Ranchhoddas:
People are naturally not attracted to members of their family, the same way we are naturally averse to suicide or mass murder. That is why he said that religion or culture are simply secondary regulators against such behaviour. We are evolutionarily primed to see them as wrong. That's his argument.

Who says people are not attracted to members of their family? There are those who would disagree which is why we have incest in the first place. There are those who know no other attraction besides an internal one. Why are they like that? Is it that evolution failed them or is there another reason why they are primed differently from others or grew to become like that?

Culture existed from day one as culture is simply social behavior or human intellectual achievement. Both have always existed from day one so, nobody can claim that culture came afterwards. The moment man began to speak and act be they in grunts or however, culture had begun. The moment man began moving and picking up objects and knowing what to cook and what not to cook culture had begun so it came along with man. What we have today are modifications of culture but who can say what was modified or what was original if you were not told or if you were not present at the start?

Religion on the other hand began as beliefs. If i know i can eat some nuts and it can cure my stomach ache then thats a belief. If i know i can mash sosme leaves together and drink its juices and get relief then thats a belief. Religion as well has always existed. He cannot say one came later when they all coexisted.

Ranchhoddas:
People are naturally not attracted to members of their family, the same way we are naturally averse to suicide or mass murder. That is why he said that religion or culture are simply secondary regulators against such behaviour. We are evolutionarily primed to see them as wrong. That's his argument.

And further to that I also got an insight. That at no time did he ever espouse Amorality. In fact I don't know any atheists that do so. Atheists are just as moral as christians or moslems.
The point he was making was on the SOURCE of the morality. Agentofallah explains the moral impulse in Evolutionary terms. The christians just say 'God did it'.

According to Darwin Evolution would naturally select AGAINST incest. That revulsion that we naturally have for incest may later be attributed to a God by superficial persons but the fact that it has it's origins in evolutionary factors remain unchanged.

hopefulLandlord:
You and I both know your account is new but the person behind it isn't new

you created this monicker when perhaps your other monickers were banned in the hardmirror thread 26th Nov 2016, your first posts were on that thread

I don't have time for useless back and forth over something trivial, login with your main monicker and I'll be glad to reply you IF you're not whom I'm strongly (evidence by post history) suspecting you are

I honestly do not want to think you have issues. If you wish not to answer my question then do not do so rather than saying i am some character i do not know about.

^ive chosen to ignore you till I see contrary evidence showing you're not the person I'm suspecting you are

please bear with me

availableisme:


Who says people are not attracted to members of their family? There are those who would disagree which is why we have incest in the first place. There are those who know no other attraction besides an internal one. Why are they like that? Is it that evolution failed them or is there another reason why they are primed differently from others or grew to become like that?

We all have a survival instinct. Yet there are people who commit suicide.

Just because you have a few people doing something doesn't mean that Evolution hasn't by and large favoured the opposite.


ps. have you any word on Abraham's incestuous relationship with Sarai, his wife? Or Jacob's with Leah and Rebekah?

PastorAIO:



And further to that I also got an insight. That at no time did he ever espouse Amorality. In fact I don't know any atheists that do so. Atheists are just as moral as christians or moslems.
The point he was making was on the SOURCE of the morality. Agentofallah explains the moral impulse in Evolutionary terms. The christians just say 'God did it'.

According to Darwin Evolution would naturally select AGAINST incest. That revulsion that we naturally have for incest may later be attributed to a God by superficial persons but the fact that it has it's origins in evolutionary factors remain unchanged.

Is there proof that evolution deselected incest? If it did then why do people still either practice it or have cravings towards it? Why didnt evolution also deselect homosexuality or Hatred or bitterness as those are all emotionally driven same way incest is.

hopefulLandlord:
^ive chosen to ignore you till I see contrary evidence showing you're not the person I'm suspecting you are

please bear with me

No qualms. Suite yourself

Ranchhoddas:
People are naturally not attracted to members of their family, the same way we are naturally averse to suicide or mass murder. That is why he said that religion or culture are simply secondary regulators against such behaviour. We are evolutionarily primed to see them as wrong. That's his argument.

What is your argument?

PastorAIO:


We all have a survival instinct. Yet there are people who commit suicide.

Just because you have a few people doing something doesn't mean that Evolution hasn't by and large favoured the opposite.


ps. have you any word on Abraham's incestuous relationship with Sarai, his wife? Or Jacob's with Leah and Rebekah?

I always try to stay on topic so try and do same please. I am too focused to be baited.

You are actually giving proof to what i am saying. Who determines where evolutionary involvement begins and when it ends when there are so many emotionally driven vices around. So why say incest was an evolutionary deselection when it most likely isnt.

Muafrika2:
It has already been tested:

Hitlers Germany,
The Marxism of the Soviet Union
The Chinese and their Maoism

Terrible results¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

... but These are not atheists govt...... Oh, Whatever? It's like talking to a brick wall.


Please do some research and add the Atheist Empire of Ashoka the Great of the Mauryan Empire to your list of atheist nations.

As simple as ABC...

PastorAIO:



And further to that I also got an insight. That at no time did he ever espouse Amorality. In fact I don't know any atheists that do so. Atheists are just as moral as christians or moslems.
The point he was making was on the SOURCE of the morality. Agentofallah explains the moral impulse in Evolutionary terms. The christians just say 'God did it'.

According to Darwin Evolution would naturally select AGAINST incest. That revulsion that we naturally have for incest may later be attributed to a God by superficial persons but the fact that it has it's origins in evolutionary factors remain unchanged.

shadeyinka:
Civilization is defined as:
1. An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people;
2. A stage or system of social, political,or technical development.

Most of the cultural norms we have today have Theistic basis behind them. The concept of Morality is mostly theistic in origin.

Today, we have a culture that forbids incest almost throughout the world. I would want us to focus only on this vis-à-vis: The Wonderful Logics of Atheism and INCEST!

How you ever wondered how the world would be when Atheism becomes the worlds only "religion"?

Let's look at a typical Atheist logic about a theme as homosexuality. Most atheists are heterosexual BUT they see nothing wrong with Homosexuality because as far as they are concerned, as long as

1. The act of homosexuality is consensual
2. The Homosexuality is between Adults
3. The sexual act is hurting no one
Then, it should be respected as a NORMAL and VALID way of life and sexual expression.

Today, let's use the same logic for incest.
Fathers, Mothers, Children (adults) having consensual sex with each other as acceptable sexual orientation.

Now, to Atheists on Nairaland,(assuming pregnancy is ruled out)
Would incest be acceptable way of life?
Should this be encouraged ?
Would this be immoral?

Or (as a single question)

What is the stance of Atheism on Incest?

The answer you give will show us whether civilization will Collapse under the rule of Atheism or Advance.

I am sure that few atheists will respond to this: it is like giving them a rope to hang themselves.

Cc:
winner01 , kingebukasblog , scholar8200 , Muafrika2 Dejideji1 , MrPresident1, OLAADEGBU, Hardmirror, Raphiemontella, Donffd, KingEbukasBlog, anas09, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, analice107, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, lalasticlala, seun, Farmerforlife, 4evergod2, naijadeyhia

Yinka my friend i would have loved to stick around for long but this is one of those topics that Atheists would rather refuse giving direct answers to or they would shift the discussion to something else which has already been attempted on me. Do not expect anything from this thread. Shalom

availableisme:
[/b]

I always try to stay on topic so try and do same please. I am too focused to be baited.

You are actually giving proof to what i am saying. Who determines where evolutionary involvement begins and when it ends when there are so many emotionally driven vices around. So why say incest was an evolutionary deselection when it most likely isnt.

I thought the topic was about Incest.

As far as I can see the topic is a disingenuous attempt to link our innate aversion for Incest to Atheism in order to make us feel repulsed by incest.

However it fails to take into account the fact that the bible is full of incest, approved of by Yahweh.

Who determines where evolutionary involvement begins and when it ends

To someone who understands the full scope of Evolution theory it's involvement is all encompassing, it is used to explain absolutely every phenomena. In other words it begins everywhere and doesn't ever end.

I appreciate that you looked for scientific research to back up some of your claims. Although, we must know that unless a conclusion is repeatable, its value as a scientific conclusion is low.

AgentOfAllah:

Admittedly, religion, much like culture, promotes certain evolutionarily advantageous traits in terms of norms and taboos. Yet, you're wrong to attribute things you lack an understanding of to theism. Many old religions are silent on endogamy, yet incest has always been a social taboo in societies where these archaic religions were practiced.

You will know that in most cultures incest was a taboo as you have said but based on theistic ideologies: "it is a sacrilege which pollutes the land, something the 'gods' frown at etc". Incest doesn't fall under social cultures like the culture of respect, cleanliness, etc. It falls under the guide of the gods and that is why no primitive society can say why inbreeding is wrong but somehow, they just class it as wrong ( because the gods say so).

AgentOfAllah:

This makes it clear that religion and culture are merely secondary reinforcers of our aversion to incestuous relationships. In fact, this aversion isn't just human, there is insurmountable evidence that it is panmammalian (see Pusey, A. and M. Wolf (1996). "Inbreeding avoidance in animals." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11(5): 201-206.).

"Inbreeding avoidance in animals" exist but not overwhelmingly the most common observation of sexuality in animals. I want to submit that among animals, the main cause of outbreeding is because of stronger sexual attraction based on "stronger smells" based on difference in family odors among animals (sorry, I am not a biologist so pardon my lack of use of proper technical words). i.e. animals from the same stock have familier scents and therefore not as sexually pungent as animals from other families.

However, in case of humans, its not just an aversion to inbreeding or preference for out breeding but a societal rejection usually based on the fact that it makes the gods angry.

AgentOfAllah:

Clearly, the underlying common denominator here is that incest avoidance is patently a consequence of natural selection. Murray R.D. has addressed this exhaustively in his peer reviewed article (see Murray, R. D. (1980). "The evolution and functional significance of incest avoidance." Journal of Human Evolution 9(3): 173-178.). In his conclusion, he suggests that:
"...the primary function of incest avoidance is rooted in the origins of biparental reproduction in that it serves to maximize genetic variability necessary for adaptation. In accord, the human incest taboo is likely an extension of this biological predisposition, which does not exclude its incorporation in a multitude of additional social functions that have been addressed previously by several authors (Levi
Strauss, 1970; Slater, 1959)."
Obviously, from a natural selection viewpoint, pregnancy (that is, reproductive viability) is the natural factor from which the morality of mammalian aversion to inbreeding is derived, not any culture/religion. So you can't just whimsically assume it is ruled out and then proceed to debunk a hypothetical argument.

The argument of "Natural Selection" favouring outbreeding is weak and is just a speculation. Natural selection must present the evidence that cultures who practice inbreeding became weaker and died out. Hence, this evidence should have some historical basis why inbreeding is avoided by subsequent generations and cultures. However, apart from modern scientific studies, no ancient/primitive culture know the reason why inbreeding is not moral.

AgentOfAllah:

That said, having consensual sex with your family members will not cause any kind of far reaching damage to society, nor will it destroy civilisation (except your definition of civilisation has got something to do with sexual practices).

I just picked a narrow aspect of civilization which is about incestuous sexuality. That is why I removed "inbreeding" from the equation (since scientifically we know that it is adverse to a healthy population). The question then was that would incestious living promote or demote our sexual culture?

AgentOfAllah:

To answer your 3-pronged questions on incest (supposing pregnancy is ruled out, like you say):
1) It is an acceptable way of life.
2) It should neither be encouraged nor discouraged.
3) It was implicit in my explanation above, that morality is a by-product of evolution. Incest is no more (im)moral than exogamy.

Thanks for being straight to the point. Logically speaking, that should be the position of rationalism. However, won't this make us as "uncultured" as brute animals?

A father wakes up to have himself and his son have a party on his 19 year old daughter. What then becomes of civilization

Civilization:
-An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people;

-A stage or system of social, political, or technical development.

Would this atheistically acceptable culture be organised? Or isn't this a chaos?

Would you say that this atheistically acceptable culture is a system of development?

AgentOfAllah:

While you're apt to contemplate the moral dilemmas of incest, be mindful that it is not a topic to be brushed over with partial reflectiveness. For one, it doesn't help to oversimplify complex human behaviours into religion/culture/morality; and it sure as hell helps to understand the role of cognitive bias in your musings and thought processes.

My postulate was that adverse for invest has strong theistic influence. Atheism has no aguement for morals. Atheism argues for rationality and freedom of expression. The combination of these two ultimately destroy the fabric of our social existence when pursued without briddle.

AgentOfAllah:

Finally, atheism has no stance on incest! You may find many atheists opposed to it, as you may find ones favourable towards it. The only stance of atheism (and all atheists) is that there is no evidence for god. The clue is in the definition of the word "Atheist".

I think you are oversimplifying things here.
Atheism is adversed to speculations and subjective conclusions of which Theists are accused of. The position of incest is defined as immoral by theists but looking at it atheistically, it isn't immoral (it could even be an acceptable way of life as long as no one is hurt). The consequence of " no evidence for God" if you are agnostic or "there is no God" if you are gnostic atheist is what we are dealing with.

If everything was based on evidence and rationalism (a stance promoted by atheism), incestuous living is justifiable but, this will destroy cultured living and civilization. Theistically, everything is NOT based on evidence and rationalism hence, incestuous living is unjustifiable and civilization is left at status quo.

shadeyinka:

Today, we have a culture that forbids incest almost throughout the world.

This is obviously a normal trend of civilization. Just as we still have culture that neither criminalizes or victimizes incest -

Incest is sexual activity between family members or close
relatives.

This typically includes sexual activity between people in a consanguineous relationship (blood relations), and sometimes those related by affinity , such as individuals of the same household , step relatives, those related by
adoption or marriage , or members of the same clan or
lineage .

shadeyinka:

I would want us to focus only on this vis-à-vis: The Wonderful Logics of Atheism and INCEST!

You will do well to state this your "wonderful" logic.

shadeyinka:

[b]How you ever wondered how the world would be when Atheism becomes the worlds only "religion"?

You will do well to isolate yourself from bunch of NL mischievous and ignorant apologists who don't know the basic differences between religion and a mere belief system.

*an end of religion is an end of implicit and explicit idiocy and delusion, of the religious type.

*an end of religion, is an end to vicious hatred, victimization, segregation and terrorism.

*an end to religion, is an end to indoctrination of children against critical reasoning, creative thinking inhibitions, and rejection of inimical myths and superstitions.

*an end to religion, is an end to psychological traumatizing of children with horrific, monstrous and ubiquitous skydaddy, that poke nose around and will throw them to hell, if its nonsensical rules are not obeyed.

shadeyinka:

Let's look at a typical Atheist logic about a theme as homosexuality. Most atheists are heterosexual BUT they see nothing wrong with Homosexuality because as far as they are concerned, as long as

1. The act of homosexuality is consensual
2. The Homosexuality is between Adults
3. The sexual act is hurting no one
Then, it should be respected as a NORMAL and VALID way of life and sexual expression.

Another puerile and foolish vomit of a typical apologist, on atheistic position.

Atheists accept in the present, homosexuality as a variant and NOT deviant sexual orientation. Based on this knowledge, they shouldn't be subjected to harassment, victimization and criminalization, based on religious laws, that are in the first place not informed by any known sound or scientific reasoning.

shadeyinka:

Today, let's use the same logic for incest.

That same logic? I have told you the definition of that "same" logic as nonsensical.

shadeyinka:

Fathers, Mothers, Children (adults) having consensual sex with each other as acceptable sexual orientation.

Now, to Atheists on Nairaland,(assuming pregnancy is ruled out)
Would incest be acceptable way of life?
Should this be encouraged ?
Would this be immoral?

Or (as a single question)

What is the stance of Atheism on Incest?

Wrong questions on wrong premises.

shadeyinka:

The answer you give will show us whether civilization will Collapse under the rule of Atheism or Advance.

Non religious beliefs have advanced the world, to beautiful and beneficial level we are witnessing. As against the primitive and stone age that religion will prefer it remains.

shadeyinka:

I am sure that few atheists will respond to this: it is like giving them a rope to hang themselves.

This further confirm the disease of "over assumption in idiocy", that plagues most apologists. No one is as pathetic as a chronic case of religious delusion.

Oga to every rule, there will always be few exceptions, are there no Christians commiting incest? In fact, majority of the incestuous people are not atheists as they always blame the Devil whenever they are caught.

availableisme:


Who says people are not attracted to members of their family? There are those who would disagree which is why we have incest in the first place. There are those who know no other attraction besides an internal one. Why are they like that? Is it that evolution failed them or is there another reason why they are primed differently from others or grew to become like that?

Culture existed from day one as culture is simply social behavior or human intellectual achievement. Both have always existed from day one so, nobody can claim that culture came afterwards. The moment man began to speak and act be they in grunts or however, culture had begun. The moment man began moving and picking up objects and knowing what to cook and what not to cook culture had begun so it came along with man. What we have today are modifications of culture but who can say what was modified or what was original if you were not told or if you were not present at the start?

Religion on the other hand began as beliefs. If i know i can eat some nuts and it can cure my stomach ache then thats a belief. If i know i can mash sosme leaves together and drink its juices and get relief then thats a belief. Religion as well has always existed. He cannot say one came later when they all coexisted.

availableisme:


Is there proof that evolution deselected incest? If it did then why do people still either practice it or have cravings towards it? Why didnt evolution also deselect homosexuality or Hatred or bitterness as those are all emotionally driven same way incest is.

Darwin's theory has 2 factors. The First is Randomness. The second is Natural Selection.

Randomness produces all sorts of traits, but the Natural selection part favours some of the traits more than others.

Anas09:

What is your argument?

Lol! You do not want to know love.

---

I have mentioned you on that Ecclesiastes thread. I am yet to see your reply.

availableisme:
Religion as well has always existed. He cannot say one came later when they all coexisted.

True , religion has always existed . Even the Pre-Adamites were religious , as far as 300,000 thousand years ago, they practiced what is called urreligion .A from of natural religion or natural theology the type the deists practice . Even the Pre-Adamites with their low intelligence did understand that nature had a creator . Urreligion was said to be of divine origin , it was monotheistic in nature though arguable . It then progressed into animism then organized religion which came with polytheism and used as a tool for exploitation and mass control purposes .

hopefulLandlord:
^ive chosen to ignore you till I see contrary evidence showing you're not the person I'm suspecting you are

please bear with me

Your detectors appear to improperly configured this morning. This is a different person.

akintom:

This is obviously a normal trend of civilization. Just as we still have culture that neither criminalizes or victimizes incest -

Incest is sexual activity between family members or close
relatives.

This typically includes sexual activity between people in a consanguineous relationship (blood relations), and sometimes those related by affinity , such as individuals of the same household , step relatives, those related by
adoption or marriage , or members of the same clan or
lineage .


You will do well to state this your "wonderful" logic.




You will do well to isolate yourself from bunch of NL mischievous and ignorant apologists who don't know the basic differences between religion and a mere belief system.

*an end of religion is an end of implicit and explicit idiocy and delusion, of the religious type.

*an end of religion, is an end to vicious hatred, victimization, segregation and terrorism.

*an end to religion, is an end to indoctrination of children against critical reasoning, creative thinking inhibitions, and rejection of inimical myths and superstitions.

*an end to religion, is an end to psychological traumatizing of children with horrific, monstrous and ubiquitous skydaddy, that poke nose around and will throw them to hell, if its nonsensical rules are not obeyed.




Another puerile and foolish vomit of a typical apologist, on atheistic position.

Atheists accept in the present, homosexuality as a variant and NOT deviant sexual orientation. Based on this knowledge, they shouldn't be subjected to harassment, victimization and criminalization, based on religious laws, that are in the first place not informed by any known sound or scientific reasoning.




That same logic? I have told you the definition of that "same" logic as nonsensical.



Wrong questions on wrong premises.




Non religious beliefs have advanced the world, to beautiful and beneficial level we are witnessing. As against the primitive and stone age that religion will prefer it remains.



This further confirm the disease of "over assumption in idiocy", that plagues most apologists. No one is as pathetic as a chronic case of religious delusion.

Surely if you have taken your time to observe this thread nobody has been rude or insulting to anyone here until you brought yourself into the mix. You would do well to simmer down a few notches and speak intelligently and respectfully. If you have inner problems which propelled you to speak in this manner then deal with them and do not transfer them to people who know nothing or have anything to do with your inner disputes.

shadeyinka:


I had to close my mind at a stage not to imagine the kind of unruly society where God is finally buried. Hope full landlord himself if he had a Dane gun will pursue you all the way to the gates of paradise on reading the about your description of the utopian society where he and his likes are the majority.

But seriously speaking, the end result of atheism is organized chaos!

This is the kind of society they want. Besides sex, they are free to kill whoever they dislike, afterall life means nothing. But pray for them to die and see.

Once, i responded to Oga at the top. I said "Dont worry very soon you shall die and then get to find out if there's God or not".
The comment sparked fear in Oga that he got me banned for 2months. He said i threatened him with death. I no fit laf. Imagine me some saying something like to me, i wont even rememeber it after 5mins. Yet someone got so rattled that he took such drastic action.

And, that's someone who doesn't believe that someone is waiting for him at the end of the road.

They have double personality issues.

The human in them has believed these things because satan said so, the demons in them can't stop thinking of hellfire that awaits them.

KingEbukasBlog:


True , religion has always existed . Even the Pre-Adamites were religious , as far as 300,000 thousand years ago, they practiced what is called urreligion .A from of natural religion or natural theology the type the deists practice . Even the Pre-Adamites with their low intelligence did understand that nature had a creator . Urreligion was said to be of divine origin , it was monotheistic in nature though arguable . It then progressed into animism then organized religion which came with poytheism and used as a tool for exploitation and mass control purposes .

Truth is, i did not even need to research it. All i did was simply reason it out and you are confirming it from research. Its something a simple reasoning out would be able to decipher and know that Religion and culture have always been there.

shadeyinka:


Food don't land o!
Atheism will destroy this civilization!

Yes they will, but we won't be here when they will do so. Even when the Antichrist comes, he will want to be god and be worshipped. I don't know what these people are even about.

PastorAIO:


Darwin's theory has 2 factors. The First is Randomness. The second is Natural Selection.

Randomness produces all sorts of traits, but the Natural selection part favours some of the traits more than others.

I know about evolution and it does not explain everything contrary to what you might think. Its still a hypothesis in the works. Statistically randomness cannot produce order so lets not go there.

If Natural selection is true then why did it not also deal with anger and hatred and bitterness since they are all emotional driven same way incest, homosexuality and sodomy are?

Ranchhoddas:
Why have you ignored the only sensible comment on your thread so far; AgentofAllah's comment?

---

AgentofAllah has been bold, straight forward, courteous and logical with his presentations. If you checked, you will see that I have replied him.

Your own view pls?

Civilization and ORDER go hand in hand. When order is destroyed based on Atheistic rationality, show me how this order is maintained.

Show me that respect within families will become stronger as a result of incestuous living. Show me the advantage the promotion of incest will give to civilization.

Ranchhoddas:
Oga to every rule, there will always be few exceptions, are there no Christians commiting incest? In fact, majority of the incestuous people are not atheists as they always blame the Devil whenever they are caught.

Is Sexual Immorality encouraged or a Sin in the Bible? If yes can you say a Christian who commits it is still a Christian?

Ranchhoddas:
People are naturally not attracted to members of their family, the same way we are naturally averse to suicide or mass murder. That is why he said that religion or culture are simply secondary regulators against such behaviour. We are evolutionarily primed to see them as wrong. That's his argument.

That's not true . There are so many people who have confessed to having sexual attraction to their sibling or even to their parents . I strongly believe that when you are taught from childhood that such is abominable then you become repulsed by the idea .

I mean even animals are attracted to their siblings and even parents are attracted to their young ones .


And I have not heard of natural aversion to suicide or mass murder . Ask the atheist mass murderers .

In China during Mao's regime over 1 to 3 million were reported to have committed suicide .

So these prove your assumptions wrong .

LambanoPeace:



Hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha


Are you kidding me? Well, let them answer if homosexuality is OK and why inbreeding isn't.

availableisme:


Truth is, i did not even need to research it. All i did was simply reason it out and you are confirming it from research. Its something a simple reasoning out would be able to decipher and know that Religion and culture have always been there.

I was studying the origin of religion yesterday night when I discovered that . While atheism came during the final centuries of BCE (about 2,500 years ago) . Religion has always been with man .

Ranchhoddas:
Your detectors appear to improperly configured this morning. This is a different person.

I might be wrong about who is behind it but I'm pretty sure that person isn't new, all monickers created on 26th Nov 2016 and whose first post is on the Hardmirror thread minutes after creating the monicker isn't really new

hopefulLandlord:


tell me why Paedophilia is not OK using quotes from your Bible

tell me where your god abolished slavery in the bible

tell me the punishment for raping virgins according to your Bible

societal laws sheets on any divine law

Keep your head above water and post the verses where the Bible commanded us to rape each other.

Or Paedophilia in the Bible? Maybe in your own not mine.

Societal laws that are set or godliness or atheism?