"If you can't figure out what that means, just look at the unmarried guy who owns the dog - sure, it's a companion, but it's not like you can have the same kind of relationship with a dog that you can with a spouse."

Obviously, you've never been to southern Missouri.

jk ;)

If you can't cite the place in the text where the God of Abraham stated it was sex that he intended, then you are just going to sound really ignorant.

The entire passage dealt with the naming of the animals. No sex mentioned.

Companionship. Right.

Wrong.

No where does the text state that god offered adam animals to mate with. If you ever read the stories, it deals with naming the animals, not having sex with them.

Point is: companionship.

If you can't figure out what that means, just look at the unmarried guy who owns the dog - sure, it's a companion, but it's not like you can have the same kind of relationship with a dog that you can with a spouse. And sex doesn't even have to be a part of that understanding.

Anyone else find it creepy god offered adam any animal he wanted as a fuckbuddy before he made the first woman? god is okay with bestiality, bible approved.

But what if your daughters are REALLY hot, your wife was just recently turned into a pillar of salt, and you're sauced out of your mind and don't know what you're doing?

Win, win, win.

Also, let's not forget about Incest Period II-- after the Flood. The children of Noah's children's children would have had to have interbred in order to have been fruitful and multiplied. I suppose you have the out of first cousin possibilities there, but still.

Yes, I knew you were being facetious. I was doing my best to play the straight man- but I'm not very good at it. ;)

I was being facetious, but the fact is if it was between man-love and daughter-love, I'd be gay too.

@Ty:

It wouldn't make much difference to me. I'm a gay man. :)

Yeah, but what if your daughters are REALLY hot?

In the case of Lot and his daughters, it seems that God changed his standards. That implies that Biblical or "God-given" morals are an arbitrary list of do's and don'ts that may change over time. Just one more reason why I don't use the Bible as a moral guide.

But incest <i>was</i> approved by God. What of Lot and his daughters?

If you accept the creation story in Genesis as true, it is self-evident that incest must have happened. Unless, of course, you are willing to stray into the territory of "but God abhors incest so of course he must have created wives for Cain and Abel and the Bible just doesn't mention that." Theologically I think this is dangerous, because it establishes the principle that you can insert whatever you want between the lines to support your moral view (or assuage your moral conscience, as the case may be), and it completely demolishes the idea of the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

Anybody who wants to take Genesis at face value must accept that incest was approved by God.

It is a tired old argument.

Clearly anyone who has studied the species developing also must account for breeding close to home so to speak. It really never became an issue until later in the chain.

This is about the legend of Adam and Eve. To populate the earth their children must have had sex with each other. So, I'd really like to see the opinions of other atheists on this point, along with the views of the religious on this point.