Big blunder by the Institute for Creation Research

[not nom]

so I guess it's either incest or "dehumanization" of other primates :/

 

[Krok]

so I guess it's either incest or "dehumanization" of other primates :/

Hey, humans are not primates. We have our own kind. We're special!

I guess it must have been incest. (Actually, we're very, very special).

 

[not nom]

Hey, humans are not primates. We have our own kind. We're special!

I guess it must have been incest. (Actually, we're very, very special).

that's why I put dehumanizing in quotes. I don't care that much about the specifics. people "dehumanize" animals as well, when they treat them like nonsentient objects or mere resources. down with speciesism :slap:

 

[Krok]

that's why I put dehumanizing in quotes. I don't care that much about the specifics. people "dehumanize" animals as well, when they treat them like nonsentient objects or mere resources. down with speciesism :slap:

What? Species? That's evo-babble. Only kinds exist. All in the Bible. Our kind is very special.)(

 

[not nom]

What? Species? That's evo-babble. Only kinds exist. All in the Bible. Our kind is very special.)(

:sad:

 

[McBell]

Hey, humans are not primates. We have our own kind. We're special!

Seems to me that would make it beastiality...

 

[Krok]

Seems to me that would make it beastiality...

This thread made me think. I wonder which is the more or least acceptable; beastiality or incest?
OMG, I've never even considered anyone of them before. It made me realize that you really have to study religious texts and also really think about the consequences of those texts to know how absolutely disgusting religion is.

 

[McBell]

This thread made me think. I wonder which is the more or least acceptable; beastiality or incest?
OMG, I've never even considered anyone of them before. It made me realize that you really have to study religious texts and also really think about the consequences of those texts to know how absolutely disgusting religion is.

Beastiality is refereed to as a "perversion"
Homosexuality (between men) is considered an "abomination".

So the words used kinda to me make it sound like homosexual behavior (between men) is considered worse.

HOWEVER...
The punishment for both is the same:

death
​

 

[Krok]

Beastiality is refereed to as a "perversion"
Homosexuality (between men) is considered an "abomination".

So the words used kinda to me make it sound like homosexual behavior (between men) is considered worse.

HOWEVER...
The punishment for both is the same:

death
​

Homosexual behaviour between women? Homosexual behaviour and beastiality are not similar at all.

In any way, whether anyone engages in heterosexual behaviour, homosexual behaviour, beastiality, incest, never have sex, have lots of sex, eat a lot of meat, don't eat alot of meat, do a lot of exercise, don't do a lot of exercise, praize Thor, praize Allah, Praize Jesus, Praize FSM, or don't praize Thor, Allah, Jesus, FSM etc. ,we'll all arive at death. It is not a punishment, it is fact. We'll all die. It's not a punishment, nor a blessing. We'll all die. Fact. Why would dying then be considered a "punishment" if we all are going to die eventually?

 

[meogi]

Why would dying then be considered a "punishment" if we all are going to die eventually?

Because we're ego-centric. It's very hard to come to terms with the idea that what you are is finite. It's easy to see it as a punishment.

Especially when you also believe that, at one point, we did live forever and that 'sin' is why we don't anymore.

 

[Photonic]

This thread made me think. I wonder which is the more or least acceptable; beastiality or incest?
OMG, I've never even considered anyone of them before. It made me realize that you really have to study religious texts and also really think about the consequences of those texts to know how absolutely disgusting religion is.

Incest is mostly a societal trapping, historically incest was quite common.

Bestiality on the other hand...

 

[Krok]

Incest is mostly a societal trapping, historically incest was quite common.

So was slavery at a stage. Both are still openly practised in some fringe societies. So is cannibalism. The Bible does not condemn any of these... I got my moral values somewhere else:yes:

 

[Krok]

Because we're ego-centric. It's very hard to come to terms with the idea that what you are is finite. It's easy to see it as a punishment.

I 'm very lucky then. I've got no problems with that. After my death I'll be in the same condition I was in before I was conceived.That's what all the empirical evidence indicate. It's not punishment nor blessing, it's fact.

Especially when you also believe that, at one point, we did live forever and that 'sin' is why we don't anymore.

Nobody's ever lived forever (even the first people, Adam and Eve according to the Bible, didn't live forever). So, even if you are a Christian, no person has ever lived forever. Whether they sinned or not, nobody's ever lived forever. The myth is that Adam and Eve could have lived forever, if they didn't "sin". But, they didn't live forever.

 

[Photonic]

So was slavery at a stage. Both are still openly practised in some fringe societies. So is cannibalism. The Bible does not condemn any of these... I got my moral values somewhere else:yes:

You got your morals from society.

Even I wouldn't make the claim I got all my morals from myself.

 

[gnostic]

Especially when you also believe that, at one point, we did live forever and that 'sin' is why we don't anymore.

Nobody's ever lived forever (even the first people, Adam and Eve according to the Bible, didn't live forever). So, even if you are a Christian, no person has ever lived forever. Whether they sinned or not, nobody's ever lived forever. The myth is that Adam and Eve could have lived forever, if they didn't "sin". But, they didn't live forever.

I'd have to agree with krok on this one, meogi.

No where does it say Genesis, BEFORE they ate the forbidden fruit, would they live forever. They could only live forever if they had eaten the fruit from the Tree of Life, but they didn't. So if pre-sinned Adam and Eve never touch fruit from both Trees then they would still die eventually.

this is my view of Genesis 2 & 3. Eating from the tree of knowledge mean they have lost their innocence so they would live a life of suffering and die in pain. If they didn't eat from the tree of knowledge then they would live and die "without suffering" (but that assuming they also didn't eat from the tree of life too). Their sin or disobedience brought suffering into the world, not death. Eternal life was never on the table when god was passing judgement on them so they didn't lose immortality because they never had it in the 1st place.

I'd suggest to you, meogi, that you re-read the Eden episode again, without jumping to the conclusion that pre-sinned Adam and Eve were immortal in the 1st place.

 

[not nom]

No where does it say Genesis, BEFORE they ate the forbidden fruit, would they live forever. They could only live forever if they had eaten the fruit from the Tree of Life, but they didn't. So if pre-sinned Adam and Eve never touch fruit from both Trees then they would still die eventually.

god allowed all fruits of the garden, except the forbidden tree obviously. so it stands to reason that if that hadn't got them kicked out, they SURELY would have eaten from it... especially since god names as the reason for kicking them out that otherwise they would eat from the tree of life and live forever.

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

I'd suggest to you, meogi, that you re-read the Eden episode again

right back atcha

 

[gnostic]

god allowed all fruits of the garden, except the forbidden tree obviously. so it stands to reason that if that hadn't got them kicked out, they SURELY would have eaten from it... especially since god names as the reason for kicking them out that otherwise they would eat from the tree of life and live forever.

All I am saying they weren't created immortals, hence they weren't created to live forever. Judging by what meogi was saying, they lost their immortality when they ate the wrong fruit:

Especially when you also believe that, at one point, we did live forever and that 'sin' is why we don't anymore.

This statement is not true, because they didn't partake from the Tree of Life, so they still couldn't live forever, which mean they could still die, even if they didn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

God also told them (actually he told Adam directly) they would die then and there, should they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but they die in that day:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

"...for in the day that...." means you will die that day. It doesn't say he will die centuries from then, and Adam lived to 930.

 

[McBell]

Homosexual behaviour between women? Homosexual behaviour and beastiality are not similar at all.

In any way, whether anyone engages in heterosexual behaviour, homosexual behaviour, beastiality, incest, never have sex, have lots of sex, eat a lot of meat, don't eat alot of meat, do a lot of exercise, don't do a lot of exercise, praize Thor, praize Allah, Praize Jesus, Praize FSM, or don't praize Thor, Allah, Jesus, FSM etc. ,we'll all arive at death. It is not a punishment, it is fact. We'll all die. It's not a punishment, nor a blessing. We'll all die. Fact. Why would dying then be considered a "punishment" if we all are going to die eventually?

What is the idea behind accepting Jesus and being saved?
Is it not the belief that they will not spiritually die after their carnal death?
So would that not, in fact, be a belief of living forever?

I mean, honestly, what is the whole thing about the "afterlife" if not to "live" (perhaps "exist" would be a better word?) forever?

 

[Krok]

Hi Mestemia

What is the idea behind accepting Jesus and being saved?Is it not the belief that they will not spiritually die after their carnal death?

Yes, that's what I believed when I was still a born-again.

So would that not, in fact, be a belief of living forever?

Of course it is.

However, according to the version of the Bible used in the Church I belonged to (similar to the KJV), Adam and Eve were originally created to live forever (as humans). The human bodies only started to die as punishment after eating from some tree.

I mean, honestly, what is the whole thing about the "afterlife" if not to "live" (perhaps "exist" would be a better word?) forever?

As I understood it, as a result of that sin, only our spirits will live forever. Either in heaven or in hell. You just have to choose where you'll spend eternity by believing now.
(I feel so embarresed even acknowledging that I used to believe all this nonsense!)

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia Yes, that's what I believed when I was still a born-again. Of course it is.

However, according to the version of the Bible used in the Church I belonged to (similar to the KJV), Adam and Eve were originally created to live forever (as humans). The human bodies only started to die as punishment after eating from some tree. As I understood it, as a result of that sin, only our spirits will live forever. Either in heaven or in hell. You just have to choose where you'll spend eternity by believing now.
(I feel so embarresed even acknowledging that I used to believe all this nonsense!)

My point being that death was a punishment because not only do people fear death, it is a direct slap in the face of their desire to live forever.