Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[Angel7]

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?

Jews, Muslims, And Christians Interpret G-d Differently.

Jews its sort of a master/servant /Father/son. But they lacked the Full Revelation of G-d through Jesus.

Christians view G-d with a definite Father/son relationship. + the whole Trinity.

Muslims View G-d more as a distant monarch I believe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

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?

God was never neurotic. It was the human race that became neurotic. Desperate cases require extreme measures … tough love even, on occasion.

I notice even Leela could not find a loophole to justify incest. Has Leela become a moral absolutist?

Oreoracle, can you find a loophole to justify incest?

 

[Leela]

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?

I don’t follow you. Is it morally okay for brother’s and sisters to have sex or not? You seem to be saying that it is okay with God but not okay with the Church, but I must have misunderstood.

 

[Leela]

I notice even Leela could not find a loophole to justify incest. Has Leela become a moral absolutist?

Oreoracle, can you find a loophole to justify incest?

Why should Oreoracle or I be interested in trying to justify incest? I don’t care whether you think of me as an absolutist or not. Personally, I don’t think the absolutist-relativist game is one I want to play. It is based on a bunch of metaphysical assumptions that I don’t make, and so would never need to decide whether I am one or the other. But you do claim to be an absolutist on morality. You still have not said whether it is an issue for your absolutism that God commanded incest in the Garden of Eden (“be fruitful and multiply”).

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
Personally, I don’t think the absolutist-relativist game is one I want to play.*

Oh, I see. You want to play by your rules only. You can challenge the absolutist rule of incest, but when we ask you to show how incest can be relative, you clam up.

How convenient!

O.K., then I’ll drop the subject; but I think in all fairness you should drop it too; or else start playing by fair rules of debate. What say you?

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
Personally, I don’t think the absolutist-relativist game is one I want to play.*

Oh, I see. You want to play by your rules only. You can challenge the absolutist rule of incest, but when we ask you to show how incest can be relative, you clam up.

How convenient!

O.K., then I’ll drop the subject; but I think in all fairness you should drop it too; or else start playing by fair rules of debate. What say you?

Hold on a second! I’ve answered all your questions, but you keep avoiding mine. I’m just asking you to play by your own rules just as it is fair for you to demand that I play by my rules.

Is incest wrong or not? Was it always wrong? Even in the Garden of Eden?

I can see why you would want me to drop the issue. These look to me like difficult questions for a moral absolutist.

Best,
Leela

 

[Angel7]

I don’t follow you. Is it morally okay for brother’s and sisters to have sex or not? You seem to be saying that it is okay with God but not okay with the Church, but I must have misunderstood.

My exact words aren’t the most accurate, just read the Quote I got from the Other thread.
Trace us back enough, and we are ALL brothers/sisters/cousins. So think about that.
Now, DIRECT latteral incest (Immediate family siblings/or cousins) Is something the Church needs to adress.

Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as the fourth degree of kinship inclusive. The term consanguinity here means, within certain limitations defined by the law of nature, the positive law of God, or the supreme authority of State or Church, the blood-relationship (cognatio naturalis), or the natural bond between persons descended from the same stock. In view of the recognized descent of all men from one common stock, there is a general blood-relationship between all men; hence the limitation mentioned has reference to the nearest root or source of consanguinity. This bond or union of blood takes place in one case through the descent of one person from the other; this is called the direct line. In another case it takes place because the common blood is drawn from a common root, the same ancestor, from whom both persons descend, though they do not descend one from the other, and are therefore not in a direct but in a transverse or collateral line. By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. **The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild. **

Hope this clarifies.
it is not firmly established that it is “wrong”. As I said before it is NOT intrinsically disordered.

It became necessary to restrict marriage over time due to man’s sin, not due to any inherent wrongness of marrying close relatives.

 

[Angel7]

Leela
*
Personally, I don’t think the absolutist-relativist game is one I want to play.*

Oh, I see. You want to play by your rules only. You can challenge the absolutist rule of incest, but when we ask you to show how incest can be relative, you clam up.

How convenient!

O.K., then I’ll drop the subject; but I think in all fairness you should drop it too; or else start playing by fair rules of debate. What say you?

Basically G-d allowed it for 2 times, Adam = Eve, and Noah = Family.

These 2 situations G-d allowed it so that Humans could procreate.
It is NOT intristically wrong for Collateral Incest.
However, over time Because of man’s SIN.
It had to be Very limited.

 

[Leela]

My exact words aren’t the most accurate, just read the Quote I got from the Other thread.
Trace us back enough, and we are ALL brothers/sisters/cousins. So think about that.
Now, DIRECT latteral incest (Immediate family siblings/or cousins) Is something the Church needs to adress.

Consanguinity is a diriment impediment of marriage as far as the fourth degree of kinship inclusive. The term consanguinity here means, within certain limitations defined by the law of nature, the positive law of God, or the supreme authority of State or Church, the blood-relationship (cognatio naturalis), or the natural bond between persons descended from the same stock. In view of the recognized descent of all men from one common stock, there is a general blood-relationship between all men; hence the limitation mentioned has reference to the nearest root or source of consanguinity. This bond or union of blood takes place in one case through the descent of one person from the other; this is called the direct line. In another case it takes place because the common blood is drawn from a common root, the same ancestor, from whom both persons descend, though they do not descend one from the other, and are therefore not in a direct but in a transverse or collateral line. By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. **The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild. **

Hope this clarifies.
it is not firmly established that it is “wrong”. As I said before it is NOT intrinsically disordered.

It became necessary to restrict marriage over time due to man’s sin, not due to any inherent wrongness of marrying close relatives.

So it would not be immoral for a brother and sister to marry today? I find that to be a very unusual position.

 

[Angel7]

So it would not be immoral for a brother and sister to marry today? I find that to be a very unusual position.

Its not against the DEVINE law, but the Church doesn’t really support it eaither, because of Genetics that is also a problem.

It was never against Divine Law, it’s just best avoided.

 

[Leela]

Its not against the DEVINE law, but the Church doesn’t really support it eaither, because of Genetics that is also a problem.

It was never against Divine Law, it’s just best avoided.

Are you a lawyer or politician? Whether or not it would be immoral for a brother and sister to marry sounds like a very straightforward question to me. Can I get a yes or no or an explanation of why it is unfair to ask for a yes or no?

The issue has been brought up numerous times by Christians because of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage. Christians I have heard fear that same-sex marriage would open up a free for all where even brothers and sisters could marry. My impression was not that they thought it merely “should be avoided” but rather that it was something of an abomination topped only by bestiality.

What if one other the siblings was sterile so the worry about genetic defects was off the table. Would there be any reason why their marriage “should be avoided”?

Best,
Leela

 

[Angel7]

Are you a lawyer or politician? Whether or not it would be immoral for a brother and sister to marry sounds like a very straightforward question to me. Can I get a yes or no or an explanation of why it is unfair to ask for a yes or no?

The issue has been brought up numerous times by Christians because of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage. Christians I have heard fear that same-sex marriage would open up a free for all where even brothers and sisters could marry. My impression was not that they thought it merely “should be avoided” but rather that it was something of an abomination topped only by bestiality.

What if one other the siblings was sterile so the worry about genetic defects was off the table. Would there be any reason why their marriage “should be avoided”?

Best,
Leela

Did you read my quote before? to the 4th degree of kinship.

Brothers and sistters are to Immediate to make the criteria.
And Same-Gender Marriage is an Abomination.
For the Lord did not create man for man. or woman for woman but Woman for Man.
This is against G-d’s purpose, and natural law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I can see why you would want me to drop the issue. These look to me like difficult questions for a moral absolutist.

I didn’t say I wanted you to drop the issue. I want you to drop the issue only if you are not going to play by fair rules. You have already said you do not want to play the game, yet you want us to play it?

Please make up your mind.

I think you have already implied that, with respect to incest, you are leaning toward moral absolutism, since you cannot seem to find an exception to justify it.

Is that a fair conclusion to draw? When you answer that question yes or no, the game is back in play, and then I will answer your objection to absolute morality of incest in the OT.

Otherwise, you don’t get to play just by your rules. :tsktsk:

 

[Leela]

Leela

I can see why you would want me to drop the issue. These look to me like difficult questions for a moral absolutist.

I didn’t say I wanted you to drop the issue. I want you to drop the issue only if you are not going to play by fair rules. You have already said you do not want to play the game, yet you want us to play it?

Please make up your mind.

I think you have already implied that, with respect to incest, you are leaning toward moral absolutism, since you cannot seem to find an exception to justify it.

Is that a fair conclusion to draw? When you answer that question yes or no, the game is back in play, and then I will answer your objection to absolute morality of incest in the OT.

Otherwise, you don’t get to play just by your rules. :tsktsk:

Unbelievable! You continue to evade answering the one question I asked you about 10 posts ago. I have patiently answered all your questions, but you accuse me of not playing by some rules if I don’t answer 15 questions and whatever new ones you might come up with in your next post before you will answer just one of mine.

But here goes again: No, for the fifth time, I still can’t think of any situation where I think incest would be justified, nor do I think it is something that I want to spend my time trying to justify. I have no idea why you think I should want to come up with some justification for incest. It is your Bible that commanded it in the Garden of Eden. Not mine.

And again, no, I do not think it is a fair conclusion to draw that I am an absolutist on the basis of my lack of imagination or inclination to come up with a situation where incest is justified. Am I supposed to think that there could never be or never was a situation where incest was or could be justified on the basis of my own lack of imagination on the subject?

I think the whole absolutist-relativist thing is a question-begging issue of the “do you still beat your wife” variety. But as I said before, I don’t care if you want to call me an absolutist. Call me whatever you want, so long as you answer the one question that I’ve asked you over and…oh, why do I even bother? I guess that is the real question at this point.

 

[Leela]

Did you read my quote before? to the 4th degree of kinship.

Brothers and sistters are to Immediate to make the criteria.

Yes, yes, and they should avoid marrying because of genetic reasons, I’ve read all your posts, but you still haven’t answered whether it would be immoral rather than merely “to be avoided” for genetic reasons for brother’s and sisters to marry. (I’m starting to think I should write my questions in multiple choice format so that I can get a straight answer in this thread.)

Also, as I asked before, if one or both siblings were sterile, would there still be any reason why their marriage should be avoided?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
I think the whole absolutist-relativist thing is a question-begging issue of the “do you still beat your wife” variety.*

This is strange logic!

However, my wife is about to beat me over the head if I don’t taker her shopping. Should be back in 2-3 hours to answer your question more fully.

Be patient!

Charlie

 

[Angel7]

Unbelievable! You continue to evade answering the one question I asked you about 10 posts ago. I have patiently answered all your questions, but you accuse me of not playing by some rules if I don’t answer 15 questions and whatever new ones you might come up with in your next post before you will answer just one of mine.

But here goes again: No, for the fifth time,** I still can’t think of any situation where I think incest would be justified**, nor do I think it is something that I want to spend my time trying to justify. I have no idea why you think I should want to come up with some justification for incest. It is your Bible that commanded it in the Garden of Eden. Not mine.

And again, no, I do not think it is a fair conclusion to draw that I am an absolutist on the basis of my lack of imagination or inclination to come up with a situation where incest is justified. Am I supposed to think that there could never be or never was a situation where incest was or could be justified on the basis of my own lack of imagination on the subject?

I think the whole absolutist-relativist thing is a question-begging issue of the “do you still beat your wife” variety. But as I said before, I don’t care if you want to call me an absolutist. Call me whatever you want, so long as you answer the one question that I’ve asked you over and…oh, why do I even bother? I guess that is the real question at this point.

If only 2/4 people on earth Survived from a horrible disaster 2 men 2 women.
2 Families.

or 1 man 1 woman = 1 family.

Incest could be possibly needed for the survival of humanity.
Of course, I think i might be wrong, A priest would have better answers then me.

If both were sterile?

A child of incestuous parents can be perfectly normal, so any kids that child has could also be normal. Scientists now say that the odds of children of incest having birth defects are only about 7% higher than the general population.
The key is defective recessive genes that need matching defective genes from the other parent. If you don’t have them, they can’t cause birth defects.
Furthermore, in your scenario, even if the child of siblings does have a birth defect, it is still caused by recessive gene defects, so the likelihood they will find someone outside the family with the same matching recessive gene defect is vanishingly small. That means their children will be normal, in spite of having one defective recessive gene, because the dominant genes take over.
Everybody has recessive genes, only a small percentage of them are defective.

Here is a Catholic List on Marriage. and what Impedes it.

[edit] Impediments
A Catholic marriage cannot be formed if one or more of the following Impediments are given,[2] though of some of these a dispensation can be given.

antecedent and perpetual Impotence
Consanguinity to the fourth collateral line (1st cousin), including legal adoption to the second collateral line
Affinity (relationship by marriage, e.g. a brother-in-law) in the direct line
prior bond
Holy Orders
perpetual vows of chastity in a religious institute
Disparity of cult (one party not being baptized)
Crimen (one party previously conspiring to marry (upon condition of death of spouse) while still married); also called “conjugicide”
non-age (at least 16 for males, 14 for females)
abduction

 

[Angel7]

Although there is considerable difficulty in finding an answer. It still stands.
Sterile or Not.
You can not marry within the 4th degree of Kinship.
Although, It is confusing, especially in the Adam Eve, scenario. I just hope i’m not misleading anyone. Ask a priest he is trained in morality, I’m not. I just try to find answers.

Whatever dispensing power is available resides principally in the supreme authority of the Church, namely the Apostolic See. The pope generally exercises his power of dispensing through the Roman Congregations . For public dispensations ( in foro externo ) the Dataria (see ROMAN CURIA) is the ordinary medium for so-called Catholic countries; the Sacra Penitentiaria for cases of conscience (occult impediments ) and of late for the cases of the poor. The Congregation of Propaganda is the medium for countries dependent on it, e.g. Great Britain and its dependencies and the United States. This power of dispensation with the right to subdelegate is often delegated to bishops, vicars Apostolic , and others having pastoral authority over souls. In whatever is forbidden by the law of nature there is no dispensation. In the direct line of consanguinity Nicholas I supposes that there is no room for dispensation. However, in cases of infidels when one or both are converted, while it is to be held that marriages within the first degree of the direct line are invalid, in all others the Holy See has to be consulted. The Holy See has the supreme right in doubtful cases to determine what may or may not be forbidden by the law of nature or by the Divine positive law. **Benedict XIV , as already said, emphasized the fact that the popes had never granted a dispensation for a marriage between brother and sister, even where the union might have occurred without a knowledge of the relationship on the part of the contracting persons. **

Direct Incest (parents/grandparents/kids) is an Absolute. no no.
Collateral Incest “Could” be dispensed. Although no Pope has ever allowed it, as stated by Pope Benedict XIV

 

[liquidpele]

Although there is considerable difficulty in finding an answer. It still stands.
Sterile or Not.
You can not marry within the 4th degree of Kinship.
Although, It is confusing, especially in the Adam Eve, scenario. I just hope i’m not misleading anyone. Ask a priest he is trained in morality, I’m not. I just try to find answers.

Interestingly…

independent.co.uk/news/science/theres-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreoracle, can you find a loophole to justify incest?

As Leela pointed out, there’s no reason for me to entertain this line of questioning. But since you’ll likely consider my lack of a response a victory for yourself, here you are:

incest: Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom

Well, the inbreeding argument isn’t reliable here, since “sexual relations” is not the same as “sexual intercourse.” As such, we have no good reason to assume a defective child will be the result of an incestuous relationship (besides, they could always get an abortion). We also can’t forget that most of the “trauma” involved with incest is the result of it being taboo (the same applies to underage sex/pedophilia). This means that we can’t assume people will be traumatized by incest either, since there are people that don’t care if an act is taboo. Given all this, incest does not seem to necessarily entail any suffering and, as such, cannot be considered absolutely wrong by my standards. If you believe that a behavior can be bad even if it doesn’t make someone suffer or prevent their happiness, I would love to hear your reasoning.