Aldebaran

MissPlaced_56, Thank you so much for sharing your honest and heartfelt thoughts. For what it's worth, I don't take what you said at any point as being hurtful and I sincerely hope others feel the same way. You've been open and you've not been hateful - this means more to me than I can say. It shows the moral courage and faith we Christians should pray to have as often as possible. Your opening post brought to light something that is seldom discussed with any honesty or seriousness AND provided an opportunity for many to go search the Scriptures for Truth. People may certainly debate the medical science or their personal "ick" factor and the degree to which we should use these to control the risks others take in procreation but the Scriptures are sound. One thing that doesn't change overnight, even when we're confronted with Scripture, laws, or medical facts, is how we feel about something that's been ingrained for many years. You're right that you should not dishonor your parents and grandparents - they raised you with the facts as they knew them and as far as they could know, they had good reason for doing so. May we all be healed and made more in His image daily. God Bless, Aldebaran

Some of the most ardent supporters of abortion are also (perhaps ironically) deeply involved in early childhood development. Some of the early childhood development professionals have determined that learning begins very early on... even in the womb. This is why many pregnant mothers are told to play classical music, talk to their babies as a soothing sound, and so forth. Do these statements not imply that the child in the womb is a learning being? Is not a human being capable of learning a person also entitled to inalienable rights that the rest of us enjoy? Just a thought.

Oops... forgot that Abram, though he was originally from Ur, had already moved to Canaan by the time of his calling. Of course, the point about his lifestyle remains. The Canaanites weren't exactly holy folk either

Minor point of order - Abram and Sarai were half-siblings (not step-siblings), meaning they shared one common parent. We should note that Abram was not a Christian (no such thing yet) or even a Hebrew (again, no such thing yet). When God called him, Abram and Sarai were living in Ur in what is modern-day Iraq. Not having yet been called by God, it's very likely that Abram was a full participant in Chaldean culture, which would have included polytheism, idol worship, and only God knows what else Abram was up to in those days. So, even if God opposed half-sibling marriage before giving the Law to Moses hundreds of years later, He apparently showed Abram tremendous Grace. God seems to have a heart for the little guy - the underdog - because He always goes for the one culture rejects as most (or even partially) worthy. For this, I am thankful. Theology wrapped

Okay, 0username0, so I had a little time to step back and re-read what you previously wrote. I'll try to address this, though I admit that I am neither a mathematician, nor a philosopher. You predicate your proof on the argument that "no sentient being can single handedly count every whole number". On what do you base this argument? If I argue that God is sentient, then, in His omnipotence, I would say that he, like Chuck Norris, not only can count to infinity, but He can do it twice. In reality, I think the problem here is the argument's example. To work around the problem of infinity, you place a finite number (albeit an unknown end) to the number system but then apply an infinite number of sentient beings to count them by each uttering a single number. This makes no sense because you're simply substituting one infinite with another. It's an attempt to make the numbers themselves concrete to avoid the abstraction, which won't work. Ultimately, the problem with using counting as an example is that you apply the skill and purpose of counting to a problem for which it was never designed. The whole purpose of a number system and counting as an action is to solve a problem that has a finite solution. How many apples are in this barrel? If one train leaves Chicago at 5am and the other leaves New York at 7am... These are problems for which counting, in one form or another, is a suitable method. Another problem may be that we do not share a common definition for "sentience". If we cannot agree on a definition, we must either choose another way to agree on what me mean or agree that communication is not possible because we are not speaking the same language. I am aware that there are some who attempt to quantify or objectify sentience (Douglass Hofstadter appears to do so when evaluating the "size of a soul" in his book, "I Am a Strange Loop"). I argue that this is either not possible or not necessary because sentience is simply the state of self awareness. But, I digress.

Okay, so please help me with clarifying my understanding of your question. If I understand your argument correctly, you are arguing against the concept of omniscience with your proof being that an omniscient being is incapable of processing a solution to infinity. Perhaps more precisely, an omniscient being could process infinity and all of the sub-infinities within (for example, there exist an infinite number of real numbers on the number line, these being nested infinites because there exist an infinite number of whole numbers, each with an infinite number of decimal portions). Is that correct?

Oh, boo... I just noticed my binary conversion error! That should say 110 for 6 (binary to decimal). My apologies. Apparently, I badly want 10 Oreo cookies in that little pack! LOL

Once again, you are attempting to compare apples to oranges. That the number line is infinite is an abstraction. In abstraction, it is possible for humans to conceive of and discuss the concept of infinity. In abstraction, an abstract being certainly is not bound by the limitations of time and space and therefore can count 0,1,2,3,4,5,6... ad infinitum (and indeed, ...-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0 AND do both simultaneously!). In the concrete universe, there are NO infinites. Numbers and counting are merely symbols of language and expression used to communicate an abstract idea. How many Oreo cookies are in the bag? If I use a base-10 number system that we're all familiar with, it's 36. It is 36 because we can all agree on the meaning of a 3 and a 6 side-by-side, or, if it were only 6 (the little snack pack), we all agree on the meaning of 6. But if I'm counting with fingers and not using the English language, that abstraction changes. Now, it looks more like IIII/ (my left hand) and \ (my right thumb). To my computer, it looks more like 1010 (or maybe more correctly, a pair of high and low voltage charges). But no matter how you slice it, dice it, count it, or whatever, and no matter how badly I may want there to be an infinite number of Oreo cookies in a package, it just isn't so. So, you see, the ability to count objects ad infinitum does not exist within a finite universe. We are creatures bound by time and space. There is a finite number of stars in that universe (though it may not appear finite). There is a finite distance to the universe's bounds (though we cannot see it, can barely conceive it, and have absolutely NO construct for determining the nature of the boundary or what is on "the other side". External to our finite universe, you have a Creator who is, by His nature (and of logical need), infinite. An infinite Creator has no need to "count" anything because there simply is nothing concrete to count... including the number of natural numbers on the number line.

That's an interesting post, 0username0. I would argue that there are a few places that your theory needs work. I'll ignore the old, well-known explanations for why we can know that God is omniscient and skip right to your use of numbers. First, pi is what mathematicians refer to as an "irrational" number. The digits used to represent pi are a human discovery and method for representing something that was never intended to be and cannot truly be represented in numerical form. In other words, pi, with all of its millions of known digits, is an approximation made for human use. Now, let me tie that in with your use of infinites. Pi is the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle. A circle itself is really only a theoretical construct - there is no such thing as the "perfect" circle described by pi... unless, of course, God is a perfect circle (I'll let everyone think on that for a minute). We should never confuse a concrete infinite (an infinite thing that actually exists within our universe) with an abstract infinite (a theoretical construct, useful in mathematics and philosophy). When we speak of "infinity", we're almost always making this reference in the abstract form. Your description of multiple infinite beings doing different things to achieve a given end demonstrates the problem with the math. What you end up with is unequal infinites, which cannot occur. Consider, for example, if we use a concrete example of infinity: A driver is out on a 10,000 foot long track whereupon he drives an infinite number of laps. His son, Junior, is on his tricycle in the field in the middle of the track, doing little laps on his own 10 foot long track. He, too, rides an infinite number of laps. Who went the farthest? So, you end up with 10,000 x ∞ = ∞ and 10 x ∞ = ∞. Clearly, this does not work because when you cancel out the ∞, you have 10,000 = 10. There are some very useful applications of math in the real world. Every time I drive across a long bridge or ride in an airplane, I thank God that we can apply mathematics to their consistent and safe construction. There are, however, things math cannot solve, and pi is one of them (though it can at least describe it). Love is another. Your second proof does a good job of shooting down the theory of pantheism... I'm sure Luke Skywalker will be crushed to know that it really was just a hokey religion (but the ancient weapons were cool). God is the one and only true, concrete infinity - the Creator of the created (the material universe), having both the power and the will to create, proving His omnipotence, enabling His omnipresence, and, through His transcendence, being omniscient. Indeed, in his infinitude, it is impossible for Him to be otherwise.

Thank you!

I appreciate the concerns that the OP shared because it's definitely a valid question in light of how things are going in our society. In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that I am married to my first cousin and have been for 20 years. We have two delightful children, 17 and 18 years old, who are in perfect health and exceptionally bright. I am also an evangelical Christian and while I'm no Charles Spurgeon, I am probably more familiar with God's Bible than a few others. In the Genesis account, we see several instances of cousin marriage, as we should expect. It's probably obvious to anyone who reads the account of Noah that his grandsons would have had to marry his granddaughters (cousins but probably not siblings). The most famous Genesis cousin marriage was Jacob who married both of his uncle's daughters (his first cousins). Of course, his grandfather, Abraham, married his own half-sister, something that would later be prohibited when Moses received the Law (Leviticus), so we cannot conclude from Jacob's account or these others that we are still permitted to marry cousins. For that, we must look toward the Law handed down to Moses. It is true that the Bible admonishes us to avoid incestuous relationships and with great penalty, depending on the degree of consanguinity (loosely, shared blood). It's important to note that immediately after God commanded Moses that no one is to approach anyone "close of kin", He then defined for Moses exactly what that meant. He specifically mentioned ancestor/descendant relations (i.e., father/daughter, mother/son, grandparent/grandchild). He also mentioned step-parent/step-child (something some of our states actually permit, provided both are consenting adults) and aunt/nephew relations (also permitted in some jurisdictions). What is not mentioned in the Levitical prohibition is cousin marriage in any degree (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on). This is important because we're talking about instructions of what to do and not to do that came from the same God who gave very detailed instructions, right down to the finest detail, of how to build the tabernacle and its furnishings. Cousin marriage isn't just some accidental omission that's wrapped up in the first line ("close of kin") with the rest being only for example's sake. What followed, as described above, were very detailed prohibitions. When we fast-forward to Numbers 36, written as an account of events that occurred long after Moses received the Law, we see that God specifically ordained the marriage of several women to their male cousins with the idea being the preservation of inheritance. Clearly, God had no problem with cousin marriage 40 years after giving the Moses the Law. Those are the easy examples but if you read through the many genealogies that follow, you'll notice that there are others. You'll also notice that even when Paul expands on the definition of sinful relations in Romans to include female homosexual acts which are not mentioned in Leviticus, that he did not also include cousin marriage. In other words, there is no added New Testament prohibition. Indeed, one could argue that the New Testament concept of "Christian Liberty" opens a lot of doors where the Law is concerned. So, that begs the question: why is it so common in Christian circles for us to hold such a strong repulsion toward cousin marriage? To answer that, we must look to it in two parts. First, we must look at Church history. Cousin marriage was quite common and not a consideration until several hundred years after the New Testament Church was formed at the Pentacost. What changed? The Roman Catholic Church (or at the time, The Church) had fallen prey to the secular philosophies of the period as well as to the power struggles common of any large Earthly organization that is run by people. The influence of secular philosophies of the period caused the Church to view the material as fallen and sinful but the soul as a separate and inherently "good" nature. This led to a belief that one must deny all of the material (that which God created) except for the bare minimum necessary for providing a vessel for the more pure soul, which added a great many sexual prohibitions, eliminating marriage from the priesthood and proscribing abstinence even in marriage. Indeed, married couples were told on what days of the week or month that they should abstain from sexual relations and these prohibitions grew to six or more days a week. Combine this with the reach for power. As Christianity spread, it found that toppling existing structures of government in favor of a Church-ordained government was difficult because most communities tended to operate in "clannish" ways, much like you will find if you visit present-day Pakistan. The Church leaders of the day saw this as an impediment to the Church's ability to extend its influence so it added to Canon Law (separate of Biblical Law) a prohibition of marriage to the 7th degree of consanguinity (3rd or 4th cousins, depending on interpretation). Over the following centuries, this was rolled back gradually, with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) removing prohibition of second cousins in my lifetime and permitting first cousin marriage with appropriate dispensation. The Reformation brought us great thinkers, like John Calvin, who believed that each person should be educated sufficiently to be able to read and interpret the Scriptures without the need of a priest. The Scriptures were translated into local languages; under the RCC, they were translated from their original Greek and Hebrew into Latin, the language of the specially educated, making them inaccessible to the common man, even if he could read and write in his own language. In time, many Protestant communities adopted marriage laws and traditions that reflected what they found in the Scriptures. This is why some states have laws that permit cousin marriage. Now, fast-forward once again to the age of Charles Darwin and the subsequent Eugenics movement. Darwin, ironically married to his own first cousin and the product himself of cousin marriage, came to believe that cousin marriage was harmful. Using what would later be debunked as dubious and erroneous science, the Eugenicists implored states to adopt more restrictive laws, believing that children born of cousin marriage were "feeble minded" and worse. They believed what they were doing was for the greater good of a superior society and many of their laws, including prohibitions on interracial marriage, were stricken from the books. Only laws prohibiting cousin marriage remain. How does this pass down over time? Well, consider the story of the newlywed woman who wanted to make a roast for her young groom. She had never made one before so she called her mother. Her mother told her to get a roasting pan, cut off the ends of the roast and put it in the pan. The daughter asked, "why would I cut off the ends?" The mother answered, "well, that's how your grandma taught me to make a roast." The daughter pressed, "but why would she do that?" The mother replied, "well, I don't know. Let's get her on a 3-way call and ask her. The granddaughter called her grandmother and asked, "Grandma, Mom is on the phone with me and she's helping me make a roast. She told me to cut the ends off and I just wondered why." The grandmother replied, "well, I don't know why you do it, but when I married your grandfather, we didn't have a roasting pan big enough, so I cut of the ends to make it fit!" The moral of the story is, of course, that we often adopt what we learn without even realizing why we believe what we do. So, in light of the centuries of Church prohibition and the Eugenics movement, it's easy to see why we find such a strong revulsion to cousin marriage, even in Reformed churches. We were simply raised that way.