(March 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: Really, scriptures say Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.

Even if Adam and Eve had thousands of sons and daughters, the earth would only become populated beyond the first family by way of incest. After all, there is no mention of God having created any other humans besides Adam and Eve.

(March 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(March 16, 2013 at 8:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's called creative interpretation, GC. Or "making shit up and adding it to the bible".

As far as Gen.1:1, I quoted it, so how is that making up anything, how do you see it read?

You did indeed quote the passage, but you also imposed your interpretation of the words to shoehorn the notion of "God" beginning time into it, where no such interpretation can safely be drawn from the text as it stands. Were I to do this sort of thing, I'd probably be called out on it with protestations of "but that's not what the text says/means!!!" or "you just don't understand!!!", and rightly so.

(March 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: Please do not say it did not happen, the Nerd was making a statement from the assumption God created, so that's where this stands.

Please don't tell me what I can and can't say; I know you mean well and all that but I certainly can say it didn't happen should the context warrant it. However I don't need to in this instance, since that's not what we're chewing over here.

(March 17, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: Really, scriptures say Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.

Even if Adam and Eve had thousands of sons and daughters, the earth would only become populated beyond the first family by way of incest. After all, there is no mention of God having created any other humans besides Adam and Eve.

You are correct to the point of bothers and sisters marrying and having children, at the time it was not considered incest, the gene pool was nearly perfect and began to be degraded with time. This was due to sin and it's continued effect on mankind.

---

(March 17, 2013 at 8:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: As far as Gen.1:1, I quoted it, so how is that making up anything, how do you see it read?

You did indeed quote the passage, but you also imposed your interpretation of the words to shoehorn the notion of "God" beginning time into it, where no such interpretation can safely be drawn from the text as it stands. Were I to do this sort of thing, I'd probably be called out on it with protestations of "but that's not what the text says/means!!!" or "you just don't understand!!!", and rightly so.

I did not impose my interpretation on God's word, I was taught this and it is a teaching of most of the church that believes in creation and has been for thousands of years. I asked for your interpretation not to criticize, I wanted to know what you thought.

(March 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Godschild Wrote: Please do not say it did not happen, the Nerd was making a statement from the assumption God created, so that's where this stands.

Stimbo Wrote:Please don't tell me what I can and can't say; I know you mean well and all that but I certainly can say it didn't happen should the context warrant it. However I don't need to in this instance, since that's not what we're chewing over here.

Sorry, did not mean to upset you and did not mean you can't say whatever is on your mind. So many times in the past others would jump past the assumed position so they could give the answer (well it did not happen) because they had no real answer to a question. Again sorry for the misunderstanding, my fault.

(March 18, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: Even if Adam and Eve had thousands of sons and daughters, the earth would only become populated beyond the first family by way of incest. After all, there is no mention of God having created any other humans besides Adam and Eve.

You are correct to the point of bothers and sisters marrying and having children, at the time it was not considered incest, the gene pool was nearly perfect and began to be degraded with time. This was due to sin and it's continued effect on mankind.

What is it that you think incest means? It has nothing to do with the purity of the gene pool; definitionally, if a brother marries his sister, that's incestuous. I understand your need to retreat from that word in relation to your creation story, but perfect genes or not (incidentally there's no mention of genes in the bible, and hence you're not really pulling that idea from the official source, there. You're just making up an excuse that feels better.) it's still an incestuous story.

Or are you saying that if a brother and sister wanted to get married today you wouldn't consider it incest so long as their genes were perfect?

Reading this thread has been the most minding warping experience that I have ever had and not in a good way.

(March 18, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Godschild Wrote: You are correct to the point of bothers and sisters marrying and having children, at the time it was not considered incest, the gene pool was nearly perfect and began to be degraded with time. This was due to sin and it's continued effect on mankind.

Really? So it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that incest wasn't made a sin until Leviticus 20? No actually, you show me using your Bible where it says anything about the human gene pool being "nearly perfect".

(March 19, 2013 at 5:45 am)Aractus Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Godschild Wrote: You are correct to the point of bothers and sisters marrying and having children, at the time it was not considered incest, the gene pool was nearly perfect and began to be degraded with time. This was due to sin and it's continued effect on mankind.

Really? So it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that incest wasn't made a sin until Leviticus 20? No actually, you show me using your Bible where it says anything about the human gene pool being "nearly perfect".

Oh god there is so much wrong with that reasoning too...

So there was a time when incest wasn't sinful, to you? Interesting proposition. It doesn't really match up with the kind of objective moral standard that christians tend to assert they have. God just decided incest was sinful at the point of Leviticus 20? Sounds like divine command to me!

Other than that, does this time-locked version of sin and morality extend to other things? I mean, was there a time when murder was morally okay, before the commandments? This is really weird to be thinking about

Of course it extends to other things, the difference between us is that I understand which they are, and you do not. :p

How could it be sinful before God told the Israelites? That would be nonsensical.

(March 19, 2013 at 6:14 am)Aractus Wrote: Of course it extends to other things, the difference between us is that I understand which they are, and you do not. :p

How could it be sinful before God told the Israelites? That would be nonsensical.

Don't you believers usually advocate some kind of objective morality? How can it be objective if it changes based on the words of some creator?

Beyond that, can you envision a case in which you would find murder to be morally alright, even if you had never been told it was by god?

(March 19, 2013 at 6:14 am)Aractus Wrote: How could it be sinful before God told the Israelites? That would be nonsensical.

But if God was eternal and unchanging, wouldn't it be a sin at every point in time?