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

I suppose not!

I'm just messing with you, I know what you meant I just couldn't resist.

Wow, so much interesting stuff. I'll start with more addressed to Andrew, who seems to be just a little selective in responding to my questions. A-hem. Again, my reason for asking these is not to be intrusive, but honestly seeking answers.

And if I may ask, how have [your parents] 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.

In what ways?

Must be a pretty heady experience, huh? Like an insurrectionist or a double agent: benefiting from a society but secretly hating its practices.

Perhaps I can understand that. Yet I wonder if it's really the best policy, being so dishonest against your parents. Do they love you? Do you believe they've done their best to raise you, teach you, give you what you need or even things you don't need? It sounds like they are still together as well; that is helpful, though of course no parents are perfect.

Either way, it also sounds like NarniaWeb seems quite a safe place for you to let loose your "real" side. Still, shouldn't your parents know the real you now? Or do you fear that would bring some kind of punishment?

I don't see how [my beliefs are] repulsive and dull; it just is what it is.

Ipso facto, huh? Still you haven't proved anything beyond simply asking people to accept, by faith, that your "book of Andrew" is the truth. As soon as you can credibly claim to have created the world and sustain it and work out a great plan to redeem people from their own rebellious choices, I might pay attention to your "book." But not yet!

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.

I'm not sure Andrew sees it that way, Light. Like some "classical humanists" (the more-fun Star Trek kind, where humans get better and better), he might assume people just get better when they're more selfish. (A close relative to this is the "objectivist" philosophy of Ayn Rand.)

But also like Star Trek, this is just making up a universe. It's enjoyable sometimes to make up universes, but when we're talking about the real universe, made-up-universe rules simply don't apply.

And let me suggest that while it can be very exciting to try to figure out all this philosophy stuff, also keep in mind that:

1) None of this is new. As C.S. Lewis said, the more "original" we try to be, the more often we repeat all that's gone on before. So it's not all shiny and fantastic to be thinking about all these things -- while it may be new to us, it's not new to thousands of others before us.

2) What sounds all right and wonderful on paper or talking out loud is a very different thing when applied to the real world: where people hurt, want answers, and wonder why they suffer and why they know it's wrong.

I don't wish to sound patronizing, Andrew. But again, when your "answers" (which I quote below) are like this, I wish to point out how ludicrous they sound when compared with the real world. As for me, I have more than ten years more experience there than you, but the experience of anyone here doesn't matter nearly so much as having faith in the right Book. In this case, I'm claiming faith in the book proclaiming itself the Word of God; it seems just a little superior to the non-written, constantly-under-revision "book" of Andrew.

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

Little difference. Either way it's the control of one person over the freedom of another -- in this case, control over freedom to have children instead of freedom to live. So, in your world-in-development, can you tell me who needs to be sterilized, and why, and who would decide?

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?

2. I guess the only answer is oh well?

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

Answer 2 is not good enough for me, or for anyone else on here -- yet it's one of the more consistent answers I've read from those professing to be "agnostics." If you keep going with this thing you may soon learn to give less honest replies to the question, I'm sure. But I hope not!

And as for your emergency answer about "a greater force," how do you know that force would be right to stop them? What is Right, anyway?

If the greater force is God, that's a great answer. Yet you would deny Him the right to stop you, either from rejecting His authority over your life or His offer of grace, the only way to save you from your own sin-death.

"Well, it's just that there's a million people over there, and I have little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through. ... Master?"
— from Meet the Robinsons

I have more to ask, such as why you love the Narnia series so much, especially when all its heroes contradict your religion-in-development, and all its villains, such as the Green Witch and especially Jadis in The Magician's Nephew, extol humanistic beliefs. But I'll skip over that for now, and finally ask you to answer me this:

There's no reason not to [try to convert others]. That's one of the small joys of having no real rules.

Silliness. Of course you have real rules. Everyone does. However, I'm sure it's quite the heady experience to say "I have no rules." But if anyone points a gun in your face or demands your cash or skateboard or whatever, trust me, you'd be citing someone's rules by instinct.

Yet for many people who have favorite areas of sin -- disliking God, for example, or wishing to "experiment" sexually -- claiming "I have no rules" can justify quite a lot of things, can it not?

Fencer has already specified how real Christianity is not about rules. I heartily agree, while only clarifying that for those outside the faith, it is about rules: that is, God's Law that, when violated, hurts people and worse, hates Him. But now I wonder what your definition of "Christianity" is anyway -- the kind with which you've been brought up.

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

Not at all. Who has taught you this is what Christianity is or what the Bible teaches? Or are you sure you're not simply erecting a straw-man?

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.

Perhaps so -- that seems a more historically balanced view of patriarchy practices in the Middle East, some of which are described in Scripture.

I'd note, though, that not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture. Explaining how the Old Testament Law no longer exactly applies to people takes some deeper theology, but it's much easier to say that just because, say, Abraham's servant picked up Rebecca a little bit more like a used car from another state, that doesn't mean Christians are meant to emulate such practices today.

Not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture.

Non-Christians who claim otherwise get a little tiresome, yet not nearly so bad as professing Christians who claim otherwise. Though they are not as popular as, say, the contrasting error of "evangelical feminism," the "patriarchalist" practitioners are out there. And yes, such men quite proudly treat their wives and daughters as servants to their own "visions," which is disgusting not just because it's Politically Incorrect, but because these teachers claim that their views are Biblical. They are not.

So, a quick plug for my five-part series on that at YeHaveHeard, if anyone wants to read more: Sins of the 'Patriarchs,' parts 1 - 5.

Next-to-finally, about the Cain's-wife stuff, those who want to learn more about the Biblical basis and reasoning for the answers on that can find almost anything at the Answers in Genesis site. And finally, I'm about sick of all the Nephilim stuff. I'm not sure why that's proven so fascinating with the general public. And I'm not claiming it's been like that here, but I remember that great guy who was my manager at Pizza Hut for a time -- the few times Spiritual Matters came up, he was all over The Nephilim, rather than the whole point of the Bible -- God, what He is like and what He's done in history. It would be like reading Victor Hugo's Les Misérables and being solely preoccupied with Napoleon's hat.

In what ways?
Must be a pretty heady experience, huh? Like an insurrectionist or a double agent: benefiting from a society but secretly hating its practices.
Perhaps I can understand that. Yet I wonder if it's really the best policy, being so dishonest against your parents. Do they love you? Do you believe they've done their best to raise you, teach you, give you what you need or even things you don't need? It sounds like they are still together as well; that is helpful, though of course no parents are perfect.

Well we disagree on just about everything to do with morality, I suppose.
It was a little bit difficult at first, but I’ve gotten used to it over the years.
Yes they love me, and given me a lot. I mean I don’t know anyone else with their own skate park They’re together if you can call it that – they definitely don’t like each other, I mean they haven’t even shared a bedroom in years.

Either way, it also sounds like NarniaWeb seems quite a safe place for you to let loose your "real" side. Still, shouldn't your parents know the real you now? Or do you fear that would bring some kind of punishment?

I don’t hide myself from the world, in fact my immediate family are the only ones who don’t know who I really am, but such is life. If my parents knew much about me they would just ground me more than usual, not let me see my friends, turn off my internet, etc.

Ipso facto, huh? Still you haven't proved anything beyond simply asking people to accept, by faith, that your "book of Andrew" is the truth. As soon as you can credibly claim to have created the world and sustain it and work out a great plan to redeem people from their own rebellious choices, I might pay attention to your "book." But not yet!

As I’ve said, I don’t want anyone to accept my beliefs because I say to – I want people to think for themselves and find their conclusions based on how they weigh the evidence. If you come to the conclusion that you should be a theist, so be it. It is, after all, your life.

I'm not sure Andrew sees it that way, Light. Like some "classical humanists" (the more-fun Star Trek kind, where humans get better and better), he might assume people just get better when they're more selfish. (A close relative to this is the "objectivist" philosophy of Ayn Rand.)

Not so, I just don’t see what’s so wrong with it – I mean it’s not like the world is run on morals anyways.

None of this is new. As C.S. Lewis said, the more "original" we try to be, the more often we repeat all that's gone on before. So it's not all shiny and fantastic to be thinking about all these things -- while it may be new to us, it's not new to thousands of others before us.

I’m not trying to be original, I know there have been many before me who think as I do. I’d be more worried if I was alone in how I think.

Either way it's the control of one person over the freedom of another -- in this case, control over freedom to have children instead of freedom to live. So, in your world-in-development, can you tell me who needs to be sterilized, and why, and who would decide?

This question has been answered already, but I’ll say it again: eugenics won’t work in today’s society. I personally would remove certain mental disorders, but of course then you have to ask, what’s to stop me from deciding to remove another type as well? That is why, until society as a whole decides to put aside their own selfishness for the good of the human race, it will never happen.

Answer 2 is not good enough for me, or for anyone else on here -- yet it's one of the more consistent answers I've read from those professing to be "agnostics." …And as for your emergency answer about "a greater force," how do you know that force would be right to stop them? What is Right, anyway?

Well, once again it is what it is. Once they killed me I wouldn’t care what they were doing anyways. And I never said a greater force should stop them, you asked what could.

I have more to ask, such as why you love the Narnia series so much, especially when all its heroes contradict your religion-in-development, and all its villains, such as the Green Witch and especially Jadis in The Magician's Nephew, extol humanistic beliefs.

It’s a great story, well written, timeless and enjoyable. LWW was the first book I can remember reading, I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve read them all. To dislike a fictional series because they it is allegorical to a belief system I disagree with would be not only immature but just plain ridiculous, in my opinion. That would be like saying I don’t like you because you disagree with me.

Of course you have real rules. Everyone does. However, I'm sure it's quite the heady experience to say "I have no rules." But if anyone points a gun in your face or demands your cash or skateboard or whatever, trust me, you'd be citing someone's rules by instinct.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying I would cite rules, I think I’d give them what they want. Using the law to get my stuff back, or have him thrown in jail, would be vengeful and selfish, not a sign of rules applying to my own life.

Fencer has already specified how real Christianity is not about rules. I heartily agree, while only clarifying that for those outside the faith, it is about rules: that is, God's Law that, when violated, hurts people and worse, hates Him. But now I wonder what your definition of "Christianity" is anyway -- the kind with which you've been brought up.

Well, I know that Christianity is having faith in Jesus to save you from hell, and loving the Lord, and as Jesus said to his disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

Not at all. Who has taught you this is what Christianity is or what the Bible teaches? Or are you sure you're not simply erecting a straw-man?

I don’t know what you mean by a “straw-man,” but as far as I can remember nobody taught me this. I’m sure I’ve had some help in things I’ve read over the years, but it started out with things that made sense in my head, and at the root of it: if God loved us, he would never have created us.

My turn.
Of course some of these are not what I believe happened or is true, but you think so.
Let’s take a little trip back to the beginning of time. As humans, we haven’t been to heaven and don’t know what it’s like but the Bible tells us how great it will be, yet not only Lucifer, the brightest of angels, but also a third of the angels, who have seen and been a part of God’s glory firsthand, obviously didn’t think it was that great, and what Lucifer offered was better, for they followed him straight out of heaven.
How about the illogicality of not only morality but also the existence of a personal god.

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.

A common argument of religious believers is that, even if their beliefs (in this case, the Bible) were not true, it is better to accept it so as not to risk eternal damnation in hell. However, following those beliefs takes away our freedom in this life – the only life we are guaranteed to live. It condemns drunkenness, covetousness, homosexuality, even all belief systems outside of the one that it teaches. A look inside some of the laws and condemnations of this book shows it to be the manual of a controlling [jerk] rather than the love story so many Christians make it out to be. God cannot be personal and loving. Most likely he is neither. If God really loved us, he would not have created us, especially not create a system that is designed to fail, by making an environment and declaring nearly all pleasures in it wicked perversions, when they are in themselves only uses for what he made, and condemning us to hell for partaking in them.

This question has been answered already, but I’ll say it again: eugenics won’t work in today’s society. I personally would remove certain mental disorders, but of course then you have to ask, what’s to stop me from deciding to remove another type as well? That is why, until society as a whole decides to put aside their own selfishness for the good of the human race, it will never happen.

Just popping in for a moment, and I saw this.

You're right, it won't work in today's society, and I doubt it ever will. You're telling people to put away their selfishness, for the good of the human race, but I would tell you to knock the foolishness out of your head that has made you accept murder so lightly.

To take the life of an innocent human being immediately sounds off an alarm in any sane man's mind, and anyone who thinks other-words is allowing something to corrupt their reason into falsehood, or has a mental disorder themselves! I do not think you to have a mental disorder, so I think you are merely fooling yourself into the truth that it is all right to, quite frankly, murder someone.

Don't you think it would be a much more worth-while cause to try and actually fix this through actually finding cures to said diseases, instead of taking human lives, especially when it isn't necessary to take said lives?

Food for thought:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

LITD

To take the life of an innocent human being immediately sounds off an alarm in any sane man's mind, and anyone who thinks other-words is allowing something to corrupt their reason into falsehood, or has a mental disorder themselves! I do not think you to have a mental disorder, so I think you are merely fooling yourself into the truth that it is all right to, quite frankly, murder someone.

Don't you think it would be a much more worth-while cause to try and actually fix this through actually finding cures to said diseases, instead of taking human lives, especially when it isn't necessary to take said lives?

Define innocent.

Anyways, I don't think murder is right, just not wrong, either. Like everything else, it simple is what it is. Am I saying we should go around killing everyone, or not care if somebody murders our loved ones? Of course not.

And indeed, I think that is a great outlet of discovery. But the fact of the matter is alot of our problems cannot be eliminated as long as the weak are allowed to breed.

I'm not a supporter of saying who is and isn't allowed to breed based on strength, this is just food for thought. The only animals with such prevelant mental and physical retardation are humans, and grazing animals such as cows (which are forced to breed by us). In nature, only the strong survive long enough to breed, and their genes are only mixed with other "strong" genes. Interestingly enough, alot of our greatest discoveries were made by those who were physically weak, but mentally very advanced.

So, in a way, if we just went all out natural order, we would have alot of physically strong humans, but we wouldn't be able to accomplish anything more than continuing our existance (which is all we do anyways, but more comfortably). And that is why it is important for eugenics to be carried out by impartial people who are just as interested in the mental strengths of humans as the physical.

Like I said, I'm not saying we should kill anyone, and I don't want to be the one to say who can or cannot breed, I'm just saying our current situation will lead to the devolution and downfall of the human race someday.

Anyways, I don't think murder is right, just not wrong, either. Like everything else, it simple is what it is. Am I saying we should go around killing everyone, or not care if somebody murders our loved ones? Of course not.

Surely someone with a mental disorder is loved by someone, so that someone will certainly care if you were to murder their friend. Why should your wants for the "betterment" of the human race come above the value of a human life and the would-be grief of the loving friend? You would be killing someone who had not done anything worthy of the punishment of death, which I suppose would be the definition of innocent in this case. It's pure injustice, which is why this is wrong, and not simply "what it is."

Like I said, I'm not saying we should kill anyone, and I don't want to be the one to say who can or cannot breed, I'm just saying our current situation will lead to the devolution and downfall of the human race someday.

How do you know this, exactly?

If we address how mental disorders would be one legitimate reason for eugenics, I will say right off that stardf29 and myself would among those eliminated. Both of us have Asperger's Syndrom which is a mild form of autism. But back when we were kids, that diagnosis wasn't around and because we weren't 'normal' like everyone else, we would be among the first to be eliminated.

And having a mental disability, I have seen the difference between how the world would treat them and how an active Christian (someone who truly seeks to walk the walk, not merely talk the talk) would. I would not be here today in the same state that I am now had I not been raised in a Christian home. I likely would have been dropped off in some foster care home or mental hospital like stardf nearly was, given no chance to improve. In fact, all the specialists who looked at me as a kid gave me no chance to improve.

Not only do I have Asperger's, I have had very serious physical developmental issues. I could never mimic actions I would see and required a physical therapist to teach me simple actions like throwing or kicking a ball. Not only that, when I was six years old, doctors and specialists said because of the cogenital twists in my legs, I would never be able to run and don't expect any hope of improvement. So under the rules that eugenics suggest, I would have been a prime candidate for someone to be eliminated.

But as I mentioned a couple pages back, I am living proof that there is a God, not just because I have overcome the physical difficulties that I had growing up, but also because I have largely come out of the Asperger's bubble where I was in my own little world without a clue about anything else. I had no concept of sports. I had no idea why you ran up and down the soccer field until I was 12, when most kids were learning strategic plays and positioning for those plays. It wasn't until I started fencing at 15, when I was able to perform an physical motion without having a physical therapist actually take my body through the motions. And today I am able to interact with people in ways that no one thought would be possible.

And I haven't even gotten into the gifts I had while in the Asperger's state. One of my gifts is what Christians call spiritual discernment. I have been able to sense demonic activity taking place and had prophetic visions of spiritual battles shortly before they happened. And that brings in another question for you Andrew. How does your world view handle things of the supernatural? Things that absolutely cannot be explained via scientific methods? As I have become more aware of the spiritual side of things, there are a number of mental diseases that I really wonder if they are simply just a demonic being doing it's job. Multi-personality disorder in particular is one that makes me think demonic activity. I wonder (just speculating) if being bipolar has some demonic aspect as well.

So let's be very careful about what we say, especially in context of eugenics. I am not personally offended because you said something about some with certain mental disorders could be on a list to go, because it's nothing new to me. But others may be and if they are following your line of thinking, it could get ugly really fast. And with all the rates of autism, Down's Syndrom, and numerous others, climbing at an incredibly fast rate, it won't be long before the 'normal' person becomes the exception.

How do you know this, exactly?

Take any basic evolutionary and genetics development course. Or read the last paragraph of Fencer's post.

But as I mentioned a couple pages back, I am living proof that there is a God, not just because I have overcome the physical difficulties that I had growing up, but also because I have largely come out of the Asperger's bubble where I was in my own little world without a clue about anything else. I had no concept of sports. I had no idea why you ran up and down the soccer field until I was 12, when most kids were learning strategic plays and positioning for those plays. It wasn't until I started fencing at 15, when I was able to perform an physical motion without having a physical therapist actually take my body through the motions. And today I am able to interact with people in ways that no one thought would be possible.

That really is an amazing story, honestly you should get a movie made about you.

Anyways, you of all people should understand what I'm saying. Look at what YOU have done! You've proved the world wrong and made amazing accomplishments. Not god, YOU.

How does your world view handle things of the supernatural? Things that absolutely cannot be explained via scientific methods?

Well this is an interesting and difficult one for me to answer. Of course I would say that it is not real, or will be explainable someday, if not for the fact that someone I would trust with my life will swear on their's that they can both see and contact spirits. So the jury's still out on that one with me.

And with all the rates of autism, Down's Syndrom, and numerous others, climbing at an incredibly fast rate, it won't be long before the 'normal' person becomes the exception.

That sort of proves my point, I think.

Andrew, yes it is an amazing story, but no movie would be able to contain it. I just gave you the brief summary. But there is something you missed. It wasn't really that I was able to overcome it on my own. I really could not run and could only walk by locking my knees together and putting my weight on them. But I didn't necessarily have the will to try to overcome it as many stories you hear. I was autistic enough that I didn't know what was going on, let alone to care about it. My understanding of sports was like a light switch turned on and I suddenly understood it. I never studied sports really until the last couple years. Prior, I'd just follow stats but didn't comprehend the plays. Even with fencing, it really hasn't been until the last couple years that I really knew what I was doing. This past semester in particular. I knew the actions and could explain the rules better than most, but I never really understood the strategy side of it until I started coaching my rookie teammates this past semester.

But there is something else you didn't know either. When I was 4 months old, my brain swelled and doctors, like later on, gave me no hope, even the Christian ones. It wasn't until my parents and my home church in Colorado began praying for me that it subsided. There are many more stories like that. I know a guy who had a really nasty tumor as a kid. The doctors took a final scan to confirm the size and location as they went to perform the surgery to remove. When they opened him up, they never found it and an immediate scan following revealed it was gone. There is no scientific explination for that. And no, not even House could figure that one out.

All of this I am planning on using with a presentation using fencing to illustrate life lessons with a Christian theme and spiritual warfare. I am also looking at going into teaching. If I was relying on my own skills and abilities, I wouldn't dare try. I stutter. Like on "Inkheart", the guy Capricorn used to read in all his minions got stammering blocks every time he read, whenever I speak I get blocks and I can't get words out. I've tried all sorts of things like singing and speech therapy and it doesn't work. I don't stutter when I sing, but I am very tone deaf and you want me furthest from the mic. I'm not doing this to show the world I can overcome the stuttering. I'm doing it because I have a message to share and I'm not going to let my stuttering stop me. As Paul said, I'm not going out with eloquence of speech, but simply a message, and the message will speak for itself, not my words, however they come out.

My point is, there comes a point where you really can't go any further on your own abilities, talents, and energies. But the Bible says that I can do all things through Christ Jesus who gives me strength. I can say I did not succeed in what I have through my own abilities but through the God that I serve.

So, in a way, if we just went all out natural order, we would have alot of physically strong humans, but we wouldn't be able to accomplish anything more than continuing our existance (which is all we do anyways, but more comfortably). And that is why it is important for eugenics to be carried out by impartial people who are just as interested in the mental strengths of humans as the physical.

You really think you're going to find impartial people to do this? Sorry, but that's hilarious. Every time eugenics is brought up, it quickly becomes about eliminating the people the eugenicists don't like. They might start out with noble plans to cure humanity of its ills, but it wouldn't take long before it was being used to wipe out people who have differing political views, sexual orientations, religions, and skin colors.

I really don't understand how you can even justify eugenics with your stated views about everyone acting in their self interest. Maybe I've missed something, since I did skim some of these posts. Eugenics is, in theory, used to improve humanity as a whole. It has nothing to do with self interest, in fact it tramples all over the interests of individuals to theoretically benefit the whole.

Doc R:
Next-to-finally, about the Cain's-wife stuff, those who want to learn more about the Biblical basis and reasoning for the answers on that can find almost anything at the Answers in Genesis site. And finally, I'm about sick of all the Nephilim stuff.

AAAWWW! Don't be a spoilsport Doc! Nephilim are COOL . You should be happy that Nephilim are popular. Anything that opens up people's minds to the possibilities of a Spiritual Life should be welcomed. CS Lewis seemed to think so.

Besides which, after looking at the Answers in Genesis site, it is obvious that they haven't got anything that hasn't already been said here. Sister's: ICK . No, seriously, if one is going to engage in extra-Biblical speculation, that can't be the best you can come up with.

I mean, are you arguing Moral Relativism now? Because that's what it is: INCEST BAD (unless you have a teensy tiny population group ). That's the very definition of Moral Relativism. And under such circumstances who could really disagree?

But then that puts Sunday School teachers in a VERY Awkward position doesn't it? When some kid asks you about it, wouldn't you rather have an explanation that conserves a Moral Absolute? Nobody ever had a satisfactory explanation for Cain's wife when I asked as a kid, and that was one of the first questions I asked. And that certainly led to an erosion of a literal belief in the Bible for me (I took a lot of "Magical" stuff including the Bible literally as a kid ).

Yes, Nephilim , save embarrassment, preserve Faith. The more I think about it, the more I like it (I guess I still have soft spot for the "Magical" stuff ).

GB

PS: By the way Booky, that's an excellent and concise analysis of the contradictions between "Self-interest" and Eugenics. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I really don't understand how you can even justify eugenics with your stated views about everyone acting in their self interest. Maybe I've missed something, since I did skim some of these posts. Eugenics is, in theory, used to improve humanity as a whole. It has nothing to do with self interest, in fact it tramples all over the interests of individuals to theoretically benefit the whole.

You did miss something. Like where I said it won't work in the real world anytime soon. Same with socialism, a great idea that doesn't work in practice.

Fencer, you're in Colorado huh? Me too

Cool discussion.

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

Thank you for the Lilith reference, which also gives background to Mr Beaver's view of the White Witch's lineage. I agree with you that there might be two traditions in Genesis, and that both are included suggests someone in the Ancient past might have been synthesizing two oral traditions to get a coherent whole. Personally I'm happy to go along with Genesis 1 and leave Genesis 2 to mythology, because of the extra unwanted detailed embroidery. Elsewhere in the Torah there is also a parallel tradition. For example, Numbers duplicates Exodus to some extent, though it seems the Numbers Ark of the Covenant is somewhat less ornate and fancy than the Exodus version.

And when Chronicles 1 & 2, otherwise called Kings 3 & 4 in the Septuagint, duplicates Kings 1 & 2, it is easy to see why there might be two distinct Jewish traditions. Of course the royal courts of Samaria and Jerusalem kept records of events like their counterparts elsewhere, even if the best records were kept by the hated and usually separate priests and Levites. They had a good alphabetical system to work with as well, thanks to the neighbouring Phoenicians. And these two accounts are after the splitting of the two kingdoms. The difference between the two accounts is where certain historical features are emphasized or played down, and how much detail is used for different events. Once Solomon's reign was over, Israel split into two distinct kingdoms, sometimes at variance with each other, so two different sets of annals are to be expected.

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.

Perhaps so -- that seems a more historically balanced view of patriarchy practices in the Middle East, some of which are described in Scripture.

I'd note, though, that not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture. Explaining how the Old Testament Law no longer exactly applies to people takes some deeper theology, but it's much easier to say that just because, say, Abraham's servant picked up Rebecca a little bit more like a used car from another state, that doesn't mean Christians are meant to emulate such practices today.

Not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture.

I'd have to agree. Of course much in the Bible is description, neither prescription or proscription. Thanks to the Bible, we know much about ancient peoples who have long ago died out. Like the Philistines, otherwise known in Egyptian circles as the Sea Peoples, an Indo-European people who settled in the Gaza region of what is now known as Palestine or the Palestinian territories. Whatever their civilization, we only have the Bible's word for it, especially as they were entirely unrelated to the people who live there now, who, in their turn, seem somewhat uninterested in finding out more about the area they live in.

The Philistines are not the only ones. The Phoenicians cut a real presence in Ancient History. They helped Solomon build his temple, they were good tradespeople who invented an alphabet the imitators of which are still in use today from this forum to the nearest Synagogue and back again to Modern Day Greece and throughout the Western World, via the Latin alphabet. These people from what is known today as Lebanon also established colonies in Carthage, best known for Hannibal's conflict with Scipio Africanus and other Romans, as well as Cartagena, still a city in Modern day Spain.

And guess what! The Phoenicians were also related linguistically, and in every other way to the ancient Canaanites. Like the Canaanites, they were worshippers of Baal, Moloch and Astarte. Jezebel was a Phoenician princess before she married Ahab, explaining her conflict with Elijah. I don't know why the Canaanites chose to worship such a disgusting god, and it sounds something horribly like Andrew's Eugenics when they'd consent to send their children to the fire. But although the Bible had the last say, it seems that Ahab, who died a hero at the Battle of Qarqar, was rather well regarded elsewhere in the Ancient world. Go to the British Museum sometime, and you will find a black obelisk on display showing Jehu's obeisance to the Assyrian kings, who regarded him as just another member of the House of Omri.

The Israelites had an ongoing battle with Baal. Manasseh, the son of Judean Hezekiah and Hepzibah, thought Baal worship a good idea. Until he managed to annoy the Assyrians so much that they stuck a hook through his jaw and brought him in chains to Nineveh. After which Manasseh repented and went back to the faith of his fathers. But in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, despite the blandishments of the likes of Amos, the leaders had been so enamoured of Baal worship and other monstrosities that when the Assyrians demolished Samaria, they lost their Jewish identities entirely, once they were transported to other places in the Assyrian empire. They were assimilated, you see.

There are other conflicts of interest, when you compare the Biblical historical accounts with other contemporary accounts. It seems that Ancient Greeks abhorred Darius and his son Xerxes for invading Greece, Athens and Sparta in particular. But the Jews got along fine with such Persian kings, it would seem. Xerxes (Ahasuerus) even married a Jewish girl, Esther. And it was the Persians who allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, the Old Testament is still relevant to today, in many ways, not just as history. Even the Qu'ran has borrowed heaps from it. It really behoves us as Christians to understand fully what is mere description in the Bible, what is proscribed and what is recommended, lest we find ourselves being quoted against, using Bible sources, to uphold customs that have long been dispensed with in the Christian world, and to justify the adoption of Sharia law.

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

Sorry, as one of the world's worst correspondents, I don't do pm's if I can help it. But if you want an explanation for why incest is wrong, look no further than your local legislature. It is illegal, as far as I know, in any state of America, as well as elsewhere in the Engish-speaking world. And most definitely here, in another part of the globe. Most cases of incest involve an imbalance of power, and, as TOM says, in an earlier post, a betrayal of trust. Furthermore, since most such victims are under-age, incest effectively involves pedophilia, and worse.

I haven't got siblings either, stardf29. But no doubt even ordinary people have read about Austrian Josef Fritzl or equivalents elsewhere. You can see why incest might be wrong in such cases as it removes from vulnerable people the option to say no, to refuse consent. Worldwide, some forms of incest are considered horrific. Even the Australian Aborigines had their own ways of preventing incest by strict laws of who can marry whom, and by complicated arrangements with appropriate tribes.

And I'd agree that much depends on how incest is defined. The Catholic monarchies often married uncles and nieces, or first cousins, so much so, that when a geneticist examined the history of Charles II ,he found last year that due to repetitions of such marriages, Charles II was just as inbred as if he had been the offspring of a full brother and sister union. Henry VIII might have quoted Leviticus 20, verse 21, which says: 'If a man shall take his brother's wife it is an unclean thing... they shall be childless.' But we know it was a fat dowry that drove Henry VIII to marry Katherine of Aragon, and that in the Royal house of England, the main problem was the lack of a son to succeed this monster of a sovereign.

We also know that no such inhibitions worried the ancient children of Jacob, who, like tribespeople in various parts of the world, saw nothing wrong with women marrying the brothers of deceased husbands, including ancient Israelites. That is how Judah, in Genesis, got to father twin sons to make up for the sons he lost when he married them off to Tamar. And we also know that another Tamar also had problems when she was raped by her half-brother Ammon, thus incurring her full brother Absalom's rage and causing much grief in the House of David.

If Tanveer Ahmad and Juliet Mitchell are both right, incest is somewhat self-defeating, since it damages the marriage value of daughters, obliging fathers to get rid of the defiled daughter in an honour killing. Is this enough information about incest?

Hmm... it seems to me as though your arguments, valid as they are, are less a direct reason as to why incest is wrong as it is a look at how incest in particular is vulnerable to the effects of our Sinful Nature.

In fact, that's probably the other reason why God forbade the act; not only has genetics become a problem, but so has the increasing degree to which sinful behaviors have been involved.

You also mention damaging the "marriage value of daughters", which I can definitely see as an argument in the cultures where this is important; not only that, but it also presents an argument against step-siblings and adopted siblings, which is important for my part.

All things considered, though, they aren't really arguments against incest itself, and it's pretty easy to come up with a situation where none of those really apply and genetics remains the only issue (and should the situation involve not-blood siblings, even that gets taken out). So at best, they are hurdles that make such a relationship hard (but not impossible) to work out.

And yeah, it does seem to depend on the definition of incest. In fact, probably the case of "incest" I am most curious of is the case of two friends, otherwise not related by either blood or law, who have grown up together and see each other as brother and sister. Many outsiders wouldn't even consider a possible union between them incest... but for whatever reason, the two friends themselves do see any romance between them as such, regardless of whether or not they have a good reason for doing so. (Ironic in that, all things considered, because they know each other so well and already have built the patience to put up with each other for so long, their actual marriage compatibility would be pretty much optimal, as long as they agree on major issues as well.)

Different definitions, unclear reasons... no wonder I get confused by this. Is there any solution? Maybe... but perhaps this would fit better in that "Twue Wuv" topic that's buried a couple pages down on the forum...

Ok, so I need to address several things:

GB, let's compare models. My model says that we know stuff in the following ways:

Empirical: the empirical faculties consist in the five senses. These give us knowledge of the physical world as it is perceived directly—they do not, however provide exhaustive knowledge and cannot completely organize their own data. In order for them to function properly, it is necessary to have organizing principles, plus inductive and deductive reasoning faculties. When these are present, the picture provided by the empirical senses will be more or less accurate.

Inductive: the inductive faculty consists in the weighing of probable explanations for particular data. For example, if I see a door, I am warranted in concluding that there is something behind it because of empirical experiences (empirical sense plus memory) plus organizing principles (such as the uniformity of nature).

Deductive: the deductive faculty uses the laws of logic to weigh the relations between propositions. It cannot do more, but will not do less. In very few cases can deductive logic alone provide truth—these cases are known as tautologies. The laws of logic are basic assumptions.

Basic assumptions: these truths are assumed as organizing principles of the various faculties. For example, in order for my deductive faculty to function properly, I must assume that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are true. In order for my inductive faculty and empirical faculty to work, I must assume that nature, the physical realm, is uniform. Basic assumptions, with some exceptions, cannot be proven without use of circular reasoning.

Memory: the faculty of memory consists in recalling past events, facts, as well as learned skills and facts acquired by way of authority (credulity). It may use reasoning (of both types) as an aid, but is generally to be regarded as basically reliable. Closely related to credulity.

Credulity: this is the faculty of believing based upon aurthority and discerning between authorities, including one’s own faculties. All historical and scientific knowledge rests upon credulity to some degree. For example, unless one has done significant work in testing it, one must admit that their knowledge of the law of gravity is based on someone telling them so. All knowledge based upon reading, education, instruction of any kind (including self-instruction) rests upon credulity, as does trust in the other faculties.

Conscience: this is the ability to discern between morally praiseworthy and morally blameworthy actions and attitudes. This is one of the more controversial faculties that we possess.

Aesthetic sense: this is the ability to discern the good, the true, and the beautiful (in their non-moral senses). Like the conscience, this may be controversial, but it is also adversely affected by preferences and cultural norms such that excellence in the aesthetic realm is usually perceived as subjective.

Sensus Divinitatus: the most controversial of the cognitive faculties. This consists in awareness of God. This faculty, obviously, has been severely damaged by the fall such that those whom the Spirit has not regenerated have little to no awareness of this faculty. At best, the unregenerate have a sense of the “numinous.” At worst, their sensus will be practically non-functional. For the believer, awareness of God will arise on various occasions where others will see or feel nothing.

I hope this clarifies where I am coming from. Pay particular attention to the section on credulity. I believe all of these faculties to be reasonable and indispensible elements of our makeup which regularly yield knowledge.

Andrew, have you by chance read Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard? I think you would find Kierkegaard's perspective on Christianity to be particularly helpful. You might also want to read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. And while you're at it, watch The Seventh Seal, an excellent Ingmar Bergman film.

If you're going to be existential and all that, then you need to make a decision: which camp are you going to follow? Are you going to follow Nietzsche or Kierkegaard? Sartre and Camus or Dostoevsky and Marcel? All schools of existential thought fall into one of two camps: theistic or atheistic. Why? Because the question of God is immensely relevant to whether there is a meaning and purpose to life.

TBG