Incest - Acceptable or not?

[otseng]

Another thing is, incestrous marriage seems to be approved by God in Abram's and Sarai's case. However, in other parts of the Bible, it was condemned. Now you tell me, shall we have incest or not?

That's a good question. What does the Bible have to say about incest?

[Izumi Koushirou]

No, it wouldn't be the same thing if it was evolution.
A species evolves, it never really stops changing. It's just one generation to another.

There wouldn't have been, a "first human", it would have been a generation of first humans, and this wouldn't have been just one or two, but several thousands.

You never see animals evolve in just a pair of two.

[otseng]

Humor me here. I don't see your logic, so you'll have to explain really slowly.

There wouldn't have been, a "first human", it would have been a generation of first humans, and this wouldn't have been just one or two, but several thousands.

What do you mean by it would have been a generation of first humans? Several thousand humans just simply have evolved spontaneously? It's getting harder and harder for me to fathom. What proof do you have of this? I have never heard of any such theory in any evolutionary theories, so you'll have to provide some evidence here. Furthermore, since according to evolutionary theory, humans are no different than animals, will you also say that all animals originated from a "generation" of their first ancestors rather than a first "pair"?

[Izumi Koushirou]

What is the easiest way to show?

Living species slowly evolve. There usually has to be an enviroment factor so that such change is spead up

However, at the same time, beings evolve on different timelines. For example, look at Humans. We have some people still evolving, but at the same time some people are going slower than others. You could consider Homo Sapiens to be several distinct species.

(I have a hard time explaining this)

There would never be a first human. It's a first generation of humans

Now, let's base this on an asteroid hitting the Earth and wiping out the dinosaurs. Several primates managed to survive this. They continued to breed and evolve into something more human. This has kept on going, even today. There isn't a first human, rather a first generation of humans. And this generation would be rather large.

[otseng]

When I refer to "evolve", what I mean is from one species to another, macro-evolution if you will. I'm not talking about micro-evolution, where one species changes but can still reproduce with the same species.

A monkey in the past must've as some point macro-evolved into a human. Agreed? So you're saying that thousands of monkeys macro-evolved into humans at the same point in time? And why any difference between monkeys and humans? Would all animals that have macro-evolved also have spontaneously created a generation of firsts? I ask again, what evidence do you have of such a theory?

[Corvus]

I think he's saying macro-evolution occurs through a lot of micro-evolution, which is how I always pictured evolution occurring. I can't imagine a dinosaur giving birth to a chicken egg.

[RavEMasteR]

If we take the idea of Adam & Eve, I'll be wondering. Why are our skin colors so different? There are the blacks, the whites, the chinese..., etc.

If we decended from the same two people, why do we have such a VAST difference in our skin color?

[otseng]

I think he's saying macro-evolution occurs through a lot of micro-evolution, which is how I always pictured evolution occurring. I can't imagine a dinosaur giving birth to a chicken egg.

I can't imagine it either. But it's not too far from what evolutionists say.

At some point, a monkey turns into a human. It cannot mate with both a monkey and a human and have a child based on which species it mates with. This is the main characteristic of classifying an animal species. It can only mate within a species.

[ref=dict]Species[/ref] - "A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding"

So a monkey turns into a human and it cannot mate with a nonhuman. For evolution is work, it requires at least one male and one female to both evolve at the same time from a monkey. One pair evolving at the same time is pretty incredible. But thousands??? Even evolutionists that I've encountered believe it's only a single pair of parents populating the entire human race. Therefore, whether it was from Adam/Eve or from the first monkey turned humans, it's the same thing. They had to breed within close family to create the entire human race.

If we take the idea of Adam & Eve, I'll be wondering. Why are our skin colors so different? There are the blacks, the whites, the chinese..., etc.

If we decended from the same two people, why do we have such a VAST difference in our skin color?

Micro-evolution.

[clue]

Another thing is, incestrous marriage seems to be approved by God in Abram's and Sarai's case. However, in other parts of the Bible, it was condemned. Now you tell me, shall we have incest or not?

That's a good question. What does the Bible have to say about incest?

You guys are all getting off topic. See above? That's the original thread. Allow me to put in my $0.02.

The original thread seems to be stating that IF the book of Genesis through Leviticus is taken at face value, then we have to assume that there is a God, and He seems to have a contradictory stand on incest. Am I correct, so far?

Well, you are right, He does. But so what? If we assume that there is a God, then He is the giver of our morality. So, if He, for some reason, one day makes a proclamation that incest is prohibited from this point on, then it is not our place to question it. It is our place to just accept it.

But luckily that He did make this proclamation, because as biology has proven, incest is very bad and leads to genetic defects.

God will not always explain things to us when He commands something. But I believe that His laws are always good and He always wants what's best for us.

So, the question becomes...can the Bible and the God depicted within be trusted??

[otseng]

I don't think God has a contradictory stand on incest. And I guess that's why I brought up genetic defects. The law of incest doesn't show up until it was given to Moses. By then, genetic defects is a concern among close relatives. At the beginning of mankind's history (Adam and Eve), genetic defects wasn't a problem, so there was no need to prohibit incest. (Also practically speaking, there was no other alternative since God only created one couple at the beginning.)

[RavEMasteR]

Another thing is, incestrous marriage seems to be approved by God in Abram's and Sarai's case. However, in other parts of the Bible, it was condemned. Now you tell me, shall we have incest or not?

That's a good question. What does the Bible have to say about incest?

You guys are all getting off topic. See above? That's the original thread. Allow me to put in my $0.02.

The original thread seems to be stating that IF the book of Genesis through Leviticus is taken at face value, then we have to assume that there is a God, and He seems to have a contradictory stand on incest. Am I correct, so far?

Well, you are right, He does. But so what? If we assume that there is a God, then He is the giver of our morality. So, if He, for some reason, one day makes a proclamation that incest is prohibited from this point on, then it is not our place to question it. It is our place to just accept it.

But luckily that He did make this proclamation, because as biology has proven, incest is very bad and leads to genetic defects.

God will not always explain things to us when He commands something. But I believe that His laws are always good and He always wants what's best for us.

So, the question becomes...can the Bible and the God depicted within be trusted??

I find it extremely hard to trust a God who murders His own children.

Would you trust someone who drowns his son in the river?

Also, if we just live our lives accepting that God is in charge and that we should not question Him, we'll just be nothing but shadows of nothingness. If your government suddenly releases poisonous gas into the city as God would send a plague, would you question your government? If you won't, then you're nuts.

If we don't question things, we'll still be thinking that the rainbow is God's promise, instead of tiny droplets of water refracting light. Science as we know it will not be as advanced as today, simply because we kept our mouths shut without questions.