Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

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.

Well, there it is; the god of atheism (my standard) has spoken!

There are no victimless crimes, or sins either. Criminals and sinners always suffers, even when they smirk and deny their suffering.

 

[Angel7]

Interestingly…

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

Just because scientists say something does not mean it is Justifiable or Moral.

If you marry someone within the 4th degree family relations (1st Cousins, Half-brother/sister, Brother/sister. It is wrong, this is not allowed because of the law of Moses, it was necessary during the time of Adam + Eve. It is wrong (even if they are adopted 1st cousins, etc…) It is a complex issue, again, ask a priest.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

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”).

All sins produce deleterious effects, which is why certain acts are forbidden. Incest is sinful because it tends to produce deleterious effects. Since Cain was born of Adam and Eve, and his wife was born of Adam and Eve, the question becomes, “Was it possible that inbreeding would produce deleterious effects?

Why would it?

Adam and Eve were genetically fine specimens, since God would not have created them otherwise. The extraordinary lifespan of the early patriarchs up to the time of Noah and the number of their children testifies to their virility. When Adam’s male and female children mated, there would be no likelihood of spoiled or defective genes, and therefore no deleterious effects. Since the human race had to move on, the incest of Cain, Seth, and the other brothers with their sisters was imperative.

However, after many generations, due to the consequence of sin, the gene pool would deteriorate, with diseases resulting from sin being communicated from one person to another, and likewise to offspring. If you look at the ancestral trees of families living closer to Moses than to Adam, you notice a gradual shortening of the life span … more evidence that the gene pool is weakening.

If in a family two children have inherited the same disease, and they mate, the chances of that disease being passed on to their children are radically increased. When this was discovered, as no doubt it was before the time of Moses, it was necessary to proscribe incest as a sin. The most dangerous form of incest would be between parents and children, not just because of physical, but also because of deleterious psychological effects.

Freud’s dream studies are loaded with neurotic liaisons between parents and children.!

The principle of absolute morality is preserved in this way: it was absolutely right that the human race should be preserved (there being no other way) by the mating of Adam’s children; but now incest is absolutely wrong because no good can come of it and much bad.

The illusion many people will entertain here is that sin is sin; how can the same act not be a sin at one point, and be a sin at another point?

In the case of Cain, Seth, and others, there was no knowledge of deleterious effects (nor any reason to fear such) by mating with one’s sister. In Catholic theology, an act cannot be sinful unless one is conscious of its sinfulness.

 

[Angel7]

Leela

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”).

All sins produce deleterious effects, which is why certain acts are forbidden. Incest is sinful because it tends to produce deleterious effects. Since Cain was born of Adam and Eve, and his wife was born of Adam and Eve, the question becomes, “Was it possible that inbreeding would produce deleterious effects?

Why would it?

Adam and Eve were genetically fine specimens, since God would not have created them otherwise. The extraordinary lifespan of the early patriarchs up to the time of Noah and the number of their children testifies to their virility. When Adam’s male and female children mated, there would be no likelihood of spoiled or defective genes, and therefore no deleterious effects. Since the human race had to move on, the incest of Cain, Seth, and the other brothers with their sisters was imperative.

However, after many generations, due to the consequence of sin, the gene pool would deteriorate, with diseases resulting from sin being communicated from one person to another, and likewise to offspring. If you look at the ancestral trees of families living closer to Moses than to Adam, you notice a gradual shortening of the life span … more evidence that the gene pool is weakening.
.

You said it better then I could.
The Reason the Church says certain things are wrong are for out Own Good, not to impede us. They are there to protect us from our selves, thanks Charley.

Not to mention the Corruption of the Gene Pool of the Fallen Angels, This is where Giants like Goliath probably came from. An attempt to deteriorate the Human Gene Pool.

I know many people think we are crazy, (how can sin, deteriorate life-span, its unscientific)
but remember what Jesus said “The Wages of Sin, is Death”

Were just suffering the Shockwaves of Original Sin.

Some one Immaculate like Mary would live for a much longer time, then most people. She did have a lengthy Life.

 

[Angel7]

Leela

The illusion many people will entertain here is that sin is sin; how can the same act not be a sin at one point, and be a sin at another point?

In the case of Cain, Seth, and others, there was no knowledge of deleterious effects (nor any reason to fear such) by mating with one’s sister. In Catholic theology, an act cannot be sinful unless one is conscious of its sinfulness.

Similar to a Just war, certain Actions are justified at times, like self defense. But there are Extreme Conditions to.

 

[liquidpele]

Just because scientists say something does not mean it is Justifiable or Moral.

If you marry someone within the 4th degree family relations (1st Cousins, Half-brother/sister, Brother/sister. It is wrong, this is not allowed because of the law of Moses, it was necessary during the time of Adam + Eve. It is wrong (even if they are adopted 1st cousins, etc…) It is a complex issue, again, ask a priest.

But why is it wrong? For a long time, it was looked down upon because of the inheritance thing, but modern science has now questioned that. Thus, the only rock-hard reason you really have is that “God says so”… well according to Leviticus God says a lot of crazy stuff we ignore. I suppose my point is that while there can be risks, for the most part it appears they are overblown from a genetic standpoint, so the main reasoning for such a rule is mostly religious dogma.

 

[liquidpele]

Not to mention the Corruption of the Gene Pool of the Fallen Angels, This is where Giants like Goliath probably came from. An attempt to deteriorate the Human Gene Pool.
.

!!! Wait… you believe in Giants? I’m curious why you choose to take the bible in such a literal fashion?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

I suppose my point is that while there can be risks, for the most part it appears they are overblown from a genetic standpoint, so the main reasoning for such a rule is mostly religious dogma.

The biblical injunction against homosexuality is very likely rooted in the same reason … to avoid harmful effects, both physically and psychologically … you know … AIDS … which in various incarnation probably goes back to biblical times.

Sexual Russian Roulette is sinful, just like the real Russian Roulette. You can say, with great bravado, “The risks are overblown. I’ll risk it.” Then bang! You get it. One can have sex with one’s sister and get her pregnant. In that case, Bang! The baby gets it. In any case, the brother and sister will be psychological basket cases.

No victims?

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, there it is; the god of atheism (my standard) has spoken!

Here it is folks! The default retort used by Christians when they can’t muster up the intelligence to present an argument. I mean, if you saw a flaw in my reasoning, you would have surely pointed it out instead of spewing this garbage.

Anyway, I’m not the only person who makes up my own convictions or travels my own path. We all do. In the end, it is still your choice to follow God, just as it is a citizen’s choice to vote for and support a certain politician. In the end, we all make up our own standards. The only difference is that your standards are supposedly shared by a deity, who is ultimately no better than your average politician.

There are no victimless crimes, or sins either. Criminals and sinners always suffers, even when they smirk and deny their suffering.

Yep, I’m on the verge of shouting in agony when I stare at a girl’s chest. Oh, the pain of sinning!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*Anyway, I’m not the only person who makes up my own convictions or travels my own path. We all do. … In the end, we all make up our own standards. *

A fine recipe for moral anarchy … “I decide what’s right or wrong … nobody tells me.”

Good luck living under such a jungle law.

 

[Oreoracle]

Good luck living under such a jungle law.

I don’t want it to be that way, but it is. I’m sorry you can’t come to terms with the fact that people come to their own conclusions and that the world is chaotic because of it.

As I said in another thread, asking me if I think morals should be subjective is like asking if I think two plus two should equal four–it’s not that it should be, it just is.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

I suppose my point is that while there can be risks, for the most part it appears they are overblown from a genetic standpoint, so the main reasoning for such a rule is mostly religious dogma.

The biblical injunction against homosexuality is very likely rooted in the same reason … to avoid harmful effects, both physically and psychologically … you know … AIDS … which in various incarnation probably goes back to biblical times.

Sexual Russian Roulette is sinful, just like the real Russian Roulette. You can say, with great bravado, “The risks are overblown. I’ll risk it.” Then bang! You get it. One can have sex with one’s sister and get her pregnant. In that case, Bang! The baby gets it. In any case, the brother and sister will be psychological basket cases.

No victims?

AIDS was just as dangerous for a heterosexual couple until quite recently, and ironically the main thing making it safer for heterosexuals is condom use which your church frowns upon.

I also didn’t say anything about sibling sex, only cousins. Please do try to keep up with the conversation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

Yep, I’m on the verge of shouting in agony when I stare at a girl’s chest. Oh, the pain of sinning!

If that’s your idea of sinning, your conscience must be quite a burden!!!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

AIDS was just as dangerous for a heterosexual couple until quite recently, and ironically the main thing making it safer for heterosexuals is condom use which your church frowns upon.

More Russian Roulette!

The surefire way to avoid AIDS is not to have sex with homosexuals and not to cheat on your spouse … both Christian solutions frowned upon by homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and adulterers.

 

[Oreoracle]

If that’s your idea of sinning, your conscience must be quite a burden!!!

According to the Church, it is (Actually, having lustful thoughts is considered as bad as acting on them. I’m raping her! ). Or did you finally decide to stop following the Church? Welcome to relativism, new recruit! (though, in reality, you were always a relativist)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle
*
Welcome to relativism, new recruit! (though, in reality, you were always a relativist) *

Not really.

I still can’t wrap my head around a justifiable case of wanton rape!

I still can’t wrap my head around a justifiable case of wanton murder!

I still can’t wrap my head around a justifiable case of wanton atheism!

Can you?

 

[Angel7]

But why is it wrong? For a long time, it was looked down upon because of the inheritance thing, but modern science has now questioned that. Thus, the only rock-hard reason you really have is that “God says so”… well according to Leviticus God says a lot of crazy stuff we ignore. I suppose my point is that while there can be risks, for the most part it appears they are overblown from a genetic standpoint, so the main reasoning for such a rule is mostly religious dogma.

It is prohobitted because it no longer necessery.
The Book Of Levictus is old testament.
The Old Testament was fulfilled by Jesus, although there are certain things we do not do anymore (Stoning) There are Laws there for our own Good.
And yes… G-d Said so… so listen to him
G-d is doing this for our own good.
If Incest Continued it would lead to instances of Scandal.

G-ds laws aren’t there to ruin fun
Its there for our own good, and our spiritual well fare

(yes there are Giants (Goliath was a giant, who was slain by David, I think he was the last of the Giants.)

The Reason I take it in a Literal Fashion is because well for one It is true (you might disagree)

2nd. Because if we don’t take the Bible Literally, then that it like calling sacred Scripture, a poetic fantasy. Far from it.

 

[Angel7]

(yes there are Giants (Goliath was a giant, who was slain by David, I think he was the last of the Giants.).

Btw, a 47 inch human femur was just discovered.

bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm

Scroll down just a little for the Picture

In the late 1950’s, during road construction in the Euphrates Valley of south-east Turkey, many tombs containing the remains of giants were uncovered. At the sites the leg bones were measured to be 120 cms (47.24 inches). Joe Taylor, Director of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, was commissioned to sculpt the human femur. This Antediluvian giant stood some 14-16 ft tall (see below).
Genesis 6:4 claims: “There were giants in the earth in those days;” Deuteronomy 3:11 states that the bed of Og, king of Bashan, was 9 cubits by 4 cubits (approximately 14 ft long by 6 ft wide).

Possible explanation. The earth had more oxygen.

Long ago, even insects may have been larger due to higher oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere (believed to have been about 35 percent instead of 21 percent today). This increased oxygen level could be part of the explanation for giants, long-lived people, and even why fossils of giant dragonflies with 2-foot wingspans have been found.

Antediluvian Giants’ bone below

Other human Fossil finds

A 19’6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.

23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.

A 25’ 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.

A 9’ 8" skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana (Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975).

In 1833 soldiers digging at a pit for a powder magazine in Lompock Rancho, California, discovered a male skeleton 12 feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by carved shells, stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The skeleton had double rows of upper and lower teeth. These bones substantiated legends by the local Piute Indians regarding giants which they called Si-Te-Cahs.

(WARNING) Bible probe.com is NOT a catholic website, be careful for any scripture contradictions.
ex. Marian Bayside Reports are not Recognized so don’t go there. (I fell into a little lies here and there, while visiting this site, took me a while to realize I was falling into errors)

 

[Angel7]

liquidpele

AIDS was just as dangerous for a heterosexual couple until quite recently, and ironically the main thing making it safer for heterosexuals is condom use which your church frowns upon.

More Russian Roulette!

The surefire way to avoid AIDS is not to have sex with homosexuals and not to cheat on your spouse … both Christian solutions frowned upon by homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and adulterers.

So true.
Had society kept Chrsitan Morals.
Especially the Virtue of “Chastity” aids and other stds would not have spread as fast. The only way they could pread then was by Injection or the Blood contact.
Had people been Chaste, and not Fornicatted, or Cheat. (Or doing Drugs, which is also a sin) then Aids would be easier to control.

Also, Jesus did say that if you look at a women/man and lust for her/him
Then you have already commited adultery in your heart.
We are called to be Chaste, respectable and loving people.

 

[Oreoracle]

I still can’t wrap my head around a justifiable case of wanton rape!

Neither can I. But I guess that depends on how you define “rape.” Sometimes two people get drunk and neither of them offer consent…they just go at it. It’s best not to follow absolute rules, and instead evaluate each individual situation. You know, like rational, sane people.

I still can’t wrap my head around a justifiable case of wanton murder!

I might be able to justify murder, but I don’t know about ‘wanton’ murder. Killing a maniacal dictator or enemy soldiers is sometimes justifiable, I would say. But again, it depends on how you define “murder.” For Catholics, “murder” is just wrongful killing. The definition I would use involves premeditation and malice towards the victim (the legal definition).

I still can’t wrap my head around a justifiable case of wanton atheism!

I don’t know why I continue to talk with a child. I suppose I’m just competitive. Oh well, it doesn’t look like this is going anywhere anyway. Maybe you should run along and play with your toys now, kid.