• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Believing Because of Rather Than In Spite of the Evidence...

There are some complexities to that which are cultural context. There is a principle in Judaism where something that involves a human life can be substituted with something of equal monetary value (or approximate) He could have substituted a dozen bulls or something. He did not.

Absolutely. There's an OT passage somewhere (either Exodus or Leviticus) which outlines that the value of an unborn fetus did not hold the same value as a human life; i.e. if you killed a pregnant woman you would be put to death, but if you merely caused her to have a miscarriage while assaulting her, you only paid a paltry fine.


OM
 
Absolutely. There's an OT passage somewhere (either Exodus or Leviticus) which outlines that the value of an unborn fetus did not hold the same value as a human life; i.e. if you killed a pregnant woman you would be put to death, but if you merely caused her to have a miscarriage while assaulting her, you only paid a paltry fine.


OM

No, it's a different concept (although that concept is there and valid). Think of the story of Abraham and Issac. Instead of sacrificing his son, Abraham substituted a Ram for the sacrifice instead. The same thing could have been done instead of sacrificing a daughter.
 
No, it's a different concept (although that concept is there and valid). Think of the story of Abraham and Issac. Instead of sacrificing his son, Abraham substituted a Ram for the sacrifice instead. The same thing could have been done instead of sacrificing a daughter.

On a related note, there's also nothing to suggest that the tale of "Jephthah and his daughter" was anything more than another in a long line of legendary folk tales and oral traditions, redacted and reduced to writing, in an effort to forge a national religious identity in the face of possible cultural assimilation.


OM
 
No, it's a different concept (although that concept is there and valid). Think of the story of Abraham and Issac. Instead of sacrificing his son, Abraham substituted a Ram for the sacrifice instead. The same thing could have been done instead of sacrificing a daughter.

What about Lot's incest with his daughters?
 
On a related note, there's also nothing to suggest that the tale of "Jephthah and his daughter" was anything more than another in a long line of legendary folk tales and oral traditions, redacted and reduced to writing, in an effort to forge a national religious identity in the face of possible cultural assimilation.


OM

That is true. It , however , is a piece of literature that is supposed to teach some lessons.. don't blindly give a promise when you don't know what you are promising.
 
What about Lot's incest with his daughters?

I always had trouble with that one.. except to have it as the importance of blood lines (You have to remember that Hebrews were obsessed about that). To me, however, it looks like the traditional 'blame the victims).
 
That is true. It , however , is a piece of literature that is supposed to teach some lessons.. don't blindly give a promise when you don't know what you are promising.

Bingo. That INDEED was the moral lesson evident - don't make rash decisions or blind promises.


OM
 
What about Lot's incest with his daughters?

The law against incest was not given until later in Leviticus 18:6-30...up until that point it was not considered a sin...how do you think Cain got a wife, if not from one of his sisters?
 
What about Lot's incest with his daughters?

Their father offered them to a crowd of strangers, the world was coming to a cataclysmic end, their mother got nuked, and they escaped to an isolated mountaintop cave thinking all humanity had been wiped out. Other than it reflecting a desire to repopulate the earth, this tale also serves as a structural basis as to the foundation of the Moabites and Ammonites (the biblical descendants of Lot’s daughters). All this tawdry biblical talk also bears to mind the passage about how one of Noah’s sons had “done something to him” when he was passed out drunk and naked. Was this another ideological reference to the cursed nature of the Jewish people?


OM
 
The law against incest was not given until later in Leviticus 18:6-30...up until that point it was not considered a sin...how do you think Cain got a wife, if not from one of his sisters?

Cain's wife came from the Land of Nod. Speaking of which... who were those people?

ETA: I take that back; the Bible does not make it clear.


OM
 
Last edited:
The law against incest was not given until later in Leviticus 18:6-30...up until that point it was not considered a sin...how do you think Cain got a wife, if not from one of his sisters?

What the Bible DOES make clear however is that there were other people “in the lands to the east”, and that these strangers presented a credible threat to Cain. Further, the Bible only refers to Cain as being subject to being a “wanderer”; however not for the rest of his life. Based on the biblical time line (below), it would strongly suggest that Cain's wife came AFTER his time of wandering had come to and end, and would therefore not be his sister (and instead be one of those "other people" from the lands to the east):

a) God drove out Cain as a wanderer (nomad), but nothing mentioned about any other person.

b) "Other people" out in the world will want to kill Cain, but nothing mentioned about any other person traveling with him.

c) God will enact vengeance upon any of these "other people" if they were to kill Cain. Says nothing about his brothers or cousins, or uncles, or what have you. Specifically refers to them as separate people.

d) Cain began life as a nomad by traveling to the east.

e) Cain had a son with his wife. This is the first mention of anyone other than Cain, and comes at a point when it appears he has stopped wandering. According to the biblical tales, Cain didn’t wander his whole life; he actually developed roots and started his own culture and built the city of Enoch.

a) Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth;
b) and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
c) And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
d) And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
e) 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
. –Genesis 4:14-17

Therefore it is fairly demonstrable that the tales outline being driven out as a solitary nomad, eventually encountering other people in another land, then settling down, having children, and building city. In that precise order, it is fairly easy to discern that his wife was not his sister (or even his cousin; a possibility that was not mentioned).


OM
 
Last edited:
There were no other people at that time except for those who came from adam and Eve...you forget Adam lived to be 930 years old...he could've fathered many children...

"After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died." Genesis 5:3-5
 
There were no other people at that time except for those who came from adam and Eve...you forget Adam lived to be 930 years old...he could've fathered many children...

"After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died." Genesis 5:3-5

I am not forgetting anything as to the contents of the biblical stories. Remember, this isn't history (our species has never had a lifespan of 900 years; that's just mythology). You however are overlooking what the BIBLE EXPRESSLY SAYS. I took the time to break down each single verse for you, and in doing so demonstrated quite aptly that Cain's wife came afterwards (after his "wandering", and before his city building).

ETA: And don't forget all those "other people".


OM
 
Back
Top Bottom