posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 02:29 PM
originally posted by: JackReyes
I've read the Bible, and although I've read the accounts of incest, it was never in any way condoning it.
Then why are there specific rules in the Hebrew text to know which types of incest are OK? If 2 half siblings have the same mother but different
fathers they may marry and have children. Abraham, patriarch of the Hebrew people, was married to his half sister Sarah. Abrahams son Isaac married
his 1st cousin, Amram married his paternal aunt, Jochabed, mother of Moses and Aaron and on and on...
As far as the first humans, such as Cain taking a wife for himself among his sisters, he was the first human child from his first human
parents. Where else was he going to get a wife? At that time the gene pool was almost basically perfect, and there was no problem with marrying a
brother or sister, and the only way the human race would continue.
So you take the scriptural accounts literally then? How do you arrive at the gene pool being perfect? If Eve was made from Adam's rib, she was
Adam's genetic duplicate, a clone made directly from his genetic material. Thus from the first generation of their offspring, there would be genetic
inefficiencies displayed. This entire illogical line of thinking is completely contrary to everything known about how genetics works. To rationalize
any of it requires some serious mental gymnastics and none of it is remotely supported by science. I'm going to trust scientific, peer reviewed data
over 3500 year old fables of the bronze age
Obviously after several generations of derogation of the human genetic structure, marrying family members had to be forbidden, and God did
forbid it in the Mosaic law. And it is still wrong up till today.
How many to you is "several"? Genetic deformities and recessive genes would run amok through the population within 4 generations and would be so
prevalent by the 5th generation that nobody would be able to correct them. And at this point, everyone would still be related very closely. How do you
reconcile this reality with the biblical literalist view point?
And far from being bigoted, as you wrongly and falsely accuse it, it states very plainly:
"At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial,+ 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does
what is right is acceptable to him."" - Acts 10:34, 35.
This is what we call 'quote mining'. You take one single line out of the entire chapter and use it to justify ignorance and bigotry. When someone uses
the book to justify their ignorant, bigoted hatred of others, it is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Let's look at Acts Ch 10 from the
beginning... Peter is at a house by the sea praying and wants to eat. While his meal is being prepared he receives a vision from god showing a large
variety of animals and is instructed to kill and eat. Peter cries out that he can not eat anything unclean and god responds that no animal created by
him can be considered unclean. Prior to this, an angel appears to a Roman Centurion names Cornelius because of the generous offerings and gifts
given to god in Cornelius name. As a result Cornelius is considered righteous enough to receive messages from gods servants among men and the angel
instructs Cornelius to seek out Peter. Right after Peter receives his vision regarding the OK to eat all animals, Cornelius' servants arrive to bring
him back to Cornelius' home. When Peter arrives there, Cornelius throws himself at Peter's feet and was told to stand as Peter was just a man. They
then went into Cornelius' home where there was a large gathering of people waiting to hear Peter speak. Peter reminded Cornelius that it was against
the law for a Jew. Here, let me quote the actual scripture...
28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that
I should not call any man impure or unclean.
29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"
30 Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood
31 and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor.
32 Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.'
33 So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has
commanded you to tell us."
Context is everything, especially in this instance. Unless I misunderstood your position and you are agreeing with me that no man should be judged or
be called impure or unclean by any other. However, there are many pieces of text in both Hebrew and later scripture associated with Christianity that
contradict this passage and are used by adherents of the faith to discriminate against homosexuals in a fashion that seems to go against the ethos of
Christ. Do you deny that many Christians use scripture to justify their bigoted stances? And they base it on scripture found within the same book you
quote from. There is far more intolerance and bigotry in the "good book" than there is tolerance and love.