|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 16:23:29 GMT
Yeah, Abraham and Sarah were half siblings.
I think he specifically wanted Isaac to marry a relative because that is how you knew they may worship the same.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 16:28:43 GMT
tpfkar It was still schizophrenic with the incest. lay us
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 17:19:07 GMT
tpfkar It was still schizophrenic with the incest. lay usExcept that it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 17:37:38 GMT
tpfkar Deep. Except it is. Even actively encouraged or specified marrying in the family. Some didn't think it forbade a lot of incest at all. divine predestination
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 17:43:50 GMT
tpfkar Deep. Except it is. Even actively encouraged or specified marrying in the family. Some didn't think it forbade a lot of incest at all. divine predestinationI'm not sure why you cant simply be satisfied with being correct about the Bible, at one time, having no issue, with incest.
Instead you have to push it to the point where you are wrong.
There's nothing schizophrenic about how the Bible treated the matter and what people think is irrelevant. After all, some people think the Bible is schizophrenic about incest...
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 17:51:59 GMT
tpfkar Right, so what you think is irrelevant. Your rules. And your first line, gibberish. Rules of lucid communication. Even John Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes fame didn't think the Bible prohibited father-daughter lovin'. more Amurica
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 26, 2017 17:59:11 GMT
tpfkar Deep. Except it is. Even actively encouraged or specified marrying in the family. Some didn't think it forbade a lot of incest at all. divine predestinationI'm not sure why you cant simply be satisfied with being correct about the Bible, at one time, having no issue, with incest.
Instead you have to push it to the point where you are wrong.
There's nothing schizophrenic about how the Bible treated the matter and what people think is irrelevant. After all, some people think the Bible is schizophrenic about incest...
It has been argued that The Bible didn't have a problem with incest when, according to the story, MAN was just a few generations away from the "perfect" Adam & Eve.. and thus incest wouldn't have the detrimental effects that it would soon have/does have now. It, then, became law not to f your sisters/fathers/nieces/cousins when the actual "Law" was established. But.. I suppose some could see that as "schizophrenic"... If they were retarded.... probably caused by an act of incest. - "CUE THE RETARD'S RESPONSE!!"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 18:09:07 GMT
tpfkar Pretty sure it's easy to see who's the result of some inbreeding, and who without fail collapses into a puddle of wail. As I said, the Bible goes back and forth a bit. It actively encouraged keeping it in the family in parts, specific rules for first-born daughters. It's by no means clear and consistent on the topic. he's so mean he's going to reply!
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 26, 2017 20:06:42 GMT
What makes you so sure? Surely you aren't suggesting that religion has a mind of its own, or that there actually is a God behind those religions - meaning the religious precepts represent the actual moral code of an actual God? Those religions got their rules from people - this is not a chicken and egg scenario, people came first, before religion. If religion places a ban on something, it is because people wanted it banned. Even without religion as their vehicle, they would still have wanted the same things banned. Judaism was not alone - or even first - to ban incest, by the way. Hinduism is older, and is every bit as adamant that incest should never occur. The Romans banned incest for religious reasons, too, and they would hardly have gotten that idea from the Jews, who were barely tolerated. If you live anywhere in the West, the law isn't going to care if the incest that took place was between consenting adults and family planning was not in the picture. The authorities are naturally going to care very much indeed if minors were involved, or if the incest resulted in pregnancy. No but religion has influence just like Marxism does. The idea of religion have/had a hold on people like no other ideas do. True but religion is a more effective vehicle. Are you gonna go faster on a bike or in a car? There are people who would consider homosexuality a bad thing because they believe god frowns upon it. If these 21st century people never came into contact with religion no such belief would be held. God only frowns upon certain things because people have decided as much. As for religion being a more effective vehicle than non-superstitious ideologies, possibly - because of the promise of a here-after - but what one needs to bear in mind is that all human ideas are manifestations of human nature, and that includes religion. Religion only exists because mankind has such a nature which makes religion inescapable. We are religious by nature, whether we subscribe to an actual religion or not. It comes not so much from superstition so much as our social nature, by which we seek a common identity with others. Go to a football match, and you'll see religion as fanatically observed as anything you'll ever see. And don't say that it's not the same, because it is - it is the same part of our nature which makes us chant stupid football songs at a stadium as chanting in a religious ceremony. Both serve the exact same purpose: coming together under the same banner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 20:08:01 GMT
It's not entirely fair to to do a one to one comparison given the overwhelming numbers discrepancy. They are plenty of religious people on average who have few children to none. Some don't have kids specifically because they focus on their religion. I think you will find a stronger correlation between class or geographic location than religion. Hell. I've met a few religious couples who were trying not to have children specifically because of their religious beliefs... This world being in the thralls of evil, and all that. That's the type of religion that ought to be encouraged and allowed to flourish, then. But is certainly in a small minority.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 26, 2017 20:24:53 GMT
No but religion has influence just like Marxism does. The idea of religion have/had a hold on people like no other ideas do. True but religion is a more effective vehicle. Are you gonna go faster on a bike or in a car? There are people who would consider homosexuality a bad thing because they believe god frowns upon it. If these 21st century people never came into contact with religion no such belief would be held. God only frowns upon certain things because people have decided as much. As for religion being a more effective vehicle than non-superstitious ideologies, possibly - because of the promise of a here-after - but what one needs to bear in mind is that all human ideas are manifestations of human nature, and that includes religion. Religion only exists because mankind has such a nature which makes religion inescapable. We are religious by nature, whether we subscribe to an actual religion or not. It comes not so much from superstition so much as our social nature, by which we seek a common identity with others. Go to a football match, and you'll see religion as fanatically observed as anything you'll ever see. And don't say that it's not the same, because it is - it is the same part of our nature which makes us chant stupid football songs at a stadium as chanting in a religious ceremony. Both serve the exact same purpose: coming together under the same banner. I never denied god frowns upon thingd because we do so. That is how religious moral teachings usually originate. I am not talking about their conception but their spreading. How are you defining religion in that context?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 23:04:51 GMT
I'm not sure why you cant simply be satisfied with being correct about the Bible, at one time, having no issue, with incest.
Instead you have to push it to the point where you are wrong.
There's nothing schizophrenic about how the Bible treated the matter and what people think is irrelevant. After all, some people think the Bible is schizophrenic about incest...
It has been argued that The Bible didn't have a problem with incest when, according to the story, MAN was just a few generations away from the "perfect" Adam & Eve.. and thus incest wouldn't have the detrimental effects that it would soon have/does have now. It, then, became law not to f your sisters/fathers/nieces/cousins when the actual "Law" was established. But.. I suppose some could see that as "schizophrenic"... If they were retarded.... probably caused by an act of incest. - "CUE THE RETARD'S RESPONSE!!" Even if one were to be cynics as to the reasons, schizophrenia doesn't fit it unless incest is encouraged and discouraged through the Bible's timeline which is not the case. This is far more an issue of chronology and then becomes the same tired controversy that leads to questions like "Why do Christians eat shrimp" The simplest answer is already revealed. Incest was allowed up to the Mosaic Law and then the Law forbade it and itr never became a norm again. I'm failing to see a need to read anything else into it. If Rabbit wants to by using the wrong terminology, that's his business of course...
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 23:15:59 GMT
tpfkar it forbade and didn't forbid. Depending on different parts. Like I pointed out to you, lightweights like John Calvin didn't think the Bible prohibited father-daughter sex, so it's just not as straightforward as your really really need. If smith the banker is flailing to compensate for the great inconsistencies and immoralities in the great book of myths, that's his standard procedure of course. If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 26, 2017 23:29:19 GMT
It has been argued that The Bible didn't have a problem with incest when, according to the story, MAN was just a few generations away from the "perfect" Adam & Eve.. and thus incest wouldn't have the detrimental effects that it would soon have/does have now. It, then, became law not to f your sisters/fathers/nieces/cousins when the actual "Law" was established. But.. I suppose some could see that as "schizophrenic"... If they were retarded.... probably caused by an act of incest. - "CUE THE RETARD'S RESPONSE!!" Even if one were to be cynics as to the reasons, schizophrenia doesn't fit it unless incest is encouraged and discouraged through the Bible's timeline which is not the case. This is far more an issue of chronology and then becomes the same tired controversy that leads to questions like "Why do Christians eat shrimp" The simplest answer is already revealed. Incest was allowed up to the Mosaic Law and then the Law forbade it and itr never became a norm again. I'm failing to see a need to read anything else into it. If Rabbit wants to by using the wrong terminology, that's his business of course... Once again.. The guy is just a fcking moron. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 23:40:59 GMT
tpfkar So speaketh the cerebral lead bellower of the coward brigade. brains
|
|