Shame

  • Thread starter Thread starter d40gmar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hola

of course incest is forbidden…

None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD (Leviticus 18: 6)

all of Leviticus 18 is dedicated to this topic…

que Dios te bendiga
 
Jayda said:
hola

of course incest is forbidden…

None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD (Leviticus 18: 6)

all of Leviticus 18 is dedicated to this topic…

que Dios te bendiga
Click to expand...
I realize that. However, the Catholic position is that morality stems from an unchangeable natural law, isn’t it? Why then, if incest were really wrong, did God approve or at least look the other way at Eve’s children, at Abram and Sarai, at Lot and his daughters? In those days God was pretty direct about punishing wrongdoers.

It can’t be a later moral development because of the immutable natural law. The only way to break out of this paradox is to assume those were ‘special cases’ – well, guess what, you’ve just given yourself carte blanche for anything God doesn’t directly smite you for. Moral relativism at work! ‘It was okay for Eve’s children and for Abraham and Sarah to commit incest, it was fine that Joseph married a young girl, but it isn’t okay now, and as for Mohammed, ooh la la, that filthy pedo’.

A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but ignoring it won’t build you a case.
 
cpayne said:
Whether or not “mean” or “rude” applies, I don’t know. I am, however, pretty good at spotting when people miss the point rather spectacularly–and this post spectacularly misses Publisher’s point.
Click to expand...
Thank you…
 
What a ridiculous argument Mirdath! If you accept the situation of Adam and Eve, then you accept God the creator. As for inconsistencies, of course an agnostic has no inconsistencies becuase he/she believes absolutely nothing. Confused, you like to induce confusion in others.
Just because your agnostic brain can’t see the logic, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Yes, Adam and Eve lay together and yes the law about incest came later. Where is the inconsistency? There isn’t.
It’s really quite simple. You want to make difficulties for your own malign purposes.
 
jack_hawkins said:
What a ridiculous argument Mirdath! If you accept the situation of Adam and Eve, then you accept God the creator. As for inconsistencies, of course an agnostic has no inconsistencies becuase he/she believes absolutely nothing. Confused, you like to induce confusion in others.
Just because your agnostic brain can’t see the logic, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Yes, Adam and Eve lay together and yes the law about incest came later. Where is the inconsistency? There isn’t.
It’s really quite simple. You want to make difficulties for your own malign purposes.
Click to expand...
Where have I ‘accepted’ anything? Use of examples from another religion says absolutely nothing about my own beliefs. To say that incest is morally wrong yet was permitted in the past is not just inconsistent, but hypocritical and morally relativist.

It’s not confusing, unless you can’t see the logic – and considering you’ve massively misread just about my entire post, it appears to be that way. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t even talking about Adam and Eve, but their children.

Given the following:
  • according to God’s law (not just Moses’), incest is wrong
  • God’s law is ‘natural law’, written on the human heart
  • natural law is immutable
  • incest occurred in the early Old Testament with implicit or explicit permission from God
What are we left with? A tumbled-down house of cards. God contradicted his own natural law in permitting incest. To say that the law came later is meaningless, as natural law is held unchangeable – it is timeless and has always existed.

You seem unable to realize that I am in no way confused or doubting, given your remarks here and elsewhere; ah well, such is the mark of one lost within a morass of confusion and denial himself. I can’t help you escape that, but you might do well to stop lashing out at and insulting those of us who aren’t stuck in your private hellish swamp. You’ll only sink faster.
 
Mirdath said:
Where have I ‘accepted’ anything? Use of examples from another religion says absolutely nothing about my own beliefs. To say that incest is morally wrong yet was permitted in the past is not just inconsistent, but hypocritical and morally relativist.

It’s not confusing, unless you can’t see the logic – and considering you’ve massively misread just about my entire post, it appears to be that way. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t even talking about Adam and Eve, but their children.

Given the following:
  • according to God’s law (not just Moses’), incest is wrong
  • God’s law is ‘natural law’, written on the human heart
  • natural law is immutable
  • incest occurred in the early Old Testament with implicit or explicit permission from God
What are we left with? A tumbled-down house of cards. God contradicted his own natural law in permitting incest. To say that the law came later is meaningless, as natural law is held unchangeable – it is timeless and has always existed.

You seem unable to realize that I am in no way confused or doubting, given your remarks here and elsewhere; ah well, such is the mark of one lost within a morass of confusion and denial himself. I can’t help you escape that, but you might do well to stop lashing out at and insulting those of us who aren’t stuck in your private hellish swamp. You’ll only sink faster.
Click to expand...
How is God’s law natural law. The law of sacrifices, first fruits, kashrut, etc… are not laws that are written in our hearts.
There is a sayinhg that one is to live by the Torah, not die by it. If there were only two people on earth, then you run up against two conflicting commandments. Be frutiful and multiply. Don’t boink your sister. By following the former and ignoring the latter, you promote life. By following the latter and ignoring the former, you would end humanity. So, you are not really violating the commandment at all under these circumstances when you sleep with a sibling, because it is a violation of Torah law (in most instances) to die by its commandments.
 
After careful research I have determined that no Christian Church that I know of allows for or encourages incest today. But in plenty of islamic countries there are child marriages and cousins frequently marry. Today.
 
Valke2 said:
How is God’s law natural law. The law of sacrifices, first fruits, kashrut, etc… are not laws that are written in our hearts.
Click to expand...
I don’t know either, but a lot of Catholics here seem to be pretty big on just that 🤷 It seems to function in much the same way as an invisible turtle shell – impregnable retreat nobody else really buys into. Seen most often in debates on homosexuality.
40.png
cestusdei:
After careful research I have determined that no Christian Church that I know of allows for or encourages incest today. But in plenty of islamic countries there are child marriages and cousins frequently marry. Today.
Click to expand...
‘Careful’? Nice going, a cursory glance at information shows me you’re completely, entirely, utterly, unmistakably wrong. Your own church marries first cousins with a dispensation in those states and countries that permit such a thing.

Here’s a list of states:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona (some cases)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawai’i
Illinois (some cases)
Indiana (some cases)
Maine (some cases)
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (most cases)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah (some cases)
Vermont
Virginia

Countries:
All of Europe, to start.

newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm
marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm
straightdope.com/columns/041001.html

This speaks volumes on your ability as a researcher and on your credibility in general. After witnessing your spite, hatred, and amazing command of Church teaching, I have to ask: are you really a priest?
 
I was aware of 1st cousin marriage. I have been to Kentucky. Technically that would not be incest in the manner in which you are arguing. But you might consider that it is rare in the West. In Pakistan, well…
 
cestusdei said:
I was aware of 1st cousin marriage. I have been to Kentucky. Technically that would not be incest in the manner in which you are arguing. But you might consider that it is rare in the West. In Pakistan, well…
Click to expand...
You’re just getting better and better. Kentucky does not allow first-cousin marriage – note its glaring absence on the list. Nor is it all that rare; European countries in particular don’t have nearly as many hangups about who gets to have sex with who as America does. And in any case, it is allowable with dispensation by the Catholic Church, as the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia should show.

I can find nothing that suggests Islam allows marriages closer in consanguinity than Christianity does; Quran 4:22-24 is remarkably similar to Leviticus 18:6-18 (which in v 18, by the way, leads us to another example of biblical heroes violating ‘immutable’ moral law with God’s tacit approval in Jacob’s double marriage to Rachel and Leah).
 
Getting back to the OP I think it’s the right of Christians to freely and frankly discuss religion.

Islam, for example, is sheltered from reasoned debate. Even Christians here reel at any discussion over Islam.

And real debate on Islamic sites is simply not possible.

One of the few opportunities is a forum such as this.
 
Then Kentucky must have changed it’s laws. But islam hasn’t. You can still marry a 9 year old and they do. Today. Twist as you might you can’t avoid that.
 
cestusdei said:
Then Kentucky must have changed it’s laws.
Click to expand...
So much for ‘careful research’.
But islam hasn’t. You can still marry a 9 year old and they do. Today. Twist as you might you can’t avoid that.
Click to expand...
Considering the requirements for consummation are puberty and consent, I’d say they’re closer to how things were in Jesus’ time and culture – is that a good thing or not? I don’t think it good, but then I’m not hampered by the fact that my religion historically permitted and encouraged the same thing under a supposedly-unchanging moral law.

I am still curious whether you are in fact a priest. Your every word spewed against others in hate, hypocrisy, and ignorance, and your every silence to that question shouts otherwise.
 
Mirdath said:
So much for ‘careful research’.

Considering the requirements for consummation are puberty and consent, I’d say they’re closer to how things were in Jesus’ time and culture – is that a good thing or not? I don’t think it good, but then I’m not hampered by the fact that my religion historically permitted and encouraged the same thing under a supposedly-unchanging moral law.

I am still curious whether you are in fact a priest. Your every word spewed against others in hate, hypocrisy, and ignorance, and your every silence to that question shouts otherwise.
Click to expand...
I always find it strange that a guy who defends marrying nine year olds accuses me of being ignorant. If you want to see real hate I will post what happened to those 3 Christians butchered in Turkey by nice kindly muslims.
 
cestusdei said:
I always find it strange that a guy who defends marrying nine year olds accuses me of being ignorant. If you want to see real hate I will post what happened to those 3 Christians butchered in Turkey by nice kindly muslims.
Click to expand...
That’s no excuse for your behavior – does not your religion preach forgiveness and love for even your enemy?

I have seen and experienced hate; I don’t need more examples. You’re quite enough. I admit to some level of awe, in that you’re perhaps the most hateful and bigoted person I know of who isn’t (so far as I know) actually killing people; but more than that, I pity you. You’ve lost all semblance of humanity, let alone Christliness, whether accidentally or by choice.

Once again, I ask: are you genuinely a priest? I believe it less and less. You flaunt your hypothetical collar regularly in other threads, to add weight to your words with other Catholics and to lend yourself an air of unassailability; why are you afraid to do so here in front of me?
 
Yes, mirdath I am. I am one that really gets angry when muslims butcher Christians. I am simply stunned that people are upset that I get upset about that.

I notice you haven’t posted on my thread about those 3 Christians murdered in Turkey. There is no way I can hate like muslims do. You have me beat there. Visit memri.org and listen to what your preachers say when they think we are not listening.
 
I actually don’t believe anybody on these threads, It’s the internet for pete sake!!:eek: Even a good arguments either for or against something, will solicit someone with an opposing viewpoint no matter what the subject is.

I see a lot of:

“No it isn’t!!..”
“Yes it is!!!..”
“No it isn’t!!..”
“Yes it is!!!..”
“No it isn’t!!..”
“Yes it is!!!..”
“Cite your source…”
“The Bible…”

I give up.
 
Mr.Bee said:
I actually don’t believe anybody on these threads, It’s the internet for pete sake!!:eek: Even a good arguments either for or against something, will solicit someone with an opposing viewpoint no matter what the subject is.

I see a lot of:

“No it isn’t!!..”
“Yes it is!!!..”
“No it isn’t!!..”
“Yes it is!!!..”
“No it isn’t!!..”
“Yes it is!!!..”
“Cite your source…”
“The Bible…”

I give up.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that contribution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top