annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
And so have you. You've decided that incest can be okay, given the right circumstances. Good luck with that.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
And so have you. You've decided that incest can be okay, given the right circumstances. Good luck with that.
Right Divider
Body part
I simply believe what the Bible says and does NOT say.
You, on the other hand, have decided that God must have been wrong.
How do you justify that?
Lon
Well-known member
Wow! How isn't all life, regardless of Evolution or Creation, incestuous? :noway: Do people ever think through their own theories???
Think about what people are saying and ask 'does this also apply to what I or someone who disagrees, believes?
If I had to guess, at this point, it'd be that currently in society incest is bad. Morally? :think: It is in the sense that it is irresponsible and causes extreme harm in reproduction BUT was that always the case? My cat has 9 toes on one foot, 11 (or more, he doesn't like me trying to count) on the other. He has long teeth that hang slightly past his jaw like a sabertooth tiger (I think sabertooths may have been inbred cats with no benefit obvious with longer teeth). Why? His mother and father were sister and brother. Was it 'wrong' for these two cats to have children? Yes. Was it morally wrong? :nono: Regardless if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist (no necessarily completely different people), you have to, of necessity, think of incest in the propogation of most species. You have to!
There is no "Those bible believers are weird!" accusation. All such shows is mindless posturing without thinking through one's own embrace. There is no immediate escape from some sort of propagation by related progenitors. If anything, it is another indication that intelligence had to be involved with so many diverse species on the planet. "Alien seeding" just begs the question of irreducibility ad infinity.
This COULD be a great thread to investigate truths that everyone everyone everyone everyone has to wrestle with, regardless.
The posturing here has been just missing some obvious need for sincere introspection regarding how the species got here: Regardless of 'Who/What' --> "How?" Some sort of propagation by close relation has to be entertained.
--I don't think anybody is Pro-incest, today, scripture is pretty clear about problems regarding it and prohibiting it including "doesn't even happen among nonbelievers."
Think about what people are saying and ask 'does this also apply to what I or someone who disagrees, believes?
If I had to guess, at this point, it'd be that currently in society incest is bad. Morally? :think: It is in the sense that it is irresponsible and causes extreme harm in reproduction BUT was that always the case? My cat has 9 toes on one foot, 11 (or more, he doesn't like me trying to count) on the other. He has long teeth that hang slightly past his jaw like a sabertooth tiger (I think sabertooths may have been inbred cats with no benefit obvious with longer teeth). Why? His mother and father were sister and brother. Was it 'wrong' for these two cats to have children? Yes. Was it morally wrong? :nono: Regardless if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist (no necessarily completely different people), you have to, of necessity, think of incest in the propogation of most species. You have to!
There is no "Those bible believers are weird!" accusation. All such shows is mindless posturing without thinking through one's own embrace. There is no immediate escape from some sort of propagation by related progenitors. If anything, it is another indication that intelligence had to be involved with so many diverse species on the planet. "Alien seeding" just begs the question of irreducibility ad infinity.
This COULD be a great thread to investigate truths that everyone everyone everyone everyone has to wrestle with, regardless.
The posturing here has been just missing some obvious need for sincere introspection regarding how the species got here: Regardless of 'Who/What' --> "How?" Some sort of propagation by close relation has to be entertained.
--I don't think anybody is Pro-incest, today, scripture is pretty clear about problems regarding it and prohibiting it including "doesn't even happen among nonbelievers."
Lon
Well-known member
I think that's fair. Incest is generally not seen as loving. Jerry Lee Lewis married his cousin when he was 26 and she 13 (his third of seven wives). It wasn't seen as a good thing and we do know there are problems that often accompany such, genetically. The O.T. and N.T. does prohibit close-relation-marriages. A Jew was prohibited from marrying the daughter of his wife (his step-daughter) among other familial relations.
There is good discussion here for 'why' these are true including what harm. My initial post is simply to say that both Biblical and scientific people need to consider incest at the inception of the human race. God certainly could have made more people beside Adam and Eve, after Adam and Eve and (likely) before the Fall. There isn't much information. Somehow the race had to get started so we have to entertain the human race coming from common ancestry. Would immaculate life start in two different places in a pond? Wouldn't life come from that same, one life? In a Biblical view, we have to ask about the same questions. We just know seemingly, suddenly, that Seth had a wife, and that Cain wandered among other people who also seem to 'suddenly appear' in the narrative without explaining how they got there. We are left with trying to put some things together without a lot of explanation (science or Bible give no great foothold to the 'incest' question).
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Where did I say "Darwinists believe slime and fish are superior in intelligence to humans?" Answer: Nowhere; I did not say that. I said nothing regarding what Darwinists believe regarding the superiority of intelligence of anything above the intelligence of anything else. I said that Darwinists believe that certain things (slime and fish) are their ancestors--certain things (slime and fish) that are superior in intelligence to Darwinists. And, I certainly did not say that slime and fish are superior in intelligence to humans in the sense of their being superior in intelligence to all humans. What I said is that slime and fish are superior in intelligence to some--andonly to some--humans; namely, to all those humans who are Darwinists.
When I Google the word, the first thing that shows up is: "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other".
Some questions that need to be asked, here, are:
- Classed as such by whom?
- Classed as such when?
- Classed as such why?
When would you say began the practice of classing people of certain degrees of kinship as being too closely related to marry each other? Whom would you say originated the practice? For what purpose would you say it was originated?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I don't know. But I didn't need to google the word to know what it was.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Category error.
If by "invalid", you mean "not valid", then I would respond by informing you that, at least in terms of logic, all premises are invalid. Validity is a property of arguments, and not of the premises of which arguments are constructed. Premises are propositions, and, that being the case, truth and falsity, rather than validity, are the properties of premises. So, you fail to meaningfully attack any premise by calling it "invalid". Now, if you want to attack an argument by calling it "invalid", feel free to lay out the syllogism; specify whatever premise(s) you have in mind, as well as whatever conclusion you have in mind, and tell which (if any) component propositions you consider to be true, and which (if any) false, and tell why you think the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s).
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yeah I don't converse in syllogisms. Whatever you want to call what you said, you clearly said "each party, respectively, therein believes itself descended from beings superior in intelligence to itself." Now we can work from that or you can tell me again you didn't say that, but I'm not going to go around in circles regarding whether or not you said what I just quoted you as saying.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
A ridiculously strict and literal belief system that denies science and results in bizarre things like incest being okay in "certain circumstances"...etc.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, then, you believe that God created less than one man, and that God created less than one woman?--that is, that God created no man, and that God created no woman?
Right Divider
Body part
I see again that "science" is your "god".
Since you reject the Word of God... you have no moral basis on which to determine what is right and wrong.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, that's just you being childish and silly. You have no basis to call anyone's morals or ethics into question if you believe that incest is okay depending. Not an issue for non fundamentalists.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ah, you come right out and frankly own your enmity against thinking logically. Since you're wholly about emotion, and entirely averse to logic, I do not know what I'm supposed to be able to do for you.
Far be it from me to waste a lot of my time and effort trying to stop you from continuing to carry on with your conversation with yourself, while you continue to refuse to deal with what I have actually written.
I did write (as you've just now quoted): "each party, respectively, therein believes itself descended from beings superior in intelligence to itself."
And by that--by what I did write--I did not mean what you previously meant by writing something that I did not write (highlighted below):
In this highlighted text, you neither have quoted what I wrote, nor have expressed what I meant by what I wrote.
If, by your pronoun, "that", you're referring to what you wrote--"Darwinists believe slime and fish are superior in intelligence to humans"--um, why would you need me to tell you more than once (or even once, at that) that I did not say that, since it is nowhere to be found in my posts save the instances in which I am quoting you. See?
I understand that you'd prefer that I had said "Darwinists believe slime and fish are superior in intelligence to humans", because you can't deal with what I actually said. But that's your problem, not mine.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it is me being honest and truthful.
You continually reject the Christian God and His Word.
Why has incest always been wrong?
(Hint: It hasn't been.)
BTW: Depending on WHAT?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Talk like people do across the table from each other. They don't talk in syllogisms.
Don't let me hold you back.
Yes I actually did. You might slow down for a minute and really look at what you said in your OP.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, I just reject fundamentalism. Simple as that. No qualms with accepting actual science and no qualms with saying that incest is just flat out wrong. Unlike you, where it seems to be okay in some circumstances.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What (if anything) do you mean by "talk in syllogisms"?
What is pathetic is the fact that you are forced to cower away from talking about syllogisms, and yet you expect me to take you seriously, not only despite that fact, but actually because of that fact.
False.
I'm not yet going to call you a liar.
Rather, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, here, by taking into consideration the obvious fact that your capacity of observation is simply, woefully shallow and inadequate to deal with what I actually wrote.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
a 26 year old woman, marrying her 24 year old brother
a 36 year old man, marrying his 31 year old sister
explain clearly and thoroughly why those are inherently wrong
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Is it absolutely wrong?
Absolutely?
Somehow everybody dies, except, for a man and his sister.
They have access to airplanes and whatever else to cruise all around the world for a decade or more, and they see no other human life they are convinced honestly that they two are the last two remaining humans.
Full siblings.
Absolutely wrong that they try to repopulate the earth by marrying each other?
I know it's an extreme, the most extreme, scenario, it's a thought experiment only.
Now in contrast, how about rape, or murder? Is there any scenario no matter how extreme where it is not wrong to rape or murder?
Absolutely?
Somehow everybody dies, except, for a man and his sister.
They have access to airplanes and whatever else to cruise all around the world for a decade or more, and they see no other human life they are convinced honestly that they two are the last two remaining humans.
Full siblings.
Absolutely wrong that they try to repopulate the earth by marrying each other?
I know it's an extreme, the most extreme, scenario, it's a thought experiment only.
Now in contrast, how about rape, or murder? Is there any scenario no matter how extreme where it is not wrong to rape or murder?
Last edited: