₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus:
so apart from Aquinas who else have you read?

I particularly love Saint Augustine. One of my favorite quotes.

"If you choose parts of the scriptures to believe and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself"

Ubenedictus:
you too... Thought you were anti anything Catholic.

Aquinas is a Catholic theologian.

I am the farthest thing from anti-catholicism.

In fact, I'd take catholic liturgy any day instead of a Pentecostal service.

I have been a Catholic for the most part of my life, an alter boy and later a seminarian.

Unbeliever - Yes
Critic - Yes
Anti- Christian - No
Anti- theist - No
Anti catholic - No.

I enjoy studying Catholic theologians.

One can't really have a balanced view until they have conclusively studied admirably that which they criticize.

Ubenedictus:
So you read Suma theologia

It's a good read

Any working link?

hakeem4:
This is a beautiful piece from johnydon22.

It is rather disappointing that religious people (Judeo-Christian that is) aren't attacking it.

Maximus69:
The only problem atheists have is misinformed churchgoers NOT the Bible nor Christianity!

Most atheists were former churchgoers so they've concluded in their minds that since all what they knew never made sense, then the Bible is not to be trusted!

But when they finally come in contact with true Christians, and all their intelligence is beaten flat and silenced {Isaiah 54:17} and they become restless, it's as if they've been robbed by circumstances.

And that's the TRUTH of the matter, Jesus likens divine wisdom to a key that unlocks the door to the figurative room where true LOVE, JOY and PEACE are kept!

Those who have that key are peaceful and blissful always, because it helps them to assess the level of other people's intellect without stress, and after doing so they walk away satisfied! Luke 10:5-6
But on the other hand, those who thought they're wise WITHOUT THIS KEY will become restless {Matthew 11:25} because it will become obvious that they've been outwitted intellectually so they'll be feeling empty, naked and apoplectic!

When your heart is filled with love, joy and peace {Galatians 5:22} you'll become a blessing to everyone around you. To your husband, wife, children, parents, colleagues, boss, classmates, neighbors will all be happy for having you around! Matthew 7:12

So if you find out that you're NOT having that peace within you, then don't blame others because each person is to be held responsible for their heart conditions. No matter what happens around you, that inner peace will always be there if you truthfully have that KEY! Philippians 4:7

You are legit suckin_g your own dic_k too hard now.

Is this how you do it? You congratulate yourself and declare victory when debating with someone?

tintingz:
Good argument from the OP.

We are waiting for believers to help us rationalize the problems

FOLYKAZE:
The question, why do we pray?

You see, the mind of a man simply remodel something into person which they can communicate verbally with. It happens alot even when we don't notice it. The fact is, when these stuff are important to us and are not a person, we tend to deal with them as a person. Hence, the reason why some pray to God or something. This doesn't mean God is a person.

I noticed too that people pray to the court of law. Even when the court of justice is a God, it is not a person.

Therefore, people pray to God because there mind captured it as human or someone they can converse with.

In Yoruba spirituality, sacrifices is more important than prayer. Infact, they don't pray to Eledumare as he/she/it does not interfere with activities in the physical world. Sacrifices as defined in Ifa is exchange (could be between human and god or human to human).

The Judeo-Christian God described in the argument above is highly personalized.

A reply referencing other God(s) wouldn't necessarily fit because it is based on the inconsistencies of the Judeo-Christian God defining characters and features.

CAPSLOCKED:
THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE, BUT YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING FROM BELIEVERS.

If it gets them to mull over these philosophical thoughts, then it has done quite a lot.

budaatum:
Moon landings were an attempt to find God too, with an inability to perceive behind the moon the recognised limitation, so massive investments were made to see behind the moon, but alas, no God. Those with the ability to comprehend would have said, "Perhaps he moved to another planet", and so do we send probes to the furthest reaches of the universe. Do probes find the Kingdom of God? I'll say yes but expect to be vilified!

I often laugh when people ask others to provide them with evidence of God or prove that God exists. Often, they are asking one who merely believes God exists to prove that God exists, which is an amusing sight to behold, for a person who knows God exists would not bother proving it to one who doesn't for they know the person seeking evidence lacks the ability to perceive or comprehend the Kingdom of God.

I'm going to suggest that most of the above op is based on a misconception of God, of whom no images can be made, and who's Kingdom, it is said, is within one, and which you'd only know by the fruits that presence within produces. I'm also going to suggest NASA is the new Vatican, but I can not possibly expect those who comprehend not "As above, So below" to understand a word I might possibly use to explain my suggesting except to state that "God" is not a philosophical problem, but a problem that those who lack the ability to be philosophical are incapable of comprehending. It's in the language, see, and most have not heard of the likes of Wittgenstein et al.

I might respond to your specific questions later.

Hahaha

When we argue about God, it is often about the traditional form of God presented by the Judeo-Christian theology. This type of God is highly personalized yet purportedly universal.

This concept of God is known as the Omni-God

Which reflects the attributes and characters believed are necessary in the nature of God or it falls short of perfection and can no longer be God.

Of course, there are different types of powerful cosmological Gods believed through history but this problem sorely addresses the Judeo-Christian (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) idea of God.

These attributes are consequences of the arguments philosophers employ to deductively prove God.

Example: The ontological argument.
1. God is the greatest being (Perfect) possible
2.The greatest being ever can exist as a thing or as an idea in the mind
3. God obviously at least exist as an idea
4. The only thing greater than the greatest being possible that exist as an idea is the greatest being possible that exists as a thing.
5. And if there is something greater than the greatest thing possible that exists as idea, it means the greatest being possible that exist as an idea isn't the greatest being possible
6. Therefore, God exists.

The argument of contingency
1. Things that exist in this universe are contingent
2. This means that even though they exist, they can as well not exist
3. Effects are contingent caused by contingent causes
4. If everything is contingent then everything can as well not exist at all
5. An infinite regression of contingencies is logically absurd
6. There must be a necessary being since contingent beings can easily not exist - hence nothing can exist
7. This necessary being is God

Argument from motion
1. Everything is in motion
2. Motion is as a result of a pre-existent force of motion acting upon a body
3. Every moving effect has a moving cause
4. An infinite regression of moving causes is logically absurd
5. There must be a necessary first mover, the unmoved mover
6. This unmoved mover is God

There are many other deductive arguments used by philosophers to make a case for the existence of God as an absolute necessity. As you may have noticed, these arguments all have one thing in common, they put God at the absolute apex of everything.

And the consensus of these thoughts is that God is perfect - he must be perfect or it doesn't fit into the implication of the arguments above.

And that is why consequently the Judeo-Christian God is known as the omni-God due to the attributes and characters invoked by defining theologies of its character.

Philosophers like Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas came up with these set of divine attributes God must possess or it isn't God and this divine attributes are still wildly or even mostly held today by theists.

Omniscient - God knows everything knowable
omnipotent- God can do everything
omni-benevolent - God is all good
Omni-temporal - Exist at all time at once
omni-present - Exist at all place

We can all easily deduce that none of these attributes are explicitly listed out in the bible or other Judeo-Christian sources but the argument of these philosophers is that, they must be the case if it can be said that God is perfect.

But this attributes present big problems for the concept of God it defines.

Let me start with the most common problem, the omnipotence paradox;

Can God create something so heavy that he can't lift it?

If God is omnipotent, then he has to be able to create something he can't lift, otherwise his inability to create this would mean that there is at least one thing that God can't do then he can't be omnipotent.

The problems of evil - There is at least what we call natural evil.
An omniscient God would know every possible way evil cannot exist
An omnibenovalent God would want to eradicate evil
An omnipotent God can.
How then is evil a thing?
How then is satan, the embodiment of evil a thing?

What about man-made evils?

Free will?
God is omniscient and omnitemporal; he knows every future. How is there freewill if God already knows what will happen and can't be wrong?

The only way we can make predictions such as eclipse of the sun or any other accurately, is that the forces subject to our accurate measurement and predictions do not possess will and therefore are designated to act according to measurable patterns.


Or, the problem of morality.
Can God sin?
If God can't sin, then God possibly can't do everything, therefore not omnipotent.
If God can sin, then God can't possible be all good

And then there is the problem of prayer
Most theists in the world today pray at some point in their life; There are four kinds of prayers

1. petition
2. Adoration
3. Contrition
4. Thanksgiving

a. Someone who is petitioning God to do something, give you a car, make you pass an exam, make Nigeria win the match on wednesday is questioning the divine attributes of God.

There is no reason given the attributes of God to believe that asking God for anything actually makes any difference.

1. God is omniscient - He already knows everything, he knows the best possible outcomes
2. And God has the power to set in play any state of affairs which he does by virtue of omnipotence
3. He must have already set the best possible outcomes in motion by virtue of Omnibenovalence

So, it is either your prayers are asking God for something he is already going to do and this means, your prayers are meaningless since it will happen anyway.
Or your prayer is asking God to do what he has decided not to do because it is not the best possible outcome thereby contradict his divine attributes.

So, why then do you pray?


What these problems show is that the divine attributes of God are inconsistent, either in themselves or with one another. It means, there cannot all be true at the same time, but they can all be wrong at the same time.

So, what do you do when you understand that you hold on to an inconsistent belief?

You either give them up - to achieve consistency or you find a way to rationalize them and make them consistent.

How then can you as a believer do this?

LordReed:
Are you implying that any time people change their mind it is because they were persuaded by a superior argument?

Nope. I'm implying in relation to the post, anytime you argue that something is more right than another right, then you are implying there is an objective essence of right

futurist369:
Bros you just dey stress yourself... I have one question for you;can you fvck your sister? The anwser to that question is the answer to your post

Lol. The question doesn't reflect my position, it solicits for yours.

frank317:
What do u mean by necessarily right? Can anything be right or wrong out of the blues? Does it not take human evaluation to know if its right or wrong? Its humans that determines what is right or wrong and and for this to take place we require each individual learning, empathy, feeling and reaction to come to a conclusion.

Pls how can one just believe something is right or wrong without learning? Can a Christian just believe that hell is real and justified if he is not thought so?

You are failing to see how my reply simply highlights the problems of your position.

The point is, that a Christian believes this, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Just like believing the contrary doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

If yout argument remains that something is right because you are taught it is right then everything is right.

What/who made morality objective?

If something can be righter than the other, then 'right' is objective. This is an implication of your own argument. Are you not getting it at all?

Things are actually more right than the other because morality is subjective. That's why there is constant improvement on what is right or wrong as humans progress. Its all about what we feel.

Uuuhm, No.

For something to be more something than this, that means that the 'essence' of being that thing is constant, objective, the nearer you are in reflecting that essence, the more of that thing you are.

If something can be righter than another, then the idea of morality is objectively determined without and you begin to find out things that are nearer to this objective essence.

A subjective morality on the other hand is personal, your opinion is no more valid than mine, what you think is right isn't anymore righter than the average bob.

So, if you think morality can be righter than another, you are saying morality is objective.

The reality is that u see this everyday and want to deny it... Is a Christian's right the same thing with a Muslims right... Of morality is objective why do Christians and Muslims have different rights and wrongs?

Christ! The objectivity of morality on that post is a direct implication of you saying that something can be righter than another

Is there anything like moral fact? Pls tell mention on moral fact.

A subjective morality has no moral facts.

You are implying there is a moral fact when you argue that something can be more right than the other.

Moral facts can only be present if one argue that morality is objective - inherent like the laws of physics..

You are conflating the implications of subjective moral grounds and objective consequence. It doesn't work that way.

Here I am arguing that whatever is right or wrong solely is a human factor... Johnny is telling no moral action happens in isolation? Isn't this what I am saying all along.
How can it even ever be a transcendental factor.... Can u show this?

You are arguing that whatever is right or wrong starts as a personal opinion of an individual. Stop changing the words a reply was meant for.

Unfortunately this would been true if people don't feel pain or don't react to what another does to them.

You are assuming my subjective morality takes accounts of pain as immoral

Oga everybody has a right... Otherwise people will not even argue.

Rights are not inherent. It's an imagined order, a belief.

Then show me how morality that transcends personal opinion can be derived? Who issues the morality that transcends personal opinion?

Again, my reply is addressing your self refuting idea that morality is personal and yet one can be righter than the other.

Of course, believing u are right does not necessarily mean so. This does not stop different people from having their own right.

Ok, we are getting somewhere slowly.

Doesn't this then imply than learning something as right doesn't necessarily mean it is right?

People have been deciding what is right or wrong... U know this yet u want to argue. Empathy and the rest has all been playing its role in determining what's right.

I asked a question, If we all agree that murder is right, is it?

If, No, why?

I could be the wrong one and still decide I am right.

That is the definition of self imposed delusion.


P.s: You are basically taking my replies as a counter argument, which it is not. My replies are simply there to highlight problems your position brings.

frank317:
No sir.. My post does not imply that whatever u are thought is right. My post actually implies the reality u and I face every day - people view what is right from what they know!. This is a simple fact. The reason why we argue is because each individual already have a 'right' in his mind based on what he has learned and other factors.

I wish u read my first response to ur OP, u would have seen where I said if I interacted with people who grew in a family setting that encourages incest, perhaps I might have a different opinion about them.

Let me refer to a question by Hopefullandlord


Hopefullandlord: In a nutshell, you're saying something is right or wrong based on how you're trained?

Frank: Yes... Plus a couple of other things. But training, learning is one of them

Your answer implies something is right or wrong because you learnt it to be so as I said in my previous reply.

Which is self refuting to the idea that you can change people's mind - consequently a superior form of morality.

Therefore, something isn't necessarily right because you are taught it was right.

Something isn't true because you are taught it is, you only believe it to be true.

Of course... When we allow pain, empathy and evaluation plays their role in our perception.

If things can be righter than the other, then morality is objective.

If morality is subjective, then nothing can be more right than the other.

Think about this dilema your answer brings.

How?

A subjective morality has no moral facts.

What is right or wrong is first an individual thing before it becomes accepted based on popular opinion and then it becomes what is right or wrong.

Disagree. No moral action is ever in isolation.

There is either a mundane factor - Human, animals etc
Or a transcendental factor - God

To him its right, to u it's wrong... Then the argument begins... Then opinions are formed and decisions are taken.

If what you think is right is right then the arguments are useless since none is righter than the other

The only way for the argument to be necessary is if there is a way morality is derived that transcends personal opinion.

Then, believing you are right doesn't necessarily mean so.

Its hard to determine what's right without taking individual opinions into account then judge by number of acceptance.

Morality is a mob rule then?

If everyone agrees that murdering someone in the ally and taking their money is good then it is good?

What about the empathy and stuff? What roles do they play on such instance?

Yea, I understand its wicked based on my learning. But another person does not understand based on his learning...
The argument and relearning begins and I might show him based on empathy and popular opinion that it is wicked, but then he might still chose to think he is right and the behavior is repeated.

So, If the popular opinion is that it isn't wicked then you are the wrong one?

It is intricate.
No it mean what u learn about physics and come to accept is ur own truth. Whatever opinion does not matter to u. Except u are convinced otherwise.

There is no such a thing as Your own truth.

Anyway, my question is; Isn't the matetials you are taught already determined and derived before being impacted to you?

Right and Wrong is derived from other people's learning.

This other people's learning how are they derived?

frank317:
Isn't it why we argue here day and night to change the mindset of some people?
Our problem is that we refuse to see the reality.

Here is the problem - Your posts implies that whatever you are taught as right is right.

How then are you trying to change people's mind?

Since they are right.
You are right?

Unless you recognize a form of right than is more right than the right these folks were taught and that then means, they are wrong.

Which consequently leads the conclusion that something isn't right because you are taught it is - and it contradicts your own stance.

Your position here is self refuting

Meanwhile I said plus a couple of things. Each individual think what they know is right, but through interaction and relearning they change their mind.

Meaning some things are righter than the others?

While learning is one of what determines what us right or wrong..
it is not the only thing. There is pain, there is empathy, there is authority, there is self presentation... I can't go breaking all these and all must not apply at the same time for a particular subject of interest.

You'd be surprised how these things wouldn't hold up much.

But yes learning determines what we see as right or wrong.

To be sure, Is what we See as right and wrong same thing as "What is right and wrong

The usage of the word " See" puts a whole new meaning to your argument.

This is obvious except u want to deny it.. The terrorist see his act of terrorism as right - learning to see this act as right took place somewhere.

The question is, But Is he right?

If No, why?

The Christian think hell is real and think burning people forever is justified - learning that this wicked act is right took place somewhere.

You call it "wicked" meaning you understand it is not right.

Why is it not right?

But if what you are taught is right is right as you argue, then this Christian is right.

And your own thought that it is wrong isn't any more valid than theirs.

However apart from what u learned, different interactions are taking place in ur life time... Empathy can make u evaluate what u have learned... Its just a simpu sturv

It's far more intricate than you make it out to be.

I have another question;
You learn about physics
Does this mean this act of learning determines what Physics is, or is this already established before it was impacted to you?

For you to learn right and wrong, it must first be derived, how this derivation is made is the actual philosophical problem of morality.

frank317:
Isn't it why we argue here day and night to change the mindset of some people?
Our problem is that we refuse to see the reality.

Here is the problem - Your posts implies that whatever you are taught as right is right.

How then are you trying to change people's mind?

Since they are right.
You are right?

Unless you recognize a form of right than is more right than the right these folks were taught and that then means, they are wrong.

Which consequently leads the conclusion that something isn't right because you are taught it is - and it contradicts your own stance.

Your position here is self refuting

Meanwhile I said plus a couple of things. Each individual think what they know is right, but through interaction and relearning they change their mind.

Meaning some things are righter than the others?

While learning is one of what determines what us right or wrong..
it is not the only thing. There is pain, there is empathy, there is authority, there is self presentation... I can't go breaking all these and all must not apply at the same time for a particular subject of interest.

You'd be surprised how these things wouldn't hold up much.

But yes learning determines what we see as right or wrong.

To be sure, Is what we See as right and wrong same thing as "What is right and wrong

The usage of the word " See" puts a whole new meaning to your argument.

This is obvious except u want to deny it.. The terrorist see his act of terrorism as right - learning to see this act as right took place somewhere.

The question is, But Is he right?

If No, why?

The Christian think hell is real and think burning people forever is justified - learning that this wicked act is right took place somewhere.

You call it "wicked" meaning you understand it is not right.

Why is it not right?

However apart from what u learned, different interactions are taking place in ur life time... Empathy can make u evaluate what u have learned... Its just a simpu sturv

It's far more intricate than you make it out to be.

I have another question;
You learn about physics
Does this mean this act of learning determines what Physics is, or is this already established before it was impacted to you?

For you to learn right and wrong, it must first be derived, how this derivation is made is the actual philosophical problem of morality

mrgreen4real:
That is quite good but my fear for Nigeria as a country is that one problem always lead to another.

By the time we start patronizing not the Fulani cows but other tribes' and the Fulanis loose customers which in turn reduce income drastically, don't you think they'll focus more on kidnapping?
About 90% of kidnappers are fulanis.

Don't we have security agencies that can tackle kidnapping?

If we can't do a business because we fear the people who once monopolized it will turn violent, are we not already being held at ransom then?

tartar9:
We all know how igbos ruin whatsoever business they venture in.

How so?

I'm curious, what business have the Igbos ruined before?

budaatum:
Yes I do "believe this is the basis incest has been frowned upon throughout human history" and primate history too.

- Even societies that didn't know or recognize of the medical implications of incest?


- Do you know incest as frowned upon in most cultures include Step- parent relationship, step sibling relationship, adoptive parent or sibling relationship - These were all due to the medical implication of incest?

Lol.

Or do you want to argue that primates frown on incest because it is immoral, and not because they considered the "medical implications"?

You do know there is a difference between instinctively avoiding something and contemplatively avoiding that thing right?

ainas247:
Well the truth is I Salute him in the Power sector
my Generator don spoil because of no usage...

Do you have a business rank it fast
online and on youtube

Are you high?

budaatum:
Incest is not frowned upon because it is immoral. Incest is considered immoral because of the harm it does to society.

Which bit don't you understand?

And you believe this is the basis incest has been frowned upon throughout human history? Even when this medical implications are almost certainly not put into consideration or downright weren't attributed to incest?

You sure?

frank317:
Hi Johnny, u didn't respond to my to my input. Let me know what's wrong with my line of thinking... Or give it a counter point... If u chose to ignore it... Then u should have ignored all other points and close the thread

I honestly didn't pay attention or it skipped my mind. I'm sorry about this. Been on many replies, I might have skipped one or two.

budaatum:
It is amusing that you chose to hold incest up to a moral light when it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality but just is the right think to do considering the intersubjective understanding of the available evidence. (Yeah! I used your word).

I don't understand this.

kamanidesmond:
It is not all rosy for the Dakolo’s as insider reports disclosed that Busola Dakolo has been crying for over 48 hours
insisting she must speak to Pastor Biodun Fataoyibo.

 

Timi Dakolo on the other hand has being away from home for four days probably to his studio to record after his crying wife refused to be consoled even by him.


According to journalist, Kemi Olulonyo who carried out the investigation and went public with her findings on social media, Pastor Biodun has gone into seclusion after sending the  statement cancelling his program out.

She has been crying for 2 days

Timi has been unable to make her stop crying

So he left home for 4 days now

So, he left home 2 days before she started crying but somehow left because he couldn't console her on a cry she hasn't started.

Lol. Do you people proofread the nonsense you post online?

AgentOfAllah:
I was wondering the same. So a boss cannot develop consensual relation with their subordinates and a rich person can only be in a relationship with someone in their social class. The immoral crap we get away with in society, eh!?

I happen to think it is nonsensical.

I think humans are consistently coming up with ridiculous ideas these days that infantalises and rids some demographs of personal responsibility and it is absolute rubbish

CoolUsername:
A one-off sexual encounter with necessary precautions is almost totally risk-free. So that wont be a problem.

So, the action isn't morally wrong. The possible consequence thereof is the problem that should be avoided?

Isn't that a medical problem?

Not in general society. But when in any insulated system such as the workplace (dating the boss), school (dating the teacher), or a family it becomes a problem.

So, a boss and employee can't have consensual sex because they both genuinely want to bang each other?

I disgaree

Basically. If it's frowned upon in most places then it's generally considered immoral. Whether the justification is logical or not the fact remains.

Homosexuality is immoral then we agree?

I think it is immoral to raise a child for sex. It's simple cause and effect, what are the odds that you raise a child and the child grows up to be into you and you so happen to be into the them? It sounds like grooming no matter how I look at it.

You are veering off the fundamental assumption the question makes thereby talking about something totally different.

The question is based on the assumption that this child (doesn't mean a kid) genuinely developed sexual attraction towards a parent and it is reciprocated.

Whether you think this is likely or not is frankly inconsequential to the question.

In this case, I'll just believe the child is a victim of pedophilic grooming if the adult reciprocates.

Actually, the question factors also on the ground that they are both adults.

tjmc:
Homosexuality is practiced by consenting adults

Incest can be likewise.

Incest is morally and anyway you see it WRONG.

Ok, we'll see your reasons

Why would you have a carnal knowledge of someone who is not mentally, physically and emotionally mature or ready for se.

Incest isn't pedophilia, incest happens between adults only that they are related

If you see nothing wrong with incest, then bring your daughter below 16 so guys who are older(24-40yrs) would have carnal knowledge of her

Are you sure you know what incest is? What you are describing is pedophilia.

CoolUsername:
Yes! It will irresponsible and immoral to engage in a long term sexual relationship with another sickle cell carrier with full knowledge of your status without taking extra precautions to prevent pregnancy.

I didn't say long term relationship, I said "Have sex"

No, because of the power imbalances inherent in family dynamics between parents and children and also between siblings.

You are arguing now that sex can't be consensual between two individuals with apparent social disparity?

Because there are literally billions of other potential mates for a given individual, to break the preventative evolutionary mechanisms to engage in such risky behaviour constitutes immoral behaviour. Also, because it is frowned upon in most cultures.

Something been frowned upon in many cultures doesn't necessarily make it wrong, surely?

Or are you arguing that it does?

Is that even possible to determine?

If an 18 year old suddenly decides to start screwing their parent that idea probably didn't pop into their head at 18 and it would be impossible to determine exactly when and how it popped up.

Whether you can determine it isn't the problem, moreover you can't determine I'm not being blackmailed to date my girlfriend right now.

By the way, whether it can be determined isn't the question here, the question first assumes a child developed a form of sexual attraction for a parent (which by the way is possible) and now asks you if given your premise, this would still be immoral?

Now let's remember that these feelings themselves, while disgusting to me, aren't inherently immoral but rather, acting upon them cause all the issues.

We are vetting your reasons why acting on them is a problem

CoolUsername:
Depends.

Cousin-on-cousin relationships have a very low chance of causing deformities as long as it doesn't repeat itself over successive generations. So while it may be disgusting depending on how close the families are. I don't think it is morally wrong. A lot cultures don't even consider this incest.

Sibling-on-sibling incest has a very high chance of causing genetic deformities. Close relatives produce pheromones to kill sexual attraction from family members. Meaning that the stigma is pretty much hardwired into our biology. My verdict is that it is high-risk, irresponsible, and deviant behaviour and therefore, morally wrong. A complete no-no

I have two problems with this, say questions.

Your verdict condemns the act based on possible consequence it promises.

Now take these instances;

1. Is it then morally wrong for an AS genotype individual to have sex someone of likewise genotype?

2. In the absence of possibility of pregnancy, is incest then right?

Parent-child incest is extremely immoral. It has all the negatives of the other types of incest plus the added factor of a major power imbalance, where a patent can from an impressionable child for sex.

And if this child wasn't groomed in this sense? Simply developed a form of sexual attraction for the parent in question like every normal person having lustful feelings. Would it be wrong still?

Mofifoluwa2003:
Please give us the full story but do not judge a man of God.

Nothing gets me angry more than this Do not judge nonsense.

Olorunnim:
It's not moral to have such child when you know the implications of your actions but people still do

You are assuming the implication bears a moral weight