Incest in your beliefs.

[Riverwolf]

The moment a divine being make a mistake, then he is not God.

Haha.

Why not?

 

[Riverwolf]

That depends on our faulty definition of what a god is. Can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Of course he can, then he lifts that same stone. Like a Buddhist conundrum.

I believe you mean a "Zen Koan."

 

[Jabar]

Why not?

Why yes?

According to me, A God lacking in a thing i believe a God should have is illogical.

It puts it on the level of the creation.

Whilst coming to the conclusion, meaning it is illogical, right or wrong?

 

[Jabar]

That depends on our faulty definition of what a god is. Can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Of course he can, then he lifts that same stone. Like a Buddhist conundrum.

That question is a omnipotence paradox.

It is irrational and illogical.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why yes?

According to me, A God lacking in a thing i believe a God should have is illogical.

It puts it on the level of the creation.

Whilst coming to the conclusion, meaning it is illogical, right or wrong?

...I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what you're saying, perhaps from a language barrier.

Creators are often on the "same levels" as their creations, and in Western literature, human creators frequently get overpowered by their creations. It's not too much of a stretch that some hypothetical "Supreme Creator" would get overpowered by their creation. I'm pretty sure there's some Final Fantasy game where that's the plot.

 

[Jabar]

...I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what you're saying, perhaps from a language barrier.

Creators are often on the "same levels" as their creations, and in Western literature, human creators frequently get overpowered by their creations. It's not too much of a stretch that some hypothetical "Supreme Creator" would get overpowered by their creation. I'm pretty sure there's some Final Fantasy game where that's the plot.

Rather insulting of you.

Haha, JK.

Anyhow, once again that is your view of a Creator.

 

[Brian Schuh]

That question is a omnipotence paradox.

It is irrational and illogical.

I put no limitations on my God. To say he is rational, is to say he can't be irrational. To say he is omnipotent, is to say he can't be powerless. To say he is omniscient, is to say he can't be ignorant. To say he is all good, is to say he can't do wrong. There is nothing he can't be, but that means he can't have limitation, which would be a limitation. In fact, he has more humanity, than the humanity he created.

 

[Baladas]

Well, I honestly don't give a rip what any religious authority has to say.
Dogma is not my bag.

Incest is not a topic that comes up much in my life. I have no issue with any two consenting adults having sex. The possible exception is with parent/child relationships, due to the likelihood of coercion.

Now, when the issue of having children comes up with these couples, I suppose that I might be for measures to ensure that they did not have kids.

As a rule though, I generally don't think that any institution should be dictating the sex lives of consenting adults.

 

[Riverwolf]

Rather insulting of you.

Haha, JK.

I should hope that any God worth their salt isn't easily insulted by the words of a petty little mortal. Heck, I poke fun at my own Gods all the time (similar to how one might poke fun at friends and teachers).

Anyhow, once again that is your view of a Creator.

Yes it is.

There's a saying out here in the West that even most Westerners really don't like when they hear it: Death of the Author. That is to say, the intention of a book's author is largely irrelevant to what it means to the readers. I'm a writer, and this is a difficult thing to grasp, but it's ultimately true.

Honestly, I don't even believe in the existence of a Creator. Sure, plenty of Gods have claimed that title, but I don't believe any of them actually are.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Didn't Brahma have incest?

That depends on what one considers Saraswati to be. Brahma's wife - Mahasaraswati (one of the Nava Durgas, nine forms of Durga) or his daughter. Hinduism has both the versions.

Back in 2,200 BC, Aryans saw the vernal equinox sliding from the asterism of Orion (Mrigashiras) to the asterism of Aldebaran (Rohini). Now, Rohini was considered Prajapati Brahma's daughter, so they termed it as attempt to incest and banned the worship of Prajapati Brahma. In addition, Rudra (in later times, Shiva) is supposed to have cut one of the five heads of Prajapati in anger (so, now Brahma has only four heads). The story of Brahma's incest hails from that time. Actually, it was a mythologized version of precession of equinoxes.

The Hunter

However, there is another story of attempted incest. It is a conversation between Yama, the Lord of Death and his sister, Yami, twins to the Sun God. Yami says that she wants sex with Yama and Yama refuses giving reasons. That is known as the famous "Yama-Yami Samvad" in Hinduism.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10010.htm

 

[rusra02]

That's ridiculous; Paul is contradicting and countermanding Christ.

Not likely, since Paul was appointed by the resurrected Christ to be an apostle, and acted with his authority. I believe Christ's sacrifice rendered the Law with it's animal sacrifices obsolete. (Hebrews 8:13)

 

[rusra02]

I notice that god doesn't forbid sexual relations among first cousins. In as much as the chance of genetic defects occurring from the coupling of first cousins is twice that than among those with no close kinship, (5-6% vs. 2-3%) I find this kind of surprising. Is god unaware of this, or is it that he just doesn't care?
source


So the injunction from the Bible that marriage be "honorable among all" depends on the socially acceptable standards of the culture one is in. If a culture deems that same-sex marriage is legal then according to the Bible this is an honorable marriage. Interesting point to keep in mind for those who oppose same-sex marriage.


.

If a culture deems homosexual acts as acceptable, this in no way negates God's condemnation of such conduct. (1 Corinthians 6:9,10) God-fearing persons contemplating marriage to a first cousin would likely want to consider the possible adverse effect on any children, as well as any laws that may forbid such marriages, and community standards. (Romans 13:1,2)

 

[rusra02]

Jesus received the Golden Rule from Rabbi Hillel who said, " what is hateful to you, do not do that hateful thing to your neighbor, the rest of the law is just commentary on that, but be sure to study it."

What Jesus taught was superior to the idea of simply refraining to do hateful things to your neighbor. Jesus showed our love of neighbor would result in positive acts of goodness. Thus, the real golden rule is "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean." (Matthew 7:12)

 

[Brian Schuh]

What Jesus taught was superior to the idea of simply refraining to do hateful things to your neighbor. Jesus showed our love of neighbor would result in positive acts of goodness. Thus, the real golden rule is "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean." (Matthew 7:12)

Okay, I would have it that my neighbors give me all their extra $, should I just knock on doors handing out $? See that doesn't make sense except for those who have taken a vow of poverty. I can't do for others like I want done to me, because people don't return favors.

 

[Brian Schuh]

According to Noahide law, which is more lenient than Jewish law, the following is considered incest.
1. Between a male and his father's present or former wife.
2. Between a male and his mother.
3. Between a male and his sister. A full sister or a maternal sister. (Leaving open a paternal half sister as permitted.)
4. A male with any male, family or not.

No law against a man being with his daughter, but this is rejected as a disgusting practice.

"The Divine Code" second edition, Rabbi Moshe Weiner. www.asknoah.org.

 

[Brian Schuh]

As for age a maiden may marry, one must respect the laws of the land in which they dwell. But no matter what a girl may not marry under 12 yrs 6 mo and 1 day. Must be physically and emotionally mature, (having entered puberty.) Intergenerational marriages are strongly discouraged. A girl is to marry a boy around same age. Where I live, age of consent is 18.

 

[Brian Schuh]

According to Noahide law, which is more lenient than Jewish law, the following is considered incest.
1. Between a male and his father's present or former wife.
2. Between a male and his mother.
3. Between a male and his sister. A full sister or a maternal sister. (Leaving open a paternal half sister as permitted.)
4. A male with any male, family or not.

No law against a man being with his daughter, but this is rejected as a disgusting practice.

"The Divine Code" second edition, Rabbi Moshe Weiner. www.asknoah.org.

I just thought of something, this code is so lenient, what of lesbian contact between two females, sisters or mother and daughter? Moses never condemned lesbianism, although later rabbis condemned it.

 

[Vouthon]

Catholicism has traditionally had the strictest "incest" regulations of any religion, so far as I can see.

We call it "consanguinity" or prohibited degree of kinship:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship#Medieval_canon_law

Roman civil law prohibited marriages within four degrees of consanguinity.[2] This was calculated by counting up from one prospective partner to the common ancestor, then down to the other prospective partner.[3] The first prohibited degree of consanguinity was a parent-child relationship while a second degree would be a sibling relationship. A third degree would be an uncle/aunt with a niece/nephew while fourth degree was between first cousins.[3] Any prospective marriage partner with a blood relationship outside these prohibited degrees was considered acceptable.[3] Canon law followed civil law until the early ninth century, when the Western Church increased the number of prohibited degrees from four to seven.[4] The method of calculation was also changed to simply count the number of generations back to the common ancestor.[5] This meant that marriage to anyone up to and including a sixth cousin was prohibited. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 decreed a change from seven prohibited degrees back to four (but retaining the same method of calculating; counting back to the common ancestor).[6]
​

So at one time, Catholics were not even allowed to marry their SIXTH COUSINS. The Church really did not approve of cousin marriages or people of the same "blood" (as they saw it back then) having children.

It has since been relaxed back down too 4 degrees, originally I believe at the behest of the nobility and royalist who were all inbreeding with each others royal houses because they didn't want to mix with mere commoners. The 4th degree according to the old method of calculation thus prohibited marriages between individuals who were 3rd cousins but permitted anything beyond that.

See:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity#Religious_and_traditional_law

Under Roman civil law, which early canon law of the Catholic Church followed, couples were forbidden to marry if they were within four degrees of consanguinity.[4] In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated.[5] Eventually the nobility became too interrelated to marry as the pool of non-related prospective spouses became smaller. It was either defy the church's position or look elsewhere for eligible marriage candidates.[6] In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made what they believed was a necessary change to canon law reducing the number of prohibited degrees of consanguinity from seven back to four.[7][8] The method of calculating prohibited degrees was changed also.[9] Instead of the former practice of counting up to the common ancestor then down to the proposed spouse, the new law computed consanguinity by counting back to the common ancestor.[9] In the Roman Catholic Church, unknowingly marrying a closely consanguineous blood relative was grounds for a declaration of nullity, but during the eleventh and twelfth centuries dispensations were granted with increasing frequency due to the thousands of persons encompassed in the prohibition at seven degrees and the hardships this posed for finding potential spouses.[10] After 1215 the general rule was that while fourth cousins could marry without dispensation, generally the need for dispensations was greatly reduced.[10] In fourteenth century England, for example, papal dispensations for annulments due to consanguinity (and affinity) were relatively few.[11]
​

At least you cannot accuse us of condoning incestuous relations!!!

To be fair, the Church had a good point - it's far healthier for a population to have diverse genetics. Bottlenecks are never good or desirable.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I am a Catholic and I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that incest is wrong. Here is the Catholic Church's position on incest straioght from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains a summarized form of all of the teachings of the Catholic Church:

2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father's wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . . "182 Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

2389 Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.