Liekiller:


Did "god" say that? Or is it rather just your opinion? And why does it concern you anyway? You don't have to do any of it if you don't like it, but others doing it causes you and others no harm. So what's the point obsessing about it? Are there no REAL problems you could dedicate your time and energy to?

From my experience, it is always irredeemable perverts that lose sleep over the intimate activities of others.

plaetton:


What is wrong with 1-3?

Abraham practiced in-breeding by marrying his own sister.

Almost all living creatures practice mouth action and behind-based intimacy.
So, I presume that all going to hell on account of their sexual positions?

abraham practiced in-breeding, but the divine law come from God,abraham is only a human and we all know humans are not perfect.

plaetton:


From my experience, it is always irredeemable perverts that lose sleep over the intimate activities of others.

na true talk. Like all the "godly" priests abusing children, raping women, and whatever else they do. And all the "good Christian" family fathers cheating their wives with whores and school girls

plaetton:


So, according to you now, god allowed intimate perversions in order to allow humans to multiply,thereafter, he outlawed them?

incest was not considered a sin
and was not prohibited for Adam and
early man. If the race was to populate
and fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28 ,
there is little doubt that Adam’s sons
and daughters had to have married
their own sisters and brothers if the
race was to populate the earth, but due
to the purity of the race as evidenced
also by the long length of life, there
were no adverse effects as we see
happening today. Gradually, as the
effects of sin took its toll on the human
race, marrying one’s own sister, etc.,
began to create hereditary problems.

Here is Ryrie’s comment on this issue
from his book Basic Theology (1986 ed)

Though by many inerrantists the
question of where Cain got his wife
would not be considered a problem at
all, this question is often used by
those who try to demonstrate that the
Bible is unreliable in what it claims.
How could it claim that Adam and Eve
were the first human beings who had
two sons, one of whom murdered the
other, and yet who produced a large
race of people? Clearly, the Bible does
teach that Adam and Eve were the
first created human beings. The Lord
affirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9 . The
genealogy of Christ is traced back to
Adam (Luke 3:38 ). Jude 14 identifies
Enoch as the seventh from Adam. This
could hardly mean the seventh from
“mankind,” an interpretation that
would be necessary if Adam were not
an individual as some claim. Clearly,
Cain murdered Abel and yet many
people were born. Where did Cain get
his wife?

We know that Adam and Eve had
other sons and daughters in addition
to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4 ), and
if there was only one original family,
then the first marriages had to be
between brothers and sisters. Such
marriages in the beginning were not
harmful. Incest is dangerous because
inherited mutant genes that produce
deformed, sickly, or moronic children
are more likely to find expression in
children if those genes are carried by
both parents. Certainly, Adam and
Eve, coming from the creative hand of
God, had no such mutant genes.
Therefore, marriages between
brothers and sisters, or nieces and
nephews in the first and second
generations following Adam and Eve
would not have been dangerous.
Many, many generations later, by the
time of Moses, incest was then
prohibited in the Mosaic laws
undoubtedly for two reasons: first,
such mutations that caused deformity
had accumulated to the point where
such unions were genetically
dangerous, and second, it was
forbidden because of the licentious
practices of the Egyptians and
Canaanites and as a general
protection against such in society. It
should also be noted that in addition
to the Bible most other legal codes
refuse to sanction marriages of close
relatives.

malvisguy212:
abraham practiced in-breeding, but the divine law come from God,abraham is only a human and we all know humans are not perfect.

I sense a big wave of cognitive dissonance in the air.

But god didn't complain when god practiced inbreeding.

Soyou are saying that what was good for abraham is not necessarily good for modern humans?

So we can say that the Descendants of Abraham are the products of a documented sexual perversion.

So god makes exceptions for things that he is against?

Ukutsgp:



incest was not considered a sin
and was not prohibited for Adam and
early man. If the race was to populate
and fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28 ,
there is little doubt that Adam’s sons
and daughters had to have married
their own sisters and brothers if the
race was to populate the earth, but due
to the purity of the race as evidenced
also by the long length of life, there
were no adverse effects as we see
happening today. Gradually, as the
effects of sin took its toll on the human
race, marrying one’s own sister, etc.,
began to create hereditary problems.

Here is Ryrie’s comment on this issue
from his book Basic Theology (1986 ed)

Though by many inerrantists the
question of where Cain got his wife
would not be considered a problem at
all, this question is often used by
those who try to demonstrate that the
Bible is unreliable in what it claims.
How could it claim that Adam and Eve
were the first human beings who had
two sons, one of whom murdered the
other, and yet who produced a large
race of people? Clearly, the Bible does
teach that Adam and Eve were the
first created human beings. The Lord
affirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9 . The
genealogy of Christ is traced back to
Adam (Luke 3:38 ). Jude 14 identifies
Enoch as the seventh from Adam. This
could hardly mean the seventh from
“mankind,” an interpretation that
would be necessary if Adam were not
an individual as some claim. Clearly,
Cain murdered Abel and yet many
people were born. Where did Cain get
his wife?

We know that Adam and Eve had
other sons and daughters in addition
to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4 ), and
if there was only one original family,
then the first marriages had to be
between brothers and sisters. Such
marriages in the beginning were not
harmful. Incest is dangerous because
inherited mutant genes that produce
deformed, sickly, or moronic children
are more likely to find expression in
children if those genes are carried by
both parents. Certainly, Adam and
Eve, coming from the creative hand of
God, had no such mutant genes.
Therefore, marriages between
brothers and sisters, or nieces and
nephews in the first and second
generations following Adam and Eve
would not have been dangerous.
Many, many generations later, by the
time of Moses, incest was then
prohibited in the Mosaic laws
undoubtedly for two reasons: first,
such mutations that caused deformity
had accumulated to the point where
such unions were genetically
dangerous, and second, it was
forbidden because of the licentious
practices of the Egyptians and
Canaanites and as a general
protection against such in society. It
should also be noted that in addition
to the Bible most other legal codes
refuse to sanction marriages of close
relatives.

When you post things copied from sites, you should endeavor to acknowledge the source.

@plaetton and liekiller.


It is important to distinguish between incestuous
relationships prior to God commanding against
them ( Leviticus 18:6-18 ) and incest that occurred
after God’s commands had been revealed. Until
God commanded against it, it was not incest. It
was just marrying a close relative. It is
undeniable that God allowed incest in the early
centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were
indeed the only two human beings God created,
their sons and daughters would have had no
other choice but to marry and reproduce with
their siblings and close relatives. The second
generation would have had to marry their cousins,
just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah
would have had to intermarry amongst their
cousins. The reason incest is so strongly
discouraged in the world today is the
understanding that reproduction between closely
related individuals has a much higher risk of
causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days
of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to
the fact that the human genetic code was
relatively free of defects.

It seems, then, that by the time of Moses, the
human genetic code had become polluted enough
that close intermarriage was no longer safe. So,
God commanded against sexual relations with
siblings, half-siblings, parents, and aunts/uncles
( Genesis 2:24 seems to indicate that marriage
and sexual relations between parents and children
were never allowed by God). It was not until
many centuries later that humanity discovered the
genetic reason that incest is unsafe and unwise.
While the idea of incest is disgusting and
abhorrent to us today, as it should be, we have
to remember why it is sinful, that is, the genetic
problems. Since this was not an issue in the early
centuries of humanity, what occurred between
Adam and Eve’s children, Abraham and Sarah,
and Amram and Jochebed, should not be viewed
as incest. Again, the key point is that sexual
relations between close relatives must be viewed
differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not
become “incest” until God commanded against it

Ukutsgp:
@plaetton and liekiller.


It is important to distinguish between incestuous
relationships prior to God commanding against
them ( Leviticus 18:6-18 ) and incest that occurred
after God’s commands had been revealed. Until
God commanded against it, it was not incest. It
was just marrying a close relative. It is
undeniable that God allowed incest in the early
centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were
indeed the only two human beings God created,
their sons and daughters would have had no
other choice but to marry and reproduce with
their siblings and close relatives. The second
generation would have had to marry their cousins,
just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah
would have had to intermarry amongst their
cousins. The reason incest is so strongly
discouraged in the world today is the
understanding that reproduction between closely
related individuals has a much higher risk of
causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days
of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to
the fact that the human genetic code was
relatively free of defects.

It seems, then, that by the time of Moses, the
human genetic code had become polluted enough
that close intermarriage was no longer safe. So,
God commanded against sexual relations with
siblings, half-siblings, parents, and aunts/uncles
( Genesis 2:24 seems to indicate that marriage
and sexual relations between parents and children
were never allowed by God). It was not until
many centuries later that humanity discovered the
genetic reason that incest is unsafe and unwise.
While the idea of incest is disgusting and
abhorrent to us today, as it should be, we have
to remember why it is sinful, that is, the genetic
problems. Since this was not an issue in the early
centuries of humanity, what occurred between
Adam and Eve’s children, Abraham and Sarah,
and Amram and Jochebed, should not be viewed
as incest. Again, the key point is that sexual
relations between close relatives must be viewed
differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not
become “incest” until God commanded against it

The first bolded is the silliest statement I read this month.
It is important to distinguish between this type of incest and that type of incest?

WTF?

Are you sane at all?

I guessed you were a pervert.
Only a pervert could make this kind of hilarious statement.

plaetton:


Yeah. Lead the way. Suicide is a good option.

..u misundastood mi...

plaetton:

When you post things copied from sites, you should endeavor to acknowledge the source.

dnt u see a name there? at least i still have many books regarding the subject.

plaetton:


I sense a big wave of cognitive dissonance in the air.

But god didn't complain when god practiced inbreeding.

Soyou are saying that what was good for abraham is not necessarily good for modern humans?

So we can say that the Descendants of Abraham are the products of a documented sexual perversion.

So god makes exceptions for things that he is against?

did God ask abraham to practiced in-breeding? Let me make somthing clear to you,i have more advantage than abraham,i sopposed to be more holy than him.

plaetton:


The first bolded is the silliest statement I read this month.
It is important to distinguish between this type of incest and that type of incest?

WTF?

Are you sane at all?

I guessed you were a pervert.
Only a pervert could make this kind of hilarious statement.

it was not viewed as incest until God's command forbids it. if u do it, u are on your own. dnt be a pervert.

plaetton:


I sense a big wave of cognitive dissonance in the air.

But god didn't complain when god practiced inbreeding.

Soyou are saying that what was good for abraham is not necessarily good for modern humans?

So we can say that the Descendants of Abraham are the products of a documented sexual perversion.

So god makes exceptions for things that he is against?

it either u obey God or perish in hell for disobedience.

malvisguy212:
did God ask abraham to practiced in-breeding? Let me make somthing clear to you,i have more advantage than abraham,i sopposed to be more holy than him.

So, to put it in another way, Abraham's i.nce.st was like a form of self-defence, he had no choice but to do it?

Ukutsgp:
it was not viewed as incest until God's command forbids it. if u do it, u are on your own. dnt be a pervert.

gosh, the mindboggling C-R-A-P you people come up with to deal with obvious flaws in your unholy holy book!!!

Ukutsgp:
it either u obey God or perish in hell for disobedience.

I can't figure it who is more schizophrenic right now, you or your invisible sky monster.

plaetton:


Yeah.
I guess we can also say that hand was not made for f.ond.ling, or that breasts are only for infants.
Right?
Infact, we can go further by saying that pubic hair should not be shaved , and the pubic region is not made to be unnaturally bare.
Further, if god wanted you to fly , he would have given you wings, so why bother getting on an airplane?

The point is that if we had left the world the way your invisible skydaddy had supposedly left it, you would still be unclad in the jungle right now hunting rats for dinner.

this is so daft. u have to check the meaning of sexual perversion first.

Liekiller:


Did "god" say that? Or is it rather just your opinion? And why does it concern you anyway? You don't have to do any of it if you don't like it, but others doing it causes you and others no harm. So what's the point obsessing about it? Are there no REAL problems you could dedicate your time and energy to?

Roman 1:26-27

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1 cor 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, a nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

see u tomorrow.

plaetton:


So, to put it in another way, Abraham's i.nce.st was like a form of self-defence, he had no choice but to do it?

i dont understand you, self defence from who?who is attacking him?

Liekiller:


gosh, the mindboggling C-R-A-P you people come up with to deal with obvious flaws in your unholy holy book!!!

can you quote the flaws in the bible? I challange you to bring a verse in the bible were God contradict himself.

Ukutsgp:
this is so daft. u have to check the meaning of sexual perversion first.

R..ape and in.cest are intimate perversions.
Funny enough, they are the intimate perversions most practiced by biblical heroes.
Even more funny is the holy ghost itself is guilty of the r.a.pe of a young maiden called Mary, from whence came the supposed redeemer of your soul, according to your holy scriptures.
Funny how redemption is coming from perversion.

Therefore sir, sexual perversion is embedded in the very fabric of your faith.

You sir, are a certified pervert, because you worry about intimate things that other folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

malvisguy212:
i dont understand you, self defence from who?who is attacking him?

I used the term self-defence to help you out because you were trying to justify Abraham's in.cest.

plaetton:

I used the term self-defence to help you out because you were trying to justify Abraham's in.cest.

yes,abraham sinned, so is david. My point is they are not immortal,but God find favour in them.

malvisguy212:
yes,abraham sinned, so is david. My point is they are not immortal,but God find favour in them.

Then I have a problem with your god's moral compass.
It's too far below my moral compass.

In fact, I think he is post-diagnosed as being schizophrenic.

You see why religious faith makes no sense?

plaetton:


Then I have a problem with your god's moral compass.
It's too far below my moral compass.

In fact, I think he is post-diagnosed as being schizophrenic.

You see why religious faith makes no sense?

hell fire is your destination Mr plaetton unless you remove your mind from filthy lucre

Thugnificent:
hell fire is your destination Mr plaetton unless you remove your mind from filthy lucre

First, hellfire is for religious imbec.iles.
I reject your delusions of an invisible skydaddy, so by rejecting that delusion, I also reject the entire package of devil, evil spirits, demons, angels, heaven and hellfire.

I do not smoke those drugs.

As for filthy lucre, I do not put my mind nor build my life on filthy lucre.

If I did, I would be a pastor of the church of Jesus christ.

Ukutsgp:
Roman 1:26-27

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

could you possibly put this into words that a normal person from the 21st century can understand?

plaetton:


First, hellfire is for religious imbec.iles.
I reject your delusions of an invisible skydaddy, so by rejecting that delusion, I also reject the entire package of devil, evil spirits, demons, angels, heaven and hellfire.

I do not smoke those drugs.

As for filthy lucre, I do not put my mind nor build my life on filthy lucre.

If I did, I would be a pastor of the church of Jesus christ.

So you're not afraid of eternal torment? and besides, why are you clearly in support of intimate perversion?

malvisguy212:
can you quote the flaws in the bible? I challange you to bring a verse in the bible were God contradict himself.

I have no time for any quoting wars, and I see no point in it. The entire bible contradicts the idea of a loving & caring God, and even more so does organized religion nowadays contradict any useful lesson that could possibly be found in the bible. Several instances of general foolishness have been pointed out in this thread. Furthermore, any sane person does not need an unholy holy book to know that harming others is wrong. I'd wish you believers would focus on that aspect more than the things adults do in their bedrooms that harm nobody at all.

Thugnificent:
So you're not afraid of eternal torment? and besides, why are you clearly in support of intimate perversion?

No sir, cognitive dissonance is the equivalence of eternal torment.

In what way Am I in support of intimate perversion?.

I am just pointing out that one should remove the log in one's eyes before you notice the speck in another person's eye.

The scriptures are filled with intimate perversion sanctioned by the so-called god.

The op's own obsession with the with intimate acts of others is itself a form of intimate perversion.

Liekiller:


I have no time for any quoting wars, and I see no point in it. The entire bible contradicts the idea of a loving & caring God, and even more so does organized religion nowadays contradict any useful lesson that could possibly be found in the bible. Several instances of general foolishness have been pointed out in this thread. Furthermore, any sane person does not need an unholy holy book to know that harming others is wrong. I'd wish you believers would focus on that aspect more than the things adults do in their bedrooms that harm nobody at all.

God said " thou shall not kill" , then later he ordered Moses to commit acts of genocide.

God said " though shall not steal, thou shall not envy" , but he led the Israelites to envy , kill, steal the land and fortunes of other tribes, as well as capturing virgins which they shared amongst themselves, with a portion for the lord.

I am still wondering what the lord did with his own share of captured virgins.