Incest
Posted on: November 3, 2010 - 12:16pm
Offline
Incest
Okay, in Leviticus, I believe it's chapter 20 (I don't have my Bible in the room at the moment), it preaches against the act of incest. Yet, incest was necessary in the Bible not only once, but twice. Adam and Eve and that family and Noah and his family. A clear contradiction of the Bible. Well, in a debate once, I brought this up and had a theist "rationalize" it as God had yet to make human bodies capable of abnormalities as a result of incest in Genesis. Where does it say that in the Bible? I've looked, but couldn't find it. Why do theists fabricate things to defend their ridiculous beliefs?
"Nocturnal majesty, Sworn to black we'll always be."
- Login to post comments
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
All very good points. Arguing with a theist is almost useless though. They're too stubborn to be open-minded about anything. My parents are prime examples. I refute anything they say to me about God and Christianity and then when I bring up a good point, they'll just say, "let me think about it, and I'll give you an answer because there definitely is one." I'll wait, days will pass, yet I never get an answer from them, and they just go on and pretend like it was never discussed. I don't get how theists can't just be open to suggestion to better their own lives. The Bible is full of contradictions, and you'd have to be very uneducated to believe any of the stories in it.
"Nocturnal majesty, Sworn to black we'll always be."
They're not very consistent.
If you had been arguing about a different topic, namely, 'why are our bodies so often susceptible to defects and diseases?' the theist might have responded that this was due to the Fall. However, Noah lived after the Fall of man.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Don't you know, "incest is only bad when it's not necessary." Wait... Lot empregnated both of his daughters and god liked Lot. "Incest is only bad when it's not necessary and/or god didn't like you." Wait...
It's all bull man, the book is filled with this crap. Contradiction after contradiction, 1 absurd story after the next, trying to rationalize it all is pointless.
There ya go...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The book of Leviticus takes place chronologically after the book of Genesis. It is true that God declared incest to be a sin in Leviticus 20. However, the incest occurred in Genesis, before God forbade it. Therefore, since it was not a sin, it had no negative consequence. It was, in fact, necessary for the world to gain population. Once a stable population was reached, God declared it wrong, and put a penalty on the act.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
I love the implications of morality based on the whim of a bloodthirsty Christian god.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Where in the bible does it say "incest was necessary" for any reason? It does not say that at all. Try explaining the story of Lot and his daughters. A stable population had been reached, as you put it, and the custom of "any child born of a Hebrew mother would also be Hebrew; no matter who or what the father was " was in play. That means the daughters had no special reason to get knocked-up by daddy dearest, the horny sluts just did it anyways. and sky daddy figures "that's khosher!" And thus the bible continues with it's contradictions and hypocracys.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
No, the Bible does not say explicitly that incest was necessary, although in Genesis the Lord says to "Be fruitful and increase in number." It does not take much thought to realize that if there are only two human beings on the planet, incest is necessary to increase in number. Lot and his daughters lived in a cave. Genesis goes on to say that the daughters realized that there was no man around them that they could lay with, "as is the custom all over the earth." They got their father drunk and had sex with him to "preserve (their) family line through (their) father."
They wanted to make sure that their family continued, and since there was no other man to give them child (as both their fiancee had been killed when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah), their father drew the short straw and was the one who got the duty. He didn't know what was going on. As you look later in the Bible, you will see that both the Moabites (the descendants of Moab) and the Ammonites (descendants of Ben-Ammi) were conquered by Israelites. The Moabites and the Ammonites also did not worship God, so God punished them. He actually promises to make them like Sodom and Gomorrah in Zephaniah 2:9. Strange turnaround, don't you think? So maybe it wasn't "khosher" with "sky daddy" after all.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
I love the implications of a deity that is willing to make entire civilizations violate the law it created just so it can punish them later on.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
The law was not given until many years later, after the exodus. The incest of Lot took place in Genesis, in the time of Abraham, whereas the law about incest was given in Leviticus.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
See my first response.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Translation: Whatever god says is moral at the time is moral. He can change his rules, and change them back as he pleases.
God did not change his rules, as the law was not given until Leviticus, and he did not change his mind, since after the law was given, no act of incest was allowed. Amnon raped his half-sister, but was killed because of it.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
Poisoning the well? Logical fallacies don't make you right. They are just diversion techniques when you don't have anything legitimately logical to say.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
I'm not just refering to incest, but sure. Translation: God can allow something to happen, not seem to mind, and then later choose it is immoral. That's better.
That is more accurate. It doesn't do much good to say it here (for obvious reasons), but He's God. He made the universe and everything in it. It's His right to choose what is moral and when.
In my previous post about the Ammonites and Moabites being destroyed, I may have made it sound like God did it because of the incest; not my intention. He destroyed them because they were proud and always fought and mocked the Israelites.
I can't add an edit to that specific post, so there you are
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
and in 1997, God farted off the coast of Antarctica.
Thank you, that is all.
This is such a boneheaded thing to say. Ofcourse you would go on to say "god gave us life, he has the right to take it away, or do with it as he pleases." I've always hated this theistic viewpoint, it is such garbage. This is not the viewpoint we have with our children, you would say we are like gods children, why would this be right? Would it make sense to you, to change rules on your children from day to day, toying with them, with the view that you have created them so you can do with them as you please. When god says it is immoral to murder, and then murders hundreds of thousands (women, children, even babies) do you not think he is acting with poor character. A self-contradictory all wise and good diety is an oxymoron.
That's why I said it didn't do much good to say it LOL. However, arguing this point to either side is pointless, because you don't believe, and I do. While this usually isn't a problem, this is one argument where it is because belief and its ideas are so much different than non-belief and its ideas in this particular area. For me to prove my view, I would have to prove God exists, which, for the most part, is impossible. The proof I have will probably not be accepted by you. Likewise, you cannot prove your view without making me believe God didn't create me.
So, we are at a loss. Wanna go ride bikes?
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
This is a bunch of dribble. It has nothing to do with belief. Here i'll save you the burden of proving your god exists *poof* I now believe your god exists. Now, why the heck would that have anything to do with whether I AGREE with that gods actions, or laws. The two are not the same, by proving the existance of your god you have in no way demonstrated he is morally superior, and that I should agree with his actions. Just because you prove to me jens dad exists, doesn't mean I agree with him beating her. Incest just happens to be where this thread began, but really were talking about the overall character of your god here. What exactly makes him morally superior? Because he is bigger and stronger, might makes right? He seems to have all the qualities of an egotistical, narcissistic petty man/child with a temper, not becoming of an all wise and good diety don't you think.
You are right; belief isn't the point. The point of the belief statement was if you don't believe in God, you have no reason to listen to what He says. Even if you do believe He exists, you still don't have to listen to what He says. The point I was making is that if you believe He created you, you more than likely will listen, because you know He gave you life. It was something He did not have to do. There are plenty of people who believe He exists and still don't listen, thereby proving your point. My argument was that basically, God is sovereign. His actions are not dictated by man, whether we agree with them or not. We do not create our children; we merely provide the genetics required to form them. Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I made you in your mother's womb, I chose you. Before you were born, I set you aside for a special work. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This shows that God creates children. Therefore, God was and still is our creator, daily. It's a respect thing. Do you see what I mean? Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. I'm not trying to convince you, only show you what "people like me" believe. Make sense?
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
Again dribble, I clearly stated *poof* I now believe in your god. And from that position of belief still question his character and actions, you have not addressed that.
Ok, so I put on my theist hat to engage you, can you put on your "god" hat and do the same. Imagine you have created life, does that give you the right to blow it up with fire balls, or kill thousands of seemingly innocent individuals in cruel manners. Does that seem like something you would do with your creation? Especially if set creation was in your image, a creation you were very fond off and emotionally connected too. If your awnser is "no I probably wouldn't burn, drown, promote various wars, or give diseases to my creation, that just doesn't sit right with me" then congrats, you are morally superior than the god you worship. Do you not expect more out of your deity than to act so human, so emotional, so flawed. You say god can do with his creation as he pleases, why doesn't he DO something good with it. How about making some of them deserts into fruitful land (hmmm?), how about tweaking the climate a little so natural disasters don't obliterate cities so often. How about helping out a bit with the little nasties, the viruses, the cancers, the things that eat us from the inside out. That would be nice, don't you think? Or maybe, he could have just not created the little nasties in the first place.
This "SHOWS" nothing!!! It is words in a book, what does it matter? I am asking you if you think creating life gives you the right to do with it as you please. I am not asking you, "please show me where it says in your holy book of choice that I have read multiple times that god creates children and not parents." I was using that analogy to ask you the question "does creating life mean you can do with it as you please, however rediculous, irrational, and violent?"
No!
Sure, but your doing a poor job. Basically what you have said is "I believe in proposed god A, proposed god A created us, there for we MUST agree with him and his actions." And you are apparently representing many "people like you," with this big daddy complex who seem to get off on this "Iam at his mercy, I will do anything, he can do anything with me no matter how horrible, I can't think or awnser questions for myself" twisted lame way of thinking. You see if you met this "god" of yours you would probably fall down crying like some 12 year old justin beiber fan. I would ask questions about his character, and the universe he created. If I findout he really is this bat shit crazy blood thirsty god of abraham who kills innocent firstborn children, likes the smell of burnt flesh, drowns millions etc... I would gladly strut my way to wherever it is he would send me because I wouldn't agree with his character, how could I, he is violent, tyrannical, and petty. I wouldn't last long in any place with this kind of leader, I would have to make a stand. However you would flourish with your big daddy complex because you wouldn't mind at all if he banishes and kills thousands a day for silly things, as long as you keep your eyes down, keep worshipping he doesnt "off" you too.
Firstly, I apologize for not ordering my rebuttals to be after your statements. I use my phone for internet, so editing text fields isn't intuitive.
I have already stated that you don't have to listen to anything God has to say, even if you believe in Him or not. You can still believe whatever you want about His character and actions. Free choice allows any person to make any decision they want at any time.
O.K., sure. Words in a book don't matter. The only reason I quoted was to add to one of my arguments. Either way, what I think I might do with something I created, or what I think is right to do is irrelevant. God is sovereign and governed by nobody.
I never said we MUST agree with his actions. It doesn't make any difference at all whether we like the fact that God destroyed entire nations to give His chosen people land. It doesn't make any difference if I think it sucks that someone I knew died from cancer.
I think it is obvious I am both thinking and answering questions for myself. You know nothing about me other than the fact that I defend my faith, and yet have already filed me under "Brainless Believer". Not every Christian is smart enough to defend themselves, but not all Christians are idiots of blind faith.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
Right, and here I am disagreeing, and your belief is what? That I will die for it, go to hell for it, some kind of punishment I assume?
Where did you get that from, words in your book?
You and your circles, you are never going to awnser the question are you. Do you or do you not agree with all of gods actions in the bible? AWNSER THE QUESTION? Not, "it doesn't matter what you think because gods ismore powerful than you" this a cop-out and it won't do. No different from saying "I believe in god, I believe in hell, I believe god is sending you to hell because you are an apostate, but I dont believe you should go to hell, it is not my decision" This is BS logic, dishonest wordplay. You can't pass it off. Do you or do you not agree it is OK to kill your enemies children for actions of their parents. Do you or do you not agree it is a good idea to tell your creation to slaughter entire cities and keep the virgins for themselves. Which is it? Quit you christian dodgeball. Awnser the question!
No, I am giving you a chance not to get filed in that folder. You know what puts people in that file...dodging questions, or only awnsering with bible verses and regurgitated bogus jargain. Talk from the gut, preach and you will get no where
Which are you? Awnser the question. Do you or do you not find some of the actions of the god of abraham questionable to say the least? Would you not disaprove if asked?
All you are saying is god is powerful, therefor it doesn't matter what we think, might makes right. Disagreeing with god is pointless, he is god. You have not demonstrated why this more powerful being is in any way morally superior, all you have said is it doesn't matter whether he is or not, he is god so we're shit out of luck regardless of if he is a "good" or not.
Yes, I do agree with all of God's actions. The world is today the way it is because of Him. He gave us life, so He does have the right to do with it as He pleases. My beliefs are clearly stated now.
If we listen to Him, he does not judge our action wrong and destroy us. His punishment is justified in that.
Better?
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
Awesome, I love the implications of morality based on the whim of a bloodthirsty Christian god too.
Obey his arbitrary narcissistic demands or he'll screw you in the butt.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
are multiple assertions with a sprinkling of biblical immorality. Feel free to bring logic to the table any time something occurs to you.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Irg? When god tells us to love others, is this the same sort of love he alleges he feels for us? If, when we talk about love, mercy and forgiveness, we are actually not talking about the same things god is, then how can we communicate with god? How can our thoughts meet his in any meaningful way?
Why is his perfect attainment of these basic moral things apparently so much less that any run-of-the-mill parent who would grit their teeth and die for their child? Where is the profound and righteous leadership god is meant to be showing us - where is the shining light for us to follow?
The bible gives us a blanket ad hominem in the garden of eden and backs it up with a fallacy from force with the threat of eternal torment. As a great logician, I expect you have thought all this through but despite your skills, your position just seems to rest squarely on a fallacy of special pleading - god made us (assertion), so he can do what he wants to us - including acting immorally towards us. Please highlight the logic in this.
I wonder, irg, can a perfect god act immorally whenever he likes? And if he is acting unlike god, isn't he acting out of character? Is he god or not? Or does he reflect the flaws in the natures of his human creators? We know god is love - but within your subjective interpretation what does that actually mean?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
God loves us with unconditional love. However, when a parent loves their child unconditionally, they still must punish that child for doing wrong. Otherwise, the child gets complacent and thinks they are able to do whatever they want. God wants us to love one another with this same kind of unconditional love, but our love of self usually gets in the way.
As for using logic to define God, it doesn't work. You cannot prove or disprove something with a logical statement. Sure, the statement can point in the direction of the truth, but isn't truth itself. While logic is something that can be used to explain things we know exist through empirical evidence, it fails on things without it. Lack of explanation doesn't mean lack of existence, though. We can't explain why water flows hundreds of feet up trees, but it does. When God is tried to be thought of in logical terms, we come up with ideas such as "God has infinite love but limited power".
God proves himself to those who believe...but because of this, those who don't will not accept the evidence one has because it can't be reproduced. Especially when someone already believes God is a myth.
I never claimed to be a great logician. Nor did I ever make the case that I would use logic to add weight to my arguments. I just pointed out one fallacy. While it was more of an opinion being stated, the effect was the same.
This conversation has gone a long way from Lot and his daughters LOL.
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Psalm 118:22 (NCV)
Logic does not define god but that does not give you special dispensation to claim whatever you want on the basis of no evidence.
Everything you are saying is no more than reification. As for god proving himself to those who believe - that's like saying those who believe, believe. Ooooooh.
I was being sarky with the great logician because you took a shot at Melles.
And you need to do some biology 101. You're looking for information under the heading 'capillary action'. Pay particular attention to the effect of surface tension in narrow channels.
And please explain why you say god can't be explained but then try to use the observation of physicalism to support your supernatural case.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
So do parents have the right to do whatever they want to their kids because they gave them life? Including but not limited to, torture, psychological abuse. slavery and killing? I always thought Christians were pro-life. You should probably tell all your fellow Christians about this.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
"Unconditional" in this context please, Irg. I think unconditional means without condition but obviously there are some conditions attached to it?
Now Irg, most humans would not punish vengefully. They would comprehend the difference between these 2 words: Justice and Retribution. But does god understand this difference? Apparently not. Humans punish in measure. God punishes forever - whatever that might be. And you say god is justified.
What I wonder Irg, is whether on judgment day when god's decidedly un-aerodynamic angels are pitchforking teenagers into the lake of fire, you will stand there with your hands in your pockets or try to stop them.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hmmm? Not quite, your god seems to have many conditions. If you consider eternal torture "tough love" then yes gods "love" is unconditional. Isn't your hole religion really just one big condition? Isn't this gods love just that, conditional? You either do this and that, or else it's eternal torture this and damnation that. Where do you see unconditional in any of this?
Yes and no, I would go with "discipline" NOT punish. You are doing something to teach the child, not hurt the child. This is where you seem to be confused, and twistedly so. If my son stole something (lets say some shoes) I wouldn't tie him to the bed and beat him for it!!! There are a million things I could do better than that, that he would remember and learn from far more than beating him. Does that compute with you? Or do you think that kind of "punishment" is fitting. Is that how you treat your children? Just to speak frankly I was "punished" by my father daily. Do you think I remember any of the reasons I was being dragged around and beaten for? Do you think I learned any good lessons? No, I learned violence, and fear. I learned to get stronger and fight back. Threats of violence, and violence is NOT discipline, especially loving discipline, you are twisted to think so.
Maybe not, but it is great at uno making sense of shit. For example you claim the following:
A)God loves us unconditionally
B)God uses threats of violence/violence/eternal torture etc... as routine lessons/discipline/punishment.
Therefor
C)Unconditional love= using threats of violence/violence/eternal torture etc.. as routine lessons/discipline/ punishment.
You see how easily you are trumped. Either you (a)-believe using these violent tactics are acts of love (you are evil and twisted), (b)-you don't believe the "bad" stories in the bible depicting your gods violent nature (biblical cherry picking), or (c)-you just haven't thought it through very much, you don't think many things through very much. I'm going with C.
This thread is starting to make my eyes bleed.