Incest is okay?

[Nismo]

Okay, just a quick run down.

I was on a christian forum, and the OP asked if incest is okay.
Of course most said no, but listen to this response I got (I'm "onemessiah"):



onemessiah
Regular Member


Originally Posted by revrobor
It was not incest at the time as the race was pure and God had not issued that command.

The race may have been pure, but they were still related. That's the definition of incest- when you have sex with family members.
And god did give the command to Adam and Eve to populate the earth and Noah and his wife were the only human beings saved in order to repopulate the earth.

So, my question is, why does god condemn incest, yet commands people to commit the sin he abhors?
It's much the same with homosexuality. He condemns it, yet a person's sexuality isn't a choice they make.


__________________



revrobor
Veteran


Originally Posted by onemessiah
The race may have been pure, but they were still related. That's the definition of incest- when you have sex with family members.
And god did give the command to Adam and Eve to populate the earth and Noah and his wife were the only human beings saved in order to repopulate the earth.

So, my question is, why does god condemn incest, yet commands people to commit the sin he abhors?
It's much the same with homosexuality. He condemns it, yet a person's sexuality isn't a choice they make.



Are you being ignorant on purpose? God had not issued the incest prohibition during the time of Adam and eve because the race was pure and there was no need. Their sons, it is generally agreed, married their sisters but there was no problem because of the purity of the race. It is only after God issued the prohibition that there was incest. It is not the closeness of the relationship that makes it incest but the genetic and relational problems caused after the race ceased to be pure. As far as homosexuality is concerned it is indeed the individual's choice not God's. And what God prohibits is not homosexual feelings but homosexual sex. You'd better read your Bible more carefully.


______________




So, I left it at that....I don't know how to reason with people like that.

Any thoughts? I suppose biblically speaking he has a point. Logically though, something is amiss and I can't quite put my finger on it. How do you respond to that?

[WCH]

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with incest, assuming consent and all that.

and... the Bible is a pretty terrible source of moral teachings. Ignore it.

[I Am Only An Egg]

I guess the part about incest makes sense sort of if you're coming from the perspective that the Bible is factual. I mean, the reason incest is taboo is mostly because of the bad genetic consequences, right? (Is that the main reason? I really don't know anything about incest) And if Adam and Eve were gentically perfect, they would have genetically perfect children? Or...something. :huh:

As for the thing about homosexuality...uh...I really don't know how Christians explain that one away. Now that more evidence is coming to light that homosexuality is indeed not a choice, they have to scramble around to come to terms with that somehow. To deny or not to deny, tis the question. Or come up with a crazy explanation like "God says it's not homosexuality as long as the balls don't touch".

[ModernHeretic]

I'm really wondering where he's coming up with this stuff about the "race being pure". I'm not aware that the Bible says anything like that, so most likely he's just making this up, or reading into the text things that simply aren't there.

[I Am Only An Egg]

I'm really wondering where he's coming up with this stuff about the "race being pure". I'm not aware that the Bible says anything like that, so most likely he's just making this up, or reading into the text things that simply aren't there.

That's the beauty of Christianity though; It's all made up and it's so vague that you can glean volumes of stuff from between the lines. You can make it say anything you want! :thumbs: The authors of the bible might have been a bunch of ignorant shepherds, but they were wiley bastards.

I wouldn't advise expending too much energy trying to understand any of it. You'll give yourself an aneurysm (that's why the Christians don't over think it).

[Loren Pechtel]

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with incest, assuming consent and all that.

and... the Bible is a pretty terrible source of moral teachings. Ignore it.

Assuming it's truly consensual and there's no reproduction.

[pete]

Incest is okay?

I have no problem with it.... The birth defects thing is overstated I think.... An increase in risk comparable to being older parents I read somewhere.

I do feel strongly that the Law/society overreacts to such matters ..... There are often cases of couples being exposed as brother and sister and arrested .... The state has no business using the law to enforce 'correct' behaviour.

It made sense to forbid it in early tribal society.... but not today.

[general_koffi]

There shouldn't be anything wrong with incestuous intercourse which won't result in pregnancy. i.e. the use of birth control, non-vaginal sex or homosexual sex.

Then again, a lot of Christians take issue with sex that won't result in children. :p

[Nismo]

Okay, thanks for the responses so far...but I'm still not sure what to make of God condemning something that he commanded others to do, because that was the main focus of what I was trying to present to him....the morality of incest is more a secondary factor (although still somewhat relevant, and I see now that debating that aspect would be futile for me anyway.)
As was pointed out, I don't recall anything about the race being pure in the bible, but I think what he's going to say is that sin brought disease etc into the world, so that's why god condemned it. Although that can't be true if that's what he's saying, because the world was a mess when Noah and his wife were ordered to do the same?

My head hurts....

[mikumiku]

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with incest, assuming consent and all that.

and... the Bible is a pretty terrible source of moral teachings. Ignore it.

Following Your Own Moral Compass (http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/following_your_own_moral_compass/dt29_19.html);)

[Sabine Grant]

Nismo, there is one argument of secular origin which depicts incestuous relationships as being detrimental to multi cultural societies and the effectiveness of added character traits(from the "outside") to any family unit. Outside of whichever discomfort anyone may bring up about the notion of a sexual rapport between close relatives, we need to address the reality of how such incestuous relationships isolate the members of the same family from potentially positive outside influences (multi socio cultural).

In view of your OP itself : IMO, you would receive a better feed back in the General Religious Discussions forum as to which counter arguments you can use to the ever so irritating apologetic arguments fundamentalist Christians will concoct. Fee free to request your thread to be redirected to such forum if you deem it necessary and more useful, by Pm to any MF&P moderator.:) No pressure here, just presenting you with an alternative.

[Atticus_Finch]

Nismo,

When the Christian you are debating refers to "pure race" he/she is not stating the rationale correctly. Let me give it a try.

Adam and Eve were created and had DNA without any flaw. Incest is problematic, as I understand it, because over time defects have accumulated in our genetic code. You and your sister are more likely to have inherited the same defects from your parents and therefore are more likely to have a child with birth defects. Therefore, incest is problematic.

The first generations of humans, under the Genesis story, would not have built up those genetic defects and therefore incest would not be problematic. Later, many generations later, God forbabe incest and therefore it became a sin. This could be because the defects had built up and it was now a problem.

Also, you have you facts slightly wrong about Noah. Noah and his wife were joined by their three sons and their wives. Therefore, there was a larger genetic pool post flood then there was immediately post garden.

I hope this helps you understand the argument better.

Regards,

Finch

[Ljoilae]

Some Christians believe that after "the fall" is when genetic deformities, and well, everything unpleasant, popped up. I've even seen it in Christian home schooling science books.

So, I gather this mans reasoning is that god made incest "immoral" because after that point, incest will cause certain kinds of genetic diseases show up.

Really, these people don't even think for themselves. They've been brought up to consider the bible holy and they'll consider it true no matter what, and come up with whatever reasoning they are comfortable with for all the weird and stupid crap in it. If it said incest was ok, they'd be ok with it, if it says it's not, it's not for them. It's "Holy", so it has to be true?

[Atticus_Finch]

Some Christians believe that after "the fall" is when genetic deformities, and well, everything unpleasant, popped up. I've even seen it in Christian home schooling science books.

So, I gather this mans reasoning is that god made incest "immoral" because after that point, incest will cause certain kinds of genetic diseases show up.

Really, these people don't even think for themselves. They've been brought up to consider the bible holy and they'll consider it true no matter what, and come up with whatever reasoning they are comfortable with for all the weird and stupid crap in it. If it said incest was ok, they'd be ok with it, if it says it's not, it's not for them. It's "Holy", so it has to be true?

The real question is: What is the source of morals? Christians believe that God determines what is right or wrong. So yes, whatever God says, whether a Christian understands or agrees with it, is what determines morality.

If morals are simply based on human reason, then they are all subjective. How can any of us say to another person that they are acting immorally if there is no objective standard? If I am free to decide for myself what is moral, why should I care what you say?

Regards,

Finch

[purple_kathryn]

in what part of the bible did God declare incest to be wrong?

[Sabine Grant]

Nismo,

When the Christian you are debating refers to "pure race" he/she is not stating the rationale correctly. Let me give it a try.

Adam and Eve were created and had DNA without any flaw. Incest is problematic, as I understand it, because over time defects have accumulated in our genetic code. You and your sister are more likely to have inherited the same defects from your parents and therefore are more likely to have a child with birth defects. Therefore, incest is problematic. I have to wonder what the God of the Bible was expecting as he pronounced "create and multiply" to Adam and Eve who would have a common DNA basis. (since Eve was made from Adam's DNA). It is quite interesting to me that such alleged deity would have needed to use Adam's DNA to create the female gender.

Secondly, which type of design did that alleged deity have in mind to make it possible for Eve to not have a sexual rapport with her male children in order to further "create and multiply"? We have one female here(Eve) ,who obviously had to be the only member of the Adam/Abel/Cain/Eve unit, capable of getting pregnant.

The first generations of humans, under the Genesis story, would not have built up those genetic defects and therefore incest would not be problematic. Later, many generations later, God forbabe incest and therefore it became a sin. This could be because the defects had built up and it was now a problem. The apologetic argument you presented IMO is clumsy and this is why : it portrays such deity with a lack of knowledge of genetics and embryo genesis. Which certainly does not match any claims of omniscience. We have here a deity who goes "oops..." and changes his mind after he left NO alternative to Eve but to have intercourse with her own sons to pursue to "multiply". Why such proclaimed omniscient deity would not have foreseen the consequences of placing the first generation of humans into such genetic trap?

Also, you have you facts slightly wrong about Noah. Noah and his wife were joined by their three sons and their wives. Therefore, there was a larger genetic pool post flood then there was immediately post garden.

I hope this helps you understand the argument better.

Regards,

Finch I do not think the issue is a lack of understanding of the argument, rather a lack of rationale to support such argument. And such lack as usual results in apologetic arguments which portray a deity far from matching the Bible's claims of an omniscient and omnipotent god.

[Berthold]

We have here a deity who goes "oops..." and changes his mind after he left NO alternative to Eve but to have intercourse with her own sons to pursue to "multiply". Why such proclaimed omniscient deity would not have foreseen the consequences of placing the first generation of humans into such genetic trap?
It says (once or several times), "Cain knew his wife".

I had assumed she was meant to be a sister, otherwise not mentioned, and without recorded name.

[Szkeptik]

Sorry if I'm asking trivial stuff, but what the hell does "pure race" mean exactly?

[Sabine Grant]

We have here a deity who goes "oops..." and changes his mind after he left NO alternative to Eve but to have intercourse with her own sons to pursue to "multiply". Why such proclaimed omniscient deity would not have foreseen the consequences of placing the first generation of humans into such genetic trap?
It says (once or several times), "Cain knew his wife".

I had assumed she was meant to be a sister, otherwise not mentioned, and without recorded name. Since the argument was about genetic defects, sister or mother, somewhere along the line the God of The Bible should have known that he was setting mankind up for long term genetic issues.

Had he been focusing on what is in the best interest of the human species and their continued welfare, he should have thought about creating two females and two males. Somehow , his "omniscience" did not quite project the long term consequences of imposing on his "children" very restrictive measures as to whom they would procreate with.

Measures which remind me of the impoverishment of various Royal blood lines and consecutive illnesses related to genetic transmitting and too many inter familial marriages. The Romanov lineage comes to mind with hemophilia. Why would such an omniscient deity not prevent genetic defects as he marveled over his creation he considered to be so perfect?

[fromdownunder]

This is really only a problem for Bible literalists. And there is actually no support whatsoever in the Bible itself that Cain married his sister. It is basically a response to the old "Where did Mrs Cain come from?" question. There simply is no other answer for the literalist. But many Christians accept the Adam/Eve fall story as allegorical, and not factual. For the literalists, a couple of issues do spring to mind.

If Adam and Eve were genetically "perfect", whatever that means, and Eve was a clone of Adam (coming from his rib), there could be no inherited differences in their offspring, as I understand it. So Cain, Seth and all of their other unnamed offspring would have been genetically identical as well, since there was no allele differences in the parent stock to cause a mutation. There could be no mutation, and no degeneration of the genome, since there was no difference in the original genome.

Now, if it is argued that the fall somehow caused the degeneration of the genome (?!!!), this actually occured (if you are a Bible literalist) before Adam and Eve had any children, so a genetic change would have been (somehow) borne into Adam and Eve by the very act of the "fall", and all of their offspring would have (somehow) had genetic problems which could have been reinforced by mating with near relatives.

In practical terms, of course, none of this ever happened. It is possible, although speculative, that the incest laws were introduced by the Priests and claimed by them as a Commandment of their Gods after observation that children born of incestuous relationships sometimes showed genetic disorders. Given the population of nomadic tribes at the time would have been small, and probably reasonably closely related, this would make sense in a historical context. Like many of the food laws, a practical application of observed events from many centuries ago.

Norm

[WCH]

Assuming it's truly consensual and there's no reproduction.Consent, obviously. In that way, incest is no different than any other kind of sex. And reproduction isn't much of an issue... for brother/sister sex, the rate of genetic disorders goes up slightly for each successive generation, but only slightly. Maybe if it continued for 20 generations or so it would begin to be an actual problem... but that's just a consideration to keep in mind, not a moral issue. Or do you believe that it's immoral for anyone who could potentially pass on a genetic disease to reproduce? Most people seem to only apply this logic when dealing with already stigmatized pairings... which suggests to me that it's a rationalization, not an actual reason.

Sorry if I'm asking trivial stuff, but what the hell does "pure race" mean exactly?
http://www.freshforkids.com.au/baby_toddler/images/veg_puree.jpg

*wonders if anyone will get it, but doesn't really care*

Oh, and everyone knows Cain's wife was Lilith. :p

[anders]

Consent, obviously. In that way, incest is no different than any other kind of sex. And reproduction isn't much of an issue...
Well... There's the Lot and daughters thing, which rather makes a point of the non-consensual aspect, and isn't condemned in the book in other ways than making it an excuse for sneering at the Moabites and Ammonites, being issue issues.

[premjan]

Pure Race, purees?

[Monkey Wrench]

Here's a great bible story. When Lot took his wife and daughters and fled Sodom and Gomorra. Lot's wife turned and looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt.

As the story goes Lots daughters determined that since they were all alone in the wilderness that it was their " Duty" to bear children in order to repopulate the earth after yet another one of gods temper tantrums.

Well their father was the only avalible male. They had apparently gotten over the fact that dear old dad had offered them up for gang rape to protect gods "messanger"

So Lots daughter got him drunk and got him to impregnant them. God didn't have a problem with this incest, because Lot was drunk.:huh:

[Sabine Grant]

Pure Race, purees?:notworthy: That was excellent! WCH and Premjan, kudos to both.

[Berthold]

So Lots daughter got him drunk and got him to impregnant them. God didn't have a problem with this incest, because Lot was drunk.:huh:
The scene was, of course :) , beloved by painters of times when erotic pictures needed some kind of "excuse". In these paintings, however, Lot usually does not look unconsciously drunk :cool: .

[WCH]

Well... There's the Lot and daughters thing, which rather makes a point of the non-consensual aspect, and isn't condemned in the book in other ways than making it an excuse for sneering at the Moabites and Ammonites, being issue issues.So? I'm not sure why an anecdote in a 3000 year old book is relevant... it isn't even a good indicator of mores at the time, as there's no commentary in either direction (praising or condemning).

[Sabine Grant]

Well... There's the Lot and daughters thing, which rather makes a point of the non-consensual aspect, and isn't condemned in the book in other ways than making it an excuse for sneering at the Moabites and Ammonites, being issue issues.So? I'm not sure why an anecdote in a 3000 year old book is relevant... it isn't even a good indicator of mores at the time, as there's no commentary in either direction (praising or condemning). But there are ample diverse apologetic arguments some self proclaimed Bible scholars like to parade such as :

- God took in account that Lot's daughters believed that all of mankind had been eradicated and their father was the only male left to assume the survival of mankind by impregnating them.

Of course the obvious counter argument is that such God should have taken the time to send an angel to inform them that the devastation they could see from their retreat only affected a couple of cities in the plain and there were plenty of fertile males left on this planet. To a Bible believer, mentioning angels sounds like a reality. And since that deity has shown a pattern of dispatching "angels" all over the place as his messengers so they can guide his "creation" towards his will, one has to wonder what king of mental concoction he relied on to remain passive as to Lot's and his daughters kept in such ignorance.

Once more, such portrayed deity demonstrates extremely poor social and communication skills. Which are reflected endlessly by apologists in their attempts at justifying senseless and irrational responses from such deity.

[WCH]

I fail to see the relevancy of the poor quality of the Bible as a literal account of events. That the Bible includes many things which do not make sense if taken literally isn't in dispute, what's being discussed is the morality of incest.

[Sabine Grant]

I fail to see the relevancy of the poor quality of the Bible as a literal account of events. That the Bible includes many things which do not make sense if taken literally isn't in dispute, what's being discussed is the morality of incest. While of course taking into account the content of the OP which, as a reminder, does relate a discussion revolving around how incest is understood from the Bible. So, there should be no surprise if some participants to this thread will discuss such topic while relating it to various interpretations of the Bible.

Someone brought up one example of an incestuous rapport, meaning Lot and his daughters. I expanded on it. Surely you would not demand that participants to this thread NOT point to the enormous fallacies of the Bible.Such pointing serves to expose the failure of that ancient manuscript to even be a resource for ethical considerations and comparisons about incest.

The thread starter needs not to develop on the ethics of incest. He/she only needs ,while engaging a Bible follower, to expose the inconsistencies surrounding the alleged will of the God of the Bible.It will quickly disqualify the Bible as a moral compass to discuss incest.

[juergen]

Or come up with a crazy explanation like "God says it's not homosexuality as long as the balls don't touch".

:notworthy:

[juergen]

If morals are simply based on human reason, then they are all subjective. How can any of us say to another person that they are acting immorally if there is no objective standard? If I am free to decide for myself what is moral, why should I care what you say?

Regards,

Finch

I'd agree that if morals are based on human reason, they are all subjective, but does that mean they are useless? Why is the only option "Either morals are objective and work, or they are subjective and all are rubbish"? What determines the value of morals? Why would their usefulness be based on whether they are objective or subjective, with no regard to what consequences certain actions bring?

If you are free to decide for yourself what is moral, you should care what someone else says precisely because your reasoning is subjective, because there are consequences to your actions, and because changing your mind on morals might have a more positive effect on you and the humans that surround you, and you didn't see it for one reason or another.

[breezanne]

Is there much incest in the rest of the animal kingdom?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Incest in the animal kingdom might be interesting but not essential to the question.

Non-hominids do not have orthodontics, appendicectomies, condoms, wound-dressing or any other similar "unnatural" cultural artifacts either. Pleasure is pleasure, and among responsible consenting adults it isn't unethical (in principle).

[Sabine Grant]

Incest in the animal kingdom might be interesting but not essential to the question.

Non-hominids do not have orthodontics, appendicectomies, condoms, wound-dressing or any other similar "unnatural" cultural artifacts either. Pleasure is pleasure, and among responsible consenting adults it isn't unethical (in principle). I agree. However, I would like your opinion on this from my post # 11 :

Nismo, there is one argument of secular origin which depicts incestuous relationships as being detrimental to multi cultural societies and the effectiveness of added character traits(from the "outside") to any family unit. Outside of whichever discomfort anyone may bring up about the notion of a sexual rapport between close relatives, we need to address the reality of how such incestuous relationships isolate the members of the same family from potentially positive outside influences (multi socio cultural).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Sabine,
The context is important. I'm thinking about main cities in modern societies. As an example, marrying cousins isn't fround upon, but it isn't common either. If the doors were open to sibling love (responsible enough to try and not reach impregnation), I don't think it would be that common, so I'm not seeing "detriment[] to multi cultural societies and the effectiveness of added character traits" as a likely scenario.

[Monkey Wrench]

Is there much incest in the rest of the animal kingdom?

I breed Fancy Pigeons. They show a definint preferance to close relatives or birds of similar type and color.

It requires extreme measures to get birds that do not look the same to mate. Such as isolating a pair you want to mate from all other birds for months. Yes, pigeons are racists.