Woman Has Baby With Her Grandson – Liberals, Is This Morally Wrong?


Via Ace of Spades HQ, from New Idea:

What makes Pearl’s decision to become a mum again even more shocking is that her new boyfriend is her biological grandson, 26-year-old Phil Bailey.

Twelve months ago, Phil made the shocking admission that he wanted a child. Pearl told him she was desperate for a baby as well, but it was one wish that she couldn’t fulfil as she’d already gone through menopause.

The determined pair then decided to use Pearl’s retirement money to find a surrogate mother and buy a donor egg to inseminate with Phil’s sperm. They placed an ad asking for an open-minded surrogate, and Roxanne Campbell applied. The three met up a few times and hit it off.

So the baby is not genetically related to her (directly), just to him. No chance of inbreeding of genes here, nosiree.

So, liberals… Is this morally wrong and gross-out, if they had never met before this there is no chance of genetic problems caused by the close familial relationship? Think carefully about same-sex rights and They’re two consenting adults who love one another so what’s wrong with that before you answer… You fundie bigot.

See also Ultimate Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch: Incest is The Next Liberal Sexual Revolution and Consensual Incest – Atheists Please Tell Me Why It Is Morally Wrong for past discussions and justification of non-breeding incest by some.

See also these two articles on demands that incest be accepted just as homosexuality was.

An oh yes:

I’m My Own Grandpa
by Guy Lombardo

Now many many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow who was pretty as can be
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her and soon they too were wed

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
My daughter was my mother ’cause she was my father’s wife
To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him br’ther
Of the widow’s grown-up daughter who was also my stepmother

Father’s wife then had a son who kept them on the run
And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter’s son
My wife is now my mother’s mother and it makes me blue
Because altho’ she is my wife, she’s my grandmother too

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I’m her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
For now I have become the strangest case I ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa

Oh I’m my own grandpa
I’m my own granpa
It sounds funny I know,
But it really is so
Oh I’m my own grandpa

UPDATE: Switzerland debates legalizing incest! So why are US liberals being such anti-love bigots when it comes to private decisions between two consenting adults behind closed doors?

UPDATE: Here you can see citations where people think sex between father and adult, consenting daughter is okay. What do you say?

46 Responses to “Woman Has Baby With Her Grandson – Liberals, Is This Morally Wrong?”

  1. Robert Says:

    Still trolling for controversy, eh Scott? Why don’t you get a life and focus your attention on solving problems versus griping about things?

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    I’d hate to disappoint my faithful commentors, Robert! But please… After you lol!

  3. Simon Thong Says:

    Get your own blog, Robert. May save you from the green-eyed monster.

  4. Robert Says:

    Too early in the morning. Need to sit with good friends and have several beverages before we solve the world’s problems….again.

    What in the world are you talking about, Simon?

  5. Simon Thong Says:

    Coffee is more to my liking in the morning. Are’t you acquainted with the green-eyed monster, Robert?

  6. Robert Says:

    Well, no Simon. I have a one eyed monster between my legs but I am not familiar with the green eyed monster, unless, of course, it’s the one I see when I look in the mirror because I have green eyes? I save the lustier libations for evening discourse when I know I will not be driving a car or fiddling with guns, however, I will bash the strings of any of my electric guitars. The neighbors love me.

  7. Simon Thong Says:

    Young man next door bashed away at his electric guitar 10pm-2am for some months, terrific noise! Luckily, he lost interest. Then, my youngest son took up the guitar but I made sure he bashed away in silent mode with headphones on. He’s happy and we and neighbours retained our peace and quiet. The green-eyed monster? Envy.

  8. Ron Says:

    How could it be wrong when the Bible sanctions incest? Abraham married his half-sister Sara. Plus he had a little side action with her maidservant Hagar — with Sarah’s urging!! (Gotta love a wife who insists you bone her maid) His brother Nachor married his niece Melcha. Lot slept with and impregnated his daughters after they got him drunk (the first recorded case of date rape). But wait, it gets even more kinky. Jacob married two sisters, who also insisted he sleep with their maids in a bid to outdo each other in the childrearing race. Poor Jacob must have been “petered out” from all that bed-hopping.

    Then there’s Amran, who married his aunt Jochabed, who bore him two sons: Aaron and Moses.

    And if Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, as the Genesis account suggests, then Cain must have married one of his own sisters.

    So God’s been A-OK with incest since day one.

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    I answered this line of inquiry twice before, I think.

  10. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, to put it kind, has a short memory.

  11. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, to put it kindly, has a short memory. But then, atheists who come to this post have a one-track mind. They harp on the same issues.

  12. Ron Says:

    So the gist of your argument is that God permitted incest prior to being formally forbidden by Mosaic law, which completely contradicts your stance that God’s moral laws are ABSOLUTE.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/morality-of-absolutes-and-relatives/

  13. Ron Says:

    … unless you meant absolutely inconsistent.

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    I can quite enjoyably lawyer-weasel out of that one if I want to.

    God’s absolute moral law is to avoid horrible birth defects as a result of inbreeding. In the beginning pre-sin and during the first few generations before sin had its mutative effects stack up, inbreeding defects were a non-issue along with relational problems (which sin also causes) and therefore, not immoral. Around the time of Moses, they were.

    Hey presto! And look, a self-citation/link to notch up the hits!

    In other news, one could define ABSOLUTE as ‘having an un-supercedable source as its basis’ (which is the opposite of RELATIVISTIC) rather than ‘forever unchangeable’ (which is rather the opposite of WHIMSICAL)… And also rather than ‘COMPLETELY’ as in your last comment above (which is rather the opposite of TOTALLY NOT).

    Hey presto! English lesson on homonyms!

  15. Ron Says:

    One could define?

    One does define absolute as:

    – something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence
    – something that is free from any restriction or condition.
    – something that is perfect or complete or pure
    – expressing finality with no implication of possible change
    – not capable of being violated or infringed
    – positive; certain: absolute in opinion
    – complete and without restriction or qualification

    There is no wiggle room here.

    If God is the ultimate source of moral values, and he changes them as circumstances dictate, then his morals are not ABSOLUTE; which means he’s indifferent to right or wrong, good or evil because his rules are based on whim.

    Even so, according to the facts presented in this particular case, there is no likelihood of genetic defects due to inbreeding. So God should have no problems with said relationship.

  16. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron is highly talented I think. He can be a good lawyer. His arguments seem to be ‘legitimate’, strong, or ‘formidable’ – especially to his mind, and human logic.

    However, I always said to anyone that it wrong idea to expect God’s works to go or fulfill as we wished; and many of His destiny, His planning are not easily understandable by us. So, our brain logic cannot always be used to justify His works. For example we (human beings) do not understand why innocent babies been killed, etc. etc). Our logic cannot always be a ‘measuremet rod’ to find truth, no matter how intelligent you think you are.

    “Atheists have never lost an argument…!” (I quote my friend Simon Thong). Sense of humour jibe..that make me smile..until now..

    Only God himself knows best.

  17. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron is better and worse than a shark; while they smell blood and hone in for the kill, he smells blood where there is none. He’ll make a great lawyer, the rain-maker kind, that CREATES huge mega-million dollar suits out of nothing. He MUST win, he HAS TO win..how else could he justify leaving his old faith behind and adopting a new one?

  18. Zack T Says:

    One must understand the REASON and MOTIVE of the ‘moral’ laws given…

    Why is incest forbidden from Moses onwards?
    Was it because incest is an immoral thing? or a practice that will prove to be non-beneficial to the generations?

    Why is stealing forbidden?
    Is it because it is immoral to take what is not earned by you? Or was there other reasons?

    Why is jay-walking or walking across the street when the light is red against the law?
    Is it because it is the drivers’ turn to drive pass? or is it because it is for the pedestrians’ safety?

    This begs the questions, what happens when an old lady was crossing the street halfway, and then the light turns red,
    or she didn’t realize the light has turned red…
    and here comes a speeding car from a distance, showing no signs of slowing down.
    What do you do?
    You could… intercept her in the middle of the road and lead her to the other side to safety….. but wait! That’s against the law!
    So, standing by the ‘letter’ of the law, you can only stand at the side and beckon her to walk faster, or stand at the side and beckon the DRIVER to slow down; assuming he notices you at the side.

    Of course, human logic/’morality’ would dictate one to run to the old lady and lead her to safety, instead of standing at the side….
    That’s where the ‘spirit’ of the law comes in… The law was set for the safety of pedestrians… NOT solely to prevent people from crossing the street when the light’s red.

    Same goes for all the laws given from Moses’s generation onwards…
    Why was incest prohibited? because the effects of sin on the world was allowing and worsening gene mutations, and thus it is not ‘right’ to commit incest for one will run into the high risk of producing children with birth defects… (though marriage between cousins to a certain degree is still permitted in this current society)

    It wasn’t that God’s ‘absolute morality’ changed due to circumstances, but that He placed the law or changed it as deemed necessary or right for the benefit of His people…

    I believe that answers your ‘accusations’ that God’s absolute changes, or that God endorses incestuous behaviors…

    PS: by the way, Lot was intoxicated with alcohol and ‘seduced’ by his two daughters… He didn’t do it because he chose to have sex with his two daughters..

  19. Scott Thong Says:

    Zack, Ron knows very well that Lot was stone drunk at the time.

    Just as Dawkins very likely knows that Amnon raped Thamar against her will but still uses it as an example of the Bible ‘justifying’ brother-sister sex.

    And Deedat knew that Jesus’ disciples followed Him after He was arrested, but still claimed cited the passage as proof that the whole crucifixion story was made up since ‘no one saw it’.

    They just hope that no one will look deeper at the passages in question, or don’t care if you respond with a reasoned answer as long as they can make a snark, or often in the case of trolls they just want you to waste time typing ten paragraphs of exegesis before slinging another one-line polemical to perpetuate the cycle.

  20. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Lot was one of the prophets, according to Muslim believe. Muslims never believed he did such things, while drunken or otherwise. So, that particular passage of Biblical verses are highly unacceptable to Muslims. There is absolultely no chance of “corruption” of the Biblical passages whatsoever ?
    Anyone can guarantee it ? Sorry to raise this remaining “old issue”.

    It is true that..for Quran, Caliph Uthman was not a prophet and not free from mistakes; but Peter, John and the company were not a prophets as well. How do we know this after all?

    Perhaps, see what we have in hand. If it riddles with discrepancies or contradictions, then the cause of concern may be real.. The rest, we do not know.

  21. Zack T Says:

    Here’s the thing about Quran VS Bible…

    One claims to be the original and the other a religion that cropped out from the first…
    Both records ‘similar’ events, yet tell very opposing views of the story…
    Both cannot be true at the same time, obviously (though there are people who would believe Quran is the same as the bible… *rolls eyes*)

    So… Quran chose not to record Lot’s ‘incest’ event, but the Bible did..
    does that mean the bible is wrong? or that the Quran just didn’t record the matter? (i’m obviously gonna be biased in favor of the bible; the bible records the truth, not just the ‘pretty’ side of things)

    Quran said Abraham was gonna sacrifice Ishmael, while the bible says Abraham was gonna sacrifice Isaac.. so which did he?
    (According to a bible scholar that I study from, Chuck Missler, he claims with deeper study/research, you can identify that Muslims didn’t descend from Ishmael in the first place… but maybe he’s just biased, as people-biased-to-Muslims would claim. =P )

    However, it’s easier to prove that the bible is un-‘corrupted’, compared to the Quran…
    25,000 ancient manuscripts (greek, hebrew, latin, Christian and non-christian sources, etc).. with some as early as one decade (or less, I can’t remember) after Christ’s death/ascension.
    While the Quran? Several centuries after Jesus’s time, and not even in Israel… (and as far as I understood, barely focuses on Israel or Jerusalem)

    Have a read at this man’s testimony… A Muslim who searched the truth about Christ’s crucifixion. =)
    http://www.answering-islam.org/testimonies/farid.html

  22. Scott Thong Says:

    Ron does have a point though… I don’t believe that the Bible specifically forbids marriage between a man and his maternal grandmother. Anyone else have insight into this?

    However, the Bible does have a stand on having sex outside of marriage. So Mr. Grandfather Paradox is sinful on both counts of grandma and surrogate mother.

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    Lot was one of the prophets, according to Muslim believe. Muslims never believed he did such things, while drunken or otherwise. So, that particular passage of Biblical verses are highly unacceptable to Muslims. – Nasaei

    But at the same time, there are many details about the patriarchs, prophets and kings that the Quran and Hadiths do not cover. The Quran by itself is only about the length of the New Testament by itself, and in any case I believe that it’s not the main focus of the Quran to reiterate the history recorded in the Old Testament.

    So if something is not mentioned in the Quran and Hadiths, and also is not contradicting of what the Bible says, can it be accepted?

    For example, both the Quran and the Bible record that David killed Goliath. The Quran does not mention how he did this, while the Bible says that David slung a stone into Goliath’s forehead. The Quran and the Bible do not say any contradictory things about David vs Goliath (e.g. neither book says that Saul killed Goliath), so you accept what the Bible says in this case?

    So in the case of Lot, if the Quran says he was a prophet and also says that prophets cannot sin, then the Bible’s account of Lot sinning is in contradiction to the Quran’s version. However, I’ve read some arguments on Islamic discussion forums that the Quran and Hadith say that prophets are sinless, while others argue the opposite. Example of the latter:

    http://islamqa.com/en/ref/1684

    What is the correct belief?

    ————————–

    Whether any documents are inaccurately copied can only be decided by comparing different copies. Thankfully, as Zack says, there are tens of thousands of ancient copies of Biblical passages that can be compared today.

    In fact, the NIV often has footnotes saying things like ‘This passage is not in the oldest manuscripts’ or ‘Acccording to so-and-so manuscript, the wording is different’. This may seem to show contradiction, but I see it as giving the reader the background info so we can make our own conclusion as to whether what we are reading is accurate.

    One interesting example of the above: 1st Corinthians 11, see the bottom of the page. One common reading interprets it as women should wear a head covering (similar to tudung), but another reading interprets it as women should have their hair as a head covering (should not be shaved bald).

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    Very nice testimony you linked to, Zack. Reminds me of these testimonies – only it’s an atheist who became a Muslim then an agnostic then a Christian. Thanks!

  25. Ron Says:

    Smooth move, Scott. You ignored my question on God’s absolute morality to attack a strawman argument (Amnon & Thamar — an issue I never even brought up). As to who seduced whom, the fact remains: Lot got drunk and had sex with his daughters… the same man later called a ‘righteous man’ in 2 Peter 7.

  26. Zack T Says:

    Quote from Ron:
    “As to who seduced whom, the fact remains: Lot got drunk and had sex with his daughters… the same man later called a ‘righteous man’ in 2 Peter 7.”

    What the? That’s like saying a girl is at fault and responsible and that she also wanted the sex because she got drugged and was raped by or ‘had sex with’ her date… And also with the date’s brother because he asked him to.

  27. Zack T Says:

    Btw, in case you still believe Lot had anything to do with the idea of ‘incest’ with his two daughters…

    If you read in the earlier parts of the passage… it clearly shows that Lot’s two daughters conspired/secretly planned amongst themselves/contrived/derived/formulate a plan to have sex with him to bare children…

    possible motivation: they just witness a great catastrophe befell Sodom and Gomorrah… the family is all alone by themselves at the moment…
    The girls probably feared that they’ll be no other men to marry and bear children with; thus, their father was the only candidate.

  28. Ron Says:

    What kind of ‘rightetous’ man allows himself to becomes so drunk that he loses all control of his sexual inhibitions? And two nights in a row? I can’t imagine any modern court granting plausibility to the story of a middle-aged man who proffers up severe intoxication as a legitimate excuse for abdicating his parental obligations, especially since there were no other eyewitnesses present besides himself and his two teen-aged daughters. His arguments are further weakened by the fact that he been willing to hand those same daughters over to a mob for sexual defilement only a day prior to fleeing the city.

  29. Zack T Says:

    When a girl is raped while she was unconscious, she can see clear and obvious signs that she was raped…
    1 – virginity broken
    2 – semen

    How does a guy know that he is raped, if he was unconscious?
    What about if the ‘rapist’ ‘cleaned’ him up?

    In that passage, Lot was intoxicated by alcohol, to the point he didn’t even know his girls were ‘riding’ him.
    He was practically unconscious. Can you blame a man who was ‘drunk’ asleep for being ‘raped’?

    And the giving daughter to the mob thing, that’s a whole different issue, while I won’t bother going into, since it’s unrelated to the topic at hand.

  30. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron demonstrates again his pick-and-choose method of using scripture to serve his own purpose.

  31. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    So if something is not mentioned in the Quran and Hadiths, and also is not contradicting of what the Bible says, can it be accepted?

    – Scott Thong.

    It is true Quran doesn’t record things in great details. Even verses about praying, which is so important, it is not prescribed in detail. Then how to pray exactly…Prophet Muhammad demonstrated it to his companions. And Muslims learn from his hadith as well.

    I think it is not a matter of “selectiveness” or “double standard” per se. though it made thing unacceptable or “unfair”.

    For anything which is not been mentioned in Quran or hadith, it is “harus” or “mubah” to believe, as long as it doesn’t go against, or contradicts
    the teaching. But a prophet “committing incest” or illicit sex is not acceptable, not of any category or “harus” to be believe. It clearly goes against the teaching (I mean illigal sex and incest never been acceptable in Islam, anyone, anywhere). It doesn’t fit the frame !

    By the way, do you think, in the whole Bible compilation (66 books) there is NO mentioning about greeting “peace be upon you” ? And prayer should be touching forehead to the ground ? How did Jesus perform his prayer according to sources in and outside Bible ? (if any).

    {A language terminology difficulty here: In contrast to English word “prayer”, asking God’ for something, praising to Him, talking to Him is NOT “prayer” by Muslim understanding; It is “du-a” (doa) not prayer/ praying).

    I heard, some sources said Isa alaihissalam used to pray by touching his forehead to the ground, and he also says “peace be to you” to anyone. Is it true ? TQ

  32. Scott Thong Says:

    Smooth move, Scott. You ignored my question on God’s absolute morality to attack a strawman argument – Ron

    Hey, I think Zack gave a pretty good response. Why need my boiler-plate, ripped-off-from-an-apologetics-site comment? We both know you aren’t asking these questions to see if I can give a good response that might convince you in some way, hmm?

    Lot got drunk and had sex with his daughters… the same man later called a ‘righteous man’ in 2 Peter 7.

    And David is called a man after God’s own heart, despite his adultery/murder. People make mistakes; they sin. The criteria is, do they repent and change their ways, or continue on in them? Honestly, I can’t name one mortal person who has never slipped up before.

    A lord and his servant were out duck hunting. Now this lord was very world-wise, and often mocked his simple-minded servant’s faith. So when he had shot a duck, the bird fell to the ground but did not immediately die. It frantically struggled and made it to the river where the current carried it away out of reach.

    “You see that?” said the lord. “You often talk about your faith, but your own failings make you like this duck – half dead and unable to fly to the heavens! What is the point of you even trying?”

    The servant could not answer, and the lord chortled at his own cleverness.

    Later on, the lord shot another duck – this time the bird fell dead immediately. The servant ran over to bag it. Suddenly, he had an insight.

    “My lord,” the servant said, “It is true that because of my sin, I am like a wounded and pitiful creature, struggling to hold on to life. But at least I have been given the chance to keep on trying – unlike this duck which is already dead!”

    And the lord knew that the servant was referring to his own spiritual state, so kept silent.

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    What the? That’s like saying a girl is at fault and responsible and that she also wanted the sex because she got drugged and was raped by or ‘had sex with’ her date… And also with the date’s brother because he asked him to. – Zack T

    For shame Zack! Our moral betters know that it was totally that 13-year old girl’s fault for forcing Roman Polanski to inebrieate, drug, rape and sodomize her!

  34. Scott Thong Says:

    On ritual prayer, the Jews had their own customs of the time. In fact, they had many practices which are similar to Muslim ones – such as the correct way to wash cleanly.

    I don’t think Christians make any distinction between ‘casual prayer’ and ‘ritual prayer’ the way Muslims do (except maybe the Roman Catholics who have many rituals). Jesus and the Apostles did not give any ‘step-by-step’ method of prayer which we must all follow.

    Christianity is all about a direct relationship with God, which involves a lot of communication (talking as you say), not about rituals. The New Testament stresses many times that we do not need to treat God like a far-off stranger any more – e.g. the veil in the Temple that is meant to separate the holy space reserved for God was torn from top to bottom, we no longer need official priests to talk to God on our behalf but can talk direct.

    In fact, manmade rituals and traditions practised by the Jews were often overturned by Jesus as going against what God intended, e.g. not allowing any activity that seems like ‘work’ on the Sabbath even if it is healing the sick, setting aside something as ‘korban’ for God so that they don’t have to support their aged parents.

    Jesus’ teaching on prayer was straightforward – don’t be showy, don’t it for the sake of looking holy, have faith, have perseverance, and pray for things God would approve of. It’s more focus on the sincerity of prayer than the physical position or detailed instructions.

    Jesus is recorded as praying with His face to the ground or kneeling only once, just before His arrest which began the events leading up to crucifixion. Other times, He is recorded as looking up to heaven,

    He did say the exact phrase ‘Peace be with you’ as a greeting several times after the resurrection, and also said to people ‘Go in peace’ and told His disciples to say ‘Peace to this house’ when they enter.

    PS. Actually, Judaism and Islam have more in common with each other than Christianity. They both have detailed rules and directions for almost every detail of life, have sacrifices, etc. We should compare notes some time.

  35. Zack T Says:

    Hey, Scott.

    Do you have a facebook account?
    if you do, I’d like you to help answer some questions posted by a Muslim friend of mine in a discussion thread from a group page of mine…

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=106597296031682&topic=1&post=162#post162

  36. Scott Thong Says:

    Yup, I have one, and well done on the false Gospels thing. And the apologize to dog analogy is the funniest one I have seen for a long time lol!

    Some factoids regarding things you discuss in that thread. Feel free to repost.

    ——————————————–

    There are internal clues for when the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written.

    1. The book of Acts ends with Paul still in prison.

    2. Tradition says that Luke (the doctor) wrote the book of Luke, followed by the book of Acts. So Luke was finished earlier than Acts.

    3. Luke and Matthew are considered to be based on Mark by Biblical scholars. So Mark is earlier than Luke.

    4. Now back to Acts… History says that Paul was executed by Emperor Nero in 64 A.D. So the very latest that the book of Acts was probably finished is before 64 A.D.

    Based on the above, quite definitely the book of Mark was written within 30 years of Jesus’ cruxifixion (around 33 A.D.). That is a very short time, within the lifetime of people who personally knew Jesus, and who could say “This book of Mark is wrong!” if there were errors or lies in it.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-internal-evidence-from-acts/

    ——————————————–

    [[[#2. Originally Christianity (there isn't any name for it by default), was a teaching by the prophet Jesus PBUH to the people to worship 1 God. That concept was true until people start misinterpreting the whole thing and came up with Trinity. The Greek translation for the word "respect Jesus" turned into "worship Jesus" in English. Deifying Jesus was a flaw that causes #3.]]]

    Here is the actual Greek word:

    http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=4352

    Yes, it can translated ‘respect’, but it is a very, very strong kind that is also used for God.

    Muslims believe Mohammad was the last prophet because he said so. But does that automatically make it true? What about Joseph Smith, who himself claimed to be a prophet?

    ———————————————-

    [[[Won't there be a chance of misinterpretation? And how would you detect such thousand of years misinterpretation? Different style? Doesn't that lead to a possibility of 'altered' version?

    And this is the reason that I see why readers or the Recitation should first understand Arabic to fully comprehend the content. ]]]

    Yes, there is a chance for misinterpretation, but as Mohammad Hisham himself said earlier, there is still the original Greek to go to for the NT, and Hebrew and Aramaic for OT. Christian pastors actually take classes in NT Greek to be able to read the Scriptures in their original language.

    So we actually have the advantage… We can read modern translations (in many languages, not just many English versions). We can read the original ancient languages, whether through Greek-beside-English comparisons or learning the original languages. And most of all, we can actually look at the 2000 year old manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    ———————————————-

    [[[The introduction of halal & haram (what is allowed & forbidden) makes a clear guideline for one to become a better individual, and this concept is absent in Christianity. ]]]

    If you pay attention, you’d know Christianity already knows of halal and haram. The Jews practised it since Moses’ time, and Jesus overturned it and changed the emphasis to the heart. If your motives are evil, that is haram – simple as that! And much more felxible, practical and commonsense than a finite set of detailed laws.

    ———————————————-

    [[[Jesus died for our sins, then why are Christians born in sin?]]]

    Because babies can make decisions, and only once you decide to accept Jesus’ offer of salvation is your sin cleansed. I can’t force you to accept this giant pet python even as a present, you must agree to take it.

    God gives everyone the choice whether to accept Jesus or not. If you want to choose rejecting Jesus, then God will respect that decision.

    ———————————————-

    [[[If Jesus was so willing to die then why on the cross the biblical Jesus said "Father why have you forsaken me?"]]]

    That is the very moment that Jesus took all the world’s sin from past, present and future onto Himself. God the Father is holy and cannot be associated with sin, thus the Father removed His presence from Jesus for the first time since eternity.

    But as for whether Jesus was willing…

    “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” – Luke 22:42

    Of course no one wants to die, particularly in a horribly painful and gruesome manner. But Jesus was willing to do what it takes to fulfill the Father’s will.

    ———————————————-

    [[[Why did the biblical Jesus fell down on is face to pray? -wasn't he praying to God?]]]

    Duh, who else would one pray to? Jesus was very gung-ho on prayer, always telling us how important it is to pray to God.

    ———————————————-

    [[[Did Moses, Abraham, Noah and other messengers think about Jesus PBUH when they spoke about the Lord? Proof?]]]

    After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. – Matthew 17:1-3

    ———————————————-

    I find that I actually can’t add much more to your defenses, Zack. You do an excellent job already and most of the stuff I know you already say, in fact you’re probably the most well versed in apologetics I have met so far!

  37. Ron Says:

    “How does a guy know that he is raped, if he was unconscious?
    What about if the ‘rapist’ ‘cleaned’ him up?”

    How does a man who’s purportedly passed out get it up, never mind keep it up?

    “In that passage, Lot was intoxicated by alcohol, to the point he didn’t even know his girls were ‘riding’ him.
    He was practically unconscious. Can you blame a man who was ‘drunk’ asleep for being ‘raped’?”

    My first question is: why was a ‘righteous’ man drunk in the first place, let alone to the point of being comatose? Didn’t God just destroy an entire population because of its unrighteousness? How is Lot’s family any more righteous than those who were annihilated?

    My second question is: who exactly wrote this story given that Lot and his daughters were the only three people present to tell it? If incest is truly immoral don’t you think they’d all try to keep this little indiscretion under wraps? Or was it because Lot had some serious explaining to do nine months later, so he concocted this story to absolve himself from responsibility? Living In a man’s world where women had no social standing his testimony would have been accepted verbatim. And keeping in mind that a proclivity towards incest seems to run in this family, perhaps it was shrugged off with a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.

    “And the giving daughter to the mob thing, that’s a whole different issue, while I won’t bother going into, since it’s unrelated to the topic at hand.”

    It illustrates the cultural mindset of biblical times; one in which women were considered little more than chattel. A similar tale is found in Judges 19, only this time with more gruesome results. No doubt, ancient barbarism is difficult to defend from a modern perspective that embraces the ideal of social equality. However it serves as proof that God’s timeless, ‘absolute’ morality fails miserably in comparison to man’s ‘relative’ morality.

  38. Ron Says:

    “Hey, I think Zack gave a pretty good response.”

    In North America jay-walking is considered a misdemeanor under a municipal ordinance, rather than a state felony violating moral codes. Does Malaysia enforce Sharia law for the same offense?

    “Why need my boiler-plate, ripped-off-from-an-apologetics-site comment?”

    I thought I was debating Scott Thong’s thoughts on these matters. Now you tell me I’m arguing against the prepackaged talking points from an apologetics site. That’s a rather sad admission.

    “We both know you aren’t asking these questions to see if I can give a good response that might convince you in some way, hmm?”

    So now you’re projecting my thoughts? Or does your reluctance to address the question stem from an inability to formulate a convincing argument? Simply claiming that I wouldn’t accept a coherent argument leads me to conclude you don’t have one.

    “And David is called a man after God’s own heart, despite his adultery/murder. People make mistakes; they sin. The criteria is, do they repent and change their ways, or continue on in them? Honestly, I can’t name one mortal person who has never slipped up before.”

    So what about the people of Sodom & Gommorah? Where was their chance to repent? David at least knew what laws he was violating. The inhabitants of those towns didn’t even have the benefit of a Mosaic Code to guide them. Nor did God send a messenger to warn them away from their evil ways. Seems somewhat unfair and arbitrary, don’t you think?

  39. Ron Says:

    “For shame Zack! Our moral betters know that it was totally that 13-year old girl’s fault for forcing Roman Polanski to inebrieate, drug, rape and sodomize her!”

    The opinions of a few Hollywood celebrities nothwithstanding, Polanski was brought up on charges by the state.

  40. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    All kind of crimes committed by men. Heinous, unspeakable, horrible. Muslims believe everyones will have to face a great trial before Almighty God in the Day of judgment. No one could escape. Those criminals, some of them are elusive, off the hook or already dead and never been judged in this world. Isn’t natural that a great final “trial” is needed ? Hellfire for the wicked bad men; Paradise for those who are believer, devouted and good.

    The messages and warning contain in many scripture ! Whether you believe or not, you’ll be there as well..

  41. Scott Thong Says:

    I thought I was debating Scott Thong’s thoughts on these matters. Now you tell me I’m arguing against the prepackaged talking points from an apologetics site. That’s a rather sad admission. – Ron

    My intent was that much of my defenses would have the same content as any major apologetics site, rather than some wholly original, never heard-before and not in the least influenced by what you have read from others before me. And if I don’t know on hand how to respond, I go to such sites. Whereas I found Zack’s response to be somewhat fresher (at least, different from what I usually hear).

    I take it your own criticisms are wholly original, never-heard before and not in the least influenced by what you have read from others before you?

    So now you’re projecting my thoughts? Or does your reluctance to address the question stem from an inability to formulate a convincing argument? Simply claiming that I wouldn’t accept a coherent argument leads me to conclude you don’t have one.

    Come now Ron. After all this time, tell me honestly that you really believe I don’t have some inkling of what defense to raise. I will tell you honestly that I believe you as a well-read individual are not unaware that defenses of such questions already exist, and are asking them merely for amusement/snarkbait rather than any real intent to learn the answers we have. After all, one line of polemics usually requires several paragraphs of exegesis to properly counter.

  42. Ron Says:

    “I take it your own criticisms are wholly original, never-heard before and not in the least influenced by what you have read from others before you?”

    Of course my thoughts are influenced by the writings of others. To state otherwise would be self-deluded. However, outside of direct quotes, bible verses, and references taken from articles, they are presented in my own words, not cut and paste jobs from another website.

    “Come now Ron. After all this time, tell me honestly that you really believe I don’t have some inkling of what defense to raise.”

    Honestly? Well, it’s my observation that questions with boilerplate answers are addressed almost immediately, but questions requiring critical in-depth analysis (which can’t be gleaned quickly from outside sources) are left hanging in the wind.

    “I will tell you honestly that I believe you as a well-read individual are not unaware that defenses of such questions already exist, and are asking them merely for amusement/snarkbait rather than any real intent to learn the answers we have.”

    Once again you’re projecting. As I’ve stated previously, I’m a skeptic and open to the possibility that a deity might exist. I even provided examples of what it would take to sway me in that direction. The onus now falls on those making the claims to provide the evidence I require to quell my doubts.

    “After all, one line of polemics usually requires several paragraphs of exegesis to properly counter.”

    You mean as opposed to tasking your readers to respond to a single line or two blog entry nestled in a hydra of links, many of which are self-referential and contain a further hydra of links, many of which are also self-referential? ;)

    Besides, my question requires no exegesis. You’ve proposed that God’s laws are timeless, unwavering, and absolute. I’m simply asking how his change of mind on incest fits in with that?

    BTW, wikipedia provides a handy chart to help you figure out what’s incest and what’s not:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18

    I note that sex with your daughter isn’t prohibited, though the text below states the Talmud considered this obvious. It also appears that sex with your grandchild is not prohibited if you are female. So the situation above is double-plus good with God.

  43. Zack T Says:

    “I find that I actually can’t add much more to your defenses, Zack. You do an excellent job already and most of the stuff I know you already say, in fact you’re probably the most well versed in apologetics I have met so far!”

    Wow.. thanks for the compliment. All glory to God. ^_^

    It’d be great to have you join in with the discussion thread too, Scott… or Simon, if you choose to, or whoever else, for that matter.
    I welcome you to join the group (if you have facebook.)

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=106597296031682&topic=1&post=162#post162
    (I’m only able to provide this link, cause I can’t access facebook from work. Sorry for inconvenience.)

  44. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    So what about the people of Sodom & Gommorah? Where was their chance to repent? David at least knew what laws he was violating. The inhabitants of those towns didn’t even have the benefit of a Mosaic Code to guide them. Nor did God send a messenger to warn them away from their evil ways. Seems somewhat unfair and arbitrary, don’t you think?

    – Ron

    Muslims also believe in that Biblical even / story (of Sodom and Gommorah).

    I believe God has given their ample time to repent (in their lifetime). But they didn’t, untill horrible punishments came to them. I understand that (from Muslim’s point of view) in those days sometimes punishments came on time (during their lifetime), however Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
    asked God (Allah) many-many times in his prayer to defer the punissments untill the Day of Jugdement. We believe some peoples are punished in this world; some will be in in hereafter, or both.

    Only God knows best.

  45. Ron Says:

    Only God knows best?

    To me that phrase and others — Who are we to question God’s plan? The Lord moves in mysterious ways? All will be revealed in the afterlife. — come across as cop-out answers to serious questions.

  46. Assymp Tot Says:

    lol Ron, the general usage of “Only God knows best” or “And God knows best” = “Wallahu a’lam” is to indicate that the writer has stated his opinion/views/research to the best of his ability but is, in the end, fallible, and the actual complete truth of the matter at hand is known only by the omniscient and omnipresent God. It’s a bit of a caveat to the reader with disclaimer etc. However the expression can be used in other ways as well, of course.

    Don’t get so bent out of shape too quickly, a bit of research goes a long way :D

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: