Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ask me if I care.And we come neatly back to Euthyphro's dilemma. Are these things immoral because God legislated against them, or did God legislate against them because they are immoral?
You can get as sick as you want --- there are some who don't really mind engaging in this activity, and the law applies just as much to them as it does you or I.I say the latter. You say the former, which is utterly sickening IMO, but hey, do what you have to to make your interpretations fit.
The former --- the Creation Story.
And, by implication, the whole Bible.
The Bible contains allegory --- but this does not mean the Bible is allegory.
That's a quote from a book by J Dwight Pentecost --- and there's a difference between the two statements.It's amazing how quickly some people can contradict themselves.
I really do not care about the exact legal defintion of the word. The point is that it means to have sex with someone who is closely related, Mans laws is what defines it as a crime or not depending on where you are in the world.No, incest is not a word which means to have sexual relations with a close family member --- incest is the crime of having sexual relations with a close family member.
You'd better care, if you're gonna accuse God of sanctioning incest in one dispensation, then calling it a crime in another.I really do not care about the exact legal defintion of the word.
No it doesn't, Soul Searcher.The point is that it means to have sex with someone who is closely related...
Then they'd better define it right, if they want to avoid sinning.Mans laws is what defines it as a crime or not depending on where you are in the world.
I won't discuss the difference between 'morality' and 'ethics' with non-believers.Of course you completely avoided the point of the post. Does so called absolute morality change based on how God feels about it on any given day?
That's a quote from a book by J Dwight Pentecost --- and there's a difference between the two statements.
I don't think you uniformitarianists realize just how different it was back then; but that's your problem.
Without looking it up, the only other instance I can think of is Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar.The only case of incest in the Bible that I found was where Abraham married his half-sister Sarah.
Now that's just wrong on so many levels.There are a few cases of implied incest like "Cain must have slept with Eve because there was no other women", but the Bible can get pretty ambiguous when trying to determine jumps in time.
No, it's not.Although, it is inevitable that somebody will have to commit the first act of incest.
Abraham was afraid that Abimelech would kill him and take his wife, so he presented her as his sister.It wasn't really that different back then. In Genesis 20:11-12, Abraham mentions that he and his wife will be persecuted because they are half-siblings. So according to man's laws it was illegal at the time, although it might have still been acceptable with God.
Notice too that God demands he restore Abraham his wife - (not 'sister'):Genesis 20:3 said:But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
God clearly recognized Sarah as Abraham's wife. After all, He joined them together as 'one' in holy matrimony.Genesis 20:7 said:Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
Like I said, this conversation is starting to get hairy (literally), so I'll make one more reply along this line.I wasn't aware of any interpretation that led to Eve having incest. Assuming Adam was created first, which the Bible says he is, Eve would have no reason to "do" an animal.
Li
e.
And now I'm finished on this subject --- science is gross.
* I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.
It is not rhetoric. Populations evolve, not individuals. Sorry if our science is too hard and "icky" for you to understand.Since y-Adam didn't come along for millions of years (or hundreds of thousands, or whatever) later, Eve would have had to have mated with another, let's call it, Protoman, or Homo sapiens sapiens* will go extinct as soon as mtDNA Eve dies.
To counter this, I think they say something about evolution not talking about one person, but evolution deals with whole communities --- or some such rhetoric.
Thank goodness!And now I'm finished on this subject ---
Like I said, this conversation is starting to get hairy (literally), so I'll make one more reply along this line.
As I understand it, mtDNA Eve, who is not to be confused with the Eve of Genesis, was the first (actually the oldest one found) --- but, so far, was the first woman on the planet
You seem to miss the big picture. The act is the act and if it is wrong it is wrong it is not right one day and wrong the next simply because a law was written. Yes it is a crime in the eyes of the law but that does not actually make it right or wrong morally. Some laws are morally wrong and some are morally sound but never confuse laws with morals as they are seperate things.You'd better care, if you're gonna accuse God of sanctioning incest in one dispensation, then calling it a crime in another.No it doesn't, Soul Searcher.
You'd better care, if you're gonna....
You seem to miss the big picture. The act is the act and if it is wrong it is wrong it is not right one day and wrong the next simply because a law was written. Yes it is a crime in the eyes of the law but that does not actually make it right or wrong morally. Some laws are morally wrong and some are morally sound but never confuse laws with morals as they are seperate things.
Ask me if I care.
It's taboo --- that's good enough for me.
You can get as sick as you want --- there are some who don't really mind engaging in this activity, and the law applies just as much to them as it does you or I.
I don't think you uniformitarianists realize just how different it was back then; but that's your problem.
You'd better care, if you're gonna accuse God of sanctioning incest in one dispensation, then calling it a crime in another.
No it doesn't, Soul Searcher.
It no more means that than drinking a beer does during the non-prohibition years.
If they changed the speed limit downtown from 25 to 15, does that mean that someone clocked yesterday going 22 was speeding?
I won't discuss the difference between 'morality' and 'ethics' with non-believers.
I tried that once here and got nowhere.
Just like the difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic' --- you guys prefer to take very precise, rigid definitions and blend them together to the point that it's confusing beyond repair --- then accuse someone who comes along and uses the old definitions of 'making stuff up'.
Now that's just wrong on so many levels.
I'll agree that science's version of Eve (mtDNA Eve) would have had to commit beastiality (and this conversation is starting to go south), but not the real Eve.
No, it's not.
No one ever had to commit incest for any reason.
Until it was outlawed, it was "holy matrimony".
Abraham was afraid that Abimelech would kill him and take his wife, so he presented her as his sister.
When Abimelech went to marry her, God intervened with these strong words:Notice too that God demands he restore Abraham his wife - (not 'sister'):God clearly recognized Sarah as Abraham's wife. After all, He joined them together as 'one' in holy matrimony.
Like I said, this conversation is starting to get hairy (literally), so I'll make one more reply along this line.
As I understand it, mtDNA Eve, who is not to be confused with the Eve of Genesis, was the first (actually the oldest one found) --- but, so far, was the first woman on the planet --- born of what I suppose you'd call a 'proto-glorified ape', or whatever nonsense you want to call it.
Since y-Adam didn't come along for millions of years (or hundreds of thousands, or whatever) later, Eve would have had to have mated with another, let's call it, Protoman, or Homo sapiens sapiens* will go extinct as soon as mtDNA Eve dies.
To counter this, I think they say something about evolution not talking about one person, but evolution deals with whole communities --- or some such rhetoric.
In any case, mytochondriac Eve is not the same as Garden of Eden Eve.
And now I'm finished on this subject --- science is gross.
* I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.
"Ethics"?We probably need different words for traffic "laws"...
"Morals"?... and god "laws".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?