He can't give credit to someone he doesn't believe has any credentials in the first place. He, henceforth, can't give credit to Jesus Christ when he said that when he made Adam and Eve, he made them male and female in the likeness of God from the start. According to him, this didn't occur, they first had to be made in the likeness of pond scum, a worm, a fish, a rat, and an ape, before he made them in the likeness of God. This is one of the greatest examples of someone adding unto the things stated in the Bible that I've ever seen.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science
- Thread starter River Jordan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wormwood
Chaps
Looks like this is turning into another rhetoric duel. Im going to jump off the merry-go-round at this point, River.
I've specifically pointed out where Meyer is wrong ("genetic information") and where Wells lies (moths on tree trunks). if what they say doesn't line up with the facts, then you have to have the courage to go the other way and follow the facts. Sadly, that courage seems to be in short supply in some groups.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
But see, I don't evaluate things based on whether or not the person who said them is on my team. I don't care what team you're on; if you're wrong, yyou're wrong. And Behe's "irreducible complexity" is massively wrong.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Uh huh....accuse me of things, refuse to back them up, dodge questions, and then bail.Wormwood said:
Nice. <_<
Yes you do. This is where you fail every time. You claim design but you're too much of a naturalist fundie to support any design ideas.River Jordan said:
You won't claim blind watch maker randomness because you know that goes too far. If you are asked to explain yourself you whine about litmus tests and inquisitions.
I'm not sure you know what to believe. I too will gracefully (for once) make my exit. I decided to try one more time, but it's hopeless without your cooperation.
You get the last smart comment and emoji.
It looks to me like you're thinking of "design" only in the way intelligent design creationists define it, where when they think evolution can't accomplish something, that's when God steps in and "designs" it. That's not at all how I think of design. Instead, I believe (and yes, this is a personal religious belief of mine, not a scientific position) that the evolutionary process itself is the design.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
To me, it's amazing that God is able to design a proess that has created all the diversity that is around us, all on its own. I see that as far superior to God creating life where he constantly has to step in and fix things.
Why can't randomness be part of the design? That gets to the question I asked you earlier...do you think God controls everything, or do some things happen on their own?
That's because your questions are about my beliefs, and come across as a form of purity test, where if I don't give what you think is the right answer, you get to question the sincerity of my faith. I've been down that road several times in this forum, so I hope you understand that I'm a bit cautious.
That's too bad. If you're willing to have an open discussion in genuine good faith, so am I.
Incest as defined by God is one of the following occurrences:Forsakenone said:
1. Mother and Son mating
2. Father and Daughter mating
3. Brother and Sister mating
4 Uncle and Niece mating
5. Aunt and Nephew mating
All of these are SIN. Always has been, always will be, because God does not change the criteria of sin.
If we say, solely, that all human life came from Adam and Eve and then again from the blood related family of Noah; we are admitting that the human race is born of incest
of one or more of the above variants.
If that is true, in both cases, God forced man to sin and is therefore the father of sin.
This we know is NOT true in scripture and he is unable to cause a man to sin.
So we must now use clear reason and logic, that if God does not change his mind about the nature of sin and that he cannot force people to sin; then he must have made other people to mate with the children of Adam and Eve; and also spared part of the world to be able to mate with Noah's family.
If we do not accept that reasoning we are saying that God is evil and is in fact, the enemy.
To me the most reasonable answer is, and the testimony with Cain after his being cast out corroborates it, that there were people outside of Eden to mate with Cain and the other children of Adam and Eve.
And that the flood even of Noah, was a regional area disaster so those not affected could then mate with Noah's family and neither line have to resort to incest.
This corroborates with genetic data, historical data and with common sense.
We have to take in the entire context of the bible from front to back and with the knowledge painfully apparent within the whole of history.
Clear logicpom2014 said:
. You are not using it Pom!!!!! 1. Mother and Son mating = wrong because your mother has a husband and you have a father.
2. Father and Daughter mating = wrong because your father has a wife.
3. Brother and Sister mating = fine (
h34r: )4 Uncle and Niece mating = fine if uncle has no wife
5. Aunt and Nephew mating = fine if aunt has no husband
Incest where parties are not attached is a problem ONLY because of gene decay.
The '''sin'' is selfishness. Sleeping with your sister when you know your kids will be deformed = sin / evil / selfishness.
Sleeping with your father when you know you have a mother and he has a wife = sin / evil / selfishness.
This subject
.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Incest is not practiced in most cultures or among animals today because those who practiced it in the past probably died out
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Conversely, the atheist says "Show me the data" and they are not really asking in good faith as this example shows.River Jordan said:
David Nicholls, the head of atheism in Australia wrote an article in the newspaper that claimed miracles do not happen. It so happened a couple of days before the article appeared, I had read of a miracle where a child that had died was raised to life. I wrote to him and said what he said about miracles was wrong. I said if you don't believe me get in touch with and gave him the name address and phone number of the people involved in performing the miracle and you will be given adequate evidence that miracles do happen.
Did David get in touch with them? No, so what are we to deduce? That David and his form of atheism did not want to know the truth. A case of my mind is made up so don't bother me with the truth. Since that time I have read of several more miracles at the hands of the same people but I haven't bothered to tell David as he doesn't seem to want to know the truth. He is secure in his fantasy.
Where in scripture does it state that these couplings are not SIN?KingJ said:3. Brother and Sister mating = fine (
4 Uncle and Niece mating = fine if uncle has no wife
5. Aunt and Nephew mating = fine if aunt has no husband
Please show it. Because my Old Testament says it is sin.
Who was Abraham's wife?pom2014 said:
Hmmm....
A half sister perhaps.
Strange. Huh?
Abraham a sinner?
He broke the law of Moses.
Now do you feel silly?
pom2014 said:
Show me the scripture you are referring to. If it is the passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus understand that Moses wrote those. When he wrote that it was possible to marry without incest. He wrote those because of gene decay.
To make your case you would need a passage of God speaking to Adam and Eve.
So you and Kingj's assertion is that it was NOT sin before Leviticus and Deuteronomy so it doesn't count?ChristianJuggarnaut said:
Even though God does not change?
And of course Abraham was a sinner, we ALL are. This sinful nature lead to his incest.
David sinned many times. Only Jesus never sinned.
Does that mean that we cannot be redeemed? No. But it does not justify the sin of incest just because Abraham did it.
There was NO need for Abraham to have incest with his sister. NONE. He chose to willingly.
In Adam and Eve and with Noah there was NO way around doing it because God had no others to mate with.
This would NOT have been as then God would have caused them to sin James 1:13 states that clearly he cannot lead you into sin.
So Cain KNEW his wife outside of Eden as there were others to mate with.
And Noah's family mated with those that were not part of the flood in their region.
Both of those logically explain what happened, is true with the accounts in Genesis and corroborates the historical and genetic record of humanity.
To think other than that is blaspheming God. And although you can do that to God and Jesus, I would strongly recommend not to get into the habit as then you may well blaspheme the Holy Spirit and therefore lose your life.
Wormwood
Chaps
pom,
According to your logic, we should all get circumcised as God commanded. After all, God does not change. I don't think that is what that Hebrew's verse is teaching.
According to your logic, we should all get circumcised as God commanded. After all, God does not change. I don't think that is what that Hebrew's verse is teaching.
You are circumcised... Just not physically.
My word you truly hate the idea that scripture must be interpreted as a whole along with the knowledge we have outside of it.
Back in the day you would have denied a heliocentric universe. Unless you still do.
My word you truly hate the idea that scripture must be interpreted as a whole along with the knowledge we have outside of it.
Back in the day you would have denied a heliocentric universe. Unless you still do.
I don’t think Sarai, Abram' wife, was his half sister. I believe this is only based on others religious speculation not supported by the Scripture.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
Here’s what the genealogy says regarding the subject matter...
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife;
and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Therefore Incest was NOT even part of the equation.
Also, when Abram and his wife, went to the land of Canaan... into Egypt.... They found out that famine was grievous in the land. Somehow,
Abram began to fear for his life. Knowing Sarai, his wife, was very attractive, he pleaded to her and asked Sarai to LIE to the Egyptians...
including to the Pharaoh.... and tell them that she is his sister (white lies of course)....so that they will not take her away from him and that
he (Abram) may live.
Of course, the above is only based on my Biblical understanding.
Correction: My bad... I must have forgotten or skipped reading these before.....
According to Abram confession himself.... Sarai is also his sister from a different mother!
[SIZE=12pt]Gen 20:10 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] v11 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of Godis not [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]v12 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]God Bless[/SIZE]
According to Abram confession himself.... Sarai is also his sister from a different mother!
[SIZE=12pt]Gen 20:10 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] v11 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of Godis not [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]v12 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]God Bless[/SIZE]
Wormwood
Chaps
pom, my point is that there was a literal, physical obedience to law (diets, circumcision, etc.) that existed under the Old Covenant. It was clearly sin not to circumcise a male under the OC regulations. We are not under that covenant so we see those regulations pointed to something more significant and meaningful than the food, foreskin, etc. You are arguing that if God said something was a sin in the Mosaic Law, then it is always a sin. My point is that God has interacted with people differently in different eras. The way God interacted with people prior to the Mosaic Law when there were just a few humans on the earth is obviously quite different from how he interacted with people under the Law of Moses...which is different from how he interacts with people under the New Covenant.
I don't know what "outside knowledge" you are referring to in this discussion. I am referring to this statement you made:
So what "outside knowledge" do you have? Do you have the "genetic data" for the first human beings who walked the earth? How do you know their DNA was the same as ours? Clearly it wasn't since people lived for 900 years in those days. Once again, you are missing the point. The point is that God interacts differently with different people in different eras. There are some things that reflect God's character that are ALWAYS sin (lying, murder, hatred, stealing, etc). However, ceremonial laws, covenantal law, etc are examples that things are not "once a sin always a sin." It was sinful to eat shellfish as a Jew in the Old Covenant. That "sin" is not a "sin" for those who are in Christ because we are in a different covenant.
In the same way, the situation for people when there were only a few humans on earth was clearly different than thousands of years later and I think it is misguided to say that the same rules applied to human procreation at the beginning of the world as applied later.
When The King came he said to take up his yoke for it is light. He pared down the 603 commands to the Two for us.Wormwood said:
Following those Two we follow ALL the 603. So we are circumcised in every way, shape and form to the letter of the Law. Done deal, easy peasy.
Now as for sin. God does not change what he considers sin for ANYONE.
So incest is still sin whether it was Adam and Eve's time or Noah's.
Why?
Well we have the Two Great Commands, so let us see how they would apply to incest.
Second Great Command says to love each other as yourself.
Incest, even with Aunt/Uncle and Nephew/Niece would be psychologically dysfunction and unloving.
These pairings are NOT to be done among higher sentience animals like man. We walk on two legs not on four (Thank you H.G.!)
It does not matter what genetics come into play, it is unloving to commit incest and more so if it brings about a child.
The second great command always boils down to this one question we need to ask ourselves before doing ANYTHING in our lives.
If this was done to ME, would I like that?
If you say NO, then the it breaks the Second Command.
If you say YES, and it is ethically incorrect, then you need to seek immediate professional psychological help. As your mind has formed in dysfunctional ways.
Ex. (Gentle) It would not make me feel good if someone spread a rumour about me. So I should not spread a rumour about my boss.
Ex. (Extreme) I would not like to be raped. So I should not rape another person.
It is pretty simple really.
In cases of incest I would not like mother to tell me I had to have sex with her it would make me feel disgusted, shameful and wrong. So I should not tell my mother she needs to have sex with me.
Incest, then and now, is clearly sin as it violates the Second Great Command.
And if we violate the second, we violate the first automatically as if we do not love God's creation, we do not love God. We do not KNOW love.
So people can bicker and say well it was different then to know, but God does not change. And his Second Great Command is a command he too obeys. For he loves himself as he does us.
Similar threads
