Evidence for God from Science

Paul, Neo, I get what you guys are saying. But it is clear that SOME things WERE forbiden by God - and thus a sin - and later God changed such things to being ok to do or to consume. So you just can't get around the fact that once something was a sin and then later God considered it perfectly fine. And I wonder how much one's belief in there having also been other humans, perhaps outside the Garden of Eden, that is mandating that you not believe it necessary for brothers and sisters to procreate before there were more people (at least, cousins). To believe this one cannot be certain about that from reading Scripture. And you've got to dismiss verses like Genesis 3:20 ("The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living."), and, of course, the descriptions of how Adam and Eve were created. Even as an allegorical tale, the story has a definitive disconnect between the creation of all of the animals and Adam and Eve and their creation in the Image of God. But once you're on the allegorical road, you can make just about any Scripture mean whatever you want it to.

Let's say other humans besides Adam and Eve DID exist. Are you insisting that God transformed multiple former evolved creatures into men and women all at once? Unless so, any first human couple would be faced with the very same necessity - of their offspring having to marry. But if one insists on pre-law sibling relationships being looked at by God as the same as the post-law commands about such unions, then you have to say that God starts His own people (Israel) by Abraham marrying his half-sister, and thus He started them by blessing an incestuous relationship. And from there, you have to say that God appeared to at least tolerate and not severely punish His people for long practicing plural marriages - post-law would be considered adultery. He is strangely silent about David's great number of wives, mostly only warning about marriage to heathens. My point is that there are things God seemed to allow for a time without blatantly declaring it sin, that later was obviously considered such. In fact, one could argue that the very reason Israel exploded in population so fast was due to the plural marriages. IF God considered this sin, at the time, He certainly did not make this obvious - which is very strange if He considered adulterous and a common abomination in His eyes. I think the necessity of Adam and Eve children procreating together may have meant that God looked at that differently - as He did with other things, depending upon the context and time frame. Again, if you did not believe in evolution, the existence of other humans besides Adam and Eve, and did not view their creation as being allegorical, would you so strongly believe as you do about the sibling issue?

neo-x wrote:Philip, the problem with this view is that unlike food, which is not a moral code to consider, incest is. Under OM either incest is wrong or right. We can not say it was wrong then and nor now or vice versa, that is SM and we all know where that goes.

Neo,

I have to say, this is a very strong argument FOR other humans being alive along with Adam and Eve, if incest is objectively wrong. It's a point I've never even considered. If incest is objectively wrong, it has always been wrong, correct?

But, how can we know it was always wrong?

Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is wrong. And any sexual relationship that is illegal, is wrong. But, if a man married a close relative, was that always wrong? Even in Israel, before the levitical laws, was it wrong?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Philip, the problem with this view is that unlike food, which is not a moral code to consider, incest is. Under OM either incest is wrong or right. We can not say it was wrong then and nor now or vice versa, that is SM and we all know where that goes.

Neo,

I have to say, this is a very strong argument FOR other humans being alive along with Adam and Eve, if incest is objectively wrong. It's a point I've never even considered. If incest is objectively wrong, it has always been wrong, correct?

But, how can we know it was always wrong?

Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is wrong. And any sexual relationship that is illegal, is wrong. But, if a man married a close relative, was that always wrong? Even in Israel, before the levitical laws, was it wrong?

IMO it is wrong only in the fact that if it's not out of love, then it cannot be right., same as everything else!

Diff times, diff cultures, diff reasons, it can amount to whether something is wrong or right., you can hide a Jewish person from the Nazi' with a lie that you're not hiding anyone in your attic, but was that lie really a sin?

But since man started sinning en mass right after being cast out of the garden, could not man have just go at it between brothers and sisters?

IMO it is wrong only in the fact that if it's not out of love, then it cannot be right., same as everything else!

Ok. So a child molester who loves his victims is not sinning?

Diff times, diff cultures, diff reasons, it can amount to whether something is wrong or right., you can hide a Jewish person from the Nazi' with a lie that you're not hiding anyone in your attic, but was that lie really a sin?

Objective Morality says differently.

Ok. So a child molester who loves his victims is not sinning?

Rick Dees, would you really call taking advantage of someone, Love?

Lonewolf wrote:

Ok. So a child molester who loves his victims is not sinning?

Rick Dees, would you really call taking advantage of someone, Love?

In my mind, no. Who's to say a molester wouldn't think he was doing it out of love? You did say, if it was done out of love...

RickD wrote:

Lonewolf wrote:

Ok. So a child molester who loves his victims is not sinning?

Rick Dees, would you really call taking advantage of someone, Love?

In my mind, no. Who's to say a molester wouldn't think he was doing it out of love? You did say, if it was done out of love...

Well, you know what I was trying to point to., there's other factors involved in molestation..

besides, true Love between a man and a woman has to be both ways, not just one way, don't you think?

It takes two to tango

So, using your logic that if a man and woman love each other, then it's not sinful if a married man has an affair, as long as he loves the women who he's having an affair with, and that woman loves him too?

RickD wrote:So, using your logic that if a man and woman love each other, then it's not sinful if a married man has an affair, as long as he loves the women who he's having an affair with, and that woman loves him too?

Ah, but you see, there is a "legal" bondage "owed" to that marriage., have you not read Romans and other scripture pertaining to "marriage?"

Having an affair does not demonstrate Love., it demonstrate disrespect if nothing else., hence, it can not be true Love., which is what I was alluding to in the first place.

OK, to all of you who think there were other humans around for Adam & Eve's children to procreate with, what about Noah? What about Noah and his little group? They were the sole survivors of the Flood, acording to the Bible. Where did their spouses come from? Do you think other humans were around who floated around in rubber dinghies until the waters receded?

I guess believing in a local ''worldwide'' Flood would solve this dilema. There is, after all, precedent: the ''World'' Series of baseball is only played in the USA; the Formula 1 ''World'' Championship only happens in about 15 out of...197 countries or so.

Isn't there a ''World'' championship of cricket too? (I mean, who plays championship cricket, really???)

FL

Good point, FL. I should have thought of Noah - actually, I just fed him (my dog).

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Philip, the problem with this view is that unlike food, which is not a moral code to consider, incest is. Under OM either incest is wrong or right. We can not say it was wrong then and nor now or vice versa, that is SM and we all know where that goes.

Neo,

I have to say, this is a very strong argument FOR other humans being alive along with Adam and Eve, if incest is objectively wrong. It's a point I've never even considered. If incest is objectively wrong, it has always been wrong, correct?

But, how can we know it was always wrong?

Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is wrong. And any sexual relationship that is illegal, is wrong. But, if a man married a close relative, was that always wrong? Even in Israel, before the levitical laws, was it wrong?

Yes Rick, it would be always wrong and it was wrong. The same as before the levi law, murder was still murder. Cain slew Abel. If we say that incest is not sin before the Leviticus law was given, then we also must concede that murder was not murder before the law and so was not lying, stealing, idolatry etc. But we do know that these sins were sins and were recognized by God as such even before the law was given. There is a reason why the flood of Noah happened, before the law and not after.

That is why I said in a different post that God compromised. He let the people of Israel commit polygamy, and before law people did incest and other things. Yet we can not say they were right then and not now. That simply means, God allowed incest as ok back then but then changed his mind and doesn't allow it now.

The law is a reflection of God's justice, a shadow of it, if you will. Therefore even before the Law was given to Israel, it existed because of the nature of God being so, that is it is God's nature to be just or that God is justice.

And in the same vein OM exists; it exists not because it was given, but it is a natural result, an extension of the existence of God and his nature, a standard, for lack of better wording, I'd say. That is why God questioned Cain. Murder was wrong even then.

I have to say, this is a very strong argument FOR other humans being alive along with Adam and Eve, if incest is objectively wrong. It's a point I've never even considered.

Just a small remark on this...I don't think it technically must mean that other humans were around. After all God bore with polygamy at some point, why not Incest then. In the biblical story of creation, Incest is a inevitable conclusion. And the same is true when we reject creation and look through the evolutionary lines, incest is unavoidable at some basic level.

Since the bible clearly says that Adam was the first HUMAN, the first man. It is quite hard to presume how there could be other humans. Yet there is a form of mystery there and we get clues that there were people around. And I must concede that this is weakly arguable from the scriptures but only so, weakly. If we take the story as literal then we can say that the other people around were Adam's children too and also that Cain took his sister as a wife. Though I would understand why the scribes and the rabbis would choose not to write this as such, given that these books were written when the levi law had been given and therefore to write of incest between cain and his sister and in among other siblings may have been embarrassing. But these are just my thoughts.

So to conclude this, what I am saying is that incest definitely happened. It was always wrong but God probably in his mercy, compromised. That is to say, he didn't condone it but he didn't stop or punished those humans who committed it. The same way later in time he didn't punish slavery in Israel and polygamy etc.

Lonewolf wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Philip, the problem with this view is that unlike food, which is not a moral code to consider, incest is. Under OM either incest is wrong or right. We can not say it was wrong then and nor now or vice versa, that is SM and we all know where that goes.

Neo,

I have to say, this is a very strong argument FOR other humans being alive along with Adam and Eve, if incest is objectively wrong. It's a point I've never even considered. If incest is objectively wrong, it has always been wrong, correct?

But, how can we know it was always wrong?

Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is wrong. And any sexual relationship that is illegal, is wrong. But, if a man married a close relative, was that always wrong? Even in Israel, before the levitical laws, was it wrong?

IMO it is wrong only in the fact that if it's not out of love, then it cannot be right., same as everything else!

Diff times, diff cultures, diff reasons, it can amount to whether something is wrong or right., you can hide a Jewish person from the Nazi' with a lie that you're not hiding anyone in your attic, but was that lie really a sin?

But since man started sinning en mass right after being cast out of the garden, could not man have just go at it between brothers and sisters?

Yes that lie would still be a sin, a noble sin but nonetheless. I can not say you didn't lie. You lied, with the noblest intentions and you may be pardoned and encouraged but, you lied. You didn't say the truth. You can not escape the obvious here. While I would lie too in a situation like that but it would be just that, a lie.

Our intentions do not change objective morality.

Let me give you another, stealing food to feed you starving family. I can understand why you did it but the act of stealing remains the same, you took something which didn't belong to you. You stole. For good reasons but it does't change the fact that it wasn't yours. Your necessity doesn't make you owner of something.

Let's say other humans besides Adam and Eve DID exist. Are you insisting that God transformed multiple former evolved creatures into men and women all at once? Unless so, any first human couple would be faced with the very same necessity - of their offspring having to marry. But if one insists on pre-law sibling relationships being looked at by God as the same as the post-law commands about such unions, then you have to say that God starts His own people (Israel) by Abraham marrying his half-sister, and thus He started them by blessing an incestuous relationship. And from there, you have to say that God appeared to at least tolerate and not severely punish His people for long practicing plural marriages - post-law would be considered adultery. He is strangely silent about David's great number of wives, mostly only warning about marriage to heathens. My point is that there are things God seemed to allow for a time without blatantly declaring it sin, that later was obviously considered such. In fact, one could argue that the very reason Israel exploded in population so fast was due to the plural marriages. IF God considered this sin, at the time, He certainly did not make this obvious - which is very strange if He considered adulterous and a common abomination in His eyes. I think the necessity of Adam and Eve children procreating together may have meant that God looked at that differently - as He did with other things, depending upon the context and time frame. Again, if you did not believe in evolution, the existence of other humans besides Adam and Eve, and did not view their creation as being allegorical, would you so strongly believe as you do about the sibling issue?

This is very nice reasoning. I touched on this in my reply to Rick, you may want to read that too. In all honesty, the biblical story of creation does not really allow evolution to take place. Adam is the first man, eve is the first woman. Nor do I think we can call it allegorical.

The thing is, time frame, or culture doesn't affect morality, objective morality, that is. If we take the story at face value, then incest is there. Not very clear but not very hard to avoid either. But incest, biologically is unavoidable whether you believe in creationism or not. Even when you reject creationism and go with evolution, incest is there.

As I remarked earlier the scriptures make it quite clear that God didn't take any issue with polygamy until post exile period of Israel.

We can only deduce a couple of things.

1. We can not violate OM with God's will. We can not say incest is wrong objectively (which it is) and then say God violated it himself at one point.

2. We cannot say Adam and eve were the first humans and then also say other humans were there, without either rejecting the creation of Adam as the first man or his special creation. Not to mention that other people could not be the same human as Adam, since it was in Adam that God gave a conscience and his own breath. The only thing we can say logically is that these other people were also children of Adam apart from Cain, Abel and Seth.

Neo wrote:
Yes Rick, it would be always wrong and it was wrong. The same as before the levi law, murder was still murder. Cain slew Abel. If we say that incest is not sin before the Leviticus law was given, then we also must concede that murder was not murder before the law and so was not lying, stealing, idolatry etc. But we do know that these sins were sins and were recognized by God as such even before the law was given. There is a reason why the flood of Noah happened, before the law and not after.

Neo, you're convinced that incest is objectively wrong, like murder. I'm not convinced. While I'm repulsed by the thought of incest, even between consenting adult relatives, I want to make sure it's not just an emotional argument for me.

Those of you who believe incest is objectively wrong, why is it?

(And, I'm only talking about incest between consenting adults, who could be legally married. In any other instance, I believe it is a sin.)