-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religious Morals Invading Our Secular Life
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
Boy! it took 101 posts before that one came up. But congratulations. You're the winner.Are you perhaps searching for relief for a guilty conscience?
.
.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I've read the Bible more this week than you've read it this year?
Be careful where you cast your Lot, since you seem to be "into" incest stories of the Bible, mainly.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Because you claimed (with absolutely no evidence to back it up) that the two girls thought they and their family were the only people left on Earth.
"The most cursory reading of the scriptures show that Lot's family was deceived, starting with an erroneous perception (we're the only people left on Earth, so let's get dad drunk and take his seed) and . . . .
When in fact, there's very good evidence that they were not so deceived, but would have believed only the city would be destroyed.
"This city will be punished, so take your wife and your two daughters who are still with you and leave this place. Then you will not be destroyed with the city.” (Genesis 19:15)
See how this works? You make up a stupid claim, which is so easily refuted that it makes you look dimwitted. Your choice of course.
.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Never mind your opinion of the book you get this information from. I can't think of a single reason that incest would be a good idea.
Genetics. How many diseases....really nasty ones...are the direct result of reproduction among a population too small to sustain health? Tay Sachs?
an intolerable balance of power; incest is NEVER between 'consenting adults,' not really. Even if the participants are 'adults,' there's always something there that twists things.
If y'all want to call this evolutionary instinct, you may be right. Sometimes evolutionary instinct is something worth paying attention to.
.............as for why 'a law,'.....well, we have that balance of power thing. We really ought to protect those who don't have any, and you can yell about intellectual and secular freedom all you want to, but that baby might still be born with crappy genetics, and how are you going to fix THAT later?
I'm a fan of freedom...as long as one's freedom doesn't take someone else's away, and quite frankly, I can think of fewer things that would do that than incest.
But the rules were devised by man, not God. They support the customs and mores of the tribe. There is no evidence whatever that they were written by an invisible, incomprehehsible God.
Slavishly adhering to rules you admit yourself are incomprehensible is bound to lead to problems.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
. . . While I still question your interpretation as a whole reading of the story differs . . .
I would say, respectfully, your lovingkindness and thoughtfulness in overlooking my presumption shows me yet again that the Bible is write about how unbelievers treat other people. PROVE THE
BIBLE WRONG BY BEING A NICE PERSON.
It's one element of moral consideration, not the entirety of it. The problem is that the modern denies the other element, which is morality intrinsic to the act.
Only insofar as the law defines them as not being capable of doing so. The law is evidently malleable. Mark my words, the argument that the law's definition of informed consent is arbitrary and unjustly stifles the sexual freedom of adolescents is coming. (#love is love) As for animals and the dead, what reason is there to assume that the 'consent' of such entities will always be a legal consideration?
Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group
Again, mark my words, It will happen.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
"Presumption"? Presumption my grannie's garters, You made a bold face claim:
"The most cursory reading of the scriptures show that Lot's family was deceived, starting with an erroneous perception (we're the only people left on Earth, so let's get dad drunk and take his seed)"
Sorry, but merely being a nice person wouldn't prove much of anything, wrong or right. However, if you happen to be taking exception to my use of "stupid" in describing your claim, please consider that to make up an unsupported claim, which is easily checked, to make a point is stupid.shows me yet again that the Bible is write about how unbelievers treat other people. PROVE THE
BIBLE WRONG BY BEING A NICE PERSON.
stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest
1.having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest
1.having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
dim·wit·ted
ˌdimˈwidəd/
adjective
informal
adjective: dim-witted; adjective: dimwitted
ˌdimˈwidəd/
adjective
informal
adjective: dim-witted; adjective: dimwitted
- stupid or silly.
.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
The problem is that the "other element" is completely arbitrary and is inconsistent among the umpteen bazillion different religions.
Again, secular laws are based on real world cause and effect. Children aren't independent and matured enough to give informed, valid consent. Sexual abuse of children causes psychological trauma, making it clearly unacceptable. Sex with animals is obviously rape since they can't say yes or no, can cause pain and distress and thus obviously a form of abuse. Secular laws can be substantiated with logic and evidence, whereas religious laws are simply pulled strait out of the posterior.
The progressive ideology doesn't work like that. Your argument is nothing more than blind faith that we've reached the furthest extent of how far things can go but I think your faith is contrary to experience. As long as there's something to push for it will be pushed. Yesterday it was contraception, easy divorce, abortion, and a general loosening all round of sexual morals. Today it is gay marriage and 'gender fluidity'. Each day is more radical than the other. Do you believe tomorrow won't follow the same pattern? My bets are on polyamory and incest being next, then it will be pederasty. (I use pederasty in a gender neutral way to describe sexual relationships between adults and pubescent teens, I also distinguish it from pedophilia proper as the two are often conflated.)
There will unlikely be an 'intergenerational love' movement, they'll just quietly and gradually lower the age of consent. I don't think it will go so far as opening up the law to prepubescent children, but it will almost certainly go as far as to adolescents of around fourteen-fifteen. Remember that NAMBLA was a thing as early as the late 70's. I've already made this prediction on these forums before, only to be told that people should be able to have sex whenever they are ready. Heck, I remember being a teen (which wasn't that long ago) I knew perfectly well what sex was.
These people are right, there is no 'rational' basis for strict age of consent laws. My grandmother was married in her teens, was she not capable of consent? You may think that the whole idea is slimy but remember that today's liberal is tomorrow's conservative.
Secular law is often nothing more than the current reflection of the moral and political zeitgeist, which is increasingly subject to the will of our genitals and moneyed interests.
Don't get me wrong, I actually hope you're right. But I don't have much faith in the moral integrity of a decaying, hedonistic culture. We've lost our sense of the transcendent. Christian Europe, while not perfect, was the greatest civilization that ever existed. And we've thrown it away for godlessness, hedonism, consumerism and increasing dysfunction. (Especially in the family, the bedrock of any stable civilization) But who cares? So long as annoying things like morals don't get in the way of our 'right' to meaningless sex in near any form whatsoever. So long as there are new gadgets to buy, drinks to imbibe and pharmaceuticals to mask our emotional dysfunctionality. (Which of course can't possibly be a result of dysfunctional lifestyle choices). So long as corporations can offshore or import cheap labour from overseas and scream racist at anyone who objects (because to hell with the working class) and so long as there's a gigantic, micromanaging welfare state to offset all the consequences who cares about old time virtues. Just ride the decline.
Last edited:
What is in question is 'informed', consent, which is not possible unless one is mentally capable of weighing the consequences, and the experts tell us at what age the brain is developed enough for this to take place.
Skwim
Veteran Member
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
"Presumption"? Presumption my grannie's garters, You made a bold face claim:
"The most cursory reading of the scriptures show that Lot's family was deceived, starting with an erroneous perception (we're the only people left on Earth, so let's get dad drunk and take his seed)"
Sorry, but merely being a nice person wouldn't prove much of anything, wrong or right. However, if you happen to be taking exception to my use of "stupid" in describing your claim, please consider that to make up an unsupported claim, which is easily checked, to make a point is stupid.
Or do you think it was an un-stupid thing to do? A bright, careful, intelligent, reasonable, sensible, and smart thing to do? All antonyms of "stupid."stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest
1.having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
As for it making you look dimwitted,
I think it's quite apt, particularly when you claim "I've read the Bible more this week than you've read it this year.dim·wit·ted
ˌdimˈwidəd/
adjective
informal
adjective: dim-witted; adjective: dimwitted
- stupid or silly.
.
Actually, what I wrote--and you ignored--was regarding the entire story, not two or three verses--to see where the presumption came from. Rather than belabor the point--which I already knew--that I understand the scriptures and you treat them with little care or concern--I sought conciliation and you called me stupid, because you had nothing productive to contribute.
When you're done with your tantrum, perhaps you will actually read the entire story. Perhaps.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And the whole story does nothing to change the fact that that the two girls did not think they and their family were the only people left on Earth. You made a bold face claim and are now trying to pass it off as a presumption. It's not working BB. Admit your mistake like a man, or whatever you are.
.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I think it's arguable but was trying to get you from the specific (I'm wrong, which I'm not per the below), to the general (be nice, not mean, because the Bible says atheists are mean and you are upholding the Bible de facto):
Genesis 19:31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children--as is the custom all over the earth.
New International Version
One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children--as is the custom all over the earth.
New Living Translation
One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can't get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children.
English Standard Version
And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
New American Standard Bible
Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth.
King James Bible
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man in the land to sleep with us as is the custom of all the land.
International Standard Version
One day the firstborn told the younger one, "Our father is old, and there's no man in the land to have sex with us, as everybody else throughout all the earth does.
NET Bible
Later the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man anywhere nearby to have sexual relations with us, according to the way of all the world.
New Heart English Bible
The firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The older daughter said to the younger one, "Our father is old. No men are here. We can't get married as other people do.
JPS Tanakh 1917
And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
New American Standard 1977
Then the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth.
Jubilee Bible 2000
Then the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man left in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
King James 2000 Bible
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man on the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
American King James Version
And the firstborn said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth:
American Standard Version
And the first-born said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Douay-Rheims Bible
And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth.
Darby Bible Translation
And the first-born said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the land to come in to us after the manner of all the earth:
English Revised Version
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Webster's Bible Translation
And the first-born said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man on the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth:
World English Bible
The firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us in the way of all the earth.
Young's Literal Translation
And the first-born saith unto the younger, 'Our father is old, and a man there is not in the earth to come in unto us, as is the way of all the earth;
Make a choice--unless you are compelled to continue to be mean because you have a different spirit within.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Let me add one other version
Genesis 19:30-32 (NCV)
30 Lot was afraid to continue living in Zoar, so he and his two daughters went to live in the mountains in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old. Everywhere on the earth women and men marry, but there are no men around here for us to marry. 32 Let’s get our father drunk and have sexual relations with him. We can use him to have children and continue our family.”
30 Lot was afraid to continue living in Zoar, so he and his two daughters went to live in the mountains in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old. Everywhere on the earth women and men marry, but there are no men around here for us to marry. 32 Let’s get our father drunk and have sexual relations with him. We can use him to have children and continue our family.”
Note the limiting extent of the manless situation to only, "here." and the present tense: "As other people do." And "Everywhere on the earth women and men marry, but there are no men around here for us to marry."
So they knew they we're NOT the only people left on Earth, AND they knew that men and women were still marrying. Now why there weren't any men for them to marry or have sex with could denote several things: There were no single men they liked enough. There were no single men who liked them enough. There were no unmarried men. So the question then is, are any of these reasons enough to commit incest with one's father? They sure thought so, as did god.
So, Nope, there is no reason to believe they were deceived into thinking they were the only people left on Earth. Particularly when one considers everything else that was said about the coming destruction in Genesis 19:
12 The two men said to Lot, “Are there any other people from your family living in this city? Do you have any sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any other people from your family here? If so, you should tell them to leave now.
13 We are going to destroy this city. The Lord heard how evil this city is, so he sent us to destroy it.”
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, the men who had married his other daughters. He said, “Hurry and leave this city! The Lord will soon destroy it!” But they thought he was joking.
15 The next morning at dawn, the angels were trying to make Lot hurry. They said, “This city will be punished, so take your wife and your two daughters who are still with you and leave this place. Then you will not be destroyed with the city.”
To concluded that "The most cursory reading of the scriptures show that Lot's family was deceived, starting with an erroneous perception (we're the only people left on Earth, so let's get dad drunk and take his seed), is delusional. Shake yourself out of it BB, and stop making excuses. You made up a stupid claim, which is so easily refuted it makes you look dimwitted. And reading the Bible more this week than I've read it this year obviously doesn't equate with comprehension.
Sorry that you perceive setting you straight as meanness. Especially when you have no trouble setting others straight. A bit hypocritical don't you think?
.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I find comments like this mean with your dismissive, "my way of interpretation or the highway" language:
I just sent you EIGHTEEN translations--of the first 20 or so I found on a search, that say "ONLY PEOPLE LEFT ON EARTH".
If I was you, I would respond like you have:
stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
- 1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
synonyms: unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish; More
informal
- 1.
a stupid person (often used as a term of address).
"you're not a coward, stupid!"
And stop being a mean person, IF YOU CAN.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Misinterpreting eighteen sources is no better than misinterpreting a single source. It still doesn't make you right.
I give up. Have a nice day.
.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I misinterpreted 18 of the 20 most common English Bibles where the word EARTH was used? And you give up?
Really?!