Where have I ‘accepted’ anything? Use of examples from another religion says absolutely nothing about my own beliefs. To say that incest is morally wrong yet was permitted in the past is not just inconsistent, but hypocritical and morally relativist
let’s go through some elementary argument and logic skills shall we? you accepted for the basis of your argument that Adam and Eve existed, then used that to attack the Bible
you then make some illogical statements
how can something even be hypocritical and morally relativist at the same time? HUH?
It’s not confusing, unless you can’t see the logic – and considering you’ve massively misread just about my entire post, it appears to be that way. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t even talking about Adam and Eve, but their children
No, the problem is there is no logic. I don’t accept your argument because I don’t acceot your premises. The idea that laws can’t change because otherwise they are relativisitic is a non sequitur - plainly.
Given the following:
- according to God’s law (not just Moses’), incest is wrong
- God’s law is ‘natural law’, written on the human heart
- natural law is immutable
- incest occurred in the early Old Testament with implicit or explicit permission from God
What are we left with? A tumbled-down house of cards. God contradicted his own natural law in permitting incest. To say that the law came later is meaningless, as natural law is held unchangeable – it is timeless and has always existed.
Like I say I don’t accept your premises, so I don’t accept your conclusions. On what basis do you say that all the laws in the OT are natural laws? Thus your argument collapses
seem unable to realize that I am in no way confused or doubting, given your remarks here and elsewhere; ah well, such is the mark of one lost within a morass of confusion and denial himself. I can’t help you escape that, but you might do well to stop lashing out at and insulting those of us who aren’t stuck in your private hellish swamp. You’ll only sink faster.
How can an agnostic believe in a “private hellish swamp”?:rotfl: Agnostic equals confused. You can’t make your mind up. Richard Dawkins is pretty scathing about agnostics, quite rightly - it is the ultimate form of fence-sitting.
I am mildly amused about your feat of transference in calling me confused and in denial tho.
Banning incest is not part of the natural law. What is the purpose of such prohibitions? Avoiding genetic disease of course. It could be theorised that early on, the fall hadn’t had time to cause recessive disorders so prohibitions on incest were not required. In any case, we don’t know that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had incestuous marriages as such.
So your argument has failed