Incest MAY be ok

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

by neo-x » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:48 am
IMO, incest remains incest. We perhaps can say that incest was not viewed as wrong but sex between family members would just be that, incest.

Yes. The stigma over incest (and the injunction against) came in time, with the writing of Leviticus.

It is however the same with slavery, polygamy and incest, killing of women and children in war, at various instances, the bible makes it seem God was fine with these in the O.T.

Slavery is the natural condition of fallen man. Polygamy and incest are the result of sin. Killing ''women and children'' is a modern concern, and biblically irrelevant. God often commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies down to the last person standing, and the Israelites disobeyed God in this too.

FL

[melanie]

When I hear of incest, it seems to bring with it other very negative connotations, like abuse and pedophilia because so often in today's society incest is quite often the result of pedophilia. But there cases of consensual instances of course. The main reason this is disastrous as also in the animal kingdom is because of the genetic implications. I have heard it argued that we see it so negatively because we know the effects it can have on offspring and genetic sustainability but because Adam and Eve's genetics were pure and not tainted like ours it didn't pose the same risks. But surely the issues surrounding incest are not just on the genetic level, do we see it as wrong because of the culture and society we live in?
Don't know, can't help thinking it's just wrong.

[neo-x]

IMO, incest remains incest. We perhaps can say that incest was not viewed as wrong but sex between family members would just be that, incest.

It is however the same with slavery, polygamy and incest, killing of women and children in war, at various instances, the bible makes it seem God was fine with these in the O.T.

There are deeper theological issues in regards to why God permitted certain acts in the OT, but that is a different thread.
Although it may be argued that God was ok with incest based on certain ways of interpreting text and what text doesn't say, and if that is correct then it may be that God accommodated certain behavior at certain points in time that later become taboo.

Agreed. I wonder about the same.

[neo-x]

by neo-x » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:48 am
IMO, incest remains incest. We perhaps can say that incest was not viewed as wrong but sex between family members would just be that, incest.

Yes. The stigma over incest (and the injunction against) came in time, with the writing of Leviticus.

It is however the same with slavery, polygamy and incest, killing of women and children in war, at various instances, the bible makes it seem God was fine with these in the O.T.

Slavery is the natural condition of fallen man. Polygamy and incest are the result of sin. Killing ''women and children'' is a modern concern, and biblically irrelevant. God often commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies down to the last person standing, and the Israelites disobeyed God in this too.

FL

Very true. I just think God kind of compromised on these. Especially polygamy. It is not a sin in the O.T.

Btw Man is fallen and slave to sib but that doesn't mean he should be slaved physically.

[neo-x]

When I hear of incest, it seems to bring with it other very negative connotations, like abuse and pedophilia because so often in today's society incest is quite often the result of pedophilia. But there cases of consensual instances of course. The main reason this is disastrous as also in the animal kingdom is because of the genetic implications. I have heard it argued that we see it so negatively because we know the effects it can have on offspring and genetic sustainability but because Adam and Eve's genetics were pure and not tainted like ours it didn't pose the same risks. But surely the issues surrounding incest are not just on the genetic level, do we see it as wrong because of the culture and society we live in?
Don't know, can't help thinking it's just wrong.

That's a good question mel. I guess there may be multiple reasons why incest is wrong, moral and biological.

[PaulSacramento]

When I hear of incest, it seems to bring with it other very negative connotations, like abuse and pedophilia because so often in today's society incest is quite often the result of pedophilia. But there cases of consensual instances of course. The main reason this is disastrous as also in the animal kingdom is because of the genetic implications. I have heard it argued that we see it so negatively because we know the effects it can have on offspring and genetic sustainability but because Adam and Eve's genetics were pure and not tainted like ours it didn't pose the same risks. But surely the issues surrounding incest are not just on the genetic level, do we see it as wrong because of the culture and society we live in?
Don't know, can't help thinking it's just wrong.

The issue of incest is at the "scientific level" a genetic one BUT the moral issue, which is what the bible addresses, is that it covers not just brother and sister BUT father-daughter, mother-son, etc, etc.

Why would God view it is wrong?
Well, the sexual act is NOT just for procreation, but also an act of union ( for life) under God, that is why it was frowned upon outside of marriage/committed relationship and was viewed as adultery if done with another while married. To commit incest with a sister means that the man was married to his sister, which it SEEMS was OK for a bit, but to commit incest with a mother or aunt means that one is married to their mother or aunt ( become one flesh), now that is a whole new set of problems.
The thing is that the bible does make it clear, eventually, that incest is wrong so why was is supposedly right before that?
Well for one thing we first have to prove that it was ( Not sure of Abe and Sarah can be used because she was his half-sister from a different mother) and most will point out the populating of Earth by the children of Adam and Eve BUT some scholar point out that certain passages can be read as other humans living outside of the Garden of Eden, so...

[melanie]

When I hear of incest, it seems to bring with it other very negative connotations, like abuse and pedophilia because so often in today's society incest is quite often the result of pedophilia. But there cases of consensual instances of course. The main reason this is disastrous as also in the animal kingdom is because of the genetic implications. I have heard it argued that we see it so negatively because we know the effects it can have on offspring and genetic sustainability but because Adam and Eve's genetics were pure and not tainted like ours it didn't pose the same risks. But surely the issues surrounding incest are not just on the genetic level, do we see it as wrong because of the culture and society we live in?
Don't know, can't help thinking it's just wrong.

The issue of incest is at the "scientific level" a genetic one BUT the moral issue, which is what the bible addresses, is that it covers not just brother and sister BUT father-daughter, mother-son, etc, etc.

Why would God view it is wrong?
Well, the sexual act is NOT just for procreation, but also an act of union ( for life) under God, that is why it was frowned upon outside of marriage/committed relationship and was viewed as adultery if done with another while married. To commit incest with a sister means that the man was married to his sister, which it SEEMS was OK for a bit, but to commit incest with a mother or aunt means that one is married to their mother or aunt ( become one flesh), now that is a whole new set of problems.
The thing is that the bible does make it clear, eventually, that incest is wrong so why was is supposedly right before that?
Well for one thing we first have to prove that it was ( Not sure of Abe and Sarah can be used because she was his half-sister from a different mother) and most will point out the populating of Earth by the children of Adam and Eve BUT some scholar point out that certain passages can be read as other humans living outside of the Garden of Eden, so...

The deeper issue is the moral one. I have a half-sister and half-brother and i view them as siblings in every sense of the word and I wasn't raised with them but to me they are my brother and sister just as much as my "full" sister.
I used to tackle with the issue of how Adam and Eve's children pro created if they were the only people alive at the time. I still don't have the answer. I struggle with do I just see it as wrong because now it is morally unacceptable, and as you said, was it okay back then? I honestly don't know. I do often think that there must have been other humans alive at the time, but again I'm not sure.
By human nature we are inquisitive.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Very true. I just think God kind of compromised on these. Especially polygamy. It is not a sin in the O.T.

God compromised? Did you read what you wrote?! Since when does God compromise? ...humans do that: we compromise, we choose the ''lesser'' evil, we tolerate.

- Slavery is the natural condition of man: we are born into bondage to sin. (As Christians, I'm sure many of us willingly stay in that bondage.) Slavery in the physical sense - real physical slaves - is mearly an extrapolation of our spiritual condition. http://www.slaveryfootprint.org is a site which calculates how many slaves work for you. The last time I took their test, I had 38 slaves.

- Polygamy was always sinful in the OT. Always! That polygamy is related here and there in the OT doesn't mean God was OK with it. Read what Jesus said in Mt 19:4,5,6.

- Killing ''women and children.'' As I said before, this is a modern concern, a recent evil. God is never OK with wanton killing of anyone, including men. However, when God ordered a people exterminated, or a town ''devoted'' to Him, He meant it. The Israelites repeatedly disobeyed God's will on this matter.

- Incest: we are looking at incest with modern eyes, with the prejudices and the revulsion that come from the conditionning of recent culture.

I don't know what occured when Adam & Eve were expelled from the Garden; I don't know if there were other humans around - though I doubt it because the Bible doesn't mention such people - or if Cain & Abel had children with their sisters. What I am sure of is that God's Plan is unfolding as it should.

FL

[neo-x]

Polygamy was always sinful in the OT. Always! That polygamy is related here and there in the OT doesn't mean God was OK with it. Read what Jesus said in Mt 19:4,5,6.

I agree it was a sin, always was and that is why I said, God compromised, his best men, from Abraham, to David, to Solomon and many in between took multiple wives and what did God do? he never even told them it was wrong, even when he used to speak to them face to face. In fact he made promises and covenants with them. In some cases God promised them more wives, had they only asked, see David for example.
From Adam to Exile of Israel, there is no rebuke for polygamy, on the contrary anti polygamy references only occur in mid exile and post exile prophets.

If God didn't compromise which I think he did, I'd say he condoned polygamy at one time.

Slavery in the physical sense - real physical slaves - is mearly an extrapolation of our spiritual condition.

Poetically, may be. but pragmatically no. There is no theological bond between this and that.

Killing ''women and children.'' As I said before, this is a modern concern, a recent evil. God is never OK with wanton killing of anyone, including men. However, when God ordered a people exterminated, or a town ''devoted'' to Him, He meant it. The Israelites repeatedly disobeyed God's will on this matter.

IMHO this is not nearly as modern as one would think. Jesus showed concern on this in the sermon on the mount, about killing and etc. But yes, even I agree that some people had to be abolished. My only concern always have been children, I never understand their killing. Sometimes I wonder if God actually called Israel to exterminate others? was it perhaps Israels own doings, just put under God's name for a seal of approval? But the bible says God said it, he ordered it. And when I see christ and back, I see God very different.

- Incest: we are looking at incest with modern eyes, with the prejudices and the revulsion that come from the conditioning of recent culture.

True, but I don't see it that way. Under Objective morality, either incest is always right or always wrong. Or else incest and many other things are subjectively moral. There is no middle road to take on moral issues.

These are some of the things that stand out to me in the O.T that I find in stark contrast to the nature of God, Christ speaks of.

What I am sure of is that God's Plan is unfolding as it should.

On that I agree with you.

[PaulSacramento]

RE: other people other than Adam, Eve and their kids:

While it is not explicitly stated that their are others, it is/can be implied by the 2 creation accounts where in Genesis 1 it speaks of humans in general populating the Earth and Genesis 2 which speaks of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the kids they had AFTER being expelled.
There is also the implied view of others after Cain was banished:

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear! 14 Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

17 Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.

The above speaks of Cain settling in a land that already existed and had a Name ( not that it doesn't say Cain named it as it does about the city Enoch), it speaks of Cain and His wife (no mention of her being banished with Cain), Cain builds a CITY and names it after His son ( we assume He must have had help, more than just his wife and infant son).
So...
Genesis 4 seems to imply that there were other humans around.

Now, some have suggested that the people that Cain was afraid would kill him were his family BUT to be honest, that wouldn't explain why God had to mark him since God could have simply told his family "hands off".

Cain seems to be worried that being alone in the world will mean he may be killed by others, people that would see him as a wanderer or vagrant.

[Lonewolf]

^ ^ this presents the question as to where did the "other" humans came from, if not from a type of incest, per say.

Was Eve created from the earth's clay, or from Adam's rib?

Where there one or two Eve's?

Or could of been, like some have alluded to, that there is a lineage of mankind that stemmed from fallen angels?

[PaulSacramento]

^ ^ this presents the question as to where did the "other" humans came from, if not from a type of incest, per say.

Was Eve created from the earth's clay, or from Adam's rib?

Where there one or two Eve's?

Or could of been, like some have alluded to, that there is a lineage of mankind that stemmed from fallen angels?

According to some, we have two different PARTS of the creation story:
Genesis 1 is about the whole universe/world.
Genesis 2 is about the garden IN Eden and the line that would eventually become Noah s' , that would eventually become Abraham's.
It is quite possible that the happening in the Garden of Eden happened separate from the Genesis 1 account in regards to the creation of Man.
Maybe BEFORE even.

The lineage of the fallen sons of God are the Nephlim, not "pure humans".

[Philip]

One question is, what makes something sinful? Obviously, because GOD deemed it so. Now, there are many things that God has ALWAYS deemed sinful. But then there are things that were once considered sin by God to not honor - various dietary laws, for one. There were many commandments about what God said was to be observed by the ancient Hebrews - and to not was considered sin. But LATER, with Jesus and Paul's teachings, we learn that we are to "let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." Foods before off-limits were later deemed just fine for the people of God - both Jews and Gentiles.

Before God declared incest between SIBLINGS, "incest," there was no forbidance of such - not until the Levitical Laws (Leviticus 18:6–18). And unless there were other humans - say, outside of the Garden of Eden (and I'm not saying there were), then for humanity to grow beyond Adam and Eve's children, it would appear that sex between siblings was necessary. A second generation would have married cousins. And, as noted, the genetics at that point would not have produced the physical and mental horrors that close genetic couplings later produced. So there were pre-Law and post-Law declarations of God that were different.

[neo-x]

Philip, the problem with this view is that unlike food, which is not a moral code to consider, incest is. Under OM either incest is wrong or right. We can not say it was wrong then and nor now or vice versa, that is SM and we all know where that goes.

[PaulSacramento]

One question is, what makes something sinful? Obviously, because GOD deemed it so. Now, there are many things that God has ALWAYS deemed sinful. But then there are things that were once considered sin by God to not honor - various dietary laws, for one. There were many commandments about what God said was to be observed by the ancient Hebrews - and to not was considered sin. But LATER, with Jesus and Paul's teachings, we learn that we are to "let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." Foods before off-limits were later deemed just fine for the people of God - both Jews and Gentiles.

Before God declared incest between SIBLINGS, "incest," there was no forbidance of such - not until the Levitical Laws (Leviticus 18:6–18). And unless there were other humans - say, outside of the Garden of Eden (and I'm not saying there were), then for humanity to grow beyond Adam and Eve's children, it would appear that sex between siblings was necessary. A second generation would have married cousins. And, as noted, the genetics at that point would not have produced the physical and mental horrors that close genetic couplings later produced. So there were pre-Law and post-Law declarations of God that were different.

We need to remember that many of the Laws were given to set Israel apart from their corrupted neighbors, the dietary laws are a prime examples.
While I have always agreed that God accommodates humans I don't agree that He does so to the extent of genetic/reproductive issues.
Incest is put up there with bestiality and homosexuality so, one can argue that since there was no prohibition noted BEFORE these laws that those things were, like incest, OK with God?
No, I don't think so.