Cain & Abel's Incest.

[BecauseHeLives]

Shut up Sanjuro. Your whining is getting out of hand. Add some substance to the conversation or just shut up.

I have, I've asked you to demonstrate where in the bible it says incest between fathers and daughters is forbidden as A Person requested. Now quit diverting an get to answering.

Now it's APErson's turn to prove his scripture interpretation wasn't willful.

[Sanjuro]

The Bible commands us to obey the laws of the nation we live in (Romans 13:1-6

Thanks BHL. So I guess since the law of this nation says there should be a separation of church and state, you must completely abide. Thanks!

[Sanjuro]

The Bible commands us to obey the laws of the nation we live in (Romans 13:1-6

Thanks BHL. So I guess since the law of this nation says there should be a separation of church and state, you must completely abide. Thanks!

And that said, does this mean Jesus disobeyed the bible as well since he disobeyed the Romans? Would he be in hell now?

[BecauseHeLives]

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/faq_bq.shtml

Where did Cain’s wife come from? Was it one of his sisters? What about Incest? Isn’t that against the laws of the Bible?


We all come from Adam and Eve, who had both sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Their children had no choice but to marry one another. If incest was prohibited then, humans would have lasted only one generation.

The first time that the Bible prohibits incest occurs during Moses’ lifetime (see Leviticus 20:11 and the following verses for an example). Prior to that time it was not a written law, so it is reasonable to assume that such marital relationships were accepted (but not endorsed) from Adam’s time until then. For example, Abraham (a man who followed God faithfully) married a half sister (see Genesis 20:12), something that was prohibited 400 years later (see Leviticus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 27:22).

The Bible does not include all of the details regarding who was related to who (or what their names were), since it puts together only a framework that shows God’s plan. As a result, some people are not named, or their specific relationships are ignored. This does not mean that they were not important, it just means that recording these facts was not essential to revealing God’s plan. The bible is long already. Adding these facts would make it the size of an encyclopedia.

Who Cain married was one of these unnamed people. She was probably a sister. The only other option would be that Cain waited for one of his brothers and sisters to marry and have a daughter that he could marry. Knowing what a teenager’s hormones are like makes that seem unlikely. Also, since there is no time period implied between Genesis 4 verses 16 and 17, we can assume that Cain was married at the time he killed Abel. There is nothing in the Bible record to indicate that a generation had passed when that happened, so the “marrying a sister” theory makes the most sense.

Summarizing, it is likely that Cain married a sister, but was not committing a sin in doing so because God allowed those unions in those times.

[BecauseHeLives]

The Bible commands us to obey the laws of the nation we live in (Romans 13:1-6

Thanks BHL. So I guess since the law of this nation says there should be a separation of church and state, you must completely abide. Thanks!

And that said, does this mean Jesus disobeyed the bible as well since he disobeyed the Romans? Would he be in hell now?

Where did he disobey the Romans except when the roman law broke God's law (which is a doctrine taken from the bible)?

Why won't you stay on TOPIC Sanjuro? You must not have anything to add of substance.

You really should stay on topic. Go to bed.

[BecauseHeLives]

The Bible commands us to obey the laws of the nation we live in (Romans 13:1-6

Thanks BHL. So I guess since the law of this nation says there should be a separation of church and state, you must completely abide. Thanks!

I've never opposed the seperation of church and state. I guess we are buddies, right?

[Sanjuro]

Where did he disobey the Romans except when the roman law broke God's law (which is a doctrine taken from the bible)?

Why won't you stay on TOPIC Sanjuro? You must not have anything to add of substance.

You really should stay on topic. Go to bed.

Translation: He broke the nations law. I mean, if that verse is wrong in some way then it stands to reason it would be wrong about incest as well, right? And why would there be a incorrect verse in the Bible "Word of god"? Forgive me, but I didn't see the "Except when in conflict with the law of god" clause quoted.

[Sanjuro]

I've never opposed the seperation of church and state. I guess we are buddies, right?

You just said you wanted to make it a Xtian nation. If not , and you want to keep creationism out of the classroom, then yes we are!

[BecauseHeLives]

Where did he disobey the Romans except when the roman law broke God's law (which is a doctrine taken from the bible)?

Why won't you stay on TOPIC Sanjuro? You must not have anything to add of substance.

You really should stay on topic. Go to bed.

Translation: He broke the nations law. I mean, if that verse is wrong in some way then it stands to reason it would be wrong about incest as well, right? And why would there be a incorrect verse in the Bible "Word of god"? Forgive me, but I didn't see the "Except when in conflict with the law of god" clause quoted.

We're not talking about a verse being wrong. We are talking about a verse having exceptions. I'm sure you understand the difference between there being a given exception to the law and the law being wrong.

[Sanjuro]

We're not talking about a verse being wrong. We are talking about a verse having exceptions. I'm sure you understand the difference between there being a given exception to the law and the law being wrong.

I don't understand how the supposed infallible god can create such a flawed document.

[BecauseHeLives]

I've never opposed the seperation of church and state. I guess we are buddies, right?

You just said you wanted to make it a Xtian nation. If not , and you want to keep creationism out of the classroom, then yes we are!

You misunderstand what seperation of church and state actually means. I don't want the state to interfere with my religion. If my kids wish to pray at a school function then I don't want that to be prohibited. If my child is being taught something by a humanistic teacher that patently goes against the bible then I want alternatives for my child.

BTW... when I stray off topic like this you seem to make sure I'm aware of it. Kinda hypocritical of you.

[BecauseHeLives]

We're not talking about a verse being wrong. We are talking about a verse having exceptions. I'm sure you understand the difference between there being a given exception to the law and the law being wrong.

I don't understand how the supposed infallible god can create such a flawed document.

It's not flawed anywhere. You need to take off the atheist glasses. Go to bed.

[Sanjuro]

We're not talking about a verse being wrong. We are talking about a verse having exceptions. I'm sure you understand the difference between there being a given exception to the law and the law being wrong.

I don't understand how the supposed infallible god can create such a flawed document.

It's not flawed anywhere. You need to take off the atheist glasses. Go to bed.

You just said there was an exception to that verse, yet the verse did not allude to an exception. Can your god not get anything right? Or perhaps should you not be talking the bible so literally?

[A Person]

Now it's APErson's turn to prove his scripture interpretation wasn't willful.

Ah no, I think it's your turn to show that the context show the quote to mean something other than it apears to.

With regard to your weak argument about obeying the law of the country - I agree that it's a good idea, but it's also clear that we need another source of morality because the Bible is inadequate and can be interpreted to make almost anything seem to be God's will.

[Serendipitous]

We're not talking about a verse being wrong. We are talking about a verse having exceptions. I'm sure you understand the difference between there being a given exception to the law and the law being wrong.

I don't understand how the supposed infallible god can create such a flawed document.

It's not flawed anywhere. You need to take off the atheist glasses. Go to bed.

BHL, you've got church in the morning! Why don't get yourself to bed instead of waiting for what Santajuro will post next? Is this like christmas in September for you?

[BecauseHeLives]

Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

http://www.gotquestions.org/laws-land.html

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?"

Answer: Romans 13:1-7 states: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

That passage makes it abundantly clear. We are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything - paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, showing respect, etc. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7, he was under the government of Rome, during the reign of Nero, perhaps that most evil of all the Roman Emperors. Paul still recognized that government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?

The next question is: "Is there a time when we should not obey the laws of the land?" The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, "Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" From this, we can plainly see that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land, and obey God's law. However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God (Acts 5:40-42).

[BecauseHeLives]

BHL, you've got church in the morning! Why don't get yourself to bed instead of waiting for what Santajuro will post next? Is this like christmas in September for you?

Nah.. I usually only sleep about 6-7 hours max at night. Sanjuro is easy pickin's.

Santajuro.... ha ha

[Sanjuro]

BHL, you've got church in the morning! Why don't get yourself to bed instead of waiting for what Santajuro will post next? Is this like christmas in September for you?

He's down to quoting bible verses and websites, so it wont be long now.

[Sanjuro]

BHL, you've got church in the morning! Why don't get yourself to bed instead of waiting for what Santajuro will post next? Is this like christmas in September for you?

Nah.. I usually only sleep about 6-7 hours max at night. Sanjuro is easy pickin's.

Santajuro.... ha ha

Apparently not when he holds your feet to the fire about incest.

[BecauseHeLives]

Now it's APErson's turn to prove his scripture interpretation wasn't willful.

Ah no, I think it's your turn to show that the context show the quote to mean something other than it apears to.

With regard to your weak argument about obeying the law of the country - I agree that it's a good idea, but it's also clear that we need another source of morality because the Bible is inadequate and can be interpreted to make almost anything seem to be God's will.

I'd love to see the bible at your house. I'll bet it has red lines through every passage with a new handwritten meaning right above it.

[BecauseHeLives]

BHL, you've got church in the morning! Why don't get yourself to bed instead of waiting for what Santajuro will post next? Is this like christmas in September for you?

He's down to quoting bible verses and websites, so it wont be long now.

You asked for an answer but you wanted a debate. I gave you both.

[Sanjuro]

You asked for an answer but you wanted a debate. I gave you both.

Sorry mate, I missed the direct reference to "NO incest between fathers and daughters" perhaps you can re-post it for me?

[BecauseHeLives]

You asked for an answer but you wanted a debate. I gave you both.

Sorry mate, I missed the direct reference to "NO incest between fathers and daughters" perhaps you can re-post it for me?

perhaps you should read my posts....

[Sanjuro]

perhaps you should read my posts....

I did, but I didn't see a direct reference, only vague assertions that some obscure verse says you should follow a countries rules in which you live- and this is the best bit -you can ignore it if you think they are against gods law. The only problem is, everything is so subjective that perhaps raping daughters IS part of god's law. Don't believe me? Well it doesn't say NOT to do it, so it MUST be true!

[A Person]

I'd love to see the bible at your house. I'll bet it has red lines through every passage with a new handwritten meaning right above it.

I just read what it says - it's GotQuestions.org that needs 1,200 words to 'interpret' 12 bible words

So - to summarize:

You can't show that the Bible prohibits incest between a father and his daughter - we have to rely on secular law derived from reason for that.

You can't show the context that 'proves' a literal reading of 1 Corinthians 7:36 is invalid.