Believing in creationism is a sin

[Cyberman]

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.

Granted that you were merely channeling what you were taught about this - minor appeal to authority? - but the point I was getting at is that the interpretation itself isn't something that can be drawn from the actual words of the text as presented. The only way we can arrive at the picture you gave is to pad out the text with ad hoc assumptions that exist solely to rescue the text. Just because we have the words "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" does not justify the conclusion of "See God began time before He created anything else." Whoever came up with this interpretation, it has been added to the reading of the narrative.

I'm certain that whoever compiled these stories into he form we have them today would be amazed at the lengths to which believers have gone in twisting and massaging the original words.

I asked for your interpretation not to criticize, I wanted to know what you thought.

Again, granted, but in this instance I was merely providing my commentary on your position. Bear in mind that every post shared around here is deemed automatically subject to criticism; welcome to the world of the internet forum.

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.

I'm feeling merciful today so I'll let you off.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Doesn't matter all that much, the notion that god created all men is meh, the people who bandied this narrative around were more likely only talking about their own people. Cosmic ethnocentrism. Not that this would rescue the narrative, as we could still find the mark of such a special and recent creation relative to the rest of us.

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.

I wasn't aware that "sin" had any effect on biology, have you told anyone about this, are you prepared to collect your nobel prize? No, of course you aren't, because this statement was utter garbage that you aren't prepared or capable of elaborating upon in any way. It's a bumper sticker, a slogan. In any case, it wouldn't matter, assuming you're of the opinion that god created the first humans/all humans it's still incest, if the gene pool was "nearly perfect" (wtf does that even mean?) it would just be "nearly perfect incest". Lay aside that we don't see any "degradation" of our genetics over time (wtf does this mean -to you- anyway) - and this might blow your mind - but we can actually track these sorts of things......

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.

Taught by the same person that told you that sin had an effect on biology, or that "nearly perfect gene pools" existed and had some effect on incest, or that our genetic makeup has degraded over time (to whatever nebulous end-), or that this narrative had anything to do with the origins of man or his environment?

My thoughts, you needed a competent teacher. You got shafted.

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.

The irony is so thick you could spread it on a waffle. You're demanding that people avoid mentioning that it's bullshit because -you- cannot demonstrate otherwise, end of. Nevertheless, we can assume that created men were poofed into existence by creative gods and the evidence available to us does not line up with the narrative you propose as an explanation or account of that event. Not only is it a non-event, it can't explain the very event the narrative asserts. Epic fail.

[Godscreated]

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?

Incest is a brother and sister marrying and or having sex. As for genes to be mentioned in scriptures, do you really believe those of that time would have known what God was talking about, God knew, He designed man. What the people would recognize is the unhealthy offspring of such a union. Just because I use today's knowledge does not mean it can not be applied to scripture, what we have and are learning was known to God even before creation.
I'm not making up anything, God knew about genes and how long it would take for them to become corrupted to a point that brothers and sisters having babies would result in children with birth defects leading to an unhealthy population. Man when Christians use their brains they are criticized without cause, and when they don't they are criticized and rightfully so. God put an end to brother sister marriage when he gave the law to Moses.
There is no perfect gene pool, so no a brother and sister should never marry.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another tired old chestnut. Yes, human beings from any period (and even more easily as we move closer to the present) could have understood genetics with a competent explanation from a knowledgeable source (a source, for example, like your proposed god). Why would you assume otherwise?

Try again.

[Godscreated]

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".

Why do you think God made it sinful? Do you think He just changed his mind midstream. The unchanging God, I believe it was always a part of His plan.

[The Grand Nudger]

You may not have considered this, but in choosing to go this route you have created a situation whereby the god in your head chose to treat its greatest creation, or some other such nonsense, as though they were the type of blithering imbecile they turned out (in light of today's knowledge...you know, the stuff you attempt to leverage in an effort to inform you of what scripture is saying) not to be.

Is this the god you wanted to portray?

[Aractus]

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".

Why do you think God made it sinful? Do you think He just changed his mind midstream. The unchanging God, I believe it was always a part of His plan.

That's not what I asked. Here is what you said:

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.

Open your Bible and show me the passage that says that the "gene pool" was nearly perfect or that it "degraded with time".

[Esquilax]

Incest is a brother and sister marrying and or having sex. As for genes to be mentioned in scriptures, do you really believe those of that time would have known what God was talking about, God knew, He designed man. What the people would recognize is the unhealthy offspring of such a union. Just because I use today's knowledge does not mean it can not be applied to scripture, what we have and are learning was known to God even before creation.

So it was still incestuous. God designed a system of being whereby the only possible way for humans to flourish was constant incestuous sex. That's what I was driving at, something you'd denied earlier because the word is icky to you.

As to this humanity being unable to understand genes at the time, in order to believe that we'd need to make two concessions; one is that god made beings who were incapable of understanding their own physical makeup, something that's manifestly untrue. And that an all knowing and omnipotent god would be incapable of devising a way to explain it that we would understand, which is also untrue according to your own theology.

I'm not making up anything, God knew about genes and how long it would take for them to become corrupted to a point that brothers and sisters having babies would result in children with birth defects leading to an unhealthy population. Man when Christians use their brains they are criticized without cause, and when they don't they are criticized and rightfully so. God put an end to brother sister marriage when he gave the law to Moses.

You are making things up, and here's why: you have absolutely no scriptural basis with which to be making any of the assertions you've just made. And if it's not in god's good book, then you have nothing even remotely factual backing you up. You're just saying things.

There is no perfect gene pool, so no a brother and sister should never marry.

And since you've got no definition for what a "perfect gene pool" would be, or what one could constitute, then you have absolutely no justification for saying any of this.

[Godscreated]

Incest is a brother and sister marrying and or having sex. As for genes to be mentioned in scriptures, do you really believe those of that time would have known what God was talking about, God knew, He designed man. What the people would recognize is the unhealthy offspring of such a union. Just because I use today's knowledge does not mean it can not be applied to scripture, what we have and are learning was known to God even before creation.

So it was still incestuous. God designed a system of being whereby the only possible way for humans to flourish was constant incestuous sex. That's what I was driving at, something you'd denied earlier because the word is icky to you.

It was not incestuous until God said it was, so from the time of Adam and Eve's children till the time of Moses when the law of no marrying between brothers and sisters was given, it was not wrong. So with these facts from scripture, why do you believe God would wait so long to make this practice sinful. Sure the word is icky, it's been an ingrained thought for more than 3000 years.

As to this humanity being unable to understand genes at the time, in order to believe that we'd need to make two concessions; one is that god made beings who were incapable of understanding their own physical makeup, something that's manifestly untrue. And that an all knowing and omnipotent god would be incapable of devising a way to explain it that we would understand, which is also untrue according to your own theology.

The people I was referring to were the people of Adam and Eve's time to the time of Moses, they were unable to understand the function of most organs in the body at that time, now how were they to understand a part of the body they could not see. God did make it clear to the people of Moses time, He said no more marrying between brothers and sisters. They actually got it, they knew for some reason God was putting an end to the practice, so they trusted He knew best.

I'm not making up anything, God knew about genes and how long it would take for them to become corrupted to a point that brothers and sisters having babies would result in children with birth defects leading to an unhealthy population. Man when Christians use their brains they are criticized without cause, and when they don't they are criticized and rightfully so. God put an end to brother sister marriage when he gave the law to Moses.

You are making things up, and here's why: you have absolutely no scriptural basis with which to be making any of the assertions you've just made. And if it's not in god's good book, then you have nothing even remotely factual backing you up. You're just saying things.

You can't be serious, God the creator of man would obviously know the entire make up of the human body. I know genes are not mentioned in scripture, but it would be ignorant of me to believe God did not know everything about the human body He created, there are things we have no idea about that to God is child's play. So I'm not making things up, I'm using the brain God gave me.

There is no perfect gene pool, so no a brother and sister should never marry.

And since you've got no definition for what a "perfect gene pool" would be, or what one could constitute, then you have absolutely no justification for saying any of this.

I do, God created Adam and Eve and said that all was good at the end of the sixth day, if the genes of Adam and Eve were not perfect then God could not have said all is good. When you start out with parents with perfect genes then those perfect genes would be passed on to their children. With sin corrupting the creation from that point on the genes would degrade.

[Silver]

I do, God created Adam and Eve and said that all was good at the end of the sixth day.

Obviously, it was not all good. Our main light source, after all, gives us skin cancer.