Ham's line was cursed

Actually, only Canaan's line was cursed. Ham had four children, and Cush (ancestor of Ethiopia), Put (ancestor of Libya) and Mizraim (ancestor of Egypt) were never cursed. Gen. 9:1 says God blessed Noah and his sons when they came out of the Ark, and no one can curse what God has blessed. That was why Noah could only curse his grandson. He never cursed Ham or Ham's other children. To this day, when parents and grandparents fight, it's the grandchildren that pay.

Sibling incest:
1. increases competition,
2. attacks the weaker one's sense of self-worth,
3. can make them too damaged to marry,
4. increases the odds they'd commit incest with their kids,
5. can be life-threatening,
6. and demonstrates that the parents failed to protect them.
7. Also makes the children feel like they're going to Hell.

Well, 4, 6, and 7 are circular arguments: they assume incest is wrong in the first place, which is the very thing I'm trying to find a reason (outside the genetic argument) for in the first place.

2, 3, and 5, as I see it, seem to target the "stereotypical" incest relationship: a predatory relationship with the older sibling forcing him/herself on the younger one. That's certainly cause for concern, but rather limits the cases involved; it doesn't really say much for cases where it is not only more consensual, but also the "power balance" is more like a traditional relationship. That said, if power balance is an issue for any given siblings, that's definitely a reason against such a relationship for those siblings. However, we don't want to assume that all incestual relationships are or necessarily will turn out like that, which isn't true.

So that leaves 1 as of interest. However, that one rather confuses me; I'll have to think about it or request that you PM me with clarification.

As for parental incest, I would generally agree with you and find that going a bit too far either way (though especially when the adultery issue is in play). However, remember that I'm specifically looking at the non-genetic aspect of the issue, so we could consider Mr. Knightley, who has served something of a father role to a certain Emma who has a book named after her written by a Jane Austen. You can guess what happens to them...

Andrew, thank you for your thoughts as well. Again, though, I'm more interested in the non-genetic side, so while I can certainly understand the scientific approach to the question, it doesn't really fully resolve my query. Now, I am aware of the Westermarck effect, so no need to educate me on that. But that's that "knee-jerk" reaction I mentioned earlier, not really an actual reason, per se, for such an action to possibly be "wrong".

Anyways, I think that's enough on this subject for this thread, lest it gets too off-topic. Please direct any further discussion of the subject of incest to PMs.

Well this is fun .

Barring the ickiness of marrying sisters, it is not specified in Genesis. In fact female siblings are mentioned not at all. Cain and Abel went to the Land of Nod to the East of Eden and married who they found there (or "took wives there" I believe is the correct phrasing). Only with a Literal interpretation of Genesis is it necessary to claim they married female siblings (where on Earth would nieces or cousins come from? ), or worse, had relations with their mother.

Which is Ironic, because that means Bible Literalists have to invent something extra-biblical and therefore non-literal. Actually its doubly ironic as Decent Christians now find themselves defending incest .

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

To yourself maybe, but not to others without Empirical Evidence. Belief is not a standard for proof.

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

Well I could go back to some ancient societies, but let's just stick to Modern ones. Where have you been since the 1930s? The fact is most modern "Western" countries including the US and the UK have cultures in which a large and growing segment of society are female led families, businesses, agencies, and governments. The British Monarchy, led by a woman, is one of the few remaining successful Monarchies. The only people complaining about it are a people that preferred the old fashioned ways of Male Dominance.

Then there are the Minangkaban:

"The fourth largest of Indonesia's many ethnic groups, the Minangkabau are known to anthropologists as the largest and most modern matrilineal society in the world today. They constitute three percent of the entire Indonesian population and one-quarter of the Sumatran population. The province of West Sumatra, the traditional homeland of the Minangkabau people, is one of eight provinces in Sumatra. The Minangkabau speak a dialect of Malay which formed the basis for the national language of Indonesia and which some linguists argue is the parent language of modern Malay. The Minangkabau are famous in Indonesia and Malaysia for their matrilineal social system in which all ancestral property is inherited by women."

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

Not really. My car doesn't run on "non-empirical assumptions", computers don't run on "non-empirical assumptions", gravity doesn't work due to "non-empirical assumptions", The Law of Thermodynamics doesn't operate on "non-empirical assumptions", my Xbox doesn't operate on "non-empirical assumptions, medicine doesn't work based on "non-empirical assumptions", and so on...and on...and on.

Faith or Belief DO work on "non-empirical assumptions received on the basis of authority". Therein lies the distinction.

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

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

So what about this?:

1 Timothy 2:13-15

13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14) And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15) But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

TBG:
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.

Fair enough, at least you can admit that you can't prove any of your points . Which begs the question: Why Bother?

1. 2+2=4 (non-empirical) Actually, very Empirical if demonstrated with apples like my kindergarten teacher did.

2. I live in the United States (a human construct---authority) Do you have a state certified Birth Certificate, a Drivers License, 6 months worth of utility and credit card bills with your address demonstrating your residency, a Passport with biometric data, etc.? Then You're well on your way to Empirically establishing your residency in the US

3. George Washington was the first President of the United States (authority) There is a sizable body of Empirical Evidence for this, you can probably find original source material at the Smithsonian.

4. Jesus rose from the dead (authority---sensus Divinitatus) Well...I can't argue THAT one . BINGO 1 out of 4 correct.

Live Long and Prosper

GB

What else would a person act on?

That's exactly my point: they shouldn't. Why is there a need to change other cultures at all? Why do we all need to live by the same cultural precepts, wear the same cultural clothing, eat the same cultural food,follow the same cultural beliefs, speak the same language etc.? Why should one group of people set about making everyone else like them? What gives them that authority? Just an insular belief in their own Absolute Correctness specific to their culture alone.

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

This is a perfect example of my point. You say "for what it is". This is an assumption that your beliefs are an Absolute Truth that should hold true for everyone. You don't say "I believe it is the inerrant Word", you say "It is", implying that you are in the Absolute Right.

Now if someone else presented a different book with a totally different code and history and said "This is the inerrant word of God", you'd say that his statement was impossible and false because your book is the inerrant Word of God. Each of you believes you are in the Absolute Right, and that you therefore are allowed to be the dominant culture.

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.

Pointless as it may be now, it proves that there was a concept of "unclean" associated with something that is female and female only. Why are women unfit to enter the Temple when they're menstruating? It can't be just for sanitary purposes, else why is everything the woman touches during this time also transformed to an impure state, along with any man who happens to touch that object? And it still doesn't explain why a female birth is unclean for longer than a male birth. We can't retroactively prove there was a scientific/medical reason for it, so is it not possible it could be because of a cultural notion of uncleanliness surrounding the female?

TOM, thank you for that explanation of the masculine/feminine.

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.

What rates that who discovered in what context based on what parameters?

Just quickly here. Something else to note about uncleanliness. It wasn't aimed just at women. Women were considered unclean for the time given after menustration. But men were considered unclean for at least seven days after a battle. They had to spend those seven days outside the camp. There was also the issue of uncleanliness of touching a dead body that affected everyone. So the Bible is not biased against women in this regard.

I don't have the exact details on me about the rates. But I am talking about how genetic and biological data is decaying at a rate that can't last and keep a species going for more than several thousands years. It is certainly not millions. I will have to go look that stuff up, but I don't have the time right now.

GB wrote:

Only with a Literal interpretation of Genesis is it necessary to claim they married female siblings.

True dat. Some verses that Adam did have daughters:

When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. (Gen. 5:3-5)

Eve as the "mother of all living":

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. (Gen. 3:20)

So to call Eve "the mother of all living" means that the burden of proof is on you to produce other humans who were not born of Eve.

By the way, you keep saying that Abel got married. It's you who are putting out something extra-Biblical because Abel did not marry. He died! Seth was born as a replacement for Abel, because Abel was dead and unmarried-dead and left-no-children-dead.

And the verse doesn't say that Cain "took a wife" after he left home. It says he has a wife.

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch (not the same Enoch who ascended into Heaven). (Gen. 4:16-17)

So ... where nieces would have come from, that would be if some of Cain & Abel's siblings got married and started families already. Not everyone lives by Taming of the Shrew rules in which the oldest child must marry first. (The metaphor comes to mind because in both cases, Kate Minola and Cain, the firstborn was a bit of a bitter pill to swallow.) The verses say that Cain and Abel got established in their careers first: Cain as a farmer, Abel as a herdsman.

And I didn't say "cousins," because they didn't exist. There couldn't be cousins unless Adam had siblings, or unless Eve had siblings, and then those people would have had to produce kids. But Adam is called "the first man" and Eve is called "the mother of all living," but it isn't possible for her to give birth to her own siblings, let alone Adam's siblings.

... which is Ironic, because that means Bible Literalists have to invent something extra-biblical and therefore non-literal.

Not at all. Whoever told you probably got their stories mixed. It was other historical figures who "took wives in Land X." Cain and Seth marrying siblings is sound Bible teaching. It's just something Christians don't like to talk about.

Hope this helps.

I call shenanigans.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I don't think you are sincere, sir. You are taking the mickey. You are having us on. You are adopting a position that you do not actually live out because it is more defensible.

I call shenanigans.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I don't think you are sincere, sir. You are taking the mickey. You are having us on. You are adopting a position that you do not actually live out because it is more defensible.

Well, you're wrong. I used to care, until I realized there is no reason to, and it is alot easier to just let people do their thing, trust them to think about themselves.

Hrm. Andrew.

We naturally do what is best for us, or what we desire. Lying to get out of trouble for example. Stealing to save or make money. This is why I don't get mad when my friends talk bad about me, get in fights with me, why I don't really care if my girlfriend cheats on me - because I trust everyone to do what is best for themselves, and that is what we naturally do, without being taught to do so. It doesn't make you a "bad" person.

It seems you are rather steadfast onto your "beliefs". I am rather sure of mine own, too, but somehow I manage not to see life as...

But even if it is, I have no interest in associating myself with the one who created this hellhole we call life.

If I am interpreting the quote above this one correctly, you don't care if someone punches you in the face, then walks a way, because, obviously, it is best for them? If I brutally murdered my mother who has raised me and loved me, it would be best for me? Certainly not!

Do humans do what we desire, though? I would agree with that, except on some occasions. Is that what is best for us? Not necessarily. Most of the time, we don't even know what the exact outcome of our decisions will be, and what may have affect on that outcome. Not caring about much of anything leads to a depressing life with little to no motivation, which may be the reason that leads you to believe that this world is a hellhole.

I see this world as a beautiful creation, myself, though I'm just not sure who's it is (as of yet), but I am sure that it is beautiful.

To each their own, though, I suppose. I just see no reason to be holding onto your own, it looks like all it leads to is depression and the mere pity of some of your peers.

With Care,

LITD

Kind of young to think you have this all figured out, though, aren't you? Are you sure you'll hold anything close to this exact view 50 years from now, much less 25, much less 10?

Welcome from me, by the way -- and don't mind the screen name. I only play a doctor on the internet, and I'm not that old. Do note, though, that many (all, by my count) of those debating you here are indeed a bit older and have made their individual choice to believe in the Biblical God, and the Bible as their presupposed authority (as opposed to one's personal, subjective opinion).

So Andrew, in case you presume otherwise -- and are you sure you're not? -- there is much less risk of "I believe this only because I'm on worldview autopilot" here (which is also known as: "I believe this only because it's what my parents/teachers/pastors taught me, etc.").

All that to request: if you're as into learning about others' views as you seem to claim, it would do you well to pay close attention as you're debating and asking questions in such a respectful, polite way. I also highly suggest not putting up, for yourself even if not publicly, a "straw man" of others' beliefs. So far I've seen the Christians here arguing against either your unique strain of agnosticism or a logical conclusion thereof, but not against something you do not believe.

However, you still have no real basis for what you believe, even while taking out huge loans from the Christian worldview to try to support it: morality, logic, even the presupposition that language has meaning.

Of course, anyone's beliefs aren't based on philosophy alone. All have their own motivations for what to worship or belief. (Someone may have already asked this; if so, I plead ignorance/forgiveness, though I have done my best to catch up with the discussion so far.) I must ask: why do you want to believe this way? Do your parents believe this way? Do they not? If so, are you certain this isn't some kind of pushback? Many Christians have been guilty myself of "pushback," and that is why I ask. I also wish to know: what answers have other Christians already given you?

Though I'll likely return to ask some more specific questions, here is one: why do you fault God for His own method of eliminating those He doesn't want to live, but then give verbal support to human-generated eugenics?

I don't think you've really thought through the contradictions here. That's not surprising, though; you have plenty of time, and that's why I'm glad you're on this forum, and in this thread, so you can learn others' thought-through responses to your (very young) views of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Yet so far I've heard nothing new. Scripture has withstood yours and other intellectual attacks for millennia. But perhaps you have unique reasons for finding justification that your own opinions, and not the self-revealing God, are more worth your worship and religion?

And this can sound a bit harsh, but I think it's warranted: why on Earth should everyone abide by what you say anyway?

At this point, I've seen no evidence that a 16-year-old young man -- to say nothing of anyone aged 16 to 120! -- is a better god than God Himself. So I think I'll stick with the Biblical Creator/Savior God, thanks.

Do humans do what we desire, though? I would agree with that, except on some occasions. Is that what is best for us? Not necessarily. Most of the time, we don't even know what the exact outcome of our decisions will be, and what may have affect on that outcome. Not caring about much of anything leads to a depressing life with little to no motivation, which may be the reason that leads you to believe that this world is a hellhole.

What's "best" for us is not always what we want. If someone wants to punch me in the face, they might do it, but they should know that they will be getting it right back, I have no problem defending myself. And it doesnt have to lead to depression, if I could borrow a quote:

Being an agnostic means all things are possible, even God, even the Holy Trinity. This world is so strange that anything may happen, or may not happen. Being an agnostic makes me live in a larger, a more fantastic kind of world, almost uncanny. It makes me more tolerant.

Kind of young to think you have this all figured out, though, aren't you? Are you sure you'll hold anything close to this exact view 50 years from now, much less 25, much less 10?

Of course I don't know the future, I don't believe I will ever be a Christain again, but my beliefs are ever evolving, as it should be. As you've stated, I'm still only 16 years old, I think I'd only be lying to myself if I thought I already had it "all figured out."

Of course, anyone's beliefs aren't based on philosophy alone. All have their own motivations for what to worship or belief. (Someone may have already asked this; if so, I plead ignorance/forgiveness, though I have done my best to catch up with the discussion so far.) I must ask: why do you want to believe this way? Do your parents believe this way?

I want to believe this way because it is logical, it makes sense to believe this way. As for my parents, they are Christians.

And this can sound a bit harsh, but I think it's warranted: why on Earth should everyone abide by what you say anyway?

I would never want anyone to believe something because I tell them to; I want people to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, based on the evidence they find.

Though I'll likely return to ask some more specific questions, here is one: why do you fault God for His own method of eliminating those He doesn't want to live, but then give verbal support to human-generated eugenics?

As I said, I don't believe in killing off people deemed "unfit" to live and breed.

What's "best" for us is not always what we want. If someone wants to punch me in the face, they might do it, but they should know that they will be getting it right back, I have no problem defending myself. And it doesnt have to lead to depression, if I could borrow a quote:

Why would you punch them right back, though? It is best for them, after all. Why would you want to "defend" yourself from someone doing what is best for them? Or are you just that selfish?

Being an agnostic means all things are possible, even God, even the Holy Trinity. This world is so strange that anything may happen, or may not happen. Being an agnostic makes me live in a larger, a more fantastic kind of world, almost uncanny. It makes me more tolerant.

Being an agnostic actually makes you live in a much smaller, confined world. If I ask you of the origins of the universe, what can you say? Well, being a true agnostic, you can say you don't know. Well what do you believe in, then? According to your signature, you don't, since you're a nihilist. What's your motivation to life, then? Well. You're aren't sure there is a God, but there might be!

This doesn't seem fantastical, or uncanny! This seems like a dark corner in which you cannot answer many questions, and you merely wait in the corner for some sort of light to shine unto it, so that you can see the actual truth you've been looking for. But, at least, you're very, very tolerant in that corner.

So, if you have any motivation, it's for yourself, or for the progression of technology and science, that sort of thing. Technology and yourself are irrelevant, should there be a God, so what you are living for could very well be irrelevant, saying you do believe there is a chance for there to be a god, and that is rather odd.

You seem to be one for logic, but I don't quite see how being an agnostic is logical at all. You have no definite answer! No conclusion! That seems rather illogical to me.

LITD

What's "best" for us is not always what we want. If someone wants to punch me in the face, they might do it, but they should know that they will be getting it right back, I have no problem defending myself. And it doesnt have to lead to depression, if I could borrow a quote:

Why would you punch them right back, though? It is best for them, after all. Why would you want to "defend" yourself from someone doing what is best for them? Or are you just that selfish?

If I'm selfish for not standing there letting someone beat me up, I'll wear that label. And you forgot one thing: I'm also a person, doing what's best as well.

Being an agnostic actually makes you live in a much smaller, confined world. If I ask you of the origins of the universe, what can you say? Well, being a true agnostic, you can say you don't know. Well what do you believe in, then? According to your signature, you don't, since you're a nihilist. What's your motivation to life, then? Well. You're aren't sure there is a God, but there might be!

My motivation for life is irrelevant, because life itself has no purpose. Most of us begin as hedonists, but those "purposes" are empty once aquired. I think hedonism and nihilism breed eachother, and we end up going in circles between the two. Of course we can't really know, but why not theorize and have faith in our beliefs while we're here?

Technology and yourself are irrelevant, should there be a God, so what you are living for could very well be irrelevant, saying you do believe there is a chance for there to be a god, and that is rather odd.

If there is a God, you say that would make me irrelevant, which is true - but only if he doesn't care about us (which I would agree with).

You

I don't quite see how being an agnostic is logical at all. You have no definite answer! No conclusion! That seems rather illogical to me.

If I'm selfish for not standing there letting someone beat me up, I'll wear that label. And you forgot one thing: I'm also a person, doing what's best as well.

Oh! I see. Well, this may contribute to this hellhole you are seeing. Everyone is doing solely what is best for them, and what they desire, so based on your beliefs, this will just end in their wants and desires crisscrossing, and ending in sheer chaos! Fists flying everywhere, it looks like.

A world fueled by selfish desires would indeed be quite a horrific sight to see. It's a good thing we have those who care for others, and treat others as they treat themselves (sometimes even better) which isn't necessarily always (and very rarely is) the best thing for them.

My motivation for life is irrelevant, because life itself has no purpose.

I don't see where you can come up with that assertion. It has plenty of purposes. Just because you haven't found them, doesn't mean there aren't any. That seems like an illogical belief, too.

As I said, I don't believe in killing off people deemed "unfit" to live and breed.

Excellent. I'm very happy to hear about that. Now, three questions for thought (in addition to the ones you haven't yet answered):

1. Whom should we kill, and for what reasons, then? You said you saw there might be some point in the idea of eugenics, did you not?

2. What if the majority decides all agnostics or teenagers should be killed?

3. What is to stop a majority of people in a society from determining that people should either be killed because they are unfit to live and "breed," or that they should be killed because they are agnostic or teenaged?

Notice I am not claiming you believe any of this. Again, I'm merely asking: what is to stop people from believing this?

Either way, you're left enforcing a morality of someone's making.

As for my parents, they are Christians.

And if I may ask, how have they answered your philosophical explorations thus far? What is it that's led you in this direction, I also wonder, given that most parents want to pass their faith on to their children? Do you also object to their views on interacting with culture, media choices and things like that? What about morality preferences, dating and the like?

I ask not to be intrusive, but because these things are all related. No one decides to choose beliefs different from one's parents, or explore alternate religions/philosophies, apart from emotions, reactions and other personal reasons. So one cannot truly claim to have made these choices only by "logic" -- though I wish they were real, Vulcans are imaginary.

By the way, I have a younger brother named Andrew, and he is just a year younger than you. And when I was 16, I was also quite sure (in practice if not in belief) that I had every belief well sorted. You may keep your newfound "agnosticism" for a while, maybe until you die, or you could come back around to the real God, real morality, and real Grace.

Don't count it out. Many people have stumbled into this "secular" religion and what they falsely call "logic" and then are a bit shocked to find it's nothing new or exciting, illogical, repulsive and downright dull. Like a new toy, the shininess wears off quickly, and they end up being drawn right back to the God they thought they despised. And when myths about Him and His Word and things like made-up human laws about Christianity are stripped away, with only His blazingly glorious Myself left -- "He is not a tame Lion" -- people find Him the only source of beauty, love and truth. And their sin looks all the more horrible, and they want to be free of it.

I wonder if deep down you wonder this yourself, Andrew. Why else have you come to a site about the Chronicles of Narnia, the Christ-exalting books in which He is honored in the form of a "supposal" (Aslan), by the Christian author/thinker/visionary C.S. Lewis?

And as others have asked over and over, what's in it for you to try to persuade others about all this anyway?

Again, it's nothing new for Christians like me who've even partway delved into defending Scripture. I wonder if you've subconsciously deceived yourself into thinking this is all very new and shiny and cool, while it's actually dull, listless, ultimately illogical nonsense. Think about it, won't you? And do try to step away from the computer and the debate for even a little bit; fresh air does wonders for the body and soul.