genesis made simple

[Jodie.Lynne]

Somehow I'm not getting the distinction through that incest is a sin and is forbidden and therefore God did not create Adam and Eva's sons who could only marry sisters. God did not make Lot's daughters commit incest. They did it and the result was the opposite of blessings. When God blesses someone, He does not remove the blessing. That is why Noah could not curse Ham for committing sodomy on him. So Noah cursed Ham's son.

According to the KJV, marrying ones' aunt is not considered incest and neither is marrying a half sister, (You've got to be kidding me, right? ) which Abraham did.

God bless.

Soooo, if I married my half-sister (my mother's daughter), or my aunt (my father's sister) it wouldn't be incest? I have to say pal, you have one helluva screwed up viewpoint.

"So Noah cursed Ham's son." What did Ham's son have to do with it?

Well, Frank, I would hazard a guess that the poor kid bore the brunt of his father's sins. Seems a lot of that happened in the "good" book, what with 7 generations being cursed and what not. Apparently, it wasn't good enough to brand one individual with a crime, you had to pass it down the line to some poor slob who wasn't even born yet. According to their historical mythos, the ancient Hebrews make Dwarves look downright forgiving.

[Arbenol]

That is why Noah could not curse Ham for committing sodomy on him.

And of all the families of the Earth, God chose this one alone to be saved.

Wouldn't all Christians be better off dismissing any literal interpretation of the early parts of the Bible?

[libstaK]

And of all the families of the Earth, God chose this one alone to be saved.

Wouldn't all Christians be better off dismissing any literal interpretation of the early parts of the Bible?

All christians I know do avoid any such thing. Sometimes we are stereo-typed because we are christians as being literalists by those of the non-believing persuasion that claim a literal interpretation is what we base our belief on, just putting that out there.

[GoldenWolf]

And of all the families of the Earth, God chose this one alone to be saved.

Wouldn't all Christians be better off dismissing any literal interpretation of the early parts of the Bible?

The whole world would be (Throw the old testament in the trash where it belongs).

Edited September 15, 2013 by Mystic Crusader

[Frank Merton]

I ran into a similar attitude about Buddhists earlier today -- that all Buddhists think we are reborn as animals and insects (or are rebirths of them). People engage in stereotyping who want to confirm their prejudice and even bigotry.

[Arbenol]

All christians I know do avoid any such thing. Sometimes we are stereo-typed because we are christians as being literalists by those of the non-believing persuasion that claim a literal interpretation is what we base our belief on, just putting that out there.

But you have the advantage of living in a country where you're properly educated, and not exposed so much to the irrational leanings of creationists. According to polls, you would likely be a minority in many areas of the USA (and elsewhere, no doubt).

[Arbenol]

I ran into a similar attitude about Buddhists earlier today -- that all Buddhists think we are reborn as animals and insects (or are rebirths of them). People engage in stereotyping who want to confirm their prejudice and even bigotry.

My comment was that all Christians would be better off rejecting it, not to imply that all Christians are literalists. I'm aware that they're not. Just to clarify.

[Frank Merton]

If you are on a train in the States and throw a rock out the window, the odds are it won't hit anyone except maybe a cow, but if it does hit someone, it will be either a lawyer or a fundamentalist. (Paraphrase of Toynbee)

[cormac mac airt]

All christians I know do avoid any such thing. Sometimes we are stereo-typed because we are christians as being literalists by those of the non-believing persuasion that claim a literal interpretation is what we base our belief on, just putting that out there.

Unfortunately libstaK there are still plenty of literalists around. So it's not cut-and-dried even from the Christian side of the fence. Between the two I'd prefer a metaphorically minded Christian over a literalist any day.

cormac

[libstaK]

Unfortunately libstaK there are still plenty of literalists around. So it's not cut-and-dried even from the Christian side of the fence. Between the two I'd prefer a metaphorically minded Christian over a literalist any day.

cormac

You're right, there are plenty around. Sometimes it seems more than there ever used to be. But then there are more people on this earth than there ever used to be and the human propensity to thrive on "sensationalism" makes sure that the crazies get the air play, that I think creates an inflated perception of how many are actually fundamentalists/creationists/literalists etc. It also attracts the ignorant and fearful to their views in some numbers, which is the great tragedy.

[Frank Merton]

Last poll I saw (a year or so ago) creationists were the majority in the States.

[cormac mac airt]

You're right, there are plenty around. Sometimes it seems more than there ever used to be. But then there are more people on this earth than there ever used to be and the human propensity to thrive on "sensationalism" makes sure that the crazies get the air play, that I think creates an inflated perception of how many are actually fundamentalists/creationists/literalists etc. It also attracts the ignorant and fearful to their views in some numbers, which is the great tragedy.

While I no longer consider myself as such I grew up Southern Baptist (Independent) so I've seen first-hand the literalist side of things and it doesn't appear to be getting any better. There are still plenty of people who almost obsessively need to believe the literal interpretation of the Bible. In many ways I think it does more harm than good.

cormac

[Frank Merton]

There are such people all over the world, not just Christians. We need to be realistic and recognize this, and, further, that education only helps on the edges. Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing and we have instincts that make us yearn to continue with it and make us feel guilty and fearful when we resist, even if intellectually we know better.

[cormac mac airt]

There are such people all over the world, not just Christians. We need to be realistic and recognize this, and, further, that education only helps on the edges. Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing and we have instincts that make us yearn to continue with it and make us feel guilty and fearful when we resist, even if intellectually we know better.

I'm going to assume you're using the Royal "we" as I have no instinct to continue with the religious upbringing I was part of nor do I impose such on the grandson I'm raising. He's taught right from wrong, that all choices have consequences and respect for his elders (amongst many, MANY other things of course) but I refuse to impose any particular religioius belief on him. That is his choice and not mine, nor should it be.

cormac

[Frank Merton]

No I am not using the royal "we," and that is a put down we don't need. I am using the inclusive "we."

Most people have such an instinct, probably you too but you are in denial. During their rebellious phase (generally late teens) many reject their childhood religion, but the instinct often wins out, and they go back as a lost sheep, filled with the emotional rewards our body gives us when we obey an instinct (usually joy and peace). Others continue with the rebellion and end up hating religion for the emotional ordeal they blame the indoctrination for.

[cormac mac airt]

No I am not using the royal "we," and that is a put down we don't need. I am using the inclusive "we."

Most people have such an instinct, probably you too but you are in denial. During their rebellious phase (generally late teens) many reject their childhood religion, but the instinct often wins out, and they go back as a lost sheep, filled with the emotional rewards our body gives us when we obey an instinct (usually joy and peace). Others continue with the rebellion and end up hating religion for the emotional ordeal they blame the indoctrination for.

Speak for yourself. I've long gotten past the need to believe that an admittedly jealous, as claimed by the Bible, bi-polar (IMO) Canaanite storm god who was co-opted by a tribe of wandering Mesopotamians (early Hebrews) travelling westward (and not actually original to them) has mine or anyone elses best interests at heart. But you're free to believe what you want.

cormac

[Frank Merton]

Just think about it. Your denial is getting to you and is pretty obvious in your last message. It appears "getting over" it was difficult for you and you look back at it with considerable distaste. That is the instinct "punishing " you by making you uncomfortable about it.

A bit of clarification -- your not indoctrinating your own children is admirable. If only most parents refrained, but so many religions teach that it is the parent's duty to indoctrinate children. To me that is a form of, well I better not say it.

[cormac mac airt]

Just think about it. Your denial is getting to you and is pretty obvious in your last message. It appears "getting over" it was difficult for you and you look back at it with considerable distaste. That is the instinct "punishing " you by making you uncomfortable about it.

A bit of clarification -- your not indoctrinating your own children is admirable. If only most parents refrained, but so many religions teach that it is the parent's duty to indoctrinate children. To me that is a form of, well I better not say it.

The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is that I bought it to begin with. And all because my elders who I was brought up to trust, both parental and religious, claimed it to be the truth without actually knowing much of anything meaningful concerning the origins of their belief. As far as it being difficult the only thing difficult is that they still buy it. But that's their choice and one I'm no longer limited by.

That you apparently want it to be more than that says more about you than it does me IMO.

cormac

[Frank Merton]

Well, whatever, but have you ever wondered how in the modern world these ancient religions manage to perpetuate themselves? Why are the children of Muslims also Muslim, Buddhists also Buddhists, Christians also Christians, and so on. It is a powerful instinct, but as conscious beings we can and often do overcome them.

[cormac mac airt]

Well, whatever, but have you ever wondered how in the modern world these ancient religions manage to perpetuate themselves? Why are the children of Muslims also Muslim, Buddhists also Buddhists, Christians also Christians, and so on. It is a powerful instinct, but as conscious beings we can and often do overcome them.

Sometimes fear. Sometimes ignorance. Sometimes the need to feel that any one particular religious belief is (somehow) the sole actual truth as well as a need to believe there is something "more" than our material existance all come to mind. Which doesn't mean that we have to be limited by the above.

cormac

[Copen]

Which it would have had to be in order for Seth (or Cain after killing Abel) to have had any progeny since the only other females that would have been on earth (taking the Bible literally) would be their full sisters. Meaning that incest was required from the start.

cormac

Gentiles, male and female, were created Day Six. Cain was scared to go into the foreign land among foreigners. But he did, and he married a Gentile. Gen, means" beginning. Tiles, means baked clays. Almost everytime the Bible mentions "men" or "living creature" it is talking about Gentiles.

The Bible says Adam was the son of God. Therefore, Adam's sons would have been the sons of God who married the daughters of men, (Gentiles), all whom they chose.

No incest.

[Copen]

"So Noah cursed Ham's son." What did Ham's son have to do with it?

If Noah couldn't curse Ham because God had just blessed him, then the next best thing was to curse his son, Canaan. He hurt the father through the son, who would have been a descendant of Cain on his mother's side. For the Bible shows right away that a tradition of some variation of Cain's name had begun when it was handed down to Cain's grandson, Tubal-cain.

God drove Cain out of the land of Israel, but his descendants have been trying ever since to get back. That's why it is called the land of Canaan. And that is why they are nomads and are continuously run out of the land. Canaan's descendants became the Phoenicians.

[Copen]

Soooo, if I married my half-sister (my mother's daughter), or my aunt (my father's sister) it wouldn't be incest? I have to say pal, you have one helluva screwed up viewpoint.

It is God's view point. Not mine.

It is amazing that people think Cain and Adam's other sons married sisters; and no one thinks anything about that; but protest Cain and Adam's other sons marrying Gentiles, which preventing them from committing incest; but have disgust at Abraham marrying a half sister or Moses' father marrying an aunt.

[cormac mac airt]

Gentiles, male and female, were created Day Six. Cain was scared to go into the foreign land among foreigners. But he did, and he married a Gentile. Gen, means" beginning. Tiles, means baked clays. Almost everytime the Bible mentions "men" or "living creature" it is talking about Gentiles.

The Bible says Adam was the son of God. Therefore, Adam's sons would have been the sons of God who married the daughters of men, (Gentiles), all whom they chose.

No incest.

I don't know where you're getting your etymology for the word "gentile" but it's wrong. It has nothing to do with "beginnings" and "baked clays".

Gentile (adj)

mid-13c., "noble, kind, gracious" (mid-12c. as a surname); late 14c., "of noble rank or birth, belonging to the gentry," from Late Latin gentilis "foreign, heathen, pagan," from Latin gentilis "person belonging to the same family, fellow countryman," from gentilis (adj.) "of the same family or clan," from gens (genitive gentis) "race, clan" (see gentle).

Gentile (n)

late 14c., "chivalrous person; member of the nobility;" see gentile (adj.). Also used during 14c. to mean both "one who is not a Christian" and "one who is not a Jew." The Latin word was used in Vulgate to translate Greek ethnikos, from ta ethne "the nations," which translated Hebrew ha goyim "the (non-Jewish) nations."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gentile

In a Biblical context it's used to refer to people who are not Jews/Hebrews. The "sons of God" and "daughters of men" doesn't refer to Adam and gentiles, it refers to the ancestry of the Nephilim. And Cain couldn't have gone into a country of foreigners since any "foreigners" would have been related to him in any case, assuming for sake of argument that the Biblical story of Adam and Eve being the first humans was true.

cormac

[Copen]

And of all the families of the Earth, God chose this one alone to be saved.

Of all the families of the earth, God chose this nation thru which the seed would someday come who would be the Messiah. Jesus' genealogy goes all the way back to Adam the first Israelite, created Day Eight.

The weren't the only ones saved eternally, God has always had a people whom He predestined to be saved out of every tribe, tongue, nation, and people. Even though many of them were saved, (as numerous as the sands of the sea and the stars in heaven), they were not allowed to be the avenue through which the word (both written and in the flesh) would someday come. God kept that line distinct and peculiar so that prophecy would be easy to trace.

Israelite men were allowed to marry Gentiles women. The woman becomes whatever her husband was, which was Israelite. Everytime a Israelite woman married or wanted to marry a Gentile man, the Gentile men were killed. The Israelite woman would have become a Gentile, which would have confused the line God was keeping separate and uncontaminated for the inspired word sake and for the coming of the Messiah.