The Invasion that is underway:

[Toxick]

Didnt you read Toxic's post? Christians are allowed to be intolerant and hate filled.

Please quote me where I said ANYTHING LIKE that.

The rest of your post is equally full of horse ####, and everything you accused me of you're guilty of yourself threefold.





So, you can kiss my hate-filled ass.

 

[This_person]

I'm about to head to a meeting so i cant parse these like i would normally lmao but which one of those states a Man can not bang his own daughter? There are lots of Men dont bang Mom, Sisters, Sister in laws, Mother in law and Neighbors wife, but nothing related to a Mans actual daughter. Not to nitpick but that is the one sexual relation left out of those verses.

Nope:

Lev 18:17 "'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter..." See, if she's YOUR daughter, you had sex with her mother.
Then it goes on to: " Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness." This leads to the clear implication, also, that it is wrong, not "good to bang your daughter".

 

[This_person]

Here is the full quote



Your grasping, It says do not have sex with a Mother and her daughter, but its not talking about YOUR daughter, its talking about hers. Its a totally different discussion than you having Sex with your OWN daughter.

Thats pointed out in LEV 18:9


If the command was to NOT bang your own daughter, it would have been spelled out, its not.

And it lists all sorts of punishments for those that break those commands, but there isnt anything about if you Bang your own daughter.

Whew, that was hard to follow.

Let me ask this very basically - can you have sex with your daughter without having sex with a woman and her daughter? Keep IVF out, we're talking just the biology that is inherent in human procreation.

 

[This_person]

Thats not the verse, because in other verses there is a qualifier about If the Mother/Wife/etc is alive. The verse is stating do not have sex with A mother and HER daughter. Lott was not doing this, he was having sex (hah i'll stop using bang) with both of HIS daughters, not a Mother and both of HER daughters.

Sorry i know you believe its a quibble, but EVERYTHING else about a Father and HIS daughters (Sons do not have Sex with your Fathers Daughter, she is your Sister) is spelled out.

It is NOT spelled out that a Father can not have Sex with HIS daughters, it just isnt.

The only qualifier I saw regarding being alive was regarding a man's wife's sister while his wife was still alive.

You're really reaching, don't you think. What makes one "close relative" different from another, besides having it specifically spelled out (other than where it is when it says sleeping with both a woman and her daughter)?

 

[This_person]

No, not really, you have to remember what a Womans role was, and how they were thought of and treated during that time.

Its its a matter of distinction, EVERY other reference to whom you may not sleep with, is VERY SPECIFICALLY spelled out in those verses. There is no Gray area for EVERY ONE OF THOSE SPECIFIC commandments.

The ONLY one that isnt spelled out, is Fathers sleeping with their OWN daughters. It is not there.

Mother can not seep with son (Check)
Father can not sleep with son (Check)
Son can not sleep with sister (Check)
Father can not sleep with daughter (Missing)

I am in no way taking away the "OOgie" factor, nor am i trying to claim that Christians sleep with their own daughters....

they are to busy fondling the altar boys

You're reading an assumption in where none is required. My daughter is the daughter of a woman with whom I've had sexual relations (it pretty much always works that way), and that covers step-daughters as well with one fell swoop. It's crystal clear, and you're attempting to make mud of clear water to prove your point.

 

[libby]

if you don't accept Christ...trouble

I have not read this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm going off whatever-topic you guys are on now.
As I read Scallion's oft repeated lamentation (done out of love ) that athiests on this board will "get it" at the moment they face Jesus, a thought occurred to me, and perhaps if we take the planks out of our own eyes we can have more amiable discourse.
When athiests do not accept Christ, who's fault is it? Christians were charged with bringing His light to the world. It seems to me that the fault is at least a 50/50 split, if not more like 80/20. True, free will is involved, but I think there is a lot to be desired in the approach of some Christians (Italian, you're one of them), and the lives some Christians lead (Catholic leadership that has abused, whether in the Middle Ages or 21st century).
What God has given us is irresistable, IMO; therefore, we have failed to care for His Word and His other children (I still maintain that all are His children, IT) as we should have.

 

[ItalianScallion]

I have not read this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm going off whatever-topic you guys are on now.
As I read Scallion's oft repeated lamentation (done out of love ) that athiests on this board will "get it" at the moment they face Jesus, a thought occurred to me, and perhaps if we take the planks out of our own eyes we can have more amiable discourse.
When athiests do not accept Christ, who's fault is it? Christians were charged with bringing His light to the world. It seems to me that the fault is at least a 50/50 split, if not more like 80/20. True, free will is involved, but I think there is a lot to be desired in the approach of some Christians (Italian, you're one of them), and the lives some Christians lead (Catholic leadership that has abused, whether in the Middle Ages or 21st century).
What God has given us is irresistable, IMO; therefore, we have failed to care for His Word and His other children (I still maintain that all are His children, IT) as we should have.

Just got back from a week at the beach but I'll revive this one. Here is one prime reason why God doesn't allow women to lead His church. It's not based on what you FEEL at the time. It is based on what works and what doesn't. There are times to be gentle and times to be tough. Our troops have found that winning the war does NOT involve being gentle. We tried nice warnings and they didn't work so now it's time for war. Jesus was nice at times and very brash at other times. Christians start out with "nice" but sometimes have to play "hardball" because it's an unpopular thing to be a Christian. Yes, there are times when Christians really mess up a witnessing opportunity. Our individual personalities are part of our witnessing but, when atheists do not accept Christ, IT'S THEIR FAULT! Even if we mess up the opportunity for them then, God will give them another chance you can be assured of that.
And, as far as removing planks from our eyes, how would you know that "my approach" isn't right? Your wrong assumption is NOT based on God's word but on the way YOU think and feel it should be done. You do NOT believe what God Himself says in His word but you'll take the "uninspired" word of some men from long ago and therein lies the main reason why you JUST DON'T GET IT. Read the book IN CONTEXT and see how Jesus and Paul & Peter did things and you just might figure it out on this side Libby.

 

[Xaquin44]

Just got back from a week at the beach but I'll revive this one. Here is one prime reason why God doesn't allow women to lead His church. It's not based on what you FEEL at the time.

so .... women only follow their feelings?

have you ever actually known a woman?

I mean besides just the first name of a check out girl or something.

(not saying that only girls are checkout girls etc.)

 

[This_person]

Its pretty clear the Bible does not condemn a man having sex with HIS daughter.

The only way you can derive that is by adding something to the verses that are not there.

I really don't see how you get that. Seriously. Let's look at it again:

17 "'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's
daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. (This is the one you claim absolves Lott, your intrepretation is that this is a Catchall. Notice it does not make a definitive statement about a Father having sex with HIS Daughter, or HIS Granddaughter. The weight of the statement is not on the Man, but with a WOMAN and her Daughter. That is not the same as a Man's Daughter. AND...Lott was not having sex with a woman and her Daughter, remember his wife was a table condiment (salt))​

You say it does not make a "definitive statement" about a father and HIS daughter.

So, let's examine that. Look at the line in bold. Please explain the circumstance you can come up with where a man would have sexual relations with his daughter and NOT have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. IVF aside, as that is not natural. This must be a natural process where a man has a daughter with a woman, yet has not had sexual relations with that woman. Once you come up with the example, we can discuss who is reading into (or out of ) this prohibition.

 

[This_person]

Lott
His wife was a pillar of Salt. Lott was not having sex with a Woman (because she was salt) and her Daughter.

But, he'd has sexual relations with the woman, so her daughters were off limits. The only time the woman's death was a reason to alter the rules is given, a wife's sister.

You are adding your intrepretation to the verses

The verses state you can not do. You can not have sex with a Woman and HER Daughter. It does not state that you can not have sex with YOUR daughter.

No, YOU are adding interpretation into it in that you're stating it has to somehow be within a certain time frame (sorry, that didn't work for Slick Willie, and I don't see how it works here). There is simply no scenerio where a man can have a daughter without having had sexual relations with the daughter's mother, thus making it specifically off limits (as opposed to implicitly off limits from the first verse - the rest being for the lawyer in us all when we have a hot step-cousin ).

There are instances of where it uses Fathers Daughter, Mothers Daughter, Son's Sister etc. No where does it state that a Man can not have sex with his own Daughter. You can imply it, but its YOUR own addition to the verses, there is nothing against it in the Bible.

The times it puts those qualifiers on there is obvious - when a father's wife is not the person's mother, or when a woman has children from a previous spouse, therefore they are to be treated as blood family, etc.

You're really trying hard here, and I give you credit for tenacity on a lost point, but there's simply no way to get around the fact that a man's daughter came from sexual relations with the daughter's mother.

 

[This_person]

To further expand upon this, In Ezekial 22:11 it uses Fathers Daughter (if you read the full statement its talking about your sister).

If the questionable verse meant YOUR Daughter why didnt it use it? (because it wasnt talking about YOUR daughter)

Because your father's daughter may not be your sister, but your half sister. It uses the words necessary to get the point across.

It didn't need to specify the father's daughter, because that would have left out a father's step daughter. The wording it uses encompasses all things necessary.

 

[tommyjones]

Because your father's daughter may not be your sister, but your half sister. It uses the words necessary to get the point across.

It didn't need to specify the father's daughter, because that would have left out a father's step daughter. The wording it uses encompasses all things necessary.

so if it does indeed say that it is wrong to have sex with ones own daughter, what was the punishemnt for lot and the girls?

i mean god ust got done bustin a bunch of shiat up over bad behavior, why not punish lot for breaking his rule?

 

[This_person]

so if it does indeed say that it is wrong to have sex with ones own daughter, what was the punishemnt for lot and the girls?

i mean god ust got done bustin a bunch of shiat up over bad behavior, why not punish lot for breaking his rule?

A fair and reasonable question. I have no idea what the answer is, but that's a fair and reasonable question.

That the answer is not directly given, though, does not in any way detract from the prohibition against incest (LEV 18:6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.) Again, the book is not complete, and in no way does it seem to claim to be complete. Just what you need to know.

 

[tommyjones]

A fair and reasonable question. I have no idea what the answer is, but that's a fair and reasonable question.

That the answer is not directly given, though, does not in any way detract from the prohibition against incest (LEV 18:6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.) Again, the book is not complete, and in no way does it seem to claim to be complete. Just what you need to know.

actually, its more like someone alluded to earlier. A committee of PEOPLE decided what works written by other people went with the story they wanted to tell.

 

[This_person]

actually, its more like someone alluded to earlier. A committee of PEOPLE decided what works written by other people went with the story they wanted to tell.

Okay? Does that mean you think it is or is not saying father/daughter incest is okay?

I'm not debating the accuracy of the Bible stories - I'm debating the accuracy in reading the Bible stories.

 

[foodcritic]

Very Clear

Its pretty clear the Bible does not condemn a man having sex with HIS daughter.

The only way you can derive that is by adding something to the verses that are not there.

More than likely? the Council of Nicea struck any verses pertaining to it, because Lott was used as an example of a Just and Devout Man (Even though he offered up his daughters to the crowd). If they kept in verses that condemn a Man for having sex with his Daughters, it would call into question the verses pertaining to S&G.

Apparently Knucklehead does not realize that a daughter may be considered a close family member(relative). But why such simple logic escapes him?

LEV 18:6 "'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.


Of course in his worldview sleeping with a close family member may or may not be acceptable based on what day of the week it is....
Ok so he no moral basis to define sleeping with his daughter as wrong, so what. As long as no children are spawned after all the libs have been pushing sexual liberation for the last 50 years.

It's ok Knuck just do it.

 

[tommyjones]

Apparently Knucklehead does not realize that a daughter may be considered a close family member(relative). But why such simple logic escapes him?

LEV 18:6 "'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.


Of course in his worldview sleeping with a close family member may or may not be acceptable based on what day of the week it is....
Ok so he no moral basis to define sleeping with his daughter as wrong, so what. As long as no children are spawned after all the libs have been pushing sexual liberation for the last 50 years.

It's ok Knuck just do it.

if that is the case, then why was lot not punished for banging BOTH of his daughters?

 

[foodcritic]

if that is the case, then why was lot not punished for banging BOTH of his daughters?

How do you know he wasn't??? I would have to check to see if it's recorded. If it's not recorded that does that mean God did not punnish him in some way....? Of course not. The greater context is that it was a forbiden act. I don't even know how this topic really got started anyway. But kudos to knuck to continue to parce words and meanings.

"It depends what the meaning of is, is" WJC "that is a quote"

 

[tommyjones]

How do you know he wasn't??? I would have to check to see if it's recorded. If it's not recorded that does that mean God did not punnish him in some way....? Of course not. The greater context is that it was a forbiden act. I don't even know how this topic really got started anyway. But kudos to knuck to continue to parce words and meanings.

"It depends what the meaning of is, is" WJC "that is a quote"

not really....

it depends on what the meaning of the sotry is. if the meaning of the story is that sexual depravity is wrong, then Lot and his daughters should have been punished. if the meaning is that homosexuality is wrong, then the lack of punishement indicates that incest is OK, at least at that point in time.

 

[foodcritic]

not really....

it depends on what the meaning of the sotry is. if the meaning of the story is that sexual depravity is wrong, then Lot and his daughters should have been punished. if the meaning is that homosexuality is wrong, then the lack of punishement indicates that incest is OK, at least at that point in time.

I don't refer to it as a story. In the sense that it is made up but rather a re-telling of someones life. So the story could have many meanings. It could imply or state many truths in it. It would require a simple reading but also to make more sense..faith. There are many diffacult things in the bible. Some we will not fully grasp on this side of life. I never expected Lot's story to be one that was hard to understand. But since we can't reall agree on what the meaning of is is then I fully understand our confusion.