According to the Oxford English Dictionary, incest is defined as "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other." This definition encompasses the general understanding of incest as the engagement in sexual activity between individuals who are close blood relatives and are prohibited by social or legal norms from marrying or having sexual relations with each other. According to christianity and most other religions this act is considered sacrilegious, the obvious focus here is on christanity.

If the average christain finds you in a relationship deemed incestous, you'd be considered to have committed an abomination and sin against God and rightly so according to the holy book inspired by God himself. And God detests sin (Habakkuk 1: 13). It's cleary stated his hate for incest through the books of Leveticus 18 : 6-18, 20 : 11 -21, Deuteronomy 27: 20-23, 1 Corinthians 5 : 1 amongst otherz.

Cycling back to the creation story, God who is all knowing and omnipotent created a man and a woman and ordered them in Genesis 1 : 28 to be fruitful and multiply and to go fill the earth. The only way to have fulfilled that instruction was through the practice of incest as we know God created no one else and the whole of humanity was to come from and came from these two according to the bible. Why then did God choose to propagate a key part of his design through sin(incest) which he detests so much?? Cause the children of Adam and Eve had no one but themselves to marry and procreate with.

Or maybe he created others after them... but that obviously contradicts the divinely inspired story right?! So why use sin as a key part of the plan when multiple persons could have been created to procreate with each other. Or did he change his mind about incest been a sin further down the line?! This leads to the question, does God change his mind?! if he's the alpha and omega and knows the end from the beginning he ought not to change his mind and know his plans would work from A through Z right?! Then again we have verses stating he doesnt change his mind and verses that also state, well he changes his mind ergo contradicting each other.

The puzzling part is God then decides to use incest which is a sin according to the bible, as a key part of his plans again after wiping the world with the flood, and the reason for the flood was as we all know sin. The story says just Noah and his family survive. In Genesis 9 : 1 God then gives the same instruction given to Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth. The grandchildren of Noah had no one else to marry and procreate with except themselves and God knew this. So does he support incest at this time then changes his mind later on as stated in the scriptures... Does God change his mind about what's considered sin?? Or were there others alive then which would then contradicts the story.

Abraham, Isaac, Lot, and a host of others comitted this sin which wasn't even considered as em committeing sin. Heck It was even considered part of Jewish laws and customs that Yahweh even kills Onan for not cumming in his brother's widow to produce a child, meanwhile leveticus 18 : 16 says not to sleep with your brothers wife. If that isn't morally contradictory, i don't know what is. Reconciling the differences on this is something i obviously cannot can. Is incest a sin because God l8r said so after using and accepting it or beacuse its naturally morally wrong?? The bi le is contradictory on this as on many other topics. Maybe bible scholars have answers to this that us ordinary folks cant see, maybe they can fill in the blanks or maybe, just maybe something doesnt add up.

Lucifyre:

Cycling back to the creation story, God who is all knowing and omnipotent created a man and a woman and ordered them in Genesis 1 : 28 to be fruitful and multiply and to go fill the earth. The only way to have fulfilled that instruction was through the practice of incest as we know God created no one else and the whole of humanity was to come from and came from these two according to the bible. Why then did God choose to propagate a key part of his design through sin(incest) which he detests so much?? Cause the children of Adam and Eve had no one but themselves to marry and procreate with.

It is His Right to set how things should be and to change it as He deems fit especially at the beginning of a matter. Exactly how the creator of the rechargeable fan said you should charge for 8hours on its first use but after that you may charge as you need.

That is what it means to be a LawMaker!

Dtruthspeaker:


It is His Right to set how things should be and to change it as He deem fit especially at the beginning of a matter. Exactly how the creator of the rechargeable fan said you should charge for 8hours on its first use but after that you may charge as you need.

That is what it means to be a LawMaker!

Wow... Just, wow. Didn't expect any sensible retort and im still left disappointed. Anyways ill bite. First off, wtf is that analogy, and how does it relate or make sense to you. The creator of the rechargeable fan is not all knowing and is limited by the chemical and physical properties of the materials He's working with, which he has to work around the limitations ergo those instructions to charge. He's not limitless and all powerful to do what he wants, so your half baked analogy falls flat. You're saying god condones sin.

Secondly, you are literally stating God changes his mind which contradicts what your bible says, thirdly you're literally saying the god from ur religious texts is narcissistic ,hypocritical and confused going against the spirit and context of his own laws as a lawmaker and I doubt God's like that. "This thing is a sin, I abhor and hate it, don't do it" but im going to use that which i hate to set conditions that'll lead to you doing what i said you shouldn't. Then finally ill punish you for it when you do, even though you were stuck btw a rock and hard place due to my conditions. Please make it make sense.

Then again Its very on brand with the god in your texts though and its not just incest. "Thou shall not kill", "its a sin, but please kill these select people and make sure you kill the men, women and children and make sure no one survives, cause they've run afoul of me". " Thou shall not covert your neighbors property" "but pleaze take that nice land of those your neighbors over there fllowing with milk and honey cause i promise it to you". Please make it make sense. You're practically saying, its not a sin cause its the wrong thing morally and naturally or its just not right, its a sin cause ur god said so and he can commit and use sin which he claims to hate and punishes his creations for committing. Make it make sense bros...

Alot of contradiction though
You site some questions need to be answer by expert

Lucifyre:
. The creator of the rechargeable fan is not all knowing and is limited by the chemical and physical properties of the materials He's working with, which he has to work around the limitations ergo those instructions to charge. He's not limitless and all powerful to do what he wants, so your half baked analogy falls flat. You're saying god condones sin..

First, A creator knows everything (all knowing) over his creations which is why if your car gets damaged, when all else fails, the only person who can repair it is its creator knowing all the chemical and physical properties of the materials he used in making it work,.So omniscience is not an issue.

Secondly, it is God Who laid what things are sin. That is what LawMaker means.

And it is of course seen that in the beginning, sins we now know where not in existence since people where few. Thus, the LawMaker did not set The Law of incest exactly as Lagos could not set the Lagos traffic law in 1927.since only a few people owned vehicles. But now that there are many vehicles, now the traffic law came.

So, you.have no thing valid here.

Lucifyre:
.
Secondly, you are literally stating God changes his mind which contradicts what your bible says,

And I have answered that He has a Right to.

Dtruthspeaker:


First, A creator is knows everything (all knowing) over his creations which is why if your car gets damaged, when all else fails, the only person who can repair it is its creator knowing all the chemical and physical properties of the materials he used in making it work,.So omniscience is not an issue.

Secondly, it is God Who laid what things are sin. That is what LawMaker means.

And it is of course seen that in the beginning, sins we now know where not in existence since people where few. Thus, the LawMaker did not set The Law of incest exactly as Lagos could not set the Lagos traffic law in 1927.since only a few people owned vehicles. But now that there are many vehicles, now the traffic law came.

So, you.have no thing valid here.



And I have answered that He has a Right to.

The usual trope is going on here. When u guys obviously can't defend ur fiction, of which uve not even defended it with anything sensible, you go on a selective tangent, driving away from the point, then you waffle aimlessly non stop like you're doing now, getting tunnel vision on selective parts of the argument ur against. It's expected, no surprise there😄.

Anyways I'll bite as usual so you keep contradicting urself and what you stand for and any sensible person would see it for what it is. Your first analogy point I'm going to ignore cause uve obviously gone on a tangent as omniscience was never the crux of the issue and uve twisted the point ergo u waffle.

I never said it wasn't God who laid what sins are. If not for your comprehension issues and need to go on a tangent ud see that's exactly the point im making and ive spelt out quite clearly. he made it a sin and then used that sin he claims to hate to drive his so called plan. It's either he's hypocritical, confused, delusional or doesn't know what he's doing which is sadly the picture ur painting.

As for your traffic analogy, that's just a sad dissapointing analogy, come on, im sure u are likely educated. The basic framework of traffic laws are the same regardless of time and place. The laws are meant to prevent harm to road users and the basis of that is one that's universal ignoring semantics, so please go educate yourself before spewing ignorant dross dressed as analogies.

Using your faulty analogy, you are saying he changes his mind which means he doesn't see the end from the beginning as claimed, if not the sensible thing would have been to simply make adjustments as seen from the end before even embarking at the beginning, no Kafkaesque bs, quite simple common sense really. But no, he enjoys complicating things according to you, even if it means indulging in what he despises when it could have been easily avoided by creating more persons at the start. Quite brilliant.

Even then let's say he's allowed to change his mind as you said right?! and he does change his mind according to you but ironically your bible states and potrays otherwise😄 as seen in the following verses : Numbers 23 : 19, 1 Samuel 15 : 29, malachi 3 : 6, Hebrews 13 : 8, Psalm 102 : 25 -27, Isaiah 40 :8 and my favorite James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

So what mental gymnastics are we going to participate in now waffle maker??

Expanse2020:
Alot of contradiction though
You site some questions need to be answer by expert

Agreed. Ive tried to reconcile the differences but it doesn't add up. The other guy has tried to explain them away but instead is making God look incompetent which he's not. Im sure there are more rational defences or explanations.

Lucifyre:

. Your first analogy point I'm going to ignore cause uve obviously gone on a tangent as omniscience was never the crux of the issue and uve twisted the point ergo u waffle.

You were the one who tried making omniscience an issue but now after i haveaddressed it, you see its not. So that one is gone.

Lucifyre:

I never said it wasn't God who laid what sins are. If not for your comprehension issues and need to go on a tangent ud see that's exactly the point im making and ive spelt out quite clearly. he made it a sin and then used that sin he claims to hate to drive his so called plan.

If you truly appreciated that He set what sins shall be, then you ought to have appreciated what every reasonable has seen which is that He could not have set such a Law at beginning of the world when the world was enpty of people exactly as no one made Road Traffic Laws in Nigeria in 1897.

And that such a Law can only be made only when there were more people on the earth.

So, flowing therefrom every man on the earth will find that his ancestor married his sister for him to exist, so you have no thing here So just say that you want to blaspheme God because you know He hates you and is going to put you in hellfire instead of going round and acting like you have a reasonable case against him, whereas you have No Thing.

For every reasonable and noemal person understands why He prohibited incest later.

Its obvious that you want to Bleep your sister or you are already fucking.ypur sister.hence why you would certainly hate God who you know sees what you are doing even if people don't know.

Lucifyre:

As for your traffic analogy, that's just a sad dissapointing analogy, come on, im sure u are likely educated. The basic framework of traffic laws are the same regardless of time and place. The laws are meant to prevent harm to road users and the basis of that is one that's universal ignoring semantics, so please go educate yourself before spewing ignorant dross dressed as analogies.

No one asked about the framework of traffic laws nor its objective but what I clearly laid before you was that in 1927 and backwards let me say to 1897 was there in Lagos and in your state, road traffic laws of eg one way and seatbelt laws right and fire extinguisher laws?

No. And you already knew that the answer was no because you already knew that there were too few car owners and roads back in 1927 and backwards that such a law could not have been in existence.

But in your attempt to dodge my analogy you went raising up what no one asked you since you could not directly challenge it.

Lucifyre:

Using your faulty analogy, you are saying he changes his mind which means he doesn't see the end from the beginning as claimed...

You see yourself, i thought you said that "omniscience was never the crux of the issue", Yet, here you are mixing it up in your blasphemous jumble.

Lucifyre:

Even then let's say he's allowed to change his mind as you said right?! and he does change his mind according to you but ironically your bible states and potrays otherwise😄 as seen in the following verses : Numbers 23 : 19, 1 Samuel 15 : 29, malachi 3 : 6, Hebrews 13 : 8, Psalm 102 : 25 -27, Isaiah 40 :8 and my favorite James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

So what mental gymnastics are we going to participate in now waffle maker??

Off Point.

The topic is understanding why was allowed in the beginning of the world.and why God later prohibited it.

And not whether where God changes His Mind, He changes His Person. So, off point!

So dont derail your own post because you find that you cannot anawer my reply.

Dtruthspeaker:


You were the one who tried making omniscience an issue but now after i haveaddressed it, you see its not. So that one is gone.



If you truly appreciated that He set what sins shall be, then you ought to have appreciated what every reasonable has seen which is that He could not have set such a Law at beginning of the world when the world was enpty of people exactly as no one made Road Traffic Laws in Nigeria in 1897.

And that such a Law can only be made only when there were more people on the earth.

So, flowing therefrom every man on the earth will find that his ancestor married his sister for him to exist, so you have no thing here So just say that you want to blaspheme God because you know He hates you and is going to put you in hellfire instead of going round and acting like you have a reasonable case against him, whereas you have No Thing.

For every reasonable and noemal person understands why He prohibited incest later.

Its obvious that you want to Bleep your sister or you are already fucking.ypur sister.hence why you would certainly hate God who you know sees what you are doing even if people don't know.



No one asked about the framework of traffic laws nor its objective but what I clearly laid before you was that in 1927 and backwards let me say to 1897 was there in Lagos and in your state, road traffic laws of eg one way and seatbelt laws right and fire extinguisher laws?

No. And you already knew that the answer was no because you already knew that there were too few car owners and roads back in 1927 and backwards that such a law could not have been in existence.

But in your attempt to dodge my analogy you went raising up what no one asked you since you could not directly challenge it.



You see yourself, i thought you said that "omniscience was never the crux of the issue", Yet, here you are mixing it up in your blasphemous jumble.



Off Point.

The topic is understanding why was allowed in the beginning of the world.and why God later prohibited it.

And not whether where God changes His Mind, He changes His Person. So, off point!

So dont derail your own post because you find that you cannot anawer my reply.

Just awesome, fish has taken worm with hook😄 Im just quoting this mainly so u dont change and edit this ur ludicrous, incoherent and contradictory thought process uv put on display. Love how much uve swerved and contradicted urself, even your bible has contradicted you. As for the ad hominems, hilarious. Hell!! I don't even believe in that. You'd find it before i ever do, which i wont.

Anyways for the nail in the coffin, let me simply spell out the question uve swerved with many words and analogies that hold no meaning and by all means indulge me with a simple reply. No need for going around in circles.
Why didn't God just make more people in order to avoid using what he would later label as sin??😁

Lucifyre:

Just awesome, fish has taken worm with hook😄 Im just quoting this mainly so u dont change and edit this ur ludicrous, incoherent and contradictory thought process uv put on display. Love how much uve swerved and contradicted urself, even your bible has contradicted you. As for the ad hominems, hilarious. Hell!! I don't even believe in that. You'd find it before i ever do, which i wont.

See, proof you had nothing but noise making.

Lucifyre:

Anyways for the nail in the coffin, let me simply spell out the question uve swerved with many words and analogies that hold no meaning and by all means indulge me with a simple reply. No need for going around in circles.
Why didn't God just make more people in order to avoid using what he would later label as sin??😁

1) Because It is His Right tto.

2) Common sense would have told you that the population plan would never work as once the children of the new man and woman marry the first mans children because of The Law and God would always have to keep making a new man and woman forever, which definitely is stupid.

Dtruthspeaker:


See, proof you had nothing but noise making.



1) Because It is His Right tto.

2) Common sense would have told you that the population plan would never work as once the children of the new man and woman marry the first mans children because of The Law and God would always have to keep making a new man and woman forever, which definitely is stupid.

Wtf?!!! no like literally wtf?!!! This is what you could come up with or are you having a laugh?! You keep showing how frigging intelligent you are, brilliant mind. The fact you then used the word common sense is quite ironic. That explanation makes sense to you? Even if it was as big as the sun u wouldn't spot the contradiction and irony of the dross of an explanation.

Of course it's his right, right to be hypocritical and change his mind according to you when the bible said he doesn't . Comfortable with sin this minute threatening fire and brimstone the next cause of it. Then this 😄 "Common sense would have told you that the population plan would never work as once the children of the new man and woman marry the first mans children because of The Law and God would always have to keep making a new man and woman forever,which definitely is stupid"

Oh so now the law suddenly exists and becomes valid at the beginning... Interesting. The law that didnt exist because the world was empty according to u even though by the time of Jacob when the world was populated, it wasnt still a sin. So common sense didnt tell you about mass production where same way he made one man and one woman, he could simply have made a thousand men to crossbreed with a thousand women, ten thousand of both even, right at the beginning, maybe even play around with the "novel idea" of sonething called different species. They then reproduce and populate earth eliminating the need for incest and interbreeding. Im sure an all knowing God would know about that option nau, even if you were too common sensed to. If not for any reason to avoid something he claims to detest.

That's not even considering the fact that all humans coming from just 2 people isn't feasible as intrabreeding leads to a host of genetic issues that would breed a genetically weaker and deformed species that would easily die off and that's fact. Before even science made light of the story like water on tissue paper, the story had made light of itself from the religious angle by its incoherent and contradictory tale. That's why u had to come up with that brilliant mental gymnastic thought process up there. More mental gymnastics and tangents?! Most likely go on a tunneled vision tangent by focusing on just the last point instead of the whole reply. "Truthspeaker" educate urself and do better, not this mess. Damn!

Lucifyre:

Wtf?!!! no like literally wtf?!!! This is what you could come up with or are you having a laugh?! You keep showing how frigging intelligent you are, brilliant mind. The fact you then used the word common sense is quite ironic. That explanation makes sense to you? Even if it was as big as the sun u wouldn't spot the contradiction and irony of the dross of an explanation.

See baby tantrums and noise making.

Lucifyre:

Of course it's his right, right to be hypocritical and change his mind according to you when the bible said he doesn't . Comfortable with sin this minute threatening fire and brimstone the next cause of it....

Off Point!

Lucifyre:
...So common sense didnt tell you about mass production where same way he made one man and one woman, he could simply have made a thousand men to crossbreed with a thousand women, ten thousand of both even at the beginning,..

Your head aint working right boy, where would ten thousand come from when the thousand have already marriied and now they all related if The Law was in place at the beginning?

You have nothing boy just you and your personal wish to Bleep your sister without being burned for it.

Dtruthspeaker:


See baby tantrums and noise making.



Off Point!



Your head aint working right boy, where would ten thousand come from when the thousand have already marriied and now they all related if The Law was in place at the beginning?

You have nothing boy just you and your personal wish to Bleep your sister without being burned for it.

😂 TKO!!!

Lucifyre:


😂 TKO!!!

Proof your head ain't working right else you would know that noise making and off points are not valid arguments, so you have nothing but an empty 555 plate falling down on at tiled floor.

The most important part of our body which is the human genome disapprove the Bible story of creation.
Our genetic diversity wouldn’t have been possible with 2 different human pairs who are related not to talk about Adam and Eve who are genetically the same individual.
Humanity would have been gone far ago.

Contriman:
The most important part of our body which is the human genome disapprove the Bible story of creation.
Our genetic diversity wouldn’t have been possible with 2 different human pairs who are related not to talk about Adam and Eve who are genetically the same individual.
Humanity would have been gone far ago.

Apt as fvck. Didn't want to use science as it'll provide an easy cop out, later alluded to the same point to drive home my pov though. The premise of the story itself is contradictory enough to show it doesn't add up, then talk less of science that's hard fact. Water on tissue paper

Contriman:
The most important part of our body which is the human genome disapprove the Bible story of creation.
Our genetic diversity wouldn’t have been possible with 2 different human pairs who are related not to talk about Adam and Eve who are genetically the same individual.
Humanity would have been gone far ago.

See argument by the tiny. Physically and biologically a man and a woman are not the same, so. I dare to say that their genes too are not the same and will not be the same.

To even remember that a father having small penis gets a son with a long one. Even fathers and their sons are different, so you are talking nonsense.

And this topic is not about disproving the bible creation story, so off point.

Dtruthspeaker:


See argument by the tiny. Physically and biologically a man and a woman are not the same, so. I dare to say that their genes too aee no the same.

To even remember that a father having small penis gets a son with a long one. Even fathers and their sons are different, so you are talking nonsense.

And this topic is not about disproving the bible creation story, so off point.

you do not understand how genetics work lol…
Your Bible claim Eve was made from Adam’s rib in that case she’s just a copy of Adam but you won’t understand because you don’t know a thing about it

Contriman:
you do not understand how genetics work lol…
Your Bible claim Eve was made from Adam’s rib in that case she’s just a copy of Adam but you won’t understand because you don’t know a thing about it

"Made from Adams ribs" and you know how God used ribs to create a whole fresh different man with eyes , womb, vagina which the rib giver does not have, right?

So explain how i pluck the door of a Toyota Camry and use it to create a whole Chrysler 300?

Dtruthspeaker:


"Made from Adams ribs" and you know how God used ribs to create a whole fresh different man with eyes , womb, vagina which the rib giver does not have, right?

So explain how i pluck the door of a Toyota Camry and use it to create a whole Chrysler 300?

am not a literalist I don’t believe in illogical things

Dtruthspeaker:


See argument by the tiny. Physically and biologically a man and a woman are not the same, so. I dare to say that their genes too are not the same and will not be the same.

To even remember that a father having small penis gets a son with a long one. Even fathers and their sons are different, so you are talking nonsense.

And this topic is not about disproving the bible creation story, so off point.

If you could not realise that was the undertone and main aim of the write up after all this while then you are truly not bright, basically a twin with ur arguments.

Lucifyre:


If you could not realise that was the undertone and main aim of the write up after all this while then you are truly not bright, basically a twin with ur arguments.

If matters were judged by undertones then it is right for police to arrest you and throw you into prison simply because you look like a drug dealer by your undertones.

Contriman:
am not a literalist I don’t believe in illogical things

You already are a literalist for you would never plant a stone to dig up yam that is how logical things are.

Dtruthspeaker:


You already are a literalist for you would never plant a stone to dig up yam that is how logical things are.

be plain

Dtruthspeaker:


If matters were judged by undertones then it is right for police to arrest you and throw you into prison simply because you look like a drug dealer by your undertones.

😄
Any time you "christains" result to insults, the irony makes me laugh. Don't you think its unchristain like to do that?!😏

Contriman:
be plain

How do u expect him to be plain when he's literally talking nonsense. That's his m.o.

Lucifyre:


How do u expect him to be plain when he's literally talking nonsense. That's his m.o.

seriously dude needs a therapy in critical thinking

Lucifyre:

😄
Any time you "christains" result to insults, the irony makes me laugh. Don't you think its unchristain like to do that?!😏

Everyone can see that i did not insult you.

Contriman:
be plain

Is it not a part of a thing eg ore from a rock we use to create a whole water tank or car? Or the blood part of tree to create a tyre mattress, erc?

If you were not taught and shown would you have ever known these were possible? No. You would think exactly as you think.