Is it OK for father to marry a daughter?

Really, REALLY???

Have you thought of asking Woody Allen about this?

This is question of morality and most, if not all, of the major religions say a big NO to that.

(Full disclosure, I, to my great shame, live is a state that actually allows this <palm smack to the face >)

Without an ultimate Law Giver, there is no definition of good and evil and morality, a.k.a, "right and wrong."  If there is no God to determine right and wrong, there is no right and wrong.  If there is a God and I say unequivocally that there is, then it would behoove us all to find out His definition of right and wrong/good and evil. Without that, anything goes and anarchy and slavery to the most depraved practices wins out. It is a slippery slope when you move away from God and His teaching. The same people who determine that homosexuality is fine, will eventually be fine with incest, bestiality, man/boy relationships (already a Nambla trying for that), and worse.  Eventually, if unchecked, it will return to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah where all the men of the town surrounded a house where two angels had come in for the night and demanded/threateningly that they be brought out to them for the purpose of homosexual rape.  That is how far it can all go and worse.  The Bible doesn't sugar coat any of the atrocities that happened in the old times. They are there as an example to us. God has spoken about where He stands on it all. We can ignore Him, but not without dire consequences.

Amen SStory. You forgot to say amen at the end of the sermon.

leonstryker> This is question of morality

While not as applicable to Woody (confess I did not continue to follow the that) this is also major question for public health system, where/were the participants bring forth the abnormals. Sample: http://listverse.com/2014/05/22/10-incendiary-facts-about-incest/

SStory> return to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah

Doesn't that follow that ... daughter(s) of Lot bore him children?

>>While not as applicable to Woody (confess I did not continue to follow the that) this is also major question for public health system, where/were the participants bring forth the abnormals.

No, no, no. We do not prohibit marriages due to increased chances of kids being born with  genetic defects. Nor do we prohibit marriages which will not produce offspring at all. We prohibit marriages strictly on societal standards (polygamy, incest and historically race/religion).  This is strictly a moral question and one directly tied to Monotheistic beliefs. Many polytheistic societies accepted incestuous marriages as a common event, especially among royalty. Even the European royal families were so closely related in the past that many unions could be considered incestuous by most of today's standards.

@leonstryker

However, those "moral questions" are very much based on the fact that inbreeding is likely to cause severe defects in the offspring. For that reason most animals have strategies to prevent incest. It may be that males (or females) move away from the home troop. It may be that close family does not have the "right smell" for breeding, or any other reasons.

The same undoubtedly happened to our ancestors. Then, as we got smarter and started thinking of reasons for what happens in the world, we invented religion and the incest taboo was built into that.

Sure, some societies allow incest in some cases, but the taboo is so strong and so universal across the species, that it is extremely unlikely to be just an invention of humans.

@hdhondt

I am not disagreeing with that. The logic of the rule follows your points, thus making a religious taboo explainable. In the same way as rules regarding keeping a kosher diet, cleansing rituals and male circumcision. There are valid scientific reasons behind them and they generally kept the faithful healthier than those who did not follow those rules.

But, in today's world these are all questions of morality. Not all incestuous unions result in birth defects. In fact most do not.

The same people who determine that homosexuality is fine, will eventually be fine with incest, bestiality, man/boy relationships (already a Nambla trying for that), and worse.  

that has to be one of the most offensive statements I've seen here on EE. To lump in homosexuality with bestiality and rape is not only a sign of bigotry and ignorance, it makes no sense logically! one is love between two people of the same sex, the other is over-powering someone, taking away their control, and imposing their will upon them or sex with a different species...

to address the question, incest in todays society is def wrong,  according to society. whether or not that's the RIGHT answer is totally up to the the individual asking. I think it would be a more fascinating question if the condition of birth defects was taken out of the question, for discussion purposes

it will return to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah where all the men of the town surrounded a house where two angels had come in for the night and demanded/threateningly that they be brought out to them for the purpose of homosexual rape

Yep, but Lot was a good guy: he offered the men his virgin daughters to be raped instead.

I'm sorry SStory, but morality has come a long way since your book was written.

And I agree 100% with Monty: your statement about homosexuality is utterly abhorrent.

Sunbow:  "Doesn't that follow that ... daughter(s) of Lot bore him children?"
Yes and they became the Moabites and Ammonites--two continual problems to God's chosen people at the time.
Look not everything that people did in the Bible was moral or good.  God just had it recorded with real people like it really happened.

hdhondt:  I can't understand offering daughters instead, but apparently in that culture it was a bigger offense to have a person staying in under your roof as a guest be violated than your daughters.  I would never do that, but I didn't live in his culture either.

"I'm sorry SStory, but morality has come a long way since your book was written."  Morality, if not absolute and unchanging is a worthless abstract ever-moving, ever-changing thing.  It has no meaning.  Something is either right or wrong. However if the definition of right and wrong is left to contemporary opinion, or current majority thought, it is basically useless.  So the question is who defines right and wrong?  If people do then who makes them right to do so? If government, same question.  Ultimately without God being the law giver and definer of what is right and wrong, there is no such thing.  My statements only reflect what the Bible teaches and what the God of the Universe has written. If you have a problem with them, you have a problem with Him and not me.

@leonstryker: I will say, "Amen!" And may the Lord be forever praised! His word shall ever more endure when everyone here has passed from this life to the next.

@BigMonty: "that has to be one of the most offensive statements I've seen here on EE. To lump in homosexuality with bestiality and rape is not only a sign of bigotry and ignorance, it makes no sense logically! one is love between two people of the same sex, the other is over-powering someone, taking away their control, and imposing their will upon them or sex with a different species..."

I am daily offended by statements made by homosexuals.  Again, who says who is right? They and you or me and people like me?  If you say society, the be advised that my country has continually defined marriage as one woman and one man, so "society" isn't for it. It is the courts that are forcing things against the will of the people.  I do agree that homosexuality and rape are not the same.  However in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the deviation from God's ordained purpose for sex which would be all of the things mentioned outside of one man, one woman marital relations, resulted in that episode. That was my point. Will it always? Maybe not? Does God say it is deviating from the norm? Yes, the Bible is plain on the subject: Romans 1; Leviticus 18, and other places (old and new testament; Christianity, Judaism and I believe even Islam--but I will leave that to a Muslim to agree or disagree with as I have not read the entire Koran for certain.

@SStory "Morality, if not absolute and unchanging is a worthless abstract ever-moving, ever-changing thing.  It has no meaning. "

That is a very interesting statement considering that from the very beginning of the Bible man engaged in incestuous relationships. Who was Cain's wife if all humanity descend from Adam and Eve? Yes,  Adam and Eve had many children and ALL of them intermarried. Apparently it was not a sin at that time and it is so now. Unchanging? I think not.

your basing your justification off of a book that was written 2000 years ago and had been scientifically proven to be factually incorrect, not to mention it was written by man, not by anyone/anything else...

believe whatever you need to justify your bigotry

Morality, if not absolute and unchanging is a worthless abstract ever-moving, ever-changing thing.

In that case, why is it now considered wrong to offer your daughters to be raped? Surely you would not want that to happen? In that case your morals are not the same as those of your bible. If it was right then, why not now? Accept it: morals change. Learn to think for yourself.

ALL of them intermarried

And it happened again after the flood - not only with people, but all the animals as well!

@hdhondt: That is a very good point in terms of incest.  Of course the God-given law on the subject was not given, probably for that reason, at that time.  My point is that morals and law come from God.  They did not change. He just revealed the law to mankind later on.  If morality and law are not based upon God then they are based upon Government or society and become liquid, every changing and worthless.

So what was "allowed" in the beginning out of necessity, we assume, was outlawed by God as time went on.  It is a good point and I do think for myself.

If morality is fluid and everything can be questioned, the next question is why can't a man marry his dog, donkey, cat, etc and have relations with them. Then it will be asked why there is an age of consent preventing adults from having sex with kids.  Where does it stop? Who defines right and wrong and law and on what basis?  If not God, then there is really no law giver and no sane reason why a group of people's opinion as to what is moral and right is better than another's.  It is a slippery slope.

God's laws are there not to limit us, but free us from the bondage of sin.  "Thou Shalt Not:" murder, steal, commit adultery, want others stuff (covet), lie" These have to do with treating your fellow man with decency, honour  and respect, i.e. right relations among humans. The rest have to do with right relations between God and man.  We are free to do all sorts of things not in the thou shalt nots.

@Big Monty: It is so liberal to label all with whom you disagree as if that makes their beliefs wrong and irrelevant.
I don't fault you for your beliefs, but many on here are obviously Christophobes, Monagamousaphobes, and Heterophobes.  You don't here those labels, because Christians don't try to label as a fear those who disagree with them.  Because I know incest is wrong, based upon the word of God doesn't mean I'm a bigot. Because I know that homosexuality is unnatural, harmful, and according to the Bible a sin, does not make me a homophobe. I am not afraid of homosexuals, though there are many who'd want to burn down the houses of those how don't support the so called "gay agenda." I could give you cases ad naseum of that.

"your basing your justification off of a book that was written 2000 years ago"
Absolutely. Truth is alway truth. 2+2 will always equal 4. You will never take 2 apples and add 2 apples to the pile and come up with more or less than 4 apples unless you are insane or dishonest in the count. That still would not change the absolute truth of there being 4 apples.  If the Bible is written, inspired by God, through human authors over 1000's of years, and I tell you that it is, and He being timeless, then the amount of time that has passed is irrelevant as to the relevancy of the word of the Eternal, all-seeing, all-knowing, Holy One.

"scientifically proven to be factually incorrect"
What scientific proof? The bible mentions dinosaurs, trenches in the bottom of the ocean before humanly possible to know that, that the earth was a sphere (a circle) before any human could know that.  It perfectly describes the inherent sinful nature of man. Romans 1 accurately describes the moral decay our world is currently in and the reason why. It tells of origins as well.  There is NO scientific proof. There is only biased, prejudice against the Bible by people who don't want it to be true and ignore and misrepresent evidence to support their prejudice against it--people who don't want to have to bow before the King and give an account of their sinful ways--people who love darkness and their sins.

"not to mention it was written by man, not by anyone/anything else"
You have no support for that argument.  Yes human authors were used. However they were inspired by God. There is no way that Isaiah, alone, could predict all that Jesus Christ did, hundreds of years before it happened. He was not alone.  Many prophets did so.  Of course the Bible is foolishness to those who are perishing--those without Christ. It is not a book to be naturally read and understood. It requires illumination by God's Spirit to even understand. For that reason to the man trying to read it on his own it can seem foolish and contradictory. Further study, by God's help shows how it never contradicts. We only fail to fully understand the meaning if we think so.

You are welcome to continue you in your Atheism and as a Christophobe if you please as well. I do however, hope, in all sincerity, arguments/debates aside, that you will in the future know this God of whom I speak and the freedom available through His Son Jesus Christ and the work He did to restore us to right relationship and legal standing with the God of the Universe.  

May you be blessed!

My point is that morals and law come from God.

So why was it OK for Lot to hand over his daughters? Is that not a change between then and now?????

Then it will be asked why there is an age of consent preventing adults from having sex with kids

Traditionally it was OK for an old man to marry a young girl. 14 years was fine in middle ages/renaissance times. In some cultures it's still OK to marry 12 year old girls. We no longer accept that. I would need to research how it went in biblical times, but I strongly suspect young girls were very marry-able. Still think morality has not changed (I would say improved)?

"Thou Shalt Not:" murder, steal, commit adultery, want others stuff (covet), lie"

And we have added others, like: thou shalt not stone adulteresses. Morality changes.

The bible mentions dinosaurs, trenches in the bottom of the ocean before humanly possible to know that

WHERE???

It requires illumination by God's Spirit to even understand.

You mean: to give it the interpretation that YOU like, not someone else's interpretation.

@SStory

"So what was "allowed" in the beginning out of necessity, we assume, was outlawed by God as time went on."

So, if God changes his mind and changes the rules, than it is not a change the moral code? That is too easy of a cop-out. A change is a change. Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam allowed polygamy, then somewhere in the 13th Century Christianity (and Judaism in order to fit in) declared it immoral. Was that God changing his mind again, or was it man's choice to outlaw it because it was no longer a necessity? Or was it because of the then reinterpretation of the Bible to conform to the societal norms of the time? And if it was the last, then isn't it about time we take another look at the Bible and  reinterpret it again?

...based on the fact that inbreeding is likely to cause severe defects in the offspring.

That's simply false. First, inbreeding does not cause defects in offspring. The cause is not from the specific sexual behavior at all. Second, if defects have chances in offspring of individuals, the general risk increases through inbreeding; but the actual risk isn't much different overall from the general population. We might be almost as correct in saying that all sexual relationships "cause" defects. Defects occur regardless of pairings, with some risk even if both parents have zero defects in their own DNA.

Now, the increase in risk is enough to pay extra attention. If the general rate is around 3%, then the rate becomes around 4.5% through inbreeding across a population. As an inbreeding pattern is maintained within an isolated group, the common DNA heritage begins to dominate across the group and risk rises accordingly.

But that's very different from how widely divergent populations work. And it's definitely not a very significant element of how incestual relationships work out when they're rare and scattered across populations.

Regardless, since governments do have a legitimate social reason to regulate marriage contracts, I'd expect parent-child marriages to be disallowed. Governments almost certainly were involved in marriage long before any religion interfered.

To start, there is too much opportunity for a parent to influence the decision-making process of offspring. It'd be near impossible to demonstrate "informed consent". And then there are all of the legal questions involving inheritance. How would siblings be considered if the parent-partner dies? And if the child-partner divorces? Remarries?

Governmental interests in contracts/ownership are the primary reasons that governments should be involved at all. If no legal framework makes sense, then it shouldn't be legalized.

Tom

It is so liberal to label all with whom you disagree as if that makes their beliefs wrong and irrelevant.

I can say the same about you. you believe that a Christian god exists to the point where everyone else is wrong...

Because I know incest is wrong, based upon the word of God doesn't mean I'm a bigot. Because I know that homosexuality is unnatural, harmful, and according to the Bible a sin, does not make me a homophobe.

I never said you were a bigot for believing incest is wrong, that part we agree on, although for different reasons. But you're extremely ignorant believing that being gay is wrong and harmful. Just because a book (written by man) says it is, doesn't mean it's the truth.

"your basing your justification off of a book that was written 2000 years ago"
Absolutely. Truth is alway truth.

If the Bible is written, inspired by God, through human authors over 1000's of years, and I tell you that it is

here is where my first statement in this reply comes to fruition, the bible is NOT the truth, it's a book that deals more with morality and good solid principles, that is all.

What scientific proof? The bible mentions dinosaurs, trenches in the bottom of the ocean before humanly possible to know that, that the earth was a sphere (a circle) before any human could know that.  It perfectly describes the inherent sinful nature of man. Romans 1 accurately describes the moral decay our world is currently in and the reason why. It tells of origins as well.  There is NO scientific proof. There is only biased, prejudice against the Bible by people who don't want it to be true and ignore and misrepresent evidence to support their prejudice against it--people who don't want to have to bow before the King and give an account of their sinful ways--people who love darkness and their sins.

this was addressed above, so I won't rehash it too much. There is plenty of evidence that contradicts the bible. There is no scientific evidence that Adam and Eve existed,  This isn't bias, but rather of what we can observe as facts. Several other religions also make origin claims, how do you know yours is the correct one?

You have no support for that argument.  Yes human authors were used. However they were inspired by God.

says who? the bible?

You are welcome to continue you in your Atheism and as a Christophobe if you please as well.

I'm actually neither one of those. I consider myself spiritual, and that some higher power is out there, although not in the manner Christians sees it. One of my best friends is Catholic, and I have no problem with it. Same with any other religion, if you want to be a good christian, go for it, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. the part I have is with the out dated medieval tendencies that certain religions believe them, especially how homosexuality is wrong. I have gay friends, some are great people, some are not. But what defines them is NOT their sexual orientation, but rather their own morals and character.

I hate when religion is used as an excuse to act in a prejudice manner...

One of my best friends is Catholic, and I have no problem with it

But our friend SStory does have a problem with that: Catholics don't take the Bible literally, they admit it is allegorical. And, even the pope admits that evolution is the way people got here - although God must have done something at some time to put a soul into us (whatever a soul may be).

Literal interpretation of the Bible is similar to optimizing an approximation. It is just wrong. Even if we take it as a given that it is divinely inspired word of God, and that it was transcribed as intended, then we would still have to deal with the fact that it has been subject to multiple translations, rewrites by later generations of men, and wholesale editing which left out certain passages and added others.

Fundamentalism relies on just such literal interpretation, and is thus fundamentally wrong on that alone.

The biggest problem in the Bible is that we have to deal with all the inconsistencies and internal contradictions - as demonstrated by the way SStory needs to twist and turn to match his own morality to that of the Old Testament.

I wonder if SStory approves of genocide? The Old Testament sure does - as long as it's the Jews doing the raping, murdering and pillaging, when ordered by Yahweh. I'm sure that's not a matter of faulty translation - rather a case of evolving morals. Genocide was "acceptable" until quite recently (Crusades and American Indians, for example) but as we learned more about the essential similarity of all people on earth, we started to realise that it is not acceptable to kill our brothers, regardless of their colour or religion.

Although, sometimes I wonder about using "religion" in that last sentence. As someone once said, our skin colour and our sexual orientation are outside our control (Michael Jackson excepted), so we should not discriminate over that. Religion, on the other hand, is your own choice, and you can change it at will. Hence it should be treated differently, people should be held accountable for their religious beliefs.

@hdhondt:
"So why was it OK for Lot to hand over his daughters? Is that not a change between then and now?????"
I'm not saying it was OK for Lot to hand over his daughters. I am saying why he might have, because of the customs of his day.  Keeping your guest safe seemed to have a high priority. I'd never do that.  I does show the level of depravity of these men.  God's word doesn't just record things that are right. It recorded a lot of human depravity and grave sins.  Take King David with Bathsheba. God could have omitted that, but it is recorded to let us know he was a human like us with the same temptations and though he'd be a man after God's own heart, it did fail miserably into a sin, and heinously try to cover it up by having the woman's husband killed. His entire family suffered as a result of those two acts.  God told him, that he did it in secret, but he'd do it in plain view of the country in other words a judgement against the sign. Yet He showed mercy in forgiving David and eventually restoring fellowship with Him.

"And we have added others, like: thou shalt not stone adulteresses. Morality changes."

Actually the old testament shows God's strict moral law and justice demands that every evil have an equal recompense. The New Testament reveals God's mercy through Jesus, such that those who by right of justice deserve punishment, but who've accepted Jesus paying for it as a sin-bearing proxy, receive mercy and forgiveness while Jesus received none and bore the penalty of such transgressions.

The platitudes you have to invent, in order to accept the bible as literal truth are amazing.

It does show the level of depravity of these men

And of Lot! But, according to the bible he was a good man. So what gives?? The bible accepted the "customs of the day" and people were supposed to live by them. The problem is that our modern, secular, morality is a great improvement over the morals that were common then, in the bible as elsewhere, regardless of the local god(s).

Re adulteresses. Yes, the old testament shows god's "strict moral law" but NO, Jesus does not show god's mercy. Jesus just changes the goalpost a little: you are allowed to stone her only if you are without sin (like a catholic after general absolution). And neither the old nor the new testament applies to adulterers. Why??

And I noticed you ignored my comments about genocide. Your moral merciful god, on many occasions, COMMANDED his people to exterminate others who believed in a "false god". The extermination might include men only (and keep the women to rape them), or it could be "all living things". And you can't say it's just another one of the "customs of the day": it was god himself who DEMANDED it.

@hdhondt:
"The platitudes you have to invent, in order to accept the bible as literal truth are amazing."
hmm....I don't need to invent anything.  I accept that God is the King of the Universe.  Things are a little haywire at the moment due to sin--aka. treason against His government, but in His time he shall remedy this in a single day when He closes His door of mercy once and for all and judges rebels who refuse to accept His gracious offer and condemn them forever to the penitentiary of the damned apart from any loving awareness of His presence forever.  At the moment He is patient, not wanting people to perish into this place that was made for the devil and his demons.

"It does show the level of depravity of these men And of Lot! But, according to the bible he was a good man. So what gives??"
I for the life of me cannot understand Lot. I would never give my daughters to these reprobates, but anyhow.  It does say he was a good man when he was living in Sodom.  That doesn't mean good men don't make mistakes.  The Bible doesn't record perfect people--other than Jesus--but real people.  Actually the Bible says there are none good.  So he was a righteous man in that He new right and wrong and tried to follow what God had revealed to Him in such. Compared to God's holy, perfect standard, however, He would not have been good in terms of perfect.  Also, perhaps this was a mistake on Lot's part to follow the customs of the day. The bible just records what he did. It does, however show the total depravity of these men who refused virgin women in a depraved desire to rape visiting "men" who turned out to be angels.  I think that is the real point of including it in the narrative--to show the total depravity of the town.

> The bible accepted the "customs of the day" and people were supposed to live by them.
I don't say the bible accepted the customs of the day. God drove out all of those nations, some of whom genocide was committed against in judgement, because their customs of sacrificing their children to idols, aka demons, and gross immorality, and absolute wickedness.  Israel was used as a human agent to carry out God's holy judgement against this wickedness. Later Israel started doing the same things and God used the wicked Babylonians to punish Israel severely for 70 years through them and then punished Babylon through Cyrus and the Persians, etc. Then he restored the remnant to Israel and another temple was made.

> The problem is that our modern, secular, morality is a great improvement over the morals that >were common then, in the bible as elsewhere, regardless of the local god(s).
Our modern society in American and its freedoms were based upon the Bible and the teachings of Christ. Without that, if it becomes 100% secularized or of false religions the nation will not stand.  This has been evidenced all over the place.   There is NO LAW that is righteous and good without a righteous and good LAW GIVER--God.

>Re adulteresses. Yes, the old testament shows god's "strict moral law" but NO, Jesus does not show >god's mercy. Jesus just changes the goalpost a little: you are allowed to stone her only if you are >without sin (like a catholic after general absolution). And neither the old nor the new testament >applies to adulterers. Why??
Jesus does show mercy. There is NONE without sin, save Him and He was and is fully God. Jesus was God in the flesh showing the fact that all have sinned and missed God's mark of perfection in which Adam and Eve were created and from whence they fell.  He alone was perfect and could have condemned her, but showed her His mercy in spite of what her sin deserved and told her to go and sin no more--if I recall correctly.  As they dropped their stones--the older, wiser ones, first, followed by everyone else who eventually had to admit they too had sinned and were not perfect and were not in the place to be able to judge her. She was left with the One who was and is  perfect and able to perfectly judge her, but who stood ready to forgive her and show her mercy.

>And I noticed you ignored my comments about genocide.
(read mention of it above) I am not ignorant of the bible. I have read it many time. I need not defend my God. He is sovereign and does as He pleases. In the end He will do as He pleases also with you and all who read this.  However right now is an open door of mercy for all who will run to Jesus and receive His salvation.   God told them not to intermarry or mix with women of other nations.  He allowed them to do quite a number of things that were not what He had commanded them before those things brought them to destruction and He judged them.  Solomon's foreign wives brought his demise. So did the wife of Samson. Both of them disobeyed God in marrying these women.

As I said: platitudes - and pathetic excuses for the horrible things your god demanded of his people.

@hdhondt: I was actually reading something from the Old Test early this morning and it happened to fit in our discussion:

Deu 8:18-20 ESV "18) You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.  19) And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. 20) Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God."

Israel was warned that judgment from God would befall them like it did the evil nations they were driving out.  Apparently some of those for whom wiping out was decreed from on high, had done so much wickedness that God had decided to do so and instructed Israel to be His agent.

Chapter 7 has much more to say about why: Here is a brief quote:
Deu 7:9  "9) Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, 10)  and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. "
One would do well to heed these words because my God is truly God. He does as He pleases. He IS the KING and His will, will eventually be totally done.  Any may choose to hate Him, reject Him and deny His existence for a brief span during this lifetime, but eventually if that person doesn't bow before His rule in the person of Jesus, "with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face."

I hope for all in this forum that these words of God will be heeded.  I don't have to defend Him.  Whether any agrees with Him or likes the rules or would have things another way or not is not the point. The point is that He is GOD, and it is HIS world and to Him man must give an account at the end of his life on the appointed day.  All are guilty. Only those who've accepted the substitutionary sacrifice of the perfect God-Man, Jesus will be considered blameless. Run to Him while the opportunity is still open.

My God is a Holy and Just God.  He hates sin and evil. It is rebellion and treason against His government, His righteousness and a stench in His universe.  Like any good king--any good judge-- He will eventually deal severely with it. Mercy, however, at the moment is available for all who will receive it.

And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish.

I should be OK then, because I do not worship any invisible friends in the sky.

More about your pathetic excuses.

God drove out all of those nations, some of whom genocide was committed against in judgment, because their customs of sacrificing their children to idols....

So what about Abraham and Jephta? And, if Abraham's problem was just to "test his faith", I can only call your god a nasty practical joker.

Also, perhaps this was a mistake on Lot's part to follow the customs of the day.

Exactly right. However, he followed the morality of his day, and "did the right thing". Sure, but wasn't this debate about how morality changes over time? If morality is still the same as in the bible, if I come and bang on your door, will you offer me your daughters? Remember, Lot was a good guy! And don't worry, thanks to my modern, secular morality, your daughters would be safe.

Try answering these question without bringing up more contradictory bible quotes, or by claiming how great your god is. Why is he any better than any of the other gods? They all seem to be equally nasty.

@hdhondt:
"So what about Abraham and Jephta? And, if Abraham's problem was just to "test his faith", I can only call your god a nasty practical joker."
God already knew what Abraham would do. He just wanted Abraham to know it and to then honor that faith and obedience.  As fathers we often do things with our children, pretty sure of the result, just so they will see/learn what we want them to. With God...He knows for sure the outcome.
As to Jephta, it is a classic example of "you are on Earth, He is in Heaven" and be careful what rash things you utter in terms of Vows and Oaths.  That is a hard one for me to understand for sure.

>Exactly right. However, he followed the morality of his day, and "did the right thing".
He didn't follow the morality of his day. He followed customs. Morality is either defined in an absolute way by and absolute unchanging being or it is subjective, relative and useless.  There is no such things as true morality--following what is good and right without and absolute, unchanging definition of what that is. Only a perfect, eternal being can give such definition. God has done just that.

>Sure, but wasn't this debate about how morality changes over time? If morality is still the same as in >the bible, if I come and bang on your door, will you offer me your daughters?
I don't see any where in the Bible where God instructed Lot to do so. The Bible just records what he did.  It doesn't say that he did right in doing this or that it was sanctioned, approved or suggested by God.

>Remember, Lot was a good guy! And don't worry, thanks to my modern, secular morality, your >daughters would be safe.
"secular morality" is actually an oxymoron.  Secularist have gleaned their "good" morals from a God-given conscience and teachings past down eventually by Christians.  Most forget and don't know what Grandma said, "treat the other feller like you'd like to be treated." But in fact that is the "golden rule" from the Bible.

>Why is he any better than any of the other gods? They all seem to be equally nasty.
He is the only real God.  He is absolutely good. He created a good and perfect world.  However, through rebellion of 1/3 of His angels--all having free will--evil entered the world. Through the deceiving of mankind by the chief of these angels, man fell into the fallen state that we now live in. God has a plan to restore all things and in time will do so.  He is unlike any other "so called gods" if you actually study Him. He has allowed a lot of things to happen but will one day stamp out all evil.

Sstory, your ability to accept conflicting things from the bible is simply astonishing. Anything the bible says you are willing to accept and justify.

One who can probably do even better is Henry Morris, of Creation Research (in)fame (on of your heroes I assume, as he is dead-set against evolution). He claimed that, if the Jews had not exterminated the Canaanite women, they would have got the Jews to worship other gods. Hence the necessity. And, killing the children was OK too, as that way they were saved from having to go to hell by worshipping other gods when they grew up. Do you think that argument will work in a modern court of law? Try it sometime. Obviously Morris is a good Christian, as are you, so do you agree with his arguments?

Here's another challenge.

Jesus is supposed to be descended from David (via Joseph). This prompts 2 questions:

1. Don't Christians believe that it was an immaculate conception, so Joseph had nothing to do with it? You can say the Jews were not aware of that, but surely the gospel reader were???

2. According to Matthew 1:6, this is the list of ancestors:
David Solomon Roboam Abia Asa Josaphat Joram Ozias Joatham Achaz Ezekias Manasses Amon Josias Jechonias Salathiel Zorobabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Sadoc Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus
And according to Luke 3:23 this is the list:
Jesus Joseph Heli Matthat Levi Melki Jannai Joseph Mattathias Amos Nahum Esli Naggai Maath Mattathias Semein Josek Joda Joanan Rhesa Zerubbabel Shealtiel Neri Melki Addi Cosam Er Joshua Eliezer Jorim Matthat Levi Simeon Judah Joseph Jonam Eliakim Melea Menna Mattatha Nathan David

Apart from the fact that they are in reverse order, do you notice any other differences between them? Hint: see if you can find a name they have in common. Another hint: count the number of people in the two lists.

I look forward to your waffle about these problems.

The reason to exterminate was to do what God told them to do...period. It was His judgement against them and he used human agents to carry it out.  They definitely would have and did wind up causing Israel to go after other "gods", outrage and offend the true God and eventually be handed over to the Babylonians by God and then rescued by God using Cyrus the Persian.  If you know that God is God, and final Judge/Absolute lawgiver to whom you must give an account, then doing what He says is a no brainer.

1.)  Joseph's absolute line was not in Jesus as God was His father. Mary's line, however was also through David. That gave Him kingly lineage humanly speaking and His Divine lineage.  Joseph's I mentioned so that we would know his step father was also from the royal line.

2.) I've heard it suggested that one line is of Joseph and one of Mary even though it appears not. In that day the lineage of women wasn't given.  So one suggestion is that hers was included under his name, thus accounting for that apparent difference.  That is the only explanation I have for it.

Having a personal relationship with Jesus, I know He is God.  Yes, I believe every word of the Bible. God did, overshadow human writers by his Spirit to write all of the books through inspiration and included enough to tell us:
1.) Who we are
2.) How we came to be
3.) Why the world is in such a mess
4.) Enough history to understand where Jesus ties in humanly
5.) God's righteous, holiness and justice where every wrong must receive a just recompense (Old Testament)
6.) God's satisfying of that holiness and justice by punishing all sin in the person of Jesus, the perfect sacrifice on behalf of sinners
7.) How we can get in on it
8.) What happens when we die
9.) The future for unbelievers and the devil and his angels; the will be where they have asked to be--separated from God for all eternity, not bowing before Him, but cursing Him. Of course since all good comes from Him, this place, hell, will be absent of all that is good.  Breathing clean air, eating, drinking and all other things we desire (gifts from God) will be unavailable and unattainable.  The weight of sin and the judgement against it will be upon each being in that place with no more hope of escape ever. It is a terrible place. Jesus spoke more of it than of heaven.  He wants people to avoid it by coming to Him.  Dying having rejected Him and remaining in treasonous, rebellion, results in condemnation/damnation to that place.
10.) The glorious future of the saints(believers) who trust on in Christ--to be with Him forever where there are no more tears, sickness, sorrow, pain, injustice, hatred, sin or any vile thing, nor the thought or remembrance of them. Where all is peace and joy.
11.) It also tells us how to live life
12.) Paints an accurate picture of the fallen, selfish, sinful nature of mankind
And much more.  There are billions of questions we might have that aren't answered there. Like, what is pi? (3.14....) But that is not the point of the book. The point is to get us to Jesus and heaven for eternity and to help us back to a God who loves us and made a way for us to be forgiven and be with Him forever.

The reason to exterminate was to do what God told them to do

So you agree with what I said earlier: your god is an genocidal maniac. He is also supremely egotistical: the one mistake he never tolerates is the worship of other gods. Which begs the question: if he is the only god in existence, why in hell does he get so upset if people invent another (non-existing) one?

Mary's line, however was also through David.

And where in the bible does it say that? Or are you (and other theologians) just saying it in an effort to make the bible look accurate?

Even if you are correct, then why do both lists refer to Joseph, not to Mary. So either way there is an error in the bible, isn't there? Could there be other errors, too?

<50->100>

The specific first comment by @SStory is a more less reasonable response even if it's only "No, because it's in a book." All of the back-and-forth after that seems an aside from the question. For the one response, it would have been better to reference Leviticus 18 at that point rather than later, though it was eventually mentioned. IMO, it's a reason to avoid it for believers; but it might be practically irrelevant to the question. It seems to me that the question is about rules/laws of a society, and a religious response is about what a believer should choose to do or not do.

One involves what everybody else does; the other is about what one chooses for one's self.

So deciding if that response is an 'Answer' requires knowing the intent of the question. Is the question asking if rules/laws ought to be established? Or is it asking for moral guidance? The few other responses outside of the @SStory chain might also be evaluated if the question is clarified.

BTW, welcome back here, @SunBow. I've been wondering about you.

@Herman D'Hondt:
>So you agree with what I said earlier: your god is an genocidal maniac.
I agree that my God is GOD. He is the only person in absolute authority over everything.  He will rule supremely over everything in the end.  He is being patient with many at present not willing that any should perish but giving men time to repent of their deeds and take advantage of His once in eternity period of grace--an open door--to come on in and receive forgiveness and be in the eternity-long party that is coming.

>He is also supremely egotistical: the one mistake he never tolerates is the >worship of other gods. Which begs the question:
>if he is the only god in existence, why in hell does he get so upset if people invent another (non-existing) one?
Great questions..not on topic, but I will answer them.
Whatever you look at, think about and value as supreme...i.e. worship, you become like.  The true God is altogether glorious and absolutely wonderful, beautiful and of infinite value. He has all power, all knowledge.  He is love.  He wanted the best for His chosen people, Israel, so he laid down a few laws to help them obtain the best. They can be summed up by "love the most valuable, worthy person in the universe and worship Him only" i.e. YHWH, and love other people like you love yourself--you know don't lie to them, steal from them, have sex with their wives, etc.  In violating this they would have not had the best for themselves, but debased themselves and doing and looking at worthless things become themselves worthless. God wanted better for them and He wants better for us now. There is no other real God. All the rest are things made up by man's enemy, Satan, in order to deceive more people into following Him into eternal damnation.  God loves us and doesn't want us to chose that route. In the end if we do reject Him and choose that route, He will forever ratify that decision.
Secondly, man was created as the apex of God's creation and for the purpose of having God's spirit live within him and to rule over this earth, to fill it and subdue it. He was made to have a close relationship with God of wonderful joy-filled communion forever.  Through treason against His government, man (male and female) disobeyed and paradise was lost.  Through Jesus it and more have been regained so that man can once again have God's Spirit living inside him, and after death go to eternal relationship and fellowship and joy with God.

>Mary's line, however was also through David.
>And where in the bible does it say that? Or are you (and other theologians) just saying it in an effort to make the bible look accurate?
The Bible is accurate.  This is one suggestion for what is going on.  Women's family genealogy wasn't listed, so they may have to have listed it as male genealogy during that time.

>Even if you are correct, then why do both lists refer to Joseph, not to Mary. So either way there is an error in the bible, isn't there? Could there be >other errors, too?
(see above). There are no errors. There are lack of understanding and "apparent contradictions" They appear to contradict until better understanding is gained, and in the end one sees that they do not. The Bible itself is a spiritual book not discernible by a mortal man without the aid of God's Holy Spirit. Only a redeemed man can fully understand it.  You can't just read it like "War and Peace" or the NY Times or something.  it even says that it is considered foolishness to the lost man who is perishing in his sins.

@SStory

"Faith is that part of the human mind that lets you believe in things you know to be false"

Unfortunately I forget who said it, and I do not have the exact quote, but it sure applies to your last post...

@hdhondt:

"Faith is that part of the human mind that lets you believe in things you know to be false"
 

Hmm. In saying what you said in agreeing with this, you are having faith that you are right and I am wrong.  Now if I am right and you are wrong and you leave this life without Jesus, there is a terrible eternal consequence that you will face. It will not matter if you believed it would happen or not.  I may deny gravity, but if I jump off a building its reality will prove true. I can't see gravity, but I can see the results of its existence.  You can't see God, but if you have the ability you can look all around and see His handy work.  Whether or not a person believes in Him, in the end all will meet Him. The Bible says that EVERY KNEE will bow before Jesus Christ and acknowlege that He is LORD of all. Those who only do so after death will be eternally damned.  Doing so now during life is highly advisable.
As to the original poster's question. Just because court systems in this world have rejected the will of the majority of people and started legislating from the bench (32+ states in USA passed marriage amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman so it is not the will of the majority), does not alter ultimate morality as to what is right and wrong. Good (a word derived from God) and Evil ( a word derived from Devil) and right and wrong, only come from the Supreme Being. It is His world, His Universe and His rules. We can not like them, argue with them, hate them, rail against them, deny them and Him, but in the end all will either bow voluntarily in this lifetime to His rule as the King of the Universe or bow, cringing and surprised after life when standing before Him with eyes wide open realizing that He is real, the Bible is and was true, and that they are 100% accountable to HIm for every word mispoken and every evil deed and that they have rejected His salvation and the only means of having had it all paid for--Jesus Christ(His perfect substitionary death) which appeased the wrath of God against ungodly, unrighteous men.

Per the God of the Universe, homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1 and many other verses in the old and new testament). Proper sexual relations are defined by the Bible. Leviticus 18--I believe--prohibits certain relationships such as father daughter sex for what should be obvious reasons. However when a society starts down the slippery slope that we have now embarked there is no limit to the level of debauchery to come.  Two men, three men, two men and four women, a man marrying a dog, and horse, etc. Men with close relatives and grown men with little boys, etc.  Without a moral compass and absolute right and wrong defined by God, a society is self destructive and the end result is always bad.  So if your "right" and "wrong" are defined by public opinion then anything can be "right" or "wrong" and right and wrong have no meaning as they are relative and changing with the wind.  But if you recognize that there is an absolute Law Giver and someone who is Holy to whom we must all give an account, His definition of right and wrong is the only one that matters.

I am fully convinced that God (YWHW), Jesus, is real and created the entire universe by HIs simple spoken word in which there was definitely a big bang as out of nothing everything exploded into being at the speed of light. The Big bang says that out of an infinitesimally small point everything suddenly exploded into being. That is because they can't measure nothingness. Everything was at one time nothing through God's act of creation exploded into being.

In my mind it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist.  You have to be sure there is no God to have no concern of eternal hell with no hope of leaving. If you are wrong as an atheist you miss out on everything. There is a universe wide party like no other coming in the future right after Jesus Christ returns.  All who reject HIm and die will never participate in it. And I can guarantee you that it will be more pleasurable that sex and endure forever and ever.  All who "party" on this earth in orgies and drunken debaucheries and awaken to diseases, unwanted pregnancies and hangovers, think the rest are missing out, but they themselves will be the ones really missing out for all eternity.

Jesus is God, did come, died, and was raised from the dead. He reigns now, but will one day reign supreme over all with rebellion of any sort squashed and no longer permitted.  That is a fact that will come. Is it faith? Yes. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. That hope isn't a hope so but a hope that is a know so.  Even though I can't see Him now with my physical eyes, I now without a doubt He is real and He is God and He defines what is right and wrong.

Now if I am right and you are wrong and you leave this life without Jesus, there is a terrible eternal consequence that you will face.

Haha, a case of deja vue all over again: Pascal's wager. I must admit it's something that annoys (NOT worries) me: if I'm right you'll never know; if you're right I'll find out the hard way.

There's one massive hole in Pascal's wager. It only applies if the alternatives are atheism or one only religion. If there is more than one religion, all bets are off. If the fundamentalist muslims are right you get the short straw just as much as I do. And, under your rules, even catholics and most other protestants will miss out on your particular flavour of paradise. On the other hand, as long as we behave like reasonable, caring humans, both of us will be fine under any of the more sensible religions, christian or not.

So, sorry mate, not interested.

And, as I have told you before, if you believe in a 6000 year old universe, how come you are using either a computer or a smartphone? Neither of them could possibly work unless the laws of physics work, and they predict an old universe. Of course, if you can come up with a consistent set of physical laws that explain how those pesky gadgets work in a young universe, then I can assure you EVERY scientist will be willing to listen. Unless you claim they, or the laws, are inventions of the devil, to trick us - then we say pass.

Herman D'Hondt: Well, I think the old earth theories you mention assume it would take a long time for things to come together and happen. I believe that God created a mature earth that didn't take millions of years.

As to your other idea. Christianity and other religions can't both be true. Christianity is the following of Christ as God Almighty, the Savior and Redeemer of the world.  If it were true that He were none of these things, Christianity would not be true.  Jesus couldn't have been just a prophet or good man. A good man would never lie. Jesus claimed to be God. If He were not, that would have been a lie. So He had to be either liar, lunatic or Lord.  Now, if Jesus was truthful and Christianity is the truth, these other religions you mention cannot be true. Jesus said, "I am THE WAY...no one comes to the Father but by me."  So He said He was the only way to God the Father.  So either that was true or not.  If it is true, then no other religion is correct.  I submit to you that Jesus is God and true Christianity--from the Bible--is true.

God created a mature earth

Sure, he created it 6000 years ago, but made it look to all our logic, senses and instruments as if it's billions of years old. Talk about a cosmic lie! And, why didn't he create it last year, or last week (search "last thursdayism"). We would not be able to tell the difference.

Sorry, I'm not interested in that kind of practical joke. I prefer to take my universe at face value.

Christianity and other religions can't both be true.

Correct. The only question is: how can you tell which one (if any) is correct? If 1000 religions are all wrong, what are the chances that number 1001 has the universal truth? And I notice once again that you are comparing "christianity" with the rest. What about all the other christian religions? Would you even want to read a catholic bible? As I said in my last comment, to you as a fundamentalist christian, even the other christians will not make it to paradise; they're no better than the rest of the heathens.

I submit to you that Jesus is God and true Christianity--from the Bible--is true.

In science we want evidence before a theory is accepted. And you cannot prove the truth of the bible by quoting the bible. That's wishful thinking and circular reasoning.