Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on January 21, 2016, 01:46:57 PM
-
deleted
-
One for the creationists. Why is it that incest was apparently rife in the book of Genesis and looked upon favourably by the deity, but subsequently became a BIG NO NO for very good reasons?
Not sure why you're asking 'only' creationists, Floo. After all, just about every incidence of incest in the OT is quickly followed by divine retribution. The fact that something is rife doesn't mean that it is acceptable. Look at violent crime, or theft; or financial impropriety, or insurance fraud nowadays. The latter 2 seem pretty common, but that doesn't make them acceptable.
-
Hope,
I think Floo means: if Adam and Eve really were the first humans, then why did God condone marriage within the immediate family in the beginning, but prohibit it in the law of Moses?
-
Hope,
I think Floo means: if Adam and Eve really were the first humans, then why did God condone marriage within the immediate family in the beginning, but prohibit it in the law of Moses?
If they were, who else were they going to mate with? But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.
-
If they were, who else were they going to mate with? But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.
. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!
-
. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!
This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.
-
This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.
I'm other words the A&E stuff isn't true and anyone who thinks it is in this day and age is quite simply wrong - works for me!
-
This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.
You keep on saying that but it's only until recently that it's regarded only as theological. How do you explain that?
-
You keep on saying that but it's only until recently that it's regarded only as theological. How do you explain that?
I suppose it can be explained by referring to the fact that some Jews prior to Jesus' life also regarded it as theological. In a way, its a bit like some of the early medical discoveries in the mi-2nd millennium which later turned out to be 'rediscoveries' of stuff that was known in earlier eras, such as early Islamic periods.
-
I'm other words the A&E stuff isn't true and anyone who thinks it is in this day and age is quite simply wrong - works for me!
Well, as I've said before, tere have been people within both Judaism and Christianity who have argued for a theological treatise explanation for centuries. The concept as only 'rediscovered' some decades ago when we understood the dating of the material we have better.
-
I suppose it can be explained by referring to the fact that some Jews prior to Jesus' life also regarded it as theological. In a way, its a bit like some of the early medical discoveries in the mi-2nd millennium which later turned out to be 'rediscoveries' of stuff that was known in earlier eras, such as early Islamic periods.
Then give us all examples. You know, evidence that Jews prior to Jesus saw it as purely theological or "treatise" as you call it. I'm calling bollocks on the whole suggestion. When Moses was writing under the direction of the Spirit he was not writing a "treatise". The early Church also would have understood it first and foremost in the literal sense. Nowhere will you find any suggestion that the literal sense was denied. That's not to deny the allegorical sense, rather the literal and allegorical senses go hand-in-hand. Allegory loses all of its meaning if it is not founded in the literal.
-
Then give us all examples. You know, evidence that Jews prior to Jesus saw it as purely theological or "treatise" as you call it. I'm calling bollocks on the whole suggestion. When Moses was writing under the direction of the Spirit he was not writing a "treatise". The early Church also would have understood it first and foremost in the literal sense. Nowhere will you find any suggestion that the literal sense was denied. That's not to deny the allegorical sense, rather the literal and allegorical senses go hand-in-hand. Allegory loses all of its meaning if it is not founded in the literal.
Lots of stories in Judaism are allegorical, but I wasn't aware Adam and Eve was ( apart from perhaps reform etc).
However this suggests it might have been.
But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/
If you read the whole thing, it makes the point that it's a Jewish tradition not to take all the stories literally.
I know there are some stories that are made to make a point rather than to be believed as a literal account, even in Orthodox Judaism.
-
Lots of stories in Judaism are allegorical, but I wasn't aware Adam and Eve was ( apart from perhaps reform etc).
However this suggests it might have been.
If you read the whole thing, it makes the point that it's a Jewish tradition not to take all the stories literally.
I know there are some stories that are made to make a point rather than to be believed as a literal account, even in Orthodox Judaism.
It's a rather poor attempt to justify his rejection of the literal sense. He refers to someone from the Middle-Ages and some tradition without showing any sort of continuity.
-
Moderator:
It seems that within this thread there is a discussion about the civil aspects of incest as opposed to the Christian aspect envisioned in the OP.
Therefore, I'm going to split the topic and moved the posts on the civil aspects to a new thread on Ethics & Freethought. Locking this temporarily to do the split.
O.K that is done, so those wishing to discuss the civil as opposed to Christian aspects of incest should do so here.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11479.msg585055#new
-
If they were, who else were they going to mate with? But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.
If all the population of the planet drowned in the flood except Noah and his family, they would have had to bonk like rabbits to repopulate the Earth!
-
If all the population of the planet drowned in the flood except Noah and his family, they would have had to bonk like rabbits to repopulate the Earth!
It depends on how many people there were on the earth at the time of the theological Flood.
-
It depends on how many people there were on the earth at the time of the theological Flood.
Before or after?
-
It depends on how many people there were on the earth at the time of the theological Flood.
Meaning?
-
Meaning?
Hope doesn't believe in a literal flood where only 8 people survived. That is the why he uses the phrase 'theological' as opposed to literal. He has covered this in detail in posts to you.
And to Hope, it is clear in floo's use of creationist in the OP she is talking about a literalist YEC, and I know you know that so stop playing dumb as if it's clever, it's not even big.
-
Hope doesn't believe in a literal flood where only 8 people survived. That is the why he uses the phrase 'theological' as opposed to literal. He has covered this in detail in posts to you.
And to Hope, it is clear in floo's use of creationist in the OP she is talking about a literalist YEC, and I know you know that so stop playing dumb as if it's clever, it's not even big.
Was I talking about YECs?
-
If they were, who else were they going to mate with? But my concern was that, by using the term 'rife', was she referring to much more than just A&E.
Have a read of the apocryphal book "The Lives of Adam and Eve".
-
Was I talking about YECs?
Well if you weren't your post makes no sense. Your choice!
-
Then give us all examples. You know, evidence that Jews prior to Jesus saw it as purely theological or "treatise" as you call it. I'm calling bollocks on the whole suggestion. When Moses was writing under the direction of the Spirit he was not writing a "treatise".
Has ha. You're calling Hope on lack of evidence (correctly IMO) whilst simultaneously making a completely unsupported assertion yourself.
Spoing!
-
. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!
According to the Bible, they had several sons and daughters but only three are named.
Incest was not defined until much later. When it was defined it went much further than the civil laws we have nowadays and didn't just concern blood relatives, for example not getting jiggy with stepchildren or late siblings' spouses. Pity it isn't still like that now imo, anything else confuses family relationships. It is still legal - though discouraged - for first cousins to marry. The Royal Family stopped doing that after Queen Victoria's time and the Catholic Church forbids marriage between first cousins. Distant cousins is OK.
Incest is horrible but I can quite understand that, in the long ago days of the Bible, when there were undoubtedly less genetic problems, close relatives married and had children. If they hadn't, there would have been very few people around. It wasn't incest then, there was no such word or concept. We cannot judge early man by the standards of today.
-
Incest is horrible but I can quite understand that, in the long ago days of the Bible, when there were undoubtedly less genetic problems
Why so?
-
I think my entire post needs to be quoted for it to be understood Shaker, that isolated bit doesn't make sense - though it may be a bit of a drag for someone to tread through an entire post. In any case, does anyone think that incest was defined because of genetic problems caused by consanguinity (? sp)? My view is that it was more because family structure, rather than kinship network, became more important.
-
If all the population of the planet drowned in the flood except Noah and his family, they would have had to bonk like rabbits to repopulate the Earth!
Have you done the maths?
-
This answer highlights the likelihood that the story is a theological treatment, rather than a historical one.
The Lord's genealogy is traced back to Adam
-
. . . and their two sons (no daughters) of course!
They had other children it is written.
-
The Lord's genealogy is traced back to Adam
Who is a mythical character, in all probability.
-
Yes floo but many believe (including me) that the story was written to illustrate a truth - and there were obviously 'first people', human beings, and not many of them. They certainly wouldn't have thought in terms of 'brother and sister', 'cousin and aunt', never mind stepfather or sister-in-law.
-
They had other children it is written.
"it is written" ... three little words that can make an otherwise intelligent person believe the daftest of things.
-
The Lord's genealogy is traced back to Adam
What's special about that?
-
"it is written" ... three little words that can make an otherwise intelligent person believe the daftest of things.
Exactly!
-
''It is written'' may be an annoying phrase to some but it is no more than a bit of back up which is forever being used on forums. I clearly remember saying something once and another poster, with a different pov, came back with, ''David Starkey said....'' :). I'm sure you, floo, have used the words of A N Other to back up your statements from time to time, or at least said, 'Other people or A N Other thinks so too'. Most people do it. It can be irritating but not a big deal.
Whatever, there have been some quite interesting posts on this thread, made in response to your opening post, so why not read, think about and respond to them instead of latching on to something so small. No offence meant.
-
''It is written'' may be an annoying phrase to some but it is no more than a bit of back up which is forever being used on forums. I clearly remember saying something once and another poster, with a different pov, came back with, ''David Starkey said....'' :). I'm sure you, floo, have used the words of A N Other to back up your statements from time to time, or at least said, 'Other people or A N Other thinks so too'. Most people do it. It can be irritating but not a big deal.
You're forgetting the salient differences here - firstly that when somebody cites A. N. Other as a source for something, that source can be checked and a specific statement can be compared with the rest of their corpus of work. Secondly, and far more importantly, nobody is suggesting that A. N. Other's sources are supernatural edicts which can't be questioned, criticised and challenged. They are not held to be the absolute and immutable truth. In a religious context "It is written" is used in such as way as to imply or explicitly state: "This is the final truth. God has said so and that's that."
-
In a religious context "It is written" is used in such as way as to imply or explicitly state: "This is the final truth. God has said so and that's that."
Precisely! And the gullible are taken in by it.
-
Shaker, you make a fair point which I take on board. I can only speak for myself: I don't use the phrase, ''It is written'' (which reminds me somewhat of that ancient television series, before your time I am sure, called 'Kung Fu'), and haven't come across anyone who does except on forums. More commonly, people will say, ''According to the Bible'', or ''...scripture'', but it is up to who listens whether or not they take the scriptures as the final authority. Indeed, most Christians accept there are different interpretations and a lot of them, including me, are not literalists.
There are more comments on this thread than ''It is written'', insightful and thought provoking; whether the reader agrees or not, they are worth reading and are in response to floo's op.
(Len - you, grrrr, Spanish thingy, onion - you do labour the point! Complete with exclamation mark!!!!!!!)
shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview
)
-
(Len - you, grrrr, Spanish thingy, onion - you do labour the point! Complete with exclamation mark!!!!!!!)
shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview
)
I try to live up to the reputation people forge for me. ;)
-
That is hughly obvious dear boy ;)!!!!!! Hope you are well. Adios amigo.
-
Precisely! And the gullible are taken in by it.
and the more gullible fail to read it and believe their own assumptions (like Adam and Eve had two sons (no daughters)) ! It's ok for anyone but a Christian to refer to the Bible as a source of reference for their post isn't it!
-
and the more gullible fail to read it and believe their own assumptions (like Adam and Eve had two sons (no daughters)) ! It's ok for anyone but a Christian to refer to the Bible as a source of reference for their post isn't it!
The gullible believe the Adam and Eve fantasy is factual! ::)
-
The gullible believe the Adam and Eve fantasy is factual! ::)
And the more gullible believe there is no God for us to answer to. :(
-
Please read and comment on some of the other posts, floo, otherwise what is the point of the thread?
-
And the more gullible believe there is no God for us to answer to. :(
You cannot produce the slightest bit of evidence it exists!
-
Please read and comment on some of the other posts, floo, otherwise what is the point of the thread?
There's no point, TW's right that's why we don't bother.
-
You cannot produce the slightest bit of evidence it exists!
Floo, you're a master at NLP.
-
There's no point, TW's right that's why we don't bother.
If the unpleasant TW is right then we are all DOOMED! :o
-
Floo, you're a master at NLP.
NLP?
-
That is hughly obvious dear boy ;)!!!!!! Hope you are well. Adios amigo.
Hugh doesn't think he is obvious ... he tries to be discrete. :)
-
Neuro-linguistic Programming, floo
-
One for the creationists. Why is it that incest was apparently rife in the book of Genesis and looked upon favourably by the deity, but subsequently became a BIG NO NO for very good reasons?
If you are talking mainly about Adam and Eve's children intermarrying, Matthew Henry says that sibling intermarriage is not so contrary to nature as intermarriage between fathers/mothers/Aunts/Uncles because "Adam’s sons must of necessity have married their own sisters". But marriage between brothers and sisters had to be made unlawful because they "cannot intermarry without defeating one of the intentions of marriage, which is the enlargement of friendship and interest. If every man married his own sister (as they would be apt to do from generation to generation if it were lawful), each family would be a world to itself, and it would be forgotten that we are members one of another."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhcw/leviticus/18.htm
-
If you are talking mainly about Adam and Eve's children intermarrying, Matthew Henry says that sibling intermarriage is not so contrary to nature as intermarriage between fathers/mothers/Aunts/Uncles because "Adam’s sons must of necessity have married their own sisters". But marriage between brothers and sisters had to be made unlawful because they "cannot intermarry without defeating one of the intentions of marriage, which is the enlargement of friendship and interest. If every man married his own sister (as they would be apt to do from generation to generation if it were lawful), each family would be a world to itself, and it would be forgotten that we are members one of another."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhcw/leviticus/18.htm
If it is wrong now, it should have been wrong then. The deity should have created more people, but of course the Biblical deity is a psychopathic nutter!
-
If it is wrong now, it should have been wrong then. The deity should have created more people, but of course the Biblical deity is a psychopathic nutter!
Isn't there something about knowing we all come from one set of parents that seems to unite people of different ethnicity, and make us treat each other as equals?
-
Isn't there something about knowing we all come from one set of parents that seems to unite people of different ethnicity, and make us treat each other as equals?
That would be nice.
Doesn't seem to pan out that way, however.
-
Isn't there something about knowing we all come from one set of parents that seems to unite people of different ethnicity, and make us treat each other as equals?
There isn't, we didn't and history to date shows that we don't.
-
Would be good if it worked but coming from one family has never stopped different branches of the family falling out.
-
Isn't there something about knowing we all come from one set of parents that seems to unite people of different ethnicity, and make us treat each other as equals?
Well we didn't come from one set of parents, and even if we did it doesn't mean everyone would get on! ::)
-
The deity should have done this or that blah, blah, blah. "...the Biblical deity is a psychopathic nutter"
Well your daughters didn't fall for your nasty talk about God, why should we?
-
The deity should have done this or that blah, blah, blah. "...the Biblical deity is a psychopathic nutter"
Well your daughters didn't fall for your nasty talk about God, why should we?
The answer is very simple. Some people need to believe in "God", and wouldn't feel fulfilled and happy with life if they didn't ... that's all.
-
The answer is very simple. Some people need to believe in "God", and wouldn't feel fulfilled and happy with life if they didn't ... that's all.
And some Christians, like my own kids, are moderate in their beliefs, aren't Biblical literalists, and don't force feed their take on faith down the throats of unbelievers.
-
Weren't Abraham and Sarah in an incestuous marriage?
Wasn't this marriage approved and blessed by God?
-
Who is force feeding? Floo thinks force feeding is a Christian who dares to state what they believe. There is a little old man with a long beard that sits on top of a post box at one entrance to the International Market Place in Waikiki. All he does is read aloud from his Bible as people walk past. I would miss his "force feeding" if he's not there on my next visit.
-
Who is force feeding? Floo thinks force feeding is a Christian who dares to state what they believe. There is a little old man with a long beard that sits on top of a post box at one entrance to the International Market Place in Waikiki. All he does is read aloud from his Bible as people walk past. I would miss his "force feeding" if he's not there on my next visit.
That is perfectly OK; because you welcome it.
But what about those who do not?
Why are they forced to go past this man spouting his beliefs to the world just so that they can get into the market?
Why not leave them to investigate for themselves if they wish to find out what the bible contains? And not to do so if they do not?
-
Weren't Abraham and Sarah in an incestuous marriage?
Wasn't this marriage approved and blessed by God?
Sarah and Abraham had the same father so, yes, they were half-siblings, he being the elder by about ten years.
-
If it is wrong now, it should have been wrong then. The deity should have created more people,
It is a difficult question floo. Reading C.S.Lewis Mere Christianity, he talks about how the sexual appetite is perverted as a result of the fall. He takes the fact that sex's function is for reproduction, and suggests that its excessive use in advertising is evidence for this perversion.
Also I was reading about how the four Mosaic laws identified by the apostolic Church in Acts 15 are taken from Leviticus 17 and 18. They were the only laws which applied not only to Israelites but also to foreigners living among them. The apostles applied this to Gentile converts to Christianity.
Incest comes in the category of fornicatiin in Acts 15. Applying what Lewis said, it makes sense that incestual relationships are one result of this perversion of the sexual appetite. But you couldn't say this about the children of Adam and Eve, who had no marriage partners to chose from except their own siblings. So it would not be perverse for them to be sexually attracted to and to marry each other.
Just a thought.
-
'Perverted because of the fall'! The hoops some jump through to make excuses for the perverted, psychopathic deity of the Bible is incredible and very sad!
-
That's just a theory amongst many other theories floo. I like a great deal of C S Lewis's writings but don't go along 100% with all of them.
-
'Perverted because of the fall'! The hoops some jump through to make excuses for the perverted, psychopathic deity of the Bible is incredible and very sad!
Same old, different day, shift the blame onto God.
-
Same old, different day, shift the blame onto God.
If the deity exists and created us, it created human nature, so of course ALL the blame rests squarely on its shoulders!
-
Going back a few posts to where being 'force fed' religion was mentioned, who in this day and age is force fed religion? Indeed we have to seek out any discussion on the subject by going onto religious message boards - I'd never thought about it like that before but I obviously do it (do I need a shrink?). No-one pushes religion down anyone's throat, it is hardly ever mentioned by people we meet - at work, our neighbours, in shops or at 'bus stops. There may be the occasional leaflet put through the letter box from a local church, giving information about what is happening there, or the JWs, and we can either read or ignore.
Seems to me that we are the ones who are obsessed with it. Quite worrying - I'm going for a lie down.
-
Going back a few posts to where being 'force fed' religion was mentioned, who in this day and age is force fed religion? Indeed we have to seek out any discussion on the subject by going onto religious message boards - I'd never thought about it like that before but I obviously do it (do I need a shrink?). No-one pushes religion down anyone's throat, it is hardly ever mentioned by people we meet - at work, our neighbours, in shops or at 'bus stops. There may be the occasional leaflet put through the letter box from a local church, giving information about what is happening there, or the JWs, and we can either read or ignore.
Seems to me that we are the ones who are obsessed with it. Quite worrying - I'm going for a lie down.
In Hounslow High Street every other day there are a group, outside the Church, declaiming the word of god at the tops of their voices. Last week they also had a chilren's choir singing hymns. My pentacle ensures that I am targetted with the information that I am to be destined for Hell unless I change my wicked, sinful ways and give up my worship[ of Satan and accept Christ into my heart and my life.
I walk past trying to ignore this becasse I know that if I repond I am going to be facing a lecture and a string of quotations from the bible. I have had occasions when I have been followed along the street by the preacher and have had to duck into a shop, any shop, to escape.
I am not alone in this experience.
Force feeding? What am I supposed to do? Only shop on the days that they are not there? Find another route to the shops that I want? Take off the emblem of my faith? I remember the furore when a christian was asked to do the same! But that is different, isn't it? Christians have to be allowed to advertise their religion even if no-one else is!
-
Ah well, I don't come across anything like that near where I live. Years ago there used to be a group of people from an evangelical church talking and singing in a square near a shopping centre but I never took much notice, I don't know who did. They were part of the local scene I suppose and just blended in.
I imagined Hounslow to be a predominantly Sikh/Hindu area, that may be why Christian groups come out of the woodwork and try to make their presence felt. They obviously have an effect on you! I still maintain that there isn't a great deal of overt evangelisation by Christians in this country nowadays.
-
Ah well, I don't come across anything like that near where I live. Years ago there used to be a group of people from an evangelical church talking and singing in a square near a shopping centre but I never took much notice, I don't know who did. They were part of the local scene I suppose and just blended in.
I imagined Hounslow to be a predominantly Sikh/Hindu area, that may be why Christian groups come out of the woodwork and try to make their presence felt. They obviously have an effect on you! I still maintain that there isn't a great deal of overt evangelisation by Christians in this country nowadays.
Do you classify JW as Christian?
I see them at virtually every station on the underground - albeit in silence, but holding out their pamphlets to vitually everyone who passes. This is, however, far less invasive than the preacher in Hounslow.
-
JWs consider themselves to be Christian but they are certainly not mainstream and the majority of Christians do not consider JWs to be fellow Christians. Nevertheless they knock on doors and put leaflets through the letter box. In fairness to them, if you are not interested they go away quite politely.
Back to topic, the ancient Egyptians practised incest in that royal siblings married eachother. I don't know when that changed.
-
JWs consider themselves to be Christian but they are certainly not mainstream and the majority of Christians do not consider JWs to be fellow Christians. Nevertheless they knock on doors and put leaflets through the letter box. In fairness to them, if you are not interested they go away quite politely.
Back to topic, the ancient Egyptians practised incest in that royal siblings married eachother. I don't know when that changed.
Wasn't there a Pharoah who facial features were 'odd', Atenarten or some such - could his deformity have brought about the end of the practice?
-
I don't care what the nasty JW cult classify themselves as, I just know I am allergic to their nastiness. >:( As I have mentioned before, a couple of the cults acolytes turned up on our doorstep 30 years ago, and told me our adopted Down's Syndrome baby son would have been better off dead rather than having the life saving blood transfusion he had just received! >:(
-
I don't care what the nasty JW cult classify themselves as, I just know I am allergic to their nastiness. >:( As I have mentioned before, a couple of the cults acolytes turned up on our doorstep 30 years ago, and told me our adopted Down's Syndrome baby son would have been better off dead rather than having the life saving blood transfusion he had just received! >:(
I just wear my pentacle and my mother's Star of David when I answer the door - they don't stay long.
-
Wasn't there a Pharoah who facial features were 'odd', Atenarten or some such - could his deformity have brought about the end of the practice?
Nope, it was still going on at the time of Cleopatra, it wasn't the incest that stopped it was the monarchy after Octavian's defeat of her and Tony.
-
Nope, it was still going on at the time of Cleopatra, it wasn't the incest that stopped it was the monarchy after Octavian's defeat of her and Tony.
Thanks for that. It was a nice theory while it lasted!
-
Thanks for that. It was a nice theory while it lasted!
Thinking about it though there I possibly a bit more support for your point. While it is correct that the Ptolemy dynasty were incestuous, they are latecomers being descended from Alexander's general, and I presume followed the tradition of incest (my interests generally relate to the Cleopatra period as I look at it from an interest in Rome). The earlier dynasties certainly had problems and iirc Tutankhamen was possibly the last of his dynasty, and it might have been related to infertility due to inbreeding. So while it may not have died out until the end of the Egyptian monarchy, it may have caused the end of some dynasties. It's an intriguing subject that I will look into more because of your theory
Of course, the whole intermarriage thing continued in a lot of monarchies, see the Hapsburg lip, and the spread of Our own dear Vicky's genes amongst the royal houses. Arguably haemophilia contributed to the Russian revolution.
-
Thinking about it though there I possibly a bit more support for your point. While it is correct that the Ptolemy dynasty were incestuous, they are latecomers being descended from Alexander's general, and I presume followed the tradition of incest (my interests generally relate to the Cleopatra period as I look at it from an interest in Rome). The earlier dynasties certainly had problems and iirc Tutankhamen was possibly the last of his dynasty, and it might have been related to infertility due to inbreeding. So while it may not have died out until the end of the Egyptian monarchy, it may have caused the end of some dynasties. It's an intriguing subject that I will look into more because of your theory
Of course, the whole intermarriage thing continued in a lot of monarchies, see the Hapsburg lip, and the spread of Our own dear Vicky's genes amongst the royal houses. Arguably haemophilia contributed to the Russian revolution.
Good luck with nthat!
I wish I could find time to return to the British Library and constinue my study of thr hoistory of the Craft.
Hey ho! One day, one day!
-
I just wear my pentacle and my mother's Star of David when I answer the door - they don't stay long.
Wot, no clothes? :-[ no wonder!
-
Wot, no clothes? :-[ no wonder!
And where does he wear the pentacle?
-
I don't care what the nasty JW cult classify themselves as, I just know I am allergic to their nastiness. >:( As I have mentioned before, a couple of the cults acolytes turned up on our doorstep 30 years ago, and told me our adopted Down's Syndrome baby son would have been better off dead rather than having the life saving blood transfusion he had just received! >:(
Did they really, Floo? The sheer wickedness done in the name of religion, is astonishing.
-
"Men never do evil as completely or as cheerfully as when they do it in the name of religion." - Pascal
Not the quote thread, but irresistibly reminded of this.
-
That is so true and I often wonder why their conscience does not bother them? I suppose they would say the conscience has to be ''informed''. It's an easy way out to fall back on religious teachings when saying something unpalateable.
However I have discoursed with several Jehovah's Witnesses and, whatever I feel about their religion, I've not known them to pass judgement on people outside their faith. I did ask once what a JW believed would happen to them if they were treated with a blood transfusion as an emergency while they were unconscious and she replied that the Lord would not hold anything against her that she did not consent to. Likewise adults usually make decisions for children, so I wonder why the JWs whom floo encountered were so unpleasant - and how did they know about her son having a transfusion? It's not a good idea to write off an entire group of people as ''nasty'' because of one experience.
Regarding incest, Jehovah's Witnesses take the same stance as mainstream Christians, based on Leviticus.
-
That is so true and I often wonder why their conscience does not bother them? I suppose they would say the conscience has to be ''informed''. It's an easy way out to fall back on religious teachings when saying something unpalateable.
I fear that any over-arching ideology, religious or political, can become a substitute for basic human empathy if you're sufficiently in thrall to it and allow it to.
-
Hope doesn't believe in a literal flood where only 8 people survived. That is the why he uses the phrase 'theological' as opposed to literal. He has covered this in detail in posts to you.
And to Hope, it is clear in floo's use of creationist in the OP she is talking about a literalist YEC, and I know you know that so stop playing dumb as if it's clever, it's not even big.
Nearly Sane - Hope's bodyguard.
-
Nearly Sane - Hope's bodyguard.
Given you quoted a post where I told Hope off for being disingenuous, you are now just making yourself look stupid.
-
Given you quoted a post where I told Hope off for being disingenuous, you are now just making yourself look stupid.
Nothing stops a bodyguard from telling his boss when he has done something wrong.
-
Nothing stops a bodyguard from telling his boss when he has done something wrong.
I forgive you
-
I forgive you
Forgive . . . I, at this moment (for reasons I am unable to publish) would much prefer a glass of Chivas, Moniak or Courviosier (sic)!
-
Nothing stops a bodyguard from telling his boss when he has done something wrong.
NearlySane is very much his own man. I don't think taking orders from Hope is quite his style - he is in fact one of the few with the patience to keep pointing out the constantly repeated errors in Hope's arguments (two other prominent exemplars of such patience being Shaker and bluehillside).
-
NearlySane is very much his own man. I don't think taking orders from Hope is quite his style - he is in fact one of the few with the patience to keep pointing out the constantly repeated errors in Hope's arguments (two other prominent exemplars of such patience being Shaker and bluehillside).
I must admit I was getting a bit confused. Owlswing was claiming NS and Hope were buddies but my recollection is that NS generally calls Hope out on the wrongness of his posts pretty much all the time.
-
I must admit I was getting a bit confused. Owlswing was claiming NS and Hope were buddies but my recollection is that NS generally calls Hope out on the wrongness of his posts pretty much all the time.
All right! I'll shut up!
-
NearlySane is very much his own man. I don't think taking orders from Hope is quite his style - he is in fact one of the few with the patience to keep pointing out the constantly repeated errors in Hope's arguments (two other prominent exemplars of such patience being Shaker and bluehillside).
That's the first and potentially the last time that the words patience and Shaker have or will appear connected in a sentence.
-
"All right! I'll shut up!"
All right let's party!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSc7Mv0QHY
-
Shaker,
"Don't tell them you're not a Marxist, darling, we saw Duck Soup together at the Rialto just last week." Pansy Schneider-Horst
-
Weren't Abraham and Sarah in an incestuous marriage?
Wasn't this marriage approved and blessed by God?
King James Bible
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.
Same Father not same mother.
The laws did not exist in the time of Abraham (Abram) and Sarah (Sara).
So they did not have an incestuous marriage because there was no law about those things at that time.
Leviticus 18:8-18King James Version (KJV)
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
In fact it was God who made it all stop by telling them not to do the things they once did. It is like the fall, Adam could not die till he had sinned. Before the fall he had the right to eat of any tree including the tree of life.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
after the fall:-
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Had man not eaten from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, he would never have known if he had done any wrong.
But now he knew and in his fallen state he could not eat from the tree of life.
Abraham could not be guilty of incest as there was no law or knowledge it was wrong in his time.
Intermarriage happened everywhere. But when God brought the laws to his people then it stopped and it then became wrong.
Once they had the knowledge they could no longer do those things...
-
If the deity exists and created us, it created human nature, so of course ALL the blame rests squarely on its shoulders!
Your Father Satan knows differently, but he too slanders and lies about God. Is it anything new to expect his children to do the same. Like Father like daughter...
-
In Hounslow High Street every other day there are a group, outside the Church, declaiming the word of god at the tops of their voices. Last week they also had a chilren's choir singing hymns. My pentacle ensures that I am targetted with the information that I am to be destined for Hell unless I change my wicked, sinful ways and give up my worship[ of Satan and accept Christ into my heart and my life.
I walk past trying to ignore this becasse I know that if I repond I am going to be facing a lecture and a string of quotations from the bible. I have had occasions when I have been followed along the street by the preacher and have had to duck into a shop, any shop, to escape.
I am not alone in this experience.
Force feeding? What am I supposed to do? Only shop on the days that they are not there? Find another route to the shops that I want? Take off the emblem of my faith? I remember the furore when a christian was asked to do the same! But that is different, isn't it? Christians have to be allowed to advertise their religion even if no-one else is!
They aren't force feeding... browsing a menu is not the same as eating the food.
You don't even have to look at the menu go via a different route... Change the restaurant if the food not to your liking...