Elton John: "Jesus Would Support Gay Marriage"

[The Scientific States]

And these wives came from....

Adam and Eve.

So...incest?

[Genivaria]

Isn't everyone born from incest according to Christianity?

I mean, it claims there was once only one man and women. Once they have children, if their children mate the it would be incest and so on.

Not necessarily.
Cain is mentioned to have a wife after he kills his brother. Which implies that more people than just Adam and Eve exist.

Not unless she was just one of his unnamed sisters.

[Draica]

1. I'd like you to first retract your appeal to popularity statement from your argument before I answer your question.

So, you're refusing to answer my argument. And, I'm not appealing to popularity. I don't see the point in you bringing that up.

Yes, you were appealing to popularity. I pointed that out.

And no, I'm not refusing to you, I simply think it's necessary for you to retract that unnesscary bit of your argument. If you dont', I will still answer your question, simply suggesting..

[Shie]

They had wives, you're also ignoring the flood.

That really doesn't answer anything, it just leads to another situation of all humans coming from incest.

It does, those closely related people were killed in the great flood.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And these wives came from....

Adam and Eve.

So they married their sisters. Incest.

[JesusOfNazareth]

Isn't everyone born from incest according to Christianity?

I mean, it claims there was once only one man and women. Once they have children, if their children mate the it would be incest and so on.

No, according to Genesis, which is mostly bs. I'm assuming you're talking about the Creation Story, and not only would it be incest, it just doesn't make sense. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel...How did they reproduce?

I'll answer this, but get back to topic.

Except for notables, the Bible sadly doesn't mention a lot of women. If the older Jewish texts are taken into consideration, Adam had a mate before Eve. After the murder of Abel, Cain found his wife in the land of Nod. We can either assume that there was incest among the children of Adam and Eve, or that eventually there was an introduction of the Cain and Lilith bloodline into the Adam and Eve bloodline.

[The Batorys]

Elastic socks are as sinful as gay marriage.

Repent, sinner.

Did you eat shrimp cocktail? If so, you're going to hell, sinner.

No, but I did eat some ham. Guess I'm doomed to spend eternity in hell with Shie and all the gays.

[The Scientific States]

That really doesn't answer anything, it just leads to another situation of all humans coming from incest.

It does, those closely related people were killed in the great flood.

Only Noah's family was supposedly on the ark. So, more incest.

Plus, the flood was after the creation story.

[Genivaria]

That really doesn't answer anything, it just leads to another situation of all humans coming from incest.

It does, those closely related people were killed in the great flood.

Moses and his family are the only ones left.
Where does humanity come from if there's no incest?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It does, those closely related people were killed in the great flood.

Moses and his family are the only ones left.
Where does humanity come from if there's no incest?

Noah, not Moses.

[The Scientific States]

So, you're refusing to answer my argument. And, I'm not appealing to popularity. I don't see the point in you bringing that up.

Yes, you were appealing to popularity. I pointed that out.

And no, I'm not refusing to you, I simply think it's necessary for you to retract that unnesscary bit of your argument. If you dont', I will still answer your question, simply suggesting..

You're only bringing this up so you don't have to answer my questions. I read the article on appealing to popularity, and just because my opinion is "popular", it does not mean I'm appealing to popularity. Now, would you like to provide an argument, instead of dodging mine by making false accusations?

[Shie]

It does, those closely related people were killed in the great flood.

Only Noah's family was supposedly on the ark. So, more incest.

Plus, the flood was after the creation story.

On the ark they were cousins, they weren't as closely related as the children of Adam and Eve.

[The Scientific States]

No, according to Genesis, which is mostly bs. I'm assuming you're talking about the Creation Story, and not only would it be incest, it just doesn't make sense. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel...How did they reproduce?

I'll answer this, but get back to topic.

Except for notables, the Bible sadly doesn't mention a lot of women. If the older Jewish texts are taken into consideration, Adam had a mate before Eve. After the murder of Abel, Cain found his wife in the land of Nod. We can either assume that there was incest among the children of Adam and Eve, or that eventually there was an introduction of the Cain and Lilith bloodline into the Adam and Eve bloodline.

That's odd, it seems like you're not taking the bible literally, which you claim to do.

[The Scientific States]

Only Noah's family was supposedly on the ark. So, more incest.

Plus, the flood was after the creation story.

On the ark they were cousins, they weren't as closely related as the children of Adam and Eve.

Your point being...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, according to Genesis, which is mostly bs. I'm assuming you're talking about the Creation Story, and not only would it be incest, it just doesn't make sense. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel...How did they reproduce?

I'll answer this, but get back to topic.

Except for notables, the Bible sadly doesn't mention a lot of women. If the older Jewish texts are taken into consideration, Adam had a mate before Eve. After the murder of Abel, Cain found his wife in the land of Nod. We can either assume that there was incest among the children of Adam and Eve, or that eventually there was an introduction of the Cain and Lilith bloodline into the Adam and Eve bloodline.

Why are you using apocryphal texts to prove your point?

[Genivaria]

Moses and his family are the only ones left.
Where does humanity come from if there's no incest?

Noah, not Moses.

Whoops, my bad.

[Shie]

On the ark they were cousins, they weren't as closely related as the children of Adam and Eve.

Your point being...

Mosaic law stands.

[The Batorys]

And these wives came from....

Adam and Eve.

So gay sex is bad, but incest is fine?


Okaaaaaaaay.... we should respect your beliefs, why, again?

[The Greater Hyperborean Realm]

On the ark they were cousins, they weren't as closely related as the children of Adam and Eve.

Your point being...

I think his point was that incest is relative.

[The Scientific States]

Your point being...

Mosaic law stands.

How did you get from incest to mosaic law?

[MERIZoC]

Adam and Eve.

So gay sex is bad, but incest is fine?


Okaaaaaaaay.... we should respect your beliefs, why, again?

Because icky gays.

[Genivaria]

Only Noah's family was supposedly on the ark. So, more incest.

Plus, the flood was after the creation story.

On the ark they were cousins, they weren't as closely related as the children of Adam and Eve.

I hear banjos playing.
And in the long run it doesn't make a difference how distantly related you are, if the ONLY marriage material are related to you in some way that's gonna fuck up the kids in just a few generations.

[The Batorys]

That really doesn't answer anything, it just leads to another situation of all humans coming from incest.

It does, those closely related people were killed in the great flood.

Leading to even more incest.

I swear, this is starting to sound more incestuous than Game of Thrones.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Your point being...

I think his point was that incest is relative.

Ouch.

[Draica]

Yes, you were appealing to popularity. I pointed that out.

And no, I'm not refusing to you, I simply think it's necessary for you to retract that unnesscary bit of your argument. If you dont', I will still answer your question, simply suggesting..

You're only bringing this up so you don't have to answer my questions. I read the article on appealing to popularity, and just because my opinion is "popular", it does not mean I'm appealing to popularity. Now, would you like to provide an argument, instead of dodging mine by making false accusations?

Your argument is an appeal to popularity and you know it, perhaps in future discussions you will be more willing. Now, to your question, we're supposed to take the Bible literally.

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.

Anymore questions?