Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is something that is condemned in Christian Churches, but if you think about it, ti's quite contradictory to what happened in the bible. I mean, Adam and Eve had two sons and three daughters- for the human race to live on, someone would have to commit incest for it. And then we have Noah. Noah and his sons and their wives were the only ones who lived through the flood. So that means, fo rthe human race to live again, they would have ot commit incest again. So why is it condemned in Christian society? I mean, it's what kept us living in their contexts.

Incest is wrong....the Bible stories are Myths.....Stories that got mixed with some truths....Well, that's my opinion.

Originally posted by Hornyman
This is something that is condemned in Christian Churches, but if you think about it, ti's quite contradictory to what happened in the bible. I mean, Adam and Eve had two sons and three daughters- for the human race to live on, someone would have to commit incest for it. And then we have Noah. Noah and his sons and their wives were the only ones who lived through the flood. So that means, fo rthe human race to live again, they would have ot commit incest again. So why is it condemned in Christian society? I mean, it's what kept us living in their contexts.

God made it ok then, but now it's bad. Will god make it ok in the future?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God made it ok then, but now it's bad. Will god make it ok in the future?
That's how it went.

Originally posted by Chibi Boy
That's how it went.

Did Chibi Boy just agree with me?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Mwahahahahaaaa!!! devil2

hysterical

hell i dont care incest is fine with me i mean i screw my mom and sister every night ever since my dad died (TIGHT PUSSYS)

Thats unfortunate.

The "reason" incest was banned was to prevent families like the Phelps' from procreating.

Pass on genetics that were and are bad.................As I understand the Christian view the gene pool was more clean and this was not a problem in the earlier times.

A wizard did it.



Your second question is much harder to answer since you also haev to take into accound average birth rates and death rates nuts

Thanks for the move

Wasn't incest commited abundently during biblical times? And would Noah's family also have had to commit incest for the human race to live on? Through geneology a person could easily find a count (or more) of acts of incest...

Originally posted by eminn_hawk
hell i dont care incest is fine with me i mean i screw my mom and sister every night ever since my dad died (TIGHT PUSSYS)

I hope very dearly that you're kidding... and if not, I suggest a move to Arkansas where that sort of thing is allowed. You can have your upside down faced kids there....

Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
I've honestly wondered that since the day I read it...

"Mister toad how many years would it take for Adam and Eve to populate the world?"

"I don't know Timmy. Let's find out! One, two, three...four billion, seven billion"

"-sigh- Screw it"

The World may never know...

(Even I gotta admit that was lame)

Would a sexual act between first (or any) cousins be conjectured as incest?

I think second cousin is OK, at least biologically.

Never heard anything about people outside of Edan, got anything more on that?

sex between cousins{first or second} should NOT be considered incest, its silly, people should get their dna tested to find the risk of supressive alleales surfacing, but otherwise its dum to call it incest{ofcourse unless your marriage is being arranged to your cousin as happenes in over 70% of people in pakistan/india/bengal and the communities of such in foreign countries which is just plain wrong and cumulatively dangerous}, i mean i dont think theres anything wrong with falling for your cousin if u dont feal wierd about it.

logically, the case of brother sister is a lot harder to do justice to. from what i believe, the bonds are not merely blood related, they are actually, because of a past, living together, growing up, and seeing the parent treat the other as a child, same as you. now, assuming you had a situation where a long lost kis meats a girl, they both fall in love{with one believing and having been brought up as an orphan} and develop a relationship. you find out one day, that actually your both brothers n sisters, what do u do? just cause society scorns you and youve been socialised to feal wierd, you say, ewww, thas gross? if that really were true, then what you felt for each other was never true to begin with{and assuming it is, ur just hiding form it}. thas nonesense, you didnt start out believing it was eww and u shudnt now, i think in such a case they should remain together. blood and dna {the way it acts here, "THE SELFISH GENE"} doesnt make these things happen and shudnt break it up. IF they were to have children, they definately owe it to their kids to have a dna check to see the risks and act accrodingly. ofcourse, UNLESS, its this rare case, you shudnt commit incest, because of the emotional/mental bonds that develop{not to mention, the agony which u might put the other due to social influences if u do have full knowledge of each other's lineage}, same goes for boys/girls whove been brought up together but are NOT blood related. even knowing that, because they have those emotional/,mental ties, in there case{in my perspective}, being together is as bad {minus the biological threat} as the knowing brother/sister{related by blood}. also the dynamis, might socially change if you two were the last people on earth{and maybe im guiltyof being influenced by BERTRAND RUSSEL here} would you then let the entire human race die out simply because of some social norm.............i do not know the answer, but im sure it isnt simply YES, and merits contemplation.{for those who are passionate about the human race as a whole anyway}

on a differnt note, i dont think PARENTS and CHILDREN should under almost ANY circumstances be together like that. not only is it biologically TOO deviant{and dangerous, genetically, emotionally, etc} but i doubt any1 at all can retain love, etc genuinly, while still knowing that they are with their children{perhaps the children still might for their parents but not vice versa}. also, and maybe im beeing illogical here, i kinda think with parents and children, you have this mystical kinda responsibility{for parents} to be the parents of children without the presence of social/emotional/mental bonds n stuff. further evidence for this might be that many animal species mate with siblings but almost none with parents/children.

but stil overall, not sumthing u wanna propogate and shud be avoided unless in very rare places.

it's just like that: God thought of the big order afterwards. That's why evolution happened. It just didn't in the past 10.000 years because God then thought "I may put an order on all things"

.. I should be careful, I might set up a new Christian theory O.o

Originally posted by ThePittman
Never heard anything about people outside of Edan, got anything more on that? The Biblical reference would be Genesis 1:26-27.

"And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

The word used for man in both instances is "adam" (with some accents and whatnot on it) which means mankind in opposition to the word "Ish" which would have meant a singular male. Instead the plural is used.

Adam's creation is given seperately in Genesis 2:7.

"And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground...."

In this instance the word man is translated from 'eth-ha'adham which means "this same man Adam".

So it would seem that perhaps God created people both inside and outside the garden of Eden.

Another thing on it is that after Cain kills Abel he goes to the land of Nod where he "knows" his wife and he builds a city. The fact that it is a city indicates that there are other people that might not have known Cain were about. But that is speculation. I find the stronger argument in the fact that God marks Cain so that people that find him won't kill him. This shows that thery would have to be unfamiliar with Cain and his relationship with God and that would possibly indicate that those people that would slay Cain were not related to him.

Romans 5:12 would, unfortunately, disagree with that view:

So would Genesis 3:20:

Furthermore, Adam and Eve both live a very long time--and there would have been plenty of time for them to have children.

Genesis 4:3:

We don't know how old Cain is when this happens, but he was old enough to have a wife (and Adam was 130 years old when Eve bore Seth). It's likely that Adam and Eve had more children during this time and Cain married his sister.

Also, Seth was special to Eve because he looked so much like Adam, which suggests that Abel looked a lot like his father--and thus Seth would serve as a sort of "replacement" for Abel.

During these times, many angels fell to lay with women, and so there was another source of genetic material.

When incest was forbidden by the Mosaic Law, it was at a time when

a) genetic degeneration would have gotten to the point when having children with immediate family members would have...tragic results, and

b) there was no more need for inbreeding because of the number of people.

Now, what about Noah?

Noah had a wife and three sons, and his sons had wives. Eight people total. Bottleneck total? Yes. However, God specifically blessed them and commanded them to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Presumably, this means that their genetics weren't screwed, especially since Noah lived to be 950.

Why hate Incest? If all humans were killed except 2(1 female and one male), you better thank incest if the world is repopulated.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Romans 5:12 would, unfortunately, disagree with that view:

So would Genesis 3:20:

Furthermore, Adam and Eve both live a very long time--and there would have been plenty of time for them to have children.

Genesis 4:3:

We don't know how old Cain is when this happens, but he was old enough to have a wife (and Adam was 130 years old when Eve bore Seth). It's likely that Adam and Eve had more children during this time and Cain married his sister.

Also, Seth was special to Eve because he looked so much like Adam, which suggests that Abel looked a lot like his father--and thus Seth would serve as a sort of "replacement" for Abel.

During these times, many angels fell to lay with women, and so there was another source of genetic material.

When incest was forbidden by the Mosaic Law, it was at a time when

a) genetic degeneration would have gotten to the point when having children with immediate family members would have...tragic results, and

b) there was no more need for inbreeding because of the number of people.

Now, what about Noah?

Noah had a wife and three sons, and his sons had wives. Eight people total. Bottleneck total? Yes. However, God specifically blessed them and commanded them to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Presumably, this means that their genetics weren't screwed, especially since Noah lived to be 950. I happen to agree with you. I think it is a far stronger argument.

I dont care wtf God says, i would never have sex with my sister

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I dont care wtf God says, i would never have sex with my sister
Romans 2:14

Originally posted by FeceMan
Romans 2:14

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.



Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I dont care wtf God says, i would never have sex with my sister

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I dont care wtf God says, i would never have sex with my sister

But I would. Your sister that is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I would. Your sister that is.


She is 11


She's cute, but she's 11

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
She is 11


She's cute, but she's 11

I will have to give her 7 more year then.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will have to give her 7 more year then.





you'd like her, she looks like a young Salma Hyeck

Originally posted by ThePittman
Never heard anything about people outside of Edan, got anything more on that? Cain was kicked out and placed on his head a mark so others wouldn't attack him in the land of Nod.

After Cain killed Abel and was declared a “fugitive and vagabond” by God (Genesis 4:12), the Bible says that he “went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod” (4:16). It was in this land that “Cain knew his wife” (4:17), and it was here that his son, Enoch, was born.

Oops guess it was already said.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Pass on genetics that were and are bad.................As I understand the Christian view the gene pool was more clean and this was not a problem in the earlier times.

Debbie has nice jeans.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Debbie has nice jeans.

However, with a few holes.

Incest is not only condemned by the Bible, but many other religions, and science.

Its dangerous for the children. Bible stories were not meant to be literal. They are a myth...not a direct word of god.

ewwww, i would never ever do that with my brother!!! fear

he gets enough pussy as it is...


my cousin is really hot though....

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
This is something that is condemned in Christian Churches, but if you think about it, ti's quite contradictory to what happened in the bible.
Observation:
What isn't contradictory in The Bible is a better question.


Statement:
Incest is biologicaly foolish and counter-productive. Genes can only optimize when they are mixed, imbreeding leads to strnger ills of those genes, mental retardation, and other qualities that is unbennefical to the homosapien species.


Second statement:
Socialy incest is hugely frowned upon, seen as nasty at best, intolerable at worst.

Reaction:
It amazes me how this society is so lax about how many sex partners a man has, but who he has sex with makes all the differance in the world.


Conclusion:
Social morals are independable because society is madeup of complete retards.
Other then the biological hazzards, there really is nothing moraly reprehensible about incest.