Jesus came from an incestuous line

Originally posted by vivify
The bible indicates all humans came from one father and mother, who are Adam and Eve.

[b]The concept of incest is only negative because generally and in the contemporary context, the results of incestuous relations are frequently negative.

Hence, why the frequent incest in Jesus' genealogy is noteworthy. Furthermore, even the bible denounces inc ...[text shortened]... ere in Jesus' family history, either by direct ancestors or close relatives of direct ancestors.[/b]

I get that, but you are missing the point of my post which is about how incest must have been prevelant in man's early evolution due to the restricted population. It didn't seem to have a deleterious effect on our progress under those circumstances and I'm sure that in the biblical model the situation was the same.

Originally posted by KellyJay
God built Hell, and He is going to be sending sinners there, all sinners except those that He
can manage to save.

No he hasn't and no he will not. You are bringing his name into disrepute with this grotesque nonsense. Please stop it.

Originally posted by vivify
https://bible.org/seriespage/10-nakedness-noah-and-cursing-canaan-genesis-918-1032

"Moses did not emphasize the guilt of Noah, but rather the sin of Ham. Some have suggested various types of evil took place within Noah’s tent. While the language employed might leave room for certain sexual sins (cf. Leviticus18)."

So basically pure speculation.

Originally posted by apathist
Your creator gods are all powerful and all knowing, right? So who made hell, and who made people, and who sends people to hell?

They don't sentence people to hell based on morality, instead they punish forever based on faith belief systems. How can you tell if your gods are evil?

Not all Christians believe in eternal hell and it's associated apocalyptic torture.

Originally posted by divegeester
I get that, but you are missing the point of my post which is about how incest must have been prevelant in man's early evolution due to the restricted population.

Not true at all. Although incest has always existed, it has never been a must. Early mans restricted population would never have been so small as to force incest. Figures vary, but Wikipedia says that genetic evidence puts the smallest population ever at about 10,000–30,000 and another figure given is 2,000 for sub-Saharan Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true at all. Although incest has always existed, it has never been a must. Early mans restricted population would never have been so small as to force incest. Figures vary, but Wikipedia says that genetic evidence puts the smallest population ever at about 10,000–30,000 and another figure given is 2,000 for sub-Saharan Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Where did the 10,000 come from?
Or the 2,000?

Originally posted by vivify
Abimilek confronted Abraham about why he told people Sarah was his sister instead of his wife, Abraham said it was out of fear that he'd be killed over her. He then added in Genesis 20:12, "Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."

Genesis 38: Judah impregnated his daughter-in-law, result ...[text shortened]... wives of his father David.

Clearly, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

You quoted Leviticus 18 listing prohibitions against sexual relations between near kinsmen, but you failed to show how any of Jesus' ancestors were involved in those things.

You have also failed to recognize that the law was given about 700 years after Abraham's day. It was customary prior to the law that relatives married in that culture.

Judah is another matter. You need to read the whole story.

As for Absalom, which of David's wives had a child that was in Jesus' lineage?

The characters in the Bible were human. Just like today. We make mistakes. Jesus' lineage is full of sinners of all kinds, but Jesus did not have a human father.

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Originally posted by divegeester
Where did the 10,000 come from?
Or the 2,000?

From previous, larger populations.

Originally posted by divegeester
Not all Christians believe in eternal hell and it's associated apocalyptic torture.

So? Not all professing Christians believe half of what is taught in the Bible.

You're merely excusing yourself from the parts you don't like in an effort to soft peddle your faith so as not to offend. Apparently you're afraid to stand up and believe God when He says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

divegeester: Not all Christians believe in eternal hell and it's associated apocalyptic torture.

Originally posted by josephw
So? Not all professing Christians believe half of what is taught in the Bible.

You're merely excusing yourself from the parts you don't like in an effort to soft peddle your faith so as not to offend. Apparently you're afraid to stand up and believe God when He says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Do you believe in eternal torture in flames that sonship preaches about? You once said you didn't believe it and that it was an error, but you now seem to be suggesting that you subscribe to it. Which is it to be?

Originally posted by twhitehead
From previous, larger populations.

Larger populations of what?
You just said that the initial population was 2,000 or 10,000+

Originally posted by josephw
You're merely excusing yourself from the parts you don't like in an effort to soft peddle your faith so as not to offend. Apparently you're afraid to stand up and believe God when He says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Do you believe everything, literally, that is written in the Bible?


PS: You think I'm worried about offending someone here... How quaint.

Originally posted by FMF
Originally posted by josephw
[b]So? Not all professing Christians believe half of what is taught in the Bible.

You're merely excusing yourself from the parts you don't like in an effort to soft peddle your faith so as not to offend. Apparently you're afraid to stand up and believe God when He says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, ...[text shortened]... it was an error, but you now seem to be suggesting that you subscribe to it. Which is it to be?

Leave him alone, it's Easter and he's trying to be a good Christian.

Originally posted by divegeester
Larger populations of what?

Humans.

You just said that the initial population was 2,000 or 10,000+
No, I did not. I said there was a bottleneck and that genetic studies suggest it could have been as low as 10,000 to 30,000 although the exact figures may be disputed. Certainly there is no good reason to think it was ever low enough to require incest for survival of the species.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Humans.

[b]You just said that the initial population was 2,000 or 10,000+
No, I did not. I said there was a bottleneck and that genetic studies suggest it could have been as low as 10,000 to 30,000 although the exact figures may be disputed. Certainly there is no good reason to think it was ever low enough to require incest for survival of the species.[/b]

I didn't see you mention "bottleneck" and I'm not sure what that means in this context.

If there were more than the 10-30k of humans to mate with then how can the 10-30k be the lowest number?