Cain

Originally posted by divegeester
Good question; what does your conscience tell you?

My conscience has no say in this. This is a question of the moral by the purest, the people of the earliest days, can be applied bu us mere sinners.

If those people can have incestous sex, then even we can have incestous sex. Incestous sex is okay by the bible, obviously.

Originally posted by divegeester
No it doesn't; it just doesn't appeal to you Rob. It can be believed because many people do believe it, so patently that statement is incorrect; you however cannot believe it which is fine. What we know to be true today does not depend on whether or not the reader agrees with your socialist mindset. The alternative to faith is not socialism, no matter how much red-letter you read.

Correction: it can't be believed by any rational person. And the number of people who accept a literal interpretation of your fanciful bible stories is going to continue dropping year after year, decade after decade, until Christianity has faded into relative oblivion. My interpretation, which meshes seamlessly with our scientific and anthropological knowledge, would do away with all the mythological trappings that have accrued to Jesus' core message over the centuries and make it relevant to a scientifically literate (or scientifically aware) audience.

The fact remains that social justice, the exalting of the lowly and the poor, and the condemnation of the rich are some of the most frequently mentioned topics in the bible. If you peel away the fanciful post mortem deification of Jesus, then that's pretty what you have left. Your railing on against socialism cannot alter that fact.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Having sex with ones sister is then alright today, according to the bible, if one's using protection from pregnancy?

Didn't say that and neither does the Bible.... But at that time when humans were near perfection at first with little defects as we do now, it would be possible for close relitives to have children without any diverse affects.
And with the obvious fact that there were no other humans on the earth to marry and raise offspring with, they had to marry among themselves.
If Adam and Eve had not sinned and we were still physically perfect today, we don't know what the arrangments would be with marriage and what the norm would be. The Bible does not say or give any hints about that.

Originally posted by rwingett
Correction: it can't be believed by any rational person. And the number of people who accept a literal interpretation of your fanciful bible stories is going to continue dropping year after year, decade after decade, until Christianity has faded into relative oblivion. My interpretation, which meshes seamlessly with our scientific and anthropological knowle ...[text shortened]... n that's pretty what you have left. Your railing on against socialism cannot alter that fact.

Yes you are right..more and more will stop believeing in the Bible and will go the direction your speaking of. But it's not because of any proof that happens to all of a sudden come to the front. That will never happen.
But as the Bible clearly fortold, this system that he will soon destroy, will become less spiritual and lose their moral sense.
Anyone with their eyes open can see that happening earthwide.

Originally posted by galveston75
The Bible is not clear on that but it could be the offspring of Cain were needed to help populate the earth at that early time of mans existance. But apparently none of his offspring were seen as being worthy enough to make it into the ark and survive the flood.

So why then were Cain's offspring "needed"? It would appear they were not.

As for myself, I tend to think that at God's core is the desire to show mercy. He did so with his father and mother after the fall and he did so with Cain. Either transgression could have been handled by immediate death but was not.

So what do we see before the flood? Do we not see mankind increase in wickedness with such liberal enforcement of the law of God? According to Genesis mankind increased in wickedness to the point of almost no return. Then the flood waters came and "cleaned house". So the conundrum appears to be that if you show mercy towards wickedness, it simply multiplies and creates more death and destruction. So you are faced with immediate judgement or one to come in the future on a much grander scale.

Another interesting thing occured pre and post flood. Before the flood mankind lived close to 1000 years but after the flood God declared mankind would not live past 120 years old. It would appear, at least to me, that death is a formidable barrier for wickedness to flourish. Just imagine if Hitler, for example, lived to be 900 years old.

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes you are right..more and more will stop believeing in the Bible and will go the direction your speaking of. But it's not because of any proof that happens to all of a sudden come to the front. That will never happen.
But as the Bible clearly fortold, this system that he will soon destroy, will become less spiritual and lose their moral sense.
Anyone with their eyes open can see that happening earthwide.

Scoff at Rwingett all you want, but he has me convinced that Karl Marx himself, who incidently perfected the message of Jesus Christ, will at any moment spring from the grave, take everything you own, and redistribute it so the communist millennial reign can commense spoken of in Revelation and in the OT.

Then again, why do we need Karl Marx with who is in power now? 😛

Originally posted by FabianFnas
With whom did Cain produce offspring?

His Mother, the only female at the time? Or some unknown sister?

an unknown sister.
The bible says adam and eve had other sons and daughters.

Originally posted by RBHILL
an unknown sister.
The bible says adam and eve had other sons and daughters.

And her name...?

Originally posted by galveston75
Didn't say that and neither does the Bible.... But at that time when humans were near perfection at first with little defects as we do now, it would be possible for close relitives to have children without any diverse affects.
And with the obvious fact that there were no other humans on the earth to marry and raise offspring with, they had to marry am ...[text shortened]... with marriage and what the norm would be. The Bible does not say or give any hints about that.

According to the myth...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And her name...?

Do you not understand the word "unknown"?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And her name...?

Eve JR...... 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And her name...?

i said it was an unknown name. you can google it and it might give some Jewish myth names for ideas. But her name is irrelevant.

Genesis 5:4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

Originally posted by rwingett
Correction: it can't be believed by any rational person. And the number of people who accept a literal interpretation of your fanciful bible stories is going to continue dropping year after year, decade after decade, until Christianity has faded into relative oblivion. My interpretation, which meshes seamlessly with our scientific and anthropological knowle n that's pretty what you have left. Your railing on against socialism cannot alter that fact.

I am "rational", and I believe it; therefore you are incorrect. They are not MY Bible "stories" - incorrect again.

"Your interpretation"; if correct, would, no doubt as we speak, be being adopted by conservative atheists all over the world...it isn't, and socialism is just that...another "ism". You strike me as being a somewhat socialist dogmatist atheist who uses their discard of their early faith, as platform to rail against Christianity.

Originally posted by whodey
So what do we see before the flood? Do we not see mankind increase in wickedness with such liberal enforcement of the law of God? According to Genesis mankind increased in wickedness to the point of almost no return. Then the flood waters came and "cleaned house". So the conundrum appears to be that if you show mercy towards wickedness, it simply multipl ...[text shortened]... r for wickedness to flourish. Just imagine if Hitler, for example, lived to be 900 years old.

1. Another thing to consider is the Nephilim (see the Book of Enoch), who were at least partly responsible for the Flood, and who were supposedly wiped out by the Flood.

2. Actually, the lifespan had reduced to 120 years shortly before the Flood and continued to decrease to the "three score and ten" that is commonly referred to today. But yes, I agree that this was probably done to reduce the sheer quantity of shenanigans humans had indulged in prior to this.

Originally posted by divegeester
I am "rational", and I believe it; therefore you are incorrect. They are not MY Bible "stories" - incorrect again.

"Your interpretation"; if correct, would, no doubt as we speak, be being adopted by conservative atheists all over the world...it isn't, and socialism is just that...another "ism". You strike me as being a somewhat socialist dogmatis ...[text shortened]... who uses their discard of their early faith, as platform to rail against Christianity.

Wherever you are rational, literal belief in the OT stories is not one of them - or if it is, you cheapen what it means to be "rational". Indeed, vishvahetu's beliefs are just as rational in comparison.