Religion/Spirituality At what point in the Bible..

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Does the incest stop? Adam and Eves children had to procreate? So does that make us all products of incest? That is also a sin right?

The practice wasn't considered a 'sin' until after the Hebrews left Egypt (see Exodus thru Deuteronomy) and stopped before first cousins. However, endogamy was permitted/encouraged (and still is). Also, it was considered a 'sin' only for Hebrews. There is no 'moral' reason to not indulge in the practice (only genetic/cultural/legal) if you are not Hebrew, or Hindu, or Muslim, etc.....

Here's a link that shows which States allow/disallow incestuous marriages......

State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

Not sure how up-to-date the links are, but interesting reading nonetheless.
​

 

[Mr. Negative]

Is that your interpretation or that's actually sited in the bible? Lay your verses down breh. I'll be glad to lay mine down.

it's the first two chapters of Genesis.

Chapter 1 God creates everything.....

Chapter 2 He creates it again..... but in a whole nother order than he did in chapter one!!!

 

[Arabial Knight]

NOT IN THE BOLLEA HOUSEHOLD, BROTHER!

I still dapped it but I don't like the use of smileys with this gimmick. Much funnier when it's pure text for some reason.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

The practice wasn't considered a 'sin' until after the Hebrews left Egypt (see Exodus thru Deuteronomy) and stopped before first cousins. However, endogamy was permitted/encouraged (and still is). Also, it was considered a 'sin' only for Hebrews. There is no 'moral' reason to not indulge in the practice (only genetic/cultural/legal) if you are not Hebrew, or Hindu, or Muslim, etc.....

Here's a link that shows which States allow/disallow incestuous marriages......

State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

Not sure how up-to-date the links are, but interesting reading nonetheless.
​

What you fail to understand or maybe you dont fail to

This shows that sin has NOTHING to do with morality. The things the imaginary god yahweh demands have nothing to do with morality. which is why christians and believers in the abrahamic god are so demonic, friend.

It also shows that god is imperfect. Had his rules been perfect initially or his plan been perfect he wouldnt have had to change them. It shows yahweh is a bumbling idiot even in his own story book.

It also shows that the bible is irrelevent by showing that gods plan and expectations change over time on a whim based on absolutely nothing since morality has nothing to do with it. You dont know, since its been over 2000 years since yahweh has written anything in his fictional autobiography, whether he changed the rules again on us. You see, this makes that whole context thing unusable by christians since RIGHT NOW is a whole different context than when these fables were written. Certainly more different between now and NT times than between NT and OT times. So literally none of this bullshyt would apply today, based on context.

yahweh, its so demonic, friend

but I thank you for etherin the bible and christianity, and the abrahamic religions, and yahweh all in one post.

 

[Camammal]

The practice wasn't considered a 'sin' until after the Hebrews left Egypt (see Exodus thru Deuteronomy) and stopped before first cousins. However, endogamy was permitted/encouraged (and still is). Also, it was considered a 'sin' only for Hebrews. There is no 'moral' reason to not indulge in the practice (only genetic/cultural/legal) if you are not Hebrew, or Hindu, or Muslim, etc.....

Here's a link that shows which States allow/disallow incestuous marriages......

State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

Not sure how up-to-date the links are, but interesting reading nonetheless.
​

Sounds awfully convenient he changes the rule on the fly instead of just creating more people. Basically he decided to punish behavior that was already instilled in our genes from his own incompetence.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What you fail to understand or maybe you dont fail to

This shows that sin has NOTHING to do with morality.

Quite the opposite, in fact. 'Sin', to them, is a 'moral wrong/evil' that they acknowledge within their community.

Had his rules been perfect initially or his plan been perfect he wouldnt have had to change them.

That assertion begs the question: How do you know that wasn't part of the so-called 'plan' from the Beginning?

You dont know

Exactly.

You see, this makes that whole context thing unusable by christians since RIGHT NOW is a whole different context than when these fables were written.

So, what you're advocating is RIGHT NOW it's okay to sleep with your sister because back then, they didn't know any better.

Sounds like a H@LLOW thread.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Sounds awfully convenient he changes the rule on the fly instead of just creating more people. Basically he decided to punish behavior that was already instilled in our genes from his own incompetence.

Once again, that statement begs the question: How do you know that wasn't part of the ubiquitous 'plan' from the beginning? How do you know anyone was 'punished'? AFAIK, there's no such thing as an 'incest' gene, so how could something that doesn't exist be seen as evidence for incompetence of something that defies description and is cognitively incoherent?

I figured I'd at least try to answer what I thought was an honest question. Would appreciate the favor in-return.

Do you believe that 'G-d' doesn't exist, do you know that 'G-d' doesn't exist, or, does 'G-d' mean absolutely nothing to you?

​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Quite the opposite, in fact. 'Sin', to them, is a 'moral wrong/evil' that they acknowledge within their community.



That assertion begs the question: How do you know that wasn't part of the so-called 'plan' from the Beginning?



Exactly.



So, what you're advocating is RIGHT NOW it's okay to sleep with your sister because back then, they didn't know any better.

Sounds like a H@LLOW thread.

​

your whole response is ass backwards.

Morality isnt a set of whims.

2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Either incest is immoral or it isnt. Whether or not the fictitional character yahweh approves of immoral acts doesnt make the act moral.

How do I know that fukcin up wasnt part of the plan? If it was part of the plan then yahwehs faux wrath in his storybook is misplaced. If it was his plan why is he doling out punishments for following his plan... in the storybook? hes a moron in his own book.

You dont know, yet muthafukcaz in churches across the world brainwashin the sheeple tellin em that they know You ought step up in church while the thief is givin his sermon and tell him that he dont know shyt

I'm not advocatin ANYTHING but rational thought and exposing moronic books that sheeple try to apply to today The problems with incest are well documented from a biological standpoint. Morally, if there is no offspring I cant find a reasonable objection other than its fukcin gross and I wouldnt do it... but if the redneck christians in alabama wanna fukc their sisters after theyre done with the mules n shyt, I'm not gonna stop em...

meanwhile yahweh in his storybook is making incest the only way... but is all knowing? mufukca must not have known biology.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Morality isnt a set of whims.

Then we're in-agreement and nothing more need be said.

​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Then we're in-agreement and nothing more need be said.

​

Well, yeah, more needs to be said in the context of the christian storybook...

Sins are based on a whim... thus not based on morality. Once you agree to that we're done.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well, yeah, more needs to be said in the context of the christian storybook...

Sins are based on a whim... thus not based on morality. Once you agree to that we're done.

'Sins' aren't based on a whim since.....

Morality isnt a set of whims.

Thanks for agreeing.​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

'Sins' aren't based on a whim since.....



Thanks for agreeing.​

Nah, more moronic theist attempts to twist words. it doesnt work my sheepish breh. The thread already showed that yahweh demanded incest, but called it a sin.

Sins are based on whims thats why one second that clown yahweh is demanding it and admonishing it the next minute. If it was based on morals then it wouldve either been wrong to begin with, or not been wrong after the fact.

bein willfully ignorant isnt going to change that

 

[newarkhiphop]

cmon on breh you know we really came from space particles, then we evolved from lil sea creatures, to apes then to humans. Let's not get carried away with all this biblical fantasy stuff.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Nah, more moronic theist attempts to twist words.

Good thing I'm a noncognitivist........

Methinks you're not familiar with my theological position and really can't defend yours.

Well, I KNOW you can't defend yours since you have to rely on materialism/naturalism.​

 

[Camammal]

Once again, that statement begs the question: How do you know that wasn't part of the ubiquitous 'plan' from the beginning? How do you know anyone was 'punished'? AFAIK, there's no such thing as an 'incest' gene, so how could something that doesn't exist be seen as evidence for incompetence of something that defies description and is cognitively incoherent?

I figured I'd at least try to answer what I thought was an honest question. Would appreciate the favor in-return.

Do you believe that 'G-d' doesn't exist, do you know that 'G-d' doesn't exist, or, does 'G-d' mean absolutely nothing to you?

​

I do not know if a God exist or not. I can neither prove or disprove but I can make an analysis based on the word as it was written. I never insinuated that there was a incest gene, I was making more a exaggeration; the irony of the behavior being passed down. And maybe it was all apart of his "plan" but he is omnipotent so let's not pretend he did not have to wipe us out because of his errors ..unless you want to say that was apart if his "plan" as well, you can agree that there is no point in having a logical argument about any inconsistencies in the bible.