Thanks for setting me straight TOM . In my haste to post on other topics I neglected to get my ducks in a row. Cain is Eve's firstborn, and he murders Abel the second-born. THEN God marks Cain to prevent people from killing him (who exactly? the hordes of Eve's unmentioned OTHER kids?), and THEN Cain goes to the Land of Nod to the East of Eden, and THEN he lay with his Wife and bore Enoch...wait, his wife? Where did she come from?

And by the way, where is the mention of Abel's supposed lineage?

Reading on through Genesis 4: the lineage of Cain is described, and then we come to verse 25:

25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.

STILL no mention of other siblings of the female variety, and only three mentions of Adam laying with Eve and begetting Males. then there is the beginning of Genesis 5:

1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Perhaps you see the problem now. Not until after Seth was born did Adam beget "other sons and daughters". And given that Eve had Seth AFTER Cain slew Abel, moved to the land of Nod and "lay with his wife", we have to wonder who it was that Cain was "laying with". Perhaps that part of the story occurred after Seth was born and Eve bore daughters. How old were those daughters when Seth and Cain (extra-Biblically) "lay with them"?

So I may not have had my ducks in a row the first time. But the continuity problems and the Ironies still stand.

GB

EDIT: And I say "extra-Biblically", because nowhere is it specified that Cain and Seth "lay with" their sisters and nieces.

Having been following everyone else's intense discussions, I was interested in seeing if anyone has a response to Maenad and Gandalfs Beard regarding this verse? I've been wondering about it myself.

"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)

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.

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.

Show me a purpose, then. Slavery to your god? Pleasures that will cease in moments?

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?

1. There are ways to remove aspects without killing, steralization for example.

2. I guess the only answer is oh well?

3. A greater force than them that decides to stop them, I suppose.

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?

They don't know a thing about what I believe. I'll tell them when I move out, perhaps. As for their views on such things, of course they conflict mine.

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.

I don't see how it is repulsive and dull; it just is what it is.

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?

I love the Narnia books, have since I was a very small boy.

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

There's no reason not to. That's one of the small joys of having no real rules.

Andrew, why would you want to persuade us out of our happiness in Christ into believing that life is a "Hell-hole", as you have said? Not too kind of you! (No offense meant; just making a point) If there are no real rules, there is certainly no reason why you can't try, but it's still unnecessary, since you believe we'll all end up the same way.

Show me a purpose, then. Slavery to your god? Pleasures that will cease in moments?

Actually, quite the opposite.

No Christian view (that I know of) is so radical to say that we are mere slaves to our God. God's rewards are eternal, and are the exact opposite of pleasures that will cease in moments. Salvation is a reward (pleasure) that lasts for eternity. Perhaps your purpose in life is to serve and please the one who created you, let's say. You may say, "But I'm just acting as a slave under this God", perhaps, but you are showing absolutely no sense of humility.

Let's say you created a bunch of robots, you created them with a wondrous sense of morals, and an appreciation for music and beauty. You give them some set of rules, so that they don't go into complete chaos, because you wouldn't want to see your creation do that, now would you? But at the same time, you would not wish to rule your creations with an iron fist of power! They're your creations now, they have minds of their own!

Some of these robots may break the rules, and spit in your face, and laugh at your name, and cease to believe that you exist, and fool themselves into being wise, believing in themselves and their own reason. However, some shall follow your rules as best they can (even robots aren't perfect ), and ask for forgiveness when they break said rules. Those who follow the rules shall reap their rewards, and those who break them shall face justice for their actions. Are these robots acting as slaves? Certainly not! They are respecting their Creator. It is not slavery, it is a response of respect to a God which shows love, while the other robots show mere defiance.

God's rewards do not parish in moments, they are Divine Blessings, and those are eternal...

All of this, speaking from a Christian's point of view, of course.

LITD

Adeona, the uncleanliness ritual is extended for female children because females were considered inherently "unclean" (unlike a male after battle). Why were women considered inherently unclean? Because they are the gender that menstruates:

Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

By the way, Andrew does not speak for all Agnostics. He does make some good points (among some not so good points), though perhaps he could articulate them more clearly. But I don't really think he is so much trying to persuade Christians out of Christianity, as he is attempting to make a case for tolerance and acceptance among people of different world-views.

Of course tolerance and acceptance is kind of hard when one advocates for Eugenics (forced sterilization Andrew? ), and thinks Murder is Morally Relative. So you might want to rethink some of your arguments, and how you contextualize them, Andrew.

Personally, if someone finds Happiness in Christ, I am Happy for them .

GB

Well, here brings up a big thing about Christianity that many people mispercieve about it, not just agnostics: the issues of rules. So many consider Christianity just a big list of does and don't and if you just look at that, it does sound it slavery to a demanding God. But this is not so. For one, it is always quicker to list the things that one can't do in Christianity than it is to list the things that one can do.

One very important thing I have learned in 20 years of missions and what my pastor is preaching on this summer, is the importance of order. And if we have our lives ordered, we actually have the freedom and liberty to do so much more than we could without it. A good friend of mine has a great sermon on freedom that is derived from a common thing we know in various places: speed bumps.

In the US, when you enter a city via a road, you see gradual signs to slow down via speed limits. You actually have a choice to follow the signs and slow down or not to and continue speeding. Sometime you might get caught, sometimes you won't. In Mexico (Juarez in particular since I have been there), when you enter the city, you are hit with a series of speed bumps. That forces you to slow down or you WILL suffer the consequences. And true freedom is when you have that choice to obey or not.

From a Christian perspective, this is the difference between the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of Grace. To a Christian, Paul tells us that anyone who is not under the covering of Jesus Christ is under the covering of the Law. And the Law is a list of don't do this and don't do that, where it is very clear that not one of us is able to keep all of it. This is like using speed bumps to control traffic speed. The Bible also teaches that due to our sin nature, unless we get a new nature, we really don't have much of a choice but to act in our sin. But under Christ, we are given liberty that is beyond anyone's comprehension and we can choose to do right or wrong. This is life like having speed limit signs and we can choose to obey it or not.

So if you do feel like Christianity will just pull you into slavery and prevent you from doing the things you enjoy doing, that is a legitimate feeling, but a wrong perception. But tell me, does the smoker have the freedom to decide when to smoke or not? Does the drunkard have the freedom to pursue a beer or not? Can someone addicted to porn stop or not? They are hard pressed and when they do fight it and try not to, that is the only thing they can think about. And things like that are the things the people also use to say they 'can't have fun anymore if they become a Christian'. I have to ask, it is really fun from beginning to end? Does the fun last beyond the effects of the alcohol or the drugs? Or do you have to wait until the next dose to get it back? The slavery is not from Christianity, but from being without him.

Cain is Eve's firstborn, and he murders Abel the second-born.

Well, let's start here: Abel is by no means certain to be the second-born; Genesis 4 only says that Eve "later" gave birth to him. For all we know, "later" could be 10 or more years later (when your average lifespan is over 900, a 10-year-younger brother likely isn't much different from a 1-year-younger brother), and other girls (and boys) could possibly be born in that time.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Okay, he had other (sons and) daughters. That almost right there says he had daughters before then.

And I say "extra-Biblically", because nowhere is it specified that Cain and Seth "lay with" their sisters and nieces.

That's fine if you want to define "extra-Biblical" in such a way, but do realize that no one but the quackiest Biblical scholars would ever say that "if it isn't written in the Bible, it definitely didn't happen." God gave us the ability to reason for a reason; we are more than welcome to make good educated guesses on what happened wherever there are "blanks" in the Biblical narrative. The guesses that are wholly unreasonable and downright contradictory, we don't want, of course, but other than that, just because we're doing some "extra-Biblical" historical-hypothesizing doesn't mean we're sinning.

I have to say, though: I take just a slightly mild offense that you would consider me a "decent Christian" who is defending incest. First of all, I'm not "decent" at all; at best, I'm a guy who has escaped mental institutionalization only because he hasn't actually caused anyone serious mental damage. Second, though, you make it sound as though defending incest is a bad thing, and that I am a Bad Person for wanting to defend it.

Maybe you should understand the reason why I'm doing such a thing. It's not because I think incest is okay, and by all means, it's not okay when genetics is an issue. The thing is, there are many circumstances when genetics is not an issue (stepsiblings, adopted siblings, friends who consider each other siblings, etc.), and yet people still feel it's wrong. There must be some reason for it, right? And yet, I have yet to find that reason. Hence it remains a major gap in my morality knowledge that, since I don't know of any particularly good reason it's wrong, I must defend it until my defense forces someone to give me that good reason and fill in that gap.

Until then, my fictional step-siblings are going to get married. And nothing's going to try to stop them.

And that won't be any fun, would it?

Oh, and one other thing; I certainly don't need the "Genesis paradox" to be true for me to do all this. Your bringing it up just gave me an opening to bring the general topic up. By the same token, don't think for a moment that "disproving" that Adam's children married each other will make me give this up, either.

Perhaps you see the problem now. Not until after Seth was born did Adam beget "other sons and daughters". And given that Eve had Seth AFTER Cain slew Abel, moved to the land of Nod and "lay with his wife", we have to wonder who it was that Cain was "laying with". Perhaps that part of the story occurred after Seth was born and Eve bore daughters. How old were those daughters when Seth and Cain (extra-Biblically) "lay with them"?

So I may not have had my ducks in a row the first time. But the continuity problems and the Ironies still stand.

I have often considered these long-livers to be heads of clans or maybe entire dynasties of leaders, rather than individuals, which gets away from the sketchiness of the account of who married whom. After all, whoever wrote Genesis, wrote considerably after the events portrayed. From the internal evidence of Genesis, particularly in the chapters predating Abraham, it is possible to deduce whoever it was, wrote through a geocentric point of view, and was related to those very patrilineal types of tribespeople who do not actually count daughters as part of the family.

Most of the social attitudes towards women in the Middle East can be explained by what is good for the men and for the running of the tribe. In such patriarchal societies, women were restricted as much as possible to ensure that fertility was controlled. Men were considered important for defence, and the chance to reproduce was their reward for good service. That was Tanveer Ahmed's explanation in the Sydney Morning Herald (Jun 28)at any rate.

Some anthropologists, led by an American Middle East expert, Philip Carl Salzman, have theorised that warring tribal groups in Muhammad's time lived and died by the number of men they were able to mobilise in a fight, known as ''balanced opposition''.

This imperative meant developing tactics to outnumber enemies, which included marrying one's daughters to cousins or practising polygamy as a way for the tribe to benefit from increased fertility.

The scrutiny of other families' females was common, done in the hope of catching them in an immoral act to compel their men to kill them and forfeit their fertility, known now as honour killings. The axis of shame and honour was paramount.

According to this theory, keeping fertile women away from the gaze of foreign tribes and maintaining them in the role of producing offspring was deemed vital. Hence the idea of the hijab or burqa.

I have quoted Tanveer Ahmed's comments, which doubtlessly applied even in Abraham's day. Certainly when looking at the lives of Rachel, and Tamar, Judah's daughter-in-law, you get the same sort of tribal set-up. The odd thing is that such tribal customs still linger on in the Middle east, right across Asia, and also in East Africa. At least, the complicated family relationships between the descendants of Noah demonstrate quite well the linguistic relationship between the various Hamitic and Semitic families of languages.

But then if you read the Talmud you get quite a bit of fascinating background material about those days, in particular about Abraham and how he stopped being an idolator, Abraham's father, Terah, his brother Nahor and Nimrod, the mighty hunter, who was king in those days. It seems that polygamy was usual in those days, for rulers at any rate, and so even if sister marriage occurred it was unlikely that it would be marriage between full siblings. Thus Abraham could quite safely tell Pharaoh (which one, I wonder?) that Sarai was his sister, even though he had been married to her as well. In any case, sister marriage was the done thing in the Egyptian royal families in Ancient Egypt, right up to Cleopatra's time.

Incest did not come to be forbidden until there were enough humans to choose from.

Fair point, but it seems to have a strong link to hereditary rulers, tribal behaviour, polygamy, heavily patrilineal cultures, and, in particular, ownership of property. For example, when Moses handed down Jewish law, women could inherit property in the absence of any sons, but were not to marry outside the tribe they were born into. And of course it is wrong, as even ancient animal husbandmen might have known, long before Gregor Mendel discovered Genetics. You have only to realise that when reading how Jacob tended Laban's flocks.

For a more modern example of how disastrous inbreeding is, just check out the medical history of European royal families. In particular, the sad and sorry case of Charles II of Spain, whose sickly life brought to a close the Spanish Habsburg dynasty.

Well i certainly didn't intend offense Stard . But as I've come to know y'all (as best as one can over the internet) here on Narniaweb, I've grown rather fond of y'all, and I sincerely believe you have the best of intentions and are good-hearted people. And I do find it ironic when people proffer a position that they might not generally advocate for.

Nor do I expect me pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible is really going to sway anyone to a less literal interpretation of it. But I can still try . I remember saying back when I first started posting here that I didn't mind folk evangelizing me if they didn't mind me evangelizing them .

As to your speculations, that's all they are really. And I don't think they are particularly sound. Rereading Genesis today, I was really struck by its specificity in Birth order, if not consistency in its timeline or specificity regarding the wives of Cain and Seth. "Other sons and daughters" is a quite clear reference to other children born after the first 3 sons.

One can infer that it might mean that previously daughters had been born along with Cain and Abel. But it's not at all a direct implication, and entirely speculative.

Now given that Nephilim are said to have "lain with mortals" until God put an end to that practice, I suppose one could speculate that perhaps Cain and Seth's wives were Angelic. Seeing as this is as speculative as claiming they "lay with" their sisters, I would find this a far more palatable resolution to the problem (not to mention more Mythopoetic).

Whaddya think of that solution?

GB

EDIT: Wagga, I think Maenad was on the mark when she pointed out that women's worth in the Bible was as property more often than not . Of course this just reflects the mores of those particular times and cultures. But there are passages in the Bible that clearly demonstrate that. And your own post seems to tacitly reflect that too.

A world fueled by selfish desires would indeed be quite a horrific sight to see

Are you from this planet or are you an alien?!

Are you from this planet or are you an alien?!

I thought that if you read on, it would make sense for there to be an understood "purely" in there.

I suppose not!

LITD

As to your speculations, that's all they are really. And I don't think they are particularly sound. Rereading Genesis today, I was really struck by its specificity in Birth order, if not consistency in its timeline or specificity regarding the wives of Cain and Seth. "Other sons and daughters" is a quite clear reference to other children born after the first 3 sons.

Probably that is right. You say that Adam had other children. But was Eve their mother, that is the question? I do like your reference to Nephilim, as it does answer a lot of questions. I think that was in the Talmud as well. What I might also be after is that elusive reference to Lilith having been Adam's first wife, really.

EDIT: Wagga, I think Maenad was on the mark when she pointed out that women's worth in the Bible was as property more often than not . Of course this just reflects the mores of those particular times and cultures. But there are passages in the Bible that clearly demonstrate that. And your own post seems to tacitly reflect that too.

Of course Maenad is on the mark, whether I reflect tacitly what she says or in the loudest possible way. The thread moved so rapidly I couldn't keep up, is all. Professor Juliet Mitchell (Jesus College, Cambridge) also pointed out in her Psychoanalysis and Feminism (1974) that in patriarchal societies women are basically mediums of exchange between fathers, brothers and sons-in-law, reflecting how little say women had in choosing who they were to be married to. In monarchies, princesses always had marriage value, to seal treaties, and to transfer property. But today's surviving monarchies, for the most part, are the ones which allow Queens to rule in their own right.

This idea of women being property is still the case today, in many parts of the world, whatever the religion, whether in Christian marriage services, when the minister asks who is giving this woman away, whether in racist sex attacks committed by those from tribal backgrounds, who have been brought up in contempt of Westernised women, in particular, and some of the other social attitudes Maenad mentions, which largely survived the Bible's antiquity until the twentieth century.

I've had a love/hate relationship with Proverbs 31 for years. In 1974, a woman had "a price above rubies" if she was a good little housewife, coochie-cooing over her weary husband, the breadwinner, and sacrificing everything for his comfort. If she wanted to achieve anything for herself, like a proper job, apparently she was worthless. If I pointed out that learning to earn a living would be useful, the door-to-door evangelisers would tell me that yes of course, providing it was daintily feminine sewing, and presumably not something which might earn proper money, like teaching or nursing.

But today the Minister tells us that the Proverbial Ruby of a wife in Chapter 31 was probably a businesswoman who would have been completely at home with today's idea of working women. And I do utterly agree that those countless women who have held the family together, finding a way to become breadwinners, when those recessions we had to have put husbands out of work, certainly are jewels of women whose worth is definitely above rubies.

What is the worth of a man in the Bible, might I ask? A price above sapphires?

Indeed Wagga, the Talmud records some mentions of Lilith, and she figures much more in the oral traditions. Some Hebrew scholars suggested that she was a way to explain the disparity between Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 man and woman are created together out of the Earth, and in Genesis 2 Eve was created out of Adam's Rib. This is suggested to imply that Lilith was created as Adams equal, and would not be subservient to Adam, and that by creating a new woman from Adam's Rib, God was creating a woman who would be subservient. The only Biblical reference to Lilith is to be found in Isaiah 34

NRSV:
Wildcats shall meet with hyenas,
goat-demons shall call to each other;
there too Lilith shall repose,
and find a place to rest.
There shall the owl nest
and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow

Some other Bibles contain this, one of the more accurate translations of Lilit (the original Hebrew word) of this section. But many translations use various terms: Screech Owl, Night Bird, Night Demon, Night Creatures, Hag, etc., which are interpolated (often poorly) from the etymological roots of Liyliyth, Lilitu, and other Semitic forms of the name Lilith.

For some reason, many translators have difficulty with just leaving the name as is. For example: the Biblical name Sarah, isn't translated as it's etymological root, Princess, every time the name is used. I think perhaps some Biblical translators feel their faith would be threatened by leaving a clear reference to Lilith openly apparent in the Bible.

Lilith also figures into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the much, much later Quran. And is also reputed to figure into Akkadian, Sumerian and later the Assyrian and Babylonian Mythologies. Different versions of the story have Lilith bearing variously Demons, Giants, Dwarves, Succubi, Vampires and Djinn, and eventually becoming a Demoness herself.

So yes, I suppose it is plausible (speaking Mythologically) that Cain and Seth's wives were half-sisters, possibly Demoness's, daughters of Lilith. That would also be an intriguing Mythic twist. Personally, I prefer the Nephilim idea .

GB

Now given that Nephilim are said to have "lain with mortals" until God put an end to that practice, I suppose one could speculate that perhaps Cain and Seth's wives were Angelic. Seeing as this is as speculative as claiming they "lay with" their sisters, I would find this a far more palatable resolution to the problem (not to mention more Mythopoetic).

Whaddya think of that solution?

As speculative? Sure.

More palatable? Maybe for most people, whose reaction to incest is that of rather strong disgust, regardless of the actual reasonings they might (or might not) have behind it.

Me? For various reasons, partially due to my own lack of a sister for most of my life, as well as the fact that I can't find a good reason outside of genetics for why it's wrong, I've lost that kind of strong reaction.

Besides, palatable or not palatable, does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Personally, as far as the pursuit of reason is concerned, things like feelings are at best indicators (in this case, indicating that something is wrong; what that might be aside from genetics, I don't know); past that, if it's within reason, disgust isn't really a factor.

I won't argue with the Mythopoetic part, though. But that's your realm, not mine.

Is this all speculation? Perhaps. And since you brought up the question, I brought in my speculation. Maybe you don't find my answer particularly palatable, but no one said you had to believe my speculation over yours.

I'm still waiting for a PM explaining to me why incest is wrong aside from genetics, though...