No, they'd have to prove it. This is what we do every time we have an ethical debate---we reason with the other side.

You would hold the belief that you were right and they were wrong, and suppose you each had an absolute standard?

We would debate those standards until one turned out to be unliveable or self-referentially incoherent.

Yet many of the so-judged "wrong" cultures that have been subjugated using just this line of logic are liveable, as evidenced by having been lived for thousands of years before they were "redeemed". If two cultures of drastically different worldviews are debating who is right and who is wrong and each is using a different, culturally specific absolute standard of right and wrong, either one or the other resorts to conquering (by violence or other methods) and one is left by the wayside. Does that mean the subjugated culture must have been cosmically wrong because they "lost"?

What would be an example of self-referentially incoherent standards?

Again, I would suggest that whole male-superiority thing plus men carry the sin nature idea is just the way that any Greek would think about genetics. To a Greek, all that a woman did was to bear children---the man alone was responsible, so any defects could be blamed on him. Today, of course, we know that genetics doesn't work that way, but you can see how a culture with that assumption could assume that sin was passed through the father.

Is the Old Testament about the Greeks, then? Because I thought it was the history of the Jewish tribes in the Middle Eastern areas, and the OT has a great deal to say about the impurity of female sexuality and the inherent value of the male. (ie: a man who takes a virgin woman is allowed to wed her, he just has to pay her father. Essentially the same as taking a car for a test drive, then paying the dealer.)

Male/female doesn't matter in God's economy, true, and neither does slave/free, but in terms of earthly relationships, there are clearly defined roles. Paul says there is no slave or free and then goes on to instruct slaves to obey their masters.

So why not try to make our earthly relationships as close to God's economy as possible? Why bother with all the specifics of dress and hair and who can teach who etc. unless those were specific to the times?

No one said it was easy, but in order to be faithful to God, we must obey what His word says.

So a woman who God made less than nurturing is supposed to deny how she was made?

This is not a genetic behavior, it's a taught one. From a young age children are taught that boys have to be strong and get what they want, and girls have to keep their voices down or people might thinking they're nagging and get what they want the quiet way - by manipulating.

And a culturally specific behavior at that. Women don't manipulate because it's the way their brains are genetically wired, they do it because in Western culture its the easiest (and for a long time only) way of possibly maybe if your husband/father/brother was in a good mood getting something done in your own life. And men manipulate just as much, they just do it in the open and call it politics. Female manipulation is inherently tied to sexuality, which is the Big Bad in Western society, therefore making female power into manipulation and male manipulation into authority.

What would be an example of self-referentially incoherent standards?

A standard that says that one culture ought not to judge another.

Yet many of the so-judged "wrong" cultures that have been subjugated using just this line of logic are liveable

I mean consistently liveable. Example: Buddhism is not liveable because it says that right and wrong are but points on the same circle and yet by the same token commands its followers to do acts of charity---if it were consistent, it could not commands its followers to do anything.

the OT has a great deal to say about the impurity of female sexuality and the inherent value of the male. (ie: a man who takes a virgin woman is allowed to wed her, he just has to pay her father. Essentially the same as taking a car for a test drive, then paying the dealer.)

First of all, he's not just allowed to, but commanded to, they valued women so much. It's a shotgun wedding, essentially.

Again, where is this idea of female being impure found? The sexual mores found in the OT law are actually quite humane, punishing men far more severely than women.

So why not try to make our earthly relationships as close to God's economy as possible? Why bother with all the specifics of dress and hair and who can teach who etc. unless those were specific to the times?

First of all, because marriage is a Divinely ordained institution meant to reflect God's relationship with His people (read Hosea for an example).

Second, because God has commanded it. He has commanded how His Church is to be ordered and we then need to order it as He has commanded. Yes, we are all equal before God, but He has also given us roles in His order of things. Is that so hard?

So a woman who God made less than nurturing is supposed to deny how she was made?

No, but she still needs to submit to what God's word says.

TBG

A standard that says that one culture ought not to judge another.

That's incoherent, yes. Of course groups who are different are going to judge each other, its unavoidable. The issue is whether they should act on that judgment, specifically a judgment where a different group is considered to be in the wrong in the eyes of the observers.

Yet many of the so-judged "wrong" cultures that have been subjugated using just this line of logic are liveable

I mean consistently liveable. Example: Buddhism is not liveable because it says that right and wrong are but points on the same circle and yet by the same token commands its followers to do acts of charity---if it were consistent, it could not commands its followers to do anything.

And yet people live as Buddhists. Christianity has it's own paradoxes, depending on denomination and the level of infallibility given to the Bible. The Commandments say "Don't kill each other", and God routinely commands wholesale rape, pillage, and slaughter of other nations even though He made them as well. Is it not wrong if God tells you to do it, then? Or is it a case of those rules being meant for the tribes of Israel specifically?

First of all, he's not just allowed to, but commanded to, they valued women so much. It's a shotgun wedding, essentially.

Thereby potentially condemning a raped woman to wed her violater. Depending on the version, the verse either says "seduces" or "seizes". These are vastly different, as one implies consent and the latter does not. The only case in which a woman is not punished for this event is if she is already sold to another man. It's a case of property damage. It follows on the heels of laws for property transgressions dealing with animals, not precepts for marriage. Yes, the man must pay for the woman, which implies value, but it is value as goods and a transaction in which the woman has no voice. Yes, they valued women, but just as a vessel for bearing sons to carry on the line.

Again, where is this idea of female being impure found? The sexual mores found in the OT law are actually quite humane, punishing men far more severely than women.

Leviticus 15: 19-30. It has a whole list of cleanliness rules. Menstruation was equated with impurity, and anything a menstruating woman came in contact with was considered unclean until a span of time had passed or something had been done to cleanse it.

12 ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. If she gives birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days." Why is the period of ritual uncleanliness (some of which is for sanitary purposes that are completely logical) longer for a female child? There's no physical difference between birthing a male and birthing a female that requires this.

What's the punishment for a man not being a virgin on his wedding night? Why, when a woman's husband dies, is she passed along to his brother and when a man's wife dies he is commanded to choose another?

Ecclesiasticus has a great many more, but not everyone uses those...hmm...a little incoherent, maybe?

First of all, because marriage is a Divinely ordained institution meant to reflect God's relationship with His people (read Hosea for an example).

Second, because God has commanded it. He has commanded how His Church is to be ordered and we then need to order it as He has commanded. Yes, we are all equal before God, but He has also given us roles in His order of things. Is that so hard?

I was speaking more in terms of general relationships to each other, not specifically marriage.

I don't come at the Bible from a literalist perspective. I see the Old Testament in particular as cultural givens for a group of people that just happened to be written down. Times change, cultures shift; even Christian culture.

No, but she still needs to submit to what God's word says.

What if God called a woman to take on a role that was traditionally male? Should she ignore it and follow the words?

No, but she still needs to submit to what God's word says.

What if God called a woman to take on a role that was traditionally male? Should she ignore it and follow the words?

Read about Deborah or Ruth for that answer.

A couple things here, Maenad. First off, no where in the Bible does it say "Don't kill each other". Nor does God authorize rape in the conquest of Cannan. The 6th Commandmant is "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is very different than killing in cases of manslaughter and certainly war. Murder is the intentional, pre-meditaded taking of life. And as far as the conquest of Cannan, that is one of the most difficult things that people raise up with Christianity.

The God of the Bible is the same from Genesis through Revelation. He did not change his character from ordering the conquest of Cannan to when Jesus said 'love your enemies' and 'turn the other cheek'. People have so often used those lines out of context to tell Christians that they should do nothing but be a peace-loving pacifist. Throughout history God has used other nations and wars to accomplish what he desired. I am reading Jeremiah now, and he says several times God used Babylon, a very brutal nation, to conquer the lands and punish Judah. God does not tolerate sin and there comes a point where God says his wrath is filled. That's why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It is also why he ordered the conquest of Cannan, and he used the Israelites to do that, on top of getting the inheritance that was promised to Abraham. I will never be able to explain it properly, but this is what I have seen out of God's character.

It is also important to note that these passages are literal history. This is what happened in the history of the Israelties. And just because the Bible says it happened, that doesn't mean God approves of the actions. One of David's sons raped his sister. Does that mean God approves that incest? No.

And as for God calling a woman to take on the role that was traditionally male? God will never call anyone to do anything that is contrary to what is written in the Bible. That will make him inconsistent to his character and makes both his and the Bible unreliable. It doesn't mean God can't use it. From what I have heard from other women, if they are taking on the leadership role of position that is Biblically ordained for men, it means one of two things in most cases. 1) The woman is seeking the position of authority that should not go to her. or 2) the men are simply not doing thier job. The latter is why so many women have leadership roles of the spiritual side of the family and in the church. It is almost always the women who lead the church events and such, and a lot of it is because the men are not stepping up to the plate. My pastor's wife was so often the real spiritual leader of the family and she told us she was more than capable of doing the job, but she was much happier when her husband really took on the responsibility of the job that was meant to be his. I can easily imagine hearing similar responses from other married couples.

Gotta return to work, more later.

As I was composing this post Maenad, beat me to one of the quotes I used . Oh well, here goes:

GB: Anyone can observe, repeat and verify an Empirical Fact.

TBG:
Go read David Hume---a dose of Hume is a good cure for nonsensical empiricism. This statement only works under the common sense assumption that nature is uniform.

So you agree that its common sense to assume that an experiment that can be repeated ad infinitum with the same results each time is the basic standard of proof (Empirical Evidence) for any physical phenomenon?

If nature didn’t have uniform characteristics (at least in OUR universe), such a feat would not be possible, technology couldn’t be developed, and one would be just as likely to fall up as down (I assume you believe in gravity, not because of faith, but experience AND scientific evidence).

GB:
And I shouldn't have to remind you that I'm not arguing against Theism, rather against an objective verifiable empirical standard for Theism.

TBG:
I would say that I know that God exists in the same way that I know that there is a lamp in front of me: I look at the world and find myself believing that there is a God, just as I look at the world and find myself believing that there is a lamp in front of me. I can't help it if your sensus Divinitatus isn't working properly.

So are you saying that you can PROVE that knowledge (which is the point I was alluding to)? If so, what are your standards of proof? And I know you have standards of proof as evidenced by your posts:

TBG:
If my belief is warranted, then I am sufficiently justified to make a knowledge claim. How do I know what is going to happen? God has revealed it---it's right there in a manual

How do you determine what is “warranted”? Anyone can write a book. Are you using inductive reasoning?

TBG:
Well suppose culture A is correct…

How do you prove it’s correct?

TBG:
No, they'd have to prove it. This is what we do every time we have an ethical debate---we reason with the other side.

Apparently you DO believe that PROOF can be conveyed from one person to another (imagine that ). But if your actual standards of proof are as mutable as they are in our debates, then proving anything to you is impossible and debate is pointless.

TBG:
It's partly just the way men are wired: we aren't wired to be led but pushed into leadership. How many people like to see a man who can't lead his family? We call him a sissy or hen-pecked and we pity him.

Underestimation? Not really, just observation. I have simply observed that while in politics or business, men and women are perfectly capable of co-operation in leading, in the church and family, when men don't lead, the structure breaks down.

And what is your standard of proof for the above statements? Calling a man in a non-leadership role a sissy, henpecked, or pitying him is purely cultural. It has no bearing on how a man is “wired”. Women have led Corporations and Countries without a “breakdown of structure”.

So having demonstrated that you have standards of proof now (apparently as “Nonsensical” as Empiricism—so much for Hume and being able to confirm results, Eh? ), I will continue on with the statements about Women in the Bible:

TBG:
Again, where is this idea of female being impure found? The sexual mores found in the OT law are actually quite humane, punishing men far more severely than women.

Oh, REALLY? Then what do you make of this:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

Perhaps this is where the idea of a female being impure is found. Continuing on:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the w***e, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

There’s plenty of other stuff, but let’s move on:

TBG:
Again, I would suggest that whole male-superiority thing plus men carry the sin nature idea is just the way that any Greek would think about genetics. To a Greek, all that a woman did was to bear children---the man alone was responsible, so any defects could be blamed on him. Today, of course, we know that genetics doesn't work that way, but you can see how a culture with that assumption could assume that sin was passed through the father.

Previously you only mentioned the “male superiority thing” as being a Greek invention, which is clearly not true. Maybe you’re right about the notion of Sin being carried in the male line being Greek though. Particularly as the Bible puts the onus of Sin on Eve and women in general.

So obviously, for me, I have to consider the Bible as a sign of it's times, and the word of Men (literally ), not God. But I'm not one to throw out the Spiritual Baby with the Bathwater. As I have said in the past, I do think the Bible has some important spiritual truth's, even though I don't view it as the "unerring word of God".

Fencer, if God (in the Bible) didn't approve of incest, who did Cain and Abel marry?

Peace and Long Life

GB

PS:

TBG:
I mean consistently liveable. Example: Buddhism is not liveable because it says that right and wrong are but points on the same circle and yet by the same token commands its followers to do acts of charity---if it were consistent, it could not commands its followers to do anything.

That a certifiably false characterization of Buddhism (Andrew used the circle analogy, not Buddha). Buddhists use the 5 precepts as a basis for Morality: The first precept is to avoid killing or harming living beings. The second is to avoid stealing, the third is to avoid sexual misconduct, the fourth is to avoid lying and the fifth is to avoid alcohol and other intoxicating drugs.

Note that the precepts use the term avoid, which allows for some flexibility of interpretation. They allow for discernment of intent and self-defense/defense of the innocent. But Harm Reduction is the main goal. If a Tyrant is causing great Harm, many Buddhists consider fighting the Tyrant's forces as a means to reduce Harm.

It is also why he ordered the conquest of Cannan, and he used the Israelites to do that, on top of getting the inheritance that was promised to Abraham. I will never be able to explain it properly, but this is what I have seen out of God's character.

It is also important to note that these passages are literal history. This is what happened in the history of the Israelties. And just because the Bible says it happened, that doesn't mean God approves of the actions. One of David's sons raped his sister. Does that mean God approves that incest? No.

This sort of gets at where I'm coming from, where I see the OT as a history and a record of one people's experience. They're the ones who passed it orally down the generations and eventually wrote it down, so of course they're going to describe their conquests in terms that follow their beliefs. How would the conquest of Cannan seem from their writings and stories, if we had them? This is why I have a great deal of trouble accepting religious texts of any kind as literal Truth, especially concerning the areas that are the histories of the people.

And as for God calling a woman to take on the role that was traditionally male? God will never call anyone to do anything that is contrary to what is written in the Bible.

Sort of along with this, but in a tangential way probably because I'm tired. I've heard it mentioned that women were permitted to prophesy, and that there were stories of such women. Where can I find these?

EDIT: Because I missed GB's post.

Female sexual behavior out of wedlock is punished, and rather severely, because if the woman conceives a child it throws a wrench in the system of inheritance. If a man is sexually active outside of wedlock, he's essentially getting himself another wife; he's rewarded for it. As long as he doesn't sleep with a woman who's already bought and paid for, he's fine. It's the woman who must be virginal only. (Which is not a universal value, I might add.)

Something else no one has ever been able to explain to me is why women are prohibited from leadership roles. I'm usually answered with "Because of Eve's punishment being that her husband will rule over her", but then that same person will tell me that Jesus' teachings made a new covenant. Why do only some of the OT norms apply and not others? St. Paul says male and female don't matter because everyone is one in Jesus Christ...and then tells us (in the same letter) women must cover their heads while men don't need to, and are not allowed to teach while men are. Do you see how this could be confusing?

I don't see St Paul as either confusing or contradictory when it comes to women's roles. You see, right from the outset the early Christian community underwent persecution. Christ, himself, was crucified as we know. His followers were to die sometimes horrendous deaths themselves. As Saul, a Jewish official, St Paul even had taken part in one such persecution, the stoning of St Stephen the Martyr. The Jews, themselves, were a people subject to Roman domination, and when they rebelled against Roman rule, they were crushed in 70 AD, even though the Romans, themselves, admitted that it was Roman disrespect and their officials' bad management which led to that revolt. The Jews also were known for their unwillingness to bow down and worship Caesar, you notice, and women also suffered horrendously in those times. Try reading Eusebius or Early Christian writings to check out what being thrown to the lions might be like, a fate men and women alike faced as Christians.

As a leader, St Paul had what is known today as 'duty of care' of his flock. He wrote quite a volume of correspondence, considering the nature of writing materials in those ancient days, long before messageboards, computers, biros or writing pads. Much of his writing is to advise early Christian communities how to manage their affairs, and it would have been remiss of him to encourage women to take leadership publicly when there were men available to take charge. To do so was to expose them to the attention of the wider community, in particular the powers that be, in an age when the Caesars had already pronounced themselves gods and expected their subjects to worship them.

The Romans were not nice to women, who were frequently not even given their own names. When you see women called Antonia, Octavia (eight), or Claudia, you are looking at feminised family names, which was unlike Jewish practice, in which women could and did lead when necessary, conduct businesses, and were often quite well educated. The Romans were also inveterate gossips whose writers often passed on the most scurrilous accusations about their Emperors, many of whom deserved it.

What St Paul was trying to advise his women followers to do was not to stick out too much, especially for something that might cause scandal in the wider community. Or when they did get noticed, it should be for reasons both Romans and Jews would respect. There were good reasons for his attitude as well. Women in those days often had to marry whom they were told, and it didn't pay to get on the wrong side of an irate husband. It says heaps when St Paul advised men to love their wives, even more than women being asked to submit to the husbands they had to have, often whether they liked them or not.

There were family responsibilities to consider as well. Even today that could be a problem if such family responsibilities clash with the job. Our Premier was hauled over the coals because of her failure to support the local candidate for an important by election, due to her sons' sporting commitments. You can' t blame St Paul for sensible precautions at the time which later became set in stone by leaders who also often chose to ignore St Paul's advice, about choosing as leaders those men whose homes were in good order, who were hospitable and moral in their behaviour.

The issue is whether they should act on that judgment

What else would a person act on?

And yet people live as Buddhists.

No---to act consistently as a Buddhist would be to stop struggling.

The Commandments say "Don't kill each other"

Wrong. It says don't murder.

Leviticus 15: 19-30. It has a whole list of cleanliness rules.

Ceremonial cleanliness is a concept found in the law that is primarily concerned with whether one is in a fit state to enter the Tabernacle/Temple to present sacrifices. The modern rabbinic tradition of interpreting these as categorical imperatives is pointless given the end of the sacrificial system.

Ecclesiasticus has a great many more

Given that I'm Protestant, I am ambivalent as to Ecclesiasticus.

I don't come at the Bible from a literalist perspective. I see the Old Testament in particular as cultural givens for a group of people that just happened to be written down.

And I see it for what it is: the inerrant Word of God.

So are you saying that you can PROVE that knowledge. If so, what are your standards of proof?

I can prove that I have sufficient grounds for a knowledge claim.

My standard is that the belief has been produced by a properly-functioning module of the design plan, in this case, the sensus Divinitatus.

Note that the precepts use the term avoid, which allows for some flexibility of interpretation. They allow for discernment of intent and self-defense/defense of the innocent. But Harm Reduction is the main goal.

But there's where you lose me: why should I avoid these things? I'm not supposed to desire anything, right, if I want to attain enlightenment. So why should I do anything? What is bad about harm?

Particularly as the Bible puts the onus of Sin on Eve and women in general.

No, it blames Adam (Paul's argument in Romans 5). Christ is claimed as the seed of the woman.

Calling a man in a non-leadership role a sissy, henpecked, or pitying him is purely cultural.

Example please. Give me an example of a culture in which women are expected to lead the household.

So you agree that its common sense to assume that an experiment that can be repeated ad infinitum with the same results each time is the basic standard of proof (Empirical Evidence) for any physical phenomenon?

But it's a non-empirical assumption received on the basis of authority---just like most of our beliefs.

So having demonstrated that you have standards of proof now

Sure, I just acknowledge that my empirical faculties are extremely limited (ie: the only things I know through the senses are the things which I have actually experienced). Example: my knowledge that Barack Obama is the President of the United States is non-empirical. I know that he is President on the basis of authority (photos and videos can be faked, people can lie---let's admit that). Without this kind of common-sense assumption, Hume wins.

I assume you believe in gravity, not because of faith, but experience AND scientific evidence

I believe it on authority: I didn't do the experiments myself. It happens to be a convenient theory that accords with my experience, and I happen to make knowledge claims about it, but it's quite falsifiable.

Let me say this: any standard of proof that cannot account for these basic beliefs of mine will be rejected:

1. 2+2=4 (non-empirical)
2. I live in the United States (a human construct---authority)
3. George Washington was the first President of the United States (authority)
4. Jesus rose from the dead (authority---sensus Divinitatus)

The only coherent objections to the model I have presented, are objections to theism.

The Commandments say "Don't kill each other"

Wrong. It says don't murder.

And yet, he still ordered the assasination of a certain king (I'm bad with names, I believe the assasin was Jehud, and the king was so fat they couldn't pull the knife out of his wound) which was premeditated killing?

This thread is moving so quickly I don't have time to post on it all. So please don't think I'm putting anyone on the spot when I think, "Aww, not this again!"

TBG wrote:
What we are really talking about here are the Biblical concepts of masculinity and femininity. The man is supposed to be strong, creative, bold, and to lead. The woman is to be nurturing, comforting, expressive, and to help the man to lead.

The only point here to clarify, debate, etc. is "leadership." Every other quality described is a human quality. Mary the mother of Jesus was strong (saying Yes), creative (the wedding at Cana) and bold (refusing to leave the foot of the Cross). Jesus was nurturing (Peter at the lakeshore, the Last Supper), comforting (at funerals especially), and extremely expressive. Christians muddy their own witness when they try to pigeonhole human qualities as masculine and feminine. We already have "the world" to do that.

A man with a woman behind him is motivated and energetic. A man with a woman leading him usually ends up lethargic and useless.

Better, but still not universal. Alternately it could be a matter of the wording. A woman with a man behind her often is motivated and energetic (i.e. the Church with Christ behind her should be unstoppable; alas, it acts very stoppable). A woman with a man leading her (if not the right one, or not doing it right, or if she's a Priscilla but has been talked out of it because "Priscilla was for the early Church, not for nowadays so stop doing it") also often ends up lethargic and useless.

You mentioned Proverbs 31.

The Worthy Woman mentioned has a staff of servants. The world, and many Christians, tell the modern wife she shouldn't "need" to hire housecleaners & child care aides, and that she's a screw-up, lazy bum, worldly, bad Christian, bad wife, etc. if she does. One reason the Worthy Woman could hire these people is that her husband didn't make a beggar of her.

The Worthy Woman "makes girdles/belts" and sells them. The world, and many Christians, say she was dabbling in arts & crafts, maybe working very hard but not to be taken even as seriously as the Indian souvenir-seller on the reservation. She was "just" doing busywork to keep from the sin of idle hands. In reality these were important articles of clothing. A modern equivalent might be to own and operate a milliner's (hatter's) store, or maybe a fine jewelry store. The Worthy Woman made a lot of money. She may have started with seed money from her husband, but she's running a serious business.

The Worthy Woman "considers a field and buys it." Look how much money her "little girdle business" made for her. She may have handed over some of that money to her husband, but clearly not all of it. She has money of her own. A lot of money. Buy your own farmland and you'll get the idea just how much. (How much does a field sell for these days? any farmers here?)

The Worthy Woman is an investor. She invests in real estate, at that. She plants a vineyard. Her family won't drink all that by themselves: she is starting another business. She's not selling dandelion wine here but serious expensive-restaurant wine. Which she'll probably hire more servants to produce and package.

Meanwhile, what is her husband doing all day? He "sits in the gates with the elders." This is where court cases and civil disputes were judged. When they're not practicing law, they're discussing it. I mentioned upthread that Judaism believes that the afterlife consists of the dead hanging out with God discussing Torah all day, which is paradise for the righteous and torment for everyone else. This is actually an example, put in the scrolls for us to read! Kinda cool, huh. When the husband of the Worthy Woman is sitting in the gates, he is literally engaged in a book discussion club, only the book is Holy Writ.

So ... a woman buying land and running businesses with the help of her employees, and her husband is a judge who spends his free time being all "expressive" in a book club, and neither of his jobs pay diddly. She's the primary wage-earner. He's sitting around settling arguments (hoping no doubt that he doesn't get a bunch of frivolous lawsuits to solve), and when he's free he gushes about his favorite books. The work doesn't care about "masculine" and "feminine." The money doesn't care who earns it. Only the world cares.

Like I said I hope it doesn't sound as if I'm putting you on the spot. I know that you actually agree with the Worthy Woman description although you have worded it differently. Just saying that it's hard on our young people to grow up with the world's ideas about men and women, without us accidentally reinforcing it. There are very few ways in which men and women are as different as Christians make them out to be. About the only biological proofs for human differences (other than baby-making, height and muscle) are that women tend to live longer because their immune systems are stronger to protect two people at once (the baby). Also, women tend to recover more quickly from a stroke because their brains contain more duplication of key functions. That doesn't mean that men are more specialized or that they lack the duplication of key functions; it's that people don't know where to look for them. Research is just now showing that stroke victims who are having trouble relearning to talk will sometimes relearn to sing much more quickly and can communicate their needs that way--but most caregivers won't think of it because it sounds too "girly."

But yes, the unstoppable Church needs to stop being so stoppable. This means we have to stop teaching our children to be so stoppable.

GB wrote:
... if God (in the Bible) didn't approve of incest, who did Cain and Abel marry?

No one. Abel was dead. Jews and Christians consider Abel to be the first martyr, because he tried to please God and was killed for it.

Cain married his sister, niece, or (at furthest) grand-niece. So did Seth. Seculars try to suggest that there were other tribes of men (Cro-Magnon vs. Neaderthals), and babes-in-faith Christians try to suggest that God created a wife for Cain, but that's not what Genesis says. Rather, it says that Eve is "the mother of all living."

There is a midrash in Judaism that Cain and Abel were to marry twin sisters, but Cain wanted Abel's woman, possibly because she was prettier. They asked God to settle it, and God accepted Abel's offering.

Incest did not come to be forbidden until there were enough humans to choose from. But whether or not one agrees with Judaism's teaching on Cain & Abel, it's plain that seeking a mate too close inside the family has never been good for the Fallen man. If man had never fallen, who knows when an incest taboo would have been given to us. There wouldn't have been a Flood, so maybe around the tenth generation. Or maybe there wouldn't have been a taboo. We just don't know.

Fencer, if God (in the Bible) didn't approve of incest, who did Cain and Abel marry?

Ooh, ooh! Can I answer this one? Can I? Please?

Cain and any of his living siblings married... well, each other. Or, barring that, perhaps each other's children. Either way, it's all in the family.

Disgusting, right?

Actually... not really. The commonly accepted theory is that when God created the "perfect" beings of Adam and Eve, pre-Fall, they had no such thing as a "genetic imperfection". The harmful genetic mutations that most genetics-knowledgeable people know occur when inbreeding occurs over several generations would never happen, because no genes were harmful to begin with. (If any kind of "mutation" occurred, it would be a purely beneficial one, which do exist.)

However, the Fall of Man corrupted not only soul, but also body. It was at that point the body could become sick, and that the body's genes could possibly mutate in bad ways down the generation line. That said, the change was gradual. Just as the overall life expectancy of man fell gradually, so did their genetic condition. This, combined with something resembling an increase in genetic diversity (likely propogated by God Himself), eventually brought humanity to a point where God could decree a law against "close relations" trying to pull off a genetic Fusion Dance, so as to prevent a genetic inbreeding mutation problem.

Specifically, Leviticus 18:9 forbids relations with "either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere." Which, I take to mean, anyone who has the genes of the father and/or mother who gave birth to you... in other words, siblings and half-siblings.

Which, by the way, as far as I see it from here (and from the rest of the chapter), does not include first cousins, and does not include step-siblings. Scandalous, eh? Well, that may be, but there are times and places where cousin marriages were/are not unusual (or at least not illegal), and even "step-siblings" can escape legal trouble in various places. Oh, and how about the fact that Christians commonly refer to fellow members of faith as "brothers and sisters in Christ"... and yet the Bible makes it quite clear we should marry other Christians... a.k.a. marry a sibling in Christ? That one still makes me wonder.

In fact, all things considered, aside from the genetic issue, I have yet to hear a good reason why incest is wrong. So far, seems that the taboo is mostly a knee-jerk reaction that is "built-in" to keep us from doing something that could be bad for us, although aside from genetics, what that bad thing is is unclear... which, really, is kind of a pity. I mean, I'd love to write something that explores the issue of step-sibling romance in depth, but I have yet to find good arguments against it...

Eh, this subject is probably a little too, um, insane for this forum, so if anyone has any insight to help me with this, feel free to shoot me a PM.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the real problem with David's son's little escapade was that he, well, raped his half-sister. Family ties notwithstanding, I'm sure that would be a Bad Thing any way. Of course, the family ties sure did a nice job of making the whole thing worse...

If man had never fallen, who knows when an incest taboo would have been given to us."

My guess? Never. It's entirely possible the incest taboo was never meant to exist in the first place, and God only put it there out of necessity due to sin. (See my previous notes.) But hey, it's pretty clear you don't want to accept that incest is ever okay. Which is fine. But do PM me with your reasoning beyond the genetic issue, because I'm curious and am still looking for that good reason. Any help I can get is appreciated.

All right, crazy guy's ramblings are over. Please continue with the previous discussion.

I just want to paste this from an article I found that closely parellels my moral beliefs (or lack thereof) which includes the taboo of incest:

At this point, the theist may well inquire why there is any degree of universality to moral codes. This conclusion can be arrived at in both a moral objectivist and a moral subjectivist perspective without calling in gods by examining how certain behaviors affect animal populations. To analyze behaviors from this evolutionary perspective, it is highly beneficial to consider the concept of the ““meme,”” as pioneered by noted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. A meme is, in short, an idea, thought, or memory which replicates itself from mind to mind (some refer to the mind which the meme inhabits as a ““host””). By separating the replication process of the meme from its host, we can thus draw an analogy between the neo-Darwinian conception of the ““selfish gene”” and the replication of beliefs. Because moral systems are usually indoctrinated into children as part of the socialization process, it should be clear that ethos can thus be analyzed memetically, and therefore we can apply the basic principles of evolutionary biology to forge a useful tool for seeking out the roots of morality, through sociobiology. For example, consider murder, theft, and incest, three taboos which are commonly brought up in arguments of this sort.

Murder and theft are demonstrably harmful to animals that live together in communities (gregarious animals). If a animals in a group go about killing one another and do not have some non-arbitrary code of offenses, to be known and avoided, which merit death, then they will not tend to survive very long in groups. In order to survive, any gregarious species must develop reactions against behavior detrimental to the group. Although genetics would be one possible route, it is fairly infeasible to consider genes as a source for ideas. Thus, a meme complex which promotes a general abhorrence for murder is superior from a survival standpoint to a lack thereof in gregarious animals, and such a trait would be preferred in natural selection. Theft is a natural extension of the same reasoning; by unjustified confiscation of property from one’s neighbors, an organism creates animosity against it, so a general concern for the rights of one’s neighbors is genetically superior for gregarious animals. This leads to a more generalized trait, which could cover murder, theft, rape, and a number of other moral taboos.

The taboos against incest are also easily explainable from the perspective of evolution: heavy inbreeding, especially between close relatives, reduces the genetic diversity of a population, which makes the population as a whole more susceptible to extinction when their ecosystem is disturbed. For instance, in a highly homogenous population, if a particular disease to which the population is particularly susceptible strikes, the chances are good that it may well wipe out most or all of the breeding population. Also, genetic homogeny increases the likelihood that damaging recessive traits (almost all non-neutral recessive traits are harmful) will be expressed. A good example of this phenomenon can be found in the heavily inbred royal families of Europe, where the genetic disorder hemophilia (caused by a recessive gene on the X chromosome) became widespread to the extent that it was considered a ““royal disease.”” In the wild, hemophilia would be extremely disadvantageous, and the inbred individuals would probably be selected out of existence within a few generations. Therefore, in general, natural selection favors those organisms which do not inbreed heavily, or preferably, at all.

stardf29 wrote:
In fact, all things considered, aside from the genetic issue, I have yet to hear a good reason why incest is wrong.

And aside from God said No, which we agree on. I'd have to be a psychiatrist (which I'm not) to come up with details, and we'd need a more, um, explicit forum area even to discuss said details. But based on what little we can say on NW, I'd say that incest damages family ties by betraying a trust. The first duty of a parent is to be trustworthy (being committed to leading the child to God is another way in which parents show this quality). I've never heard of an incest situation between parent and child ever being less than Wrong-Wrong-Open-the-window-there's-too-much-Wrong-in-the-room-can't-breathe-because-of-the-Wrong.

Sibling incest increases competition, attacks the weaker one's sense of self-worth, can make them too damaged to marry, increases the odds they'd commit incest with their kids, can be life-threatening, and demonstrates that the parents failed to protect them. Also makes the children feel like they're going to Hell. All being very good reasons to prevent or stop it.

Maybe it says something about how deeply that taboo has been installed into us that I can't imagine Unfallen, perfect humans doing that with their children ... and not just because the parents were already married to each other and so would not be "free" to marry a child. Since the parents would be immortal, that subject would never come up because they'd never be available. Unless someone wants to argue that while God created marriage, there was no adultery taboo until the Fall of Man.

But perfect, unfallen siblings marrying each other? All I can suppose is that if Adam and Eve had never fallen, it would have worked somehow if it were allowed indefinitely. I'm admitting that I don't like the idea of "indefinite." We don't know whether it would be indefinite or finite. It could still be that God would have changed the law after a few generations, to increase diversity because the changes would increases beauty in the world. People have to learn from each other; why else would there be so many differences?

But as in Narnia, we are not told what might have happened, and are stuck with what did happen. The sons of Adam and Eve had to marry siblings, and we saw how that worked out with Cain & Abel. Actually, if we look at Seth's line leading to Noah, it was a bit inbred even for those days. The elements that led to the Third Generation building the walled city of Babel were already being planted. Who were they walling out? their own relatives! I've wondered where Noah was during the building of Babel. Was he locked out too? Or was he locked in? When we see him we can ask him, if he's willing to talk about it.

In regards to the incest issue, stardf said it pretty well. There are three main reasons why incest wasn't an issue with the early man. 1). They had no choice: they were the only people on the planet. 2). If it was a crime, they had no one to report it to: they were the only people on the planet. And 3). The law against incest didn't come until 2500 years later when Moses gave the Law around 1500 BC. And the reason why is heavily related to genetics. The Israelites didn't know about genes back then persay so for God to tell them that was why would not make sense. The genes do degenerate that quickly and the genes need to be remixed to prevent a faster rate of decay.

This is also why the earth is not millions of years old, let alone mankind. Our genetic gene pool can't last more than several thousand years at the rates we have discovered.

And where was Noah at the days of Babel? Probably drunk as reported after the Flood. That was when Ham's line was cursed because Ham didn't deal with the situation and rather announced it to the world. But it was interesting to note that he lived long enough to (I think) to meet Abraham. I know Shem was around for Isaac and Jacob, which shows that the stories of Creation and the Fall survived through the generations with the source being around for so long.