L
Leela
Guest
Apparently it was okay in the Garden of Eden.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
*Apparently it was okay in the Garden of Eden. *
Well, since you don’t believe there ever was a Garden of Eden, can you think of anyplace else where incest is justified?
*Apparently it was okay in the Garden of Eden. *
Well, since you don’t believe there ever was a Garden of Eden, can you think of anyplace else where incest is justified?
L
Leela
Guest
Not at the moment. Why do you ask?Leela
*Apparently it was okay in the Garden of Eden. *
Well, since you don’t believe there ever was a Garden of Eden, can you think of anyplace else where incest is justified?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*Not at the moment. Why do you ask? *
I’m trying to find out if, with respect to the morality of incest, you are an objectivist or a relativist. Since neither atheism nor the Bible gives you support here, you will have to think for yourself.
Are there instances where incest is justified?
I’m trying to find out if, with respect to the morality of incest, you are an objectivist or a relativist. Since neither atheism nor the Bible gives you support here, you will have to think for yourself.
Are there instances where incest is justified?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Then it’s NOT absolute!!!
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Exodus
13
"You must also tell the Israelites: Take care to keep my sabbaths, for that is to be the token between you and me throughout the generations, to show that it is I, the LORD, who make you holy.
14
Therefore, you must keep the sabbath as something sacred. Whoever desecrates it shall be put to death. If anyone does work on that day, he must be rooted out of his people.
15
Six days there are for doing work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of complete rest, sacred to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.
16
So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath, keeping it throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.
17
Between me and the Israelites it is to be an everlasting token; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day he rested at his ease."
When the Israelites had been slaves to the Egyptians, they had no Sabbath day for rest. God is telling Moses that with this new covenant, it is absolutely imperative that the Jews rest on the Sabbath. No going back into slavery. Anyone who defies this day of rest is a backslider and a slave to work and to money.
The command of death to the offender was the Lord’s to make, or to withdraw with a new covenant. The Sabbath became in later history a way for the Jews to establish not only their right to rest, but also to read the Scriptures and worship God. Had that been lost, there would have been no Judaic religion worth spit.
As it was, Israel after David collapsed several times into the slavery of captivity because the Jews were not faithful to the Covenant. They absorbed by intermarriage not only the values of the pagans, but their gods as well. The history of the division of Judah from Israel documents this decent into religious anarchy because the Jews would not remain faithful to the Mosaic covenant.
By the time of Christ it was difficult to find Mosaic Judaism still extant (as John the Baptist warned), and within a generation of the crucifixion the Jews were scattered by the Romans to the four corners of the earth.
To this day, true Christianity (and true Judaism) survive only when and where the Sabbath is kept holy.
That is an absolute.
13
"You must also tell the Israelites: Take care to keep my sabbaths, for that is to be the token between you and me throughout the generations, to show that it is I, the LORD, who make you holy.
14
Therefore, you must keep the sabbath as something sacred. Whoever desecrates it shall be put to death. If anyone does work on that day, he must be rooted out of his people.
15
Six days there are for doing work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of complete rest, sacred to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.
16
So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath, keeping it throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.
17
Between me and the Israelites it is to be an everlasting token; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day he rested at his ease."
When the Israelites had been slaves to the Egyptians, they had no Sabbath day for rest. God is telling Moses that with this new covenant, it is absolutely imperative that the Jews rest on the Sabbath. No going back into slavery. Anyone who defies this day of rest is a backslider and a slave to work and to money.
The command of death to the offender was the Lord’s to make, or to withdraw with a new covenant. The Sabbath became in later history a way for the Jews to establish not only their right to rest, but also to read the Scriptures and worship God. Had that been lost, there would have been no Judaic religion worth spit.
As it was, Israel after David collapsed several times into the slavery of captivity because the Jews were not faithful to the Covenant. They absorbed by intermarriage not only the values of the pagans, but their gods as well. The history of the division of Judah from Israel documents this decent into religious anarchy because the Jews would not remain faithful to the Mosaic covenant.
By the time of Christ it was difficult to find Mosaic Judaism still extant (as John the Baptist warned), and within a generation of the crucifixion the Jews were scattered by the Romans to the four corners of the earth.
To this day, true Christianity (and true Judaism) survive only when and where the Sabbath is kept holy.
That is an absolute.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
A Christian saying that they follow an absolute rule is pointless, since God could just say, “I don’t want that to be a rule anymore.” and it would no longer be absolute. The only absolute that fits in with their ideology is “Always do what God says.”–Oh yeah, and never fear good people! The Church will always be around to interpret what God says for you! 
J
j1akey
Guest
Obviously, it could possibly have been the result of famine and malnutrition which led to disease and death in the months immediately before the revolution. Or that Kings Louis XV and XVI were always waging war that practically bankrupted the country and drove it into huge debt.
There were dozens of factors that came into play that cause the French Revolution. Open a history book.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
j1akey
There were dozens of factors that came into play that cause the French Revolution. Open a history book.
Open one yourself:
“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).
There were dozens of factors that came into play that cause the French Revolution. Open a history book.
Open one yourself:
“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Oreoracle
A Christian saying that they follow an absolute rule is pointless, since God could just say, “I don’t want that to be a rule anymore.” and it would no longer be absolute. The only absolute that fits in with their ideology is “Always do what God says.”–Oh yeah, and never fear good people! The Church will always be around to interpret what God says for you!
The Church as opposed to whom … the atheists? No thanks.
A Christian saying that they follow an absolute rule is pointless, since God could just say, “I don’t want that to be a rule anymore.” and it would no longer be absolute. The only absolute that fits in with their ideology is “Always do what God says.”–Oh yeah, and never fear good people! The Church will always be around to interpret what God says for you!
The Church as opposed to whom … the atheists? No thanks.
J
j1akey
Guest
/sigh…Atheism was not the cause of the french revolution. Atheism was made “public” because of the revolution and some of the more millitant atheists gained power but there were many many factors that finally eventually caused it to happen, not just a bunch of unruly atheists.
A
Angel7
Guest
Then I guess the Church was just the Fluff Pillow they took their anger out on? there were MANY marytrs during the French Rev.
One was a young man, then when the French saw he had recieved Communion… Cut his throught to take the Host from him…
That is plain Brutality
A
Angel7
Guest
…That is what the Devil wants you to think, that G-d is a phony, that their is no life after death, take a bite of the Apple, and you will KNOW good and evil… (all to well, sadly)… The Devil’s age old trick is that you could be LIKE G-d… isn’t that the point of Secular humanism? Putting man first?
L
Leela
Guest
I can’t think of any at the moment, but there may be. I’m not the most imaginitive person. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Is it confusing to you that Catholicism teaches that morality is absolute, yet incest used to be okay but now it is not? It is to me. If that is what moral absolutism means then what is relativism?*Not at the moment. Why do you ask? *
I’m trying to find out if, with respect to the morality of incest, you are an objectivist or a relativist. Since neither atheism nor the Bible gives you support here, you will have to think for yourself.
Are there instances where incest is justified?
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are simply revealing your ignorance of Christian belief.
Do you really think we believe God could say “OK, folks, you can murder anyone you like now!”
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Why not do both? Life is both comic and tragic… but also worth having…
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Oh yes, I should have expected protest from Tony, who believes that God is omnipotent but at the same time believes he isn’t.
Yeah, I know all about God’s supposed immutability. However, the Bible seems to chronicle times when God appeared to be rather capricious and impulsive…was that before he began to be medicated with his happy pills?
A
Angel7
Guest
What about the Quote I got from another thread?
Linear Incest (Parent/Child/Grand-Parents) Strictly forbidden
Latteral Incest (Siblings/Cousins/(and when cousins become so Genetically Apart)/Others
(If you believe in the Adam & Eve story it makes sense, cousins would go apart)
Latteral Incest is something the Church Goes against, but G-d, (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong) must have allowed Latteral Incest in order for the Human Pop. To grow.
Indeed, the divine law does not change. Incest in the direct line (child/parent/grandparent) is against the divine law and is intrinsically wrong.
Incest in the collateral line (siblings/cousins/etc) is not intrinsically wrong-- and as you have pointed out was allowed for a time in Genesis. It was later proscribed due to sin in the world-- it became necessary. It is not part of the divine law-- and even today is merely regulated by canon law and it can be dispensed.
Polygamy has never been part God’s Law. The Jews-- like the pagans around them allowed it-- along with divorce-- through their own earthly authority. Remember, Jesus chastized the Jews for their denigration of marriage and says “in the beginning it was not so”. Jesus restores marriage to what it was originally.
Is this the end of Arguement?
- Status