They also walked around naked, in a world with no rain, and nobody ate meat. None of those conditions exist now, either.
Neither murder nor incest were against the laws of the land in Adam's time. Both are judicial terms defining unacceptable behaviors with judicial penalty. Cain was not given the death penalty for murder of his brother Abel - the death penalty was invoked for murder when Noah stepped off the Ark.
Cain took a wife. A sister. But there was no "incest" back then, because there was nothing against sanguinal marriage.
SO WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS NOW? aND WHY DOES INCEST NOW LEAD TO GENETIC ANOMOLIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITES? DIDN'T IT BACK THEN? IF IT DID IT WOULD EXPLAIN HOW SOME OF YOU THINK.
You make a primal ethical mistake, whose refutation goes back to the Greeks. But let's leave them to rest in peace.
If you tell your child on Sunday, no cookies today, and they eat one, they do wrong. If you don't say anything and haven't said anything, it is neutral. Finally, if you see your child ready to pass out from heat and lack of food, and you order them to eat the cookie, they do wrong by not eating it.
The marriage under consideration here is just such a thing, morally neutral without a specific divine command (which can go one way or the other) .
This is a primal mistake. For one thing, you posit a morality that exists independently of, and prior to, God !! Is that even remotely reasonable. I am open. Give that contention your best shot. I'm listening.
If you don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve, then you don't believe in absolute truth and a higher law to govern our actions, so you are also approving of incest! "Hey it's a victimless crime..." You Sick-O How dare you approve of incest!
"SO WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS NOW? aND WHY DOES INCEST NOW LEAD TO GENETIC ANOMOLIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITES? DIDN'T IT BACK THEN? IF IT DID IT WOULD EXPLAIN HOW SOME OF YOU THINK."
Given that Joshua Light's comments seem to indicate that he believes incest is only wrong because of laws against it, I think we can expect the problem to worsen over time.
Man you are a complete idiot. How on earth does the acknowledging of something imply "approval". Only in the deranged mind of a liberal. Are you so far removed from Christ that you can't understand that there were different rules for the "First Man" and "First Woman" than for a world populated by BILLIONS? Typical liberal stupidity, swallow a camel and strain at a gnat. You live in a world where the competing THEORIES, i.e, "darwinism", "big-bang", FAIL COMPLETELY to tell you how the universe began but in your zeal to discredit religion, you never seem to ask those questions. Let me help you in your liberal stupidity, here are some questions for your godless masters that you might ask."Where did the GASES come from that started the so called "BIG BANG". Here's another, "Where did the "primordial goop" that is alleged to have started "evolution", come from?". Then when Hawkins, Hitchens and other atheist "FOOLS" have no answer for you, you might follow up with this..."IF MAN IS DESCENDED FROM APES, WHY ARE THERE STILL APES IN THE ZOO?" which would inevitably lead to, "How is it that in every other species in which evolution can be reasonably asserted, the end result (duck, elephant) has replaced it's progenitor (duckbilled platypus, wooly mammoth), EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF MAN which co-exists with it's alleged ancestor. Making the ape the ONLY species to have what might be called "divergent" strains of evolution! How'd that happen oh, wise fool? Did one ape say to another, "hey you guys over there evolve and build bridges and cars and stuff but we over here will just be content to remain tree crapping APES"? You godless folk are rather humorous.
Even allowing that you were right about incest being a intrinsically evil thing, by biblical standards your conclusion is false ... For Romans 5:13 and other places make clear " until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." No sin then.
Now I'm atwitter with anticipation to see whether you will respond as one grateful, one just conceding, or as a mean person.
ONE WHO DOESNT FOLLOW YOUR OVERLY BLOATED IDEA OF GOD IS NOT GODLESS. AS A MATTER OF FACT TO DELVE INTO SCHOOL YARD CHILDISHNESS LIKE MOST OF YOU, I HAVE MORE GODS THAN YOU DO.
Veritas says: "How is it that in every other species in which evolution can be reasonably asserted, the end result (duck, elephant) has replaced it's progenitor (duckbilled platypus, wooly mammoth), EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF MAN which co-exists with it's alleged ancestor. "
Joe: Ducks from duck-billed platypuses. Thank you, Veritas. You have made my day! Thank you, very much!
If you think about it, no matter what, if man came from apes or if they were from creation, they must have "propagated" the species through sexual relations with their near kin, so it wouldn't just be a biblical question. But do Christians approve? Let's see.
Now although there are some good Biblical scholars who don't necessarily think Genesis is a literal account, if one does believe it is there is still good reason why incest is an allowable concept at that time. One, if the Bible account is correct (which I think it is) then Adam and Eve were made with very perfect bodies. This means that the blood in their system was pretty much without impurities. Second, they had genes which were close if not perfect, no "junk" DNA or possible defective DNA. So, incest, though a horrible act today, could have been seen as "safe" in an environment and with the bodies Adam and Eve had. But as you go outside them, and begin to propagate more and more, the blood gets bad, and the genes begin to mutate mostly negatively. Thus, by the time of Moses law, there had to be a law on incest mainly because of the horrible health concerns which could occur here, as we know today from studies in it.
So finally, this will obviously show we do not "approve" of it because it cannot be in effect anymore.
I'm glad you started your argument with intelligence and class. It shows your moral superiority over us godless fools.
"How on earth does the acknowledging of something imply "approval". Only in the deranged mind of a liberal. Are you so far removed from Christ that you can't understand that there were different rules for the "First Man" and "First Woman" than for a world populated by BILLIONS?"
How is this logical at all? If, by the account of Genesis, God had NOT wanted incest he would have created more than one man and one woman. But, due to some kind of divine cloning, God made Eve from Adam so Adam really is having sex and procreating with HIMSELF, which would be about as incesty as you can get. Then all their children, who are no longer the "first man" or "first woman," must also commit incest to procreate. God endorses incest fully in this situation. Also, are you saying that we DEVOLVED from a superior "first man" and "first woman?" That would be the only way your argument works. Did these special traits just slowly drop away? So not only were there different moral and ethical standards, there were also different GENETIC rules by which they existed?
"You live in a world where the competing THEORIES, i.e, "darwinism", "big-bang..."
I'll take competing theories over some sort of mythological "truth" any day. You want to talk about the holes in scientific theories on the start of the universe? Why don't we start with the GRAND CANYON sized holes in "creationism?"
Not only is incest part and parcel of the myth of Adam and his posterity. Lot's two daughters got him drunk and screwed him in order to continue his line. Very fun reading for perverts that claim divine approval for blatant immoral actions of their own!
There is a very serious problem with child abuse in the Christian community, unfortunately, it doesn't leave the confidentiality of the church confessors because of their oath--so our laws cannot touch them, and they perpetuate their evils under the protection of their cults. Go ahead, ask me to cite the studies, if you doubt. I know that you don't doubt because you know about it already, but will never say you do.
Fact: Christians are urged by their ministries to talk to ministers BEFORE doing ANYTHING about the molestation that is going on.
Fact: Christians believe that the perpetrator of child abuse should pray to seek forgiveness and guidance in stopping the evil practice--before asking for help outside their superstitious confidentiality clause with the ministry.
Fact: Maximus Fornicatorus, the ribald Christian who HATES moral atheists, likes the idea of incest, and doesn't understand the damage it causes. This shows just how patently immoral Christians really are under their pretended piousness in so many ways.
You have a right to be angry with anyone who does any wrong to a child. I would as much want a Christian to get the full sentence against him or her as I would anyone else.
But we have to be fair. First, your mention of the story of Lot is not a mention of God sanctioning anything. It is simply reporting an act that occured, not condoning it. Second, the reason why the "child abuse" in the Christian community seems so "rampant" to you is that it is the one that is the most reported, since Christians are always put on a higher standard, and people are already with the presumption that they aren't suppose to do those things (which they should be put on a higher standard, I don't disagree with that). So it is more likely your going to hear of abuse from a Christian leader than from a typical non-believer.
Also, your "facts" may be true in a former church you attended, but they are not true in the majority of churches. Most ministers will immediately ask a parishner to "turn themselves in" from such acts. They may go with them, and may not use harsh language or "beat them up" or anything, but the majority I know from my studies in Christianity you will not see the pastor try to hide the fact (I am not including the Catholic Church here in recent history, or some of the cults, such as Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses). And finally, you are right that a minister will earge the sinner to ask for forgiveness and to turn his life over to Christ, but this does not mean that the ministers are going to let them go without giving themselves to the law. Ministers, according to the Bible, are to follow the laws of the land, and do the right thing (Romans 13). As a pastor over the life of a congregant, they should let them know that they must turn themselves in or they will have to call the police themselves.
So I think you are basing your facts on possibly a church you know to do such things (the Catholic Church?) but I don't think you have a scientific study on the issue. But if you do, quote it.
![[Add comment]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/reviews/comment._CB192249938_.gif){kind=small}
