kiss your father or mother ?? If no, then why not ??

The fact that your argument seems to rest on outrage and indignation is what's telling. I am not advocating for it, nor do I practice it, but if you're telling other people what they may and may not do, you should be able to explain why. Throwing up your hands and shrieking, "it's sick" is hardly a reason.

As for "it's dangerous", well... arguably, yes. Of course, there are a great many activities that are less dangerous that people engage in regularly, without condemnation, so, how good is the "it's dangerous" argument, really?

 

[ewq1938]

The fact that your argument seems to rest on outrage and indignation is what's telling. I am not advocating for it, nor do I practice it, but if you're telling other people what they may and may not do, you should be able to explain why. Throwing up your hands and shrieking, "it's sick" is hardly a reason.

As for "it's dangerous", well... arguably, yes. Of course, there are a great many activities that are less dangerous that people engage in regularly, without condemnation, so, how good is the "it's dangerous" argument, really?

It's a medical fact it is unwise. Too small of a gene pool has always resulted in various types of horrible diseases. Most people have a natural repulsion against incest, whether it's father and a child, or mother and child or siblings etc. Only in the most extreme, necessary situation would I ever think it's appropriate. I also think you are wrong about the "It's sick" reason. It IS sick. You shouldn't have a foot on each side of this fence.

 

[Armoured]

It's a medical fact it is unwise. Too small of a gene pool has always resulted in various types of horrible diseases. Most people have a natural repulsion against incest, whether it's father and a child, or mother and child or siblings etc. Only in the most extreme, necessary situation would I ever think it's appropriate. I also think you are wrong about the "It's sick" reason. It IS sick. You shouldn't have a foot on each side of this fence.

If you want to use a naturalistic arguement, you may be interested to read this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

You may also be interested to know that a woman older than 40 having a baby is more likely to have a baby with birth defects than a first generation incestuous paring. So is a 40 year old getting pregnant "sick" too?

 

[ewq1938]

You may also be interested to know that a woman older than 40 having a baby is more likely to have a baby with birth defects than a first generation incestuous paring. So is a 40 year old getting pregnant "sick" too?

That's a red herring argument. The sick part is not fully about the possibility of a malformed child but mainly because incest itself is gross/sick and normally an unnatural attraction. You avoid that fact which is very telling.

 

[Armoured]

That's a red herring argument. The sick part is not fully about the possibility of a malformed child but mainly because incest itself is gross/sick and normally an unnatural attraction. You avoid that fact which is very telling.

What's "gross or sick" about it if not the malformed child issue?

 

[ewq1938]

What's "gross or sick" about it if not the malformed child issue?

I think that's clear from the context of my post, and other posts.

 

[Armoured]

I think that's clear from the context of my post, and other posts.

Nope. If it's not the deformed child issue, what's wrong with it?

 

[ewq1938]

Nope. If it's not the deformed child issue, what's wrong with it?

Already addressed this in previous posts, #33 and #35. Stop avoiding them.

 

[Armoured]

Already addressed this in previous posts, #33 and #35. Stop avoiding them.

What do you think I'm avoiding? As far as I can tell, your premise is "it's sick because it's wrong, it's wrong because it's sick". Is there a reason you won't explain the logic underlying your conclusion?