NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all before I state my main argument, is it wrong in a Christian's view to have sexual relations with someone you are related to? eg, your brother or sister?

Can some kind christian please answer my question?

I assume your argument is going to rest on the premise that the Bible promotes incest?

I assume your argument is going to rest on the premise that the Bible promotes incest?

Yeah something like that, I was going to refer to Adam and Eve after some Christian said that it is wrong...

Can some kind christian please answer my question?
Welllll I am Jewish and buddhist and I do believ so despite half of red neck america does. Strange since they are religous.

Actually, Jewish people can answer this too, any religion that branches off from the jewish religion most likely believes in Adam and Eve

Welllll I am Jewish and buddhist and I do believ so despite half of red neck america does. Strange since they are religous. Ignorant statements like this do nothing for your credibility.

i don't thnk the bible has many flaws people just take it to the literal meaning. i know it would have flaws considering it is people who made it and it was basically was oral tradition until it was written down

oh and by the way ewwww on the incest matter

The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). So before hand it was allowed.

oh and by the way ewwww on the incest matter

Just for the record I'm not into incest, just pointing out that Adam and Eve's children must have been...

The bibles laws on incest came with the convenent. Therefor theres no contradiction.

Just for the record I'm not into incest, just pointing out that Adam and Eve's children must have been...

but you believe in adam and eve and that must mean you believe we are descended from them so........ewwwwww.......

but you believe in adam and eve and that must mean you believe we are descended from them so........ewwwwww.......

Who ever said I believe in Adam and Eve?

Well, if they hadn't liked apples they wouldn't have had to worry about it, would they :p

Just for the record, I'm just being a smart ass right now because I'm in a good mood, don't take offence!

There was no mention of incest until levitical law came into place. There also was no death penalty at first, until the evil of man became to great, and the instances became too frequent. The first murderer was exiled, not killed, so therefore levitical laws became the norm as the world changed.

Eh-oh, oral tradition != correct information. If you consider the Bible to be true by that statement, then you must also consider the Illiad and the Odyssey to be factual as well.

Anyways, thread starter, the Bible does say that incest is a sin. This was written down sometime after Adam and Eve as it would be impossible to protect oneself from sin and it would lead to many birth defects caused by incest.

Now, if we were to analyze the Bible a little bit deeper (and stay within the fundamental Christian view of the origins of man) we will find a number of things that could explain why this law was not stated until Leviticus.

Genesis starts off with the creation of the world, and all living things. Then there is the fall of man, and Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden. They have two kids, Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel and goes off to find himself a wife.

WHAT?

Cain shouldn't be able to find a wife when the only children of the first two humans were boys, and Adam is still alive. We have run into a problem here. Never fear! A very subtle verse in Genesis shows that a race of fallen angels of gigantic stature came down from Heaven (At this point, the only planes of existence are Heaven and Earth, Hell will not be created until after the second coming of Jesus.) and started procreating with humans.

Where did these humans come from?

Well, that is never explained in the Bible. Some would argue that Yahweh created humans outside of Eden as well as inside Eden (this would be the fundamentalist argument). Others would argue the position that, as Yahweh was seen as a regional diety (not omnipresent, not all powerful, not omniscient), other groups of humans could have been created by other gods. This second position appeals more towards rational thought, even though the position doesn't fit with later explanations of Yahweh in the Old Testament, it does fit with all descriptions of the Judaeo-Christian god prior to Ezra. Assuming the second argument is true, the law against incest was always known to the people of the Judaeo-Christian god. Otherwise, the law was laid down for the first time in Leviticus and is still in effect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this answered your question and shed some light on some Biblical history.

Now, I am an agnostic, but I believe incest is wrong just based on the fact of the genetics can cause messed up kids. But if you are attracted to one another, go at it, I don't really care.

Where did these humans come from?

Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve, "And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters." During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children.

Now, I am an agnostic, but I believe incest is wrong just based on the fact of the genetics can cause messed up kids. But if you are attracted to one another, go at it, I don't really care.

Adam and Eve and their decendent wouldnt need to worry about genetics for a while. Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).

Ignorant statements like this do nothing for your credibility.
Interesting since ignorance implies you dont know what you are talking about and trust me seeing as I live in Northern New York, you aint got noten me hun.

True, true. However, at the time of Abel's birth, there were no other children specified in the Bible. Even then, we know nothing of how old Adam was when he and Eve were expelled from Eden. There are so many things that are left unsaid in Genesis, that anything other than its accounts of actual historical events that have been confirmed by other sources are not guranteed to be correct.

Agnostic perspective, sorry.

Now, following that Cain married one of his sisters, God could have chosen to prevent the birth defects that follow incestuous relationships until the law was laid down in Leviticus.

I'm so happy this thread hasn't turned into a "flame the christian thread".


Now here is a question (not intended to offend only to stimulate thought)

If people like the person who created this thread are SO convinced that the Bible is flawed how come you feel the need to challenge it? Why not just let walk away and think......*those people are absolute idiots*?

The truth is that most people that come up with these questions are NOT compleatly sure that Christianity is load of dung but at the same time they don't like the idea of being responsible for their actions......(hey I don't either)
So people try DESPERATLY to find little quarks or slip -ups in the Bible or even other christians that they can point out to attempt to convince themselfs that christianity is a hoax...........




Here is the harsh truth of it.......................If the God descrbed in the Bible DOSE exist he will NOT ALLOW absolute proof of his existance.

He will always require faith from those who belive in him......it is impossible to serve the god described in the Bible without faith.

So christians- Keep beliveing no matter WHO tells you other wise.


Non christians- Believe what you wish but take into consideration........How many people are trying to disprove any other religion as Zealusly as christianity...........None............................ perhaps there is a reason beyond independant thought for it.

I have a few questions as well... Since there is a statement made about flaws in the bible...

How is it, that most christians (Forgive me if I offend people who do not think it this way), believe in words written by other people?

It is true that the bible consists of many stories and sources written by different people, but containing the same load. Isn't it so that these stories are just the ones from people who "knew" what was right or wrong and put it down in words, with a little drama to extend the words now and then? I say that the book is still just another opinion shared by many and not per definition a holy writing. The rules of living given in it, are still the same for non-christians. You don't need to actually believe in a God to know that these are just meant to make people live together. In fact, as the bible is written by men, it CANNOT BE the word of God. Therefore another question.. If God exists, does he allow the bible to be followed in word and deed? Does he allow it not to be followed? Who is wrong? One who claims to know what God wants, or one who questions his very existence? Which person will go to heaven? I say none of them. I say that the bible just fixes the lives of those who believe, to make it special...

I belieave created primitive man and we took of from there.

I have a few questions as well... Since there is a statement made about flaws in the bible...

How is it, that most christians (Forgive me if I offend people who do not think it this way), believe in words written by other people?

IT is believed that these teachings found in the bible were to teach a moral tale as the morals were revealed by God. THe Bible is based on the spirit of the word and it is impossible that someone wrote down the actual words of God. Who knows now because it has been re-written and passed down over hundreds of generations of humans. Also, it is more a combination of faith and reason that has lead most people to believe in the Bible. You shouldn't just pick it up and start reading it without asking yourself why you believe in it.

In fact, as the bible is written by men, it CANNOT BE the word of God. Therefore another question.. If God exists, does he allow the bible to be followed in word and deed? Does he allow it not to be followed? Who is wrong? One who claims to know what God wants, or one who questions his very existence? Which person will go to heaven? I say none of them. I say that the bible just fixes the lives of those who believe, to make it special...

If God does exist, He just lets people use (or abuse) their free will. He cannot make them believe in Him or in His word if a genuine love is to be shown to Hum by people.

It is Ok and it should be encouraged to question your faith in God. I recently went through such a process in my theo class because I was required to, but I feel that it was one of the best things to do in my life. It wasn't based on any particular religion per say, but it used general arguements without any Biblical references to give us evidence of His existence/nonexistence. I drew on the conclusion that I believe He exists and some said He didn't. Either way, it required a leap of faith to take a stand.

Thirdly, the Bible is meant to be a moral guide, which to this day, is used and has been "updated" and adapted for the unique problems of today.

First of all before I state my main argument, is it wrong in a Christian's view to have sexual relations with someone you are related to? eg, your brother or sister?
Creates inbred morons who add nothing to society and delay the ultimate escension of humanity's utopian future. Ironicly, though, those who are the most devout in my country (southerners) are those who seem the most inbred.

-snip-

People feel the need to argue over Christianity because Christians (as a whole) are the most self-righteous, egotistical religious followers out there. Because of this, non-Christians become annoyed and attempt to convert people out of Christianity through argument. It all has to do with an attempt to express how the non-Christians feel about Christianity, and their attempt to prove THEIR correctness to those they deem "moronic". It's human nature to want to prove one's self as correct.

I hope that made sense, haha.

I would never sleep with any relative of mine, but if consenting adults family members really want to have sex with each other, i don't care. It's none of my business.

Excuse me if this offends some people but I've heard that when the virgin mary was first mentioned in the bible they didn't mean to say virgin they just meant to say young...It's possible, most of the bible was written many years after Jesus died and before then it was just passed by word of mouth.

Excuse me if this offends some people but I've heard that when the virgin mary was first mentioned in the bible they didn't mean to say virgin they just meant to say young...It's possible, most of the bible was written many years after Jesus died and before then it was just passed by word of mouth.

The old testament was complete some 400 years before Jesus. Some new testament books were written only a few years after.

Mary was ment to be called a virgin in the new testament. In the old testament prophecy about jesus' birth, he is born of a virgin. Some say that Isaiah (the prophet) didnt mean virgin, but simply a maiden or young women.

Those who are opposed to the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic passage referring to a virgin birth claim that ‘ almâ does not mean “virgin,” and that the word used exclusively for “ virgin” is the Hebrew word betûlâ. Both of these claims, however, are inaccurate. A careful look at the etymological and semantical aspects of these two words actually documents the fact that there is no single-word-meaning for either Hebrew term.

One of the translations of ‘almâ is “young woman,” but there are certain nuances to the Hebrew term. After examining all occurrences of the word, and looking briefly at its etymology, Walton gave the lexigraphical definition of ‘almâ as “one who has not yet borne a child and as an abstraction refers to the adolescent expectation of motherhood.” In application to Isaiah 7:14, he admitted that virginity seemed to be implied.

As to the claim that, if Isaiah had meant virgin, he would have used betûlâ, Walton refutes that as well. He says that betûlâ is a “social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status” (1997b, 1:783). If the passage was a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, then betûlâ would not apply since Mary, while not yet married per se to Joseph, was nonetheless no longer under the guardianship of her father. The Septuagint renders ‘almâ in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means “a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity.”

If she wasn't a virgin what was so immaculate about the conception.......was she dog ugly or something?