News-Record.com

Apparently, "shame" is limited in its deterrent effect. It's pretty useful in tight-knit communities where everyone cares what the neighbors think, but might be less than conducive to keeping order in our less than hands-on world today.

What gets me about this situation is that this pair had ample evidence that their actions resulted in the genetic problems that originally made incest "taboo." The expression of harmful recessive genes is far more likely when mating too closely in the family. You'd think they might take heed at least on that count and avoid further disasters.

This is definitely a problem that the community ought to be concerned about. Sadly, it looks like it will have to take action, since these people refuse to accept this sensible rule.

If there are no moral absolutes, then what the heck. IF it feels good, do it. Isn't that the dictum of modern humanists. I mean, if homosexual acts feel good, why not take the risks of AIDS, and all the other wretched diseases and dosorders that proceed form its practice. So, if the offspring have a few gene probs. At least the lovebirds are consenting adults who are finding fulfillment in their relationship.

Well, I think there ARE moral absolutes given by God to man, not to make us unfulfilled or unhappy, but to enable us to have maximum happiness on this sin-prone orb.

In this case, the father-daughter reltionship is holy to the Lord, as are all the relationships He designed and instituted. All relationships have a special and unique modality, and to cross those relationships through homosexuality, incest or adultery is to destroy the intended blessing and cause incalculable harm in the long term.

"If there are no moral absolutes, then what the heck. IF it feels good, do it. Isn't that the dictum of modern humanists."

You are wrong. That isn't "the dictum of modern humanists." Why don't you study what humanists say on the subject, rather than spouting your propaganda at every opportunity? I know that repeating that stuff is a whole lot easier than actually learning new stuff, but there are advantages to this "learning" thing as well.

I'm sorry Namtac, that ineed IS what humanists, on this site and historically, have consistantly asserted. They deny moral absolutes precisely because that postion assumes divine institution of such. They prefer moral pragmatism, situational ethics, or evolutionary necessity - moral formulations that shift and change with time and circumstance. If this were not their position they would HAVE to agree with the Bible and Christians that morality is transcendant and absolute - which they are wont to do.

If pressed, humanists will agree that "some things" are always wrong: sexually abusing a small child or pushing an old lady under a bus, for instance. They are thus impelled to admit that extreme evil is always wrong -thus absolute! Because "adult sins" (adultery, homosexuality) are not as heinous, they accept these practices, even promote and glorify them. What they fail to understand is that these sinful acts are ALWAYS judged by God, either directly, or by the inevitable consequences they produce, individually or societally. Absolutes are like that.

Even in your first post above, Namtac, your primary reason for opposing the arrangement was scientific/medical, not moral; which proves my point. This is moral pragmatism. However, it really doesn't deserve to be called moral, because it pulls the rug out from under any reason why it should be frowned upon or legally prohibited. The same applies to fornication, adultery, homosexuality, slavery, theft, murder, etc. Either they are morally wrong or they are not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's really no wiggle room here. If there is just ONE moral absolute (abusing children) it proves that there is a ubiquitous, innate revulsion in human minds. This revulsion is, in fact, the moral sense, or conscience, that God placed in the creatures created in the divine Image. To deny this sense is to open the way for great moral evil and destruction. The rub for humanists is that this includes "adult" immorality such as homosexuality and extra/premarital sex, greed, atheism, etc. IOWs, everything prohibited by God's absolute moral law, including the Decalogue.

However, atheistic humanists pick and choose. Theft and murder is obnoxious to everyone, so they remain legally prohibited. Homosexuality, because of immense pressure from rich, influential gay humanists, is now NO LONGER immoral, is now accepted. This is how amoralism and moral pragmatism work. Whatever it is, it is not biblical or absolute - and is not worthy of being called "moral" at all.

Now, maybe I can get a bit more sleep.

"I'm sorry Namtac..."

Well you SHOULD be, spreading misinformation and refusing to admit it.

"They deny moral absolutes..."

There you go again. You know, there is some very interesting scientific research going on these days on the evolutionary origin of morality. If you read about such things, you might find some interesting new knowledge about "what humanists think" on the subject. But hey - if you prefer to live in a fantasy world of black and white, there's really nothing to stop you. It's your loss.

I have read the various Humanist Manifestos, and am familiar with the works of many atheists and humanists. I am not saying that humanists have a sociopathic approach to human existence, or that they do not do caring and philanthropic things for others. My point is that many who call themselves humanists on this blog over the past year or so, have asserted that there are no moral absolutes. On the academic level there is "situational ethics" and emerging morality, etc.

The motivation of atheistic humanism to reject the absolute morality of Biblical apologists is to make room for their pet agendas: free sex al la pre- extra- post-marital sex, perversions. There is even a move from some quarters to ban laws against certain drugs. They support elective abortions, etc. It is undeniable that these things are driven by liberals and humanists of various stripes.

The real dichotomy is between Biblical Law and transitioning, changing, evolving human standards that are based on pragmatic concerns like women wanting to have free sex and stay on their career track by taking the pill and having abortions when an inconvenient baby shows up. From this perspective there is no ABSOLUTE prohibition against murder - kill the little tissue balls. It all depends on the situation, you see. Whatever serves our purposes today is good.

The absolute and consistent moral standards of the Bible are seen as low-brow, outdated throwbacks. So, yes, Namtac, I assert very strongly that humanists reject absolute morality. This does not mean that they are bad people, or breft of moral and ethical convictions. If they were, they could not live - at least outside a jail cell. They could not have happy and lasting marriages if they slept around all the time. They could not remain free if they went around murdering folks. They could not keep a job is the lied, and stole from the company.

You see, athiests and humanist MUST live, to a large extent, like committed Christians if they are to live a free and decent life. They can deny absolute morals all they want, but when push comes to shove they will deny their denial and opt for Biblical morals and ethics - much to their chagrin. In short, they want all the blessings of good will, human unity, and a law-abiding social order - wihtout the God who created love, benevolence and peace. They are, in effect, philosophical thieves, mooching off Biblical idealism. They want the second table of the Law without the first. But then that's what humanism is - man-centered existence.