₦airaland Forum

The question of the legality (or marality) of incest arose in a separate thread and I thought this was interesting a subject on its own merit to warrant its own thread.

On the aforementioned thread, the point was being debated that some countries have incest outlawed while in others, the laws have been changed recent to not explicitly outlaw it [incest]. I asked the questions;

1) Why is incest illegal or immoral?

2) Whose rights or property(ies) does incest violates?

What do you think?

Those who believe a supernatural realm exists have the following question to address;

1) How do we come to KNOW [/b]about it?

2) Does the supernatural interact with the natural? Does the supernatural [b]influence, control [/b]and [b]modify [/b]the natural? If it does, by what mechanism?

3) Can the natural, in turn [b]control, influence [/b]and [b]modify [/b]the supernatural realm?

4) How does one distinguish the [b]supernatural from the not-understood-yet-but-natural?

Can anyone provide a coherent definition of the supernatural and explain why such a realm should exist?

pilgrim.1:
__________

Added:

I'd like to see clear statements that are beyond excuses. I worry about the excuses so far to wash away these examples, which even at the onset I explained at the basic level are not the more cogent examples that tend to my appeal. Someone raised the objection offline about that, and now I hope he can see why I only left it there as so for the atheist to make comments. Now the gentleman can confirm my guess that all we may read from the atheist are excuses - despite the fact that Safran himself did not make such excuses but affirmed and authenticated his experiences.

I'll be back later to see if anyone has made a more substantial point.

You have posited the existence of a supernatural realm.  Don't you think you owe it to your discussants and yourself to justfy this position first?   How do you distinguish the supernatural from the not-understood-yet-but-natural?

huxley2:
If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1)  How do we come to know about it?

2)  Does the supernatural interact with the natural?  Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural?  If it does, by what mechanism?

3)  Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

pilgrim.1:
These questions have been asked in various ways, and I've addressed them back to the atheists. You guys are not getting away on the cheap bus by asking others to address your worry. The basic approach here is this: if the supernatural does not exist in all possible worlds, what do you do with those cases where atheists themselves are telling us such things about what is beyond naturalism?

Is this some sort of avoidance strategy?

What kind of statement is this?

pilgrim.1:
if the supernatural does not exist in all possible worlds, what do you do with those cases where atheists themselves are telling us such things about what is beyond naturalism?

Not only does it not make sense, it is diversionary.   My earlier comments address the question of whether a supernatural realm exist,  NOT what some atheists think.   We have discussed this many times here - atheism by itself DOES NOT address the existence or non existence of the supernatural.  Atheism address the existence/non-existence of god(s) and beliefs thereof.

So when I ask a question about the existence (or non)  of the supernatural realm, I expect an HONEST answer to address just that, the supernatural.   There are many millions of atheists who are also supernaturalists and irrationalists.   Why should I listen to these atheists when they have not justified their prior beliefs in the existence of the supernatural?

If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1) How do we come to know about it?

2) Does the supernatural interact with the natural? Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural? If it does, by what mechanism?

3) Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

Sagamite:
Mainly because they are disgusted by it. It is a law based on morality.

Minorly because they could be possibly negative defect of an offspring from an incestual relationship.

I see, but should we found our legal systems on the disgust factor of certain acts? I am disgusted by people who eat snails - so should we consider the eating of snails immoral?

There is some mileage in the argument about the risk of offspring defects, but we still get millions of children born each year with defects from parents who are not related. Take for instance, should we legislate against parents who are carriers of sickle-cell anaemia having children because of the risk of their offsprings developing fullblown anaemia?

C2H5OH:
Incest (or several variations of incest) can be illegal depending on your jurisdiction. Consult the local government office near you.
Laws are written for many reasons - most usually to protect people from harm. Laws are written to ascertain the will of the people. Laws also reflect their morals and codes of conduct. Laws communicate what is tolerable or intolerable. If the people occupying a particular country find incest immoral, it is logical that they would implement a law to ban it.

It could also be due to the defects that can occur at birth. And by that it would be for the greater benefit of the people to implement a law to proibit the act from taking place.
As I presented above, there are quite a few possible reasons why it could be considered immoral to a people. It could also be immoral based on your personal standards or religious values.


Now injecting some personal vendetta into the matter. Don't you find it disgusting? I am grossed out by it. It makes my stomach turn just thinking about it.

Am afraid, but you have not answered the questions, but simply restated the fact that it (incest) is considered illegal and immoral in most countries. I was asking for why most societies consider incest immoral.

Take for instance, if I had asked why thieving is considered immoral in most societies, you could say - because it deprives a property owner of their possession. In the same vein, why is incest immoral? Whose rights or properties does incest violates?

On what basis is incest illegal? Is it illegal because it is immoral and if so what makes it immoral? Why is it immoral?

pilgrim.1:
[b]However, I may not be a fan of Darwinian evolution, but this statement in yours: ("what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism " simply does not hold grounds at the moment in the discussions we're having thus far between two worldviews: theism and atheism. [/b]Like I said, I'd not like to lose sight of my basic approach so that the gist of our discussion does not get lost in unrelated matters. To this end, I've taken time to offer a "scenario 1" for starters, to the end that those who deny evidence for the supernatural may take a step back and observe phenomena that are clearly beyond their worldview of naturalism. I'd be happy to see views expressed in that regard presently.

Cheers.

Did you read this to imply that I think "evolution" explains theism or atheism?

pilgrim.1:
Hallo huxley2,

What do you mean by this? Evolution has all the answers to what?

I don't know what those who assert such may mean by "evolution has all the answers"; rather, I made the point that not all atheists make such claims about evolution having answers to all possible such questions as they may discuss. I think, however, that some of those I've come across who make such assertions have taken Richard Dawkins' statement to far-reaching conclusions:

             Question:
             WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?

             https://www.edge.org/q2005/images/dawkins100.jpg
             Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University.

              I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe,
              is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes
              late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution
              and therefore cannot underlie the universe.'

That was Dawkins' featured response to the question above from the Edge Annual Question—2005 (World Question Center). Often in discussions, I've read some atheists making the kind of assertions (perhaps unwittingly) that evolution has all the answers to the questions of our world. I gladly noted that Tùdor is not one of those making such assertions.

Hello Pilgrim,

I see your point but I think you are overstretching the point.  The point Dawkins is making here is that wherever humans have looked and found complexity, it is generally explained in terms of evolution.  In biological systems, Darwinian evolution explains the development of complex biological system.  In cosmic system, humans have also detected complexity arising from simple non-complex systems.  So in the strict scientific sense, what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism rather than one-off design.

Now to extend such observation to other universes is a purely valid scientific approach (call induction reasoning), albeit a less accurate approach. If you feel that such inductive reasoning is a danger, consider the following question:

Would a "world" that did not come about by slow "evolutionary" means be any different from a world that arose through "evolution"?  (Note, I use the term "evolution" here to mean slow and gradual trend towards complexity, as oppose from Darwin evolution,  which is a subclass of "evolution".

If a Designed World and an Evolutionary World are indistinguishable, what reason have we got for positing a Designed World when we have plenty of evidence for an evolutionary one?

pilgrim.1:
Yes, I agree with your basic point there - it's not so much about a debate between the Bible and evolution as it is between two worldviews: (Christian-) theism and atheism. You surprise me though, for you're one of the few sensible ones to hold that evolution hasn't all the answers. . "yet". Many assume that it does. And research in human embryo, whatever the results, does not "prove" anything for atheism, nor "disprove" the basic claim of theism.

What do you mean by this? Evolution has all the answers to what?

JJYOU:
are you gay too?

Did anything I posted suggest I am gay? Supposing I am gay - how does it matter?

m_nwankwo:
@Mahabone
Thank you for your comment. I am not a Budhist and neither do I draw what I state from any of the indian spiritual literatures. I am absolutely certain about reincarnation and have several experiences in that connection. Reincarnation is a consequence of the Law of Love. The law of karma is just a part of the Law of Love. You already stated and correctly so that our choices, thoughts, motives, words and intutions in this life determine our fate in the next life. Why then will it will be hard to see that what is happening to us in this life is determined by what we did in the past and that include our activities in previous earthlifes as well as our activities in beyound the earthly enviroments. The spirit remains what it when God created it, that is if it was created a female, it remains so. But the spirit has coverings or cloacks, the last of which is our earthly body. These cloacks change if the spirit changes the nature of its activities from male to female and vice versa. If  any of the covering of the spirit is different from the original nature of the spirit, that is if any of the covering of a female spirit has a male structure, then a distortion has occured. While the other coverings of the spirit can automatically change becuase they are more mobile, the physical body cannot change immediately because of its density, the change in the physical body will then take place in the next earthlife. Thus my point is that it is the spirit that caused the distortion of its cloacks and only the spirit  can reverse the distortion. To reverse the distortion, the distorted soul requires help form God.

You of all people, as a man of science, must know that your personal certainty counts for nothing.   Show us the evidence and better still the mechanism for reincarnation.

m_nwankwo:
God created man as a seed and the decision to remain a seed  or develop into a tree (human spirit with a personality) is the choice of the seed. Many seeds choose to remain as seed (spirit germs) and many others chose to develop into a human spirit. Those that choose to develop decided by the nature of their free will whether to distort or not distort their bodies, wheather to be born in poverty or royalty, wheather to be born a man or a woman, wheather to be born with perfect genes or inherit genetic disorders etc. The point I am making is that God have given the spirit seed the inherent abilty to determine its fate through its free will. Thus we decide our fate using the power of God. If we use this power as God wills, then blesings, love and harmony will follow us and our eviroment but if we use the power of God in disobedience to the will of God, then destruction and evil will be the consequence. Thus the choice is free but we are irrevocably bound to the consequences of our choice. No one has a right to condem gay people or any other sinner for that matter for no one is so pure that he or does not need cleansing himself. The path to true spiritual growth lies in love of all that God created without reservation. Stay blessed.

How does  this tally with the scientifically accepted fact that humans evolved from primates many millions of years ago?  At what stage did god inserminate the humans with the seed?

devimcy:
this question is like asking if some people were born thieves, or born adulterers, or born hemp smokers, or born looters, or born lesbians or even born madmen my friend evil is evil. i don't agree that there is any born gay, it is developed through desire consciously or unconsciously like every other sin, one can also be possesed by the spirit as a result of one thing or the other to believe that one is born gay is to believe that the act can not be cured. In a sense justifying the act and its perpetrators. most gays in African set up are due to one cult or the other. some of us that know history very well can tell you how this so called gay n lesbian started. remember Jesus Christ said in the beginning it was not so.

Vacuous boasting. C'mon tell us then.

devimcy:
this question is like asking if some people were born thieves, or born adulterers, or born hemp smokers, or born looters, or born lesbians or even born madmen my friend evil is evil. i don't agree that there is any born gay, it is developed through desire consciously or unconsciously like every other sin, one can also be possesed by the spirit as a result of one thing or the other to believe that one is born gay is to believe that the act can not be cured. In a sense justifying the act and its perpetrators. most gays in African set up are due to one cult or the other. some of us that know history very well can tell you how this so called gay n lesbian started. remember Jesus Christ said in the beginning it was not so.

Vacuous boasting. C'mon tell us then.

MY dear, prayers are the LAST things you need. You need liberating from the grip of barbaric doctrines of bible and Christianity. You will only become sad and depress if you repress your natural instinct.

The question you have got to ask yourself is this - Where did this tendecy for homosexuality come from?

Image123:
And I guess the new chick is a natural occurence. Activists will allow chicks to be brought in but will not allow female penguins. Talk about a Ph.D in doctoring.

OH, yes. Everything that exists is natural. From having sex with camels or with ones grandmother, cannibalism, etc, etc. These are ALL natural acts. Can anything exist that is NOT natural?

Funny how those benighted apologists for homophobia (usually the bigotted Christian literalists and bible bashing faith-heads)  who claim that homosexuality is "unnatutral" are avoiding addressing this thread.  They perform their quintessential ignore-the-evidence act and bury their heads in the stinking cesspit of the bible.  What is this world coming to, with these Christians on the loose?

Taken from BBC

Two "gay" male penguins have hatched a chick and are now rearing it as its adoptive parents, says a German zoo.

The zoo, in Bremerhaven, northern Germany, says the adult males - Z and Vielpunkt - were given an egg which was rejected by its biological parents.

It says the couple are now happily rearing the chick, said to have reached four weeks old.

The zoo made headlines in 2005 over plans to "test" the sexual orientation of penguins with homosexual traits.

Three pairs of male penguins had been seen attempting to mate with each other and trying to hatch offspring from stones.

Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do
Bremerhaven zoo

The zoo flew in four females in a bid to get the endangered birds to reproduce - but quickly abandoned the scheme after causing outrage among gay rights activists, who accused it of interfering in the animals' behaviour.

The six "gay" penguins remain at the zoo, among them Z and Vielpunkt who are now rearing the chick together after being given the rejected egg.

"Z and Vielpunkt, both males, gladly accepted their 'Easter gift' and got straight down to raising it," said a zoo statement.

"Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do. The two happy fathers spend their days attentively protecting, caring for and feeding their adopted offspring."

Humboldt penguins are normally found in coastal Peru and Chile, but their numbers have been dwindling due to overfishing, reports the AFP news agency.

'Drive to mate'

There have been previous reports of exclusive male-to-male pairings among penguins, some of which have also included the rearing of chicks.

Homosexual behaviour is well documented in many different animals, but it is not understood in detail, says Professor Stuart West, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford.

Professor West says it has been suggested that homosexual activity could serve various purposes - for instance, it may relate to social bonding and establishment of dominance among bonobo chimps, while in some bird species, females may come together to rear young.

Other animals may simply exhibit a "drive to mate", while others may, like humans, enjoy non-procreative sexual activity.

"Homosexuality is nothing unusual among animals," Bremerhaven zoo said on Wednesday.

"Sex and coupling up in our world do not necessarily have anything to do with reproduction."

noetic2:
Well stated.

This has been the point other NL christians including daviddylan and olaadegbu have been making.
Why should anyone sit back and await the evidence of the other? It is for the sake of knowledge that we all seek evidences/proofs from all those buttressing ANY argument. If God does not exist. . . simply prove it, . . , . .I don't know why this is so difficult for NL atheists.

Atheist need to disprove the existence of god in the same way that Christians need to disprove the existence of Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata. Once I see evidence that disproves the existence of these gods( Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata) then I shall show you the evidence that disproves your god.

See the character of god?

What a god!

noetic2:
If God is NOT love . . . . what is the alternative?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? God is barbarism, violence, rape, murder, cannibalism, human sacrifice, vindictive, etc, etc.

[size=18pt]More Religious and Devout Young Women Have Abortions  Despite being educated in religious schools[/size]

Reposted from here


A new study published in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior shows that young women in their teens or early twenties who have attended religious schools are more likely than their peers to get an abortion, despite their beliefs. In fact, the research points out, these girls are more likely than those in the public school system to get pregnant without being too mature or married. The findings are very weird, because private religious schools, regardless of the god they promote, pride themselves in enforcing a very strict policy as far as contacts between their students go.


“This research suggests that young, unmarried women are confronted with a number of social, financial and health-related factors that can make it difficult for them to act according to religious values when deciding whether to keep or abort a pregnancy,” explained City University of New York (CUNY) John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center assistant professor, sociologist Amy Adamczyk. She is also the author of the new paper.

For her research, the expert kept an eye on 1,504 unmarried and never-divorced young women in 125 different schools around the United States, aged 26 or younger. The goal of the investigation was to determine exactly how religious behavior influenced the young girls' decisions to have an abortion. Other studies have shown a strong link between religion and abortion attitudes, but this correlation has thus far remained largely unstudied.

A quarter of the women that were a part of the research reported that they had an abortion during it, but the number is certainly larger. Adamczyk said that, in this type of studies, the results usually do not reflect reality accurately, in that the numbers of women who have abortions, but don't want to, or are too afraid to admit are a lot larger. When analyzing the variables in the research, the expert learned that neither religious involvement, nor frequency of prayer or the perception of religion's importance has any bearing on the women's decision.

“Religious school attendance is not necessarily indicative of conservative religious beliefs because students attend these schools for a variety of reasons. These schools tend to generate high levels of commitment and strong social ties among their students and families, so abortion rates could be higher due to the potential for increased feelings of shame related to an extramarital birth,” the expert concluded.

noetic2:
put yourself in all of these scenarios. . . .what would u do?

What would you do to avoid the risk of sinning?

Well, they advertise to impress the credulous, ignorant and gullible. And of course, to fleece them which is the main reason they advertise.

skyone:
I have come to my conclusion that the only way to avoid every other sin is to avoid

(i) Lying

Supposing you lived in Germany in the 1930s and were hiding some Jews.  And you were approached by some hostile Nazi officers looking for Jews to send to the gas chambers.  The nazi officers asked you - "Do you know where any Jews are hiding?"

What you be your response?

skyone:
(ii) Disobedience

Said Nazi officers and now in power.  Would you obey and disobey their authorities?  Or supposing God asked you to kill your child, would you obey?

skyone:
(iii) Lustfulness  and

If you are married, did you ever feel sexaully attracted to your partner?

skyone:
(iv) Coveteousness.

Have you never wanted something that you did not initially own?  Have you ever wanted for a car, a house, a partner, a piece of jewellery, some tasty dinner, etc, etc?  If you have ever wanted these things, then you have wanted things that most have been owned by someone else, right?

JeSoul:
Have you no ounce of respect or decency anywhere in your calloused bones? _{since it has long been evident you don't have a heart.}

   This is a christian topic soliciting christian responses. Please go and rant elsewhere.

Ah, could stop laughing about this one. How come this is a RANT? I have simply just showed you bible verses that indicatethe way the early church used to behave and be run. How is any of that my opinion?

Why do you christians pick&choose from ya bibles? DO ya think dog is happy with the way you guys mis-handle his very own bark (words)?

This is how a true church should be, following Peter's example narrated in Acts 4: 32 - Acts 5- 11;



Acts 4:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Acts 5:

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.



Can Peter's behaviour here be described as anything near compassionate? He seemed to be only concerned for the money from this couple. Many pastors in today's churches are behaving like Peter in Acts. They are only concerned about the money the congregations brings in and are lacking in the brotherly/sisterly compassion you would expect them to have. So beware which church you patronise.

This is how a true christian church should function.

Why are Christian so inclined to change the bible to fit a certain agenda. Christian history is replete with examples of massaging the text to create a given impression and promote a doctrinal line. Watch this video from the Youtuber TruthSurge for an eloquent example of the Christian lying about their "Word of Dog"