Gay Britain

[Crackpot]

You're missing Cain and Abel for Abhram iand kin RR.

[Big RR]

Am I Crackpot?

From Genesis 4:

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Which reinforces Nod

I presumed since the traditional view is that Adam and Even populated the entire earth, Cain would have had to have married a sister or maybe a niece--unless there were others in that land of nod.

But you are right, Abraham and Sarah were siblings as well.

[Scooter]

And how did Noah's family repopulate the earth after the flood? At the very least there were double-first cousin marriages going on for several generations, if not unions between those even more closely related. And then there was Judah, direct lineal ancestor of Jesus as the presumed heir of King David, who fucked and impregnated not one, but two, daughters-in-law (after how the whole "marrying one's brother's wife" debacle turned out in that family).

[Big RR]

And let's not forget Lot, the Sodom and Gomorrah survivor who impregnated both his daughters after his wife was turned into salt (I guess salt would burn to much to have relations with ). Reminds me of the old 60s "we might as well do it, the world is on its last legs anyway".

[MajGenl.Meade]

I just love how the bible condones incest but not homosexuality.

Four thumbs up for christianity!

"Condones"? It's an interesting word (as Econo likes to point out elsewhere). The Bible records many things, good and evil, but does not necessarily "condone" all things. It declares that all humans are sinners - there is not one who is righteous (in themselves) - and it reports the activities of some of those sinners, some of which activities are (shock and horror) quite awful.

As to Adam and Eve, they clearly had sons and daughters (Gen 5:4) and we owe a lot more to Seth than either Cain or Abel. Equally clearly, if Adam and Eve were the first and only two people on earth, their children must have populated the world with each other. From the bio-theological point of view, it can be assumed that the "perfect" genes created by God in the original two would only have gradually become corrupted - just as the world itself was. Early relationshps between even close blood-relatives would not have risked abnormality for some generations.

Over the course of some 900 years (those long-lived early wrinklies!), "incestuous" relationships brought about the large population (the "others" of whom Cain was afraid) and an increasing risk of genetic abnormality in sexual relations between close blood relatives. Cain's children may have been - and almost certainly were - from a woman who was very, very far from being closely related to him.

I of course may be corrected but believe there is not an instance where the Bible approves of incest and it is forbidden in Lev. 18:6–18 (mother, stepmother, sister, granddaughter, stepsister, aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, or stepdaughter/granddaughter).

Big RR with his usual insight into scripture refers to Lot and his two daughters as if Lot chose to have sex with them because his wife was a bit salty. Of course the record shows that the daughters, despairing of finding any suitable men outside the big city, got him drunk and then took advantage of him. Nothing indicates that this was an "OK" thing for any of them to have done. Abraham has always struck me as a weasel but God, perforce, has worked through millenia through imperfect and often terrible people (which is everyone) until the right place and the right time for the perfect man to appear. And Abraham was not "righteous" but righteousness was credited to him - as it is to a naturally evil person such as I. Neither one deserves it.

This subject is far more interesting and important than the ephemeral actions of governments.

Meade

[Big RR]

Big RR with his usual insight into scripture

In the words of Ronald Reagan, there you go again. Where did I say it was approved of or declared "OK" right or anything else; I'm merely pointing out the account--read into it what you choose. And as for the daughters taking advantage of Lot, early rabbinical commentary on the story seems to point toward the opposite. Face it, if your elder surviving daughter got you drunk and "took advantage" of you last night, would you get drunk again the following night (or drink anything else offered) and risk the same?

And please do tell me; where in the bible is this mentioned

From the bio-theological point of view, it can be assumed that the "perfect" genes created by God in the original two would only have gradually become corrupted - just as the world itself was.

. Perfect genes? Since genes weren't even known at the time, I really would like to see where you come to that conclusion. These "perfect genes" were corrupted; if they were "perfect", how? Indeed, even the genesis account says god pronounced the things created as "good" , not perfect. Not to mention, if Eve was created from cells in Adam's rib, she would have had exactly the same genome he had, as would their children, etc. Let's not use the bible to make scientific hypotheses.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There you go again. Where did I say you said it was approved or declared "OK"? I didn't. I merely pointed out that the Bible was not (as Daisy suggested) condoning things that it reports and it didn't show approval of what happened in Lot's tent either. My criticism of your analysis is that you imply that Lot chose to have sex with his daughters was voluntary and knowing - perhaps because his wife had been turned to salt.

I am not the one who reads into the Bible "what I choose". Here is what it says:

Gen 19:30-35 Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose. The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

Note that Lot "did not know" when either of them did this. See those words? "Did not know". He knew he got drunk. And he got drunk again. I bet you and I can both plead guilty to that one (not the daughter thing ).

You and all the Hebrew commentators in history may read into "did not know" so it means "did know" as much as you like. It doesn't change what was written.

On genes - oh please. Are you saying that Adam and Eve had no genes? (Maybe that's why they needed leaves to cover up! ). Are you also saying that God the creator made imperfect things and that what He declared to be "good" (and "very good") was in fact not good at all? No Big RR - face up to it. Adam and Eve had perfect genes - that is, no random mutations because NOTHING had mutated at that point. (I never would claim the Bible says this BTW). The possibility/probability of gene mutation began with the birth of their children after the Fall. All I point out is the likelihood that the physical risks of incestuous relationships were not at all the same at the beginning but became increasingly so. And it is not accurate to assume as a fact that Cain (for example) had intercourse with any closer relation than a 93rd cousin sixteen times removed.

I love these little chats
Meade

[Big RR]

Note that Lot "did not know" when either of them did this. See those words? "Did not know". He knew he got drunk. And he got drunk again. I bet you and I can both plead guilty to that one (not the daughter thing ).
uote]

Well Meade, I can honestly say that I have never been so drunk that I was unable to remember having sex with someone the previous night; and if I were that drunk I would question whether I could physically achieve enough of an erection to have sex. Maybe Lot was a superman and could, but who knows.

As for Lot, he didn't know when either daughter lay with him or got up, but he may well have known he had sex, Indeed, waking up in the morning next to (or on) the wet spot with no other women around other than them, what was he supposed to think?

On genes - oh please. Are you saying that Adam and Eve had no genes? (Maybe that's why they needed leaves to cover up! ). Are you also saying that God the creator made imperfect things and that what He declared to be "good" (and "very good") was in fact not good at all? No Big RR - face up to it. Adam and Eve had perfect genes - that is, no random mutations because NOTHING had mutated at that point.

Without getting into the argument as to whether genesis is intended to be a factual or an allegorical account, did they have genes--who knows? Genes are needed to reproduce--did god intend that they should do so--who knows. The only mention of human reproduction is later on when god, in upbraiding Eve, said she shall now bear children in pain, etc. Was she intended to bear children differently before--maybe in a less painful way; or maybe not since she and adam could inhabit the garden and care for it themselves--who knows. And if she wasn't intended to reproduce did she need genes to reproduce her own cells, or would they likewise reproduce by some other means? We don't know as the account is silent.

As for "perfect" genes--what would they be; the capacity for mutation and has kept us alive as a species for as long as we've been one; it's a way of adapting the less competitive to be more competitive. One need only look at certain desirable mutations to see this; they wouldn't have been there at the beginning and have been lost--they arose as we had to adapt as a species to the environment.

And why would "imperfect/capable of mutating" genes not be good or very good? They would serve us better than any set of genes one could postulate if they were to remain constant.

And FWIW, it's not the mutations that occur, but the similarity between the genomes of related persons that makes incest undesirable. Anyway, the 600 or 700 years the bible said some of the people lived then wasn't really enough to achieve much differentiation, even among 93rd cousins or whatever if they all started from a common genome--maybe even the same genome for mother and father (except of course for the gender chromosomes).

[MajGenl.Meade]

I can honestly say that I have never been so drunk that I was unable to remember having sex with someone the previous night

How do you know that? Well OK maybe you've never been that drunk. I certainly had times when I didn't remember anything of the night before and wet spots didn't necessarily indicate a sexual encounter!

That's a good point about similarity vs. difference, I have to acknowledge. I disagree that the period of time was definitely insufficient to produce a tremendous difference in degrees of relationship - I think it was perfectly adequate - but we'll never know. Did Adam and Eve have genes? Well you can say "I don't know" and I can say "I don't know either but I bet they did since all humans do - and all animals as well". I wonder which of us a scientist would think (aside from whether or not Adam and Eve are real or metphorical) is more likely to be correct?

At any rate, you do acknowledge that the Bible says Lot did not know what had happened so any attempt to blame Lot is based on speculation vs. what is actually recorded.

Did I say already that I can't think very highly of Abram?

Meade

[Big RR]

Without checking the actual verses, I acknowledge the bible says " he [lot] did not know when she lay down or when she arose"; as to whether he knew anything of the sexual activities that night, it is silent; I speculate he did (as do others more contemporaneous than you or me), but there is no biblical support one way or the other.