|
Post by Audrey on Nov 19, 2002 16:18:57 GMT -5
If they have children, the children could be mentally retarded, disabled, cripled, or worse. This I learned in my Health class. If someone has children with a member of the family that child is gonna be messed up 2 out of 3 cases.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Nov 20, 2002 10:55:21 GMT -5
<<I'm a bit rusty on my bible studies her, but: Didn't someone in the bible marry his cousin?>>
The Bible mentions it, but that does not mean it's all right to do.
<<This is one of the reasons I'm an Agonostic. As a Christian, you are expected to do what the church believes is the right thing, not necessarily what you think. >>
Should traffic laws and other regulations in society be ignored too?
<<I think your friend should be accepted. The church needs to open up and accept realities. >>
Strict churches tend to grow more quickly than liberal churches. <<Either way, I don't see a problem with cousins marrying. >>
As pointed out later, it's likely to cause serious health problems if they want children.
<<Well, think of it this way - why do we accept differences in the world? >>
Do we really?
<<If the world is an open place, why is the church not? >>
Actually the church does not keep any one out. But if you're going to be a member of the church, you have to follow it's beleifs. If you don't and don't like what that chruch teaches, don't go.
<<A church with looser rules doesn't mean a church with no principles. If the church didn't care, there wouldn't be a church. >>
Yep, that's why some churches close down, no members, and the ones that have left don't like the softer stance on what is right and wrong. Stricter churches actually gain more and more members.
|
|
|
Post by unsunghero on Jan 2, 2003 17:28:15 GMT -5
If they have children, the children could be mentally retarded, disabled, cripled, or worse. This I learned in my Health class. If someone has children with a member of the family that child is gonna be messed up 2 out of 3 cases. Actually, I don't think it's that severe. The children run an only slightly higher risk of significant genetic disorders- about two percentage points higher than the average 3% to 4%. The Bible mentions it, but that does not mean it's all right to do. Actually, the bible supports cousin marriages. The patriarch Jacob married two of his first cousins, Rachel and Leah; Issac and Rebekah were once first cousins removed. The Roman Catholic Church has opposed cousin marriages for more than a millennium but gives dispensation to cousins considered "worthy." The Bible mentions it, but that does not mean it's all right to do. Should traffic laws and other regulations in society be ignored too?[/quote] There's a big difference between regulations in society and religion. Traffic laws are in place to ensure peace on the roads, whereas religion seems to have caused more conflict in the past and present.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jan 3, 2003 4:34:51 GMT -5
Frankly as to the original argument, this church sees dating between cousins to be morally repugnant. They have the right to that view, and as a private organization have the right to restrict membership.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope has the absolute authority to create religous doctrine and interpret it, if he decrees dating between cousins to be abominable then it is.
<<whereas religion seems to have caused more conflict in the past and present. >>
This argument as you present it is full of crap.
Where has non-religion or atheism caused peace in past or present? An obvious and shining example of this society where religion is erased is in the former Soviet Union. What a peaceful place that was.
A better argument would be that peace ensues in secular societies that are supported with individuals with strong moral convictions that act to hold up the moral fiber of that society. Religion provides a stabilizing force in societies, and they tend to deteriorate as the morals of society do. Of course religion gone haywire through theocracy and fundementalism creates chaos, but so does the complete absence of it.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jan 3, 2003 10:02:03 GMT -5
While it is true that the Bible does not caution against marrying cousins, it would be a mistake to assume that it's not a problem to marry family members. Marrying your cousin is as close to marrying your mother or father as it gets. And there's something weirdly uncomfortable about that thought. Here's more on the subject.
Forbidden Marriages Passage
Between parents and children Leviticus 18:7-8 Between stepparents and stepchildren Leviticus 18:8, 17 With your paternal or maternal aunt Leviticus 18:12-13 With your uncle or aunt Leviticus 18:14 Between brother& sister and half-brother & half-sister Leviticus 18:9 Between stepbrothers and stepsisters Leviticus 18:11 With your daughter-in-law Leviticus 18:15 With your sister-in-law Leviticus 18:16 With your granddaughter Leviticus 18:10 With your step-granddaughter Leviticus 18:17 This is a complete list of marriages that God forbids. This list includes those found in Leviticus 20:11-21; Deuteronomy 22:30; Deuteronomy 27:20-23; and 1 Corinthians 5:1. But marriage with a first cousin is not prohibited. Scripture does not prohibit marriage between first-cousins. Yet, there are several things to consider. First, it would be a serious error to say more than what scripture has said or to add to scripture. Second, we are assuming that when you married in the United States you did not violate any of the laws in the state in which you were married. If you are not sure, we would encourage you to check with a lawyer in that state. Here is a general summary of United States law regarding marriage from Law Connect!™, but it is important to remember that the laws vary from one state to another. In most states, the parties must be of the age of majority (18) to enter into a valid state of marriage . . . For individuals below the age of majority, parental consent is ordinarily required. Uncles and aunts may not marry nieces and nephews; in some states, first cousins are invalid. Marriages between persons who are closely related by blood are void- it is as if the marriage never took place.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jan 3, 2003 10:09:23 GMT -5
Actually, I don't think it's that severe. The children run an only slightly higher risk of significant genetic disorders- about two percentage points higher than the average 3% to 4%.
So is the risk worth it just to prove a point?
The Roman Catholic Church has opposed cousin marriages for more than a millennium but gives dispensation to cousins considered "worthy."
Which they have every right to do. Don't like it, don't go. There's a big difference between regulations in society and religion. Traffic laws are in place to ensure peace on the roads, whereas religion seems to have caused more conflict in the past and present.
A law is a rule is a law. Makes no difference who makes them. And your arguement is flawed about religion causing problems. Remember the wars were caused by zealots and extremists, not regular followers. I guess following that line of thinking, Harvard, the Red Cross, Mother Teresa, and Habitat for Humanity are big trouble makers. It is not religion that causes problems, it is how it is used. And like anything, religion can be used to enlighten, or oppress.
|
|
|
Post by unsunghero on Jan 3, 2003 15:21:00 GMT -5
Frankly as to the original argument, this church sees dating between cousins to be morally repugnant. They have the right to that view, and as a private organization have the right to restrict membership. And I was under the impression that the Church followed the Bible. Guess not. I suppose they're "entitled" to fiddle with its contents as they please. This argument as you present it is full of crap. Where has non-religion or atheism caused peace in past or present? Did I say that non-religion/Atheism has caused peace? No, I did not. Nor did I imply that. Between stepparents and stepchildren Leviticus 18:8, 17 I thought the Church was against divorce? Or do they also have the right to hand-pick who is "worthy"? Second, we are assuming that when you married in the United States you did not violate any of the laws in the state in which you were married. I believe some states outlaw marriage between first cousins, but some don't, as long as they do not bear children. And others, I think, have no laws against it at all.
|
|
|
Post by unsunghero on Jan 3, 2003 15:23:36 GMT -5
So is the risk worth it just to prove a point? No, I was simply informing the poster of the facts. Which they have every right to do. Don't like it, don't go. Nowhere in my post did I say they did not have the right to. I don't like it, therefore, I don't go.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jan 4, 2003 0:22:39 GMT -5
<<And I was under the impression that the Church followed the Bible. Guess not. I suppose they're "entitled" to fiddle with its contents as they please.>>
No, the Church is not bound in stone to the teachings of the Bible. The word of the Pope is Church law, as the Pope is the living successor to Peter. Pontifical decrees, tradition, and Biblical teachings qualify as Church law, the Bible is not the only source.
<<Did I say that non-religion/Atheism has caused peace? No, I did not. Nor did I imply that.>>
Well, when you say that religion causes war, then one would imply that you believe the absence of religion causes peace. How else then in your theory could peace be achieved?
<<I thought the Church was against divorce? Or do they also have the right to hand-pick who is "worthy"?>>
The Church is against divorce, but that doesnt mean that it doesnt happen. The Roman Catholic Church does not grant divorces, but it does give annulments in special cases.
|
|
|
Post by unsunghero on Jan 4, 2003 0:53:20 GMT -5
Well, when you say that religion causes war, then one would imply that you believe the absence of religion causes peace. How else then in your theory could peace be achieved? I don't have a particular theory for peace. I was pointing out that religion seems to have caused conflict, particularly in the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jan 6, 2003 7:33:28 GMT -5
When you say "religion," do you mean the discipline itself or the men that actually fire the weapons? It would be more accurate to say that the followers of an extremist group are the ones causing trouble in the ME.
Yassar Arafat and surrounding nations are doing a good job with it too. Strange, since 50 years ago they signed a bill ALLOWING Israel to settle where it is. It's not Israel that's causing the trouble. The reason Israel expands its borders is to create a buffer zone of protection.
In fact, it is Yassar Arafat that's causing the trouble. What kind of a leader would drive his people to think that strapping bombs to your body and going out in blaze of body parts is the only way to win? And they're trying to recruit children on the way.
|
|
|
Post by Ich Liebe Rammstein on Jan 8, 2003 20:55:53 GMT -5
I don't think it's wrong. and they should mind their own business.
|
|